Reply With Quotemay mates vti 150mph
my other mate has an ek9 type r! gott a love it! sitting in 5th driving down to liverpool and people trying to race on the motor way! putting it into 3rd at 70 and revving to 9000rpm lovely sound!
Even SEBbed they struggle against stock CTR's. A SEBbed GT can do 100 in about 17 seconds, whereas a CTR can do it in 16. They're faster than most people give them credit for..... the power delivery is much much smoother than our GT's, and it's very deceptive because of that. They pull to 140 like nobody's business, and pull all the way off the clock (165mph). I have many video's of thisOriginally Posted by CopperGT
A SEB4 GT would beat a stock CTR, and even a lightly tuned one
Going back to the original topic of the thread, it comes as no suprise to me that the CRX was giving the guy a hard time in his GT. They're very fast for an 80's car...... faster than R5GT's infact! All this "Honda's have no torque" is just a load of bollox, and is a smoke screen for turbo owners. When you compare Honda's to other none-turbo'd cars in their class, they s**t all over them.
Last edited by Debo; 21st October 2004 at 12:28.
If you have any car care related questions, ask me in the Cleaning/Detailing section.
may mates vti 150mph
my other mate has an ek9 type r! gott a love it! sitting in 5th driving down to liverpool and people trying to race on the motor way! putting it into 3rd at 70 and revving to 9000rpm lovely sound!
Hondas having no torque isn't complete nonsense.
They tend to have similar levels to most cars of a similar capacity, unfortunately you have to rev the nuts off them to get that torque!
So if you have a driver on a challenging road which isn't on the ball keeping it in the power band all the time they aint that hard to beat. But then this could be said of any car.
On a straight run though with it being kept in the power band the high bhp levels start to show.
Last edited by Teddy; 21st October 2004 at 12:48.
last time i went to pod i raced a CTR, (modded- zorst and filter) and i beat him at least 2/3 f the way downt he strip, getting at least 3 car lengths on him, he clawed it back and we finally crossed the line with my front wheels level with his back.
CTRs are quick and would beat a GT, but it'd still not stop me from having a go.
is that figure of 17s not a bit optimitic for a car than normally takes 22s to get to 100mph.Even SEBbed they struggle against stock CTR's. A SEBbed GT can do 100 in about 17 seconds, whereas a CTR can do it in 16. They're faster than most people give them credit for..... the power delivery is much much smoother than our GT's, and it's very deceptive because of that. They pull to 140 like nobody's business, and pull all the way off the clock (165mph). I have many video's of this
A SEB4 GT would beat a stock CTR, and even a lightly tuned one
Going back to the original topic of the thread, it comes as no suprise to me that the CRX was giving the guy a hard time in his GT. They're very fast for an 80's car...... faster than R5GT's infact! All this "Honda's have no torque" is just a load of bollox, and is a smoke screen for turbo owners. When you compare Honda's to other none-turbo'd cars in their class, they s**t all over them.
honda CRX's have a low torque figure because they are only a 1.6. they make power by reving lots however when you get to a hill this 'lack' of torque will show it's self when compared to a GT.
17 seconds is more than realisitc for a SEBbed GT - they tend to do 1/4's in 15.0 @ 92ish mph. Nakajima's SEB4.1 has run a 14.3 without the gas at 98mph or something similar.
Nobody was disputing the GT having more torque than a CRX, or indeed a CTR (yes, a GT has more torque than a CTR). The main point here, is that when comparing an n/a car against another n/a car in its class, Honda's are miles infront of anyone else. CRX VTEC 160bhp back in '89 vs a Saxo VTS 120bhp in the mid 90's. You can't compare n/a vs a turbo car, because the turbo car will ALWAYS have more torque. So, needless to say, the GT from the original post did well to keep with the CRX, because the Honda has more power and less weight! But obviously, less torque, but that isn't the only factor that wins races..... otherwise we'd all be getting beaten by Diesels
Last edited by Debo; 21st October 2004 at 15:30.
If you have any car care related questions, ask me in the Cleaning/Detailing section.
17 seconds is more than realisitc for a SEBbed GT - they tend to do 1/4's in 15.0 @ 92ish mph. Nakajima's SEB4.1 has run a 14.3 without the gas at 98mph or something similar.
Nobody was disputing the GT having more torque than a CRX, or indeed a CTR (yes, a GT has more torque than a CTR). The main point here, is that when comparing an n/a car against another n/a car in its class, Honda's are miles infront of anyone else. CRX VTEC 160bhp back in '89 vs a Saxo VTS 120bhp in the mid 90's. You can't compare n/a vs a turbo car, because the turbo car will ALWAYS have more torque. So, needless to say, the GT from the original post did well to keep with the CRX, because the Honda has more power and less weight! But obviously, less torque, but that isn't the only factor that wins races..... otherwise we'd all be getting beaten by Diesels
you can compare. they are part of the same market. you would compare the LCR/Focus RS and the astra GSi to the CTR. not all car makes wil produce engines like the old 1.6 VTEC because they don;t see a market for it. the GM 1.6 16V found int he corsa GSi made 150hp without VTEC when first designed but was detuned.
Posting Permissions