http://caranddriver.com/articl...ber=8

1/4-mile: 14.5 sec @ 104 mph
Road course: 72.0 sec
130-to-0-mph braking: 836 feet
Total course time: 139.3 sec

Vehicle type: front-engine, 5-passenger, 3-door coupe
Price as tested:$42,408 (base price*: $38,058)
Engine type: supercharged DOHC 16-valve 4-in-line, aluminum block and head, Hondata engine controller with port fuel injection
MODS engine/transmission: $11,833; suspension: $2360; brakes: $3105; wheels/tires: $1300; body/interior: $4350
Displacement 143 cu in, 2354cc
Power (mfr's claim) 325 bhp @ 7500 rpm
Torque (mfr's claim) 255 lb-ft @ 5700 rpm
Transmission Acura RSX Type-S 6-speed manual
Front brakes RSX Type-S 11.8 x 1.0 vented disc; RSX Type-S 1-piston caliper
Rear brakes RSX Type-S 10.2 x 0.4 disc; RSX Type-S 1-piston caliper
Brake-pad material, front Hawk HP Plus semimetallic
rear Hawk HP Plus semimetallic
Wheelbase 101.2 in
Length 165.6 in
Curb weight 2765 lb
Weight distribution, front/rear 61.4/38.6%
*Base price includes all performance-enhancing options.

 

Wow, and it runs a 14..5?

 

That car got 8th place today in the flea match or wahtever on spike tv.

 

No traction, loot at the mph. Also, those prices are suggested retail prices, Hasport doesn't have near that much in it. The hp and torque figures were an estimate (at the flywheel), for actual wheel hp and torque see the November Honda Tuning. The estimate was quite good!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by keithg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">No traction, loot at the mph. Also, those prices are suggested retail prices, Hasport doesn't have near that much in it. The hp and torque figures were an estimate (at the flywheel), for actual wheel hp and torque see the November Honda Tuning. The estimate was quite good!</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes it was, I loved watching that on TV To bad I have to work on sudays now

 

thats the biggest load of garbage ive ever heard if that car is making 325 horse and is running a 14.5 you might as well just shoot yourself in the head. unless that car weights like 3500 pounds there is no reason for that. my boy runs a 2000 si with 250 horse supercharged and he runs 12's so whats the deal with your 14.5

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JoeyBallzSI &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">thats the biggest load of garbage ive ever heard if that car is making 325 horse and is running a 14.5 you might as well just shoot yourself in the head. unless that car weights like 3500 pounds there is no reason for that. my boy runs a 2000 si with 250 horse supercharged and he runs 12's so whats the deal with your 14.5</TD></TR></TABLE>

Looking at the mph I would say it's a traction problem. Our 03 Si with a stock 2.4 with a 65 shot ran 14.003@101.6.

I would love to see the dyno charts on that thing. The midrange power has to be sick.

 

It is a traction problem for sure. The car should be much more lower on the quarter than that however currently thoes numbers I believe are accurate because of it.

 

The curb weight is 2765 according to the specs posted above. Car and Driver picked what tires could be used for all the cars. Dyno charts are in the November Honda Tuning, not online at their site as of yet.

 

and since when did car and driver had 1/4 mile times that we can count on? never

 

They need to fix those damn traction problems.

 

Fixing the traction problems will involve very sticky tires to deal with the 228 lbs-ft of torque it put down on my dyno - and its making 90% of peak torque over a very, very broad range.

I got a chance to put about 1000 miles on the car (with a boost leak no less). On normal street tires first and second gear are next to useless. And on a cold day even third gear is easy to spin. And when I put a temporary fix on the boost leak, third gear was tough to hook even during a warm day.

The only complaint I had about that powertrain was that it was geared too _short_.

C_A_T

 

C_A_T,

Didn't C&D do that test on a "fake" drag strip - i.e. some road track or empty
road that isn't set up like a real drag strip? I'm fairly certain that I remember
reading that and that it was also very hot/bad conditions for racing that day.
Heck, the Cobb WRX only ran 13.8...

k-series (on here) ran a 14.1 or low 14 on the Stage I Cybernation turbo in his
Si. And this was in FL. So those results are a little skewed.

 

They did the test at Fontana on a portion of the infield or on the straightaway. Not sure which. They also didn't do a standard 1/4 mile. Meaning there was no staging light or rollout. Fontana is also at about 1200 ft of elevation and it was 100+F

But look at the trap speed. 105 in those sorts of conditions is a sick trap and properly setup and run at a good track it would probably go 108 mph. That's enough for solid 12's on slicks. And it pulls like it too. I happened to run into a 350Z that wanted to play and I left it in 4th from 40 mph and passed the Z before 80 mph. If I had downshifted it would have been all over.

C_A_T

 

Well...you just suck. j/k, sounds like a blast. thanks for the extra
info...

 

and the turbo RSX ran 15.3 @ 103 mph, serious traction issues

 

u guys think thats a load of crap! look at this

2002 HKS USA Acura RSX Type-S
Street drivability:
1/4-mile: 15.3 sec @ 103 mph
Road course: 67.2 sec
130-to-0-mph braking: 580 feet
Total course time: 132.7 sec

Vehicle type: front-engine, 2+2-passenger, 3-door coupe
Price as tested: $44,790 (base price*: $42,990)
Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 4-in-line, aluminum block and head, HKS F-CON V Pro engine controller with port fuel injection
MODS engine/transmission: $10,550; suspension: $3150; brakes: $2500; wheels/tires: $3120; body/interior: $1800
Displacement 122 cu in, 1998cc
Power (mfr's claim) 304 bhp @ 6700 rpm
Torque (mfr's claim) 265 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm
Transmission 6-speed manual
Front brakes Brembo 13.0 x 1.1-in vented, cross-drilled disc; Brembo 4-piston caliper
Rear brakes 10.2 x 0.4-in disc; 1-piston caliper
Brake-pad material, front semimetallic
rear semimetallic
Wheelbase 101.2 in
Length 172.2 in
Curb weight 2876 lb
Weight distribution, front/rear 61.3/38.7%
*Base price includes all performance-enhancing options.

here is the link http://caranddriver.com/articl...er=12

and the si came in 5th

a 15.3 damn my stock s is faster than that. lol

 

The 1/4 mile was run in Pit lane, which is not a drag strip. Therefore all cars had traction issues. All you can do is compare times to the other cars on the day.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hondata &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The 1/4 mile was run in Pit lane, which is not a drag strip. Therefore all cars had traction issues. All you can do is compare times to the other cars on the day.</TD></TR></TABLE>

....or just look at the trap speeds and you will get an idea of what the cars could run.

With the 2.4, traction is still a problem on the dragstrip.
http://www.ephatch.com/forum/s...23066

 

After SEMA I will try some slicks and some of the new Dunlop drag radials at the track to see what it will do.

Tires combined with the cooler temps I am expecting some good times. I need to do it soon though, 'cause the built K24 and bigger crank pulley are about to go in the car.

brian g

 

I too have driven this car for a while and it is fast, and has tractions issues. If you could actually hook up it would easily pull 12's. This car has as much power as a camaro, is much lighter and has better gearing for acceleration. I took a familly member for a ride who owns a corvette and he could not believe the power that the little Honda was producing. 1/4 mile times are not a good method of showing how well a car drives in real world conditions. Life is NOT lived 1 1/4 mile at a time.