06 WRX vs. 06 Civic Si - Page 8
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 178

This is a discussion on 06 WRX vs. 06 Civic Si within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally Posted by DTR rex Si not the fastest to finish the autocross? of the cars listed it holds the ...

  1. #106
    Moderator Integra96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    16,989
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by DTR rex
    Si not the fastest to finish the autocross?

    of the cars listed it holds the best time for both veteran and rookie drivers.
    ???

    The units are in MPH.
    "Did you sleep well?"
    "No, I made a couple of mistakes."
    -- Steven Wright

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #107
    Registered User MagikMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    229
    OMG!!! What does it matter if he crosses the same distance at a higher speed, it's if he's at a certain speed in a certain ammount of time. If he's doing 90 when I'm doing 93, he's not catching me, I'm pulling him....

    doesn't matter anymore, I just ordered my heads and cam today, I'll be 450+ rwhp, and running mid - low 11's.... that's all I need!
    1999 Corvette; vararam cold air intake; ls6 intake manifold; cartek stage 2x heads; cartek stage 2x cam; ported ls6 oil pump; hardened pushrods; 1 7/8" headers with full 3" exhaust back; hardened output shaft; 3.90rear gears.... 420rwhp

    2001 Audi A4 2.8 Quattro; heated seats

  4. #108
    Registered User StupidMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    VA baby
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by Integra96
    The Si is nice and I'm sure it's pretty quick, but there are significant differences between it and the WRX that make the choice easy for some. After coming from quick little Hondas myself, I still prefer the tank-like build quality, long-travel suspension, nice torque, and unflappable traction of AWD from teh Suby. Add some halfway decent tires to the Impreza, and it'll be whacking the Si in the road course test. As far as responding to basic mods, I think the Suby has it beat there, as well. The new '06 should be easily running with STIs with a simple Cobb Stage 2 setup for well under $1,000.
    AMEN!

    Plus I don't trust those mags....they will launch the hell out of a front driver and then pussfoot an awd car because it actually "sticks" and they are afraid to break something.
    The only way I would trust numbers is if I drove both of them myself on the track....then I would be able to match launch "hardness" between the two, and then compare the numbers..........otherwise it is apples to oranges.
    stupidman has spoken

  5. #109
    schoolloans
    Quote Originally Posted by Pastapuck
    It is in the December issue of Automobile Magazine.

    One thing has been mistaken in this thread however: The Honda Civic Si (2006) is not faster.

    In fact, they awarded the 2006 WRX (out of the new GLI, Cobalt SS, and Civic Si) with the best acceleration award.

    This is the part that confused the staretr of this thread (as it does for me)



    What they are actually saying is that the Civic Si retained the highest consistent speed throughout the autocross, however it did not finish fastest.

    Civic Si:
    Veteran - 42.1 MPH
    Rookie - 40.8 MPH

    Cobalt SS:
    Veteran: 41.1 MPH
    Rookie: 40.4 MPH

    Jetta GLI:
    Veteran: 40.9 MPH
    Rookie: 40.4 MPH

    Impreza WRX:
    Veteran: 40.9 MPH
    Rookie: 40.2 MPH

    0-60:
    Civic Si: 6.7
    Cobalt SS: 6.4
    Jetta GLI: 7.8
    Impreza WRX: 5.8

    1/4 Mile:
    Civic Si: 15.2 @ 95
    Cobalt SS: 14.9 @ 98
    Jetta GLI: 15.9 @ 92
    Impreza WRX: 14.6 @ 95

    I hope this clears things up!
    If those are average speeds then yes, the Civic DID beat the WRX on the autocross. How do you think they get those average MPH??? I'll give a hint...it involves distance and time...

    Don't worry though. Our WRX's have been getting it handed to us at National Autox's for some time by Honda/Integra products. Personally, I'd expect the new Si to be quicker...

  6. #110
    schoolloans
    Quote Originally Posted by Integra96
    ???

    The units are in MPH.
    Thats average speed through the course right? They get MPH by using the course length and the time. The car with the fastest average speed obviously completed the course the fastest..its not rocket science...

  7. #111
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Integra96
    ???

    The units are in MPH.
    ahhh, I see what you are saying now. I was talking in reference to the Si going through the autocross at a higher speeds but was saying time for some reasons.. probably because that is what you were referencing. Is there numbers for the time trial on an autocross between these two cars?
    reguardless though, the Si is still making higher speeds throught the autocross (not that it really matters though), but it is making better lateral G's and passing the slalom at a higher MPH (where the speed does matter. Again, check out the new issue of road and track. I cannot link it because the online site usually runs about 3 weeks behind the magazine and I am not sure how to scan the article on here.
    For the record and in the civic's defense, the mag did note the Si to be the most well balanced and best handling FWD car they have driven and the LSD makes you forget its even FWD since understeer is so minimal.
    But in the wrx's defense, I believe the stock tires on the Si are sport tires.
    Last edited by DTR rex; 11-17-2005 at 11:28 PM.
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  8. #112
    Registered User elohdaeh78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Long Valley, NJ
    Posts
    706
    Quote Originally Posted by YBNormal07
    I think you keep overlooking the fact that it is time over distance, as was stated above. Look at it this way, you cross the line at a certain speed and time and keep going full throttle. The other guy does the same thing and plot your speeds and time across various intervals. I'll use nice whole numbers so it's clear

    1/4 mile
    You-10 sec @ 100 mph
    Him-12 sec @ 110 mph

    1/2 mile
    You- 15 sec @ 120
    Him-16 sec @ 135 mph

    3/4 mile
    You-20 sec @ 140
    Him-20 sec @ 160 MPH

    1 mile
    You 30 Sec @ 150 MPH
    Him 29 Sec @ 165 MPH

    These numbers are by no means rational. But it just shows that if someone is at a higher MPH than you over a certain distance, if you extrapolate it out, they SHOULD eventually pass you. This is by no means guaranteed as there are many factors that go into the original numbers such as launch capability, gear ratios, power curver, etc.

    If someone crosses the same point behind you at a faster speed, they are catching you. It's simple physics. The more time you add to the equation, the more likely it is that they will pass you. Take it to an extreme. If someone crosses the line 1 sec behind you but is traveling 50 MPH faster, don't you think they will catch you if you keep your foot in it? Of course they will. The same is true for someone going only 1 mph faster. If you do the math, they will pass you eventually. But thankfully, it is just math, and not reality.

    Now you see why so many prefer to race from a roll. It takes more of the driver out of the equation and (my belief) lets cars with less torque (and less driver skill) compete better against others.

    I could be wrong but this is how i see it.

    Car A does the 1/4 at 13.0@110mph which means he accelerates at an average of (7.60mph/second)

    Car B does the 1/4 at 15@110mph which means he acceleratates at an average of (7.33mph/second)

    Car B is passing the 1/4 mark at a faster mph, but its accelerating at a slower rate due to acceleration over time.

    Sure Car B is going faster when it passed the 1/4 mark but its also 2 seconds behind Car A which is now going 115.2mph@15 seconds into the race. Eventually Car B would catch Car A but you have to take into account that just cause Car B had a higher trap speed going through the 1/4 does not mean its catching Car A at the time it passes the 1/4 mark. Car A is still going faster then Car B when Car B passes the 1/4 line. Eventually Car B will catch Car A and the reason for Car B's lower ET is cause of its traction, but for Car B to catch Car A its going to take a long long time, much longer then your typical race would go.

    You could also look at it in feet per mph.

    Car A goes .076mph/foot
    Car B goes .083mph/foot

    So lets see where the cars are at the 1/2 mile mark

    Car A would be going 200mph
    Car B would be going 219mph

    Now we take in account how fast the cars accelerate

    Car A 7.60mph/second
    Car B 7.33mph/second

    Car A would be at the 1/2 mark in 26.31@200mph
    Car B would be at the 1/2 mark in 29.87@219mph

    Of course these numbers are all foiled because the rate of acceleration of Car B is tainted because of the poor launch. Car B most likely has a faster rate of acceleration over time then Car A, we would need 1/8 mile times to figure out the real rate of acceleration. The mphs are correct but the rates aren't really that correct, but just cause a car is passing through the 1/4 at a higher trap speed does not mean it is going faster at that point, like i said earlier a car could do the 1/4 in 20@120mph another car could do it in 12@100mph and the car doing it in 12 seconds is still going faster then the car doing it in 20 seconds when the car doing it in 20 seconds passes the 1/4 mark cause the car doing it in 12 seconds has been accelerating for an extra 8 seconds past its 100mph trap. Ok maybe that was a huge mess but whatever. And of course gearing and weight and power and many other factors come into play, but if the cars were the same in those aspects then thats what the test should be based on.
    Last edited by elohdaeh78; 11-18-2005 at 05:55 AM.
    2005 WRX (Short throw shifter, lightweight pulley,STI Splitters,Tein H-Tech springs,Up/Down Pipe, ERZ Catback, Cobb Stage 2, ASA JH8 with Yokohama ES 100s) 13.680@100.46mph

  9. #113
    Registered User MagikMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    229
    my point exactly!
    1999 Corvette; vararam cold air intake; ls6 intake manifold; cartek stage 2x heads; cartek stage 2x cam; ported ls6 oil pump; hardened pushrods; 1 7/8" headers with full 3" exhaust back; hardened output shaft; 3.90rear gears.... 420rwhp

    2001 Audi A4 2.8 Quattro; heated seats

  10. #114

    Peachypumpkincheeks

    Speedette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sterling, Virginia
    Posts
    8,615
    Quote Originally Posted by SonicYellowWRX
    And I could care less about drag racing... yea the WRX is still faster in the 1/4 mile but i don't live my life a 1/4 mile at a time. I like the fact that a car is built to handle from the factory. I like how honda didnt try to rip us off on this car like how Subaru raped me and other loyal buyers of the previous WRX's.
    I think there's a Honda Troll amongst us...
    Heather | 2002 WRX | Stage 2
    ScoobyDMCtt | Official Bodyguard #2 for the Bugeye Mafia
    TastesLikeAwesome | @Subiestar

  11. #115
    Registered User StupidMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    VA baby
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by Speedette
    I think there's a Honda Troll amongst us...
    Hey Honda troll's have feelings too. Mainly the feeling of reverberation from the baked bean cans they use for mufflers.

    If a Fart Can rev's in the woods, does it make a sound?
    stupidman has spoken

  12. #116
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    McLean, VA
    Posts
    570
    When is your Stage 2 arriving? Cobbtunning states 285 HP and 340 lbs ft. I am placeing an order soon. Are you getting the TBE W or W/O the Catts.?
    Last edited by Drod; 11-18-2005 at 09:15 AM.
    2006 WRX TR, Black
    2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee, SRT 8, Black
    2006 Corvette, Black
    1987 Buick Grand National Sold

  13. #117
    Registered User StupidMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    VA baby
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by Drod
    When is your Stage 2 arriving? Cobbtunning states 285 HP and 340 lbs ft. I am placeing an order soon. Are you getting the TBE W or W/O the Catts.?
    I guess you are asking me. I just received an email stating my AP is on its way. And My TBE was shipped early this week, and should be here monday. So I am hoping I will get them both on monday, and have stage 2 by tuesday
    I actually went with the catless ERZ turbo back setup. It is a good price (275 shipped from Ebay) and from what Ive read, the fitment is very good, plus the it is one of the highest flow designs. I (obviously) didn't have to worry about an up pipe because the 06's don't have a catalytic converter in the up pipe . So far Ive paid 635 for the AP and 275 for the tbe, which puts me at $910 instead of $1625+S&H for the stage 2 package on cobbtuning.com. That is over $700 to put toward my upgraded turbo fund.
    The Accessport is pretty awesome. Now they just need one for the FD3S so people will stop blowing there motors with minor mods.
    stupidman has spoken

  14. #118
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    McLean, VA
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by StupidMan
    I guess you are asking me. I just received an email stating my AP is on its way. And My TBE was shipped early this week, and should be here monday. So I am hoping I will get them both on monday, and have stage 2 by tuesday
    I actually went with the catless ERZ turbo back setup. It is a good price (275 shipped from Ebay) and from what Ive read, the fitment is very good, plus the it is one of the highest flow designs. I (obviously) didn't have to worry about an up pipe because the 06's don't have a catalytic converter in the up pipe . So far Ive paid 635 for the AP and 275 for the tbe, which puts me at $910 instead of $1625+S&H for the stage 2 package on cobbtuning.com. That is over $700 to put toward my upgraded turbo fund.
    The Accessport is pretty awesome. Now they just need one for the FD3S so people will stop blowing there motors with minor mods.
    Thanks for the information. What is a FD3S?
    2006 WRX TR, Black
    2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee, SRT 8, Black
    2006 Corvette, Black
    1987 Buick Grand National Sold

  15. #119
    Registered User StupidMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    VA baby
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by Drod
    Thanks for the information. What is a FD3S?
    Oh, sorry. An fd3s is a 3rd gen rx7 sorry.
    stupidman has spoken

  16. #120
    Boba Fett BrianH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Way up high.
    Posts
    17,909
    Quote Originally Posted by StupidMan
    Oh, sorry. An fd3s is a 3rd gen rx7 sorry.

    And a great recipient for LS1 swaps.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •