I know I would win

I told you my 1999 HONDA CIVIC DX would beat that v6 Mustang Mustang it was a 1995 or 96 I smoked his ass. AND if you go to www.car-stats.com you will see that the mustang run 17s and I run 16.7 and that is also faster then the 1999 HONDA CIVIC EX even with its 20 more HP



so to all the people that said I would get my ass handed to me :thefinger :thefinger :thefinger :thefinger :thefinger :thefinger

no one ever liked a bragger.

No bragging they talked mad shit on me about me not winning and my car sucks and shit and that I would get my ass handed to me so I had to let them know

:gives: Okay, that site is so full of it just like you. If you look at the specs on the 96 Civic EX then yes the 96 DX is faster but then look at the 97 EX and it's faster than the DX. The funny thing is they have the same damn engine so how is this true? The 6th gen style did'nt change till 99-00 so there is no difference in weight at all between the 96 and 97. I find this site to be inaccurate and you to be the same. I think I speak for everyone on this site when I say, " Who gives a shit ? ".:attention Like I said before, post this kind of BS in the forum made specifically for BS, Street/Track Racing Stories. Oh and I still don't belive your lying ass. :greddy2:

you have to be the biggest hater on the whole forums every time I see your name on the forum you are hating on people lol you need a hug or something:lol:

yea, lately youve been an ass, do you think your hott shyt cuz you still run 15's with that b16 or what?

I admit, I do get flustered when people lie their ass off and claim to have and do things that are just unrealistic. I just need proof but if you look at all of my posts I help just as much as I criticize. Just keep the BS stories where they belong that's all. I'm am sure there are many people that can vouch for my help.........................



















and criticizm. :icon16:

Now before I paste this this is from a MOD that IROC i raced was really really shitty lookin and also if you read what I said the GT may not how been a GT gay people add gay things like Gt and cobra sign to there car


For those of you calling up the flag for the thread starter, I think all of you should think about it first before you start doing so.

I for one believe him for many reasons.
__________________________________________________
______

1) He ended his post by asking if it's possible that the car has some internal work done by a prior owner without his knowledge, which though unlikely, is possible.
__________________________________________________
______

2) His car. I am sure that if it was somebody with an EX, even with just a SOHC, you'd all have an easier time believing him, since he'd have the almighty VTEC.

In car-stats.com (which I'm using since it is tangible and easy to confirm by you guys), it states that the the 1996 Civic DX (essentially the same car) runs a 16.7 quarter stock. In the same site, the 1996 Civic EX runs a 17.6...almost a second slower.

How can that be? How can two similar cars...except one has 127HP and the other has 106HP...be so unequal, with the advantage going to the one with less HP? Easy. It's called OPTIONS. All the standard equipment available on a Civic EX but not on a DX (i.e., ABS, PW, PDL, MNRF) adds about 200-300lbs on to that chassis.

We all know how power-sapping that much weight difference can be. Anyone that has tried to race with and without a passenger can attest to that.

But wouldn't the extra power make-up for it? Maybe in the extreme top-end. Since both powerplants (d16y7, d16y8) put out similar torque, the weight difference is very noticeable when both take-off from a light.
__________________________________________________
______

3) The cars he challenged.

Let's look at them:

a) 1986 RX-7 == Stock and without a turbo, these cars run a best of mid-low 16's in perfect tune. Don't forget, this is a 17yr-old car.

b) 1998 Accord LX == A high 16, low 17-second car, though capable of low 16's bone stock with a capable driver...so's the DX.

c) 1990-1991 240SX == Mid 16-second car in good tune.

d) Celica GT == He never mentioned what year. For all we know, it's an older model GT, which were low 17, mid 16-second cars too. Heck, even the new GTs (not GT-S, GT) are mid/low 16-second cars.

e) 1990-1991 EX Accord == Another 17-second car. Oh, that's also in good tune.

f) Old Camaro IROC == Hardest one to swallow out of all the line-up. These category of cars. The old IROCs (1985-1990), ran between a mid-14 to mid 15-second quarter, depending on year and trim.

Two things, either he mistook a Camaro RS...with the 305 and running high 16's...for an IROC, or he caught one in really bad tune, which is more than possible.
__________________________________________________
______


In any case, it's bad enough that everbody and their grandma's would stomp on and bash Honda drivers with any chance they get, and here you guys are ready to pounce on a fellow Honda driver without considering all the facts...AND the people replying are hating on each other too...damn.



So hmmm.... I guess I was right and also I always have the HORN I like the ADV.

the celica GT is the slower model of the two. the GTS is quite quick, my roommate has one and it can beat my car.


chris

I want to clear up what you just said if you read it says "even the new GTs (NOT GT-S, GT) are mid/low 16-second cars" not getting smart just want you to know what the mod was sayin:sunglasse

Okay, I normally don't get involvoed in shit like this but geez. First off, a Mustang GT like what your talkin bout has a SOHC 16 Vavle V8 Engine....sure, it a V8 4.6L, but i has 2 friggen vavles per cylenderler. Since 92, only the friggen 5th gen CX hatchs had 2 vavles per cylender, and that was weak shit. The GT mames power cuz of displacement, not good engineering. A engine that size should be waaay faster...like the Cobra or Roush. Beat one of those, then we'll talk...a GT is shit, almost any friggen 4-banger has 16 vavle engine, some like VW have 20. The GT has 16, in a V-8?? SO the GT's not that great. Secondly, the word Corba is etched into the friggen bumper on Corba's so if the damn badbe says Cobra and the friggin etched word in Mustang? you get the drift. 2nd, if it wasn't a GT, like you said is possibvle...even worse....those have a friggen OHV 12-valve V-6. SO as you see, low -end mustangs arn't all that, from them it's just a friggen name. I ment a guy who works at a dealership...he said they LOVE to sell GT's cuz after a few years max, ppl get sick of them, cuz they don't have the power expected, etc, and the nostalga of the name wears off. His opinion was it's a waste of $$ to buy any Mustang thats not a Mach 1, Cobra, Roush, or Saleen. So if you wanna brag about beaten a stang? Come back when you beat one of those...Oh yea, and bring some proof and post it, cuz talk is just talk unless you can show otherwise.

hell freaking yea! lol... damn this has gotten kinda carried away but proof is always nice... hey I beat a McLaren... sure it has a V12 and 600+ HP but weight is what matters! :bloated: (to redrunner)

Originally posted by B16EJ1
If you look at the specs on the 96 Civic EX then yes the 96 DX is faster but then look at the 97 EX and it's faster than the DX. The funny thing is they have the same damn engine so how is this true? The 6th gen style did'nt change till 99-00 so there is no difference in weight at all between the 96 and 97. I find this site to be inaccurate and you to be the same.

This is what I think of the site Carnutt and you used to prove your point. As I've stated before, I drive my girls hatch all the time and I am perfectly aware of the limitations of the engine in a lighter car even. He may be a MOD but that means nothing when using an inaccurate website. Post more links to different sites that say the same then I'll be satisfied. As even Carnutt himself said I just find it hard to swallow.

Originally posted by kittedb18bt
the celica GT is the slower model of the two. the GTS is quite quick, my roommate has one and it can beat my car.


chris


yea rite quick? I've driven one and i've beaten one with a Volvo thats how quick they are ..........


My volvo was a T5 236hp :iceslolan

Originally posted by B16EJ1


This is what I think of the site Carnutt and you used to prove your point. As I've stated before, I drive my girls hatch all the time and I am perfectly aware of the limitations of the engine in a lighter car even. He may be a MOD but that means nothing when using an inaccurate website. Post more links to different sites that say the same then I'll be satisfied. As even Carnutt himself said I just find it hard to swallow.

As I mentioned, I used the site because it'll be easier to verify the information I was being given.

The 1997 EX you quoted that was faster than the DX...


...you do know that this site culls its info from different magazine sources, right?

I know that's "magazine racing", but I don't have the time to gather images of time-slips from wherever.

I can tell you, however, that I saw a 2001 Civic LX with I/H/E/ignition mods run a 15.6 pass here at Speedworld and the same night a 2002 EX with similar mods run a 16.2.

The 1997 Civic EX ran a better time because it had either a) a better driver b) better conditions c) a combination of both. It doesn't mean that the actual car is faster than say the 1996 EX. If the same driver ran the same track with a DX right after the 1997 EX run, do you think he would've posted better times for the same year DX as well?

I'm not just talking out my ass here, as I just recently owned a 1997 Civic LX 4-dr. The LX has all the disadvantages, since it has the base 106HP motor, with some of the EX's weight (power options). Yet, I have beaten similarly-equpped EX Civics as mine was (I/H/E, ignition). You're probably not going to believe this, I even pulled on a Civic Si on the freeway (It was a co-worker, he didn't believe it either).

Oh, did I mention I was running a 1999 motor in the Civic? (Blew the old one). Maybe that helped, dunno.

For the longest time, I NEVER posted any of my kills in the Civic, because of people like you. I didn't have time for it.

You talk about tangible proof, why do we believe that you have a b16 Civic, because we do, and because we have no reason to not believe you.

With that said, if you, redrunner, are using my helping hand to spout b.s., then we'll find out sooner or later...otherwise, you haven't said anything unbelievable yet, as far as I'm concerned.

All I can say is, when I speak, I speak from experience, and from YEARS of street-racing (started in Sacramento in 1992, with a brand-new GS-R).

You seem to think in terms of what you think should and should not happen, as opposed to what you know.

Lastly, read my sig.

People like to use the fact that I have a B16 and I think I'm almighty but I have never posted kills streetracing or track. I totally disagree with Honda's on the 1/4 anyway. The car was not designed for the quarter. You mention the fact that it depends on the car AND driver but the site you use is reffering to a cars performance and not the driver so it is still innacurate. Subject all cars to the exact same driver and that should determine the times. The simple fact that the site takes info from different magazines discredits it. I too also speak from experience. I've been into imports from my dad. Before Honda even made it big in the scene I've been exposed to Datsun 110's, 510's, Toyota Corolla's. A lot of people here think Honda started it all but they are just playing catch up. I am well aware of what a car can do with a good driver but all you people who use this excuse have no idea what you are talking about. A good driver does not and can not make up a difference of 60hp. A good driver racing a shitty driver does.

Originally posted by B16EJ1
People like to use the fact that I have a B16 and I think I'm almighty but I have never posted kills streetracing or track. I totally disagree with Honda's on the 1/4 anyway. The car was not designed for the quarter. You mention the fact that it depends on the car AND driver but the site you use is reffering to a cars performance and not the driver so it is still innacurate. Subject all cars to the exact same driver and that should determine the times. The simple fact that the site takes info from different magazines discredits it. I too also speak from experience. I've been into imports from my dad. Before Honda even made it big in the scene I've been exposed to Datsun 110's, 510's, Toyota Corolla's. A lot of people here think Honda started it all but they are just playing catch up. I am well aware of what a car can do with a good driver but all you people who use this excuse have no idea what you are talking about. A good driver does not and can not make up a difference of 60hp. A good driver racing a shitty driver does.

This post says a lot about you.

You may speak from experience, but you speak from an unrelated experience.

I have owned a car from most of the major manufacturers in the U.S., import and domestic.

I have knowledge of a variety of cars. With all that, I also happen to include in that knowledge actual racing/driving experience in most of the cars I'd defend/disclaim. Which means I can speak honestly when I say what it feels like to race/drive an Accord LXi, a modified V6 Fiero, a Beretta GTZ stock and otherwise, a Mazda 323 V6, a Mazda Protege', a Mazda RX-7 GTU, an N/A MR2, a Honda Civic LX, a modified Nissan Hardbody, a b16 Integra, a Chevy WT/10 pickup, a big-block-late 60's Olds Cutlass, a Sentra SE-R...there's more, but I think you get the idea.

You saying that a car can or cannot do something based on what you think you know about that car is useless.

Unless you've seen one race, or raced one yourself, what you say is opinion and opinion alone.

Races against the ricer types that so burden their cars that a stock car can beat it doesn't count.

As for disagreeing with Hondas in the quarter, again, that's an opinion. An opinion that is obviously not shared by Stephan Papadakis and other people that have made a living drag-racing these "econo-cars".

The fact that the site takes from magazines discredits it? Are you saying that the millions of dollars combined that car mags are spending on testing equipment and professional drivers are useless? What should they do? just listen to your opinion? You should write them a letter, maybe they can pay you that money they're spending on equipment, and save money.


Originally posted by B16EJ1

...the site you use is reffering to a cars performance and not the driver so it is still innacurate...

Uhm, did the cars drive themselves then?

If you're saying different drivers, different skills, then you should realize that argument was used against you in my last post...read it again.

I speak from unrelated experience??? As I've already posted twice in one of the many threads RedRunner has posted. My girl has a 99 Civic hatch DX. I've driven the car as much as my own and I've driven most of the cars you've listed. My brother even drives an F body Z28 Camaro. My relm of knowledge is not limited to Honda and I don't know how you are able to assume otherwise. What I meant by them using mags for info is that they never tested the cars themselves using one and only one driver and they take their info from many different magazines which all use different drivers and conditions so the info is so broad and tests and results are therfore inaccurate. Take one company that tests all the same cars and subject them to the same track w/ the same driver and the results will be more accurate than that useless site. There is do denying that.

Oh and your whole Papadakis thing......who cares??? When Soichiro Honda designed the car the quarter mile was no where in mind and when Mugen was created, the performance packages that were dreamed up did not have the quarter in mind either. All Honda tuners in Japan don't give a damn about the quarter because it was not made for it.

I can see you're getting flustered and as a result sarcasm is starting to kick in in your posts. Calm down and open your mind. This may sound a bit too far fetched for you but it's the facts.

Originally posted by B16EJ1

I speak from unrelated experience??? As I've already posted twice in one of the many threads RedRunner has posted. My girl has a 99 Civic hatch DX. I've driven the car as much as my own and I've driven most of the cars you've listed. My brother even drives an F body Z28 Camaro. My relm of knowledge is not limited to Honda and I don't know how you are able to assume otherwise.

Because you speak of the vehicles as if you didn't know them. I tried to show you based on other people's driving what the car is capable of, yet you refuse the fact, since the source is not up to your par.

Originally posted by B16EJ1

What I meant by them using mags for info is that they never tested the cars themselves using one and only one driver and they take their info from many different magazines which all use different drivers and conditions so the info is so broad and tests and results are therfore inaccurate. Take one company that tests all the same cars and subject them to the same track w/ the same driver and the results will be more accurate than that useless site. There is do denying that.

There is no such thing as a car's absolute capability. Even if you are talking real timeslips, it just shows you one out of a dozen possible times a car can run. No two motors will exactly be the same. That's not even counting driver ability. Even the same driver driving the exact same track with the exact same car will have different times for each run. The most consistent drivers still have a .00XX variation in their times. When we talk about vehicle ETs, we are talking about its RANGE. The times quoted in the site or in any magazine whatsoever will show that the car is AT LEAST capable of that.

Most magazines have listed the stock S2000's quarter ETs at about 14.5 to 14.1. Yet, the fastest time I know of for a stock S2K at the track is a 13.66.

I was showing you the RANGE of the Civic DX, which means it can go plus/minus.

The different time achieved for the 1997 EX shows the car's possible range.

The magazines they quote stake their journalistic integrity in reporting that the times they show are what they did run. I guess that's not enough for you.

Oh wait...you want one driver, one track...dude, even magazines can't do that. Wish on. Why do you think they report the conditions they run stuff in? (temp/track elevation/etc.)

Plus ANYTHING can happen on the streets, we all know that. That even discounts your disbelief of the issue even more.

Originally posted by B16EJ1

Oh and your whole Papadakis thing......who cares???

Actually, a LOT of people do. A whole industry was built around it.

Just because YOU don't care, doesn't mean the rest of us don't have to.

Originally posted by B16EJ1

When Soichiro Honda designed the car the quarter mile was no where in mind

a) None of the current Honda lineup is designed by Soichiro.

b) He founded Honda as a result of his love of cars and racing. In the 1920's, as teen-ager, he built his own car that he competed against older, better-funded competitors and won. He even held the land-speed record in Japan for many years. Quarter-mile racing was non-existent in Japan back then (even in the US), but I'm sure if it was, he'll just see it as another challenge, and compete.

c) Just because you know the name of "The Founder" doesn't mean you know him, and his company's intentions.


Originally posted by B16EJ1

and when Mugen was created, the performance packages that were dreamed up did not have the quarter in mind either. All Honda tuners in Japan don't give a damn about the quarter because it was not made for it.

Have you been to Japan? Do you seriously pretend to speak for ALL Japanese Honda tuners?

I can sit here right now and make a drag car out of ANY Honda I wanted to...and not buy a SINGLE part from the U.S. How can that be? Like you said "All Honda tuners in Japan don't give a damn about the quarter...". Hmmm.

Originally posted by B16EJ1

I can see you're getting flustered and as a result sarcasm is starting to kick in in your posts. Calm down and open your mind. This may sound a bit too far fetched for you but it's the facts.

So now you speak for me too? Your pompousness knows no bounds, man. If you read most of my posts...since you obviously don't know me...slight sarcasm is how I communicate myself.

Originally posted by B16EJ1
:gives: Okay, that site is so full of it just like you. If you look at the specs on the 96 Civic EX then yes the 96 DX is faster but then look at the 97 EX and it's faster than the DX. The funny thing is they have the same damn engine so how is this true? The 6th gen style did'nt change till 99-00 so there is no difference in weight at all between the 96 and 97. I find this site to be inaccurate and you to be the same. I think I speak for everyone on this site when I say, " Who gives a shit ? ".:attention Like I said before, post this kind of BS in the forum made specifically for BS, Street/Track Racing Stories. Oh and I still don't belive your lying ass. :greddy2:

I have always felt it better than open derision or judgement...(hint) (hint). But then again, I just called you pompous...oh well "This may sound a bit too far fetched for you but it's the facts".

You want ME to open MY mind? When it's you that's so closed-off to a certain car's capabilities?

Let me guess, you probably think you'll smoke my stock Sentra with your b16 Civic:rolleyes:.

I'm not trying to antagonize you, but besides from being able to say "I'm right", what is your point? That you still don't believe that the Civic DX driver beat the cars he claims to have beat?

I was trying to open YOUR mind...haven't you understood what my sig means?

Frankly, I just think you're mad because you feel that I "chose sides" in this apparent argument between you and another member. If I am wrong in that assumption, I apologize.

Edit: On that last quote I got from you said "I think I speak for everyone on this site when I say, " Who gives a shit ? "

This is your official notice:

No you don't.

Everything you have posted so far is an assumption and opinion the same as you said my posts are. Both you and I have not listed any facts or proof. I know that Soichiro has'nt designed the latest models we speak of. You are taking things way to literally to prove me wrong when as I've just said you've stated mere opinions and assumptions just as I have. No one here knows the intentions of the founder but since all that the both of us are doing is assuming things, IMO it's safer to assume that most Civic's and Integra's were more designed for autox than drag racing. It's not as far feched as you make it out to be and in fact it just plain old makes sense. If Honda wanted the all out raw hp/trq that's necessary for good times in the 1/4 they would have went the turbo route like most other Japanese auto companies. 30 years of the Honda Civic and yet no oem turbo or Mugen turbo kit. Take a fully balanced motor from Spoon sports and still no impressive strip time. But yes you may be right. Maybe they did have a good 1/4 mile time in mind when the largest 4 cyl. motor made for the Civic chassis was a 2.0L. I do not care that you chose side's. The fact that this guy seems to worship you because you are a moderator on this site which in his mind makes you all knowing. You have done no better than me proving your point which ,by the way, is very unclear seeing as all you have done is take my posts and pick them apart is what bothers me the most. Anyway, Thanks for the useless debate on what??? I don't know.

Okay, I don't want to get into an arguement here with any of you. But here's my take on the whole thing. I got B16 as saying that because the drivers and loctions were most likely differnet on the 1/4 mile times, the results were "baised" to put in in a term used in science experiments. Becuase the controlable factors, like driver, loction, different days and weather, were all different, the factors differ to much to gain a truely actrutae result of one cars capibility verusus another, all things being equal. This is what I took him as trying to say. Now I know that the cost for a magaizne to stage such an experince may be a lot, and very well may be out of range. I am a journalism major, and I know that there is not a bottemless buget. However, Conducting the 1/4 mile times in that way would at least quell the arguement at hand in that aspect, I would think. As you both stated, the driver, tempture, etc, make a big differnce in the 1/4 mile times a car can produce. I would think that given this knowlegde, it would be smart of someone to test them witht he same driver, the same day. This would help cut down on the controllable varibles that differ and help skew results. Now I know that most magiznes most likely do not have the $$ or resources to get all these cars, and the other needed things to do this, but it would be nice. Again, this is just an objective 3rd parties view of what I think was trying to be said by you 2, and what I thought was a nice idea to do aobut it. Again, I wish no part of this agruement, and hope it gets settled soon. Best of luck.

Originally posted by B16EJ1
Everything you have posted so far is an assumption and opinion the same as you said my posts are. Both you and I have not listed any facts or proof. I know that Soichiro has'nt designed the latest models we speak of. You are taking things way to literally to prove me wrong when as I've just said you've stated mere opinions and assumptions just as I have. No one here knows the intentions of the founder but since all that the both of us are doing is assuming things, IMO it's safer to assume that most Civic's and Integra's were more designed for autox than drag racing.

In all this wasted bandwidth, you have yet to get the point...

So...you're saying I'm only assuming that a Civic DX is capable of the times posted in car-stats because a different driver in different conditions will have a different time?

Do you get the absurdity of that logic?

I did not assume anything, because what was listed in the site was actually ran by somebody, sometime, besides me seeing actual runs. I just chose to quote a site that everybody seeing this could access, therefore can verify it for themselves.

Are you also saying that I assumed that Hondas are built more for drag-racing? Where did I say that?

What I said was that people CARE about drag-racing Hondas, and that they are capable of good times in the right hands...NOT AN ASSUMPTION.

I am taking things too literally? Well, since I'm not into ASSUMING what your point is, and it's hard to see your body-language over the web, then I'll just have to take your typewritten words to their meaning, don't I?

Originally posted by B16EJ1

I do not care that you chose side's.

The fact that you think I did, makes my point from my previous post.

Originally posted by B16EJ1

The fact that this guy seems to worship you because you are a moderator on this site which in his mind makes you all knowing. You have done no better than me proving your point which ,by the way, is very unclear seeing as all you have done is take my posts and pick them apart is what bothers me the most. Anyway, Thanks for the useless debate on what??? I don't know.

Wow. I never knew that I wasn't all knowing:rolleyes:...I thought all moderators were.

I'm not trying to prove MY point as opposed to trying to prove A point. The original idea of which was that the original poster's car was and is capable of beating the vehicles he claims to have beat.

I'm not trying to "pick-apart" your posts...I'm responding to them point-by-point. If you felt "picked-apart" after, well...I must've done better than you're letting on.

You are right about one thing, this debate seems to be useless, since it seems only one of us has a point.

Let's check out your arguments:

a) The Civic DX is not capable of beating those cars. The fact that the moderator quoted a site showing that the Civic DX is capable of being faster than even a Civic EX, and matching the opposing car's times is irrelevant, since the numbers came off professional testers from a magazine.

b) Hondas are not made for drag-racing, therefore the idea that a Civic DX actually raced cars that are probably "more suited" to drag-racing is laughable. (The idea of Hondas drag-racing alone is a blasphemy to the car's philosophy)

b) Although I don't believe in what Civics are capable of, I believe I know the real spirit of the Honda philosophy.

d) If I raced a Mustang V6 against a Civic who is inherently physically faster than the Mustang, the Mustang will still win because "it's built for drag-racing". Oh wait, I DON'T believe that the Mustang V6 is slower than a Civic DX, since the site saying that it is takes its times from magazines.

Maybe, just maybe, the Saleen S7 is NOT as fast as they say...since I've only read about it, not actually seen it race or rode in it...

Originally posted by carrrnuttt



a) The Civic DX is not capable of beating those cars. The fact that the moderator quoted a site showing that the Civic DX is capable of being faster than even a Civic EX, and matching the opposing car's times is irrelevant, since the numbers came off professional testers from a magazine.



The fact that you stand by this site and use this as a valid source of info discredits every arguement you have spent so much time on. The fact that the DX can pull faster times than the EX is not what I base my arguement that this site is worthless. I am not surprised by that statement. The thing that bothers me the most is that the 96 Civic EX and the 97 Civic EX times are so far off from each other when both cars have the same curb weight, engine, power options, body, and chassis design. The exact car with a year difference in age. 96 Civic EX has a 0-60 time of 10.5 and a 1/4 time of 17.6. 97 Civic EX has a 0-60 time of 8.5 and a 1/4 time of 16.6. A 1-2 second difference between the exact same car. They only have one year tested on the Civic DX, 96. None of these apply to 99 Civic DX which I'm pretty sure, by this sites standards, would be another 4 seconds faster. :rolleyes: As I've said before that in order for their results to be accurate the tests have to be in a controlled environment, which is not impossible as you've previously stated. I've seen many a car shoot-outs in magazines and the results done in these comparisons are way more accurate than this site seing as all the cars were tested on the same track, at the same altitude, under the same weather conditions. Thank you. I'm done.

So...you're saying a bone-stock DX can't run a mid-16? Yes or no?

I WILL REPEAT:

"I used the site as a reference because it is tangible and easy to verify."

Remember me saying that I saw two similarly-modded Civics at the track one night? The 2001 LX ran a 15.6 compared to the 2002 EX which ran a 16.2.

Remember me saying that I have beat similarly-modded Civic EXs on the streets with my 1997 Civic LX 4-dr?

They're not tangible and can't be proven directly, so I used the site.

Remember when I said that ANY run made by ANY car and by ANY driver is not it's absolute, no matter what? It represents the RANGE the car can go.

Remember I said that even the EXACT SAME DRIVER with the EXACT SAME CAR, running on THE EXACT SAME TRACK on THE EXACT SAME DAY can run different times?

Just because the site portrayed the possible variations in a car's accelerative capabilities doesn't mean that they made-up the times that the cars ran.

Lastly, I don't stand by the site...I stand by the fact that the times they post are the actual times ran by the cars they claim to have run them. You don't seem to see the logic in that idea.

When I quoted the 1996 DX and the 1996 EX times, I was illustrating a point that the EX would've been dusted if this occured side-by-side. Granted, there might've been different tracks used, but I have seen proof with my own eyes that the above DX vs EX situation is not only possible, but is true, but I can't paint you that picture now, can I?

Originally posted by B16EJ1
I'm am sure there are many people that can vouch for my help.........................




Yup B16 is cool guy and he never critisized me, and I have asked some :newbie: questions before.

Originally posted by TheNotoriousMogg




Yup B16 is cool guy and he never critisized me, and I have asked some :newbie: questions before.
:iagree:

30 years of the Honda Civic and yet no oem turbo or Mugen turbo kit mugen has made a turbo kit

My bad. They did but not for the Honda engines used on the strip today and, to my knowledge, no recent turbo applications.

I dont worship him I just asked a question about what have you beat and posted some of my races. You start bitchin about how I am BS and I did not win. when I did not ask what you were thinkin I ask what all have you raced and won.


I am going to see if the time on that site was right I am taking my car to the track friday and saturday will post my slip.


really nothing to fight about. :cwm27:

My bad. They did but not for the Honda engines used on the strip today and, to my knowledge, no recent turbo applications. its all good i was just lettin you know if you didnt that they did make one before

Originally posted by Redrunner
I dont worship him I just asked a question about what have you beat and posted some of my races. You start bitchin about how I am BS and I did not win. when I did not ask what you were thinkin I ask what all have you raced and won.


I am going to see if the time on that site was right I am taking my car to the track friday and saturday will post my slip.


really nothing to fight about. :cwm27:

It's all good man, we're all here cuz we love cars. I'd be interested to see how close the time on that site and your times are. Post the slips when you get em.

he ran a 17.0something.