Spanked by a Civic?, Do you think a brand new 197 HP Civic Si can beat a Options

[Andyrew]

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)

[angerosa]

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.

Very well said! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

[grantsfo]

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

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.

[cobra94563]

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?

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) )

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

[Brian Mifsud]

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....

[Chris Hamilton]

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 )
(IMG:http://www.thextremeresources.com/boshi/images/cars/IMG_9307.jpg)

[Hammy]

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....

You've raised him well (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Brett W]

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.

[purple]

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.

[Brett W]

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.

[VaccaRabite]

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....

He chooses the FIT, right? RIGHT!?
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/poke.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Zach

[Brando]

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.

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!

[grantsfo]

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.

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.

[Brett W]

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.

[Mid_Engine_914]

For what it’s worth…


(IMG:http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6193/dragraceanalyzervr61eo1.jpg)


(IMG:http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/4568/dragraceanalyzervr62yo4.jpg)

[grantsfo]

For what it’s worth…

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

[Mid_Engine_914]

It's Drag Racing Analyzer from Performance Trends

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

[Brett W]

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

[Mid_Engine_914]

Nah, VR6s are smooth and sound great.

[Brett W]

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.