Quote:

---

Doesn't that seem high for the Cobalt? 198 for a Mustang GT and the Cobalt pulled 238? Am I the only one that sounds a little odd to?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Doesn't that seem high for the Cobalt? 198 for a Mustang GT and the Cobalt pulled 238? Am I the only one that sounds a little odd to?

---

no that was a typo error...i just changed it...the cobalt numbers were correct with his smaller puleys and so on....the GT however was 298 maxx...call it 300!!! my bad.

---

Quote:

---

how does a 190whp car only run low 15s.

Those numbers are just inflated man. The Si on average probably does between 165-170whp. It it made 197 at the wheels it would have been 240 at the crank. last time I checked honda did not put the f20c in the Si.

---

Quote:

---

how does a 190whp car only run low 15s.

Those numbers are just inflated man. The Si on average probably does between 165-170whp. It it made 197 at the wheels it would have been 240 at the crank. last time I checked honda did not put the f20c in the Si.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

how does a 190whp car only run low 15s.

Those numbers are just inflated man. The Si on average probably does between 165-170whp. It it made 197 at the wheels it would have been 240 at the crank. last time I checked honda did not put the f20c in the Si.

---

This post is about as ridiculous as your other recent post on trap speeds.
What are you smoking man?
Get with the program.
The lowest Si dyno I have seen has been at 178 whp. This is bone stock with few miles on it.
At gateway int. raceway in STL their trap speed is the speed at which you pass the 1/4 marker, not an average. Maybe your track is the "odd-ball".
The driver and the track/atmospheric conditions are the only reasons you see magazine times with higher traps. Primarily the driver.

---

Quote:

---

one reason is RWD vs FWD, not saying it'll make up the whole difference in time, but
a car that pushes from the RW will typically run faster times then a car pulling itself by the FW

---

Quote:

---

Whatever I'm smoking doesn't even compare to the shit that you're on.

---

Great comback. I agree with what you're saying though. The numbers dont lie. A 2700lbs car with 190whp should not be runnin 15s

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Whatever I'm smoking doesn't even compare to the shit that you're on.

---

Great comback. I agree with what you're saying though. The numbers dont lie. A 2700lbs car with 190whp should not be runnin 15s

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

how does a 190whp car only run low 15s.

Those numbers are just inflated man. The Si on average probably does between 165-170whp. It it made 197 at the wheels it would have been 240 at the crank. last time I checked honda did not put the f20c in the Si.

---

This post is about as ridiculous as your other recent post on trap speeds.
What are you smoking man?
Get with the program.
The lowest Si dyno I have seen has been at 178 whp. This is bone stock with few miles on it.
At gateway int. raceway in STL their trap speed is the speed at which you pass the 1/4 marker, not an average. Maybe your track is the "odd-ball".
The driver and the track/atmospheric conditions are the only reasons you see magazine times with higher traps. Primarily the driver.

---

Quote:

---

Look, A 2000-2002 S2000 dynoes about 210 whp and weighs about the same as a Civic Si.

---

Fixed

Quote:

---

There's 2 people who use dynographs to prove a point:

Those who are ricers, and those who believe anything they see.

Dynographs are the LAST thing to use in a determining factor on how a car runs. The numbers vary from dyno to dyno, and the dyno-machine itself can be manipulated to the owners delight.

Track time tells you what your car runs. Typical stock Si's are trapping in the 92-94mph range, which does NOT indicate anywhere near 190-200whp. It indicates, to me, the 170-180whp range like anyone that has common sense has said. A 190-200whp car will trap in the 97-99mph range. See any stock Si's doing that, lately? Hell, seen ANY Si's doing that, lately?

Use the timeslips for RSX-S's for comparison. They have essentially the same power and weight, and they trap the same exact speeds and put down the same exact power! Imagine that!

If dynographs are that neccesary, take the RSX-S average and subtract 6-7hp from it. That's factoring in the power that the K20Z3 loses courtesy of the balance shafts Honda gave in this motor.

Some of you guys absolutely crack me up with your comments. You act as if this car is the king of the planet, and as if there's nothing else like it. Hate to break the bad news to you, but it's an RSX-S with a different body and an LSD (not literally, but figuratively when you compare stats). This car will run the same times as it, respond to modifications the same way as it, and stay right beside it while you're racing.

Time to sit back, look at reality, and get off of your high-horses.

---

WTF are you talking about? Dyno's are a great tool in deterimine how fast a car will be. yes some dyno's read different, but that breaks down like this Mustangs read the lowest, dynojets are most accurate, and dynodynamics will always read the highest.
for instance a stock wrx will put down 145-155 whp on a mustang dyno, about 165-175whp on a dynojet and 190'ish on a dynodynamics. Ive done alot of research and found out that a stock si will indeed put down between 178-188 whp on a dynojet dyno and around 190-200whp on a dynodynamics dyno. Their is no proof that the k20z1 makes more whp than a k20z3, so the crap about the si's having balanced shaft that makes them have 4 less HP is bullshit or mabye its the ballanced crankshaft and RBC manifold that make up for the lost 4hp, because every stock si VS stock rsxs dyno ive seen the si make approx 10 more whp!! the reason they have the type s rated at 201 and the si at 197 is strickly for marketing. The SI is fucking RSXS thats alittle heavier but has LSD and Type R manifold, AAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Dynographs are the LAST thing to use in a determining factor on how a car runs.

---

Last I checked, Dynos are pretty useful for mapping HP and TQ curves.

To your point, it would certainly help to make a direct comparision with an Si/RSX-S/etc on the same dyno under same test conditions. For reference, the RSX-S is 143 lbs lighter than the 06 Si.

Quote:

---

Typical stock Si's are trapping in the 92-94mph range, which does NOT indicate anywhere near 190-200whp. It indicates, to me, the 170-180whp range like anyone that has common sense has said. A 190-200whp car will trap in the 97-99mph range. See any stock Si's doing that, lately? Hell, seen ANY Si's doing that, lately?

---

Quote:

---

mustangs read the lowest, dynojets are most accurate, and dynodynamics will always read the highest

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Dynographs are the LAST thing to use in a determining factor on how a car runs.

---

Last I checked, Dynos are pretty useful for mapping HP and TQ curves.

To your point, it would certainly help to make a direct comparision with an Si/RSX-S/etc on the same dyno under same test conditions. For reference, the RSX-S is 143 lbs lighter than the 06 Si.

Quote:

---

Typical stock Si's are trapping in the 92-94mph range, which does NOT indicate anywhere near 190-200whp. It indicates, to me, the 170-180whp range like anyone that has common sense has said. A 190-200whp car will trap in the 97-99mph range. See any stock Si's doing that, lately? Hell, seen ANY Si's doing that, lately?

---

Sure I have. Some are trapping upwards 97 and 98 mph. I think it's more of a case of owners still learning how to launch....
http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?s=52e3d86f8565ec50f97525123f8f7285&t=383857

---

Quote:

---

One guy runs [Email]14.8@96[/Email] then on another run runs [Email]14.8@93mph[/Email] and you think it's representative of what the car should run?

First of all that timesheet is so fishy, how did he lose 3mph but still ran the same time and with almost the same 60' time. Looks like a timing error to me.

---

Quote:

---

190whp should be a lot faster. The em1 Civic which is only 300lbs lighter would be knocking on 13s with that kind of horsepower. You know it.

Put down the crack pipe please and let's try this again.

Maybe the 06' Si typically dynoes high for some reason. The car might be a little bit of a dyno queen. Who knows? All I know is that 190whp means it should have about 230-240 at the flywheel and we all know there's no way it has that much.

---

i dynoed my old EM1 after all my mods and got 193whp, but when i took it to the track i couldn't break 15 flat b/c of the main pitfall of FWD cars at the track..............TRACTION!!!!!

as i've stated in previous posts in this thread the 06 is rated at a lower comparable HP than it would have been if it would have come out 2 years ago so your estimation of BHP to WHP is off

and check out what TOV got out of there pre-production Si
TOV - 06 Si Dyno Results

like they state the pre-production models tend to dyno better because honda hand builds the cars before handing it over to whoever gets them

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Whatever I'm smoking doesn't even compare to the shit that you're on.

---

Great comback. I agree with what you're saying though. The numbers dont lie. A 2700lbs car with 190whp should not be runnin 15s

---

Thats because they dont, they run mid to low 14's with a good driver you ********, one guy did 14.2 at 97 or somthing with just a cat back. The time you have seen are from un experienced drivers!!! just like when people in rsxs run high 15's and shit

Quote:

---

Umm, how can someone who had an 11 second car not know that your trapspeed is your terminal velocity at the end of the quarter mile, not your average speed ? No 1/4 mile track uses your average speed.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

190whp should be a lot faster. The em1 Civic which is only 300lbs lighter would be knocking on 13s with that kind of horsepower. You know it.

Put down the crack pipe please and let's try this again.

Maybe the 06' Si typically dynoes high for some reason. The car might be a little bit of a dyno queen. Who knows? All I know is that 190whp means it should have about 230-240 at the flywheel and we all know there's no way it has that much.

---

i dynoed my old EM1 after all my mods and got 193whp, but when i took it to the track i couldn't break 15 flat b/c of the main pitfall of FWD cars at the track..............TRACTION!!!!!

as i've stated in previous posts in this thread the 06 is rated at a lower comparable HP than it would have been if it would have come out 2 years ago so your estimation of BHP to WHP is off

and check out what TOV got out of there pre-production Si
TOV - 06 Si Dyno Results

like they state the pre-production models tend to dyno better because honda hand builds the cars before handing it over to whoever gets them

---

Quote:

---

You couldn't break 15s with a 193whp 2600lbs car only because of two possible reasons. You either can't drive or you are at a bad track at a high elevation.

I had 180whp in my 00'Si when I had a JRSC and ran 14.1-14.2 all day with so so 60' times.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Umm, how can someone who had an 11 second car not know that your trapspeed is your terminal velocity at the end of the quarter mile, not your average speed ? No 1/4 mile track uses your average speed.

---

And how exactly are you going to prove that?

Please, do not come here and make an ass out of yourself with a dumbfounded comment such as this. Especially if it's going to be your first post.

Geez.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Umm, how can someone who had an 11 second car not know that your trapspeed is your terminal velocity at the end of the quarter mile, not your average speed ? No 1/4 mile track uses your average speed.

---

And how exactly are you going to prove that?

Please, do not come here and make an ass out of yourself with a dumbfounded comment such as this. Especially if it's going to be your first post.

Geez.

---

Umm, how about basic math. If trap speed was the average speed, you could calculate this yourself very easily since you know the distance traveled and the time it took to travel that distance. For example, lets say a Civic Si has an ET of say 15 seconds throught the 1/4 flat for simplicities sake. The average speed would be 1/4 times 240(this is how many times 15 seconds goes into one hour so that the denominator is in hours so we can get mile per hour). This would be an average speed of 60mph through the 1320. Have you ever seen someone with a 60mph trap with a 15 second et. Or, you could simply look down at your speed after you go throughth traps. I trap at 100mph, and what do you know, when I look down at my speedo throught the traps I'm going - tadda - 100mph.

How about knowing what your talking about before spouting miss-information on the net Mr. "11 seconds", or taking some math classes.

Trap speed is generally a good indication of the power a car is putting out, while ET is the ability of that person or car to put down the power effectively, i.e., not spinning the tires too much or bogging too much.

---

Hey Dildo, pshhht....you're just digging your own grave ,

I never said trap speed is the average for the whole 1320'. Go back to reading my post mr WRX. If you can't understand simple English you're just not worth arguing with.

As far as my former 11sec car that you seem to think was a fantasy, well I've been in this forum for 5 years, I've got plenty of folks who can vouch for me and my old car. I've drag raced it for s6 years, going through n/a mods, a supercharger and then a built turbo engine. I've got nothing to prove to you though.

You on the other hand, from what I can tell, are probably a novice or completely estranged to drag racing.

So do us all a favor and STFU and go learn your shit before you come here attacking me with your nonsense.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You couldn't break 15s with a 193whp 2600lbs car only because of two possible reasons. You either can't drive or you are at a bad track at a high elevation.

I had 180whp in my 00'Si when I had a JRSC and ran 14.1-14.2 all day with so so 60' times.

---

like i stated before my car was dynoed on a mustang dynometer that does rate it higher than what i've see on others and i was running it at gainesville raceway here in FL and like i said I couldn't catch traction for shit the whole time.

you had a JRSC and 180whp??? sounds low to me, when my N/A car put down 193whp with just some mild head work & I/H/E, but like i said the dyno i was on overrated my car some

---

Sounds like your dyno was inflated. If you had a b16, there is no way in hell you would be putting down 193whp without a completely built engine or some nitrous/forced induction. Hence the reason you couldn't get out of the 15s.
The JRSC when I had it was untuned at 6psi. It still ran about a second faster than your "193whp" N/a car though.

Just some food for thought.

Quote:

---

Sounds like your dyno was inflated. If you had a b16, there is no way in hell you would be putting down 193whp without a completely built engine or some nitrous/forced induction. Hence the reason you couldn't get out of the 15s.
The JRSC when I had it was untuned at 6psi. It still ran about a second faster than your "193whp" N/a car though.

Just some food for thought.

---

i listed my mods in a previous post and like i've stated MANY times that my car was dynoed on a mustang dynometer which does give you inflated #'s

a JRSC should run faster than a N/A with headwork and i'm not denying that

your food for thought would be to read the persons entire post BEFORE relpying

Quote:

---

It might be the dyno. For instance, my butt dyno had me at eleventybajillion WHP, but I am pretty sure that was high.

---

Quote:

---

well i bet the gear ratios in the cobalt are shit and that is another factor you have to take into effect on the drag strip & also take into effect the Si gets the benefit of an LSD

it's tough to estimate a car's 1/4 mile time based upon it's dynoed WHP b/c there are too many unknowns on the track vs the controlled environment of the dyno

like i said in my previous post i think the numbers are slightly inflated............like 10-15hp to the high side

---

Quote:

---

I fail to see your main point though, I mean, why would you even bring your car into the discussion if you didn't think it actually made a believable 193whp?

---

Quote:

---

But back on the topic at hand though, which should be summed up with the following statement: The 06 Si if it had indeed 190whp, would be a legit mid 14sec car, but it's not, so therefore it makes nowhere near 190whp in reality, no matter what those dynos say

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It might be the dyno. For instance, my butt dyno had me at eleventybajillion WHP, but I am pretty sure that was high.

---

It's called TORQUE, and the cobalt SS has 200 Ft lbs of it, and the Civic SI is what? 138 or so?

Torque=speed off the line
Horsepower=Top End.

That's why the civic's trap speeds aren't as good.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I fail to see your main point though, I mean, why would you even bring your car into the discussion if you didn't think it actually made a believable 193whp?

---

i brought my car's high dyno results to disagree with another posters post(06redsi) of a mustang dyno being an accurate dyno

but i originally brought my car up to compare the HP rating systems and to show people that the difference between BHP & WHP are less now b/c of the new SAE ratings

I used my car as the EM1 to compare it to what the 06 Si would have been expected to dyno using the old ratings here:

00 SI - 160bhp -------140whp(using dynoject)
06 SI - 197bhp -------173whp(what it could be using 7bhp:8whp ratio)

with the new rating systems cars are actually listed with10-15BHP less from what they would have been released using the old system

ie- 06 Si would have had between 210-215BHP using the old system, so to dyno a stock 06 and get in the 180's in WHP isn't out of the question for the car if it was stock

also, remember Honda had originally listed the 06 Si with 200 BHP, but dropped it some to give more incentive for buyers to consider the RSX-S and for insurance premiums

Quote:

---

But back on the topic at hand though, which should be summed up with the following statement: The 06 Si if it had indeed 190whp, would be a legit mid 14sec car, but it's not, so therefore it makes nowhere near 190whp in reality, no matter what those dynos say

---

the original poster did have some mods done to his car(intake, exhaust, intake manifold gasket), so his car should put out numbers a little higher than the factory set, but my opinion was that they were somewhat inflated and if he was to dyno using a dynapack his results would be more accurate

---

Quote:

---

Ok, I guess we're slowly but surely getting on the same page. I understand why you think it should dyno around 180whp and heck maybe it does, but it still runs 15s for the most part or very high 14s at best. Even at 2870lbs (and most guys take out their spare and jack at the track so racing weight is uusually less than that) The car should be deeper in the 14s with even 180whp and it shoudl trap a lot higher than the common 92-93mph I see all the time.

That's why I said earlier that it performs like a car with 165-170whp.

---

well just like i said in another previous post if you would have read everything i had wrote there wouldn't have been a confusion

i don't own the car ( waiting for the sedan ), so I wouldn't know how the car drives or should react at the track. you must take into thought that the car has only been out a couple of months and the times will reduce once people get use to their cars and get enough seat time in them. we'll see lower ET's in the future

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I fail to see your main point though, I mean, why would you even bring your car into the discussion if you didn't think it actually made a believable 193whp?

---

i brought my car's high dyno results to disagree with another posters post(06redsi) of a mustang dyno being an accurate dyno

but i originally brought my car up to compare the HP rating systems and to show people that the difference between BHP & WHP are less now b/c of the new SAE ratings

I used my car as the EM1 to compare it to what the 06 Si would have been expected to dyno using the old ratings here:

00 SI - 160bhp -------140whp(using dynoject)
06 SI - 197bhp -------173whp(what it could be using 7bhp:8whp ratio)

with the new rating systems cars are actually listed with10-15BHP less from what they would have been released using the old system

ie- 06 Si would have had between 210-215BHP using the old system, so to dyno a stock 06 and get in the 180's in WHP isn't out of the question for the car if it was stock

also, remember Honda had originally listed the 06 Si with 200 BHP, but dropped it some to give more incentive for buyers to consider the RSX-S and for insurance premiums

Quote:

---

But back on the topic at hand though, which should be summed up with the following statement: The 06 Si if it had indeed 190whp, would be a legit mid 14sec car, but it's not, so therefore it makes nowhere near 190whp in reality, no matter what those dynos say

---

the original poster did have some mods done to his car(intake, exhaust, intake manifold gasket), so his car should put out numbers a little higher than the factory set, but my opinion was that they were somewhat inflated and if he was to dyno using a dynapack his results would be more accurate

---