00'GT vs. 01'Camaro SS

[inferno]

Originally posted by Unit 5302:
Speedo's are inaccurate.

The Porsche 911 Turbo's speedo reads up to and beyond 30mph fast on top end.

Under 100hp? 130 is a joke.

Top speed is not dependant on horsepower. It might take a little longer for a car with less horsepower to reach the same speed as a higher hp car, but it still will reach the speed. I guarantee you that a DX can go 130. I am also sure that it can reach that speed from a stand still in less than 30 seconds. If anyone has access to a radar speed detector we can settle this whole mess real easily.

------------------
90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose
Estimated Completion: ON STANDBY

84 Toyota Supra:
Japanese 6mge installed within two weeks.....
High flow cat, two chamber flowmaster, custom 2.5" piping, msd 8.5mm wires. Will have boost before 2002.
Have HKS turbo manifold for it.....

[blue00gt]

Top speed is definitely dependent upon horsepower. Horsepower is torque x rpm.
Top speed occurs when the force propelling the car equals the drag and frictional forces acting on the car. The force propelling the car is proportional to how much torque the engine is putting out. Multiply your torque by your engine rpm and once again that is horsepower.
As for a Civic DX doing 130mph in less than 30sec from a standstill, that is a joke. I'd bet it takes my '00GT almost that long to hit 130. I would be willing to bet that a stock DX would be hard pressed to hit 100mph in less than 20sec, so how is it supposed to hit 130 in 10sec after that? I don't know if you've ever read any acceleration test results when they keep going past the 1/4 mile, but things slow down alot. Down forget that the wind resistance increases as the square of the speed.

[Unit 5302]

Well, hp = (torque x rpm / 5250)

Top speed is absolutely dependant on hp.

I ran an late 80's early 90's CRX Si with my 77 Mustang II. The stang didn't have a muffler at the time, and according to the speedo, completely maxxed out at 117mph. I was still pulling on the CRX pretty bad up there too.

Anyway, about hitting 130 in 30sec, lol, an SN95 5.0 can't even pull that off. Not even close. Those cars will top out around 140ish, 137 as tested by Car and Driver in late 1993.

Would you say a little CRX DX is probably compareable to a base Volkswagen New Beetle? The new Beetle took 28.0 sec to hit 90, and it has an estimated top speed of 113mph.

The MX-5 Miata with 140hp struggled to a 23.2sec 100mph run.

By the way, 0-130mph took 44.7sec in a 1994 Mustang GT as tested in the "Mustang vs Camaro The First Test" by Car and Driver December 1993. In case you'd like to blame them for shitty driving they got the stone stock 1994 Mustang GT to pull a 0-60 of 6.1sec and a 1/4 mile of 14.9@93mph. Basically, they drove the **** out of it. The Camaro was a similar story, pulling a 5.4 and 14.1@101. The LT-1 powered Camaro was nearly 20sec better to 130 than the GT, at 26.2sec. Still, I hardly think ANY stock CRX will hold it's own against an LT-1 top end (156mph).

[MustangHunting]

HAHAHAH I think its funny how every one thinks is so hard for a 4-banger to hit 120+.

Do the calculations all you want, come to Colorado ill give you a ride in my beater and we'll hit 120 on the speedo and pass it.

no prob...it may take a minute or 5 but we'll get there, and no its not down hill hahahah



------------------
93 Honda Civic EX SOHC V-TEC, Ram Air, Auto. Tranny overheats, has a hole in exhaust pipe for that added thrust. No fart cans or 500psi super turbo's. would gladly crash into a brick wall for a Stang, any takers?

LMAO - I think unit and blue gt are on the $$$ on this topic. There is no way in HELL that a Civic's going 130 in under 30 seconds (I'd believe unit's stang could do 240 before I believe that)....unless it's the Civic SI. Even then, I think it'd have to be going down hill on a 45+ degree slope w/ a mean tail wind I've questioned a few of my hardcore ricer buddies and even they agree.

------------------
'90 LX 5.0; 12K original miles (no sh*&); 3.55 gears; pulleys;Edelbrock Performer Heads; BBK shorties; MSD 6AL box w/ blaster 2 coil; Motorsport E303 cam; Pro-M 75mm MAF; BBK 70mm TB; Eibach spring kit; Southside welded subs; K&N cone filter charger; Hurst shifter; fiberglass turbo hood; A/C-less; rear seat-less; cat-less; 2 chamber Flos; Corbeau racing seats (fronts);
30# injectors; JMS Chip; 190 lb fp; TFS track heat Intake (12.299 @ 113)

[jimberg]

Hmm, I'll have to dig out my old aerospace engineering text book to look up the formulas for calculating drag. Top speed and horsepower are most definitely related.

The 427 Cobra was NOT designed for 1/4 mile runs. It was a road racing car that defeated Ferarris.

Speedometers are indeed inaccurate. They're off by a percentage, too, which means that the faster you go, the more they're off. They're sometimes off in a favorable direction, though, meaning that you may see 130 but are going 135.

Unit, the orange line on your tach is the overdrive gear red line. I think it's 4900 rpm. That's a 220mph top end.

Steeda had one of their Mustangs approaching 200 on the track. The body panels started peeling away.

[Stang Runner]

The 2000 Honda Civic SE Coupe has a top speed of 127mph. Honda CR-V SE tops out at 104mph. The Toyota Camry Solara SLE is faster 129mph.

[Unit 5302]

You mean the little yellow one? LOL. Guess that's something I never pay any attention to. It'll keep on revving past that, so who cares. In fact, let's take the top speed right up to 6250rpm, the fuel cutoff, so I can actually go 256!!

Yep, that's the McLaren F1 in my rear view mirror.

All the people claiming serious top end here are yappin about what their speedo says, and what their buddy's speedo says.

Now, this is what I'm saying. Your speedo's are wrong. Even worn tires can affect your speedo readings about 100mph.

Say you have a stock 225/60 R15 on a Mustang. Go to a 245/50 R15 and you'll read 5mph fast at 130. Now say that 245 is a little worn, you read 7 fast. Plus your speedo was off by 2mph at 60. Now you're reading 11mph fast. Get the trend? At this point, you're going 119 when it says 130.

There are quite a few 4 bangers that will do 120, but if they aren't putting out better than 140hp, they best be super streamlined. If they aren't putting out over 120, they aren't getting anywhere near that speed.

I always love it when people say, throw the physics out the window!! I can prove math and science are wrong.

Yeah... Okay, next you'll be telling me people can fly thru the air cause you're wearing really high quality shoes.

[Lizard King]

This might be of some help in the CRX debate.



Here's a link to the site of a guy that has a top speed record for the 1600cc class, 239,3km/h with a CRX. http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/7247/index.html He made very few power train changes, but he did improve the cars aerodynamics.

[Unit 5302]

So what I'm seeing is a very lightly performance modded, and some aerodynamic modded, Civic CRX SiR hit 148 for the land speed record.

That would put the stocker probably in the 130-135ish territory for average performance IMHO. According to his charts, he's making around 170hp at the flywheel by the way.

Keep in mind, that's the SiR. Not the Si, or the DX.

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 06-16-2001).]

[Stang Runner]

That is fast but it was 7 miles! A stock Cobra does 160mph that is a year 2000 one new ones have a bit more power now might be even faster, in test it out peforms the z28 (0-60, same time in the 1/4 2mph slower)

[Lizard King]

Originally posted by Stang Runner:
That is fast but it was 7 miles! A stock Cobra does 160mph that is a year 2000 one new ones have a bit more power now might be even faster, in test it out peforms the z28 (0-60, same time in the 1/4 2mph slower)

I'm not sure if I understand your message dude, but there was no Cobras in 2000 other than the Cobra R.

In 1999, there where some inconsistencies with engine HP output, which were solved for the 2001 Cobra. The actual specification (printed) of the car remain identical.



------------------

13.66 @ 100.3MPH, Stock (except for K&N Filter)

• Quartermile run

[Stang Runner]

Sorry about that that was the date of the Mag. It was a 1999. Thanks

[1BAD89]

Your comparing a cobra with a z28. Compare a cobra with an ss. Make it even =P Anyway a stock 92-96 vette will do 170mph(or pretty close) so I have read in more than a few places. What do you think it would take for a lets say 94 6-speed vette to reach 200mph?

[Dark_5.0]

It took my CRX 43 sec. to top out at 130+
I just got through timing it.

Nothing to brag about but it got there.

------------------
88 mustang gt convertible bored to 306 BBk equal length headers mac cold air fender kit cowl hood nitto drag radials ford racing clutch flow masters h-pipe 160* thermostat 16 degrees of timing electric fan off 94' t-bird jacobs electronics cap and wires. Edelbrock 1 1/2 inch drop springs.
best 60 ft 2.14, best 1/8th 9.65, best 1/4 15.2 @89mph, Stock gears and 3000+ Altitude

Congrats......but was that 130 taking into consideratin that you changed you tire width/height and the fact that they're a little more worn now?

------------------
'90 LX 5.0; 12K original miles (no sh*&); 3.55 gears; pulleys;Edelbrock Performer Heads; BBK shorties; MSD 6AL box w/ blaster 2 coil; Motorsport E303 cam; Pro-M 75mm MAF; BBK 70mm TB; Eibach spring kit; Southside welded subs; K&N cone filter charger; Hurst shifter; fiberglass turbo hood; A/C-less; rear seat-less; cat-less; 2 chamber Flos; Corbeau racing seats (fronts);
30# injectors; JMS Chip; 190 lb fp; TFS track heat Intake (12.299 @ 113)

[Unit 5302]

Wow, your CRX must run 14's? It appears to be faster than Mustang GT's, which have a huge hp/weight advantage and 10mph more top end.

Your speedo is screwed. I rest my case.

Considering the C5 Vette can only pull off 172mph, 170 seems way high for a C4. More like 160. Still the rating for the 94 LT-1 is 170.

Oh, and the ZR-1 was rated for 170mph

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 06-18-2001).]

[Dark_5.0]

Originally posted by Unit 5302:
Wow, your CRX must run 14's? It appears to be faster than Mustang GT's, which have a huge hp/weight advantage and 10mph more top end.

Your speedo is screwed. I rest my case.

Considering the C5 Vette can only pull off 172mph, 170 seems way high for a C4. More like 160. Still the rating for the 94 LT-1 is 170.

Oh, and the ZR-1 was rated for 170mph

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 06-18-2001).]

Instead of continuing to argue and talk crap.

Why dont you admit that you were wrong. I said a CRX Si-R can go 145-160 and guess what thanks to lizard you se that it can.

you said no way a CRX with 160hp can go that fast.

With a little tuning you can get 170hp at the flywhel with an CRX Si-R.

Yall were the ones making fun of the CRX Si-R
so now admit it.

you can take your horse power times drag coeficient times lunar alignment and throw all that out the window smart guy.

and as far as my CRX being as fast as a mustang GT no its not and I never said it was
and if my 43sec to peg out the speedo puts my car in the same league with a mustang GT.

Then maybe my speedo is a little off or maybe my friend that was keeping time is on crack. I dont know I will admit I was wrong now why dont you do the same

You started off saying noway a crx can go 130 cause my escort couldnt.

BUT NOW YOU SEE.

Keep in mind that a CRX Si-R is lower geared than a Si.

Maybe my speedo is screwed but all the same
you were wrong about the Si-R.
I REST MY CASE

------------------
88 mustang gt convertible bored to 306 BBk equal length headers mac cold air fender kit cowl hood nitto drag radials ford racing clutch flow masters h-pipe 160* thermostat 16 degrees of timing electric fan off 94' t-bird jacobs electronics cap and wires. Edelbrock 1 1/2 inch drop springs.
best 60 ft 2.14, best 1/8th 9.65, best 1/4 15.2 @89mph, Stock gears and 3000+ Altitude

[This message has been edited by 5.0 HO (edited 06-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by 5.0 HO (edited 06-18-2001).]

[Unit 5302]

Rest your case about what?

That a aero modded 170hp CRX SiR that's been setup for top end and run on a flat 7mi course to record a top speed of 148?

Oh yes, use some of that impressive ricer logic. Just because 1 car, that's had mods done to it, and completely setup for top end and attempting a land speed record can do 148 doens't mean an off the factory floor CRX SiR will get anywhere near that.

Bottom line, CRX SiR, just like I posted above is in all likelyhood a 130-135mph car from the factory. I'll be damned if you can't pick up 15mph doing the kinds of mods that guy did. Please re-read your post. 145-150 stock. That CRX is far from stock for top speed performance. He's been setup for top end. Lowered, belly pan underneath, remapped computer, geared, a little this and that. If you can't pick up 15mph top end from all that, you're doing something wrong.

My Mustang is a 6sec 1/4 mile car and it'll do 200mph because there are other Mustang's that have done it. Modded cars need not apply to the rules of what a stock car can or cannot do.

That's bascially it in a nutshell. Since the CRX SiR is good for 130-135 (maybe on a 7 mile straight course tuned and running perfect), but it's also making 30more hp than you. That puts you a fair share down the list. Around 120, maybe.

130mph in 43sec. You need to get your speedo calibrated. Not only can your little shoebox not hit 130 period, but you think you can do it quicker than a car with 100 more hp, that has 15+mph higher on the top end, and a power to weight ratio equivelent to the difference between a new Z28 SS and a 93GT. Last time I took a look the 93 GT vs an LS1 looked pretty ugly stock for stock. That being said I'm having a hard time figuring out how your 16sec CRX can out accelerate a 14sec Mustang?

But hey, open the doors to ricer dream land. Throw out the coefficient of drag, throw out horsepower, throw out power to weight ratios for acceleration curves. None of that matters because your little CRX is a Honda; therefore, it can do impossible things simply because it's a "quality built car." LOL.

[Dark_5.0]

Originally posted by Unit 5302:
Rest your case about what?

That a aero modded 170hp CRX SiR that's been setup for top end and run on a flat 7mi course to record a top speed of 148?

Oh yes, use some of that impressive ricer logic. Just because 1 car, that's had mods done to it, and completely setup for top end and attempting a land speed record can do 148 doens't mean an off the factory floor CRX SiR will get anywhere near that.

Bottom line, CRX SiR, just like I posted above is in all likelyhood a 130-135mph car from the factory. I'll be damned if you can't pick up 15mph doing the kinds of mods that guy did. Please re-read your post. 145-150 stock. That CRX is far from stock for top speed performance. He's been setup for top end. Lowered, belly pan underneath, remapped computer, geared, a little this and that. If you can't pick up 15mph top end from all that, you're doing something wrong.

My Mustang is a 6sec 1/4 mile car and it'll do 200mph because there are other Mustang's that have done it. Modded cars need not apply to the rules of what a stock car can or cannot do.

That's bascially it in a nutshell. Since the CRX SiR is good for 130-135 (maybe on a 7 mile straight course tuned and running perfect), but it's also making 30more hp than you. That puts you a fair share down the list. Around 120, maybe.

130mph in 43sec. You need to get your speedo calibrated. Not only can your little shoebox not hit 130 period, but you think you can do it quicker than a car with 100 more hp, that has 15+mph higher on the top end, and a power to weight ratio equivelent to the difference between a new Z28 SS and a 93GT. Last time I took a look the 93 GT vs an LS1 looked pretty ugly stock for stock. That being said I'm having a hard time figuring out how your 16sec CRX can out accelerate a 14sec Mustang?

But hey, open the doors to ricer dream land. Throw out the coefficient of drag, throw out horsepower, throw out power to weight ratios for acceleration curves. None of that matters because your little CRX is a Honda; therefore, it can do impossible things simply because it's a "quality built car." LOL.

Why must you restate the obvious. I admitted that I was wrong, wrong about the number of seconds but not the 130mph.

My bad I did not read the link I looked at the mph and that was it.

I dont buy into ricer logic just cause that car did 148mph NO i dont think that mine can. I stuck my foot in my mouth it was late and I was tired and I did not read the link sorry about that.

Here is my last gasp and I am through with this topic.

The CRX Si is rated at 125mph from HONDA and I believe someone said motortrend in the old thread. I have at least 25-30 more horsepower than a stocker.

Since your so into logic make some out of that. Seriously



------------------
88 mustang gt convertible bored to 306 BBk equal length headers mac cold air fender kit cowl hood nitto drag radials ford racing clutch flow masters h-pipe 160* thermostat 16 degrees of timing electric fan off 94' t-bird jacobs electronics cap and wires. Edelbrock 1 1/2 inch drop springs.
best 60 ft 2.14, best 1/8th 9.65, best 1/4 15.2 @89mph, Stock gears and 3000+ Altitude

[This message has been edited by 5.0 HO (edited 06-19-2001).]