Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: angerosa Sep 18 2007, 03:34 PM

Do you think a brand new 197 HP Civic Si can beat a 914 with 3.0 6 conversion? My buddy who doesn't have a preference either way says that the civic will win hands down (he has a VW symbol tattooed on his calf too). Even if the 914-6 has 260 - 280 HP. What do you guys think?

Posted by: por73914 Sep 18 2007, 03:36 PM

My son has 07 SI, I doubt it would out run a 914-6 3.0

Posted by: Brando Sep 18 2007, 03:36 PM

Win at what? A drag race? Mountain road? Big Track? Ralley? I hit about 110 on the freeway and they can't go any faster for some wierd reason

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Sep 18 2007, 03:39 PM

Why? When you say beat are you talking staight line, road course, oval? Really I think the 914 would have the Civic on any of those, but why race a Civic?

Posted by: Ferg Sep 18 2007, 03:40 PM

I'll answer this with caution...

First, what are we talking about 0-60? If so yes, civic will win. A 914-6 is not a zero to sixty car, never will be unless gearbox ect is non stock.

Second, unless it's a pretty exotic 3.0, 260-280 hp is not realistic.

That being said, put them on a road course or auto-x and results will change.

Ferg

Posted by: angerosa Sep 18 2007, 03:40 PM

I'm looking for either at a paved track, at a stoplight or if you're going 30 mph down the road and one pulls up next to you.

Posted by: BMXerror Sep 18 2007, 04:13 PM

If you're getting 260-280 HP out of that thing, I want to know what you've got in it. Still, you've got about a 1000 pound diet on that civic. I think your buddy full of . My $.02
Mark D.

Posted by: John Sep 18 2007, 04:15 PM

With an 8000 RPM redline and the close ratio gearbox and the power output, I suspect that the civic could conceivably out accelerate a 914/6 3.0.

I don't know about top end, but a well prepared and well driven 914/6 should be able to out handle it.

I have no times for either vehicle. I would guess that if you compared a 914 equipped with a 911 engine capable of the same 8000 RPM redline, you just may have a match, but that would be a full race motor not a 3.0.

Does it really matter?

Posted by: Joe Ricard Sep 18 2007, 04:19 PM

I can eat an 89 Civic with 257 HP at the front wheels, 1850 pound car on race rubber.
my Red Neck Racer with old 2.0L can eat that car on a road course and he is a way better driver than me as he was my mentor ond co-driver.

New Civic Si does not stand a chance road race or Autocross.

Posted by: Brian Mifsud Sep 18 2007, 04:21 PM

Could a Civic beat a 914??? Who cares.. that guy is still driving a civic....

The 914 was built to compete with contemporary cars of its time (i.e. Datsun 240z, Fiat x 1/9, etc)

The question should be.. "can a Civic beat a Cayman"... that's much more apples and apples.

Posted by: Demick Sep 18 2007, 04:50 PM

Civic vs. Cayman. That's about as non-apples to apples as I can think of.

Posted by: 914-8 Sep 18 2007, 05:32 PM

No. No. No. No.

Posted by: Eric_Shea Sep 18 2007, 05:48 PM

What will the Civic Si be worth in 2044?

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Sep 18 2007, 06:09 PM

$100... maybe. That would be if it still runs.

Posted by: SGB Sep 18 2007, 06:16 PM

exactly.

Posted by: Andyrew Sep 18 2007, 06:19 PM

I beat a new civic in my 98 A4 1.8t Quattro with 18's...

I put down 170awhp... He had more top end, but it was so much in the top end, that his 0-60 time was just pathetic! Then he had too much drag, and the turbo just took over... I'll say it was close, but the a4 was faster, and had way more tq.


now... Compared to a 914 with a 3.0 (lets give you 240hp) 6?

HAHAHAHAHA!

I just drove my v8 914 for the first time in a year. If you had HALF the power of that beast... you could obliterate the hell out of that civic.



Why are you even asking? Tell him to meet you at the local drags.

Posted by: McMark Sep 18 2007, 09:26 PM

But which is better...
a Honda 6 or a Honda 4?

Posted by: TROJANMAN Sep 18 2007, 09:32 PM

I got spanked by my teacher once, but she was hot...........

Posted by: angerosa Sep 18 2007, 10:05 PM

OK - So you are not getting 260 HP out of a 3.0. I misspoke. Let's say you have the elusive 3.6 which should get you around 300+ HP. Will you beat it then?
It's not that I care so much. I'm considering upgrades and I may have a problem if after I spend lots of dough (I'm guessing upwards of 15K if I can find a good 3.6 which is way above what I'm considering) and make the car more fun to drive that in a "throw down" every car on the road is still gonna beat it. I am not even the racer type. I have no interest in AX. I would have a riot going around the track but don't care to drag race. I have more fun driving around on the street and going for spirited drives on a fall day. I appreciate that the 914 is something special in itself but can't stand smarmy neigh sayers and wish to put them in their place if need be. So here in lies the ethical struggle. We can put 15k into an engine but using conventional comparators (like those would who are not fans of 914s), our cars are still only in the same class as many of the brand new 4 cylinders (GTI, A4 Turbo, Civic Si). Is anyone else willing to admit they have a small problem with this no matter how much of a diehard 914 fan you are (and believe me I am)?

Posted by: Brando Sep 18 2007, 10:25 PM

My '88 NA 944 would definitely spank that civic. It only put out 191 and weighed 2200#.

A light (1800#) teener with 100+ should be able to keep up pretty damn well in a straight, shifting at the right time.

Posted by: John Sep 18 2007, 10:34 PM

I'm missing something here.

So your friend is egging you on about how a new Civic could outrun a 914?

Give us some real world acceleration times for the alleged Civic, and I'd be better prepared to offer a more educated opinion.

So will the new Civic spank all new cars? What other cars would compare with the performance?

I would never consider "drag race starts" with one of MY Porsche transmissions (not even my Turbo). If it's a rolling start or some jaunt while traveling at some speed where you simply drop a gear (or two) and mash the gas, then I know what you are talking about.

My 3.2 914 street car holds it's own against most of the new street cars out there. The track car 3.2 914 sometimes betters all but the most expensive cars out on the track (and it will piss off most of the newer cars' drivers that it does run with).

No matter what you have, there will always be someone who comes along with something a little faster, quicker, or whatever. That's just the way it is. Get used to it and don't let the naysayers get you down. More than likely they are jealous and not really car guys to begin with.

Posted by: alpha434 Sep 18 2007, 10:41 PM

Yous guys are a little funny in the head.

The 911 carrera 3.0 motor made 255 from factory at 4200 rpms.

And those 935 3.0s made 900 on the low side at full boost.

*just to give a fair range for Porsche 3.0l power output.

Posted by: John Sep 18 2007, 10:55 PM

I don't know where you get your numbers, but the normally aspirated R.O.W. 911 SC 3.0 only produced 204 or so horsepower from the factory. During the same time period (1982-1983) the R.O.W. 3.3 liter Turbo produced 300 horsepower.

The USA 1983 3.0 SC produced 180 horsepower from the factory. The 1982-1983 3.3 Turbo was never officially imported into the USA.


My information is from page 9 of the Technical Specifications Booklet (82, 83 models).



You may have seen the torque spec for USA cars but have your numbers and units wrong,

257Nm @ 4200 RPM = 189 lb*ft @4200 RPM, but USA HP was given as 180 HP @ 5500 RPM.

Posted by: Aaron Cox Sep 18 2007, 10:56 PM

what was his name?

Posted by: hwgunner Sep 18 2007, 10:58 PM

Sorta funny, I was following a friend in his 2005 Civic Si while driving my 72 1.7. At a light just before a freeway on ramp, he gunned it when the green came. I gunned it to, if you could call it that, and by the time I got to my turn in point for the 90 degree sweeper for the on ramp I realized that he was on the brakes and the front of his car was plowing hard. I actually had to go a little deeper into the corner and square the corner up a little just to get under him. I never lifted and hit the end of the ramp in the lead. My friend was forever telling people how he wipped me off the line.

Posted by: ChrisNPDrider Sep 18 2007, 11:10 PM

Usually, the only Honda to beat me and my 1972 1.7 at an AX is a S2000 on sticky tires. I'm pretty slow off the line, sometimes can chirp 2nd, but by the finish it is another story. Driver skillz is a big part of any race
I think having a $15K 914-6 would be WAY cooler than having a new $15K Civic

Posted by: SirAndy Sep 18 2007, 11:42 PM

i had a brand new mustang on my bumper the other day. he was asking for it. on my way to the local off-ramp, cruising in 5th at about ~65, slightly uphill then into a nice sweeper off-ramp with a radius that gets smaller towrds the end.

i downshifted in 4th and hit it. flying into the turn, keeping the foot down. hit a late apex on the exit and shifted in 5th. at that time, i was near redline. flew out of the turn and onto the other freeway.

after that, i went back to ~65 cruising. took the guy a good mile or so to catch up.

they never know what hit 'em ...
Andy

Posted by: MoveQik Sep 19 2007, 12:50 AM

Ahhh...how I wished I had the same story. Now Andy, I understand you have the mighty 3.6 so results may vary. I was on the freeway the other day and I saw a new Mustang GT. His plates read "RUNS11S" Naturally I think, let's see if he really does run 11's or if he is just really proud of his GT. We were doing about 65 and I was in 4th(which is just a fuchin' sweet spot on my car) and I hit it. Problem was.....so did he. All I saw was taillights and dust. He was long gone. Evidently he does run 11's. We settled down and gave a couple of thumbs up but man was that a beat down!

Looking forward to seeing your car in Moab!

Posted by: MoveQik Sep 19 2007, 01:34 AM

You must be looking at Euro numbers. I think my US spec 3.2 is just north of 200 from the factory.

Posted by: Hammy Sep 19 2007, 02:17 AM

It's a Civic..

Posted by: Dave_Darling Sep 19 2007, 02:27 AM

US spec 3.0 was 180 (DIN) HP. European wasn't a whole lot more, IIRC.
US spec 3.2 made 207 (DIN) HP. The European one made 217.

A 3.0 in a 914 will likely be making around 200 HP, as you cannot use the nasty restrictive 911SC exhaust which is a power limiter. And the carb conversion is the easiest to set up, so ~200 HP is where you wind up.

In a car that will be less than 2400 lbs, even starting with a late heavy 914.

Gearing is the other question... The 914's 1st gear really hates being abused; it wasn't made for drag-race starts. Easy to spin right off the mainshaft, even with a stock four-banger if you decide to get really stupid. (Don't side-step the clutch at redline!) I'm not sure what the relative gearing is between the 914 and the Si; it could make a difference.

But all other things being equal, it shouldn't be much of a problem. And if it is, smile and remember that he's driving an appliance, and you're driving a smile factory. Or take him to a road with some corners, and show him that 1/4 miles don't mean much in the real world...

--DD

Posted by: angerosa Sep 19 2007, 08:03 AM

Posted by: angerosa Sep 19 2007, 08:20 AM

No - he's not egging me on. He just a true car guy at heart and I respect his opinion. He would love a Porsche 911. Some day he will have one but it's not a priority now. He's a great fabricator. He's owned and rebuilt many VWs (like at least 10) from 50s busses and bugs to mid 80s GTIs. He even owned a 914 once he got on a trade and started to redo it but had too many other projects going on at the time. He was going to give it to me but I lived in an apartment at the time and had no place to keep it. He believes Honda makes a good car (he's owned and rebuilt some of them too) but he doesn't have a preference one way or the other.

The Civic is not the focus of what I'm saying. It could be the Mitsubishi evolution or Mazda protege speed. Many people on this board will think they are all crap. My point is that if we put so much money into our cars they should be able to hang with cars of this caliber. From what you said, it seems like you can. That's all.

Posted by: grantsfo Sep 19 2007, 08:24 AM

Hondas suck! My Mazdaspeed 6 will spank a Civic SI, a 914 with a 2270 T4 or a 914-6 with a 3.0. And in the rain the Mazdaspeed will blow away a 914-6 with a 3.6.

Posted by: Rob Ways Sep 19 2007, 08:34 AM

I'm not sure.... if the Civic has one of those big friggin tail pipes....

Posted by: Ferg Sep 19 2007, 09:45 AM

This thread went exactly how I thought it would

A new civic SI will do 0-60 in 6.3 and the quarter in high 14's.

No NA 944 will touch that, and no 3.0 Six will touch that without leaving first gear laying on the ground. 3.2 maybe, and a 3.6 is a whole nuther animal.

Hell My wifes Xterra will dust my 75 911 Carrera to sixty.

But like others have said, that is not the point of our cars.

Ferg

Posted by: KaptKaos Sep 19 2007, 10:08 AM

Moreover, its not the point of driving on the street.

I love the old MG slogan "Safety Fast."

Posted by: Joe Ricard Sep 19 2007, 10:40 AM

How much is a 89 Civic worth? I got $41.60 from the scrap man when I took that very CIVIC that I beat to the recycler.

Posted by: J P Stein Sep 19 2007, 10:48 AM

When my 2.7L was healthy, it put 210-220-hp (wag).
The car weighs 1739 and wears 10 inch rear slicks.
I've never broken a gearbox or CV and haze them tiars often.

You've led a sheltered life Ferg?

Posted by: Ferg Sep 19 2007, 11:05 AM

My US 911 Carrera is stock CIS and 165hp when new. I bet it's down from that in it's current state.

For a magazine to get a 6.3 0-60 and high 14's out of that civic SI for a test, I'm betting a clutch drop at about 4500 was used, no biggie on a new car that does not belong to them.

I don't know ANYONE who is going to do the same to first gear on a 901 box with their six.

I saw your car at the autox in Portland WCC, and was impressed. Sheltered? Not really, I've driven enough six's (stock, 2.2, 3.0 and 3.2) to know what they are capable of, and not capable of.

I also get the chance to drive many many new cars, and I'm very impressed with how much HP and speed new cars have.

Since the original question was rather vague, I narrowed down my focus of replies to 0-60 and 1/4 mile.

Ferg

Posted by: grantsfo Sep 19 2007, 11:09 AM

Yeah I have seen Nathan drop clutch with my motor at high revs with tires spinning with no broken parts. It was a sight to see as the car jumped off line leaving rubber for good 20 feet. He saves that trick for only special occasions like when I'm beating his times in an AX. LOL! Have to admit I have done same at a few events such as Hoopa Hillclimb and ax with no broken parts yet.

Now back on topic to 914-6 giving a Civic SI a spanking. Pretty sure my 2.4 liter six could take on a Civic SI with no problem based on what I have expereinced on the track in drag racing cars down long straights. Even in 0-60. I can keep up with Lotus Elises and Honda S2000's in drag races down long straights no problem. I can pass stock Lotus Elises, but if they have had a few mods we are about even. Not bad for a 35 year old car and motor with stupid old weber carbs dumping all sorts of gas into the cylinders.

Posted by: Brian Mifsud Sep 19 2007, 11:09 AM

Posted by: mskala Sep 19 2007, 11:22 AM

Um, at no time did the 944 series weigh 2200 pounds, unless you found 600 pounds of useless stuff to take out.

Posted by: grantsfo Sep 19 2007, 11:57 AM

What Andy failed to indicate was that it was one of those sissy Califonia Edition Mustangs with a V6 that look just like a GT.

...But really even new stock V8 Mustangs arent all that fast. I blow them off in my Mazdaspeed 6 from a stop with no problem. I even can get off the line quicker than a GT 500 in 1st gear -after that its curtains.

Posted by: davep Sep 19 2007, 01:18 PM

I don't know about new Civic's but my 2000 LX can't cross a 2 lane intersection without me shifting into second, much less a 4 lane intersection. I'm into fifth gear at 50 mph and looking, in vain, for gears 6, 7 & 8.

Posted by: Brando Sep 19 2007, 02:04 PM

If you want to beat everything off the line, get a 917/30. :\

Posted by: Rand Sep 19 2007, 04:25 PM

914 with 280hp, weighing around...What? 2200lbs?
Civic with 197hp, weighs?? Weighs what? Unless it's gutted it weight MORE.

How can a heavier car with less horsepower do the spanking? Um... Traction? What else?

Well, bottom line is PROOF is in the pudding. I would love to hear the actual results.

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Sep 19 2007, 04:28 PM

Well... There is the whole gearing thing. 914s just aren't geared to drag. Nore are the 901s made for that.

Posted by: Rand Sep 19 2007, 04:35 PM

True.... Just going on the generic parameters ya know. Ok, if we're going to get serious, we would obviously need to know the course. And if a drag race, the distance. And..... Never mind. I think we've beat this topic into the ground until we start nailing down the specifics of the race rules.

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Sep 19 2007, 04:38 PM

You're funny. I am still wondering why a Civic. Do people really like these cars? I used to have to work on them, and I thought people only bought them because they were cheap.

Posted by: Hammy Sep 19 2007, 04:45 PM

Anybody who's tried to do quick drag race/rice shifting with a 901 can tell it's not a trans made for that....But then what IS it made for?

Posted by: dlo914 Sep 19 2007, 05:10 PM

According to an article on autos.yahoo.com the 2008 Honda Civic Si Coupe weighs in at 2877lbs. http://autos.yahoo.com/honda_civic_si_coupe_6_spd_mt-specs/?p=ext

Posted by: grantsfo Sep 19 2007, 06:09 PM

Yeah think about it. 2900 lb Civic with less than 200 hp and measley 139 ft lbs of torque. Then you throw in gas and passenger and the thing is over 3000 lbs. Yeah its a real drag rocket. Those are power to weight ratios similar to an original wimpy 2.5 liter Boxster.

Most of the real road tests put the Civic SI over 15 seconds in the quarter mile and over 7 seconds to go from 0-60. The civic aint no drag racer either.

I'd go against that Honda with a well tuned 2056 in a slightly stripped 914 with short ratio gears.

Posted by: cobra94563 Sep 19 2007, 06:42 PM

OK, I don't want to drive a civic and of course I would take a 3.0 or a 3.2 over a civic... but could a (modified) 914/4 match up? I mean 2 liter vs 2.x liter...
I gotta admit that's pretty good performance for someone on a budget.

Posted by: Hammy Sep 19 2007, 06:52 PM

Yes I think so... Like grantsfo said a mild to hot 4 could keep up.

Posted by: jd74914 Sep 19 2007, 07:43 PM

With shorter gears . . . thats the key; a close ratio gearbox

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Sep 19 2007, 07:50 PM

And this conversation is still going? Why? Besides, it doesn't really matter what kind of car you have if the driver isn't a good driver. At some AX events I see GT-3s fall to a little 914, and not because the 914 was faster.

Posted by: porschecb Sep 19 2007, 09:05 PM

This should end!!!! Lets get back to the 4 vs 6 topic!!!!

Dam! Somethings never go away!

Posted by: Eddie914 Sep 19 2007, 09:39 PM

My 3.2 (2?? hp 2050lb) teener easily spanks my 3.5 liter (256 hp 3200lb) daily driver.

What makes you think it will be any differnt with a 197 ph Civic?

Eddie

Posted by: Brett W Sep 19 2007, 09:43 PM

Yeah and I watched a DSP Neon beat all but two full out open wheel race cars at an autocross this weekend. You can't compare modified cars to stock cars.

On paper the Civic beats the stock 914 and 914-6 in every objective category. It has AC, CD, Navigation, etc. Beats it in emissions, reliability, drivability, power, and handling. It won't over heat the heads because it was lugged around town, it doesn't leak all over the garage floor, or leak water in through the weatherstripping. It has airbags and modern safety ratings. The gearbox is not as vague as a spoon in a bowl of mashed potatoes, the engine doesn't sound like a diesel, and it doesn't float the valves at 5700rpm. It still makes more torque than either a stock 914-6 or a 914-4. Lets not even discuss HP.

The power to weight ratio of each car is:
73 914-4 2.0 22.1lbs/hp
70 914-6 2.0 18.9lbs/hp
2007 Civic Si 2.0 14.6lbs/hp

Civic wins. In 30years the Civic will not be a rust pile of junk that needs to have floorpans, trunk floors, hell holes, etc repaired or replaced. The interior will will probably have fallen apart, but that is the nature of modern plastics. The transmission won't fail at twice the listed HP, the engine is bolt ons away from well over 260hp and capable of 300+ in NA form. Lets not even talk turbos.

Now the 914 has a character that probably won't ever be matched by the Civic. Soul is getting hard to come by on the new car lots these days. But it is still a 30+ year old car and you have to deal with those issues and advantages. A 914 is a light weight car that is what really makes the roadster experience "all that". It has a visceral feel to it that is hard to come by these days. Nothing like the sound of an aircooled six right behind your head.

Both cars have their advantages and disadvantages. It is all personal preference. If you want to see which car is better, bring them to an autocross, road course, drag race and daily driving test. Then decide which one is better.

Posted by: Andyrew Sep 19 2007, 11:40 PM

On the topics of mustangs, I am not impressed with them..
The stock 944 turbo we had (with a chip) was faster than the new mustang GT... (boy that guy was pissed...)


901 trani's are way stronger than I ever thought...

At least my mystery box is..
I am putting way over 350lbs of tq down, and roasting the tires in 2nd and 3rd(no clutch use here, just throttle down, 275's in the back spinnin like crazy)

Posted by: angerosa Sep 20 2007, 07:53 AM

Very well said!

Posted by: grantsfo Sep 20 2007, 08:56 AM

I find that comparing peak HP to weight to be misleading sometimes. While its a fairly good indicator of how a car will do it misses many factors.

Overall power band with both torque and HP are important. Where does that Honda make peak torque and HP? Where does 914 make its peak? Bet that 914 has more or similar peak torque than the Honda in lower RPM's which actually makes the 914 easier to drive in daily traffic. Honda has always irritated me with their low displacement street cars not making enogh low end torque. I actually passed up a S2000 with a high strung 2.4 liter in favor of the new Mazda MX5 because the MX5 had much better low end response for daiy driving with its smaller 2.0 motor.

The new Civic SI would be a real pain in the AS$ for me to drive regardless of its modern . I went with a Mazda sedan that makes 280 ft lbs of torque at at 2800 RPM. Wonder where that honda makes its mighty 139 ft lbs?

When you start factoring in extra weight in a car from 4 passengers the new SI is really struggling. Nothing like whipping a motor to death when you have friends and family in your car just to accelerate onto the feerway etc.

Posted by: cobra94563 Sep 20 2007, 10:12 AM

I respectfully disagree. My daughter's Integra GSR was a kick to drive. 1.8 ltr 170hp and 128 tq, 8k redline. The VTEC kicks in at 6k. I always felt that engine was/is way better than my '90 C2 3.6 in terms of hp/liter & feel. (just needs to be bigger. doesn't leak either )

Don't know how the civic feels but sounds like a significant upgrade.

Posted by: Brian Mifsud Sep 20 2007, 10:45 AM

Earlier I derided the "Civic" as "still just a Civic". I guess the idea of judging a car by shear speed/acceleration is reasonable measure if that is your priority. None of us bought a 914 for those attributes (except for the turbo-6 and 8 cylinder crowd). Growing up in a family who drove a total of 5 Beetles, my idea of "fast" was very relative. The idea of a 2.0 liter Stock VW engined car was the ultimate "step up" to an 18 year old who knew nothing better than 1641cc before then.

Even though the cost of entry in the 914 world is pretty darn cheap, I still feel the exclusivity of owning one. Today, I see fewer and fewer on the road then when I was a teenager.

Mostly, I JUST LIKE THE WAY THE CAR LOOKS!.. .it still looks very cool, with PERFECT proportions.


When my 10 year old son is helping wash and wax all the cars, he has a choice of going for a ride after in the following:

1) 215HP Mustang GT 3400lbs, 45 Series Tires
2) 109 HP Honda "FIT" w/ Paddle shifters 2300 lbs 50 series Tires
3) 85 HP '76 914 2100lbs w/ 80 Series "Beetle" tires.....

There is no contest.. ever....

Posted by: Chris Hamilton Sep 20 2007, 10:47 AM

I've driven my friends RSX-S at autocross ( it's basically a new Civic SI, it has the K20A2 engine and the same base chasis ).

My long rods 2.0L with a stock cam would spank it hands down in an autocross, a road race, or a drag race. It would probably catch up and pass me when I ran out of gearing at 110mph.

The problem is that it just doesn't have the powerband. It has 6 pretty close ratio speeds, but if you rev it all the way out to redline, and slam it into the next gear you're out of the powerband again. My teener pulls just as hard across the entire RPM range as that acura does during it's brief spurt of power at the top.

Heres me driving the RSX ( Civic Si )

Posted by: Hammy Sep 20 2007, 11:15 AM

You've raised him well

Posted by: Brett W Sep 20 2007, 11:17 AM

I can agree with Grant's argument to some degree. The Civic makes peak torque in the 6100rpm range. With some ECU tuning I would imagine you could improve the power in the lower rpm range. But Honda has never been about making gobs of lowend torque. They have always been of the sport bike mentality. Which in my opinion is the way the 914 should be. it should have a high winding motor that more closely fits the personality of a sports car. The Tractor motor should never have been put in that car.

Now The bigger Honda engines are not total gutless wonders. The 1.8 B series engine is a strong torquey engine. It is great to drive around town. The SOHC engines have no torque and no power in stock trim. But my turbo engine makes great bottom end torque. Yet a different discussion.

Mazda makes some nice cars, too bad they are just rebadged Fords. Plus I don;t see how anyone can drive a Miata and call that a fun driving experience. The damn thing feels like it is going to tip over at any minute and it definitely doesn't feel planted and solid like my teener.

The Civic should have different driving characteristics than the S2000. I would go drive one and see how it feels around town before comparing it.

One thing I noticed doing some other research the other night, my 1994 GMC 1500 truck weighs less than a new Mustang. 3611lbs vs. 3950. What was Ford thinking and where did they hide all of the weight.

I would like to take a modern K series engine from Honda (probably the 2.4 engine) and drop it in a lighter CRX or 88 Civic and drive it daily. That car would be awesome as a daily driver. 2100lbs with 260hp, plus Honda reliability. But I digress.

Posted by: purple Sep 20 2007, 11:41 AM

Agreeing with what was said in the S2000 vs mx5 debate... I had a mx5 with the 6 spd manual and could do no gas starts in traffic, a useful thing to do in houston traffic. my buddy's s2000 would NOT do a no-gas start to save it's life. if you're driving around and the rpms drop below 2000, the thing starts to lug and act like it's going to quit, absolutely NO torque for where you do most of your daily driving.

on the other hand, where the miata runs out of steam, at 7000rpm, the s2000 is just getting into vtec and takes off like a scaulded cat. It's a car that needs to be flogged to drive, but it's doable. the mx5 is a very nice car, the s2000 is a very nice car, but it plays in the boxter, slk market. the mx5 plays in the mx5, sky, solstice market.

Posted by: Brett W Sep 20 2007, 11:56 AM

One thing I have seen with many customers, is the American mentality about RPM. When you grow up with big American engines that make peak torque in the 2000-3000 rpm range you don't drive small engines the way they should be driven. When the Vette cruises at 1800-2000 rpm it leads people to try and drive the civic and other small engines the same way. Add to that, the low rpm 2.5 litre four cylinders manufactured by several American and German car companies. You have to approach Japanese engines with a different set of tactics.

Posted by: Vacca Rabite Sep 20 2007, 01:42 PM

He chooses the FIT, right? RIGHT!?


Zach

Posted by: Brando Sep 20 2007, 02:12 PM

Well, after all of that, take into consideration... what's the civic going to be worth in 30 years? A fully restored or excellent condition teener? Problem solved!

Posted by: grantsfo Sep 20 2007, 03:41 PM

I grew up with Porsches and Fiats and one of my first cars was a Hillman IMP with a 1000cc Coventry Climax motor that was a rev happy formula car motor. I have owned 3 Civic Si's. Great cars if you want to be botherered with constantly reving the things. And regardless of how well you know how to shift low torque motors you'll always find yourself in a situation in traffic when you want to squirt around someone where it takes two down shifts to get power band. On the track you'll always find a corner that works against a low torque motor unless youre part of a big budget team that can setup perfect gear ratios for every track you run.

Funny thing is I call the Mazda/Ford MZR series motors in both the MazdasSpeed and my MX5 "truck" motors. They make great amounts of torque low down. Makes for much more useable power band. I think Porsche did very well with T4 truck motor. For its time it was a great compromise and a very flexible powerplant that offered great ecomomy, reasonable performance and drivability and enough power to make it a fairly quick based on 1970 sports car standards.

Posted by: Brett W Sep 20 2007, 07:08 PM

What will the Civic be worth in 30 years? Who knows. Would you have ever expected a 2000$ Camaro to sell for 100K$? There is no telling what kids now days will want as a remembrance of their childhood. Personally I would not own a relatively perfect restoration of a car, any car. Too many compromises with production autos. Would rather just to be able to play with what ever I can.

Posted by: Mid_Engine_914 Sep 20 2007, 08:22 PM

For what it’s worth…

Posted by: grantsfo Sep 20 2007, 09:58 PM

What software is that? Is there an online calculotor like this anywhere?

Posted by: Mid_Engine_914 Sep 20 2007, 10:05 PM

It's Drag Racing Analyzer from Performance Trends

http://www.performancetrends.com/download.htm#dra

Posted by: Brett W Sep 20 2007, 10:41 PM

Why would anyone want a VR6 engine in a 914? It is worse than the T4.

Posted by: Mid_Engine_914 Sep 21 2007, 12:39 AM

Nah, VR6s are smooth and sound great.

Posted by: Brett W Sep 21 2007, 01:05 AM

But they weigh a ton, make no power, are very tall, and not very efficient. A Nissan or Audi V6 would be a much better choice. I beat up on VR6 owners all the time with my measly 1.6 engine.

Posted by: jd74914 Sep 21 2007, 09:26 AM

VRt's can make pretty good power

Posted by: Brett W Sep 21 2007, 11:05 AM

1.8Ts can make more power for less money. They also weigh less and were designed as a turbo engine from the get go.

Posted by: dlo914 Sep 21 2007, 12:51 PM

Since on the debate about weight to power rate issues w/ the new civic, a buddy of mine had a 93' Honda Civic Si Hatchback that had a GSR B18c installed. Now we're talking 2200 lb civic w/ the 170hp and 128tq, and 8k redline. Man that thing flew and hauled ass even w/ a car full of people. Being that it was an Si it had the creature comforts of Cruise Control, Moonroof, A/C, Powersteering, all the modern day accessories back in 93'. And to top it off it was BAR certified so even if he got pulled over randomly and the cop had him pop his hood he'd be safe from any tickets. Too bad he sold it just recently and went w/ a 97' Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-Turbo w/ the Lancer Evo 4G63. Now he's addicted to boost.

After all this blabbering i'd still get a 914 it's just something about the character, simplicity, and handling of a 914, but for power train i'd have to go w/ something from Fuji Heavy Industries LTD (Subaru).

Posted by: Mid_Engine_914 Sep 21 2007, 12:58 PM

IIRC, when I had my VR6 shipped it weighed 425 lbs including the 40 lb pallet. The motor was complete except for the exhaust downpipes so it probably weighs around 400 lbs or about 80 pounds more than a Type IV. GIAC has a very good reputation and I have one of their chips that they say will add about 10 hp for a total of around 180. I test fitted the VR6 a while ago and with the rain tray removed it will have to be mounted about 4 inches lower than the stock motor to make it fit plus the rear firewall area will have to be modified but others have done even more radical mods to fit motors such as this 1.8T.

Posted by: dlo914 Sep 21 2007, 01:10 PM

The tilting installatioin of the VR6 motor reminds me of the installation of a 3rd Generation 3SGTE (Toyota MR2 Turbo'd Engine) into a 1983-87 Toyota Corolla 2dr/3dr Hatchback/Coupe. They would tilt the engine slightly to avoid having to modify the cross member for the oil pan to clear the cross member. A buddy of mine a while back had a MARK 3 (91'-98') VW Jetta VR6, that thing was pretty sweet it was lowered on some Eibach Prosport lowering springs and sat on some 16" BBS wheels and it was black w/ black leather interior. And that baby hauled ass! One Jetta i'd definitely get!

Good luck Mid Engine 914 on the conversion and keep us updated w/ progress pics!

Posted by: Mid_Engine_914 Sep 21 2007, 01:39 PM

Thank you. I'll be ordering a http://www.shopoutfitters.com/TubeBender3.html from Shop Outfitters soon and hope to finally get started on this swap.

P.S. I bet your buddy's VR6 sounded really sweet too.

Posted by: Brett W Sep 21 2007, 01:53 PM

Last time I checked the VR6 weighs 200lbs more than a similar VW Four cylinder. So you have a motor in the car that makes 180hp wieghs 400+lbs and at best will make 210+hp. You are better off running a V8.

The VR6 is a good motor for what it was designed, pushing a heavy ass Jetta, Passat, or Golf around. It is far from a performance engine. It has very little aftermarket support and even less performance potential. The design of the VR6 engine does not lend itself to good performance. It has an awful head design, the cam drive system is less than adequate, its oiling system is awful, etc.

I have one laying around would love to get rid of it, but would never consider putting it into a 914. You would be better off putting a Lexus V8 in it. Makes 250hp and 260ft/lbs and weighs 450lbs.

Posted by: Mid_Engine_914 Sep 21 2007, 03:07 PM

Automobile magazine







Sports Car Illustrated

Posted by: Dave_Darling Sep 21 2007, 09:36 PM

I have a friend who did that swap. Yes, it is pretty awesome. The handling of the car suffers significantly, though, as the CRX was designed to have a much smaller and lighter drivetrain in the front.


...Let's see, VR6 fan and posts images of magazine articles... Mid-engine 914, is your first name "Alfred" by any chance???

--DD

Posted by: krazykonrad Sep 21 2007, 09:45 PM

Ball up and crush that rice burning bitch. Thats why you bought a Porsche and not a Honda.
Although, point taken, in a drag race, itas all about gearing. A type 1 can blow the civic's or the 914's doors off (for a short distance) if the gearing is short enough.
Konrad

Posted by: Brett W Sep 22 2007, 01:29 AM

Konrad, please come over and run Crow Mountain. Or comedown and run the time trial at Savannah. My Rice would like to eat some 914s.

Anyway, so the Corrado was an over priced VW. Big deal. I still think it is a bad choice for a sports car, especially one fitting the characteristics of the 914.

Dave are you sure the car you rode in was tuned to accommodate the K series engine? The K is lighter than the B series, which only weighs about 25lbs more than a stock D series drive train.

Posted by: Dave_Darling Sep 22 2007, 12:38 PM

No, I'm not sure. Most of the Civic/CRX guys aren't that interested in corners anyway...

--DD

Posted by: Brett W Sep 23 2007, 01:56 AM

Very true. Just slam it to the ground and drive through the Sonic parking lot. Corners are meant to be avoided. Too bad Honda put that really nice dual a-arm suspension front and rear so it could go around corners.

Posted by: 41ghost Sep 23 2007, 11:45 AM

about 3 weeks ago a black imported car wanted to race as i was leaving a convenience store, so i thought what the hell, it was all tricked out and had a great big exaust pipe sticking out the back . not sure what it was . i guess it nakes a difference how well your car shifts also, none of those slow shifting 914's will make it, and what you have done to your engine and fuel manegment system., but anyway, he pulled out in front of me and took off, dam i thought i better get on it or he'll be gone. so i floored it, and got back up on him , they were fast but could not pull away from me, when i hit 4th at 90mph and started to pull over and go around him he saw me comming in his driver mirror and gave it up at 100mph. raby 2270 , and i had a lot left.

Posted by: Brett W Sep 23 2007, 07:03 PM

Lets compare some more numbers:

For the teener lets go with 2200lbs with driver
914-4 2056 (140hp)= 15.7lbs/hp
914-4 2270 (170hp)= 12.94;bs/hp
914-4 ? (200HP)= 11lbs/hp

914-6 3.0 2400lbs (200hp)= 12lbs/hp
914-6 3.6 (240hp)= 10lbs/hp


Mitsubishi EVO 3413 (271hp)= 12.59lbs/hp
WRX STi 3413 (300hp)= 11.3lbs/hp
95 RX7 Turbo 3039 (255hp)= 11.9lbs/hp
Chevy Corvette 3350lbs (400hp)= 8.375
Pontiac Solstice 3140 (260hp)=12.07
1990 Honda Civic 2500 (260hp)= 9.6lbs/hp

Guess you better watch who you pick fight with. Might bite off more than you can chew.

Of course there are the wanna bes. Nothing like a huge body kit and stock 110hp engine in there. Saw a few of those on the street last night. But I also saw a couple 300+hp cars as well that didn't look too scary. Like them or not many of them are much faster than a 914.

Posted by: Chris Hamilton Sep 23 2007, 10:39 PM

Rice burners are just like any other kind of car, there are fast ones, slow ones, and everything in between. I think the type-S I drove could have been quite competitive at the autocross if I could dial some of the understeer out of it with a rear bar.

Posted by: Hammy Sep 24 2007, 01:33 AM

I assume you're talking highly modified?

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Sep 24 2007, 02:10 AM

Are you guys still talking about this? Seriously

Posted by: Brett W Sep 24 2007, 04:35 AM

Probably so. Realtime Racing had great success with those cars. All front drivers need more rear bar.






Sure why not. Bench racing is cool. Plus as the owner of both types of cars, I feel the need to clarify some common misconceptions.



Nah, more or less stock. Its my daily driver. 30mpg city and all that.

Posted by: charliew Sep 26 2007, 11:15 AM

We went from a 3.4 v6 fiero to a 98 integra gsr for my son to go to college. Put a good header and exhaust an a cold air intake on it and when it went to vtech mode it sounded like a 302 z28 at about 6500 from the late 60's not as fast but plenty fast enough 34 miles to the gallon at 4k rpms at 80 mph all day long. No oil leaks and a 4yr old could speed shift it. Not quite as fast as a older prelude with 100k on it I tried out but really neat if you like to hear 8k and still have the air on.
I'm building a 914 with a subie but you gotta respect reliable 8k performance. Check out the mechanical engineering of any vtech and you will see new technology is the only way to beat the crap out of a performance auto and not have to lay under it more than you drive it.
Charlie

Posted by: Larry Hubby Sep 26 2007, 10:52 PM

Hard to tell if anyone is really interested in the answer to the original question that started this thread, but, if so, I think I can shed some light on it.

I have a 914-6 with a 3.0 cis engine that has had the catalytic converter/smog punp/egr/decel valves removed, a lower-restriction exhaust added, and the mixture richened for better power. I've never had it measured on a dyno, but it probably produces about 200hp. I have a 916 gearbox that has the exact same ratios as the stock 911SC, and tires with the same rolling radius as the stock SC. Since essentially everything in the drive train is the same as the SC, the accelerative force should be close to the same, and therefore the acceleration produced should be equal to that of the 911SC times the ratio of the mass of the SC to that of my 914. To show that this is true, consider two equations from freshman physics:

f = ma and v = at

where,

f = force (i.e. the torque at the wheels)
m = mass
a = acceleration produced
v = velocity
t = time

An equation of the form, f = ma, holds for both the 914 and the 911SC. If the forces for the two are the same, then:

m1a1 = m2a2

where,

m1 = mass of the 914
a1 = acceleration of the 914
m2 = mass of the 911SC
a2 = acceleration of the 911SC

So that,

a1/a2 = m2/m1

or,

a1 = a2(m2/m1)

The second equation, v = at, then says that, for a given velocity like 60mph,

a1t1 = a2t2

where,

t1 = time for the 914 to reach this velocity
t2 = time for the 911SC to reach this velocity

or,

t1 = t2(a2/a1) = t2(m1/m2)

It isn't really this simple, of course, since the force and resulting acceleration aren't constant with respect to time, but, since the equations are linear, the same relations apply to the averaged values, so the relationship should still be accurate, at least to first approximation.

According to the R&T road test of the 1978 911SC, the 0-60 time was 6.9 seconds and the test weight was about 3100lbs. My 914 weighs 2250lbs without a driver, so maybe 2450 with. This would say that the 914 should have 1.27x greater acceleration, which would mean the time to go from 0-60mph would be shorter by the same ratio. This would predict a 0-60 time of 5.45 seconds, which is in-line with what I measure on my car with a G-Force computer - I've seen 5.5-5.7 seconds fairly consistently.

I haven't raced anyone in a Civic, new or old, but this would say that the 914 should pull the Civic by a rather comfortable margin.

Posted by: Brett W Sep 27 2007, 10:46 AM

Why not just put it on the dyno? 75 dollars would answer many questions. But for a car that makes 180hp at the wheels it won't be as fast. A 3.0 914 will have a power to weight ratio of 12:1. Not bad, will be in modified Civic territory, MX3 territory, might could play with an STI or EVO from a roll, but never from a dig.

Nonetheless it will be fun to drive.