06 WRX vs. 06 Civic Si - Page 9
+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 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 Integra96 Hold on, I'll be right back. <flies out of Tucson, takes over Tire Rack's facilities, finds ...

  1. #121
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Northern IN
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Integra96
    Hold on, I'll be right back.

    <flies out of Tucson, takes over Tire Rack's facilities, finds a new WRX and new Civic Si, prepares road course for test, hires crew, changes out multiple performance tires on WRX, hires driver for Si, completes test, reports back to a guy who applies a double standard of evidence vs. none for different claims>

    Or maybe "whack" means that the WRX would have beat the time of the Si with nice tires?

    Welcome to South Bend Indiana . I live here and know quite a few people that work at Tire Rack.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #122
    Registered User 04wrx4keeps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Central NY/ Western PA (for school)
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by elohdaeh78
    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.
    The problem with your math is that acclerating down the 1/4 mile isnt a linear equation, and in fact no car is going to accelerate for XXmph/sec for the entire lenght of the track as your math would make it seem, you're both oversimplifying the equation and taking physics completely out of your math. You cannot simply divide your final trap speed by the time that it took to finish the 1/4 mile and expect to get any usable data from that math that will tell you anything accurate about the performance of that car. Thats why when you get into the actual physics of acceleration you dont use simple algebra anymore, acceleration is MUCH more complicated than that. You also have to consider the fact that the faster the car goes the less time it has to accelerate in the distance that it has left (since a 1/4 mile race is is distance limited) sicne the ground is constantly moving past as its still trying to accelerate.

    The way you calculated might give you a little information if the race was not distance limited, as in you werent only traveling for 1/4 of a mile, since then each car can take as long as it needs to get to the measured speed (like 100mph or 110mph or whatever). But since each car has an equal and set distance that it must travel. The only way you will get the 2 cars in your example (where one is getting to 100 in 12 seconds and one is getting to 120 in 20 seconds) is if you are not distance limited, or if the slower (time wise not speed wise) of the 2 cars is simple NOT accelerating while the other is, or is accelerating much slower than the other for one portion of the race and then race and then accelerating MUCH MUCH FASTER THAN THE OTHER CAR for another portion of the course since neither car has more distance to use for acceleration, it still has to reach 120mph and will have no more room to do it in, so if the 120mph car was going slower it would not reach 120mph by the end of the 1/4 mile....

    Once again, that math simply does not work for getting any kind of information from those times because acceleration is not linear, you cannot use linear math to figure out how that car was accelerating, it will simply give you useless information. Car A was not accelerating Car 7.60mph/second and Car B was not accelerating at 7.33mph/second
    for any more than a very small portion of its actual acceleration if at all, and given continuing acceleration there's no way to say that the cars would be going 200mph and 219mph respectively, because in actuality it would be physically impossible even if both cars had the ability to reach those speeds they will already be traveling at over 100mph by the time they pass the 1/4 mile mark so you cant say that they will accelerate to twice the speed by the 1/2 mile since the second 1/4 mile aproaching the 1/2 mile will go by much much faster than the first 1/4 mile did since the cars own speed will give it much less time to acclerate in, thats why if you hit 80-90mph in the 1/8 mile you wont hit 180-200, you are already moving so you dont have the same amount of time to accelerate.
    Last edited by 04wrx4keeps; 11-18-2005 at 01:17 PM.
    Cobb Stage 2.5 VF-34 + uppipe
    Best ET so far - 13.1@103 with a 1.81 60'

  4. #123
    Registered User SonicYellowWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Speedette
    I think there's a Honda Troll amongst us...
    Honda troll? Umm, no. Someone who has built more cars than you can dream of and knows the value of a good performing car? yes.
    Yes, that is me in my avatar! Kid's don't try this at home.
    CLICKY to view My Extensive Mod List!

  5. #124
    Registered User elohdaeh78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Long Valley, NJ
    Posts
    706
    Quote Originally Posted by 04wrx4keeps
    The problem with your math is that acclerating down the 1/4 mile isnt a linear equation, and in fact no car is going to accelerate for XXmph/sec for the entire lenght of the track as your math would make it seem, you're both oversimplifying the equation and taking physics completely out of your math. You cannot simply divide your final trap speed by the time that it took to finish the 1/4 mile and expect to get any usable data from that math that will tell you anything accurate about the performance of that car. Thats why when you get into the actual physics of acceleration you dont use simple algebra anymore, acceleration is MUCH more complicated than that. You also have to consider the fact that the faster the car goes the less time it has to accelerate in the distance that it has left (since a 1/4 mile race is is distance limited) sicne the ground is constantly moving past as its still trying to accelerate.

    The way you calculated might give you a little information if the race was not distance limited, as in you werent only traveling for 1/4 of a mile, since then each car can take as long as it needs to get to the measured speed (like 100mph or 110mph or whatever). But since each car has an equal and set distance that it must travel. The only way you will get the 2 cars in your example (where one is getting to 100 in 12 seconds and one is getting to 120 in 20 seconds) is if you are not distance limited, or if the slower (time wise not speed wise) of the 2 cars is simple NOT accelerating while the other is, or is accelerating much slower than the other for one portion of the race and then race and then accelerating MUCH MUCH FASTER THAN THE OTHER CAR for another portion of the course since neither car has more distance to use for acceleration, it still has to reach 120mph and will have no more room to do it in, so if the 120mph car was going slower it would not reach 120mph by the end of the 1/4 mile....

    Once again, that math simply does not work for getting any kind of information from those times because acceleration is not linear, you cannot use linear math to figure out how that car was accelerating, it will simply give you useless information. Car A was not accelerating Car 7.60mph/second and Car B was not accelerating at 7.33mph/second
    for any more than a very small portion of its actual acceleration if at all, and given continuing acceleration there's no way to say that the cars would be going 200mph and 219mph respectively, because in actuality it would be physically impossible even if both cars had the ability to reach those speeds they will already be traveling at over 100mph by the time they pass the 1/4 mile mark so you cant say that they will accelerate to twice the speed by the 1/2 mile since the second 1/4 mile aproaching the 1/2 mile will go by much much faster than the first 1/4 mile did since the cars own speed will give it much less time to acclerate in, thats why if you hit 80-90mph in the 1/8 mile you wont hit 180-200, you are already moving so you dont have the same amount of time to accelerate.
    I think i stated at the end of my post that the numbers were pretty useless what i did state is that just cause a car is going through the 1/4 trap faster then another car does not mean its actually catching up to that other car. One more time here. If Car A does the 1/4 in 12@110mph and Car B does it in 20@111mph it does not mean Car B is catching Car A when it goes through the 1/4 mark. Car A has had an additional 8 seconds to accelerate from its 110mph, so lets assume its now going 120mph, which is very likely, so when Car B passes through the 1/4 mark its going 111mph but Car A is far ahead and still going faster at lets say 120mph. Car B would most likely be slowing down Car As pull on it little by little, but at that moment Car A is still pulling away from Car B at a rate of roughly 9mph. Yes i know how acceleration works and i know my numbers were pretty uselss, i stated that above, afterall i have a Degree in science and i took many Physics courses, thats why i stated that my numbers weren't accurate, obviously a car is going to accelerate faster in the first 60 feet then it is in the last 1/8 mile, but its also all foiled by a car getting off the line with alot of wheel spin, its hard if not impossible to equate the wheel spin of a car into the equation. If a car goes through the 1/4 20@120mph and the other does 10@100mph its obvious that the first car has traction problems, but is accelerating at a faster rate. To say that the first car will ever catch the second car is just a guess, because who knows how fast the first car can go, maybe its top speed is 130mph and the other cars top speed is 150mph, in that case the first car may never catch the second car, so all these examples are pretty much foiled with to many variables.
    Last edited by elohdaeh78; 11-18-2005 at 02:11 PM.
    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

  6. #125
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    McLean, VA
    Posts
    570
    StupidMan,

    The ERZ system got some good reviews. I am ordering my Access Port stage 2 tonight and also purchasing the ERZ TBE or the Turbo XS stealth TBE. I have a child, and I feel safer with a minimum of one Cat and a system that is not to loud. .
    2006 WRX TR, Black
    2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee, SRT 8, Black
    2006 Corvette, Black
    1987 Buick Grand National Sold

  7. #126
    Registered User StupidMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    VA baby
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by SonicYellowWRX
    Honda troll? Umm, no. Someone who has built more cars than you can dream of and knows the value of a good performing car? yes.
    Prove it.

    Anyway, why does it matter?
    Last edited by StupidMan; 11-18-2005 at 04:02 PM.
    stupidman has spoken

  8. #127
    Registered User StupidMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    VA baby
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by Drod
    StupidMan,

    The ERZ system got some good reviews. I am ordering my Access Port stage 2 tonight and also purchasing the ERZ TBE or the Turbo XS stealth TBE. I have a child, and I feel safer with a minimum of one Cat and a system that is not to loud. .
    I feel you on that. I don't have any kids....yet....but I know I wouldn't want it too loud or too many noxious fumes entering the car.
    stupidman has spoken

  9. #128
    Registered User garrettjj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    112
    The Civic SI's interior is VERY impressive and that car does pack a lot of technology, engineering and performance for very little money. You can't denigrate a car for a slice of the people who drive/modify them. It looks substantially better than any previous Civic as well.

    I had a GS-R for 10 years and while it was a a great car, it was the lack of torque and unimpressive response to mods(Unless turbo'd) that kept it from being anything more. Like almost all previous DOHC VTEC Hondas(Integra, Prelude, Civic) it's still a 15 second car and with basic boltons mentioned you won't be making 240whp, tha's just nonsense. And No, no, no an AEM Intake will NOT net you 20hp and 10 ft-tbs or torque AT THE WHEELS. Not in this universe, not even crank horsepower. Not even close.

    However if you use the "Tornado", you can easily attain that kind of power
    Last edited by garrettjj; 11-18-2005 at 06:18 PM.
    95 Supra TT --BPU+ 420whp.
    05 Subaru STI --Cobb AP Stage 2 Protuned
    94 Integra GS-R --HIE/VTEC Controller.

  10. #129
    Registered User StupidMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    VA baby
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by garrettjj
    I had a GS-R for 10 years and while it was a a great car, it was the lack of torque and unimpressive response to mods(Unless turbo'd) that kept it from being anything more. Like almost all previous DOHC VTEC Hondas(Integra, Prelude, Civic) it's still a 15 second car and with basic boltons mentioned you won't be making 240whp, tha's just nonsense. And No, no, no an AEM Intake will NOT net you 20hp and 10 ft-tbs or torque AT THE WHEELS. Not in this universe, not even crank horsepower. Not even close.
    Amen
    Trust me, I tried one time too. I completely decked out an 89 crx si with a b20 vtec with forged/balanced/blueprinted internals, a b18c5 head ported polished with 3angle valve job full titanium valvetrain, civic type r cams, block guard, metal head gasket ect ect ect and I only netted around 240-250 at the crank. Of course it had a big bore TB, CAI, Headers Exhaust and everything you could possibly want to do without forced induction. With that setup, Every Honda Freak said I should be 240 at the wheels, but I netted a touch over 205 instead which is slightly better than a stock s2000 2.0L. THEN, my friend had an 01 s2000 with comptech intake, and exhaust, a hondata gasket, a few other little things and put out the EXACT same HP #'s with slightly lower torque output. THEN we went to an S2000 meet and a fellow with a turbo kit on his S2000 just broke the 250whp at 6psi (then he blew his Rear Diff on the spot).
    So yes, it is harder than you think to extract HP from a honda motor, they are already VERY stout from the factory.
    That is unless you start talking about torque. The s2000 had to be at 5grand and some change to "feel" fast, and the crx was a dog before around 4500, where the hp/torque per pound started actually being decent.
    If you want a REV happy beast that is putting out the same hp per liter as most ferrari's, go with a honda. If you are thinking about ultimate power, go with something else that takes well to turbocharging, or is already turbocharged.
    stupidman has spoken

  11. #130
    Registered User StupidMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    VA baby
    Posts
    743
    garrettjj, I just noticed you are a proud owner of a mkiv supra. I had a 97 RSP TT auto that absolutely RIPPED. It was and still is the fastest street car I have ever owned. I ran an 11.5 with the STOCK TWINS, of course I was BPU++++++++ (I know there really aren't that many plus marks), but I had EVERYTHING done to the car without switching the stock turbo's out or going internal. Then I had to sell it (too many speeding tickets, and not enough money for insurance) to a guy in northern VA who wrecked it at 130mph and was in a coma for like 2 years. The first thing I did when I heard about was shed a little tear.....that car had a mind of its own and would TRY to take care of me.
    stupidman has spoken

  12. #131
    Registered User garrettjj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by StupidMan
    garrettjj, I just noticed you are a proud owner of a mkiv supra. I had a 97 RSP TT auto that absolutely RIPPED. It was and still is the fastest street car I have ever owned. I ran an 11.5 with the STOCK TWINS, of course I was BPU++++++++ (I know there really aren't that many plus marks), but I had EVERYTHING done to the car without switching the stock turbo's out or going internal. Then I had to sell it (too many speeding tickets, and not enough money for insurance) to a guy in northern VA who wrecked it at 130mph and was in a coma for like 2 years. The first thing I did when I heard about was shed a little tear.....that car had a mind of its own and would TRY to take care of me.
    Yes, I love my Supra and damn if that car has some serious staying power. BUT it is beginning to show it's age, not in terms of power or looks , but rather handling.
    The steering and "Point and shoot" dynamics of the STI is better than the good old Supra and the STI has much less turbo lag. Supra still has tremendous grip, but STI is more sensitive to driver inputs. That's to be expected as time goes on, but comparisons are bound to come up when comparing older performance cars to new ones.

    I test drove the Civic SI over the weekend and that car is a lot of fun and you get some real goodies for the money. It makes a great daily driver and is not a bad place to start for the novice enthusiast. Just don't expect to make tons of power/torque unless you throw a turbo into the mix, but you can make the car a little faster with basic boltons.
    95 Supra TT --BPU+ 420whp.
    05 Subaru STI --Cobb AP Stage 2 Protuned
    94 Integra GS-R --HIE/VTEC Controller.

  13. #132
    Registered User StupidMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    VA baby
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by garrettjj
    Yes, I love my Supra and damn if that car has some serious staying power. BUT it is beginning to show it's age, not in terms of power or looks , but rather handling.
    The steering and "Point and shoot" dynamics of the STI is better than the good old Supra and the STI has much less turbo lag. Supra still has tremendous grip, but STI is more sensitive to driver inputs. That's to be expected as time goes on, but comparisons are bound to come up when comparing older performance cars to new ones.

    I test drove the Civic SI over the weekend and that car is a lot of fun and you get some real goodies for the money. It makes a great daily driver and is not a bad place to start for the novice enthusiast. Just don't expect to make tons of power/torque unless you throw a turbo into the mix, but you can make the car a little faster with basic boltons.
    Stop it, you make me miss my Supra. I never got to see it in its old age as it was totaled before 55k . I should have never sold it, the fellow almost killed himself in it within months of owning it at well over 100mph. Of course I made like 6k off of the car. I stole it for 24k put an extra 30k miles on it and sold it for 30k to a dealership in D.C. who turned around and sold it for 32,500 to the guy that wrecked it.
    If I had known how hard it would be to find another Royal Sapphire Pearl, I wouldn't have sold it for 40k. I would have parked it in a garage with alarms and ferocious poodles.
    It was pretty funny though, my supra would accellerate 60-120 faster than most cars go 0-60. So I know why he was driving that fast.
    Oh well, I will own another one in the future....you know....when I don't mind weekly speeding tickets from johnny lawman-vestite. Not to mention 600+ beano's a month to the insurance man, who ive heard, uses my money to wipe his a$$.

    EDIT: Oh Yeah garrettjj....did you ever see the article in sport compact car a couple of years ago about the guy who had nearly 1000hp on the stock block and heads with more than 300k miles on it???? Talk about Staying Power.
    stupidman has spoken

  14. #133
    Registered User jtsimaras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    84
    Hmm Interesting I still Think Honda probably builds the best motors and smoothest trannys in the world---I'm sure I will get Flamed for this remark.
    Not too many manufacturers can claim 120hp/litre NA. (S2000) This car is a pretty sweet track car.

    Just My .02$

  15. #134
    Moderator YBNormal07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    6,245
    I Support ClubWRX
    Kudos to those who endeavor to push maxium HP out of a NA engine. When the cubes get bigger, I think that it is a worthwhile effort. However, for small dispalcement engines, bragging about hp/liter is a bit like braggin on the smell of a silent fart. Yeah...it's pretty neat and all, but in the end, you'd rather not have to deal with it. The torque is aways a disappointment, at least to me. I always see the comments about if you want a car that puts out as much hp / liter as a ferrari, buy a honda. Here is some math for you:

    Honda Si: 98.5 HP/L, 69.5 Tq/L, 14.6 lbs/HP

    05 WRX: 113.5 HP/L, 108.5 Tq/L, 13.8 lbs/HP

    Ferrari Modena: 111.1 HP/L, 76.4 TQ/L, 7.66 lbs/HP

    05 STi: 120 HP/L, 120TQ/L, 10.9 lbs/HP.

    Note the WRX and STi make more HP/L then the Modena. However, the significant factor here is the HP/weight, where the Modena is the clear winner.

    In my book, it's the ratio of power to weight.
    Last edited by YBNormal07; 12-15-2005 at 09:03 PM.
    tEh PriUs=teH faSTah!@@!
    08 Audi S5 Black Diamond edition
    SOLD: 05 SWP Legacy GT Limited 5MT, 13.3ish@105 (stage 2) crappy stock clutch
    SOLD: 04 MPS/SW WRX Sti. 12.971 @ 103.97 (stock)
    278 AWHP/283 AWT, Catback exhaust
    306 AWHP/341 AWT, Stage 2
    (Scott) Moderator-STi, Drag Racing, Car Purchasing, and Tutorial Forums

  16. #135
    Registered User jtsimaras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by YBNormal07
    Kudos to those who endeavor to push maxium HP out of a NA engine. When the cubes get bigger, I think that it is a worthwhile effort. However, for small dispalcement engines, bragging about hp/liter is a bit like braggin on the smell of a silent fart. Yeah...it's pretty neat and all, but in the end, you'd rather not have to deal with it. The torque is aways a disappointment, at least to me. I always see the comments about if you want a car that puts out as much hp / liter as a ferrari, buy a honda. Here is some math for you:

    Honda Si: 98.5 HP/L, 69.5 Tq/L, 14.6 lbs/HP

    05 WRX: 113.5 HP/L, 108.5 Tq/L, 13.8 lbs/HP

    Ferrari Modena: 111.1 HP/L, 76.4 TQ/L, 7.66 lbs/HP

    05 STi: 120 HP/L, 120TQ/L, 10.9 lbs/HP.

    Note the WRX and STi make more HP/L then the Modena. However, the significant factor here is the HP/weight, where the Modena is the clear winner.

    In my book, it's the ratio of power to weight.
    Honda Si: 98.5 HP/L, 69.5 Tq/L, 14.6 lbs/HP

    05 WRX: 113.5 HP/L, 108.5 Tq/L, 13.8 lbs/HP

    Ferrari Modena: 111.1 HP/L, 76.4 TQ/L, 7.66 lbs/HP

    05 STi: 120 HP/L, 120TQ/L, 10.9 lbs/HP

    These numbers don't say much considering the STI and WRX are turboed and a WRX is 10 Grand Canadian more than an 2006 si which is a tad slower than the WRX hmm honda must be doing something right--less power loss through the powertrain.

    Don't get me wrong I love my AWD ***** and I plan on keeping over buying a Honda---but I know Honda does build smoother cars and they have the track record to prove it. No other manufacturer as Won more car comparisons and awards than Honda not even close!
    Last edited by jtsimaras; 12-16-2005 at 07:56 AM.

+ Reply to Thread

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

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