Think your right, my mate took his FN2 to the track last Friday and ran a 14.1and he recons that wasn't even his best, that was his first try as a warmup. So this article in Wheels may be heavily underestimating the civic's power, needless to say that 'Wheels' is a well respected magazine, this time I think they may have underated the civic just a bit.
14.1 s on a stock FN2, What a JOKE!!!
Even a bloody turbo car can't do a low 14s consistently. If he really did a 14.1 on a stock FN2, I WILL SWALLOW and EAT the whole car. Please think before you say some BS like this. He could have done a 14.1 QUARTER METERS TIME not MILES
Even a bloody turbo car can't do a low 14s consistently. If he really did a 14.1 on a stock FN2, I WILL SWALLOW and EAT the whole car. Please think before you say some BS like this. He could have done a 14.1 QUARTER METERS TIME not MILES
Even a bloody turbo car can't do a low 14s consistently. If he really did a 14.1 on a stock FN2, I WILL SWALLOW and EAT the whole car. Please think before you say some BS like this. He could have done a 14.1 QUARTER METERS TIME not MILES
Well seeing as Honda was able to run a 6.6 0-100km, it actually is possible to run a 14.1 quarter mile. I'm not trying to talk my car up because at the end of the day the point of the thread was to try to figure out how Honda and Wheels got two completely different results and I was simply putting forward results in which one of my mates got on Friday night.
Well seeing as Honda was able to run a 6.6 0-100km, it actually is possible to run a 14.1 quarter mile. I'm not trying to talk my car up because at the end of the day the point of the thread was to try to figure out how Honda and Wheels got two completely different results and I was simply putting forward results in which one of my mates got on Friday night.
A brief description of how the times was obtained may get the doubters off ya back (for a little while). There are alot of reasons why the FN2 can or cannot get those times.
As for the quoted times from manufacturers, I understand that they sometime do it in a car with a Jap driver who would not weigh more than 60 kgs and 10lts of fuel and hundreds of runs are done to achieve the stated times.
Given that it may be possible to achieve the times on a perfect run. However give the car a chance to get around and prove its worth in the eyes of the so called true "Type R" believers
Can anyone name one other stock car in the world that has a power to weight ratio of 9.15kg per kw or worse and has magazine tested times of 14.1 sec for the quarter.
Gear ratios and an efficient drivetrain only take you so far. The only way this can happen is if Honda has underquoted the power figure.
Well seeing as Honda was able to run a 6.6 0-100km, it actually is possible to run a 14.1 quarter mile.
Easiest way to end the debate is to go out to WSID and pull a 14.1 in your car, post up a timeslip and everyone will be quiet; there'll be humble pie for alot of people here, myself included.
Easiest way to end the debate is to go out to WSID and pull a 14.1 in your car, post up a timeslip and everyone will be quiet; there'll be humble pie for alot of people here, myself included.
Yes, well when I get the time I will be heading over to track and giving it a run.
Easiest way to end the debate is to go out to WSID and pull a 14.1 in your car, post up a timeslip and everyone will be quiet; there'll be humble pie for alot of people here, myself included.
The Renault had a 0-60 of 6.2 and a 14.9 1/4. Proof that the CTR will never run a 14.1 1/4 in stock trim. The Renault had the most torque and power of the bunch. Kerb weights on all cars are very close.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Chris_typer
Bookmarks