J-body vs. Honda vs. Whatever thread - continued from first car thread

[White & Nerdy]

Oh you are right about the torque, but man looking at a dyno sheet for your car shows me that your peak torque drop likes a rock after 3,500 Rpms while your hp generally stays flat. This first pic is of your v6 cav:
http://www.v6z24.com/jbodyforum/download,id,24521.html

Re edit- seems to be a 3.1 v6 from what I can gather.

Then here's the b17 gsr

Both cars are i/h/e. At 5000 rpm the cars are about the same in power but after first gear that's not going to matter for the integra cus it'll never drop under 6000 Rpms after that, when you shift in the cav you'll be losing power every time.


EDIT: wait so your talking about driving on the street? In that case nothing is valid and it doesn't matter if your car has power or not because speed limits are under 40 mph and that's being generous.

Interesting. As for "dropping like a rock", that torque doesn't drop "like a rock", instead it falls smoothly as you go towards redline. Power stays fairly constant all across the rev range, though with only 115 whp after i/h/e I'm beginnig to wonder if the V6 wasn't a bit overrated from the factory. That thing would have to have pickup truck drivetrain losses otherwise. Unfortunately they stopped the pull just before 5250 (mine will spin to 6K), so I have no idea if letting the engine breathe better will expand the powerband further (mine feels like it's gasping for air above 5500, so an intake upgrade sounds about right).

The Honda does indeed exceed the Cavalier's power output, though it sure takes its sweet time getting to where it even equals said Cavalier's output, and it takes VEETAK to go any further, so as I said, peaky. It also produces next to no torque.

Even the 2.4L Turbo Diesel in my Hilux Surf sounds better than a V6 Cavalier. And it makes more torque.

I admit it isn't the best sounding engine ever, but that's taking it a bit far.

It's not actually unless you spend your entire time taking off from a dead stop/school zone speeds....

Unless your driving is exclusively highway (and no one's is), you're going to be taking off quite a bit from those speeds.

 

[ImaRobot]

Funny thing is, is that it would be hitting redline before or at the same time yours would lol.
The fact that you think it would take forever to reach that 8k redline shows that you literally have no experience with these types of cars

Looking at stock quarter mile times for both cars as well, yours ranges almost up to two seconds slower.

 

[xXKingJoshXx]

Does this really deserve a thread? Couldn't you (and everyone else involved) just forget about it and move on? Maybe if it was a Ford v. Chevy or Honda v. Toyota etc. discussion, but it's a no-brainer between a Cavalier (IIRC, that's what you had? Or a Sunfire or whatever) and a Honda.

 

[ImaRobot]

I'm glad he made his own thread. We derailed the other thread and I felt bad for it.


And yes your torque drops like a rock. In less then 2000 Rpms you already lost 40ftlbs of torque. Good thing you have such a low redline cus if that dropped any further it would have been ridiculous.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Funny thing is, is that it would be hitting redline before or at the same time yours would lol.
The fact that you think it would take forever to reach that 8k redline shows that you literally have no experience with these types of cars

Looking at stock quarter mile times for both cars as well, yours ranges almost up to two seconds slower.

I suppose the Integra might be decent, though like I said, torque. Torque is versatility, allowing the car to do more things better, which is important when you can only afford to own one car. Torque carries heavy loads (such as large quantities of passengers/cargo), torque pulls you up hills without you having to downshift, torque lets you cruise around in 5th on some surface streets. Horsepower + light weight can make you quick in ideal conditions, but when conditions aren't ideal, you'll be stranded. And it still sounds like the Attack of the Killer Vuvuzelas. Also missing is that big satisfying jump off the line. "VTEC. Now you can have the lag without the turbo!"

Does this really deserve a thread? Couldn't you (and everyone else involved) just forget about it and move on? Maybe if it was a Ford v. Chevy or Honda v. Toyota etc. discussion, but it's a no-brainer between a Cavalier (IIRC, that's what you had? Or a Sunfire or whatever) and a Honda.

He's talking about an Acura, not a Honda. The Integra had a significantly better engine than the 91 and 97 CI tin cans present in the Civic DX and EX, as well as pre-1996 Si models.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

What's the point of this thread? The J-body is ****, and that's all there is to it.

Torque isn't necessary in a sports car, at least not as much as light weight is. Explain to me what constitutes non-ideal conditions, I really don't understand your point. Stranded? Really? My 13b makes peak torque at around 6,500-7,000rpm, but it still climbs hills just fine, and it runs 14's, normally aspirated, with only intake and exhaust modifications from 1300cc on stock porting and low compression.

 

[ImaRobot]

I suppose the Integra might be decent, though like I said, torque. Torque is versatility, allowing the car to do more things better, which is important when you can only afford to own one car. Torque carries heavy loads (such as large quantities of passengers/cargo), torque pulls you up hills without you having to downshift, torque lets you cruise around in 5th on some surface streets. Horsepower + light weight can make you quick in ideal conditions, but when conditions aren't ideal, you'll be stranded. And it still sounds like the Attack of the Killer Vuvuzelas. Also missing is that big satisfying jump off the line. "VTEC. Now you can have the lag without the turbo!"

Wait so first you try to talk about how fast your car is, and now your talking about carrying mass weight? I would have got a truck if I knew I was going to be carrying a lot of weight around. Also, make it sound as if your car has a ton of torque when in reality you have about 35ftlbs more then that tiny 4 cylinder integra.

Lag without the turbo lol

In your case it's "lag...only lag..."

He's talking about an Acura, not a Honda. The Integra had a significantly better engine than the 91 and 97 CI tin cans present in the Civic DX and EX, as well as pre-1996 Si models.

Wrong again. Honda owns every bit of Acura so your point is moot. Also, the 1994 Honda civic del sol came with a b16. Way lighter of a car then that Acura, and it's still in the same gen as your cavalier.

 

[White & Nerdy]

1st gear pull from an 18mph roll starting at 4k Rpms. E gets to redline pretty darn quick if you ask me. Every time he shifts he lands after 6k Rpms keeping him at peak power every single gear. The same cant be said about your car as after 3500 your loosing a boat load of torque while keeping the same 110 hp

Nice, actually, though comments on the sound are going to have to wait. The only V6es I've ever heard that sounds worse than a stock I4 is the GM 4300, and the GM 3800 which I think is a 90deg V6 on a 60deg V6 bellhousing.

My response in general is, it's a combination of characteristics. The V6 is quick enough for most things (and since the people in those videos break the speed limit, I might have to report you for posting them), including beating non-Si Hondas (which is mostly what's around, and IMO it's not that far from being able to take Si variants as well) has the torque to get things done, and doesn't bear any resemblance to the World Cup as far as sound goes. Refinement and comfort are non factors as far as I'm concerned.

And since the people in those videos break the speed limit, I might have to report you for posting them.

 

[ImaRobot]

Nice, actually, though comments on the sound are going to have to wait. The only V6es I've ever heard that sounds worse than a stock I4 is the GM 4300, and the GM 3800 which I think is a 90deg V6 on a 60deg V6 bellhousing.

My response in general is, it's a combination of characteristics. The V6 is quick enough for most things (and since the people in those videos break the speed limit, I might have to report you for posting them), including beating non-Si Hondas (which is mostly what's around, and IMO it's not that far from being able to take Si variants as well) has the torque to get things done, and doesn't bear any resemblance to the World Cup as far as sound goes. Refinement and comfort are non factors as far as I'm concerned.

And since the people in those videos break the speed limit, I might have to report you for posting them.

Actually your way off if you think you can beat the Si variants. The lower class Hondas have anywhere from 80-110 hp compared to the 160-170 gsr and so variants. But since your car is the top of the cavilier line it's only right to compare it o the top of the Honda line from the same generation.

Lol you sounds like the typical kid that has no way to finish the arguement he started. " oh yes well I'm going to tell my mommy!"

Go report me. The first vid is just the odometer so that ones staying. The second would be a problem I bet, and if I saw my car going that slow I would try to figure out anyway possible to get it from public view as well.

But good job avoiding everything that was said 👍

 

[White & Nerdy]

Actually your way off if you think you can beat the Si variants. The lower class Hondas have anywhere from 80-110 hp compared to the 160-170 gsr and so variants. But since your car is the top of the cavilier line it's only right to compare it o the top of the Honda line from the same generation.

Lol you sounds like the typical kid that has no way to finish the argue net he started. " oh yes well I'm going to tell my mommy!"

Go report me. The first vid is just the odometer so that ones staying. The second would be a problem I bet, and if I saw my car going that slow I would try to figure out anyway possible to get it from public view as well.

But good job avoiding everything that was said 👍

If you actually read it you'll see I didn't "avoid" anything, but as for beating Si Hondas, I know a few upgrades would probably be required. 'Course, once you get into there, it's anyone's game.

As for reporting, that's not so much a cheap shot as it is the fact that GTP policy is extremely strict on street racing/clandestine test runs/general hooning, which is uncommon on the internet but whatever.

I haven't done it by the way.

 

[ImaRobot]

If you actually read it you'll see I didn't "avoid" anything, but as for beating Si Hondas, I know a few upgrades would probably be required. 'Course, once you get into there, it's anyone's game.

As for reporting, that's not so much a cheap shot as it is the fact that GTP policy is extremely strict on street racing/clandestine test runs/general hooning, which is uncommon on the internet but whatever.

I haven't done it by the way.

Yes you avoided everything. Your whole post is about comfort, sound, refinement, reporting the post, beating cars that are not the ones we are talking about, and reporting my post again. You did not address one thing I said.

It may be against the aup because he is on the street, but that does not mean its not a cheap shot and you are doing it because of obvious reasons besides the aup.

I'd also like to single out te part where you said that you can beat an si if you modify your car.. Isn't that a no brainer? Why not allow both cars to have the similar upgrades instead of just going you the advantage, or better yet run them both stock. What you said just supports what I said about how your car won't beat it.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

For laughs I actually clicked the graph from the original post

http://www.v6z24.com/jbodyforum/download,id,24521.html

That dyno graph is so pathetic it's actually funny. That powerband isn't remotely fun, it would be more suited for a tractor or forklift. I'm talking KA24E levels of drearyness.

Compare that to a 13b:

Beautifully broad torque band from 4,000 all the way to redline. This is what makes rotary engines so damn fun to beat on. They never stop pulling. I've done a few pulls in my car without looking at the tach, and when I look down, the needle is off the end of the scale and the overrev buzzer is blaring.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Yes you avoided everything. Your whole post is about comfort, sound, refinement, reporting the post, beating cars that are not the ones we are talking about, and reporting my post again. You did not address one thing I said.

It may be against the aup because he is on the street, but that does not mean its not a cheap shot and you are doing it because of obvious reasons besides the aup.

I'd also like to single out te part where you said that you can beat an si if you modify your car.. Isn't that a no brainer? Why not allow both cars to have the similar upgrades instead of just going you the advantage, or better yet run them both stock. What you said just supports what I said about how your car won't beat it.

In that case, the ranking would be something like:

S2000 <<< goes without saying, because sportscar
'05-up Civic Si
Integra Type-R
Integra GSR
'96-'04 Civic Si, '94-up Del Sol Si
Sunbird SE/GT V6
Non-GSR/Type-R Integras
Civic/Del Sol EX
'95 and earlier Civic Si
Civic DX
Civic HX

So about midpack, with the cranked up cars people wish they had on top, and the tin cans most people actually end up with stuck on the bottom. So as far as the original discussion that spawned this thread, no, telling someone "just get a Honda Civic" isn't very smart. If they get an Si or one of the better Integras, they get a fast-revving, torqueless, yet somehow decently quick vuvuzela that makes you look stupid when you downshift and stomp on it (most of the people I know IRL rather like the sound of the Sunbird, probably for that same reason). If they get stuck with anything but, then not only is their car stereotypical and incapable of sounding exciting, but it's also absolutely helpless.

And to the guy who tried to compare a 13B to Cavaliers and Civics: really dude? I already knew most RX-7s were out of my car's league, and they're out of that Integra's league too, so I don't know what you hoped to accomplish by bringing up a rotary engine used in a sports car.

 

[Azuremen]

You do realize the GS and LS models of the Integra were still getting to 60 in under 9 seconds, and that the GS-R's can manage it in under 7 seconds on a good day? That the old '92 to '95 Si's were also in the 8 second range for 0-60, which is where the V6 J body sits?

We don't even need to think about how much better the Civic and Integra's would be around turns, or if stopping was required.

I mean, have you ever driven a Civic that was even in half decent condition, if you've driven one at all?

 

[ImaRobot]

In that case, the ranking would be something like:

S2000 <<< goes without saying, because sportscar
'05-up Civic Si
Integra Type-R
Integra GSR
'96-'04 Civic Si, '94-up Del Sol Si
Sunbird SE/GT V6
Non-GSR/Type-R Integras
Civic/Del Sol EX
'95 and earlier Civic Si
Civic DX
Civic HX

Where did you pull this from lol

s2000
Integra type-R(lighter and has around the same power as the current gen Si,s but lacking the torque. The two can probably change places.)
'11+ Si's (Different engine, same HP, alot more torque.)
'06-'10 Si's
98-00 Si, 92-93 GSR, 94-2001 GSR, 94 Del Sol Vtec. These are all pretty much on even grounds
01-04 Si
xx-95 Si

In terms of fastest to slowest.

the rest of the list doesnt matter, as you are comparing the top of the line of your car so I'm comparing the top of the line the Honda's of the same Gen. All that really is comparable since your car is older is the 92 GSR and 94 Del sol. The 95 and under Si's, while not the most powerful Honda, was still faster then your V6. The sunbird is brought up why? I know nothing of the car so i have no say.

EDIT: I see why you brought up the sunbird now, it has the same engine. So yeah, it would still be at the bottom of the revised list. Right there inbetween the -95 Si and probably even with the Integra LS and RS's (non type-r/GSR Integra's)

So about midpack, with the cranked up cars people wish they had on top, and the tin cans most people actually end up with stuck on the bottom. So as far as the original discussion that spawned this thread, no, telling someone "just get a Honda Civic" isn't very smart. If they get an Si or one of the better Integras, they get a fast-revving, torqueless, yet somehow decently quick vuvuzela that makes you look stupid when you downshift and stomp on it (most of the people I know IRL rather like the sound of the Sunbird, probably for that same reason). If they get stuck with anything but, then not only is their car stereotypical and incapable of sounding exciting, but it's also absolutely helpless.

Your v6 will be right there in last with the Older Si's. No, my original arguement was about your hate for Honda 4 cylinders, acting like your mighty v6 will blow the doors off them, when in reality its the opposite. Driving stupid in any car.. will make you look stupid so I dont get why its brought up.

I have seen hundreds of well crafted Honda's as well as equal or more crap honda's, thing is..that goes for any car. I've seen plenty that sound downright mean while still having a nice tone. The two points cant be said about a Cavalier though. I have not seen one nice Cavalier, in my life, or even online for that matter.

For a first car, a Civic should be fine. You arent(shouldnt) going to be racing so what does the amount of power have to do with anything? You should be looking for a car thats easily maintainable, good on gas, easy to drive, safe, and gets you to point A to point B. It doesnt have to be a Civic either, it can be anything as long as those points can be said about the car.

And to the guy who tried to compare a 13B to Cavaliers and Civics: really dude? I already knew most RX-7s were out of my car's league, and they're out of that Integra's league too, so I don't know what you hoped to accomplish by bringing up a rotary engine used in a sports car.

He brought up his Rx7 to show that Torque does not equal a fast car. He didnt compare it to anything, just merely pointed out the smooth power band and lack of torque and hes still able to run 14's with a car that has very little done to it.

 

[White & Nerdy]

You do realize the GS and LS models of the Integra were still getting to 60 in under 9 seconds, and that the GS-R's can manage it in under 7 seconds on a good day? That the old '92 to '95 Si's were also in the 8 second range for 0-60, which is where the V6 J body sits?

Once again, I have a hard time swallowing that about the '92-'95 Si. I suppose it's pretty light, but with only 125 hp from a small, VVT-reliant engine, I doubt it could be quite that quick.

We don't even need to think about how much better the Civic and Integra's would be around turns, or if stopping was required.

Never had a problem with either.

I mean, have you ever driven a Civic that was even in half decent condition, if you've driven one at all?

Civics in decent condition actually exist?

 

[ImaRobot]

Once again, I have a hard time swallowing that about the '92-'95 Si. I suppose it's pretty light, but with only 125 hp from a small, VVT-reliant engine, I doubt it could be quite that quick.

I know benchmark comparing is wrong, but what the heck, I might as well be as ridiculous as you.

1993 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 0-60 mph 8.2 Quarter mile 17.1

1992 Honda Civic Si 0-60 mph 8.4 Quarter mile 16.2
1992 Honda Civic Si Hatchback 0-60 mph 8.3 Quarter mile 16.3

It has a slower 0-60 time most likely because your car having more torque then it, but I guess the high revving peaky civic was able to get through a quarter faster.

just for giggles

1995 Honda Civic EX Coupe 0-60 mph 9.0 Quarter mile 16.6

1996 Honda Civic EX Sedan 0-60 mph 10.4 Quarter mile 17.4

1996 Honda Civic HX Coupe 0-60 mph 9.3 Quarter mile 16.9

1996 Honda Civic LX Sedan 0-60 mph 9.3 Quarter mile 17.2

It seems like these last three torqueless, helpless, easily stranded cars are more in your area

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You really need to drive some more cars man, that's all there is to it.

 

[McLaren]

Unless your driving is exclusively highway (and no one's is), you're going to be taking off quite a bit from those speeds.

Nope, wrong again. My driving every day is exclusively highway. I commute 20 miles a day on this road,& less than 5 of anything else.

In any instance I have ever needed to actually utilize the car's power, I have always been at speeds 40 or above. Low end torque does me almost no good if the car is downshifting at 4-5,000RPM.

I don't need low end torque because I'm never "taking off" at low speeds. Half throttle is all I need if I really need to get in front of someone.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I know benchmark comparing is wrong, but what the heck, I might as well be as ridiculous as you.

1993 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 0-60 mph 8.2 Quarter mile 17.1

1992 Honda Civic Si 0-60 mph 8.4 Quarter mile 16.2
1992 Honda Civic Si Hatchback 0-60 mph 8.3 Quarter mile 16.3

It has a slower 0-60 time most likely because your car having more torque then it, but I guess the high revving peaky civic was able to get through a quarter faster.

just for giggles

1995 Honda Civic EX Coupe 0-60 mph 9.0 Quarter mile 16.6

1996 Honda Civic EX Sedan 0-60 mph 10.4 Quarter mile 17.4

1996 Honda Civic HX Coupe 0-60 mph 9.3 Quarter mile 16.9

1996 Honda Civic LX Sedan 0-60 mph 9.3 Quarter mile 17.2

It seems like these last three torqueless, helpless, easily stranded cars are more in your area

Those times smack of Zeroto60times.com A.K.A. the most useless site on the internet. In fact, I recognize the Cavalier time, and 17.1 seems more than a little slow for a car that runs 8.2 to 60. I'll have to give mine a timed run when the drag strip opens later this spring.

Also, for what it's worth that same site had a Sunbird SE (like mine) running 9.1 to 60 and 16.5-16.7 (faster one was a vert, which casts doubt on the veracity of the data right there), which sounds like what an automatic transmission model would run. So in conclusion, that whole site is worthless, and conclusions depend on how you pick and choose data. I'd say, with a good driver and a stick shift, the JV6 would be just about dead even with that car, or maybe a bit quicker.

 

[ImaRobot]

I know benchmark comparing is wrong, but what the heck, I might as well be as ridiculous as you.

Those times smack of Zeroto60times.com A.K.A. the most useless site on the internet. In fact, I recognize the Cavalier time, and 17.1 seems more than a little slow for a car that runs 8.2 to 60. I'll have to give mine a timed run when the drag strip opens later this spring.

Also, for what it's worth that same site had a Sunbird SE (like mine) running 9.1 to 60 and 16.5-16.7 (faster one was a vert, which casts doubt on the veracity of the data right there), which sounds like what an automatic transmission model would run. So in conclusion, that whole site is worthless, and conclusions depend on how you pick and choose data. I'd say, with a good driver and a stick shift, the JV6 would be just about dead even with that car, or maybe a bit quicker.

Perhaps you missed the beginning of my post

True, if your car had a good driver, then yeah it would probably be faster. If both had a good driver, I dont think so.

But wait, im confused, are you actually acknowledging that the slowest High end Honda at the time, is most likely faster then yours, with equal drivers?

 

[White & Nerdy]

Perhaps you missed the beginning of my post

True, if your car had a good driver, then yeah it would probably be faster. If both had a good driver, I dont think so.

But wait, im confused, are you actually acknowledging that the slowest High end Honda at the time, is most likely faster then yours, with equal drivers?

I meant the JV6 might actually be a slight bit quicker.

And you know the last thing I'd ever do is admit that an I4 Honda not called "S2000" might be superior to anything not a Honda.

 

[ImaRobot]

And you know the last thing I'd ever do is admit that an I4 Honda not called "S2000" might be superior to anything not a Honda.

Why's that? When facts prove other wise, in this case.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Why's that? When facts prove other wise, in this case.

Several reasons. Hondas are basically everything I could possibly hate in a car rolled into one thing. Tiny 4cyl engines, an authentic World Cup soundtrack, and the fact that most of them end up with chrome taillights and a stupid spoiler. All that's missing is effeminate, trendy styling, which the Dodge Neon of the same period has covered pretty well. For the final nail in the coffin, it has what I consider the worst thing about my Sunbird - front wheel drive.

 

[McLaren]

Several reasons. Hondas are basically everything I could possibly hate in a car rolled into one thing. Tiny 4cyl engines, an authentic World Cup soundtrack, and the fact that most of them end up with chrome taillights and a stupid spoiler. All that's missing is effeminate, trendy styling, which the Dodge Neon of the same period has covered pretty well. For the final nail in the coffin, it has what I consider the worst thing about my Sunbird - front wheel drive.

That's exactly what your car is, except with an inferior V6 to the Honda's I4.

 

[ImaRobot]

Several reasons. Hondas are basically everything I could possibly hate in a car rolled into one thing. Tiny 4cyl engines, an authentic World Cup soundtrack, and the fact that most of them end up with chrome taillights and a stupid spoiler. All that's missing is effeminate, trendy styling, which the Dodge Neon of the same period has covered pretty well. For the final nail in the coffin, it has what I consider the worst thing about my Sunbird - front wheel drive.

Oh I see, you hate a car because the people in your area use altezza lights and spoilers. So because there are people that have no taste you take down the whole company, which they have no say in. Thats totally understandble.. actually no, its not.

I've seen Ferrari's owned by Rich people that are absolutely hideous, but how does that make Ferrari, as a company, crap? It doesnt. Blame the people for the distasteful things they are doing, not the company.

Its funny that you rag on a tiny 4cyl when in fact it is much more powerful an engine then your V6. I mean both the compared cars are basically the same weight, but your V6 is slower..You dont have to love the car, but why hate it on it. It just sounds like your mad about a car because its faster so you make up a bunch of ridiculous reasons to hate it.

 

[Azuremen]

Once again, I have a hard time swallowing that about the '92-'95 Si. I suppose it's pretty light, but with only 125 hp from a small, VVT-reliant engine, I doubt it could be quite that quick.

Keep in mind I had a sub 14 second MR2 that had a 1.6L engine in it with so-so ECU tune and exhaust on it that was VVT dependent. You seem to forget how important gearing is for these things. Or that most of these high revving engines make power for 3 or 4k rpm as well, just happens to be between 4000 and 8000 RPM instead of 2000 to, maybe, 5000 like you'd see in a slow revving V6.

Never had a problem with either.

Which is why the Civic dominates its class in various auto-x formats. Could have something to do with the wishbone suspension all around up till the EP series of Civic/Integra. Could also have something to do with not having a massively heavy V6 sitting over the front wheels as well.

But, by all means, your experience in Alaska is probably very extensive.

Civics in decent condition actually exist?

Move out of the sticks and into the real world, and you will find mint condition Civics from the 80's, let alone the 90's. I see far more Civics in good shape than Cavaliers. On top of that, I see about as many "riced" out domestics like Neons and Cavaliers as I do imports, so that whole argument of yours falls flat on its face as well.

 

[Pupik]

Gorgeous five-level stack, there.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Oh I see, you hate a car because the people in your area use altezza lights and spoilers. So because there are people that have no taste you take down the whole company, which they have no say in. Thats totally understandble.. actually no, its not.

I've seen Ferrari's owned by Rich people that are absolutely hideous, but how does that make Ferrari, as a company, crap? It doesnt. Blame the people for the distasteful things they are doing, not the company.

Its funny that you rag on a tiny 4cyl when in fact it is much more powerful an engine then your V6. I mean both the compared cars are basically the same weight, but your V6 is slower..You dont have to love the car, but why hate it on it. It just sounds like your mad about a car because its faster so you make up a bunch of ridiculous reasons to hate it.

I've hated Hondas for a long time. Tell me, what comes first to your mind when you think of "faux race car"? People will ruin just about anything, but Hondas - especially Civics - are probably the most widely ruined car of all time. Becoming even a little exuberant causes everyone to assume you're a FnF wannabe, even if your car is completely stock, so you have to wonder "is that what I really want people to think of me? Do I really want a car I can never take above 40% throttle because of stereotypes?" And they really do sound only vaguely less annoying than an alarm clock.

Keep in mind I had a sub 14 second MR2 that had a 1.6L engine in it with so-so ECU tune and exhaust on it that was VVT dependent. You seem to forget how important gearing is for these things. Or that most of these high revving engines make power for 3 or 4k rpm as well, just happens to be between 4000 and 8000 RPM instead of 2000 to, maybe, 5000 like you'd see in a slow revving V6.

So they ran really short gearing on the Civics to make them capable of forward motion? That explains the existance of the comically slow Civic HX with its taller "highway gears".

Which is why the Civic dominates its class in various auto-x formats. Could have something to do with the wishbone suspension all around up till the EP series of Civic/Integra. Could also have something to do with not having a massively heavy V6 sitting over the front wheels as well.

As I've said before, the V6 probably isn't going to cause that much of a problem as far as handling goes, since FWD pretty much equals a horrible front bias anyway (and if it didn't, you'd have hopeless wheelspin in hard launches). I'll give you the wishbone suspension thing, though.

But, by all means, your experience in Alaska is probably very extensive.

Move out of the sticks and into the real world, and you will find mint condition Civics from the 80's, let alone the 90's. I see far more Civics in good shape than Cavaliers. On top of that, I see about as many "riced" out domestics like Neons and Cavaliers as I do imports, so that whole argument of yours falls flat on its face as well.

I tend to see more fail Civics, and when I do see a ruined J, it's usually not that bad. As far as condition goes, 96-up are usually OKish as long as they haven't been Pep Boys'd, 92-95 are rare and usually not worth noticing, and pre-'92 aren't that good. But then I rarely notice/remember Civics unless they're unusually beat up, or heavily "modified". Finding a good one that's for sale is another matter.

 

[Pupik]

People will ruin just about anything, but Hondas - especially Civics - are probably the most widely ruined car of all time. Becoming even a little exuberant causes everyone to assume you're a FnF wannabe, even if your car is completely stock, so you have to wonder "is that what I really want people to think of me?

Oh...now I get it, you're so worried about stereotypes. It figures.

Can you show us how to talk this way, and walk this way?