honda bashing

Steeb · Post by **Steeb** » December 18th, 2002, 2:18 am

i hope nobody takes this offensively. im just trying to clear an old misconseption that a torqueless motor needs to be reved up to make power. a fix for that is more hp and shorter gears and higher fuel cut off. just cuz it reds at 8500 dun mean it takes long to get there

ProtegeSTS · Post by **ProtegeSTS** » December 18th, 2002, 4:36 am

Ive driven (raced) modified ITRs, Mustang Cobras, Z28s, Proteges, MR2s, BMWs, Civics, VWs, even a formula ford....The ITR is one of my favorites. It's simply the best FWD performance car that the USA gets. I havent driven a Mazdaspeed Protege yet.Also, the ITR still owns D-stock in autocross, against the WRX, Spec V, IS300....etc. And even with HUGE penelties, it was holding its own in the SpeedVision World Challange cars against the more powerful cars like the Proteges and BMWs.

natural born honda killer · December 18th, 2002, 5:01 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Steeb:

thread it came from
http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=266146if you hate cars that are popular i hope u dont dress the same way. people claiming they cant drive a car with no torque is like saying there is no replacement for displacement. a car with to much hp and less tq is much more drivable than a car with to much tq and to little hp. so many people talk about having to rev up to get power, if we had gears as short as hondas we'd top out at like 125mph max.
itr y21 lsd tranny
3.307
2.105
1.458
1.107
.848http://www.mx-3.com/brochure/specifications.cfmitrs rev fast everyone knows that short gears help it even more not to mention final drives. i wonder what that guy with the 17's could do with stocks and a jdm final drive 13.4-13.5 for sure1995-1997 JDM spec 4.400
1997-up JDM spec 4.785
USDM spec all years 4.400
Euro spec. all years 4.785<hr></blockquote>well see the thing is i said stock. he has i/h/e. so therefore it is not stock. so like i said no honda civic crx del sol or integra has ran 13's stock. with mods yes but not stock. if it ever did it would be like a 13.9 still good but just barely 13's.

992mmx3 · Post by **992mmx3** » December 18th, 2002, 5:31 pm

Hey ProtegeSTS, there's a real cool video on kazaa of an mr2 beating a mustang cobra, its really funny, also temple of v-tec has a stock jap mr2 beating a 3rd gen. rx-7 and a type-R integra, the type-R ran 14's stock.

mitmaks · Post by **mitmaks** » December 18th, 2002, 7:20 pm

i see, i wanted civic hatch myself to ride it for a while then resell make profit on it, but i am not gonna keep it, only resell to make money for my bel air.

Steeb · Post by **Steeb** » December 18th, 2002, 9:56 pm

your saying i/e/h makes a car not stock. true but not very far from it either how much does an intake help on a car that comes with a high flow cone style filter (not to mention the stock piping goes into the fender well, can someone say stock cold air intake), or an exhaust when it already comes with a 2 1/4 inch mandrel bent high flow exhaust connected to stock 4-2-1 headers. only restrictive part on the exhaust is the muffler. 2 mods i say add a whopping 10whp at most. so lets say the intake and muffler since we cant get rid of a stock header, take off 10whp and put the stock 15's with stock bridgestones re010 back on (many say these tires are better than falken azenis in everyway i say he'd still do the same times if not very close. anybody disagree? you have a link to a timeslip of a good driver with an almost stock car. anybody correct me if im wrong buyt, imo if other itr drivers were as good they could drive their cars the same way not to mention the big difference in unsprung weight when comparing 195/50/15 stock size to a 205/40/17. note type-r wheels i believe are no more than 15 lbs. where as 17's are definately not.

Steeb · Post by **Steeb** » December 18th, 2002, 9:58 pm

in other words i/e/h wont make a car drop almost half a second on the 1320

Steeb · Post by **Steeb** » December 18th, 2002, 10:21 pm

sonic xtacy i was speaking of honda in general of why people diss on hondas. when talking about comparing a comparable engine to the type-r which one do u mean? i dont see any engine mazda manufactured that compares to any type-r motor period. there is also accord type-r (h22 of somesort), and civic type-r (b16b) to consider. better yet y not compare all of them to something mazda made. i just wanted to get some sort of interesting discussion going. c'mon everyone lets get some life into this bb.

Sonicxtacy02 · Post by **Sonicxtacy02** » December 18th, 2002, 11:32 pm

quoted from aspecs webpage regarding the ZE swap in a 323( the most knowledable staff i know of when it comes to mazda products) "The beauty of this conversion is the nimbleness of the car and the contradictory performance numbers. This car ( even the American KL-03 version ) has a estimated 0-60 times of mid 5's and a proven 1/4 times of 14.3s with a dry stock motor ( no aftermarket parts in the motor, just a filter and muffler ) A top of the line 2000 Acura Integta Type-R will only pull a 7.0s 0-60 and 15.2s 1/4 times. And this Integra has competitive power numbers of 195HP, but the reason why it lacks the performance is partially because of the weight difference and the fact that the Integra V-TEC motor has a measly 130lb-ft . That is why all the stock Type-Rs will not hook up and have the same 0-60 times as the KL motor. And if we were to talk about the 200HP KL-ZE motor with 22.8kg-m of torque on a 323 .... this my friends is low 5's / 13.9s and below.
"Now its understandable that they lean the numbers to sell they're product. But i remember reading a site (luc's i believe) in which the driver went head to head in a ZE mx-3 and it was a dead on race. Same motor in the lighter car and we're talkin a substantial difference in performance. Now when i said put another engine up against it i'm talkin the GTI vr6, the 3.5 v6 max, and other 200hp and up engines. The type R engine will fail in comparision. You cant really compare any present mazda product to the Type R (with the exception of the ms protege) cause mazda was not in the market to compete in the sport compact market. If they were really looking to compete they'd throw the 7 year old ZE in a protege and it would dominate the type R. Please also keep in mind that the type R is not what you would deem the standard acura integra, its specifically designed to be fast whereas mazda and other companies had something else in mind.I'm not a honda basher and i was just picking one part of the topic to discuss. To each is own...i just wouldnt drive one :p

Steeb · Post by **Steeb** » December 19th, 2002, 2:01 am

i believe comparison like this would be better suited to hp/L cuz if u want to talk about a vtec with more than 4 cylinders than u got a nsx still putting out 100/L. starting in 1991, i believe, with the first 2.7L 270 hp that vtec was first used in a street car. i dont even need to go into the newer engines for the nsx cuz that would totally blow away a ze that makes 80 hp/L. thus a 2.7L ze would make 216hp. besides a 91 honda v6 comparison would be better to compare on v6 perspective. also now that you are talking about swaps throw a b18c5 into a civic hb and u gotta be kidding to compare a swapped car. a civic hatch will do just as well if not better and get 25-35mpg if not more with a 1.8L honda. im sure a specs kl powered 323 may be in 14's but any b series vtec hatch is still just as fast if not faster, to mention probably close to the same weight. food for thought. imagine he had a b18c1 or even a b18cr instead of the b16
http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=225684
heres some guys with b18s in their civics.
http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=223755these times are better than most stock gs guys on here.
<blockquote>quote:<hr>juicedricer-16.3 wit a dx and only I/E{/QUOTE}

ejprimo- ran 15.7 in my d16 with i/h/e and throttle body. this was my best time with my d16 even though i bounced off the rev. limiter in 1st. and 2nd.<hr></blockquote>
check it out here if u dont believe me
note x is like 95 or 105hp and si or ex has 127hp. i doubt anybody tried a vx or cx. why anybody would even bother racing it, i widh i knew...
http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=324953 <blockquote>quote:<hr> Now its understandable that they lean the numbers to sell they're product. <hr></blockquote>
many dynos, many mods, and many stock comparisons
http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=188507
and another one

http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=197948
honda dont do leaning numbers bud....
consider a 20% loss in power which isnt to bad 195hp isnt one bit leaned. id say 200 is even right. <blockquote>quote:<hr> But i remember reading a site (luc's i believe) in which the driver went head to head in a ZE mx-3 and it was a dead on race. Same motor in the lighter car and we're talkin a substantial difference in performance.<hr></blockquote>
here it is
http://members.attcanada.ca/~dragon64/mx3_intregra.html
key line to understand is
<blockquote>quote:<hr>From a rolling start at about 50km/h in second, we ran it through the gears until we hit fifth. I was able to jum p ahead about a half car length. The "Type R" seem to have a much power as a Civic Si until it hit 6000RPMs then the "Type R" would have a sudden burst of power until it reached redline then it would catch up, shifting up to the next gear I would jump a head again but not as far ahead this time not as far. Shifting into forth we were running nose to nose and by fifth the "Type R" was slowly pulling ahead.<hr></blockquote>
....maybe not as fast but key is still pulling away....and this is also from a rolling start of 50km in second gear. from my experience dragging in my friends itr u feather the clutch at 5500 rpm for take off. which means vtec is engaged. so from a stop all u will see is itr tailights and purpose built spoiler.[QUOTE} Now when i said put another engine up against it i'm talkin the GTI vr6, the 3.5 v6 max, and other 200hp and up engines.

seeing as the gti takes a 3.5 v6 to get the same job done as a b18cr. not to mention extra weight and more cylinders. tuning must be fun.... put some time slips up for a stock gti vr6 3.5 id like to see the times the vr6 does. ok maybe a 1.8 isnt the best to compare to a 3.5 but u get the point[QUOTE} The type R engine will fail in comparision.[/QUOTE]
i beg to differ. see above links and pics for proof. <blockquote>quote:<hr>If they were really looking to compete they'd throw the 7 year old ZE in a protege and it would dominate the type R. <hr></blockquote>
highly unlikely unless they were in it for straight line acceleration, the weight of the ze isnt worth puting into a protoge. personally id keep the gt25 powered 4 cylinder over a ze anyday. a h22 is closer in sizing to the ze and still only has 200hp and probably still less torque than a ze and what does all that equate to if swapped into a hatch like a-specs kl powered 323. 13's on street tires, 12's on slicks bone stock but for confusions sake we'll compare 1.8b series honda to 2.5v6.http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=302897
<blockquote>quote:<hr>Please also keep in mind that the type R is not what you would deem the standard acura integra, its specifically designed to be fast whereas mazda and other companies had something else in mind.<hr></blockquote>
true the type-r isnt your standard acura integra and more people need to understand this as you do yourself. just because the type-r chassis and suspension is not your standard acura doesnt mean you cant compare the motor. to me a b18c1 (gsr) is to a usdm klze as a b18cR is to a jdm klze since that.i thinka good comparison would be a 1.8 dohc mazda b series comparison to the b18b. i think they both have close output specs. i love my mx3 more than hondas but people dont understand just cuz u dont like it dun mean it sux. learn before u speak many of u

Sonicxtacy02 · Post by **Sonicxtacy02** » December 19th, 2002, 10:45 am

no one point in time was a suggesting that honda leans the numbers. I was referring to A-spec lean the ZE times to sell their engines. Nor at any time as i referring to the efficiency of the engine so displacement and hp/liter mean nothing. I think any mazda rotary product would compete in that perspective. Its my understanding that the thread starter compared the type R engine to the K series motors, which is completely unfair considering the k series was originally built for family sedans then condensed to k8 specs. IMO the k8 was a bad idea and a piss poor way to minimize the performance of what was a good engine in the KL. Mazda was TRYING to short-change themselves. I'm simply stating that there are engines (non race-inspired engines) on the market now that outperform the Type R engine. The reason they dont get the publicity is everyone and there grandma dont have the car that the engine fits in.Dont even get me started on the NSX. 80K! All i'm gonna say is you get what you pay for. I'd rather buy a dodge

992mmx3 · Post by **992mmx3** » December 19th, 2002, 1:26 pm

Most of the comparisons I'm seeing to the type-r motor are v6's, you have to admit its very potent for a four banger, I think its awesome when you get a four cyl. with almost 200hp and redlines in the 7's and can compete with v6's. And as far as the luc guy racing the typer r, he lost.

Steeb · Post by **Steeb** » December 19th, 2002, 4:46 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr> And if we were to talk about the 200HP KL-ZE motor with 22.8kg-m of torque on a 323 .... this my friends is low 5's / 13.9s and below <hr></blockquote>
ok for anybody that say itr's cant do less than 14's luc was beat slightly from a rolling stop of about 50km, which would start the type are at the bottom of its torqueless powerband. where as the kl reaches peak powerbank at half that of the itr. id like to see results from a stop. <blockquote>quote:<hr> Now its understandable that they lean the numbers to sell they're product. But i remember reading a site (luc's i believe) in which the driver went head to head in a ZE mx-3 and it was a dead on race. Same motor in the lighter car and we're talkin a substantial difference in performance. <hr></blockquote>
sorry if i took this the wrong way. i must have read it wrong, but it seemed to me like u were saying honda was leaning numbers. <blockquote>quote:<hr> I think any mazda rotary product would compete in that perspective. <hr></blockquote>
see i knew someone was going to bring in a wankel. its rotorary, no pistons, totally different in comparison and has barely any torque as well. as i super close ratio gear box and 9k rpm capable like the itrs but thats about it. i agree wankel is at the top of my engine achievement list but i still say u cant compare apples to oranges. <blockquote>quote:<hr>Its my understanding that the thread starter compared the type R engine to the K series motors, which is completely unfair considering the k series was originally built for family sedans then condensed to k8 specs. IMO the k8 was a bad idea and a piss poor way to minimize the performance of what was a good engine in the KL. <hr></blockquote>
see i didnt bring the type-r into it. i used this as a base of where people start talkin junk about what they dont fully understand and it did happen. (your quote below) thats why i compared the d16y to the k8 in terms of power vs size, and a b18b to a mazda dohc b series. i mentioned the b16a as well for the same reason. if my memory serves me right the b16a and the d15 and 16 came out about the early 1990's and very comparable imo since it is smaller than the k8. <blockquote>quote:<hr> Race a type R with any comparable hp engine in the market (including the ZE) and you'll see why most people think honda's suck. <hr></blockquote>
once again i didnt bring type-r into it. in no way did i compare the b18cr to the ze until you said they sucked. i didnt bring type-r to the picture fortunately you brought it for me. u talk r i talk r. <blockquote>quote:<hr> im just saying each is built different and like the type-r, it wasnt built for everyone to understand. <hr></blockquote>
what i said above

no comparison between b18cr and ze what so ever. <blockquote>quote:<hr> Dont even get me started on the NSX. 80K! All i'm gonna say is you get what you pay for. I'd rather buy a dodge <hr></blockquote>
lemme find a video for you... and once again it takes a v10 magnum with almost twice the power as a nsx to do the 12-13's on the 1320. u guys really amaze me. check this vid out got some nsx racing in it. cool r vid. imo since the nsx came out its been a ledgend and more than 10 years without major changes. http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/wetoddimage.wtdr?i=wMTc2NjU2czQxM2RmZDMxeTU0MQ%3D%3D

beautiful and awesome car but it starts at 80k unless your thinking about getting a used gts starts at 70k but i doubt ull find one of those anymore. an acr cost... i have no clue but im willing to say its more than 80k someone correct me if im wrong or if u know how much it was do tell...
1320 - Dodge Viper ACR 12.19|119.15
http://www.ultimateviper.com/
check it out

Steeb · Post by **Steeb** » December 19th, 2002, 4:50 pm

http://www.dodge.com/viper/
the picture i posted didnt show what i was hoping... the starting at 83,795**....

Steeb · Post by **Steeb** » December 19th, 2002, 5:02 pm

it takes a v10 from a truck, with close to twice the power, and tons of torque to do the same as a nsx im sure better but not by much as the video will prove. nsx still pulls tiny bit more g's but on way skinnier tires 215/40/17 front 255/40/17 rear as opposed to the vipers excessively large 275f and 335r. dave thomas bought a corvette after owning a nsx... why didnt he buy a viper? gee.... hard one...

MX-3.com

honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing

Re: honda bashing