what 1/4 mile times would a EG hatch run with an H22A and i/h/e?

I did a search but couldn't find anything.

 

On crap tires and a DX cluster......13.9! SO I'd say mid/high 13's with just those mods.

 

Well...A little props to Drivers Image in Skokie, IL!!!
12.1@120+ N/A
11.3@120+N2O
Supposedly stock internal H22A4 with i/h/e/p/clutch & ignition, gutted & tinned with a cage & fuel cell, on slicks! Sorry...this is an EK! You may be able to squeeze a high 12 if you drive it like you stole it!



The same shop that has a 10.0xx B18C5-Hatch, 11.8xx WRX, 10.2xx MR2, 400HP Type-R-t!

Pictures posted without Gregg's permission...but I'm sure he'd love the PLUG!



[Modified by NirVTEC, 10:59 PM 2/8/2003]

 

Sorry, but it all depends! The sky is the limit...

Everyone knows, if you want to make SERIOUS power with a CiViC, you have to go with a H22A. However, 1/4 mile times will depend on it's state of tune; both the engine and chassis.

A stock motor in a stock chassis will probably get you into the mid to low 14's - with a little tuning high to mid 13's - all-out, probably 12's to 11's depending on what you do to hook up the tires - 10's and 9's with a tube chassis - blah, blah, blah.

Get it?

 

i agree with BDC

 

Oh, yeah, while I'm thinking about it...

The "sky" is going to have a very 'low ceiling' if you're planning on racing a hatch, so I wouldn't bother spending a lot of money on one, if it was me. I know you are asking about I/H/E, but I thought I would throw this into the mix.

Hatches are aerodynamically inferior to all other Honda CiViC body styles. They were designed originally to carry surfboards down to the beach, and later to carry groceries back to your house. They are perfectly suited for these tasks, but they were NOT designed for racing. The blunt, squared-off, albeit 'cute' tail design will kill your 1/4 mile times. After (pick a number) 160 MPH, no amount of power on Earth will make you go faster. Air drag will effectively stop you. If it takes (say) 250-HP to make a hatch go 160 MPH, it will probably take another 500-HP to make it go 200 MPH, et cetera...

While the Honda CiViC hatch has the worst aerodynamics of any Honda made, the Honda Insight is currently the most aerodynamic mass-produced car in the world, so, it's not like Honda engineers don't know what they're doing. It's just that they DID NOT design the hatch for speed/acceleration, you know?

 

good info

 

do these aerodynamic issues apply to the 96-00 hatch? i would think the slant back design of the hatch helps the airflow. the body style must be effective or honda wouldn't have built the CTR on it. inform me

 

i know someone that runs very high 12s in a 93 hatchback with CAI, 3inch exhaust, 4-1 header, chipped ecu, he revvs his h22 motor to 8400

 

Very 'low ceiling' my ***! You're right about the aerodynamics but the 5th gen hatch's weight difference over the coupe makes it ultimately more desirable in my opinion. It was pretty easy for me to get the weight well under 2gs with me in it and since most street racers aren't hitting those high ets very often, running the same amt of power in a coupe vs a hatch will usually result in the laters victory. To say that its not worth the money is pretty dumb, since most of us here arent about to hit the 160 mark any time soon. BTW, you should probably mention this to Tran, Kubo, and Lance because I think they got that memo. They all seem to be doin just fine despite the air drag. I'll drink to that.

 

No its not.

 

i dont know what 5th gens are, but the eg hatch isnt much lighter than the coupe, **** the si hatch is heavier than the dx 4dr! the dx coupe is only like 100lbs more than a dx hatch. THe si hatch is around 2400 and the dx 4dr is like 2300.

 

on a stock chasis eg with a h22 13's are easily achieve , with some minor mods and tuning with slicks low 13's to high 12's . depends on how much money you spend on the engine and how much weight you take off the car . you will get faster e.ts

 

I run 12.7's-12.9's on drag radial with a 92 CX gutted with a JDM H22, intake, exhaust, quaiffe, clutch, fuel pump, puel pressure reg, VAFC, and a bunch of suspension mods. With a good driver and good rubber with just i/h/e I think mid 13's are easily attainable.

 

Regardless of what engine your car has, the more aerodynamic drag there is, the more horsepower that will be needed to make it travel at any given speed. I used the Insight as an example because a great deal of effort has been gone through designing it with a goal of achieving excellent aerodynamics. No thought was given to the CiViC hatch, in this respect, because it was designed primarily as a 'grocery-getter.'

The end result of all this is a drag coefficient of only 0.25, the lowest achieved by any mass-produced car in the world. In comparison, a Honda CiViC hatch, with roughly the same 1.9 square-meter frontal area, has a Cd of 0.36. This means a CiViC hatch needs around 32 percent more HP to operate at the same speed as an Insight, and it's because of aerodynamic drag, not weight (or anything else).

I'm not trying to turn this into an Insight vs. CiViC hatch thread. I'm merely using the Insight as an obvious example of something done right by Honda. I can guarantee you the same degree of planning didn't go into any CiViC hatchback, no matter what generation you wish to compare. Flat-asses and 14" steelies are what CiViC hatches are all about...

 

2150 lbs ALL MOTOR street civic eg with h22a 91 octane 12.00@110mph 1.6 60 foot.

2150 lbs ALL MOTOR street civic eg with f20b on 91 octane 12.40@106mph 1.7 60 foot.

1760 lbs ALL MOTOR DRAG civic eg with h22a stock bore. oem pistons. 1.49 60 foot. 7.2@98mph 1/8 mile = 11.20@119mph

1600 lbs ALL MOTOR DRAG crx with h22a.. testing will be done shortly.

 

94 cx jdm h22a, 2280 w/o me
stock intake box with open filter, stock header, 2.5" exhaust, flywheel and clutch
13.9 on streets with a 2.1
13.6 on slicks with a 1.9(first time on slicks)
both of these runs were at 2800+ ft above sea level

 

Sorry...My Hatch knowledge is not there!
pre 92? EF?
92-95? EG?
96-00? EK?


[Modified by NirVTEC, 6:45 PM 2/10/2003]