Why do I want an EP3 Type R!?
Discussion
neiljohnson said:
Its torque that defines the performance of a car NOT bhp!
Sorry, but that's utter rubbish, otherwise all these repmobile diesels with 200+lb-ft would murder my 130-some lb-ft ITR. Except they don't...and typically I only need rev my "torqueless, peaky" engine to at most 6,000rpm to keep up with them (at which point the engine is producing c. 130bhp, which in bhp/tonne terms isn't much greater than the diesels are producing).The torque CURVE defines the nature of the performance:-
- All in a big rush and over just as quickly (think I may have to rename a part of my anatomy "TDI"!
)- So linear you don't notice it and suddenly are doing big-speeds
- A shove in the back that never lets up
- Peace and quiet and then all hell breaks loose
...but ultimately the perfomance is most closely related to bhp/tonne, with a SLIGHT nod being given to engines with fatter torque curves as they're more flexible and easier to exploit by the lazy (who don't understand that a gearbox is a torque-multiplier, and therefore defeats all these TDi apologists at the drop of a cog...)
Edit: Where'd the footnote formatting go?
In order:-
- TDis
- Mid-capacity n/asp engines, e.g. V6s
- Big-cube n/asp and supercharged
- Old-school turbo's and VTECs
havoc said:
Sorry, but that's utter rubbish, otherwise all these repmobile diesels with 200+lb-ft would murder my 130-some lb-ft ITR. Except they don't...and typically I only need rev my "torqueless, peaky" engine to at most 6,000rpm to keep up with them (at which point the engine is producing c. 130bhp, which in bhp/tonne terms isn't much greater than the diesels are producing).
The torque CURVE defines the nature of the performance:-
- All in a big rush and over just as quickly (think I may have to rename a part of my anatomy "TDI"! )
- So linear you don't notice it and suddenly are doing big-speeds
- A shove in the back that never lets up
- Peace and quiet and then all hell breaks loose
...but ultimately the perfomance is most closely related to bhp/tonne, with a SLIGHT nod being given to engines with fatter torque curves as they're more flexible and easier to exploit by the lazy (who don't understand that a gearbox is a torque-multiplier, and therefore defeats all these TDi apologists at the drop of a cog...)
Edit: Where'd the footnote formatting go?
In order:-
- TDis
- Mid-capacity n/asp engines, e.g. V6s
- Big-cube n/asp and supercharged
- Old-school turbo's and VTECs
good post. The torque CURVE defines the nature of the performance:-
- All in a big rush and over just as quickly (think I may have to rename a part of my anatomy "TDI"!
)- So linear you don't notice it and suddenly are doing big-speeds
- A shove in the back that never lets up
- Peace and quiet and then all hell breaks loose
...but ultimately the perfomance is most closely related to bhp/tonne, with a SLIGHT nod being given to engines with fatter torque curves as they're more flexible and easier to exploit by the lazy (who don't understand that a gearbox is a torque-multiplier, and therefore defeats all these TDi apologists at the drop of a cog...)
Edit: Where'd the footnote formatting go?
In order:-
- TDis
- Mid-capacity n/asp engines, e.g. V6s
- Big-cube n/asp and supercharged
- Old-school turbo's and VTECs
can i ask what the final drive ratio is in the ITR? you can buy aftermarket ones that improve acceleration even more.
stux2004 said:
can i ask what the final drive ratio is in the ITR? you can buy aftermarket ones that improve acceleration even more.
Here you go, the shorter final gear does improve acceleration at the sacrifice of top speed
Gear speeds as well
EP3
1st 3.266 - 38.28 MPH
2nd 2.13 - 58.7 MPH
3rd 1.517 - 82.42 MPH
4th 1.147 - 109.01 MPH
5th 0.921 - 135.76 MPH
6th 0.738 - 169.42 MPH
Final drive 4.764
FN2
1st 3.266 - 37.26 MPH
2nd 2.13 - 57.14 MPH
3rd 1.517 - 80.22 MPH
4th 1.147 - 106.1 MPH
5th 0.921 - 132.14 MPH
6th 0.738 - 164.91 MPH
Final drive 5.062
itsnotarace said:
Here you go, the shorter final gear does improve acceleration at the sacrifice of top speed
Gear speeds as well
EP3
1st 3.266 - 38.28 MPH
2nd 2.13 - 58.7 MPH
3rd 1.517 - 82.42 MPH
4th 1.147 - 109.01 MPH
5th 0.921 - 135.76 MPH
Final drive 4.764
Gear speeds as well
EP3
1st 3.266 - 38.28 MPH
2nd 2.13 - 58.7 MPH
3rd 1.517 - 82.42 MPH
4th 1.147 - 109.01 MPH
5th 0.921 - 135.76 MPH
Final drive 4.764
really similar ratios to mine (except 6th). i used to have a 4.266, but replaced it with a 4.64 M-Factory jobbie.'indicated' speeds are now roughly :
1st - 36/37mph
2nd - 58/59mph
3rd - 78/79mph
4th - 111/112mph
5th - 142/143mph
- but no 6th gear*
A friend of mine has an EP3, but he doesn't understand the concept of torque multiplication, so doesn't want to invest in a new FD.
stux2004 said:
you can buy aftermarket ones that improve acceleration even more.
Not sure on the precise ratio but 5th in the DC2 is 17.8mph/1000rpm.So at a quick M-way cruise you're doing nearly 5k rpm...don't think I'd want to shorten FD any further!
(To be fair, once above 4k the car's so light and throttle-response so crisp that you don't usually notice any 'lack of torque' - only perhaps when going uphill)
stux2004 said:
I gained nothing on the 0-62mph test (for obvious reasons), but the standing 1/4 and 0-100mph test improved by about 0.4 secs.
Pretty good. With the EP3's a good setup for track is 4th, 5th and 6th from the JDM gearbox as they are slightly shorter, and then fitting a Spoon 5.1 final drive. Top speed is reduced to low 130's but acceleration is much improved. I wouldn't do it in mine purely because of the reason highlighted above, you would be sitting over 5k at 70 on the motorwayIMHO the Civic is a great car for the driver who enjoys a high workload (changing gear often). It's not a car for lazy people who just whack the car in top gear and ride a wave of boost
If your talking figures (EK9):
Have you ever wondered how fast the Honda Civic Type-R is in a straightline ? In the May 1998 issue of UK's Performance Car, a true JDM Honda Civic Type-R was tested in a special hot-hatches feature. The figures attained will send shivers down any of our competitor's spines.
A listing of some of the critical standing acceleration numbers are as follow:
Distance Time
0-60mph : 5.7 seconds
0-100mph: 17.5 seconds
0-1/4mi 15.0 seconds at 94mph
Top speed was not tested as all JDM Hondas are speed limited to around 180-190kph.
The Civic Type-R bested the UK version of the Honda Integra Type-R which has a derated 190hp engine (and similar quad headlights front facial of the US version). The UK's Integra Type-R obtained values of around 6.2seconds for the 0-60mph dash but a faster 17.1 seconds for the 0-100mph dash. However, the Integra Type-R was not fully run-in at the time of its test.
Not bad for a 1600 hey?
(Info from the "is it a boat" website
Have you ever wondered how fast the Honda Civic Type-R is in a straightline ? In the May 1998 issue of UK's Performance Car, a true JDM Honda Civic Type-R was tested in a special hot-hatches feature. The figures attained will send shivers down any of our competitor's spines.
A listing of some of the critical standing acceleration numbers are as follow:
Distance Time
0-60mph : 5.7 seconds
0-100mph: 17.5 seconds
0-1/4mi 15.0 seconds at 94mph
Top speed was not tested as all JDM Hondas are speed limited to around 180-190kph.
The Civic Type-R bested the UK version of the Honda Integra Type-R which has a derated 190hp engine (and similar quad headlights front facial of the US version). The UK's Integra Type-R obtained values of around 6.2seconds for the 0-60mph dash but a faster 17.1 seconds for the 0-100mph dash. However, the Integra Type-R was not fully run-in at the time of its test.
Not bad for a 1600 hey?
(Info from the "is it a boat" website
otolith said:
Have you seen it replicated?
this. Its from a magizine that is now 13 years old? What where the circumstance. I would love to see footage of a standard one at santa pod or something.... Youtube says no though.....The performance car article is well banded about but no one has since replicated it? Strange?
I'm just sceptical because the numbers look inconsistent.
Using the performance calculator at letstorquebhp, which is usually fairly consistent with reality;
A 1090kg front wheel drive car would typically need around 215bhp to hit 60 in 5.7 seconds, and would go on to hit 100 in around 14 seconds.
A 185bhp front wheel drive car would typically need to weigh around 931kg to hit 60 in 5.7 seconds and would go on to hit 100 in around 14.4 seconds.
A 1090kg, 185bhp front wheel drive car would typically hit 60 in 6.4 and 100 in 16.5.
1090kg, 185bhp, 60 in 5.7 and 100 in 17.5 makes no sense to me - especially since they also quote a standing quarter of 15.0 seconds at 94mph, which is entirely consistent with what you would expect from the published power and weight figures.
Using the performance calculator at letstorquebhp, which is usually fairly consistent with reality;
A 1090kg front wheel drive car would typically need around 215bhp to hit 60 in 5.7 seconds, and would go on to hit 100 in around 14 seconds.
A 185bhp front wheel drive car would typically need to weigh around 931kg to hit 60 in 5.7 seconds and would go on to hit 100 in around 14.4 seconds.
A 1090kg, 185bhp front wheel drive car would typically hit 60 in 6.4 and 100 in 16.5.
1090kg, 185bhp, 60 in 5.7 and 100 in 17.5 makes no sense to me - especially since they also quote a standing quarter of 15.0 seconds at 94mph, which is entirely consistent with what you would expect from the published power and weight figures.
according to numerous forums:-
"the 5.7 0-60 time was set in japan in a ek9 civic type r N1 edition which had no rear seats, no air con,no power steering,lighter smaller front seats,lighter plastic steering wheel"
seeing as the (DC2) Integra Type-R manages low 6s with 190PS, then you'd expect the Civic to be a smidgeon slower to 60 i.e. 6.4s sounds about right
"the 5.7 0-60 time was set in japan in a ek9 civic type r N1 edition which had no rear seats, no air con,no power steering,lighter smaller front seats,lighter plastic steering wheel"
seeing as the (DC2) Integra Type-R manages low 6s with 190PS, then you'd expect the Civic to be a smidgeon slower to 60 i.e. 6.4s sounds about right
otolith said:
I'm just sceptical because the numbers look inconsistent.
Using the performance calculator at letstorquebhp, which is usually fairly consistent with reality;
A 1090kg front wheel drive car would typically need around 215bhp to hit 60 in 5.7 seconds, and would go on to hit 100 in around 14 seconds.
A 185bhp front wheel drive car would typically need to weigh around 931kg to hit 60 in 5.7 seconds and would go on to hit 100 in around 14.4 seconds.
A 1090kg, 185bhp front wheel drive car would typically hit 60 in 6.4 and 100 in 16.5.
1090kg, 185bhp, 60 in 5.7 and 100 in 17.5 makes no sense to me - especially since they also quote a standing quarter of 15.0 seconds at 94mph, which is entirely consistent with what you would expect from the published power and weight figures.
The word "typically" can mean so much here though cant it?Using the performance calculator at letstorquebhp, which is usually fairly consistent with reality;
A 1090kg front wheel drive car would typically need around 215bhp to hit 60 in 5.7 seconds, and would go on to hit 100 in around 14 seconds.
A 185bhp front wheel drive car would typically need to weigh around 931kg to hit 60 in 5.7 seconds and would go on to hit 100 in around 14.4 seconds.
A 1090kg, 185bhp front wheel drive car would typically hit 60 in 6.4 and 100 in 16.5.
1090kg, 185bhp, 60 in 5.7 and 100 in 17.5 makes no sense to me - especially since they also quote a standing quarter of 15.0 seconds at 94mph, which is entirely consistent with what you would expect from the published power and weight figures.
Why would I waste my time sitting in my car with a stop watch trying to achieve 5.7secs to 60. To be honest I couldnt care less, i just like watching some of you bite when I mention it....every time!
Gassing Station | Honda | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff