OK, I know two in one day is a lot for a NOOB, but this post is for foks that don't want B.S. This is what I've done so far, these are the acceleration gains I have measured.

All testing was recorded on a G-Tech Pro.

The car is a 1998 Civic EX, d16y8, 150,00 miles on it, automatic, stock-type tires.

Baseline test: As above, stock everything: 11.33 seconds.

Tune- up: Plugs, wires, cap rotor, oil change: 11.25 seconds.

Cold air intake, unknown brand, 3" pipe, cone fitler: 10.55 seconds.

Underdrive pulleys, OBX brand: 9.89 seconds.

Header, ,4-2-1 style, "Hi-flow" catylic converter,2.5" pipe to
straight-through muffler, unknown brand, with "silencer": 9.51 seconds.
without "silencer": 8.93 seconds.

Throttle Body bore to 60mm by Maxbore: 8.40 seconds.

That's 2.53 seconds faster than I started with. I bought most of the parts used off eBay, so this has been prety cheap. I think the most I've spent was on the exhaust, that was $200 for a full stainless system.

Next up is the cam, then the ZEX system. I'll keep you all posted.

Hope you all enjoyed it and maybe helps some other NOOBs decide what works and what doesn't

 

wut times are these? 0-100??? 0-60??? 1/8 mile?

 

Sounds like 0-60 numbers... lol

 

hahaha most likely!

 

That wud be pretty DAMN sad.

 

not that bad for an auto.

 

Sory it took so damn long to reply, things came up as they do in adult life.

Yes, they are 0-60 numbers. I thought I wrote that, but looks like the alzhiemer's is acting up again.

Yes, the numbers are sad. But they're the real deal, not some numbers I plucked out of my ***. I know that a lot of you have stock d15 motors that can run 6 second 1/4 mile times, but my unit just isn't that big, and frankly, I accept that.

I think shaving 3 seconds off acceleration times is good, and when you actually start collecting data for this stuff or racing, 3 seconds is a long time on a racetrack. Keeping in mind this is without opening the motor, no power adder, in a 1.6 liter D-series with an automatic tranny, maybe you're not impressed, but I am.

 

Theres no way that you gained 2.9 seconds in your 0-60 time with a bunch of bullshit bolt-on modifications. The g-tech pro does not take into account the launch, air temperature, elevation, or other conditions. Go to an actual quarter mile drag strip and look at 60ft, E.T.'s, and trap speeds to get accurate numbers.

And here are some 0-60 numbers to compare, so you get an idea of how incredibly inaccurate that retarded g-tech pro is:

1982 Nissan Stanza: 0-60 in 11.3 seconds
1984 Mercedes-Benz 190E: 0-60 in 11.2 seconds
1988 Eagle Premier ES: 0-60 in 10.5 seconds
1986 Honda Accord LXi: 0-60 in 9.8 seconds
1995 Chevrolet Lumina LS: 0-60 in 9.5 seconds
1994 Volkswagen Passat GLX (auto): 0-60 in 8.9 seconds
1993 BMW 325i: 0-60 in 8.4 seconds

So, what you're saying is that by adding: Plugs, wires, oil change, cold air intake, underdrive pulleys, a header, a "hi-flow cat", a fart can, and a big bore throttle body I can beat a 1993 BMW 325i with my 1982 Nissan Stanza? That's amazing!

BTW, 1992 Honda Civic Si Hatchback, 1993 Honda Civic Coupe EX, and 2000 Honda Civic EX Coupe are all rated at 8.4 0-60 (the manual ones). I'd assume your numbers at the end were more correct From what I know, automatic civics are rated in the mid-9's 0-60. So, gaining a second might be more accurate than gaining almost three.

BTW, here's the site I used. http://www.albeedigital.com/su....html

 

OK, I see you did your research. I have had a passenger sit in the car and check the g-tech, and it's not as far off as you think. It's just a tool, and I know some folks don't like them.

As far as 0-60 times go, manufacturers and magazines are less reliable than the g-tech. When they get numbers for advertizing, they're NEVER what average drivers can do on normal road conditions. Back in the day, dodge would get Dick Landy to tune the cars and a pro driver to drive it on a prepped track. I used to work for Ford, I drove brand new mustangs that couldn't touch the press numbers. They ran an article in Hot Rod a couple years back on factory HP numbers, and it was surprising. Most of the cars came up short from the advertized HP by a long way. Even BMW and Nissan do it. And who knows if your Nissan could beat that BMW-a lot depends on the driver.

Maybe you're right about the bolt on mods, but that's what I measured. I didn't mention the car has 160,000 miles on it. All of my testing was done in winter, so the atmospheric conditions were similar, the road surface was cold, ect. but what I'm trying to point out is that some of this stuff works.

I'll post a full dragstrip set of numbers when the snow gets off them and they open for summer. Until then, I just thought I'd share.

 

the gtech pro is not intended to compare against real numbers, it is a tool to compare results with the same vehicle. You can't take the numbers and compare them with internet numbers, it is useful for finding out if the same car performs differently from mods, not precise numbers.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by re-animator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">OK, I see you did your research. I have had a passenger sit in the car and check the g-tech, and it's not as far off as you think. It's just a tool, and I know some folks don't like them.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yea people don't like them because they give a lot of false information.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by re-animator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">As far as 0-60 times go, manufacturers and magazines are less reliable than the g-tech.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that they can afford nicer equipment than a g-tech, so I'm going to continue to believe them.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by re-animator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">When they get numbers for advertizing, they're NEVER what average drivers can do on normal road conditions.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Does an average driver really give a **** if he can't get his Honda Odyssey to 60 in what it was rated at? No.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by re-animator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I used to work for Ford, I drove brand new mustangs that couldn't touch the press numbers.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm a tech for ford and I've driven the new mustangs, I didn't have a problem getting damn close to the press numbers.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by re-animator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I didn't mention the car has 160,000 miles on it.</TD></TR></TABLE>
No, you didn't. You said it had 150,000 miles on it.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by re-animator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">but what I'm trying to point out is that some of this stuff works.</TD></TR></TABLE>
What are you trying to prove? That routine maintenance is good for your car? Or that a Folgers can taped to your tailpipe increased your 0-60 time?