a civic typer R puts into perspective how bad my car is
22 March 2009, 05:02 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes you think it was standard? Just becuase they are NA and get nearly 200 bhp out of a 2.0 litre from the factory doesn't mean it can't be improved. Companies like CPL and TDi north have developed these cars well, spending less than £2k on header/manifold, exhaust, induction, remap and a few other bits can get nearly 235-240bhp and slightly reduce weight too (1203kg standard, probably less than 1190kg with mentioned mods), means they are hitting 200-205bhp per ton too (more than enough for a fwd cars).
Obviously they really fly (once moving) if the owner has gone down the forced induction route of supercharger/turbo, just attend Santapod/York quartermile to see a few hiting 10secs for fwd (!)
I know its only a basic comparision, but check the 60-100 figures out from my site below between a standard CTR, a Boxster S, and a 235bhp CTR, I always say if the 60-100 (ie. performance one moving) figures are within 10% then on the road there isn't going too much of a noticable difference, going by this, I would say the CTR had some mods:
STANDARD CIVIC TYPE R 197BHP
Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 197
Weight without Driver (KG) : 1203
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 166.39
0 - 60 (Secs) : 6.60
0 - 100 (Secs) : 16.84 (autocar timed one 16.2secs to 100)
60 - 100 (Secs) : 10.27
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 14.96
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 94.28
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 14.76
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 95.93
BOXSTER 3.2 S 260BHP
Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 260
Weight without Driver (KG) : 1320
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 200.13
0 - 60 (Secs) : 5.50
0 - 100 (Secs) : 13.59
60 - 100 (Secs) : 8.09
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 13.84
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 100.91
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 13.74
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 102.07
MODIFIED CIVIC TYPE R - say 235BHP (if it can get its power down):
Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 235
Weight without Driver (KG) : 1190
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 200.65
0 - 60 (Secs) : 5.67
0 - 100 (Secs) : 13.75
60 - 100 (Secs) : 8.08
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 14.04
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 101.02
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 13.84
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 102.83
Obviously they really fly (once moving) if the owner has gone down the forced induction route of supercharger/turbo, just attend Santapod/York quartermile to see a few hiting 10secs for fwd (!)
I know its only a basic comparision, but check the 60-100 figures out from my site below between a standard CTR, a Boxster S, and a 235bhp CTR, I always say if the 60-100 (ie. performance one moving) figures are within 10% then on the road there isn't going too much of a noticable difference, going by this, I would say the CTR had some mods:
STANDARD CIVIC TYPE R 197BHP
Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 197
Weight without Driver (KG) : 1203
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 166.39
0 - 60 (Secs) : 6.60
0 - 100 (Secs) : 16.84 (autocar timed one 16.2secs to 100)
60 - 100 (Secs) : 10.27
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 14.96
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 94.28
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 14.76
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 95.93
BOXSTER 3.2 S 260BHP
Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 260
Weight without Driver (KG) : 1320
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 200.13
0 - 60 (Secs) : 5.50
0 - 100 (Secs) : 13.59
60 - 100 (Secs) : 8.09
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 13.84
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 100.91
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 13.74
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 102.07
MODIFIED CIVIC TYPE R - say 235BHP (if it can get its power down):
Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 235
Weight without Driver (KG) : 1190
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 200.65
0 - 60 (Secs) : 5.67
0 - 100 (Secs) : 13.75
60 - 100 (Secs) : 8.08
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 14.04
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 101.02
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 13.84
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 102.83
what site is that is it letstorquebhp.com?
i always thought that modern normally aspirated cars couldnt really be improved on much without gas flowing the cylinder head and even at that would net you a 10% gain if done correctly. see here Puma Race Engines - General Engine Tuning Guide - how much power you can get from different tuning modifications and you would just be throwing money down the drain for little gain maybe iam wrong.
also i though that my bigger capacity hence more torque would make a big difference over the civic type R it didint.which makes me think of saxoboys threads on the s2000 saying he could keep up with lots of powerful cars with bigger engines enen though the honda engines are lacking in torque.
my workmate has the latest type R and that was pretty much nothing in it compared to mine.
23 March 2009, 02:09 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: CTR EP3 & MX5mk2 letstorquebhp.com
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lack of torque obviously means you have to work hard all the time, 100% attack, you can't just sit back (its hard work) but driving it really really hard at very high revs means the lack of torque just isn't a problem, relax and you can get seriously caught out by slower cars.
Dlcbr - goto the Honda forums and check out rolling road figures for EP3's, many people have acheived far more with NA tunes than I thought possible. Yes you have to take some dyno figures with a pinch of salt, but they average out to be impressive gains. 220-225bhp with decent exhaust, induction and remap/k-pro, 235-240bhp if you add a 4-2-1 manifold and some other bits, all for £2k is easily done (I've seen some hit near 250 with the same mods, but as I said, I don't believe those rolling roads)
I am not impressed with the new shape CTR performance, Honda quote them heavier at 1270kg (compared to 1203kg for the EP3) but I've heard that owners have acheived even far more than that, closer to 1350kg on weigh bridges.....but its still got the same power as the EP3 (ok its 1bhp more) at 198bhp, combined with a less sophisicated suspension and less space inside, Honda have really got backwards with the latest model. You really need to look at the old model (EP3), or the JDM FN2 model for a more rewarding drive and performance.
This increased weight has been proving in officially timed figures such as Autocar only hitting 0-100 in 18.8secs for the new model, 2.5secs slower than the previous EP3 model (at 16.2secs), before mods. If there isn't much between your Boxster S and the latest shape, then I would suggest you get yours on a rolling road tune becuase it should be quicker, maybe even get a remap?
Dlcbr - goto the Honda forums and check out rolling road figures for EP3's, many people have acheived far more with NA tunes than I thought possible. Yes you have to take some dyno figures with a pinch of salt, but they average out to be impressive gains. 220-225bhp with decent exhaust, induction and remap/k-pro, 235-240bhp if you add a 4-2-1 manifold and some other bits, all for £2k is easily done (I've seen some hit near 250 with the same mods, but as I said, I don't believe those rolling roads)
I am not impressed with the new shape CTR performance, Honda quote them heavier at 1270kg (compared to 1203kg for the EP3) but I've heard that owners have acheived even far more than that, closer to 1350kg on weigh bridges.....but its still got the same power as the EP3 (ok its 1bhp more) at 198bhp, combined with a less sophisicated suspension and less space inside, Honda have really got backwards with the latest model. You really need to look at the old model (EP3), or the JDM FN2 model for a more rewarding drive and performance.
This increased weight has been proving in officially timed figures such as Autocar only hitting 0-100 in 18.8secs for the new model, 2.5secs slower than the previous EP3 model (at 16.2secs), before mods. If there isn't much between your Boxster S and the latest shape, then I would suggest you get yours on a rolling road tune becuase it should be quicker, maybe even get a remap?
23 March 2009, 02:26 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Darlington
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lack of torque obviously means you have to work hard all the time, 100% attack, you can't just sit back (its hard work) but driving it really really hard at very high revs means the lack of torque just isn't a problem, relax and you can get seriously caught out by slower cars.
Dlcbr - goto the Honda forums and check out rolling road figures for EP3's, many people have acheived far more with NA tunes than I thought possible. Yes you have to take some dyno figures with a pinch of salt, but they average out to be impressive gains. 220-225bhp with decent exhaust, induction and remap/k-pro, 235-240bhp if you add a 4-2-1 manifold and some other bits, all for £2k is easily done (I've seen some hit near 250 with the same mods, but as I said, I don't believe those rolling roads)
I am not impressed with the new shape CTR performance, Honda quote them heavier at 1270kg (compared to 1203kg for the EP3) but I've heard that owners have acheived even far more than that, closer to 1350kg on weigh bridges.....but its still got the same power as the EP3 (ok its 1bhp more) at 198bhp, combined with a less sophisicated suspension and less space inside, Honda have really got backwards with the latest model. You really need to look at the old model (EP3), or the JDM FN2 model for a more rewarding drive and performance.
This increased weight has been proving in officially timed figures such as Autocar only hitting 0-100 in 18.8secs for the new model, 2.5secs slower than the previous EP3 model (at 16.2secs), before mods. If there isn't much between your Boxster S and the latest shape, then I would suggest you get yours on a rolling road tune becuase it should be quicker, maybe even get a remap?
Dlcbr - goto the Honda forums and check out rolling road figures for EP3's, many people have acheived far more with NA tunes than I thought possible. Yes you have to take some dyno figures with a pinch of salt, but they average out to be impressive gains. 220-225bhp with decent exhaust, induction and remap/k-pro, 235-240bhp if you add a 4-2-1 manifold and some other bits, all for £2k is easily done (I've seen some hit near 250 with the same mods, but as I said, I don't believe those rolling roads)
I am not impressed with the new shape CTR performance, Honda quote them heavier at 1270kg (compared to 1203kg for the EP3) but I've heard that owners have acheived even far more than that, closer to 1350kg on weigh bridges.....but its still got the same power as the EP3 (ok its 1bhp more) at 198bhp, combined with a less sophisicated suspension and less space inside, Honda have really got backwards with the latest model. You really need to look at the old model (EP3), or the JDM FN2 model for a more rewarding drive and performance.
This increased weight has been proving in officially timed figures such as Autocar only hitting 0-100 in 18.8secs for the new model, 2.5secs slower than the previous EP3 model (at 16.2secs), before mods. If there isn't much between your Boxster S and the latest shape, then I would suggest you get yours on a rolling road tune becuase it should be quicker, maybe even get a remap?
23 March 2009, 05:00 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
basically my car just isnt fun to drive compared to the mx5 i had before or the renault 5gtturbo which was mental!! the boxster is just boring lol prob would suit a woman as most of them dont drive fast.
tbh i think porsches are overated unless your talking mid to top level models.i think alot of people jump on the bandwagon with them similar in a way to ducatis.
fancy something turbocharged and punchy and a hoot to drive and very capable but without the running costs of a porsche.
dare i say it....would a 330d wipe the floor with me then lol?
tbh i think porsches are overated unless your talking mid to top level models.i think alot of people jump on the bandwagon with them similar in a way to ducatis.
fancy something turbocharged and punchy and a hoot to drive and very capable but without the running costs of a porsche.
dare i say it....would a 330d wipe the floor with me then lol?
Last edited by delcbr; 23 March 2009 at 05:04 PM.
23 March 2009, 08:17 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
basically my car just isnt fun to drive compared to the mx5 i had before or the renault 5gtturbo which was mental!! the boxster is just boring lol prob would suit a woman as most of them dont drive fast.
tbh i think porsches are overated unless your talking mid to top level models.i think alot of people jump on the bandwagon with them similar in a way to ducatis.
fancy something turbocharged and punchy and a hoot to drive and very capable but without the running costs of a porsche.
dare i say it....would a 330d wipe the floor with me then lol?
tbh i think porsches are overated unless your talking mid to top level models.i think alot of people jump on the bandwagon with them similar in a way to ducatis.
fancy something turbocharged and punchy and a hoot to drive and very capable but without the running costs of a porsche.
dare i say it....would a 330d wipe the floor with me then lol?
I mean a Renault 5 turbo in standard form isn't a quick car these days and nor is an mx-5 unless its been supercharged or turbo'd. I mean looking at the stats the 06 Boxster S isn't a million miles away from a Cayman and I remember a previous Scoobynetter enthusing about his.
May be it doesn't feel fast but it is. Dunno but if you are totally pissed off with it then it sounds like you gotta do what a man's gotta do
24 March 2009, 12:19 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24 March 2009, 12:52 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well was thinking of an evo 9 but not too sure now i think iam wanting away from high running costs il see what happens i think il put it up for sale just before easter.
i always wanted to own an M3 since i was a young un which was the original one back then... now the e46 is within reach so not sure whether to get one i do like the noise and that it puts out a lot of power and it would of trounced a type R no problem or just get a turbod hot hatch or an evo.
i think alot of folk jump on the bandwagon with cars such as the golf gti and 205 gti but ive had much more fun in the 5turbo.and in this day and age its the megane r26 and latest golf gti which gets the good write ups but iam thinking hang on a minute the mazda 3mps can crack 100 in 14 sec dead and has the lsd and are going cheap now so iam quite interested in one of them afaik theres not power increase potential with these engines something to do with the ecu but i think its the fastest out the box comapred to the other hot hatches.would anyone else car to comment?
i always wanted to own an M3 since i was a young un which was the original one back then... now the e46 is within reach so not sure whether to get one i do like the noise and that it puts out a lot of power and it would of trounced a type R no problem or just get a turbod hot hatch or an evo.
i think alot of folk jump on the bandwagon with cars such as the golf gti and 205 gti but ive had much more fun in the 5turbo.and in this day and age its the megane r26 and latest golf gti which gets the good write ups but iam thinking hang on a minute the mazda 3mps can crack 100 in 14 sec dead and has the lsd and are going cheap now so iam quite interested in one of them afaik theres not power increase potential with these engines something to do with the ecu but i think its the fastest out the box comapred to the other hot hatches.would anyone else car to comment?
24 March 2009, 04:50 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: cheshire
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hit the nail on the head there with the new mazda 3 mps some lad in our street has just bought one in red its stunning have seen it go and it looks very quick if i had just under 10k to play with i know what hatchback i would be getting 
!
!
24 March 2009, 04:52 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey ppl i forgot to mention that my car is running 18's with 265's on the rear and has a fixed rear spoiler which is prob affecting the acceleration what do you think?
24 March 2009, 07:22 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on the driver too - I remember a very good driver in a 106 GTi hanging onto my boot - I was in my 260bhp Gokf R32! I just could not shake him. And then another time an RS6 Avant couldn't get away from me - on a long twisty road with almost no straights so he had no chance to sock me with his killer "mega power" punch.
CTRs are quite quick but the total lack of torque makes them flipping hard work. I did have a play with a Boxster S (driven fairly badly) on a long stretch of the Devon A38 - he should have been a bit quicker but wasn't.
I've also had a CTR struggle to keep up with me on a long hill - this in my 150bhp (but 236lbs/ft) diesel Astra. Clearly the CTR is quicker but not through all gears.
I think small differences in power usually make very little difference. If you want to slay a CTR it has to be something REALLY powerful - either near supercar or an Evo or mega Scoob.
CTRs are quite quick but the total lack of torque makes them flipping hard work. I did have a play with a Boxster S (driven fairly badly) on a long stretch of the Devon A38 - he should have been a bit quicker but wasn't.
I've also had a CTR struggle to keep up with me on a long hill - this in my 150bhp (but 236lbs/ft) diesel Astra. Clearly the CTR is quicker but not through all gears.
I think small differences in power usually make very little difference. If you want to slay a CTR it has to be something REALLY powerful - either near supercar or an Evo or mega Scoob.
24 March 2009, 07:26 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: wolverhampton
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my mate used to have a 2004 ctr with a jackson sc on it.
now that was a porka chaser. he used to chase some serious motors with it,
but the car died after been wrapped round a tree
now that was a porka chaser. he used to chase some serious motors with it,
but the car died after been wrapped round a tree
24 March 2009, 09:01 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just had a look at the top gear power lap times very interesting 535d does it in 1.31.8 look at all the fast cars it beats its in the same ball park as the focus RS and e46 m3!!Top Gear Test Track - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by delcbr; 24 March 2009 at 09:03 PM.
24 March 2009, 09:45 PM
#46
I kept up with a CTR in my grandad spec old shape Saab 9-3 LPT (150 bhp), couldn't pull away, my old Saab was a good example and the 210 BHP Aero I replaced it with needed a remap to feel any quicker, sometimes you just get a good one (or been messed with), in a straight line one traction had been achieved and maintained.
24 March 2009, 11:30 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Belfast
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just had a look at the top gear power lap times very interesting 535d does it in 1.31.8 look at all the fast cars it beats its in the same ball park as the focus RS and e46 m3!!Top Gear Test Track - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is a great site
Nordschleife lap records - FastestLaps.com
I challenge you not to waste 30 mins there!!
25 March 2009, 04:32 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The e46 M3 was driven by the black stig aka Perry McCarthy who is widely known to be significanly slower than the white stig aka ben collins so it makes comparing some of the older cars with newer ones a bit tricky.
this is a great site
Nordschleife lap records - FastestLaps.com
I challenge you not to waste 30 mins there!!
this is a great site
Nordschleife lap records - FastestLaps.com
I challenge you not to waste 30 mins there!!
i like the bit to the right hand side which evaluates in detail which of the two cars isd the quikest on the different parts of the circuit.
25 March 2009, 06:05 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure if this is a rude word on here or not, but did you ever consider a 120d or 330d?
With a very reasonably priced re-map in my GF's 120d m-sport from 40mph to 110mph there was very very little difference between it and a nissan 350Z, and next to nothing between 120d and 2007 R32.
Great fun to drive if you're not too worried about scrubbing off rear tires every 6k mls, and still doing over 40mpg!
You should take a spin in one, the difference between a new 335d and an M3 is so little these days.
With a very reasonably priced re-map in my GF's 120d m-sport from 40mph to 110mph there was very very little difference between it and a nissan 350Z, and next to nothing between 120d and 2007 R32.
Great fun to drive if you're not too worried about scrubbing off rear tires every 6k mls, and still doing over 40mpg!
You should take a spin in one, the difference between a new 335d and an M3 is so little these days.
25 March 2009, 08:19 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely its easier to just let the baseball-capped CTR kid s0d off?
Who cares if at one particular instant another car is moving more rapidly? If you take the bait and 'destroy' him/her then well done, you have proven you're a petty, insecure and egomaniac type. The medal is in the post...
Who cares if at one particular instant another car is moving more rapidly? If you take the bait and 'destroy' him/her then well done, you have proven you're a petty, insecure and egomaniac type. The medal is in the post...
25 March 2009, 08:44 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well this is the other marques forum and we can all say our views in what cars we think are great i enjoy driving it would be a waste to have a performance car and not drive it as such so was wondering what other cars are out there i dont consider myself to be
"a petty, insecure and egomaniac type" lol
"a petty, insecure and egomaniac type" lol
25 March 2009, 11:20 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know exactly where del is coming from. If you have spent a wedge on a "performance car" and its not living up to expectations as a "performance car" then you're going to be pretty cheesed off about the whole thing.
Now he's trying to establish what car will give him a "feel good" bang for buck. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Now he's trying to establish what car will give him a "feel good" bang for buck. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Last edited by Fabioso; 25 March 2009 at 11:33 PM.
26 March 2009, 02:12 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, but the cars mentioned in this thread all perform about the same until illegal speeds, which is a lot of consequences to weigh up compared to the need to 'beat' another car!
IMO enjoying a performance car is easily done on a deserted B road in the evening or on track, and should have bu*ger all to do with what other people are doing on the road. That's what I meant by the ego element, which seems to be the driving factor in all these contests on public roads.
IMO enjoying a performance car is easily done on a deserted B road in the evening or on track, and should have bu*ger all to do with what other people are doing on the road. That's what I meant by the ego element, which seems to be the driving factor in all these contests on public roads.
26 March 2009, 03:46 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: CTR EP3 & MX5mk2 letstorquebhp.com
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, but the cars mentioned in this thread all perform about the same until illegal speeds, which is a lot of consequences to weigh up compared to the need to 'beat' another car!
IMO enjoying a performance car is easily done on a deserted B road in the evening or on track, and should have bu*ger all to do with what other people are doing on the road. That's what I meant by the ego element, which seems to be the driving factor in all these contests on public roads.
IMO enjoying a performance car is easily done on a deserted B road in the evening or on track, and should have bu*ger all to do with what other people are doing on the road. That's what I meant by the ego element, which seems to be the driving factor in all these contests on public roads.
True, if you want to have a fast car in a straightline and don't give a crap about speed limits then go and buy a very very highly modified Supra, nothing will stay with it at stupid speeds, bar superbikes. But its your licence as they say.
Personally living in Wales means B road fun is everything to me, which is why a CTR EP3(baseball cap owners ha ha, all cars have them these days including scoobs etc) is a good option providing you can get round the steering issue, its pretty quick, great handling, demands attack, brakes well, really slick gearbox, cheap(ish) to run, and very very reliable with no hot turbos etc to worry about, a damn good car to attack and have fun on B roads in, on your own.
I never ever go into 3 figures on the road, becuase like most I need my licence for my job,and can get my driving thrills below these speeds anyway, 100mph is only exceeded on trackdays, but I still want to know the performance 'upto 100mph' for such days, and I would be lying if I said I (and all of us) don't go above 60 on B roads when the circumstances and conditions allow it now and again, and I want the acceleration to be there in the right gear at a certain speed.
Its also interesting to know which cars cover ground the quickest becuase some people get their thrills that way (eg evo owners), its doesn't mean they are racing against others.
27 March 2009, 02:03 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bmw e46 m3 came up fast behind me today suggesting he wanted a race so i played along there was nothing in it until the m3 got to stretch its legs but from the low to mid range it was the same then his started edging away which is what i expected really looking at the car specs.
but the civic type R's are fast even though their not turbod and are lacking in torque!!
but the civic type R's are fast even though their not turbod and are lacking in torque!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ossett2k2
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
15
23 September 2015 09:11 AM
