Which Integra is better in handling?

I have only driving the 2 Gen Integra, But would like to know which integra has the best handling, turning, and overall feel of the road in everybody's Opinion.

I guess what I am asking is if you had a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th gen integra with same Identical Engines, with (lets say) 16 size tires, which one would you say handles the best?

94+ by far.

yea, 94+, the ITR 1st and the GSR 2nd IMO.

this is kind of off topic, but i just recently found out that the 93 gsr integ is faster than the type-r, not by much but still faster nonetheless. that kind of stun me a bit, and it questions the type-r's performance, wouldn't u guys agree?

I guess what I am asking is if you had a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th gen integra with same Identical Engines

hold up, 4th gen? if ur referring to the rsx then thats a kinda-sorta-but-not-really type of issue since the engine and body stlye isn't the same. a good example would be the del sol and how its supposed to be the next gen crx. the only correlation between them is that both are a two seater, mostly everything else is different.

hold up, 4th gen? if ur referring to the rsx then thats a kinda-sorta-but-not-really type of issue since the engine and body stlye isn't the same. a good example would be the del sol and how its supposed to be the next gen crx. the only correlation between them is that both are a two seater, mostly everything else is different.


I think that the rsx is considered the 5th gen.


oh and i think that the ITR is a little faster than the 93 gs-r specs should be like 14.7-14.9 for ITR and 15.0-15.1 for 93 gs-r and like 15.3-15.5 for newer gs-r

I think that the rsx is considered the 5th gen.


oh and i think that the ITR is a little faster than the 93 gs-r specs should be like 14.7-14.9 for ITR and 15.0-15.1 for 93 gs-r and like 15.3-15.5 for newer gs-r

ok now u lost me. what happened to the 4th gen? the last time i checked, there was only 3 gen of integs, then came the rsx, which to me is the making of a new car using a similar body structure. of course this is just my :2cents:

with the itr and gsr issue, it cools if u give me ur opinion, but i need more than that. do u have stock specs of the car's 1/4 mile? when someone told me the 93 gsr was the fastest, i was skeptical. but after looking at some 1/4 times it says the gsr does 15.2 and type-r does it in 15.3 stock. one site do have the itr at 14.9, but it doesn't have the gsr time, at 14.7 that time would have to go to the rsx-r.

with the itr and gsr issue, it cools if u give me ur opinion, but i need more than that. do u have stock specs of the car's 1/4 mile? when someone told me the 93 gsr was the fastest, i was skeptical. but after looking at some 1/4 times it says the gsr does 15.2 and type-r does it in 15.3 stock. one site do have the itr at 14.9, but it doesn't have the gsr time, at 14.7 that time would have to go to the rsx-r.

tran, once again, don't be a mag racer. if u want to look at the actual SPECS of the motor/car lets think about this.

the 92-93 gsr b17a 1.7 I4 160hp/113trq in a 2550 lbs car (approx) compared to the b18c5 1.8 I4 195hp/130trq 2650 (aprrox). now lets add on an lsd transmission to the ITR an im not really seeing how the b17a is going to out-do the b18c5?

if u want actual proof from life, i've see i/h/e ITR's run 14.2-3 compared to i/h/e GSR's (2nd gen) run 14.7-8.

the ITR runs the 1/4 in 14.7-15.0 (at the track stock) compared to the gsr's 15.1-4 (at the track) simple as that (seen both run, have u?)

don't jus believe everything u read, go out an actually WATCH the cars run at the track, then u'll see the differences. this is jus like the sentra ser that u wouldn't believe is a low 15 second car stock. get ur head outta the magazines an get some real experience.

the only way u'll see the gsr run a quicker track time is if the type r driver doesn't know how to race.

I think that the rsx is considered the 5th gen.

nope, they had 3 gens of the integra (usdm), then the rsx is the 4th gen in japan.

dude i really don't want a big debate about this. the specs u show me i already know,and it most likey came from a magazine anyway. the times i got are from the internet so the info isn't biased and their would be more than one source available. the problem is-after someone tells me that the gsr is faster i had to make sure by doing some research.the sites i found say the 93 gsr is quicker, while others sites would have only the itr times. just to let u know i do agree that the itr should be quicker but so far its not looking that way. what i need is the stock time to back it up. the most accurate time would be from the factory spec which i haven't been able to find yet.

question, do u honestly think a regular person can find the 1/4 mile time of a specific car model by bringing their's to the track? this is almost impossibe to do since so many variable's are missing. this is also not including people who want to get the best time out of the car by changing the little things to their advantage like tires, wheels,weight reduction, 1/4 tank gas, hi octane gas, the list goes on, and on. what im trying to say is the time is different for each person and car, for instance guys i know and some who post thier stock gsr's timeslip range from lo 15's to hi 16's. thats a huge sec gap and not very accurate, this is the main reason why i use the info (hopefully specs from the facory) on the net. lastly on this subject, i would love to take my car to the track, after its ready of course. the nearest track is three hours away, so wasting money and a day just to find out the time of my car with only a couple mods? no thank u. i will, next year after my stage 2 turbo kit is installed, now this would be worthwhile.

lastly ur referring to a person im debating with an se-r who claims it can do lo 15's stock. do u know what the hp and tq is for that car is? its specs is very similar to the integra ls, has 140 hp, 132 tq, (and this is coming from a 2.0 compared to a 1.8 integ) weighs apprx. 2450lbs. and this is gonna do lo 15's? him and his buddies was giving lame excuses but never did find me proof of a site which claims a stock se-r can do those times u and he specified. how about this, maybe u can find a site for me. all the se-r websites and organizations i found says its 1/4 mile is 15.8 and 16.2, again very similar to the integra ls.

here's proof of time from the owner of the se-r who try to point out that the weight is 2414 lbs. sound to me, he looks at info he wants and denies the rest http://www.zotz.com/nissan/sentra_se-r_specs.htm

dude i really don't want a big debate about this. the specs u show me i already know,and it most likey came from a magazine anyway. the times i got are from the internet so the info isn't biased and their would be more than one source available. the problem is-after someone tells me that the gsr is faster i had to make sure by doing some research.the sites i found say the 93 gsr is quicker, while others sites would have only the itr times. just to let u know i do agree that the itr should be quicker but so far its not looking that way. what i need is the stock time to back it up. the most accurate time would be from the factory spec which i haven't been able to find yet.

question, do u honestly think a regular person can find the 1/4 mile time of a specific car model by bringing their's to the track? this is almost impossibe to do since so many variable's are missing. this is also not including people who want to get the best time out of the car by changing the little things to their advantage like tires, wheels,weight reduction, 1/4 tank gas, hi octane gas, the list goes on, and on. what im trying to say is the time is different for each person and car, for instance guys i know and some who post thier stock gsr's timeslip range from lo 15's to hi 16's. thats a huge sec gap and not very accurate, this is the main reason why i use the info (hopefully specs from the facory) on the net. lastly on this subject, i would love to take my car to the track, after its ready of course. the nearest track is three hours away, so wasting money and a day just to find out the time of my car with only a couple mods? no thank u. i will, next year after my stage 2 turbo kit is installed, now this would be worthwhile.

lastly ur referring to a person im debating with an se-r who claims it can do lo 15's stock. do u know what the hp and tq is for that car is? its specs is very similar to the integra ls, has 140 hp, 132 tq, (and this is coming from a 2.0 compared to a 1.8 integ) weighs apprx. 2450lbs. and this is gonna do lo 15's? him and his buddies was giving lame excuses but never did find me proof of a site which claims a stock se-r can do those times u and he specified. how about this, maybe u can find a site for me. all the se-r websites and organizations i found says its 1/4 mile is 15.8 and 16.2, again very similar to the integra ls.

here's proof of time from the owner of the se-r who try to point out that the weight is 2414 lbs. sound to me, he looks at info he wants and denies the rest http://www.zotz.com/nissan/sentra_se-r_specs.htm

i'm not going to get into this again with u, because obviously its something beyond ur comprehension. goto a track after u've turbo'd ur car, an then u'll see wut cars will actually do.

until then, keep on believin those magazines, they're great sources :shakehead

btw, im a "regular" person, an im pretty sure i ran my car to its potential...jus cuz a site says that a type r ran 15.3 at a track, doesn't mean that is the time it'll run. u've said it urself, if the car is at sea level, with good tires and a good driver, the type r is a high 14 second car. seen it done, don't need a magazine to tell me differently. yet to see the gsr break into the 14's stock, an if u can find one of ur great websites that claim that time...show away buddy... :sly:

tran_nsx (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/member.php?u=80346): I am quite sure this is a bit above boundaries...but you need to hear this...

...you sir, ar an absolute f$%king moron when it comes to cars. You are a poser who pretends you know what you are talking about, and sit there and pretend everything you have heard over the internet is the absolute truth, and come back and "preach" your "knowledge". To what ends? To look cool?

Have you ever driven anything other than your car? I used to own a 1990 GS with a JDM b16a swap that made about as much power as a stock Integra Type R, and you know what? I raced one on the freeway that was bone-stock, and all we could do was hang with each other. My friend who actually HAD a 1992 GS-R with his I/H/E, would get pulled by me on the freeway. What does that tell you? As a matter-of-fact, he called my car his car's "big-brother", because not only did I buy my car before him (I convinced him to buy his), but mine was consistently faster.

As for your comments about the speed of my car, I'll leave that one alone, since any argument you make is hearsay, as opposed to what I've actually done and what others have seen. So need for arguing...it's obvious you have no clue about anything.

My head hurts reading your posts...it sucks that we don't have a rule for banning people for utter idiocy. If you read carefully, it's your own Integra community that's telling you how stupid your comments are.

until then, keep on believin those magazines, they're great sources :shakehead

:

oh yes they are great way to get information, the the ironic part is i don't collect mags about cars. on occasions though i do browse at them at the local market for enjoyment, most of my automotive knowledge comes from either books, the internet ot by to repairing them. and if this makes me what ur friend calls a mag racer, then i guess 98% of us are mag racers since this is how we get info. so if u didn't get ur resources from a mag, book, or internet, then where did u get it from? let me guess, ur an automotive engineer and u know everthing about cars right? just a side note, i have two friends who is an automotive engineer and to this day they still read car mags and books, i guess they are mag racers too huh?

there u are carrrnut, somehow i knew krnxracr will go find u or u will show up. im a moron huh? whose the one claiming a se-r is doing lo 15's, please... the reason ur leaving that alone is because u can't find any resources on the net proving other wise. i don't want to use this word, but i have to call it like i see it. u are a hypocrite, let me explain.

the first time we met, there was argument about the issue on hp of the b18a1, as i recall u brought up several sites from the net or a mag claiming the 90 ls integra has 130 hp. i apologized since my resources didn't break it down to each car year and that was it. my point here is when i know something is wrong im going to be a man about it and apologize.

then we meet again with the debate of ur so call lo 15's se-r. u also try to go into detail as if the se-r was special, for example -having a weight ratio of 62/38 which gives it a better launch then other cars. as it turn out most cars have this similar ratio since the engine is in the front causing more weight to be (u guess it) in the front, so that ratio difference was basically uselss. to argue ur claim i went to several nissan and se-r websites to get the stock time and specs about this car, none of which proves to be in the lo 15's as u stated. but instead of apologizing to me u go ahead and say that all the info i gathered was bull and u call me a mag racer? then again u try to point out the weight of ur car was 35lbs lighter than the 2450lbs i got, honestly this isn't going bring ur car into the lo 15's. in that site where u got the wieght it also claims ur car runs 15.8, but i guess u only want info in which u agree on.

if u don't see urself as a hypocrite then i guess ur hopeless. u've been here for a long time i can just tell by how many post u written, but by having a lot of post doesn't make everything u say accurate. it also doesn't make u a better person than someone else, all it just proves is u been here longer and like to talk about cars, plain and simple. oh don't worry about the apology on the debate, ive known to many guys like u in the military who just cause they have a litte rank think they know everything. :shakehead and ur ego just won't allow u to suck a thing

with the other issue u brought up on my ownership of vehicles, thats really none of ur business unless i want to tell u. is this ur strategy to prove that i lack automotive knowledge because i only own one car? hopefully u can do better than this. if u are dying to know, i own two other cars, an 88 celica gts and a 91 crx si which i pointed out in our earlier debates, but again i guess u only look on info u want and ignore the rest, right?

i don't see how one person having an integra who is disagreeing with me (also just because u two are friends, buddies or what ever u are) be considered a whole integra commnity. how bout u get ur facts straight :disappoin .lastly why, i can't stand talking to u either so go away, go brag about racing all these cars, trucks and suv's with ur mighty 15 sec se-r to someone who really cares. guys like u should be arrested, ur an accident waiting to happen. if u do crash, hopefully u don't hit any children and injure any one, yes not even u. maybe this way u'll learn that racing on the streets can be deadly not just to u, but others around.

not going back to my topic b4, if someone can find me a reputable site which has the stock 92 gsr and itr 1/4 time i would appreciate it, thanks

ok, what websites are you finding that says a 2ng gen GSR is the fastest teg?

I wanna see it, cuz I knopw that the ITR is, I dont need to list the times cuz youve seen em in this post. and I dont really know the specs of the ser, but just cuz the HP and torque ratings are similar doesnt mean their gonna be as fast as each other, he has a bit of displacement over you, the LSD, and integras you dont have much power down low. maybe his power curve is much flatter or something. and I know a kit with a ITR, and he always ran below the 2nd gen GSR's "posted times" completely stock. and I didnt even think that honda has ever posted any kind of numbers like 0-60 or 1/4 mile, etc... do they?

ok, what websites are you finding that says a 2ng gen GSR is the fastest teg?

I wanna see it, cuz I knopw that the ITR is, I dont need to list the times cuz youve seen em in this post. and I dont really know the specs of the ser, but just cuz the HP and torque ratings are similar doesnt mean their gonna be as fast as each other, he has a bit of displacement over you, the LSD, and integras you dont have much power down low. maybe his power curve is much flatter or something. and I know a kit with a ITR, and he always ran below the 2nd gen GSR's "posted times" completely stock. and I didnt even think that honda has ever posted any kind of numbers like 0-60 or 1/4 mile, etc... do they?

It's useless, man. He's asking for "sources"...you know what? I posted dyno-graphs of a b16 and the SR20 in my car, showing the b16's torque-curve, as opposed to the SR20's which peaks almost at 2000rpms, and stays flat almost a third of the way to it's redline at 7500rpms, and where the the TQ drops, it switches peaks with the HP...owing to its smooth, effortless acceleration.

Anyhow, I posted dyno-graphs, and you know what he says? "Well, we don't know the condition of the cars"...!!! Like that matters when trying to show POWERBAND. But he doesn't understand that. Five different people tried to explain this concept to him, and he claims that it was just me and my "friends" "ganging-up" on himhttp://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/shakehead.gif.

I guess you're another one of those "friends" of mine that just says things so we win, right? http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/uhoh.gif

Wow, came in over the weekend and this topic has changed. :). To respond to what I meant by my earlier post, I just wanted to know which integra (all models, and 4th gen being the RSX) design has the best handling, turning, maybe even wind resist. Not really including speed as they would all be exact equal in engine specs. In my time I have notice that a company can make a perfect design for one thing, and make a crappy design some years later because they have to make something and can never surpass the design perfection that they had earlier. I own three 2 gen tegs, sold my 1 gen, never drove a 3 gen, test drove a RSX over the weekend. I was really nice, but when I hit a sharp turn that I always take with my 2 gen I notice that it was just not as smooth. I am going to test drive a 3 gen today. Thinking about buying a new Teg. I wish I can just take all 4 of the gens to the track, throw in the same engine in each, and see what handles the best.

Wow, came in over the weekend and this topic has changed. :). To respond to what I meant by my earlier post, I just wanted to know which integra (all models, and 4th gen being the RSX) design has the best handling, turning, maybe even wind resist. Not really including speed as they would all be exact equal in engine specs. In my time I have notice that a company can make a perfect design for one thing, and make a crappy design some years later because they have to make something and can never surpass the design perfection that they had earlier. I own three 2 gen tegs, sold my 1 gen, never drove a 3 gen, test drove a RSX over the weekend. I was really nice, but when I hit a sharp turn that I always take with my 2 gen I notice that it was just not as smooth. I am going to test drive a 3 gen today. Thinking about buying a new Teg. I wish I can just take all 4 of the gens to the track, throw in the same engine in each, and see what handles the best.

Hmm...as far as handling goes, stock-for-stock, the 2Gs and the 3Gs have basically the same suspension. With the 2G being slightly lighter, I would say that it's just a bit more tossable than a 3G. But with mods, that's different story. Now that's just the "regular" 'Tegs. The ITRs are totally different animals, as evidenced by stock ITR vs modified GS-R comparos I read about in SCC when the ITR first came out.

So...stock-for-stock, ITR wins.

Anyhow, about your 2G, have you driven one with an LSD? It's a NIGHT and DAY difference with handling. The JDM b16 I had in mine came with an LSD, and that thing can power thru corners like nobody's businesshttp://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/naughty.gif. Besides the fact that my straight-line acceleration improved, since I was able to hook-up both tires at the same time.

Hmmm......No I havn't but you got me very interested.

"LSD : A differing degree of load will always be applied to the drive shaft's left and right wheels when cornering or accelerating. As a result, the normal-configuration differential allows torque to escape to the drive wheel with the lowest load whenever the accelerator is depressed or released; consequently, it becomes no longer possible to achieve ideal braking during cornering nor optimum control of the vehicle during acceleration. The purpose of the LSD is to control this escaping torque by restricting differential functionality in order that sufficient traction may be maintained with the road surface, and it does this by monitoring the differences in speed and torque at the left and right wheels. In other words, the LSD is an indispensable piece of equipment for sporty driving. "

I have much much to learn :)

ok, what websites are you finding that says a 2ng gen GSR is the fastest teg?

I wanna see it, cuz I knopw that the ITR is, I dont need to list the times cuz youve seen em in this post. and I dont really know the specs of the ser, but just cuz the HP and torque ratings are similar doesnt mean their gonna be as fast as each other, he has a bit of displacement over you, the LSD, and integras you dont have much power down low. maybe his power curve is much flatter or something. and I know a kit with a ITR, and he always ran below the 2nd gen GSR's "posted times" completely stock. and I didnt even think that honda has ever posted any kind of numbers like 0-60 or 1/4 mile, etc... do they?

here it goes.http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/ford/performance1.htm
i just wanna repeat i was skeptical when someone said the gsr was quicker and honestly im still in disbelief on the subject.

heres another one from edmunds but im sorry to say that the type-r times isn't in here, i put this one out to show that the 93 gsr avg. is still lower the the other gsr's not by much but still lower.http://www.geocities.com/edmodscarspecs/

ive been trying to find a reliable source from honda but to no avail.

oh with u carrrnut, i really don't feel like talking anymore since i noticed with every arguement we had and other arguments with other people, u always try to point out that ur always right. from earlier post i accidently browsed, people just quit trying to debate cause ur always trying to get the last word in. maybe that's why u have so many post in the first place, who knows? my point, its useless talking to u so im gonna pretend ur not even there. it takes the better man to walk away.

on a side note 94tegrs, if u scan down further to the se-r's 1/4 mile you'll will see that both site's fastest time is 15.8 while others are at 16.2. i checked about 10 1/4mile sites, which includes several se-r sites, none of them claim to be in the lo 15's. if u want, look around for other sources but i highly doubt u find one with lo 15's stock, believe me i tried, and i know carrrnut has tried.

that is a single website, and its numbers are off. it says the 94 gsr runs a 15.5 stock time? i'd like to know how i took off .7 of a second w/ only simple bolt-ons then.

94-95 gsrs run more around 15.2-3 stock.

those numbers aren't even close to being accurate, which goes to show u, websites aren't always a reliable source for information. that is why we are trying to get it through ur head that until u go out an actually see the cars at the track, ur not going to see the actual times.

it says the 96 gsr is the exact same time as the 94, which is also untrue. the 94-95 gsr's are the quickest of the 3rd gens. atleast come up w/ a source that is a bit more reliable than this.

if u notice, that person simply copy and pasted off of edmods for the same times. once again, look at the other times...

I was browsing through your "proof" and noticed a couple of funny things, the 94 and 95 accords are basically the same car, and LX 130 HP SOHC, EX is 145HP SOHC VTEC, and the EX runs a .6 second slower 1/4 mile???

maybe the LX was the coupe and the EX was the sedan(which they should list) as well as it does not say stick or auto. i guess when you factor in options and body styles it could happen, and when I drove my 97 LX i thought it could have kept up with my hatch which runs a 16.6, so maybe they are right there, but I see EX coupes with bolt ons and a 5 speed run like 17 flat, usually 17.1 or 2's. so sounds kinda fishy.

and the 92 GSX runs a 15.3 ET and 7.0 0-60 while the 92 Talon TSI AWD(same car) runs a 15.2 ET and a 6.7 0-60.

now if one car gets to 60 .3 seconds quicker it seems like when it is racing its twin it will hold if not gain on that lead.

i understand you dont wanna drive a few hours just to watch races but until you do dont count on websites to tell you how fast cars are, you usually can get a general idea of which is faster, but sometimes, like in this case it misleads you into thinking that the 2nd gen GSR is faster than the ITR(which i saw you said you even disagree with but since you cant find proof on the web then you agree until proven wrong)

which includes several se-r sites, none of them claim to be in the lo 15's. if u want, look around for other sources but i highly doubt u find one with lo 15's stock, believe me i tried, and i know carrrnut has tried.

Look moron: I will post it again...

Here is an actual quarter-mile time run by somebody with the EXACT same drivetrain as my car, in a body that is up to 100lbs heavier, since it is a T-top version that needs more structural bracing: http://www.sentra.net/timeslips/display.php?ID=2121

You keep clinging to your magazine times like a f^&*ing crybaby that needs his security-blanket to feel safe. Magazines also rate 2002-2003 Corvette Z06's as 12.3-second cars, yet I have PERSONALLY seen one run an 11.8 BONE-STOCK. Would I then believe what I read from some internet site made-up by some pimply nerd (sorta-like you, maybe?), or WHAT I ACTUALLY SAW WITH MY OWN EYES? Do you think a car that runs 15.8 with some sloppy magazine-driver that doesn't know the car won't run a 15.5 or better with somebody that knows the car and has practiced with it?

Have you EVER been to a track?

I wish I was near you, so I can show you personally what I'm talking about...but I'm not, so I gave you the link to the Southern California SE-R Club Chapter (http://www.serca.org/socal/), so that you may contact somebody that might end all this internet speculation you are doing.

I was hoping you wouldn't go away stupid from this site...but you've killed that dream...now, I just want you to go away.

Tran... I'm not ganging up on you. I just want to help you realise where you're not seeing the SE-R's potiential under stock or mostly stock conditions...

This thread here is a race between our friend Carrrnuttt and another AF member Red90GT who has a 1990 Mustang GT with modifications. Incase you don't know, they run high to mid 14s stock. His Mustang has some slight modifications which actually do help the car make more power and accelerate faster than stock... and we see the SE-R plus a good driver can hang with it with just a K&N and advanced timing...

SE-R vs GT (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/t130547.html)

As I hope you can see, the SE-R can hang with cars that very very much so out class it. Only because of the SR20DE's power band, its got a verrry flat torque curve.


Once again, not ganging on you. Just helping you see what Carrrnuttt's been trying to explain. :2cents:

Just for refernce there are now 5 generations of Integra.

http://www.honda.co.jp/pressroom/library/auto/QUINT_INTEGRA/

Started in 1985, then rebuilt on a totaly new platform in 89, then again on a developed version of the that platform in 93, and then a major face lift in 96 that included enough changes to the chassis and model range to justifie a new generation. (go and order parts for them, or work on them, they are a differnt generation, despite sharing the same platform.).
Then in 2000 after 11 years of useing the same platform derived from the EF Civic the integra was given a compete remake and new platform based of the also new 7th gen Civic.
For those in North America it was rebadged as the RSX.

Integra concept however dates back to 1980. Where a 5dr Hatch based of the Accord was sold in Japan with the "Quint" name, a name still used on many Integra models. The same car was sold world wide usualy as an Accord Coupe, or Accord Hatch.


Use http://babelfish.altavista.com/ for any translations. Its not good, but if your smart enough you can get usefull information out of it, usualy useing copy and paste of text blocks, as it dosn't seem to like the encoding format used on much of the honda site.




As for SR20 powered Sentras/Primera/G20s etc etc, do not under-estimate them.
The SR20 might have all the driver appeal of a used tractor engine, but it's damn good at pulling chunks of Nissan off the line and hurling them down a straight piece of road.


I got to dice with many differnt varients in my old EF9, and although I never found one that could out run me above 50kph, I learned never to mess with them off the line, or even from a rolling start. Many surprised me.

thats what I meant by my post in the beginning of this. 5 generations, 80's is 1st, 90-93 is 2nd, 94-96 or whenever is 3rd, then from there to the rsx is 4th ,and rsx is 5th. anyway thats how I have always heard of the generations being defined. I have never heard an rsx being refered to as 4th gen only 5th.

The 96-00 is often considered only a face lift othe 3g, but despite being based on the same basic chassis, it is a differnt enough car to be called a differnt generation.

Not to jump on any sides here, but does anyone else notice that mag times are always better then real life times? Think about it, they have pros racin em, they have better then average track conditions, and they run em as many times as they can to get the best possible time.When I 1st went to the track, a guy at work that has been drag racin for 20 something years told me not to expect the times that you read about. I was amazed to see how true this was.It wasn't just me but most stock cars were about 1/2 sec off say Car & Driver times.Vipers were running high 12's to low 13's, Z06 were mid 13's at best stock.I was diappointed seeing these cars running the times they were, as I truely am a Vette fanatic. And I know a lot has to do with the driver, but I have have heard this from quite a few long time draggers since then. If anyone else has noticed this, please let me know. Or just tell me that I suck, and nobody from my area can drive for shit. Later all.

I havent noticed it but I actually usually hear that people get better times with their cars after theyve owned them for a while than the mags say.


and they dont have pros as far as I know, it is just the editors and shit driving them around.

itr is the top teg ever built by honda . stock fer stock , it will eat a gsr . and why in the world would honda /acura make the 2000 type r slower then a plain jane gsr from 92? come on guys , use common sense here . i think we all know whos talking shit .......ps , b16a =170 hp , tegr has 195 , u pulled on the freeway with ur buds type r??now thats hearsay .and if it is indeed the case , tell ur little sis driving the r to stop filing her nails between shifts ....lol

Wow. Talk about a thread back from the depths of hell, where it should have stayed.

this is kind of off topic, but i just recently found out that the 93 gsr integ is faster than the type-r, not by much but still faster nonetheless. that kind of stun me a bit, and it questions the type-r's performance, wouldn't u guys agree?
But it is not, the GSI version integra even the 93 is only 107kw the VTI-R is 124 same weight pretty much and the VTI-R has a better gearbox.