Stupid things people have said about 944's
06-01-2006, 09:07 PM
#106
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 9,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK there are differences in build quality. And the 944 was obviously better then any civic of equal year, and we know that the 997 is superior. I took that statement too far, but people just don't realize that 944 vs honda, both well prepped, it may not be what you think.
06-01-2006, 09:10 PM
#107
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
I agree with you if they are both well prepped then it will be good and the Honda might win more. Like I said before, those engines LOVE to rev. Nice debate Eyal, I enjoyed it. Cheers!
06-01-2006, 09:15 PM
#108
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 9,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jay Gratton
I agree with you if they are both well prepped then it will be good and the Honda might win more. Like I said before, those engines LOVE to rev. Nice debate Eyal, I enjoyed it. Cheers!
I am foolishly building a D series engine for my hatch right now. Should put out about 150-160 hp once in, but its about 70 pounds lighter then a B series. the car is 2100 pounds stock. I don't have the proper suspension setup yet, but once that happenes, it will be a fun daily. With the cam and valvetrain, the high compression and intake mani etc, it should have VERY nice throttle response. I will have 2 very opposite cars, especially when lag goes up on the 951 when I get off my *** and throw in the new turbo.
Oh, sorry rock for the off topic!
06-01-2006, 09:27 PM
#109
Cast Iron Man
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Scott at Team Harco
The correct response would be:
"Well, it was nice of him to let you borrow it today...."
"Well, it was nice of him to let you borrow it today...."
06-01-2006, 11:05 PM
#110
Lazer Beam Shooter
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
The problem with hondas getting a bad name are the mexicans and the dumbass teenagers. Everytime people hear "modified civic" they roll their eyes and think "like that jackass kid next door...". Its seldom you see a nicely setup civic, and even more seldom that you can tell just by looking at it that a civic has been modified the right way. The way Eyal is talking about.
I dont think dubs, subs and underglows really qualify a car for track use, and if 99% of civics have this+ walmart body kits, then were stereotyping these cars. I am in no way a fan of the civic, but I do know that ive never been in a civic that doesnt have A/C. I have however owned 3, and been in many 944s that dont have A/C...
I dont think dubs, subs and underglows really qualify a car for track use, and if 99% of civics have this+ walmart body kits, then were stereotyping these cars. I am in no way a fan of the civic, but I do know that ive never been in a civic that doesnt have A/C. I have however owned 3, and been in many 944s that dont have A/C...
06-01-2006, 11:32 PM
#111
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Toledo and Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 1,152
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Rock, you must have been Civics that are all, on average, 10-15 years newer than the 944s you have been in! AC not working plagues all old cars . . .
The problem with Hondas is this: 1) They are front wheel drive, and nose-heavy. 2) They are flimsy and thin in their build quality, like all Japanese cars. 3) They are more prone to rust than most, if not all, American and German cars.
A Civic is a great econobox. My fiancee has a 96 Civic DX hatch that is virtually rust-free and has only 63k miles (average is 120k for that year). It is very comfortable to sit in, the gauges are neat, crisp and clear, the controls are laid out nicely and feel nice, it has good acceleration and performance for such a small engine, and it handles nicely for everyday driving. The brakes feel good, the steering is light and precise. But it is by no means a performance car. And thankfully, it makes no pretensions to be.
If God and Newton intended performance cars to be front-engine, front-wheel-drive, then every race car and serious sports car on the road would be. Guess what ---- they're not. Spending any bit of money to try and turn a Civic into a serious performance car is a crime against physics, and almost as backwards as trying to build a front-wheel-drive drag car. What is with people today? How the hell did tall, boxy sedans and front-wheel-drive cars become associated with performance? Your generation needs a swift kick in the ***, and a little bit of common sense.
Chalk one up for the marketing people for suckering so many people into thinking there is something sporty about their grocery getters. But as for Civics, the idea of modifying them came from the fact that they were cheap and abundant in places like SoCal, and every low-to-moderate income Caucasian, Asian, and Mexican who could never afford a serious performance car could afford a Civic, and a few hundred dollars in go-fast goodies. This is the same way the old-school Hot Rodders came about. It starts with people of modest means modifying cheap cars to make them faster on the street, and grows into a big industry. A Civic, while a very respectable car in its own right, is no more a performance car than a Model-T or a ******, and in the end will never be anything more than a souped up econobox for the short-sighted.
The problem with Hondas is this: 1) They are front wheel drive, and nose-heavy. 2) They are flimsy and thin in their build quality, like all Japanese cars. 3) They are more prone to rust than most, if not all, American and German cars.
A Civic is a great econobox. My fiancee has a 96 Civic DX hatch that is virtually rust-free and has only 63k miles (average is 120k for that year). It is very comfortable to sit in, the gauges are neat, crisp and clear, the controls are laid out nicely and feel nice, it has good acceleration and performance for such a small engine, and it handles nicely for everyday driving. The brakes feel good, the steering is light and precise. But it is by no means a performance car. And thankfully, it makes no pretensions to be.
If God and Newton intended performance cars to be front-engine, front-wheel-drive, then every race car and serious sports car on the road would be. Guess what ---- they're not. Spending any bit of money to try and turn a Civic into a serious performance car is a crime against physics, and almost as backwards as trying to build a front-wheel-drive drag car. What is with people today? How the hell did tall, boxy sedans and front-wheel-drive cars become associated with performance? Your generation needs a swift kick in the ***, and a little bit of common sense.
Chalk one up for the marketing people for suckering so many people into thinking there is something sporty about their grocery getters. But as for Civics, the idea of modifying them came from the fact that they were cheap and abundant in places like SoCal, and every low-to-moderate income Caucasian, Asian, and Mexican who could never afford a serious performance car could afford a Civic, and a few hundred dollars in go-fast goodies. This is the same way the old-school Hot Rodders came about. It starts with people of modest means modifying cheap cars to make them faster on the street, and grows into a big industry. A Civic, while a very respectable car in its own right, is no more a performance car than a Model-T or a ******, and in the end will never be anything more than a souped up econobox for the short-sighted.
06-01-2006, 11:38 PM
#112
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Fairfield, OH
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tony K
A Civic, while a very respectable car in its own right, is no more a performance car than a Model-T or a ******, and in the end will never be anything more than a souped up econobox for the short-sighted.
