Printable View
hey guys!! how fast do the civic vti-r's do 0-100km/h in???
i think my car is GLi.. hahahah
or im an sk........ bigtym :oops:
i've seen the ppl in the states quote times of like 7.3seconds 0-100 for their Civic Si, which is essentially our Civic Coupe VtiR... wtf... thats so fast...
the best ive done is a 7.5
warm rubber and dropped it at 4000.
dont go by the US specs. They tend to exagerrate their specs because they LOVE their hondas and thrive on these figures to sell cars.
how did u measure the time dude? damn... i think im a really crap driver then.. cant launch for peanuts.. hahahahQuote:
Originally Posted by Civic Type R
with a G Tech Pro
it was accurate to a 10th of a second on both tested accasions on a 1/4 mile too.
Was your car stock at the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Civic Type R
yesQuote:
Originally Posted by SiR
My SiR which is quite light compared to the US EM1 Si (VTiR Coupe)and EK4 VTiRs won't go under 7.5 - I have NFI how they claim better in stock trim.
I don't believe G-Tech meters either. I've seen too many bullshit figures in the past.
Not saying yours isn't right, but I have seen crap with them.
Aren't time's differed based on launch, different conditions outside Temp, driver ? :?
If anyone want's to gamble wit da unaccurate G-tech, then I can get my Cousin's one for uz to try out? :lol:
hehe yeh i think GTECH is not 100% accurate, i dont care what ppl say but how accurate can a device that plugs into ur cigarette lighter be for measuring 0-100 1/4 etc..
although theres ones like apexi RSm i think?? connects to the ECU, so thats kinda better in terms of accuracy IMO..
case in point, a guy on club rsx timed his DC5R with two different GTECH and recorded 8.2 and 7.5 with 2 different gtech meters!
having said that i have seen "realistic" times with them so im not calling anyone BS.. im just after an indication of what the EK4's are capable of, as i see too many ppl post BS about them.. haha, like theres some guy on another forum who says his car is even with DC5R and driver skill was NOT a factor.. wtf.. haha
ive driven ur car before tony, i got a 6.0 flat for 0-100kpH!! but then i woke up :lol:
im just saying what time i got - as recorded on the meter.
I agree with all of the responses with the variables so dont turn this into a biatching session please.
sorry mate! didnt mean for it to come across like that, i was just waiting for someone else with say APEXI rsm or some other way of measuring it to contribute as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by Civic Type R
thanks for ur contribution nonetheless as it gives an indication of how good our lil cars are :)
cheers
I don't think anyone did :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Civic Type R
A UK road test timed the VTI-R hatch at 7.7 sec to 60 mph. Their fuel is a bit better than ours so I suppose mid 8's is realistic.. :D
APEXi on this forum has an RSM!!!
but he's civic is sedan!! but he has full exhaust!!! kekeke
also 100km/h = 62mph or something like that, not 60, soo probably makes some time difference?
Ummm - they're fuel is about the same as ours. Japans is a lot better.Quote:
Originally Posted by greecegun
In the UK the EE8 and EE9 B16As were dropped to 150bhp as they didn't run knock sensors and the UK and Europe had inferior fuel.
....lol....wouldn't have thought we'd see that sorta schoolboy slip up from an English teacher..... ;) :twisted:Quote:
Originally Posted by Setanta
Dunno if i can help here... Well, i got an RSM and best time i've done in my stocky CTR is 7.1 sec. This was launching at about 5000 on sum pretty bald tyres. I wonder if it can get under 7... :lol:
The EK4's time on paper is about 8 seconds, rite???
whats the 0-400m time on a stock or mildly modded civic vtir?
random guess, close to 16 :PQuote:
Originally Posted by sui
15.3 for a SiR without accessories and running the LSD option. The road going "fat" option is good for 15.6 - take the VTiR from there as it weighs more.
The Yanks will tell you the coupe will do 15s in stock form - go figure whether it's believable or not ;)
Really? I supsect theirs is still better than ours, if not as good as Japan's. I have been reading UK as well as Oz car rags for years.Quote:
Ummm - they're fuel is about the same as ours. Japans is a lot better.
In the UK the EE8 and EE9 B16As were dropped to 150bhp as they didn't run knock sensors and the UK and Europe had inferior fuel.
Why else do identical models in the Uk get consistently better accelaration times? It has been like this for years. Australia probably has the worst fuel quality of any develped nation.
From what I know, the 'official' 0-100km/h for the VTi-R is 7.6-7.8 sec.Quote:
Originally Posted by Setanta
I have a clip of an american Si doing 15.2 for the 0-400m run. I believe it has a CAI/exhaust.
Go look at the stats. EE8/EE9 = 150bhp, no knock sensor. EF8/EF9 160ps (158bhp), knock sensor. The reason the B16A was detuned was fuel.Quote:
Originally Posted by greecegun
Personally KNOWING VT owners, we looked at the mapping etc, looking at the mapping, comparing the motors etc we came to the conclusion it was the early '90s fuel that led to the detuned VT compared to the SiR. BTW, the UK VTiR runs the same spec engine as the Aussie one: 160bhp, not the JDM SiR II's 170bhp. So explain that one?
I'm always wary of official numbers - it makes good sales and thats about it. Usually the figures are done on a minimum equipped car. I have never replicated Honda's 15.3 with the SiR and no of no-one who can. 15.4 was the closest that a guy came with the road-varient and optional LSD. Of course, that can be easily beaten by a ED with B16A due to weight differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiR
CAI/exhaust is not stock remember. :)
Yeah, true...but some manufacturers tend to be conservative about their 0-100km/h times.
I can confirm that the US Si did 15.2@91.884 mph with an AEM CAI only. Not stock, yes...but close. Impressive time nonetheless :)
I am very well aware that the UK spec VTI (wasn't called the VTIR there) had the same 158 hp motor as Oz, and the the Jap spec was 170 or so. But the same 158 hp motor being tested in Zo with worse fuel than in he UK will be enough to make a difference.Quote:
Personally KNOWING VT owners, we looked at the mapping etc, looking at the mapping, comparing the motors etc we came to the conclusion it was the early '90s fuel that led to the detuned VT compared to the SiR. BTW, the UK VTiR runs the same spec engine as the Aussie one: 160bhp, not the JDM SiR II's 170bhp. So explain that one?
_________________
I think you need to read what is posted before commenting and look at the designations being cited. The EF8/EF9/XSi B16As all produced 160ps, the EE8 and EE9 produced 150bhp, the XSi had no Euro counterpart other than the 1st gen 'teg/Rover with ZC and 2nd gen B18A1. Please get your facts correct before commenting. It wasn't until the EG6 that the B16A hit 170ps and the Euro spec equivilent was detuned to 160bhp.
Also, please note that the '88-'91 B16A powered Civic and CRX WERE called the VT in the UK and a lot of Europe (where it was also called the CRX/Civic "VTEC". Please get your facts straight before mixing up your designations.
Please also note that my JDM EF9 runs 160ps and is in JDM spec tune and running fine on Aussie fuel hitting peak power. Note I said JDM tune, not the same specs as the (much) later OBD Aussie B16As etc in the 3rd gen CRX and the VTiR Coupe and hatch.
Keep quoting your magazines and NOT your experience at me though, I find it amusing.
16.2 sec.Quote:
Originally Posted by sui
I find it amusing that you are trying to blind everyone with science and forget the question that started this post. :PQuote:
I think you need to read what is posted before commenting and look at the designations being cited. The EF8/EF9/XSi B16As all produced 160ps, the EE8 and EE9 produced 150bhp, the XSi had no Euro counterpart other than the 1st gen 'teg/Rover with ZC and 2nd gen B18A1. Please get your facts correct before commenting. It wasn't until the EG6 that the B16A hit 170ps and the Euro spec equivilent was detuned to 160bhp.
Also, please note that the '88-'91 B16A powered Civic and CRX WERE called the VT in the UK and a lot of Europe (where it was also called the CRX/Civic "VTEC". Please get your facts straight before mixing up your designations.
Please also note that my JDM EF9 runs 160ps and is in JDM spec tune and running fine on Aussie fuel hitting peak power. Note I said JDM tune, not the same specs as the (much) later OBD Aussie B16As etc in the 3rd gen CRX and the VTiR Coupe and hatch.
Keep quoting your magazines and NOT your experience at me though, I find it amusing.
We are trying to compare apples with apples. A Civic VTi-R around 95-96 etc etc etc etc.
:x
The Oz spec VTIR is quoted at 158 hp.
The UK spec VTI in a 1997 road test was ALSO quoted at 158 hp.
As a guide, they got 7.7 sec to 60 mph (ok 100 kmh is 62 mph but close enough).
All I am saying is that OZ spec car should be slightly slower than that, everything else being equal, due to our worse fuel. Fuel in the UK is better than here, as is European fuel. Maybe you shoul;d get your facts correct for a change.
If cars on the UK or the Continent have been detuned in comparison to Australian equivalents, it is not because their fuel is worse than our. Totally the opposite. It because their emissions regulations are tougher than ours.
Sorry If I haven't had the time or inclination to jet around the world and test all possible variants of the 1.6 litre DOHC engine, as I suspect that all motoring magazones are a conspiracy.
why doesnt someone just go to the strip and measure their 1/4 mile times instead of this bitch-slapping session? :? [/quote]
Hahahahahahahha - prove to me where I'm wrong "for a change" :pQuote:
Originally Posted by greecegun
BTW - I'm figuring that 18 years on the road with more than a few performance cars gives me a little bit of knowledge - other than what I read in mags.
Explain to me why the UK cars have been detuned compared to the JDM ones and I might believe you over the past years (where your original statement first came from). But the fact is that according to the EE owners, the cars were detuned because their fuel was well below JDM requirements. We then move to the EG series (as in our 3G CRX and their EG Ciics with VTEC and you'll notice that power ratios are the same for the B16A. I wonder why? Maybe because they are tuned for similar fuel requirements (but both still below JDM requirements). We then go to the EK6 and EM1 VTiRs and well golly gee, they are the same spec as their Euro counterparts but once again detuned from their JDM EK9 counterpart. I wonder why????
....
....
fuel maybe?
Then we look at the fact that one of our forum members runs a JDM EK9 on Aussie pump fuel... gee - it must be worse than what's in Europe... NOT.
So far you have quoted mag articles from the UK that do a comparison between our fuel and their fuel.... or did they just say that their fuel was good... or did they just say that their cars use fuel.
On that topic, are we talking RON or what?
Keep guessing though, ignorance is bliss :)
Because when they run @ the strip they rarely run unmodified ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LatinoHatchCrap
Good point though, I just like arguing with mag racers who believe that the magazine is god :P
[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by LatinoHatchCrap
I already have on 8 occasions. I refer to another thread online here somewhere.
5 times i got varients of 16.2 to 16.27. all @ 137 -139km/h
Using stock wheels and rubber, 32 PSI, bone stock off-the-showroom trim.
Where did you get that from? As far as I know, it's 160hp..Quote:
Originally Posted by greecegun
Heheheheh. SiR: I wasn't even going to comment on those figures ;)
118 kw (for the Oz spec) x 1.3405 = 158.18 hp, SAME as the UK VTI for the same body shape.
1 + 1 = 2. EEEEEASY......
The simple fact (and we do have to keep it simple for some poeple around here) is that European fuel is better than Australian fuel, and that Japanese fuel is even better than UK/European fuel.
Like the sky being blue, this is indisputable. If you believe otherwise, you are the one being ignorant. Or maybe your IQ is inversly proportional to the redline of a S2000. :twisted:
In any case, you have (again and again) ignored the point of this post.
I have been on the road for 20 years myself.......and not for nothing.
Wrong.Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
118 kw (for the Oz spec) x 1.3405 = 158.18 hp
118kW x 1.3592233 = 160.38hp
[/quote]
No you are wrong
120kw = 160 hp
guys who gives a fat about 2 HP!
the topic has already been answered so lets move on :)
damn damn damn...go away for a few days and i miss out on all this! :(
great entertaining read, and its good to see some knowledgable replies.
i have my own opinions on this one, but won't budge in with a 50foot borge pole! 8)
damn.. man, quickest i've done with my car car is 15.60 @ 89mph, could have gotten quicker tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Civic Type R
yeah but if you read why i got those times you will understand why its slow :)
my car was stock for the time i got
I haven't run with suspension, air filter...
i know the times should have been in the mid 15's - that was what i was expecting. :x
anyway, now with my new 4-1 racing extractors, 2 1/4 full cat back and replica mugen twin loop muffler, i hope to get well down into the 15's. If i get some slicks i'll possibly grab a 14 :evil:
if you do i'll be doing this from sydney :dance: :D :D :D :D
and i'll be doing this in brisbane... :nod: :dance: :dance: :D :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiR
From http://www.markhorrell.com/tools/power.asp
Honda Australia uses metric figures and quote 160bhp for the EK6 hatch as does Honda US with their EM1 VTiR coupes. Actually, Honda US doesn't quote KW at all, just bhp - go tell them they are wrong :PQuote:
1 kilowatt = 1.34102 UK horsepower
1 kilowatt = 1.35962 metric horsepower
I wouldn't normally carry an insignificant point this far, but a certain mag racer has questioned my knowledge and made a nice generalisation about the posts I make.
If I was a lesser person, I'd call him a tosser.
But our EK6 is a JDM SiR, not the Euro spec.Quote:
Originally Posted by greecegun
I'm sorry you consider yourself simple.Quote:
The simple fact (and we do have to keep it simple for some poeple around here)
Unfortunately, you have shown nothing to prove this at all other than to quote some vague comments about a magazine in the UK that you have read (I'm interested to see why they compared to Aussie fuel to tell you the truth)Quote:
is that European fuel is better than Australian fuel, and that Japanese fuel is even better than UK/European fuel.
I believe in proof, you have offered none. Ignorance is blindly accepting a viewpoint.Quote:
Like the sky being blue, this is indisputable. If you believe otherwise, you are the one being ignorant. Or maybe your IQ is inversly proportional to the redline of a S2000. :twisted:
BTW - my IQ was 153 last time it was tested. But given your ability with maths, I'll simple accept your "ignorance" and trite attempts at a put-down.
Actually no.Quote:
In any case, you have (again and again) ignored the point of this post.
No comment needed.Quote:
I have been on the road for 20 years myself.......and not for nothing.
Very well said - that should keep some people quiet :PQuote:
Originally Posted by setanta
You are the one that is simple, yet again.
The UK article did not mention anything about comparing fuel from the UK with anywhere else. It didn't need to. I mentioned it because it is one of many factors that contribute to disparate accelleration figures when comaring similar models in different markets.
Aust Fuel < Euro Fuel < Japanese Fuel - this is common knowlege for people that are informed about the world car and petroleum industries, except for some arguementative types..... To say otherwise is akin to saying that the Amercians build the best handling cars on the planet.
There is no such thing as "proof" for the above fuel scenario. However for example, to tell someone that the yanks build amongst the worst handling cars without offering "proof", and then having the other person discounting this due to the lack of the aforementioned "proof" would reveal that disbelieving person to be a sad anal retentive type - a well as having a great lack of common sense.
Last time I checked 118 x 1.3405 stiil equalled 158 - sorry left out the 0.179 but - that might upset people. Using 1.34102 one gets 158.2439 UK HP. Sure if you used the metric miltiplier you get 160, but the UK doesn't use this (yet) and that is what is quoted.
If 160 is quoted for the Oz spec which it does - I found a brochure - you then get 160, using the Metric HP multiplier of 1.35962. So 158 UK HP is basically the same as 160 Metric HP, or 118 kW, both the latter figures being what the Australian brochure quotes. So if the rated output is highly comparable, then the UK car will be expected to be very slightly quicker in a comparison with a Australian car running local fuel. The highest commercially available RON of the fuel available in the UK at that time was higher than what was available locally. That is all.
So that has nothing to do my "supposed" lack of mathematical ablity. You are talking to someone who uses numbers everyday at work and has earned high distinctions at uni for math and statistics subjects, but I can't "prove" that so I won't continue on that thread.
The US won't use KW - as they are not a metric country
Your IQ is 153 - but that's what you tell me. You have shown nothing to prove this. You could be even more ignorant than you make out. That would be quite scary.
"But our EK6 is a JDM SiR, not the Euro spec" Where is the "proof" of that? It is a contradiction - since when is a JDM and Australian model the same spec these days? Maybe they were in 1968, if ever.
No further comment needed ..
I am sorry that you have a vastly inflated opinion of yourself. An as I am a greater but nastier person I will not hesitate in calling you a tosser.
Seeing that me use the metric multiplier in Australia and in Japan (ps), then the VTi-R (B16A2) is quoted at 160hp for the Australia market.Quote:
Originally Posted by greecegun
You, on the other hand, kept ramming home that it is 158hp and not 160hp. You were wrong - just admit it ;) . "UK HP" is called british horsepower for you, so in fact, you should have said 158bhp from the start and this confusion and debate wouldn't have occurred in the first place!
Quote:
Originally Posted by greecegun
So first you imply that your knowledge comes from your UK magazine, then you state it doesn'tQuote:
Originally Posted by greecegun
Show me the proof - you still haven't shown anything. Lets look at the fact that pump fuel here is 98 Octane - what rating does UK fuel have?Quote:
Aust Fuel < Euro Fuel < Japanese Fuel - this is common knowlege for people that are informed about the world car and petroleum industries
I just went to Shell UK's website where they claim that their Optimax "It has the highest octane rating of any petrol in the UK which enables advanced modern design engines to work more efficiently and deliver more power"
Further research on their site states that they place it at 98+ (but not 99 etc)
Strangely enough, Shell Australia says pretty much the same thing but states that it is "only" 98.
Now I may not be a smart man, but I have a feeling that < one point in rating (if that) is going to play little difference in the acceleration of a car.
Exactly - and so is the UK... but the US quotes their EM1 B16A at.... oh let me see... what was that figure again? Oh that's right... 160bhp... NOT the UK 158bhp. Gee - even the Yanks seem to have a better engine with more power than the UK. On their fuel too :PQuote:
The US won't use KW - as they are not a metric country
I may not be a smart man, but I know what a mag racer is.Quote:
You could be even more ignorant than you make out. That would be quite scary.
BTW - before you even get started, Shell UK quotes the RON, not the MON figure - Shell Aust simply states it as "Octane" level which implies RON (no way would they quote the lower MON figure from an advertising viewpoint).
http://filestore.redlineau.com/files.../damnright.jpg
My car had 160hp on the showroom floor