Which Integra is better in handling?

[94tegRS]

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?

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by 94tegRS

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 him.

I guess you're another one of those "friends" of mine that just says things so we win, right?

[Jascias]

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.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Jascias

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 business. Besides the fact that my straight-line acceleration improved, since I was able to hook-up both tires at the same time.

[Jascias]

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

[tran_nsx]

Originally Posted by 94tegRS

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.

[KrNxRaCer00]

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...

[94tegRS]

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)

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by tran_nsx

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, 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.

[-The Stig-]

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

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.

[Moppie]

Just for refernce there are now 5 generations of Integra.

http://www.honda.co.jp/pressroom/lib...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.

[knorwj]

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.

[Moppie]

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.

[freekinfreak]

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.

[94tegRS]

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.