Mongo

Joe thats strange, i've raced at the least 3 bone stock integras on the freeway (even when i was once bone stock) and i've always beat them in top end.... if it matters my car is an 84 and it's been proven that the early 944s are a lot lighter and faster than the laters...

<img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" />

Joe944

Hmm.. now that you mention it, I never have lined up with him and raced him... I'll have to try it once my car is running ok hehe..

And you sure they were GS-R's? They do have something like 170 horsepower, plus a couple extra maybe from exhaust, intake, hedders... whereas the 944 has 150.

And a 968 is a whole different thing than a 944 =P.
Also, GS-R's are supposed to run mid 15's or so.. where I ran a 15.9, albeit with 3 people and 2 tires in the back.

I'll get back to you after further investigations <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

Tabor

dave120,

Just so you know, there were aproximately 1,500 Acura Integra Type R's produced in both 2000 and 2001. So that brings the count to at least 3,800 maybe more.

Tabor

[quote]Originally posted by EuroSpec944:
<strong>The Type R Integra is a nice car, don't get me wrong, but for the price I would get a nice used 968 bone stock that would still make the thing look like the Honda that it is...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yea,

Maybe that is because the Porsche has 41 more HP, 106HP more ft/lbs of torque, 1.2L more displacement, and an extra gear.

[quote]Originally posted by EuroSpec944:
<strong>Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Honda's quickest model car overrated?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know, I have only ridden in the Acura Integra Type R, never an NSX.

dave120

Thanks for the info..although I wasn't really concerned about it. So there's more ITR's out there than my S2...

I still won't ever own a FWD if I can avoid it..I just don't feel in control of the thing at all when I get force feedback driving on the street...just personal preference is all.

Sloth

[quote]Originally posted by 94415atocrosswanabe:
<strong>my buddy just bought a honda delsol vtech and thinks its fatser than my 944na havnt raced him yet but was wondering if he has any chance, also would a toyota mr2 beat the 944.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Where you guys racing? I live across the bridge in Ft. Myers and want to be sure I do not get in the path of the fast and the furious. Unless... you guys are going to the drag strip in Immokalee...

94415atocrosswanabe

No we havent raced yet, and if we did it would probably be out in n. cape coral in the middle of nowhere. I am interested in atocrossing at the buckingham air field, are you ever out there?

shadowboy

[quote]Originally posted by agentblr:
<strong>hey shawn,wasn't M471 an option package on the 914/6,steel flares ,wheel spacers.Just never heard of it as a suspension code for 924's </strong><hr></blockquote>

it's a handling package for the 924... only 500 924s in 79 had that package.

has vented discs at all 4 corners, 23mm sway bars up front, 14mm sway bars in the rear, 23.5mm torsion bars in the rear, 5 lug hubs with the 15x6 spider web alloy wheels.

basically my 79 NA has suspension & brake components that share more with later 924 turbos & 944s.

also the brakes are a mix of several different cars:
rear brakes come from the 928
front discs from 930
front calipers are the same as the 924 turbo and early 944s (i think)

it was even an oddball car because it is a US 924, but the original bottom end had euro-spec pistons and rods (that is the spare bottom end i bought with the car--blown rings).

my friend picked it up in PA about 4 years ago. he lives in NY, i used to live in NY, i now live in FL, and the car is being stored not far from pittsburgh PA.

shadowboy

[quote]Originally posted by paul944fanatic:
<strong>I've never understood the concept behind throwing a ridiculous looking rear wing on a 100HP FRONT WHEEL DRIVE car...whats the point? </strong><hr></blockquote>

on a street driven car, a small wing helps add stability on the highway as, generally speaking, most street cars have poor aerodynamic flow and actually generate lift in the rear at high speed.

on a FWD race car you will see bigger wings in the rear, but for the same, yet different reasons.

FWD race cars are probably a little twitchier than RWD race cars in order to get them to rotate in slow corners. the wings are, again, to produce rear downforce to aid in stability in fast sweepers.

the wings in race cars are not about traction under accleration.. they are about stability in corners.

Robby

I've seen a lot of negative things on this board about Honda's and other FWD cars- it's all personal preference, and I'm not trying to start a bunch 'o sh**, but I think many of the things have been unwarranted. First, I must admit, that this Fast-&-Furious-Rice-Rocket-image-thing really does annoy me w/the 10" muffler tips making cars sound like weed eaters- I hate that crap! I DO, however, have respect for many of the FWD cars that have come out recently...

Awhile back, there was an article in R&T or C&D on Autobahn cops- it seems (from those in the article) that most of them prefer the larger FWD Audi's w/long wheelbases to RWD cars- interesting, considering some of the comments FWD has recieved in this thread and the fact they have so many RWD Euro options. Again, it's a matter of your own preference, but one of you said something about not going above 80mph in FWD- I owned an '89 Integra and would routinely break 100 when it could barely break 120- it felt JUST fine. I've been in several other's more recently- Audi A4 1.8, Countour, Integra GSR, Jetta VR6, GTi VR6, Corrado VR6, Stratus, etc, and they felt every bit as secure as my Turbo S. One car I DID NOT LIKE was '00 Escort rental I had for several days- it felt squirrly- like it wanted to switch ends- this is on the freeway too- it never did, and handled just fine, but didn't have the nice on-center steering feel that our cars have and have always been known for...

Get behind the wheel of some of these newer FWD cars though, and you'll see that they are VERY stable at high speeds- maybe not any better than our ~15+yr old cars, but they are fine nonetheless...

nib5

[quote] But if you do the same thing to a 968 (as little power as you can get) the 968 will still destroy a Type R. Hell a 944 S2 will destroy a Type R! <hr></blockquote>

Kind of comparing apples and oranges there I think. Given their respective new prices, I should damn well hope the Porsche's could beat any Type R. Pit them against an NSX and the tables may be turned somewhat. Forget the bullsh*t "Acura" badge, in the rest of the world they all sport an 'H'.

My other car is a Honda and I love the company, their run of the mill cars are utterly dependable, fuel efficient, well screwed together and have an accessible hooligan element engineered in that the likes of Nissan and Toyota never seemed to feel necessary.

What other manufacturer can you name that sold a sports car capable of revving to 11.5K in the 1960's? Totally idiosyncratic, their motors ran anti-clockwise up until the VTEC era, they are still one of the very few independent car manufacturers left in the world and the shadow of Mr. Honda still looms large in the company.

FormulaOne10

Well, those wings can be useful...I guess. However they don't even matter until you get to about 50 mph(and not until about 70 do they even make a real difference). I guess the speed related usability of a wing is somewhat dependant on the wing itself(how the wing is tuned; yes you can tune a wing) and its application. I just can't believe that these complete assclown ricers who are cashing in their Turtle Wax paycheck to get the latest in aero kits that a fine manufacturer like J.C. Whitney has to offer are actually tuning their wings for performance. Besides, considering the general understeer of front wheel drive cars, don't you want additional traction given primarily to the front of the car? Also, with the whole focus of the "rice scene" and "street racing" being performance in the straight line, why would so many people be concerned with something that slows down their car with weight and aerodynamic drag? Handling doesn't factor in much when you are going straight. Sorry, I just haven't been sold on the performance motive of ricers. I think they are the biggest phonies around.

dave120

I'm no expert on aerodynamics or anything, but on Speed when they have all the Honda, Acura, Mazda, BMW cars out there for SCCA or whatever they don't have those wings on them and they seem to corner just fine with just a slight lip on the back.

The huge wings the ricers use are purely because they think it looks cool and I've never come across one that actually knew what real purpose the wing served. They all think it keeps the car stable at high speeds. Sure, but Nascar uses like a 3" lip on the back and that seems to keep them plenty stable at 190+ mph. Those huge wings I can't see them doing anything but adding drag.

My biggest problem is accepting that FWD really has a purpose other than being cheaper to produce. They don't need a driveshaft or anything so it's less weight I guess..and less metal so it'd be cheaper. But is there some handling advantage to them? Because that's what the rice guys I know claim is that FWD handles better. I don't believe that, but I don't claim to know all either. I don't see how it possibly could be though, especially for racing purposes. Fill me in if I'm way off and missing something...

ribs

[quote]Originally posted by dave120:
<strong>I'm no expert on aerodynamics or anything, but on Speed when they have all the Honda, Acura, Mazda, BMW cars out there for SCCA or whatever they don't have those wings on them and they seem to corner just fine with just a slight lip on the back.

The huge wings the ricers use are purely because they think it looks cool and I've never come across one that actually knew what real purpose the wing served. They all think it keeps the car stable at high speeds. Sure, but Nascar uses like a 3" lip on the back and that seems to keep them plenty stable at 190+ mph. Those huge wings I can't see them doing anything but adding drag.

My biggest problem is accepting that FWD really has a purpose other than being cheaper to produce. They don't need a driveshaft or anything so it's less weight I guess..and less metal so it'd be cheaper. But is there some handling advantage to them? Because that's what the rice guys I know claim is that FWD handles better. I don't believe that, but I don't claim to know all either. I don't see how it possibly could be though, especially for racing purposes. Fill me in if I'm way off and missing something...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ummm...at the touring race on sunday at the Cadillac Grand Prix in Washington, DC, most of the cars were front wheel drive (integras, civics, protege's, etc...the only RWD cars were BMW's and altezza's), and most of them had huge aluminum wings mounted 2 and a half feet above the trunk. A lot of cars also had road-scraping front splitters, too. I imagine that if the wings weren't effective in giving additional traction around curves, these professional racers driving typical "ricer" cars wouldn't have them on there...and I didn't see a single pair of altezza lenses on any car that didn't come with them stock (that being lexus IS300/toyota altezza, which were racing as well). There is more to handling then just drivetrain configuration...suspension set up and aerodynamics play a huge part in controlling understeer and oversteer. True, FWD is a compromise for economy...cheaper to produce, more compact, less weight, less material, more interior room (no driveshaft taking up the center of the car), and there is less drivetrain loss as well.

As far as handling is concerned, just for kicks say you manufacturered a car that could either be front wheel drive or rear wheel drive (my all-wheel drive celica can be converted to front or rear wheel drive with a couple of hacks...just say this is the model we are talking about), and you set up both differentiations of the car for neutral static (meaning off throttle/brake, through a turn) handling. The RWD car will always handle better because it has better weight distribution front and rear, and the front wheel drive car will have to fight its frontal weight distribution with stiffer rear springs/thicker sways than the RWD car, giving it more unpredictable handling and probably causing snap oversteer instead of controlled drifting which is possible in the RWD version. Just my 2 cents, I could be wrong...

dave120

[quote]Originally posted by ribs:
<strong>
I imagine that if the wings weren't effective in giving additional traction around curves, these professional racers driving typical "ricer" cars wouldn't have them on there...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I didn't mean they don't ACTUALLY do anything. I meant that usually the reason they put them on is just for the looks, and not to actually adjust their downforce for cornering etc. Very few of them have the understanding of how they work. They just set it to what look they like and off they go..at least all the guys I know that use them.