Luc Sipkema wrote:Goodwrench: He got the 140 lb-ft because the engine will more than likely be a K series K202A (i think) which is , as you probably know, in the current RSX-S and is rated 142lb-ft at the crank.
It would be a nice change to have a 2.4 L honda civic, but i don't think it will happen, at least not from the factory; the tuners have been taking a 2.4 bottom from a CRV or element and puttung the K head on it. It has been dubed the "poor man's TSX motor".
If it has a TSX engine in it, and is light, it will fly and i will own one.
wishful thinking.
Thanks Luc. I appreciate the back up. The concept its powered by a 200hp 2.0 DOHC i-VTEC 4 cylinder. Thats sounds a lot like the engine that powers the Euro Civic Type R.
Civic Type R Specs I provided a link. 200hp with a measley 145lbs feet of torque isn't my idea of fun driving.
"Fiery words fuel debate and debate yields understanding"
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Please enlighten us where did you get that torque figure? 200HP is confirmed. But the torque is not. If Honda is using the 2.4L then that engine is rated at 200Hp and Torque is at 166. That is pretty good don't you think? I mean the 2.4L Ecotec is going with 170HP and 162 torque (from the soon to be release Saturn Sky). So Honda has more torque, whoa never thought you would here that huh? 
Well the concept is using the 2.0L i-VTEC. Now unless they've changed it. It should be pumping out the same 200hp and 145lbs ft of torque that the Euro Civic R currently features. So the 2.4 doesn't enter the ocassion. Would it a better engine for the Civic? Most definately but its not engine. As far as the 2.4 Ecotec goes yes its not turning out as much power. The 2.4 Ecotec actually produces 177hp and 166lbs ft of torque. So the torque is equal and its down 23hp. Although I'd be willing to bet that it produces peak torque at a lower RPM than 2.4 VTEC.
Darc Man Z24 wrote:As far as boost goes on stock internals, the old LD9 can take 10psi of boost on completely stock internals.
Mr. Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Yeppers!
Sarcasm? I can't tell. If so, click here
Stage 2 LD9 Vortech Supercharger
Quote:
As my personal preference is towards cars that have more low end grunt.
And that comes really handy on a FWD car.
When low end torque is your personal preference it sure does.
Quote:
As for the Mazdaspeed 3, yhea I would like to see what Mazda will bring out.
On that I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Darc Man Z24
"Fiery words fuel debate and debate yields understanding"
Kyle Kurtz wrote:
lol ok, your cars hot looking and mine is ugly. (even thought they are both 2 door red hatchbacks wiht flip up llights and stock bodykit, iwth the same genearal appearence.) they dont look exactly the same but they are very similar. And when you get your phase to and your 350 hp, that will be awesome. I dont doubt that youll do it, people doubted me and i did it so i dont doubt other people. not sure how much your car weights but 350 hp would be a good run for my money im sure, im guessing i have around 350 hp myself (some of the dsm guys look in my reg and help me out, ive been wanting to know, im tuned for 20 psi on 110. Some people have told me 300hp, and some around 375, but the dsm guys are pretty smart on here from what ive seen. and i will only be faster when i do my internals and 100 shot. THen i think i will go for suspension and build my drivline up more. (would have done suspension first, but i got the parts listed in my furture mods list very cheap and i never pass up cheap good parts. (also dsm guys what would get an ideal suspension set up for my car, i would ask people at dsmtuners but they wou dall just flame me for having my car built with a 20g wihtout doing any suspension work)
and borsty what are you building your car for anyway? just raw power, 1/4 mile?
the 350 was in my orignal plan, now i should be gettin a new job which will let me buy a built 700r4 built for up to 600hp and for n20 applications. so im goin to run a 150 shot if all goes well. or save for a charger, or do both, who knows at this point. and im plannin on building my rear for auto school with 3.73s, good rearend cover, and maybe some good axles, if i got enough extra cash laying around. i can slap on some slicks if i get the axles.
then next fall (i go to auto school mind you) i will have a suspension class, so im goin to do up my suspension pretty much everything u can bolt on.
all im trying to do it make a perfectly streetable car that looks awesome and will outhandle and out perform almost anything on the street.
oh, and i dont like our cars look alike at all.
-Borsty
Lol Borst
3.73s. Goodbye gas mileage!
Weren't the 4.10s practical enough?
Lol, im j/k dude. I would rather have anything than 2.73s
Darcmanz24
Quote:
The concept its powered by a 200hp 2.0 DOHC i-VTEC 4 cylinder.
It could be, but you nor I know that for sure. Until Honda releases specs on this concept. With either engine, it going to make the car move best of all you have 200HP with no boost.
Quote:
The 2.4 Ecotec actually produces 177hp and 166lbs ft of torque. So the torque is equal and its down 23hp. Although I'd be willing to bet that it produces peak torque at a lower RPM than 2.4 VTEC.
Pulling numbers out of ass to favor you again huh, not surprised. 170/162 is going to be the numbers for the production Sky. As you can see it still falls short.
Quote:
Sarcasm? I can't tell. If so, click here
I was not being sarcastic, quack. I know that the 2.4L are capable of, hell I bought one because of that.
Quote:
When low end torque is your personal preference it sure does.
I will still say: And that comes really handy on a FWD car. Smell the sarcasim there?
Get real dude, don't hold a grude on me because of past topics.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:
The 2.4 Ecotec actually produces 177hp and 166lbs ft of torque. So the torque is equal and its down 23hp. Although I'd be willing to bet that it produces peak torque at a lower RPM than 2.4 VTEC.
Pulling numbers out of ass to favor you again huh, not surprised. 170/162 is going to be the numbers for the production Sky. As you can see it still falls short.
Actually yes, on the Pontiac Solstice it produces those ratings.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
the cobolt's 2.4 eco shoult push 170/170
2 things about the civic si
1 cost how much is it going to cost? rsx range?
2 how much of the drive train will they change prior to production
Darc Man Z24 wrote:The concept its powered by a 200hp 2.0 DOHC i-VTEC 4 cylinder. Thats sounds a lot like the engine that powers the Euro Civic Type R.Civic Type R Specs I provided a link. 200hp with a measley 145lbs feet of torque isn't my idea of fun driving.
I know what the current Type R has.. hell the engine is almost exactly the same as mine..
Have you ever driven a car the revs to 8000 rpm? that is certainly my idea of fun driving.. Sure, all the power is in the upper part of the rpm band but that is where you should be if you're "fun driving", low end grunt is nice for daily drivng but for fun driving more power up high is were the fun is..
There are rumors that honda maybe dropping the RSX in north america in a year or 2..
so it wouldn't surpise me if honda's plan was for people who would have bough an RSX to buy the Civic Si instead.
<A HREF="http://members.rogers.com/bruce.chung/pics.html"><IMG SRC="http://members.rogers.com/bruce.chung/sig.jpg" border=0></a><A HREF = "http://www.precizion.org/forums/"><IMG SRC="http://www.j-body.org/registry/kenz24/precizionsmall.gif" border=0></A>
Don't waste your breath brew-san, they'll never understand that tq doesn't mean very much in a fwd, 4cyl car. Or that reving to 8,000 rpm's isn't a "downfall" because we rev twice as fast they do. "200hp with a measley 145lbs feet of torque isn't my idea of fun driving". I could just as easily turn that statement around and say, "155 tq with a measly 150hp" when talking about the Z24.
Going with the rumors that Acura is dropping the RSX, my personal opinions brew-san is that Acura should never have dropped the "Integra" name from the car. Even though everybody knows the RSX is the replacement, the Integra name had a lot of value by itself. I guess Acura's reasoning was the fact that even though the RSX replaced the Integra, the RSX is clearly more luxury and sport than the Integra ever was and maybe that's the route Acura wanted to go knowing that building a "luxury" car with the Integra name, people would still have considered it just a cheap Integra trying to be classy. So redesigning the car, they had to drop the name altogether and replace it. But the K series engine is the way to go, you should see how many people are trying to swap the K20 into their DC2 R.
Brew-san, ºÇãVî§pÉëк,
Agreed, FWD and to much torque equals (insert fart noise). That is what I am dealing with now. Getting out of the whole is the pits with this set up. I have driven so many cars and I have noticed that in FWD you want a acceptable torque with top end. Honda is doing that. For the size of these Honda engines they're providing good torque together with sky high horsepower.
Honda has "it" right.
To bad I am not looking at FWD any more.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Borsty,MiKeDiRnTRuLeZ
theres a reason they discontinued those boats.
I find it funny as heck the two red necks are downing a car that would run circles around them. Have fun with your rust boxes
Gatorade wrote:Borsty,MiKeDiRnTRuLeZ
theres a reason they discontinued those boats.
I find it funny as heck the two red necks are downing a car that would run circles around them. Have fun with your rust boxes
* sigh *
So lets take a vote.
How many people think the Civic will actually turn out with that exact drive train?
I don't. Concepts are overrated. with the SSR, they changed the motor probably atleast 3 times before they put the LS1 in, which was a disappointment considering they were gonna put like a 5.3 Supercharged in there or something like that.
concept or not, the new civic will still have a nice suspension like all the other news ones/acords.
all you do is pick fights
holy cow people
grow up
and i know i dont race my car all the time so i dont always need to rev to 8k
i like to be able to pass and not have to down shift
ºÇãVî§pÉëк, I think part the of the reason for getting rid of the integra name was to make Acura more of a luxury brand and to give the entire line a letter designation car names like they did with the CL, TL, RL (Rememeber the legend, vigor, etc?). It wouldn't make sense to have every car in the line have letter names except for the integra. I agree that if they had kept the integra name the car probably would have sold better to integra fans and the tuner crowd (and as a result sold better on the whole), but I think Honda wanted to move the entire Acura line futher away from the the whole tuner scene. All those really heavily modified integras out there were really cheapening Acura's name as a luxury brand. I think they'd rather Acura be more like Lexus or Infinity and leave the heavily modified cars for their Honda brand and I think this SI might be a sign of that.
MiKeDiRnTRuLeZ, honestly if the rumors of them getting rid fo the RSX are true then it is very likely that the Civic SI (the top trim civic in NA) could come with that exact drivetrain. Now keep in mind that this doesn't mean that the rest of the civic line up won't still come with much less interesting drivetrains. I could very easily see them releasing that car with little more than changes to the wheels (17's probably), skirts (maybe as an option), hood (the pics have it looking like it's painted black not CF, I doubt it'll be Cf and it'll probably be painted body colour), spoiler (probably something more conservative or maybe have it but only as an option).
<A HREF="http://members.rogers.com/bruce.chung/pics.html"><IMG SRC="http://members.rogers.com/bruce.chung/sig.jpg" border=0></a><A HREF = "http://www.precizion.org/forums/"><IMG SRC="http://www.j-body.org/registry/kenz24/precizionsmall.gif" border=0></A>
Gatorade wrote:Borsty,MiKeDiRnTRuLeZ
theres a reason they discontinued those boats.
I find it funny as heck the two red necks are downing a car that would run circles around them. Have fun with your rust boxes
too bad my car has no rust.
hahahahaha a 200 hp fwd car doesnt scare me one bit.
your account got deleted, hahahahhaha.
this car might have the same drivetrain. since they put them in the RSX or watever its called.
-Borsty
Quote:
Hey now.....I have a 77 Camaro that I don't think is worthless.
Sweet Ride!
The civic looks like crap. I prefer the cavalier's looks over the civics. The engine it self makes good power but leaves a lot to be desired in the torque end.
Borsty,
You should leave your car stock looking and sound also if you could because it would be funny to see someone thinking its a slow 80s f body. Then when you leave them in the dust they would be puzzled.
Thats gonna be one beastly car in your hands.
2000 Z-24
2001 Z28 Camaro: Kooks Longtube headers,
Magnoflow Catted Y pipe,
Loudmouth Exaust,Ultra Z Hood with Ram air kit,
SLP Air Lid with K&N filter,
SLP MAF & Bellows,17"Firehawk Wheels
Hey Goodwrench there is no grudge LOL. Its a forum. Its not that serious. We have difference of opinion of a few cars so what? Its not like were are in some mafia blood feud.
"Fiery words fuel debate and debate yields understanding"
^ ^ ^ ^ well, if we're getting philosophical:
"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."
www.drluc.ca
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Brew-san, ºÇãVî§pÉëк,
Agreed, FWD and to much torque equals (insert fart noise). That is what I am dealing with now. Getting out of the whole is the pits with this set up. I have driven so many cars and I have noticed that in FWD you want a acceptable torque with top end. Honda is doing that. For the size of these Honda engines they're providing good torque together with sky high horsepower.
Honda has "it" right.
To bad I am not looking at FWD any more.
uhm thats why so many civics are faster the cavaliers and sunfires stock
dont think so
^I hope you're not being sarcastic there sappy.
If you are not, then I totally agree though. ^
Darcman,
no "prablamo" dude.
Oh guys a little more info... .
The price is going will be close to $20,000, and top speed is going to be over 150mph. Nice!
The front end has a design to have a low coefficient of drag, low and pointy. So if its unlimited, I don't dought on 150mph top speed.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
^ ^ ^ well the current Si is $19,300, if they could sell this one for about 20K that would be like getting a RSX-S for 20K, i would buy one.
www.drluc.ca
id take the ss/sc instead personally
but for my next new car im going to get something w/ a v8 and rwd
ie gto or new chevy model
Luc
ya if I was looking at FWD compact I too would do the same. You can't go wrong here. Best thing, atleast you get some sort of resale value.
Sappy,
To each there own I guess.
Personally, I see no reason to purchase the SS. I too am looking at AWD or atleast RWD for my next car. I don't care if its 4,6,8 cyl, Wankel. It just gotta be that one of those layouts.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
