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.

---