Torque and Horse Power

[disrupter006]

Horsepower @ rpm.............197@7800..............200@5100
Torque @ rpm ...................139@6100............ 207@1800

..........................................Civic SI................New GTI

Can someone break this down and analyze it for me? To me, it looks like the GTI will perform better...but I want to be sure...

[Viper]

Those are vastly different RPM levels so it's tough to say.

The GTI getting more Hp at lower RPMs bodes well for it though.

[JasonXe]

hmm? i can't understand your format. All i know is your better off with more torque for faster acceleration.

[The Dude]

Do yourself a favor and throw those numbers out the window. You cant compare two cars very fairly if you are using different engine speeds. Let's look at it this way: The GTI (I assume its an 07) has a turbo charger, the Civic has Vtec. Either way neither car is going to give you much power or torque down low. The GTI will feel faster because the turbo spools very quick (if I remember right its a very samll turbo) and provides much more torque then the civic at so you will feel it. Some people claim they can feel vtec, I for one can never notice it when I ride in my friends older SI's. What I'm trying to say is that the GTI has a much better power band then the Civic.

[masonite]

you'll have to drive them differently to get performance. The civic you'll have to rev hard, try and keep the engine in lift in order to get decent figures, and keep rpm up high. The golf, as has been said, has a better power band, and will pull better from down low in the rev range.

Are those peak figures? peak torque at 1800rpm is nice, you'll notice it at higher speed - overtaking figures (80-120km/h) will be a lot better in the GTI than the civic, in the civic you'll be downshifting and revving hard to get similar figures.

Basically the Golf will allow you to drive faster without pushing the car as much as you would in the civic. but at the same time, you'll have to check the kerb weights. Golf is a pretty heavy small car, but its got great driving dynamics. Civic'll probably be lighter, but not have the ability of the golf chassis.

[disrupter006]

http://automobiles.honda.com/tools/compare/results-overview.aspx?ModelName=Civic+Si+Coupe&ModelYear=2007&AICGroupNum=5093&AICNum1=20621&LastState=%2Ftools%2Fcompare%2Fselect-competitor-similar.aspx%3FModelName%3DCivic%2BSi%2BCoupe%26Mo delYear%3D2007%26AICGroupNum%3D5093%26AICNum1%3D20 621%26LastState%3D%26AICNum2%3D20941&AICNum2=20941&Filter=&Mode=&Photo=&Change=

[masonite]

wow, US civics are much sexier than aussie civics... (with the exception of the type r, which is the only sexy one we get :)) yeah the Golf is about 223 lb heavier than the civic - equals almost exactly 100kg. It's enough to affect performance, not exactly sure how much. having almost 150% of the torque of the civic will help even that out though. It'll affect handling too, but the Golf has independent from suspension, whilst the civic makes to with simple old macpherson strut - which shows its budget car origins. even with the extra weight, i'd say the Golf will still be the better drive. Honda also only has multi-link in the rear.

The golf has better packaging too, with more interior space despite a smaller length and smaller wheelbase.

hehehe, you can tell its a honda website, because everywhere the honda is "better" its highlighted, and everywhere its the opposite theres nothing....

We've got a mkV 2.0 TDi, and its a nice car, a good drive, but its not really a decent comparison, not least because of the different engines and models, also because its two different markets - the US spec cars will have softer ride.

I can tell you that in every hot hatch comparison over here in australia, in wheels magazine, the golf GTi has come off best, despite going up against quicker and newer competition. It's a very complete car, but ultimately, we don't have the civic Si coupe here. Personally i'd go with the golf - the civic does look nice, but considering its almost the cost of the golf (only 1 grand difference) and it's still built on a cheap car platform, the golf takes the pudding for me.

[Xer0]

I can tell you that in every hot hatch comparison over here in australia, in wheels magazine, the golf GTi has come off best, despite going up against quicker and newer competition. It's a very complete car, but ultimately, we don't have the civic Si coupe here. Personally i'd go with the golf - the civic does look nice, but considering its almost the cost of the golf (only 1 grand difference) and it's still built on a cheap car platform, the golf takes the pudding for me.

Huh? The GTI and SI both have their origins in economy cars, niether the Golf or the Civic are really expensive cars so saying one is "cheap" in comparison to the other is really misleading. And, the price difference is more like 4-5 grand.

Golf is a pretty heavy small car, but its got great driving dynamics. Civic'll probably be lighter, but not have the ability of the golf chassis.

So far everything ive read comparing the two says the opposite. And, the GTI wins every comparison not because its the sportiest or how amazing its chassis is, but because it does everything so damn well and that 2.0t is gem

Horsepower @ rpm.............197@7800..............200@5100
Torque @ rpm ...................139@6100............ 207@1800

..........................................Civic SI................New GTI

Considering that the Civic makes less power at a far higher RPM id wager the GTI performs better (which it does). Yes, you could argue that you would need to look at gear ratios and viechle wieghts and etc, but meh. The GTI has a very stable and broad power band (makes a lot of power everywhere and doesnt give you those "Oh shit!" moments) in comparison to the Civics peaky as fuck (it reaches peak power 200rpm shy from redline).

[masonite]

Huh? The GTI and SI both have their origins in economy cars, niether the Golf or the Civic are really expensive cars so saying one is "cheap" in comparison to the other is really misleading. And, the price difference is more like 4-5 grand.



So far everything ive read comparing the two says the opposite. And, the GTI wins every comparison not because its the sportiest or how amazing its chassis is, but because it does everything so damn well and that 2.0t is gem



Considering that the Civic makes less power at a far higher RPM id wager the GTI performs better (which it does). Yes, you could argue that you would need to look at gear ratios and viechle wieghts and etc, but meh. The GTI has a very stable and broad power band (makes a lot of power everywhere and doesnt give you those "Oh shit!" moments) in comparison to the Civics peaky as fuck (it reaches peak power 200rpm shy from redline).

Why is the price more like 4-5 grand? according to the honda website the difference was a grand. The difference of similarly equipped cars was about 3 grand, thanks to the optional sunroof in the golf. but who the fuck needs a sunroof?!



Golf is a premium small car. Civic is a budget small car. The whole civic model family has less money put into performance by the manufacturer. The majority of civic owners simply aren't interested in handling. They're interested in getting to the beige cardigan store without feeling the potholes. Golf sells truckloads of GTI's around the world, its the original and iconic hot hatch. If they suddenly stopped focusing on handling potential there'd be riots. That is proved by the way the car is made, and the type of suspension the cars use. There's no ifs or buts about it, macpherson strut is chosen due to its simplicity and its cheapness to manufacture. You can claim they're both cheap cars, but the design of the cars tell the story of what the cars were intended for.

And the reason the GTI wins comparo's here in australia is, of course, that it manages everything well, but chassis balance is a big part of that. Making a hot hatch isn't just about power, its about making sure that the car is capable of putting that power down effectively. To a large extent chassis balance is more important in hot hatches than in sports cars, as the lower hp means drivers can't gloss over mistakes as easily - so the car has to be able to perform. And you can't simply add more hp, as that leads to other problems, such as massive torque steer eg. the mazda 3 mps (known as the speed 3 in the states i think) despite power being capped in first 2 gears, and the astra VXR.

The fact that the wheels doing the steering are also putting the power to the ground means front suspension in particular has to be up to the task.

With the exception of perhaps the megane 225 cup, which compromises ride quality, there aren't many hot hatches that have the ability of the Golf chassis. Perhaps the US chassis tune is lacklustre, and overly soft (a distinct possibility, considering the US tuned mk IV R32 we got in australia) but the Golf most definately has more potential.

[PSXBatou]

I would go with the GTI :) But I am biased to German cars. The GTI will feel a lot faster, and given the numbers probably is faster. The thing is that the civic will probably be a lighter car, so you have to add that in to it. My biggest issue with Civics when i had one as a commuter was that they felt like a tin can with no insulation, this may not matter to you, but if it does then the GTI may be the better choice. Test drive them both and go with which ever feels the best to you both driving it and appearance wise. Cars may not be an investment but you will usually be stuck with them for the length of your lease/loan, keep long term or at lease/purchase contract term in mind when you are looking at them.

My car
255 hp @ 6,600 rpm
220 lb-ft. @ 2,750 rpm

[Xer0]

Why is the price more like 4-5 grand? according to the honda website the difference was a grand. The difference of similarly equipped cars was about 3 grand, thanks to the optional sunroof in the golf. but who the fuck needs a sunroof?!

Well, the only way to really compare prices is getting like options, although i will admit i do remember the GTI being slightly more expensive then it is.


Golf is a premium small car. Civic is a budget small car. The whole civic model family has less money put into performance by the manufacturer. The majority of civic owners simply aren't interested in handling. They're interested in getting to the beige cardigan store without feeling the potholes.

I dont understand where this stigma for Honda around the world has come from. Its the same deal in the UK, the Civic is seen as an old peoples car. Never mind the fact that the CTR is a monster and all past ones have been amazing.

Golf sells truckloads of GTI's around the world, its the original and iconic hot hatch. If they suddenly stopped focusing on handling potential there'd be riots. That is proved by the way the car is made, and the type of suspension the cars use. There's no ifs or buts about it, macpherson strut is chosen due to its simplicity and its cheapness to manufacture. You can claim they're both cheap cars, but the design of the cars tell the story of what the cars were intended for.

By that logic then i guess the Corvette cant compete with the likes of Porsche or Ferrari then either? Besides that, they have the same suspension set up, struts up front, multi-link in the rear, both independent.

And the reason the GTI wins comparo's here in australia is, of course, that it manages everything well, but chassis balance is a big part of that. Making a hot hatch isn't just about power, its about making sure that the car is capable of putting that power down effectively. To a large extent chassis balance is more important in hot hatches than in sports cars, as the lower hp means drivers can't gloss over mistakes as easily - so the car has to be able to perform. And you can't simply add more hp, as that leads to other problems, such as massive torque steer eg. the mazda 3 mps (known as the speed 3 in the states i think) despite power being capped in first 2 gears, and the astra VXR.

Chassis balance is more important in hot hatches because they are ment to combine fun to drive while being practical, meaning a firm but not punishing ride. A sports car on the other hand could care less since its single minded. As for your reason, i have no clue were you are going with it as it makes no sense.

The fact that the wheels doing the steering are also putting the power to the ground means front suspension in particular has to be up to the task.

Considering that the Si has no Troque steer and has good feedback (from every review that ive read) I would say that the front suspension is more then up to the task. And if you have to, look no farther then the Civic Type R, with the same suspension set up.

With the exception of perhaps the megane 225 cup, which compromises ride quality, there aren't many hot hatches that have the ability of the Golf chassis. Perhaps the US chassis tune is lacklustre, and overly soft (a distinct possibility, considering the US tuned mk IV R32 we got in australia) but the Golf most definately has more potential.

Well, the MKIV in general wasnt that great as it was a lot softer. And the only difference in the US spec GTI is that its a little higher to comply with bumber regulations. And just so we get one thing straight, we arent talking about the Euro Civic here which is a hatch (since your always mentioning Hot Hatch im not sure wich Civic your comparing) but the USDM and JDM spec.

[goku2057]

Personally, I think comparing the two is moot. And you'd be surprised at the Sis numbers.

The 0-60 times is a wash. both are 6.8 seconds. The quarter times the GTi wins by three tenths. 14.8 to 15.1.

And, teh Si doesn't use FI. It's NA.

The dude, at 6000RPM in the new Civics, you can feel vtech kick in. it's like someone just lit a fire under the cars ass.

These were both 2006 models, as well.

[PSXBatou]

Personally, I think comparing the two is moot. And you'd be surprised at the Sis numbers.

The 0-60 times is a wash. both are 6.8 seconds. The quarter times the GTi wins by three tenths. 14.8 to 15.1.

And, teh Si doesn't use FI. It's NA.

The dude, at 6000RPM in the new Civics, you can feel vtech kick in. it's like someone just lit a fire under the cars ass.

These were both 2006 models, as well.

The GTI uses FI though, i thought thats what he meant.

Are the new civics still SOHC or do they still make the DOHC VTec motors?

I'm not a big fan of FI, i hate turbo lag and most production FI cars have it. The 335i i had as a loaner had it and it drove me nuts.

What would be sick is if Honda would stick their S2k motor in a top end Civic :)

[Xer0]

What would be sick is if Honda would stick their S2k motor in a top end Civic :)

The Civic Type R is about the closest thing to that and its only available in Japan (grumble grumble) it has a 2.0 pumping out 230hp and like 159lb of torque.

[goku2057]

Yeah, I would need new pants if the type-r made it here.

My point was, the Si isn't as slow as it looks on paper. At 6000RPMs, the thing kicks into gear and you can see what it means to be a man.

[masonite]

Well, the only way to really compare prices is getting like options, although i will admit i do remember the GTI being slightly more expensive then it is.

I dont understand where this stigma for Honda around the world has come from. Its the same deal in the UK, the Civic is seen as an old peoples car. Never mind the fact that the CTR is a monster and all past ones have been amazing.

By that logic then i guess the Corvette cant compete with the likes of Porsche or Ferrari then either? Besides that, they have the same suspension set up, struts up front, multi-link in the rear, both independent.

Chassis balance is more important in hot hatches because they are ment to combine fun to drive while being practical, meaning a firm but not punishing ride. A sports car on the other hand could care less since its single minded. As for your reason, i have no clue were you are going with it as it makes no sense.

Considering that the Si has no Troque steer and has good feedback (from every review that ive read) I would say that the front suspension is more then up to the task. And if you have to, look no farther then the Civic Type R, with the same suspension set up.

Well, the MKIV in general wasnt that great as it was a lot softer. And the only difference in the US spec GTI is that its a little higher to comply with bumber regulations. And just so we get one thing straight, we arent talking about the Euro Civic here which is a hatch (since your always mentioning Hot Hatch im not sure wich Civic your comparing) but the USDM and JDM spec.

Stigma about honda? i don't believe there is a stigma, i wasn't referring to honda i was referring to the civic. I'm considering buying a honda in fact, but the civic target audience is undoubtedly quite old (at least here in Oz).

Which ferrari/porsche? which corvette? Arguments using vague, non-specific models are how stigmas get created.

Hot hatches are based on small, cheap practical cars. It's not worth making huge drivetrain changes for the upper tier models, regardless of how well they sell. Hence every hot hatch is now a front wheel drive car, with the exception of some pointless ones (eg. 1 series).

You're right, the new Civic type R has the same front suspension set up as the Si. And in a recent comparo over here in australia, guess what car beat it? :)

The tune of the suspension for most cars is different for the US than for other markets, especially with global cars - they'll usually have a localisation office or area of the company who does the local tune. Usually its softer for the US (in fact i've never heard of it being harsher). The same components are used, but the tune IS different - part of the reason why european cars are often criticised for harsh ride over here in Australia, because of poor tune - Australian roads are notoriously shitty compared to the beautiful roads that most of europe drives on, so the suspension has to be able to absorb corrugations more effectively. Majority of Americans prefer a softer ride even than us. Hence softer US spec suspension.

As for the difference between hatches and coupes, the australian hatch is usually the equivalent of the coupe sedan, at least in small cars. Pretty much every "hot" coupe sedan in the US has its equivalent in hatch form, at least in cars that are built in both body styles. I group the Si in the "Hatch" group for this reason - as well as because every hot civic that has come to australia and the US has been in hatch form here, and coupe sedan form over there.

I should also add that "coupe" in Australia simply means it has two doors - hatch's can still be coupe's.


Look, i'm not saying all hondas are bad - you obviously like hondas, and that you're choice. All im saying is that macpherson is undoubtedly the cheaper, simpler and less able of the two suspension types. As for the rest of the car, that depends on the ability of the manufacturer. I'm simply giving an objective, unbiased view of the two cars.

[Xer0]

Stigma about honda? i don't believe there is a stigma, i wasn't referring to honda i was referring to the civic. I'm considering buying a honda in fact, but the civic target audience is undoubtedly quite old (at least here in Oz).

The thing that im talking about is that generally its for old people. Its partly the same way in the UK which is completely contrary to what it is here in the States (although with Honda's recent "I want to be like Toyota" policy i could see that changing)

Which ferrari/porsche? which corvette? Arguments using vague, non-specific models are how stigmas get created.

Well it really doesnt mater as even the base Corvetter can run with most porsche's and give low end Ferrari's a run for their money. But i was mostly refering to the antique leaf springs set up on the Vette


You're right, the new Civic type R has the same front suspension set up as the Si. And in a recent comparo over here in australia, guess what car beat it? :)

Yup, i had a feeling we were confusing the Civics, you guys get the Euro Spec Civic Type R
http://www.caradvice.com.au/3251/2007-honda-civic-type-r-overview/
Which has an entirely different suspension set up and is alltogether "cheaper" then the JDM or USDM Civic Si or Civic Type R thanks to its rear suspension.
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/208387/honda_civic_typer.html
Thats the "real" Civic Type R

The tune of the suspension for most cars is different for the US than for other markets, especially with global cars - they'll usually have a localisation office or area of the company who does the local tune. Usually its softer for the US (in fact i've never heard of it being harsher). The same components are used, but the tune IS different - part of the reason why european cars are often criticised for harsh ride over here in Australia, because of poor tune - Australian roads are notoriously shitty compared to the beautiful roads that most of europe drives on, so the suspension has to be able to absorb corrugations more effectively. Majority of Americans prefer a softer ride even than us. Hence softer US spec suspension.

Which is pretty lame that we are all old farts, however that would be true for any world wide model, Golf or Civic, so it is a moot point.

Look, i'm not saying all hondas are bad - you obviously like hondas, and that you're choice. All im saying is that macpherson is undoubtedly the cheaper, simpler and less able of the two suspension types. As for the rest of the car, that depends on the ability of the manufacturer. I'm simply giving an objective, unbiased view of the two cars.

And i never said you didnt like Honda, and just for the record, i would probably buy the GTI over the Si over here.

[cpiasminc]

My point was, the Si isn't as slow as it looks on paper. At 6000RPMs, the thing kicks into gear and you can see what it means to be a man.
Sure, but 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times for the Si happen in preset conditions when the driver can really get into that high RPM range and take advantage of it fully. Unless you're taking it onto the track regularly or you drive on highways with no traffic, you're not going to see that very much. Comparatively, when you've got peak power lower in the RPM range, and peak torque very much lower, you can feel it immediately. That does make a difference in at least the perception of performance.

The thing that im talking about is that generally its for old people. Its partly the same way in the UK which is completely contrary to what it is here in the States (although with Honda's recent "I want to be like Toyota" policy i could see that changing)
Hmm... The Civic (especially the Si) doesn't really have that stigma out here in CA, nor does the Accord coupe for that matter. The ricer culture is a little more prevalent here, and Honda has been very friendly to it for longer and more significantly than Toyota... Toyota is only recently picking up steam there with the Scion brand. Honda has its few hits there with the Civic and the Fit.

Which is pretty lame that we are all old farts, however that would be true for any world wide model, Golf or Civic, so it is a moot point.
Well, more than being weaklings for stiff suspension, I think it's just the driving habits. People tend to have much long-distance commutes in the US, and at the same time, they'll still take the car to go down to the convenience store at the corner of the street, so comfort still takes point.

The other thing is the whole image of driving as this freedom from the rest of the world, so people tend to prefer having it be something of an isolated bubble.

[masonite]

Didn't realise the vette had leaf springs, i thought that was the mustang, which suffers massively thanks to its live rear axle. And what sort of "run for their money" are we talking about? there's no way a car with leaf springs or a live rear axle will handle as well as a sports - focused chassis like a carrera or f430. In terms of grunt, perhaps, but thats just a matter of chucking a big donk in there and running it in ideal conditions. In the real world even getting power to the ground is compromised by live rear axles, as evidenced by how hard it is to get power to the ground in the mustang.

Everything else i think we've found common ground on, but leaf springs and live rear axles simply kill performance. People tend to underestimate the importance of good suspension design.

[EDIT] by the way, that domestic type R looks nice.... sounds like it goes like the clappers, LSD in the front too.. itd be a weapon.

[Xer0]

Didn't realise the vette had leaf springs, i thought that was the mustang, which suffers massively thanks to its live rear axle. And what sort of "run for their money" are we talking about? there's no way a car with leaf springs or a live rear axle will handle as well as a sports - focused chassis like a carrera or f430. In terms of grunt, perhaps, but thats just a matter of chucking a big donk in there and running it in ideal conditions. In the real world even getting power to the ground is compromised by live rear axles, as evidenced by how hard it is to get power to the ground in the mustang.

Mustang i thought had a solid rear axle? Either way, its old and its only there for cost. As for the Corvette, you would be surprised at how fast it really does go around a track, i know i was, and not just straight aways either. However, a lot of people do complain about how scary it is at the limits. Here is a list of times from the Nurburgring, keep in mind, not all of these cars are stock

7:39.39 161.219 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, Walther Röhrl (AutoBild 02/06)
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)
7:40* -- 161.217 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1655 kg (AutoBild sportscars 01/07) *mfr., company test driver Giorgio Sanna
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 07/04)
7:40* -- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1495 kg, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/03)
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)
7:41 --- 160.868 km/h -- Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/04), www.manthey-motors.de/nextshopcms/cmspdf.asp?id=217
7:42* -- 160.519 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/ 1521 kg (*as indicated by Octane magazine, 11/05)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa (04) (according to dailysportscar.net)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h – Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1420 kg (*mfr.)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (02)
7:42.9 - 160.207 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 500 PS/1319 kg, Jan Magnusen, (Sporbilen, jun,26 05), www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y&gID=3&fID=0&tID=10073&mID=1384471&l=d
7:43 --- 160.173 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Roehrl (MOTOR magazine)
06/07), www.supercars.net/PitLane?

7:55* -- 156.126 km/h -- Aston Martin V8 Vantage N24, 385 PS/1350 kg (race car, not street-legal)(*mfr.)
7:55 --- 156.126 km/h -- Caterham R500 Superlight, Robert Nearn (EVO magazine 07/00)
7:55 --- 156.126 km/h – Ferrari F430 F1, 490 PS/1493 kg (sport auto 01/06),
7:56 --- 155.798 km/h -- Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale, 425 PS/1387 kg (sport auto 02/04)
7:56 --- 155.798 km/h -- Porsche 996 Turbo, 420 PS/1569 kg (sport auto 06/00)
7:56* - 155.798 km/h -- Chevrolet Corvette Z06 ,company chief engineer Dave Hill (*mfr.)
7:56.50 155.594 km/h -- Mercedes CLK DTM AMG, 582 PS/1678kg, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 02/06)
7:56.65 155.569 km/h – Lamborghini Gallardo SE, 520 PS/1560 kg, Tom Kristensen (AutoBild 02/06)
7:56.73* 155.569 km/h -- Honda NSX-R (*Best Motoring video "Carrera Invasion", lap not complete)
7:57 --- 155.472 km/h -- AC Schnitzer Tension, 552 PS/1797 kg (sport auto 04/07), www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=y&gID=1&fID=1&tID=123445
7:57 --- 155.472 km/h -- Lotec Porsche 993 Turbo, 600 PS/1558 kg (sport auto 05/98)
7:58 --- 156.652 km/h -- Audi RS4 4.2 V8 FSI, 420 PS/ 1650 kg, Frank Stippler, (10/05) www.8200rpm.com/forum/read.php?f=10&i=16841&t=16841\
7:59 --- 154.822 km/h -- Porsche 997 Carrera S, PASM setting “Performance”, (Walter Roehrl WHEELS 06/ 2004)
7:59* -- 154.822 km/h -- Chevrolet C6 Z51, company test driver Dave Hill (*mfr.)
7:59 --- 154.822 km/h -- Nissan Skyline R33 GT-R, Dirk Schoymans (Autocar magazine 97)
7:59.41 154.690 km/h -- Subaru Impreza WRX STi spec.C "prototype" (2004), www.subaru.com.hk/pdf/SNW0404.pdf

Caranddriver (A local US enthusiast magazine here in the States, think American Evo only not quite as detailed) also does a similar test on a course that resembles the 'Ring, albiet on a smaller scale.

2007 Results
911 Turbo 3:05.8
Z06 2:58.2
911 GT3 3:01.8
Exige S 3:04.5
R8 3:04.6
RS 4 3:11.2
Vette 3:03.6
GT500 3:05.9
335i 3:10.5
Z4 M 3:11.7
Solstice GXP 3:15.7
Mazdaspeed 3 3:16.0
Mini Cooper S 3:22.9

2006 Results
Ford GT 3:00.7
Vette Z06 3:01.1
Viper SRT10 3:01.6
BMW M6 3:10.0
Lotus Elise 3:09.2
Vette 3:09.3
Cayman S 3:09.5
GT500 3:11.0
Charger SRT8 3:18.2
350Z Track 3:12.5
Evo MR 3:13.5
RX-8 3:19.0
Cobalt SS 3:20.6
Mustang GT 3:20.9
VW GTI 3:25.1
Civic Si 3:26.5
MX-5 3:29.3


[EDIT] by the way, that domestic type R looks nice.... sounds like it goes like the clappers, LSD in the front too.. itd be a weapon.

Yep it sure is, which is why i originally thought that we were confusing the cars.

Well, more than being weaklings for stiff suspension, I think it's just the driving habits. People tend to have much long-distance commutes in the US, and at the same time, they'll still take the car to go down to the convenience store at the corner of the street, so comfort still takes point.

The other thing is the whole image of driving as this freedom from the rest of the world, so people tend to prefer having it be something of an isolated bubble.

Although i agree with you, that is still giving the geezers too much credit, i mean there are people that complained that the 500's ride was too stiff.

[Viper]

I've been trying to tell everyone the Vette is an absolute monster these days and not just at the quarter. Those N'ring times are just mind blowing.


And to think they want to release the Blue Devil with 650-700 Hp. Those better comes with disposable seat covers so you can change them every time you shit your pants.

[cpiasminc]

In the real world even getting power to the ground is compromised by live rear axles, as evidenced by how hard it is to get power to the ground in the mustang.
What's funny is how there are people who think that's a good thing, because wheel spin gives the impression of greater power and such massive torque that the "world can't handle it."

Everything else i think we've found common ground on, but leaf springs and live rear axles simply kill performance. People tend to underestimate the importance of good suspension design.
What often surprises me is that GM has stuck with the transverse leaf spring on the Corvette for this long in spite of the fact that cost is among the disadvantages. Never mind the stigma about leaf springs being archaic, but there's the fact that transverse leaf springs demand specialized packaging, have decreased adjustability (especially of spring rate), higher cost of modification, and that the composite springs they use are still more than double the cost of just about any coil springs on the market.

I mean, if you put 650 hp on the same leaves and same A-arm geometry as the base trim, you'll just turn it into an overpowered drift-car. At least more "commodity" suspension is easy and cheap to tune to get the desired results.

Although i agree with you, that is still giving the geezers too much credit, i mean there are people that complained that the 500's ride was too stiff.
Yeah, maybe... It's just that in certain parts of the country, it's less about geezers, because they're simply not buying new as often as yuppies and ricers are.

[Viper]

I recently read from a guy on the SS production team (the 650 Hp model for 2009) and expect many changes over the Z06. While he didn't go into specific details outside of the engine itself, he did allude to some possible changes that could include using different springs.

The C7's that debut in 2010 will definitely change.

[masonite]

Wow, i still can't believe that the Z06 uses leaf springs.... to think they've gone so far as to use titanium in engine construction, but don't want to fork out the cash to develop real springs. If they actually gave it real springs, it'd be even more of a giant killer.

Yeh, the Mustang used live rear axle, originally to contain costs - the incredible thing is that in the end, the cost of developing a new type of live solid rear axle specifically for one car ended up being more than what it would have cost to adapt an existing IRS setup for the application.

[goku2057]

Sure, but 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times for the Si happen in preset conditions when the driver can really get into that high RPM range and take advantage of it fully. Unless you're taking it onto the track regularly or you drive on highways with no traffic, you're not going to see that very much. Comparatively, when you've got peak power lower in the RPM range, and peak torque very much lower, you can feel it immediately. That does make a difference in at least the perception of performance.



I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just stating that the Si moves more than people give it credit. It's squirrelly enough in low RPMs to still make it a fun drive. Once you hit 6000RPM though...Geez. VVT FTW.