The second you get your car, you try and make it into something different, often spending inexorbitant amounts of money doing so (which could actually buy you something else, something better in fact).

Explain yourselves.

And to quell the flames, I myself an a Civic driver (2001) and still can't imagine why you'd ever do this.

it adds personality. To gain respect. To work with what we have and still be able to stand out and run with the best of them. Bottom line:

CAUSE WE CAN.

Originally posted by 911GT2
The second you get your car, you try and make it into something different, often spending inexorbitant amounts of money doing so (which could actually buy you something else, something better in fact).

Explain yourselves.

And to quell the flames, I myself an a Civic driver (2001) and still can't imagine why you'd ever do this.

I think this can be a question to ANY person that modifies a car, weather it be a Civic, Accord, Mustang or I've even seen some Porsche owners dump wads of $$$ into making theirs "look" like a GT2. I point that out after seeing your AF.com user name. ;) But all aside, it's to make a normally somewhat bland looking car look a bit more appealing to the owner's eye. That's how it is for me at least. I do it because like said I can, to change it's look and have it look the way I want with a unique style (I don't really see very many around that have done what I have to mine) and also as a challange and hobby to myself. All hobbies cost money in one way or another. Some people collect rare stamps, others built miniature train sets (like my grnadfather did and my uncle currently does) while others do things like skydiving, or whathave you. Eitherway, it's all gonna cost some sort of monitary amount. I am smaort about my mods I do though and shop around for them for the best price, or just custom hand make them myself in some cases as I did with my home made mesh grill, and painting of some exterior and interior pieces. Since my car is my hoby, I take great care, patience and time with the work I put into it, and unless I physically can't do something (which I've only done this when I had my suspension coilovers installed) I have done ALL work that's been done with my car, myself which has saved me HUNDREDS of dollars in the long run. Doing my own installs and work on my car also adds to the challenege of the hobby, saves money and I can take pride and joy in knowing I didi the work myself, didn't have to rely on a shop and i know I'm going to take special care in what I'm doing to make sure it's done to the standards I want it to be in.

Happy motoring. :cool:

and plus, buying a decent 15k car, and putting 15k into it will be faster than a 30k car. plus, you can add a bunch of toys into it, and in my opinion, it would look better. all "custom" and stuff. AND, you have something to be proud about. you can say "YEAH, that's my car".

its a great hobby. an expensive hobby but an enjoyable one. i love tryin to make my lil 4 banger better and faster. makes me feel good when i spank a v8 who talks alot of shitnitz. besides the hobby part of it all, im addicted. cant stop modin my lil civic.:cool:

Customize, originality, everyone likes to be different. It feels really really good to kick muscle car ass in a modded civic. What fun is it to beat a civic in a mustang or camaro? Better than spending 15k on drugs...., wait a minute.....,Wait a minute.......o.k....

For me, the smallest thing that I do to my car is an accomplishment. For alot of us, our cars are our only escape from bullshit in life, becasue i know it is for me. And like i say to everyone, it doesnt matter what type of car you have, what matters is what you do to it.

Note that I'm talking about body kits.

And I find it quite funny that all of you apparently do it to be individual, when every single Civic out there driven by anyone less than 25 is uglified by shitty Eurotails and terrible wings and chin spoilers. You're not being very individual when everyone's doing it...

But when you spend 30-35K on a Civic, you could easily (yes, easily) go out and buy a used car that'll spank it. FWD just has too many shortcomings, you can develop all the power you want, you just can't put it to the ground.

And IMO, it doesn't really matter what you drive, as long as you know where you stand. I just get sorta perturbed because every time I take out my goddamn car (a stock fuckin Civic people), all these dicks in their bodykitted and winged out Civics try to race me. And they actually lose. It just gets fucking ridiculous after a while.

Hey you have an opinion, thats cool but dont worry about what other people do to their own cars. It's their money (in some cases, the parents) but hey its doing something they think looks good.

And im sorry but a stock car isnt gonna beat a car that has 30-35K into it, bad money comparison on your part.

And here's a thought, maybe you just race the cars you know you can beat, and all the other ones you just let them pass by..hum:)

When did I say a stock 35K car? ;)

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that there are far better cars to modify than a FWD econocar.

A Porsche 944 Turbo can be gotten for a similar amount of money to a Civic (Turbos can run you 8K USD for a good one, more for exceptional) and crank up the boost on that bitch. Spend 15K total, eat Civics on the strip and the track.

Just goes to show...

Originally posted by 911GT2
When did I say a stock 35K car? ;)

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that there are far better cars to modify than a FWD econocar.

A Porsche 944 Turbo can be gotten for a similar amount of money to a Civic (Turbos can run you 8K USD for a good one, more for exceptional) and crank up the boost on that bitch. Spend 15K total, eat Civics on the strip and the track.

Just goes to show...

That's the half of it though, a USED Porsche vs. a NEW Civic. Which one will handle it's mods better and be more reliable? The NEW car of course. If a FWD car couldn't put it's power down very well, manufactures wouldn't make them, and there are quite a few FWD sports cars out there.

Sure you may say:
And I find it quite funny that all of you apparently do it to be individual, when every single Civic out there driven by anyone less than 25 is uglified by shitty Eurotails and terrible wings and chin spoilers. You're not being very individual when everyone's doing it...
Take a look at my car ant tell me if it falls into that same catagory. I didin't think so. Euro tails? Nope, wing of any kind? Nope. Chin spoiler, yes, but then again so does an Si. ;) I rest my case. Don't say EVERY single Civic, when only 25 of 25 % fall into that catagory.

You obviously love your STOCK 7th gen Civic, which is prefectly fine, people like family point A to point B get around cars, Others like to fix their's up. Not all of us have $30k to dump on a car at a single time, and rather build up a lesser $15k car over time. But don't come into our world here and kncok what we do with our cars. That just what they are, OURS just like your stocker is YOURS! And BTW, I'm pretty positive if your car is bone stock, mine would be able to edge it out in a race, I've raced a few stick 7th generation Civics, and they don't seem to be what earlier generation Civics were, especially against a modified one. :cool:

Whats this ?- - - - - -> I just get sorta perturbed because every time I take out my goddamn car (a stock fuckin Civic people), all these dicks in their bodykitted and winged out Civics try to race me. And they actually lose. It just gets fucking ridiculous after a while. <- - - - you havnet raced my stock looking civic yet. :flipa: and yes, you do deserve to have your vocal chords ripped out :smoker2:

Oh...I think someone got owned!

being the owner of a 4th gen civic.....i can only say that i love my civic...about to do a n engine swap, endyn's supercharger and about to try and add 4wd to my car.....after that...if i'm not too broke....i'm contemplating a combat body kit and functional roof scoop...true u may see me coming down the road and only ur common civic with a body kit that thinks he's fast....but in actuallity u will have no idea as to what i went thru to get my car like it is or how fast it is....i could have gotten a body kit a while ago and stuck it on my car stock, unpainted and unprimed but to me i would fall into that catagory that u re speaking of:rolleyes:

Originally posted by SilverY2KCivic


That's the half of it though, a USED Porsche vs. a NEW Civic. Which one will handle it's mods better and be more reliable? The NEW car of course. If a FWD car couldn't put it's power down very well, manufactures wouldn't make them, and there are quite a few FWD sports cars out there.

Sure you may say:
And I find it quite funny that all of you apparently do it to be individual, when every single Civic out there driven by anyone less than 25 is uglified by shitty Eurotails and terrible wings and chin spoilers. You're not being very individual when everyone's doing it...
Take a look at my car ant tell me if it falls into that same catagory. I didin't think so. Euro tails? Nope, wing of any kind? Nope. Chin spoiler, yes, but then again so does an Si. ;) I rest my case. Don't say EVERY single Civic, when only 25 of 25 % fall into that catagory.

You obviously love your STOCK 7th gen Civic, which is prefectly fine, people like family point A to point B get around cars, Others like to fix their's up. Not all of us have $30k to dump on a car at a single time, and rather build up a lesser $15k car over time. But don't come into our world here and kncok what we do with our cars. That just what they are, OURS just like your stocker is YOURS! And BTW, I'm pretty positive if your car is bone stock, mine would be able to edge it out in a race, I've raced a few stick 7th generation Civics, and they don't seem to be what earlier generation Civics were, especially against a modified one. :cool:

The used Porsche was just for use as a comparison. You can put any used car in there such as DSMs (before you speak up, a rebuilt tranny only costs about a grand), Maximas (Stillen makes excellent supercharger packages), Subarus (their 2.0 liter can make some really good power with forced induction, their new 2.5 is even better), and the list goes on. They'll all give you better performance for the money.

And for most Civic modifiers, the Eurotails come first. You're an exception to the rule, and I commend you for that.

And I never said I love my 7th gen. It's my parents car. It's point A to point B transportation, just like any other Civic, and therefore not a sportscar.

Originally posted by superbluecivicsi
Whats this ?- - - - - -> I just get sorta perturbed because every time I take out my goddamn car (a stock fuckin Civic people), all these dicks in their bodykitted and winged out Civics try to race me. And they actually lose. It just gets fucking ridiculous after a while. <- - - - you havnet raced my stock looking civic yet. :flipa: and yes, you do deserve to have your vocal chords ripped out :smoker2:

Again, you're the exception rather than the rule. Good job on that.

Originally posted by BLU CIVIC
being the owner of a 4th gen civic.....i can only say that i love my civic...about to do a n engine swap, endyn's supercharger and about to try and add 4wd to my car.....after that...if i'm not too broke....i'm contemplating a combat body kit and functional roof scoop...true u may see me coming down the road and only ur common civic with a body kit that thinks he's fast....but in actuallity u will have no idea as to what i went thru to get my car like it is or how fast it is....i could have gotten a body kit a while ago and stuck it on my car stock, unpainted and unprimed but to me i would fall into that catagory that u re speaking of:rolleyes:

That project alone will cost far more than the car.

And do you even realize the complexities of installing an AWD system?? You don't even have a crankshaft (or the space for one) let alone room for both the crank AND the transmission. That's a pipe dream, and the AWD system alone would cost more than a WRX.

Originally posted by 911GT2


That project alone will cost far more than the car.

And do you even realize the complexities of installing an AWD system?? You don't even have a crankshaft (or the space for one) let alone room for both the crank AND the transmission. That's a pipe dream, and the AWD system alone would cost more than a WRX.

actually it is doable and already has been done....what makes u think the awd system would cost more than a WRX...either use a donor crv or a 4th gen wagon....b4 u downplay someone's idea u should do some research...could be helpful when find urself not knowing what ur talking about:bloated:

Originally posted by BLU CIVIC


actually it is doable and already has been done....what makes u think the awd system would cost more than a WRX...either use a donor crv or a 4th gen wagon....b4 u downplay someone's idea u should do some research...could be helpful when find urself not knowing what ur talking about:bloated:

The CRV's AWD system is awful, and incompatible. There simply isn't room for it without doing serious interior and exterior modifications. I'm sure it's been done before, but so has a NSX to CRX engine transplant. Your point being?

Part time AWD systems suck, something more along the lines of the Subaru system is much much better, and Audi's Quattro system is tops.

And don't accuse me of not knowing my shit before at least letting me reply.

Originally posted by 911GT2


The CRV's AWD system is awful, and incompatible. There simply isn't room for it without doing serious interior and exterior modifications. I'm sure it's been done before, but so has a NSX to CRX engine transplant. Your point being?

Part time AWD systems suck, something more along the lines of the Subaru system is much much better, and Audi's Quattro system is tops.

And don't accuse me of not knowing my shit before at least letting me reply.

so if u know it can and has been done...what's the point of u calling it a pipe dream?? b/c u can't afford it?? b/c u think i can't afford it?? b/c u on't think itz feasible.....i accused u and u kinda sorta backed it up...i think:rolleyes: who care about audi or subaru?? i don't....and who cares about putting a nsx engine into a crx i don't care about that either....but u didn't prove nothing to me execpt giving me a broad view of some stuff u can get out of C&D.....but u don't have anything to prove to me and same here.....just keep up with ur eurotail hatin point a to point b self:silly2:

Originally posted by BLU CIVIC


so if u know it can and has been done...what's the point of u calling it a pipe dream?? b/c u can't afford it?? b/c u think i can't afford it?? b/c u on't think itz feasible.....i accused u and u kinda sorta backed it up...i think:rolleyes: who care about audi or subaru?? i don't....and who cares about putting a nsx engine into a crx i don't care about that either....but u didn't prove nothing to me execpt giving me a broad view of some stuff u can get out of C&D.....but u don't have anything to prove to me and same here.....just keep up with ur eurotail hatin point a to point b self:silly2:

I pointed out the Subaru and Audi AWD systems because they're both much much better than the CRV system. And if you're going to spend ridiculous amounts of money to replace the FWD with AWD, why would you intentionally install an inferior system?

And you provide absolutely no argument. You wrote one big sentence and managed to say absolutely nothing in the process.

And I looked up prices that other people paid for AWD systems in Civics and 10K seems to be the median. For a 15K Civic + a 10K AWD system, you could've bought a WRX and had more power and a much better developed chassis.

$15K civic + $10K awd system wouldn't make since....but since i have a 4th gen civic.....$1600 civic +$5k AWD system makes a $6600 civic with AWD

But you don't understand. The AWD system doesn't cost 5K. It costs 10.

And does it make sense to spend almost 8 times what your car costs??

Originally posted by 911GT2
But you don't understand. The AWD system doesn't cost 5K. It costs 10.

And does it make sense to spend almost 8 times what your car costs??

$10k for what gen civic and which awd system??

obviously u are not an or as much as an euthieust (sp) as i am....my last hatch cost $100 b/c i got it from a relative....i put a $2k into it b4 it was totaled...does that make me a mad man for putting 20x into the car for what i brought it?? we all have our hobbies...mine is my car....i could put 100x what i brought the car for into it and wouldn't care...as with anyone who has a hobbie.....it obviously seems that cars aren't ur hobby....yet mabey

Originally posted by 911GT2


I pointed out the Subaru and Audi AWD systems because they're both much much better than the CRV system. And if you're going to spend ridiculous amounts of money to replace the FWD with AWD, why would you intentionally install an inferior system?


Obviously you AREN'T much of a knowledgeable enthusiest if you didin't already realize the AWD systems on the Audi and Subaru are COMPLETELY different and for a whole different purpose than those of the CRV. The Suby is a rally racer, the Audi has AWD for stability control, and the CRV is a psuedo off-roader. Simply put, you can't take an Audi Quattro or even a WRX for that matter half the places you can take the CRV, and you can't take the Audi half the places you can a WRX. That was a pretty poor example you made using those 3 vehicles.

You want a GOOD 4WD/AWD system? Part time systems are actually the best when it comes to that TRUE purpose of 4WD. An '82 Jeep Cherokee my dad recently sold had about the best 4WD system any civilian production vehicle has ever had in it next to maybe a Hummer. You can't beat a system that allows you to lock in and out EACH front and rear differential at the trasfer case and comepletely disengauge the entire system from the powertrain. Something NO 4WD system on the market today can even come close to doing, with the exception of Jeep Wranglers, end even those you can't adjust to the degree of an '82 Cherokee's system.

Sure an Audi Quattro might be a better system than the CRV's (when used in the situations it was designed for in the first place) but it's also WAY more sophisticated and expensive than the CRV's system as well.

SilverY2KCivic is my idol

i have a 93 honda prelude si.i put a few laiite thingsto it i plain to do alot more.i like doing it.becouse u take something thats does.t look that great in make it maen as hell show personality.

Originally posted by SilverY2KCivic


Obviously you AREN'T much of a knowledgeable enthusiest if you didin't already realize the AWD systems on the Audi and Subaru are COMPLETELY different and for a whole different purpose than those of the CRV. The Suby is a rally racer, the Audi has AWD for stability control, and the CRV is a psuedo off-roader. Simply put, you can't take an Audi Quattro or even a WRX for that matter half the places you can take the CRV, and you can't take the Audi half the places you can a WRX. That was a pretty poor example you made using those 3 vehicles.

You want a GOOD 4WD/AWD system? Part time systems are actually the best when it comes to that TRUE purpose of 4WD. An '82 Jeep Cherokee my dad recently sold had about the best 4WD system any civilian production vehicle has ever had in it next to maybe a Hummer. You can't beat a system that allows you to lock in and out EACH front and rear differential at the trasfer case and comepletely disengauge the entire system from the powertrain. Something NO 4WD system on the market today can even come close to doing, with the exception of Jeep Wranglers, end even those you can't adjust to the degree of an '82 Cherokee's system.

Sure an Audi Quattro might be a better system than the CRV's (when used in the situations it was designed for in the first place) but it's also WAY more sophisticated and expensive than the CRV's system as well.

But you're clearly not looking at an AWD system for a Civic for its off roading qualities, you'd get more of an on-road system. And as far as on road systems go, Subaru and Audi have the rest searching for answers. The M-B 4Matic system is alright, but they make better 4WD systems for off roading (a la G500). I don't (and don't think blu civic does either) care about off roading a Civic, because as you pointed out quite well, older Jeeps can do it much better for much less money.

And when you're spending 10K, I just can't see you spending that much money on a clearly inferior system.

Originally posted by BLU CIVIC


$10k for what gen civic and which awd system??

obviously u are not an or as much as an euthieust (sp) as i am....my last hatch cost $100 b/c i got it from a relative....i put a $2k into it b4 it was totaled...does that make me a mad man for putting 20x into the car for what i brought it?? we all have our hobbies...mine is my car....i could put 100x what i brought the car for into it and wouldn't care...as with anyone who has a hobbie.....it obviously seems that cars aren't ur hobby....yet mabey

I caught it on another forum, the guy was looking at a CRV system for a 5th gen I believe.

And how can you call me out as not being an enthusiast when I'm giving alternatives that would be both faster and more fun to drive. Or when I say that I hate body kits?

Look here, I have a great love for cars, which is why I don't like to defile them with disgusting body kits or shitty eurotails. I'm not bashing real performance enthusiasts, just giving them better options.

Originally posted by 911GT2


But you're clearly not looking at an AWD system for a Civic for its off roading qualities, you'd get more of an on-road system. And as far as on road systems go, Subaru and Audi have the rest searching for answers. The M-B 4Matic system is alright, but they make better 4WD systems for off roading (a la G500). I don't (and don't think blu civic does either) care about off roading a Civic, because as you pointed out quite well, older Jeeps can do it much better for much less money.

And when you're spending 10K, I just can't see you spending that much money on a clearly inferior system.

I'll agree with you there. Audi and Subaru do indeed have others scrambling to catch up when it comes to ON-road AWD systems, I hear the system in the new US Lancer Evolution is supposed to have one up on the system in the WRX, but the WRX STi that's coming out later this year will have even one more up on both.

An offroad intended 4WD system wouldn't be very well suited for a street car, and the old Civic wagon AWD system seems more logical, althought wasn't that one intended for mild offroad situations kinda like the old AMC Eagle wagons of the early 80's? Eitherway, an AWD 90's generation Civic isn't something you see everyday let alone at very many car shows either.

Is the Benz 4Matic system, true AWD anyways? I haven't read up much one it. Eitherway, most of those German sport sedans almost always preform better with such amenities as traction control and ABS OFF, verses them working for you. Life in those cars isn't fun without a little controled tail sliding here and there in say like a BMW 325i sedan. ;) I know because I've done it in special test drive runs for tire manufactures to test tires before they are released.

i swear.. some people overestimate costs.

88-91 civic/crx = cheap

you can pick up the car for anywhere from $100-$1000, engine swaps cost half as much as the next series of cars, so even for a basic NA setup....

91 civic + B16A = 1200lb car with 160hp for $2500

oh, and btw, you can find 88-91 civic wagovans for cheap cheap cheap, so i dont see why it would cost $10,000 for the AWD system.

Newer is not always better, because with teh same amount of money or less you can build an older car to 2x the specs as the new car.

Originally posted by SilverY2KCivic


I'll agree with you there. Audi and Subaru do indeed have others scrambling to catch up when it comes to ON-road AWD systems, I hear the system in the new US Lancer Evolution is supposed to have one up on the system in the WRX, but the WRX STi that's coming out later this year will have even one more up on both.

An offroad intended 4WD system wouldn't be very well suited for a street car, and the old Civic wagon AWD system seems more logical, althought wasn't that one intended for mild offroad situations kinda like the old AMC Eagle wagons of the early 80's? Eitherway, an AWD 90's generation Civic isn't something you see everyday let alone at very many car shows either.

Is the Benz 4Matic system, true AWD anyways? I haven't read up much one it. Eitherway, most of those German sport sedans almost always preform better with such amenities as traction control and ABS OFF, verses them working for you. Life in those cars isn't fun without a little controled tail sliding here and there in say like a BMW 325i sedan. ;) I know because I've done it in special test drive runs for tire manufactures to test tires before they are released.

But as far as the STi/EVO systems go, they're getting so expensive and so close to racing standards that it'll eventually have to stop.

And they had a questionable at best Real Time 4WD Civic in Japan in the 80s, but it never worked very well and you probably couldn't get one if you tried today.

I think 4Matic is full time, but I could be wrong on that one. And while the car handles better with traction/stability control off, they'll keep you from those nasty guardrails. And ABS is always a good thing.

Originally posted by 91civicDXdude
i swear.. some people overestimate costs.

88-91 civic/crx = cheap

you can pick up the car for anywhere from $100-$1000, engine swaps cost half as much as the next series of cars, so even for a basic NA setup....

91 civic + B16A = 1200lb car with 160hp for $2500

oh, and btw, you can find 88-91 civic wagovans for cheap cheap cheap, so i dont see why it would cost $10,000 for the AWD system.

Newer is not always better, because with teh same amount of money or less you can build an older car to 2x the specs as the new car.

1200 lb car, what the fuck are you smoking man?? They're light, but not near that light. 2000 easy. 1800 at a minimum.

And there's a reason why Wagovans are cheap: they suck. And they're hard to find in NA. The 10K is for the CRV system, which everyone was previously talking about.

And BTW, most of the costs aren't in the parts for a 4WD conversion, most of the cost is in custom fabrication of practically every bracket, all of which require very high accuracy.

im sick of seeing these kinds of posts but oh well, you know i gotta get in on the action... :p

first off, it's a personal interest (or as stated earlier, a hobby). i modify my car because i have a deep interest in the exterior styling and engine performance of automotive vehicles. i chose a civic because it fit my budget and i liked the car. now i have a steady income and i can spend my money on what i like, shouldn't i have that freedom? (even if it is euro lights)

and that brings me to the euro lights thing. stereotyping is just pure ignorance. lots of people get certain things for their car because they are cheap and quick to install and give their car an aftermarket look. OR MAYBE THEY JUST LIKE THEM. maybe you dont, maybe i dont, it's not our car. however, categorizing every single auto enthusiast who drives a particular car (like i said before) is just ignorant :rolleyes:

But I've always wondered: why is clear always seemingly better than the other colors??

if ur refering to clear tails...well until recently...that's all there were....besides blackouts.....reaching way back in time:D

Alright, well I got Eurotails, hell it was the first "mod" (use that term loosely) i did to my original 89 crx si, the reason? I thought they looked nice, and I like the chrome/clear tails on black look. So i bought it cuz i thought it looked better than the stock tails, and if u dont do euro's u dont have many other options besides clear which I would just get tickets for anyways. I dont see how you can put me or anyone else down for that matter simply because they've got one mod everyone else has, hell i got an aerogear battle front, blitzz sides, wings west rear/spoiler, and tsudo slr fenders in my room goin on my car in a few weeks, and in the next 6 months ill have the rear seat conversion and a B16A or B18C and I'll get more props than ur stock porche will ever get. And really thats why I'm doin it, cuz i like the attention and like hanging out with ppl who are interested in cars as much as i am....does this make me a fake car entusiast, cuz i think it just makes me an 18 yr old kid who likes to blow his $500 kmart paychecks on his car more than on drugs (which seems to be the only other option over here lol), I never had $15000 to buy a car with and if i had to make payments i wouldnt have money for anything else, so buying a $2200 crx and slowly making it better than....well....everything. :finger: :D , just seems like a smarter idea and a more feasible one.

Originally posted by branman_crx_guy
Alright, well I got Eurotails, hell it was the first "mod" (use that term loosely) i did to my original 89 crx si, the reason? I thought they looked nice, and I like the chrome/clear tails on black look. So i bought it cuz i thought it looked better than the stock tails, and if u dont do euro's u dont have many other options besides clear which I would just get tickets for anyways. I dont see how you can put me or anyone else down for that matter simply because they've got one mod everyone else has, hell i got an aerogear battle front, blitzz sides, wings west rear/spoiler, and tsudo slr fenders in my room goin on my car in a few weeks, and in the next 6 months ill have the rear seat conversion and a B16A or B18C and I'll get more props than ur stock porche will ever get. And really thats why I'm doin it, cuz i like the attention and like hanging out with ppl who are interested in cars as much as i am....does this make me a fake car entusiast, cuz i think it just makes me an 18 yr old kid who likes to blow his $500 kmart paychecks on his car more than on drugs (which seems to be the only other option over here lol), I never had $15000 to buy a car with and if i had to make payments i wouldnt have money for anything else, so buying a $2200 crx and slowly making it better than....well....everything. :finger: :D , just seems like a smarter idea and a more feasible one.

No you won't.

No you won't.

Yes I will. :flipa:

Well its been 5 hrs and no reply so....VICTORY FOR B-MAN!!!! :D


HOLLA HONDA HOMIES

Well all you said is basically "no you're wrong" and it's pretty pointless to retort.

I said that because u literally said "No, You won't" and that just seemed funny how you just typed that in there with no real rebuttle, so I thought I'd play along. Quite the interesting game we have here, actually, its not, it's childish, your just jealous cuz u cant afford a crx, you can only afford a new civic and porche....:rolleyes: ....sooo yeah....how did that one feel?

Just because this is an internet forum doesn't mean that you shouldn't try and write half legible english.

And I'm just saying that all these body mods are shitty, especially when the money could go to performance mods that would make your car faster and perform better.

Originally posted by 911GT2
And I'm just saying that all these body mods are shitty, especially when the money could go to performance mods that would make your car faster and perform better.

there are those who would like to have their cars looking good while ging fast.....body kits are the alternative.....sometimes people change their mind or feel it necessary to stand out from a crowd of thousands...and why not.....it reflects ur individuality

there are those who would like to have their cars looking good while ging fast.....body kits are the alternative.....sometimes people change their mind or feel it necessary to stand out from a crowd of thousands...and why not.....it reflects ur individuality

For real, 4th gens representin, holla!! As for not liking body mods mr. 911GT2, if that is your real name, that's kinda like not liking girls whowear makeup, cuz basically wat ur saying is that you don't think people should take pride in the appearance of their car, which could quite possibly be the most rediculous thing I've ever heard, but hell wat do i know?

I just wanted to make a comment on all the exterior body styling mods. Simply put, to each his (or her) own. When I first got my civic all I could think about was making it look better and I couldn't give a shit about performance. I have since then matured and realized my necessity for performance mods. Now in college I find myself needing a slightly bigger sedan, and that's why I'm buying an A4 next weekend. Now, I think subconsciously I wanted to make the exterior better on my civic cause I am not pleased with how it looks stock. With the A4, I'm just gonna drop a chip in there, exhaust, enjoy my 240 ft lbs, and not even modify the exterior except for getting some HRE wheels and maybe a front grill. In my opinion the A4 is perfect looking stock, so it doesn't need the extra body kits and whatnot. Being a fellow German owner, 911GT2, you can appreciate how they already look great stock as I do. To each his own, the only person who knows what you like is you.

I'm not a German owner, just an enthusiast.

I noted earlier in the thread that I drive a 2001 Civic in fact.

But hopefully by the end of the summer I can pick up an old Porsche (914 hopefully). Being a college student really limits my choices.

WARNING: Very long, contains excessive rambling. :D

You've got to understand a couple of things. First, it's a matter of opportunity cost in many cases. If I need a car next month, I'm gonna buy the car I like most within my price range. Civics are easy to find, relatively inexpensive, and have more aftermarket support than just about any other car (you could make some argument for some domestic platforms, perhaps the Mustang).

Not everyone wants to buy an old 914 and try to mod it (even if you argue that it has aftermarket support, there's no way it's as plentiful as a Honda platform). I'm not getting down on you about it, because I think it's a cool car, and you'll arguably be more of an individual on the road, because you don't see that many. I imagine, however, that your insurance is going to be significantly more than any Civic of the same year, as well as the cost of gas, and maintenance. People buy what they can afford, and they mod it because maybe it's what they're stuck with, but they want it to be different. If someone else has the same bodykit and the same tail lights, does that make their car less of an individual? Not really. The car owner is expressing himself. Maybe you don't agree with the styling. Personally, I agree that 95% of bodykits, and I'd say an even higher number of Altezzas/clear tails look absolutely horrible (I had Altezzas for a couple years, though I pulled them off this spring). Most spoilers are pointlessly huge, and only serve as comic relief on the highway. You won't find any of that stuff on my car, and most of my friends are the same way, so there are tons of exceptions to your "rule". I don't have any stickers, I don't have a bodykit (I did just buy an SI lip), and neither do my friends.

In support of your arguments, I will admit that after owning 2 Hondas (my current civic since 1999), I've recently been wishing someone would come along and buy mine so that I could buy a DSM or an old Z. I'm only leaning away from Hondas because of the performance potential in some other platforms. Before all the Honda kids jump on me, I know that there are several Honda engines which do have decent potential (aside from torque, of which they are devoid), but I don't feel like dropping $5k on an engine swap when I could go buy an old Talon TSi for the same price and it'd be faster.

My point in all of this is that you shouldn't hate on people for tuning their Hondas. Yeah, they're cheap, yeah their performance potential is questionable in many cases, and yeah it gets annoying when some dude rolls by you with a 4" APC exhaust, primered body kit, and windshield banner, but that's the price Honda pays for their popularity. Honda's real commitment is to economy and reliability. That's why even the S2000 meets ULEV standards. Show me another car that will run with a new Porsche/BMW roadster and meet ULEV. Ha.

It's unfortunate that more people don't "get it" about the performance/appearance ordeal with their cars, but not everyone can afford a $30k car payment on a regular basis (or even want to - I probably could, I don't want one, I'd rather buy a used ride with no payment and spend the money on legitimately tuning it - you'll notice I have no performance modifications on my Honda because the D-series motor is useless. I went for my stereo and a set of rims.)

In the end, you gotta let people express themselves. The best you can hope for is that eventually they WILL get it, that after some time they'll realize that a single wiper mod and plastic "windowshadez" are best left on the shelf at Pep Boys. In the meantime, buy your 914, acknowledge the rest of us who understand why you don't have a bookshelf wing, and sleep peacefully knowing that you probably do "get it". Hate only breeds hate.

-C

Originally posted by 911GT2
I'm not a German owner, just an enthusiast.

I noted earlier in the thread that I drive a 2001 Civic in fact.

But hopefully by the end of the summer I can pick up an old Porsche (914 hopefully). Being a college student really limits my choices.

I hear ya man. Once you go german, cant go back.
deutsche Autos sind das beste

Alright racer, I can agree with most of what you said.

And look at where this thread is, I never bashed tuning, I bashed stupid, ugly body kits and body mods that are expensive and useless.

And yes, the Honda aftermarket is quite large, but it's also quite overpriced because of the demand. Case in point: headers for a F-body V8 cost the same or less than Civic headers, despite having twice as much fabrication.

And while nobody's gonna totally want what I want, it's pretty clear alot of people would much rather look fast than be fast, which is just retarded.

And because of their ridiculously narrow powerband, an S2000 would have a very tough time keeping up with a Boxster or a 3 liter Z4.

Originally posted by 911GT2
...And because of their ridiculously narrow powerband, an S2000 would have a very tough time keeping up with a Boxster or a 3 liter Z4.

Actually, not very hard at all. Simply put, the S2000 is QUICKER and faster than BOTH the BMW Z4 and the Boxster, and not the baseline one either, quicker than the Boxster S. Quciker in 0-60 acceleration as well as the quarter mile. Check your facts, and you'll find out just how true this is. ;) Never underestimate the power of a 4 cylinder. Honda would have never made a car like the S2000 if it couldn't at least trample over and PASS up it's competition. And the powerband of the S2000 isn't as narrow as you think. Name another car like it (nothing exotic) that runs it's best ABOVE 6000 RPMs. Perhaps you forgot the S2000 has 9000 RPMs to play with?

I stand corrected.

But in R/T's Sibling Rivalry test, the Boxster S and the S2000 got practically equal lap times (2:17.66 for the S2000, 2:17.46 for the Boxster) despite accelerating quite a bit slower in this test (5.6 as opposed to 4.9).

The only thing that sucks is that to get that 4.9 seconds you gotta do a 6500 rpm clutch drop.

Originally posted by 911GT2
The second you get your car, you try and make it into something different, often spending inexorbitant amounts of money doing so (which could actually buy you something else, something better in fact).

Explain yourselves.

And to quell the flames, I myself an a Civic driver (2001) and still can't imagine why you'd ever do this.

that's the very first post in this discussion. you can even look at the title of the discussion. you should've expected this kind of feedback when you posted something like that. i just hope you got your question answered...

Originally posted by emerge


that's the very first post in this discussion. you can even look at the title of the discussion. you should've expected this kind of feedback when you posted something like that. i just hope you got your question answered...

Not particularly, because the only people that attempted to retort weren't the people the comment was aimed at.

The real riceboys just said something inane and stupid like "fuck u a-hole" or something like that.

Originally posted by 911GT2
I stand corrected.

But in R/T's Sibling Rivalry test, the Boxster S and the S2000 got practically equal lap times (2:17.66 for the S2000, 2:17.46 for the Boxster) despite accelerating quite a bit slower in this test (5.6 as opposed to 4.9).

The only thing that sucks is that to get that 4.9 seconds you gotta do a 6500 rpm clutch drop.

The advantage and beauties of a M/R type car (mid engine, rear drive) ;)

The Boxster is way more balanced for auto-x/road racing type courses, not to say the S2000 isn't because it certainly is as well, but that powerful motor riding over the fronts doesn't help things any in the handling department which directly relates to slower lap times unfortunately. I see LOTS of S2000's at the Solo2 races I participate in with my Civic, and next to the Miatas and other similar cars, they do exceptionally well and get fantastic lap times. Sadly no one really ever brings Porsches (weather it be 911's, Boxsters, 914's or even 944's) to these events, and I'm dying to see how any of those would do on that type or course.

The 6500 clutch drop launch is the price one has to pay for owning a high reving car if they plan to straight line race it and get a respectable launch. Nothing unlike the 7000 RPM launches some Skyline GT-R have to endure when built up certain ways to get a good launch, AWD like that ain't as easy as launching a Z06 Vette, that's for dang sure!

I agree with 911GT2, Idon't see any point in making a slow car look fast. Most people who take offence to what he is saying probably fall into that category. All 911GT2 did was ask a simple question, telling him that he is stupid or ignorant just makes u look ignorant.

To answer the original question the only reason to spend money on a body kit for an econo car is because the owner likes the way it looks, if the reason is anything else its a lie.

As far as originallity or trying to be different goes, i admit there are a few that try but most people are monkey see monkey do. Where i live you won't belive the amount of lookalike hondas here, they are blue with white rims clear lights and a white interior, there must be at least 15 or so just in my area. So much for originallity.

Originally posted by SilverY2KCivic


The advantage and beauties of a M/R type car (mid engine, rear drive) ;)

The Boxster is way more balanced for auto-x/road racing type courses, not to say the S2000 isn't because it certainly is as well, but that powerful motor riding over the fronts doesn't help things any in the handling department which directly relates to slower lap times unfortunately. I see LOTS of S2000's at the Solo2 races I participate in with my Civic, and next to the Miatas and other similar cars, they do exceptionally well and get fantastic lap times. Sadly no one really ever brings Porsches (weather it be 911's, Boxsters, 914's or even 944's) to these events, and I'm dying to see how any of those would do on that type or course.

The 6500 clutch drop launch is the price one has to pay for owning a high reving car if they plan to straight line race it and get a respectable launch. Nothing unlike the 7000 RPM launches some Skyline GT-R have to endure when built up certain ways to get a good launch, AWD like that ain't as easy as launching a Z06 Vette, that's for dang sure!

944s, 914s and Boxsters RIP UP at AutoX events. The 944 was called "the best handling car in the world" by Motor Trend when it was released, 914s have extremely low weight and the MR balance, and Boxsters have an a amazing suspension and the MR balance. 911s are trickier, but if you can control the off-throttle oversteer, they're nothing short of amazing. Still more of a road course car than an autocrosser however.

And from what I've heard, GT-Rs are one of the easiest cars to launch out there. Ham it up to 6K RPMs, drop the clutch and let the computer sort it out :)

Originally posted by crankwalk 2g
I agree with 911GT2, Idon't see any point in making a slow car look fast. Most people who take offence to what he is saying probably fall into that category. All 911GT2 did was ask a simple question, telling him that he is stupid or ignorant just makes u look ignorant.

To answer the original question the only reason to spend money on a body kit for an econo car is because the owner likes the way it looks, if the reason is anything else its a lie.

As far as originallity or trying to be different goes, i admit there are a few that try but most people are monkey see monkey do. Where i live you won't belive the amount of lookalike hondas here, they are blue with white rims clear lights and a white interior, there must be at least 15 or so just in my area. So much for originallity.

Finally, someone actually agrees. Too bad it isn't a Hondaboy, but a DSMer.

The real riceboys just said something inane and stupid like "fuck u a-hole" or something like that.

Why am I thinkin ur talkin about me? Just in case u r, u need to reread my first post, which wasn't hatin on u at all.....except the props part, which i cant really back up seein as how i know nothin bout ur car, but other than that I was just saying that u cant judge a car simply by a few things u see. You cant judge my car by racing either lol, u can only judge my car by listenin to wat will eventually be done and then believing it and being "Wowwed" by it. :D


In conclusion: I wasnt tryin to say " f u asshole" just kinda came out like that...I should say "sorry" here but i dont appalaugize (dont remember how to spell that right now) so ill just leave it as....um.....yeeeaaahhhh.

Originally posted by branman_crx_guy


Why am I thinkin ur talkin about me? Just in case u r, u need to reread my first post, which wasn't hatin on u at all.....except the props part, which i cant really back up seein as how i know nothin bout ur car, but other than that I was just saying that u cant judge a car simply by a few things u see. You cant judge my car by racing either lol, u can only judge my car by listenin to wat will eventually be done and then believing it and being "Wowwed" by it. :D


In conclusion: I wasnt tryin to say " f u asshole" just kinda came out like that...I should say "sorry" here but i dont appalaugize (dont remember how to spell that right now) so ill just leave it as....um.....yeeeaaahhhh.

Once again, I convinced the real performance enthusiasts. I see you as on the bubble solely because of your manner of speech, I haven't seen your car.

And the public at large judges a car solely by looks. Does that mean you've gotta cater to them? Fuck that.

God Damn, this thread is still going. if you wanna be all show n no go. FINE. If ya wanna b all go n no show. thats fine too. If ya wanna b all show with a go. Thats even better. As for me. im just gonna go get me a lil old civic hb or crx (maybe even a fiesta or geo metro). that way i can have an econo car to drive to school n work n to save some gas. As for my si, imma just mod it more wit some saved gas money, let it sit n my garage, n drool over it. If ya find a lil geo metro hittin ya racers up on the street and see that its a Rice Boy driven, keep ya heads up, cause im all stock, lemme get into fourth gear first before you take off on me;)

Being all show isn't a terrible thing in itself. That's just a personal preference.

But acting like your car's the shit when all it has is eurotails and a fucking wings west kit is homo.

Originally posted by 911GT2
Being all show isn't a terrible thing in itself. That's just a personal preference.

But acting like your car's the shit when all it has is eurotails and a fucking wings west kit is homo.

I have to agree with that. A car that looks fast but really isn't will get laughed at if it tries to ACT fast. Just doesn't work very well unless you're racing a Hummer or something like that. :spit:

On the same token, some cars look fast and may not be in a straight line, but are in other areas where it counts such as handling. Basically put, sure many cars can hand me my ass, but at least half of them probably couldn't keep up with me once the road goes from straight, to curvey and windy. ;)

Originally posted by SilverY2KCivic


I have to agree with that. A car that looks fast but really isn't will get laughed at if it tries to ACT fast. Just doesn't work very well unless you're racing a Hummer or something like that. :spit:

On the same token, some cars look fast and may not be in a straight line, but are in other areas where it counts such as handling. Basically put, sure many cars can hand me my ass, but at least half of them probably couldn't keep up with me once the road goes from straight, to curvey and windy. ;)

I can appreciate handling moreso than acceleration, but the stock Civic is no shrine of handling in itself. Aftermarket goodies can help, but they can also greatly help the "shitty handling" domestics like the F-bodies, which Civic drivers are constantly slamming for handling shitty. A live rear axle, while not helping handling, certainly doesn't hurt it as bad as FWD does (and let's not get into that argument, it's proven and YES THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS).

The Civic started as an econobox and while the double wishbone examples do handle better, overpowered Civics handle rotten because of the terrible understeer.

Originally posted by Rein


I hear ya man. Once you go german, cant go back.
deutsche Autos sind das beste
Sie werden, nach es bricht unten.

Originally posted by 911GT2


I can appreciate handling moreso than acceleration, but the stock Civic is no shrine of handling in itself. Aftermarket goodies can help, but they can also greatly help the "shitty handling" domestics like the F-bodies, which Civic drivers are constantly slamming for handling shitty. A live rear axle, while not helping handling, certainly doesn't hurt it as bad as FWD does (and let's not get into that argument, it's proven and YES THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS).

The Civic started as an econobox and while the double wishbone examples do handle better, overpowered Civics handle rotten because of the terrible understeer.
You seem to be rather against civic's/ Honda in general, why? I can understand your frustration with exterior non-performance after market modification (but to each his or her own). Was it really necessary to start a thread about it? It seems to me that your just trying to anger other member's who own civic's and choose to change the appearance (and its not all honda's) I've seen eclipse's to mustang's to M3's. Also not all civic's were built for economy use as there primary function, there were and are models built with a sport car design.
There are two main differences between the handling traits of FWD and RWD. The main difference is due to where power is applied. RWD cars have a tendency towards oversteer through excessive power, whereas FWD cars tend towards understeer as you mentioned. weight distribution also plays a hand in this age old argument. A FWD car has all it's running gear with the front axle where the RWD car also has running gear at the rear. Take in mind that weight enter's into either of the vehicles acceleration and maneuverability, and in most cases the FWD car is lighter.

Also not all civic's were built for economy use as there primary function, there were and are models built with a sport car design.

Unless they sell Civic TYPE-Rs where you are the are no sporty civics in north america. Also a sports car design dosen't make it a sports car, if a Corvette had a 1.6 I4 SOHC under the hood I can guarantee it would not be considered a sports car.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by hybridsol

You seem to be rather against civic's/ Honda in general, why? I can understand your frustration with exterior non-performance after market modification (but to each his or her own). Was it really necessary to start a thread about it? It seems to me that your just trying to anger other member's who own civic's and choose to change the appearance (and its not all honda's) I've seen eclipse's to mustang's to M3's. Also not all civic's were built for economy use as there primary function, there were and are models built with a sport car design.
There are two main differences between the handling traits of FWD and RWD. The main difference is due to where power is applied. RWD cars have a tendency towards oversteer through excessive power, whereas FWD cars tend towards understeer as you mentioned. weight distribution also plays a hand in this age old argument. A FWD car has all it's running gear with the front axle where the RWD car also has running gear at the rear. Take in mind that weight enter's into either of the vehicles acceleration and maneuverability, and in most cases the FWD car is lighter.


It's really quite hard to define my position. I do like Civics, I drive a 2001 myself, so that's not it. I do hate body mods with a passion, and it usually applies most often to Civics which is why I posted here. And I definitely endorse sinking money into real performance mods. But then on the other hand, I can list 10 cars in which the money would go much farther.

And every Civic sold in North America came with the main purpose of being an economy car. That's no secret. Yeah, the Si was a little sportier, but was still the econo-pseudosportscar. It was always a compromise, although a decent one.

And FWD is often lighter because of the lack of a need for a driveshaft. Or at least one that's very long. Also, suspension setups for RWD (LRA specifically) are often heavier. Also, FWD cars are generally low powered because of the terrible traits high-powered front drivers seem to have. Low power=smaller engines=less weight.

And I started this thread to attempt to see the other side. That attempt horribly failed, because the core of the people here this was aimed at just spouted off inane insults.

instigating, all the hating. haters haters haters. still, u hate body mods and high performance wanna bes with a PASSION? if u hate em that much, u should contact all the companies that make aftermarket products for all those econo cars u hate so much. let them know how u feel. they might see ur point of view n go, "Awwwwwwwww, that guy 911gt has a good point." You sound like an intelligent dude. Some advice from one guy with a passion to another, "You shouldnt direct ur passion on hatin, it instigates others to hate, put ur passion elsewhere, maybe somewhere more positive. I LOVE AFTERMARKET MODS. Im a RICER n GoTs Lots of Passionate LoVin. :sun:

Originally posted by crankwalk 2g


Unless they sell Civic TYPE-Rs where you are the are no sporty civics in north america. Also a sports car design dosen't make it a sports car, if a Corvette had a 1.6 I4 SOHC under the hood I can guarantee it would not be considered a sports car.:rolleyes:
What about the 6th gen civic si? Contrary to what you believe honda's produce outstanding power utilizing less cylinder's and less displacement. By utilizing a short stroke and a large bore / (high RPM). Let me familiarize you with honda engineering in comparison to domestic muscle (since you bring up the corvette). Most muscle car engines have been built for torque, rather than horsepower. As a rule, larger bore equals more horsepower, while a longer stroke equals more torque. A long stroke allows the engine to produce power for a longer period of time which equals more torque. Torque is never a bad thing to have but there is a drawback to a long stroke, b/c the piston must travel a longer distance, there is a physical limit to how many RPM's the engine can achieve. Now an engine with a large bore and short stroke will produce less overall torque, but has the ability to reach much higher RPM's, and more HP overall, using a lower displacement. Honda's utilize this technology- having the ability to rev much higher than most other automotives. Meaning that a honda won't accelerate as quickly right off the line as a domestic, but they are able to accelerate for longer in the same gear (9,000 rpm redline vs. a 5,500 rpm redline for example). Just b/c a car has a lower displacement and less cylinders than another car dosen't mean its not a sport car.

Originally posted by 911GT2

It's really quite hard to define my position. I do like Civics, I drive a 2001 myself, so that's not it. I do hate body mods with a passion, and it usually applies most often to Civics which is why I posted here. And I definitely endorse sinking money into real performance mods. But then on the other hand, I can list 10 cars in which the money would go much farther.

And every Civic sold in North America came with the main purpose of being an economy car. That's no secret. Yeah, the Si was a little sportier, but was still the econo-pseudosportscar. It was always a compromise, although a decent one.

And FWD is often lighter because of the lack of a need for a driveshaft. Or at least one that's very long. Also, suspension setups for RWD (LRA specifically) are often heavier. Also, FWD cars are generally low powered because of the terrible traits high-powered front drivers seem to have. Low power=smaller engines=less weight.

And I started this thread to attempt to see the other side. That attempt horribly failed, because the core of the people here this was aimed at just spouted off inane insults.

I find that honda products are reliable, and more cost efficient than most cars. But I would love to read your list of automotives in which "the money would go much further". Lets say a 4 grand 10 sec car?

my Civic has 355hp at 270lbs of torque and I have minimal problems (I can keep up with an M3 on windy roads). Just b/c the engine is smaller does not necessary mean less power. Although I will agree that RWD has its benefits, but you encounter drawbacks with either.

Some ppl like to modify the exterior of there car, and its not just honda's. I've seen many different automobiles with the same exterior modifications you described. Honestly I don't see a purpose for modifying the exterior either, but for those who do more power to you. Its their car and they can do what they want with it. Who are you to criticize what they think looks good? (Your title alone prevoke's flaming)

Originally posted by hybridsol

What about the 6th gen civic si? Contrary to what you believe honda's produce outstanding power utilizing less cylinder's and less displacement. By utilizing a short stroke and a large bore / (high RPM). Let me familiarize you with honda engineering in comparison to domestic muscle (since you bring up the corvette). Most muscle car engines have been built for torque, rather than horsepower. As a rule, larger bore equals more horsepower, while a longer stroke equals more torque. A long stroke allows the engine to produce power for a longer period of time which equals more torque. Torque is never a bad thing to have but there is a drawback to a long stroke, b/c the piston must travel a longer distance, there is a physical limit to how many RPM's the engine can achieve. Now an engine with a large bore and short stroke will produce less overall torque, but has the ability to reach much higher RPM's, and more HP overall, using a lower displacement. Honda's utilize this technology- having the ability to rev much higher than most other automotives. Meaning that a honda won't accelerate as quickly right off the line as a domestic, but they are able to accelerate for longer in the same gear (9,000 rpm redline vs. a 5,500 rpm redline for example). Just b/c a car has a lower displacement and less cylinders than another car dosen't mean its not a sport car.
-
I find that honda products are reliable, and more cost efficient than most cars. But I would love to read your list of automotives in which "the money would go much further". Lets say a 4 grand 10 sec car?

my Civic has 355hp at 270lbs of torque and I have minimal problems (I can keep up with an M3 on windy roads). Just b/c the engine is smaller does not necessary mean less power. Although I will agree that RWD has its benefits, but you encounter drawbacks with either.

Some ppl like to modify the exterior of there car, and its not just honda's. I've seen many different automobiles with the same exterior modifications you described. Honestly I don't see a purpose for modifying the exterior either, but for those who do more power to you. Its their car and they can do what they want with it. Who are you to criticize what they think looks good? (Your title alone prevoke's flaming)
OWNED.... :devil:

not much to add to that, but I will add this. What kind of response did you expect to get from those ppl who rice out there car? They do it cause they think it looks cool, why else would they? I mean what did you think the yard gnomes told them to do it? It was paul walker, vin diesel and a sticker crazy orange supra.:p

just wanted to throw this in... I have altezzas, a body kit and yes a wing... I also run 10 lbs daily and once I get my new engine management unit will turn that up to 12 daily and 18 at the track... the first thing I bought for my car were the taillights and as much as anybody wants to hate on them I like the way they look and that's all that matters... personally I don't like the idea of all show and no go and that's why I try to balance it out, unless you'll building the car up to be in big time car shows, but to each there own and I won't hate on someone for doing what they want to their car unless it really is ridiculous like a cardboard wing or something... why do people put body kits and wings on their cars? cause we live in a free damn country and can do whatever we want to our cars... and keep this in mind, most of the cars that you'll see on the road are ongoing projects, maybe they wanted to do up the exterior b4 they work on the engine... you can make the same arguement for audio... just my 2 cents.

Before you claim victory, I'm going to reply. I'm just far too drunk as it is and it's 5:30 AM. But I'll be back.

Hybridsol does bring up some decent points though, and that's basically what I was looking for. Good job.

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron

OWNED.... :devil:

not much to add to that, but I will add this. What kind of response did you expect to get from those ppl who rice out there car? They do it cause they think it looks cool, why else would they? I mean what did you think the yard gnomes told them to do it? It was paul walker, vin diesel and a sticker crazy orange supra.:p

You brought up zero points, so you can say absolutely nothing. I am not "owned". Especially not by you.

Originally posted by crankwalk 2g
I agree with 911GT2, Idon't see any point in making a slow car look fast. Most people who take offence to what he is saying probably fall into that category. All 911GT2 did was ask a simple question, telling him that he is stupid or ignorant just makes u look ignorant.

To answer the original question the only reason to spend money on a body kit for an econo car is because the owner likes the way it looks, if the reason is anything else its a lie.

As far as originallity or trying to be different goes, i admit there are a few that try but most people are monkey see monkey do. Where i live you won't belive the amount of lookalike hondas here, they are blue with white rims clear lights and a white interior, there must be at least 15 or so just in my area. So much for originallity.

Did you even read one word of this entire thread?! Look at the title of the topic, "you honda boys". the tone of the first post is not exactly the most polite either. and then if you actually read some of the posts there is also TONS of stereotyping (hence the euro lights discussion) and much more. take the time to actually read what people are saying and not just skim over posts... i am not going to bite my tongue on anything i've said in this discussion. i agree that some people might be curious as to why people put body kits on "slow" cars but i think this particular time it was horribly mishandled by the author of the thread...

Originally posted by hybridsol

What about the 6th gen civic si? Contrary to what you believe honda's produce outstanding power utilizing less cylinder's and less displacement. By utilizing a short stroke and a large bore / (high RPM). Let me familiarize you with honda engineering in comparison to domestic muscle (since you bring up the corvette). Most muscle car engines have been built for torque, rather than horsepower. As a rule, larger bore equals more horsepower, while a longer stroke equals more torque. A long stroke allows the engine to produce power for a longer period of time which equals more torque. Torque is never a bad thing to have but there is a drawback to a long stroke, b/c the piston must travel a longer distance, there is a physical limit to how many RPM's the engine can achieve. Now an engine with a large bore and short stroke will produce less overall torque, but has the ability to reach much higher RPM's, and more HP overall, using a lower displacement. Honda's utilize this technology- having the ability to rev much higher than most other automotives. Meaning that a honda won't accelerate as quickly right off the line as a domestic, but they are able to accelerate for longer in the same gear (9,000 rpm redline vs. a 5,500 rpm redline for example). Just b/c a car has a lower displacement and less cylinders than another car dosen't mean its not a sport car.


I find that honda products are reliable, and more cost efficient than most cars. But I would love to read your list of automotives in which "the money would go much further". Lets say a 4 grand 10 sec car?

my Civic has 355hp at 270lbs of torque and I have minimal problems (I can keep up with an M3 on windy roads). Just b/c the engine is smaller does not necessary mean less power. Although I will agree that RWD has its benefits, but you encounter drawbacks with either.

Some ppl like to modify the exterior of there car, and its not just honda's. I've seen many different automobiles with the same exterior modifications you described. Honestly I don't see a purpose for modifying the exterior either, but for those who do more power to you. Its their car and they can do what they want with it. Who are you to criticize what they think looks good? (Your title alone prevoke's flaming)

I like your style. But spouting off engine-related information that's already general knowledge doesn't say much. Although your facts aren't quite right.

I'll start off assuming you know what torque is. A longer stroke would make the crankshaft lobes (that's not the right word but it'll do) farther from the center right? That gives the engine more torque because the moment arm is greater, not by how long the force is exerted over. Shorter stroke/wider bore engines have less rotational mass and a shorter piston travel, allowing them to inherently spin faster.

And no, the 'sports car' definition is not given by how many cylinders a car has or how many liters it displaces. That's obvious, especially given we're posting on a Honda/Acura board.

And yeah, Civics are reliable and can be quite fast. But barring transmission problems (i.e. replacing 2nd gear synchro) DSMs can also be retardedly fast. With a 16/20g and a MBC they can hit extremely low 1/4 mile times and can launch better than a Civic ever could. And there's no such thing as a 4 grand 10 second car. Don't be ridiculous.

And your car is impressive, I won't try and doubt that. But FWD launches straight up suck. You may be able to keep up with greater cars (the aforementioned M3) on a roll, but you've got no chance at a stoplight. And what exactly do you have done to your car anyways? And while FWD and RWD both have their advantages, power-on oversteer is more controllable than understeer or lift-throttle oversteer. Plus the weight transfer during acceleration aids a RWD car moreso than a FWD car.

And I think it looks outstandingly ridiculous. And the fartcans are a whole other story.

Originally posted by casperGSR
just wanted to throw this in... I have altezzas, a body kit and yes a wing... I also run 10 lbs daily and once I get my new engine management unit will turn that up to 12 daily and 18 at the track... the first thing I bought for my car were the taillights and as much as anybody wants to hate on them I like the way they look and that's all that matters... personally I don't like the idea of all show and no go and that's why I try to balance it out, unless you'll building the car up to be in big time car shows, but to each there own and I won't hate on someone for doing what they want to their car unless it really is ridiculous like a cardboard wing or something... why do people put body kits and wings on their cars? cause we live in a free damn country and can do whatever we want to our cars... and keep this in mind, most of the cars that you'll see on the road are ongoing projects, maybe they wanted to do up the exterior b4 they work on the engine... you can make the same arguement for audio... just my 2 cents.

But audio is actually enjoyable. It benefits you. I think those decibel-breaking showcars are totally ridiculous though. There's a threshold where you stop doing it for yourself and you start doing it for other people. You personally can't enjoy a bodykit or taillights. You can't enjoy eardrum-bursting decibel levels. You can enjoy more power and good sound.

And you just brought me to my main point in this thread, thank you:

Riceboys do it for other people, real enthusiasts do it for themselves.

Originally posted by 911GT2


You brought up zero points, so you can say absolutely nothing. I am not "owned". Especially not by you.

im not really sure he was trying to say you were owned by him, but by the guy who posted before him talking about the 6th gen civic SI and such. the ricers out there know they are ricers, maybe they just don't want to admit it, and from what i can tell your misunderstanding about "honda boys" stems mostly from this group of people. real ricers do what they do because they have seen someone else do it and think its cool; in essence, a downward spiral is caused by the real ricers and not most of the people who have been verbally(?) assaulted here.

and also, you are quite right about ricers doing it for other ppl. just saw the post.

Originally posted by Parker


im not really sure he was trying to say you were owned by him, but by the guy who posted before him talking about the 6th gen civic SI and such. the ricers out there know they are ricers, maybe they just don't want to admit it, and from what i can tell your misunderstanding about "honda boys" stems mostly from this group of people. real ricers do what they do because they have seen someone else do it and think its cool; in essence, a downward spiral is caused by the real ricers and not most of the people who have been verbally(?) assaulted here.

and also, you are quite right about ricers doing it for other ppl. just saw the post.

Yeah I know, I just fucking hate it when someone who has something to say makes a point then some dumb motherfucker who has nothing to say just pokes his head in to say OWNED.

And there are riceboys here in spades. The ones who just say "fuck u a hole" or "my civic looks better than any Porsche" or the classic "owned" are the people I'm directing this verbal (or is it textual?) assault.

Alright...

You're explination of stroke/torque is basically what Hybridsol said... You just reworded it. Good job.

And your comment about a $4000 Civic that runs 10s being rediculous. Hard to believe it isnt it? Yes it is possible... I'm sure you'll want proof. So here you be. http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=71493

Now that you've read about it and know that the 'impossible' is possible. I'll show you a pig that can fly. Also I do believe people in hell are now getting shipments of ice water. Oh no... times are changing! Gee whizz! You've... oh gosh.. been proven WRONG!?!

:D. Seriously though dont be so closed minded, with the right know how and tools you can make anything fast for next to nothing.

Hybridsol has to be one of the smartest guys I know when it comes to Hondas and Imports in general. Only person I trust with my Honda... That is if I had one.

The limiting factor in the engine speed of domestic V8s is with few exceptions, valvetrain... Still, I routinely see Nascar V8s pulling 9000+ rpm in endurance races, and rarely blowing engines... Those are the 6 liter engiens making roughly 750hp btw.

I'll toss in my two cents here, FWD enjoys few benefits over RWD, the only one of which relates to performance is the lighter weight of the transaxle drivetrain, and lower rotating mass that comes with it.

While an engine that makes 90bhp/liter stock is impressive, it doesn't leave much to easily tune. I have a horribly inefficient 400ci Ford engine for a project car, making about 170hp stock. With $1000 into the engine, it'll make about 300hp. With another $1000, that will be be in teh neighbourhood of 475hp. Only good for 5500rpm of course, but 475hp is 475hp. I can put that in a light, RWD car, and STILL have a near perfect weight distribution.

Oh, and I can do that for less than $4K, and it can still run 10s :P

BTW Hybrid, your grammar is excellent :)

Originally posted by Cbass
I can put that in a light, RWD car, and STILL have a near perfect weight distribution.

Oh, and I can do that for less than $4K, and it can still run 10s :P



Like a 1st Gen Rx-7.:D

Easy 10 second potiential with that motor. As you so often state Cbass.

Originally posted by 911GT2


I like your style. But spouting off engine-related information that's already general knowledge doesn't say much. Although your facts aren't quite right.

I'll start off assuming you know what torque is. A longer stroke would make the crankshaft lobes (that's not the right word but it'll do) farther from the center right? That gives the engine more torque because the moment arm is greater, not by how long the force is exerted over. Shorter stroke/wider bore engines have less rotational mass and a shorter piston travel, allowing them to inherently spin faster.

And no, the 'sports car' definition is not given by how many cylinders a car has or how many liters it displaces. That's obvious, especially given we're posting on a Honda/Acura board.

And yeah, Civics are reliable and can be quite fast. But barring transmission problems (i.e. replacing 2nd gear synchro) DSMs can also be retardedly fast. With a 16/20g and a MBC they can hit extremely low 1/4 mile times and can launch better than a Civic ever could. And there's no such thing as a 4 grand 10 second car. Don't be ridiculous.

And your car is impressive, I won't try and doubt that. But FWD launches straight up suck. You may be able to keep up with greater cars (the aforementioned M3) on a roll, but you've got no chance at a stoplight. And what exactly do you have done to your car anyways? And while FWD and RWD both have their advantages, power-on oversteer is more controllable than understeer or lift-throttle oversteer. Plus the weight transfer during acceleration aids a RWD car moreso than a FWD car.

And I think it looks outstandingly ridiculous. And the fartcans are a whole other story.
Evidentally it wasen't generally known to that guy, Honda's make enourmous amounts of HP per liter.

torque has to do with the diameter of the crankshaft, the bigger the lever arm the more torque, trust us everything hybridsol says is factual info........I fail to see where he made a false statement? I see where you did.
DSM's have shorter gear ratio's than B series Si's Honda's accelerate longer through a gear than most vehicles. DSM's don't do anything better than a civic......
Hybridsol would smoke an M3 off the line, and LSD compensates for most problems. but ofcourse a RWD car thats ten times heavier is going to easier to steer. take the weight off and see how easy it is to control.
I did prove a point in my post, you just made this thread to be an ass. And the ricer movement was created by the fast and the furious!
:finger:

Originally posted by RedNeck383
Alright...

You're explination of stroke/torque is basically what Hybridsol said... You just reworded it. Good job.

And your comment about a $4000 Civic that runs 10s being rediculous. Hard to believe it isnt it? Yes it is possible... I'm sure you'll want proof. So here you be. http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=71493

Now that you've read about it and know that the 'impossible' is possible. I'll show you a pig that can fly. Also I do believe people in hell are now getting shipments of ice water. Oh no... times are changing! Gee whizz! You've... oh gosh.. been proven WRONG!?!

:D. Seriously though dont be so closed minded, with the right know how and tools you can make anything fast for next to nothing.

Hybridsol has to be one of the smartest guys I know when it comes to Hondas and Imports in general. Only person I trust with my Honda... That is if I had one.

1) The CRX is (very) impressive, but if it's gotta be trailered in, it doesn't meet the previous expectations of value and reliability mentioned by hybridsol earlier. If it was a daily driver I'd be shocked.

and

2)You want a 10 second car for 4K?? Mustang LX 5.0 notchback. New camshaft, forged crank and stroker kit and you're fuckin flying. Either that or you go the turbo route.

And for all of you that tried to tell me I'm wrong about torque, here's what hybridsol said:

A long stroke allows the engine to produce power for a longer period of time which equals more torque.

Torque is not dependent on time whatsoever. He may have just misworded it, but as some of you have said (apparently trying to prove me wrong??), torque is dependent on the force given and the length of the moment arm.

Hope that cleared everything up.

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron

Evidentally it wasen't generally known to that guy, Honda's make enourmous amounts of HP per liter.

torque has to do with the diameter of the crankshaft, the bigger the lever arm the more torque, trust us everything hybridsol says is factual info........I fail to see where he made a false statement? I see where you did.
DSM's have shorter gear ratio's than B series Si's Honda's accelerate longer through a gear than most vehicles. DSM's don't do anything better than a civic......
Hybridsol would smoke an M3 off the line, and LSD compensates for most problems. but ofcourse a RWD car thats ten times heavier is going to easier to steer. take the weight off and see how easy it is to control.
I did prove a point in my post, you just made this thread to be an ass. And the ricer movement was created by the fast and the furious!
:finger:

The LSD takes care of some traction and torque steer problems, but nothing can take away the disadvantage of the huge weight transfer to the rear wheels (aside from the wheelie cars some of those FWD dragracers use, but that's ridiculous for the street).

That's why a low powered FWD car can lay a good strip, because the weight leaves the drive wheels and makes it much easier to break traction. A low powered RWD car however (88 Firebird V6 as an example, friend used to own one) has a terrible time laying strips because it's low power can't break the wheels free because the weight pressing down (equal to normal force, which is related to frictional force) is actually greater under acceleration.

Cbass: Do you have a link to the site from which that Porsche in your signature came?

DSM's don't do anything better than a civic......



2003 Honda civic type-r

Horsepower : 200 hp @ 7400 rpm
Torque : 145 lb-ft @ 6500 rpm
Redline : 8200 rpm
Top speed : 146 mph
0-60 mph : 6.6 sec
0-¼ mile : 15.2 sec @ 96 mph
60-0 braking distance : 120 ft





2003 Lancer Evo 8

Horsepower : 271 hp @ 6500 rpm
Torque : 273 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
Redline : 7000 rpm
Top speed : 156 mph(electronically limited)
0-60 mph : 4.8 sec.
0-¼ mile : 13.1 sec @ 105.1 mph
60-0 braking distance : 110 ft


This is just one example. You should think before you say stupid shit!

Originally posted by 911GT2
And for all of you that tried to tell me I'm wrong about torque, here's what hybridsol said:



Torque is not dependent on time whatsoever. He may have just misworded it, but as some of you have said (apparently trying to prove me wrong??), torque is dependent on the force given and the length of the moment arm.

Hope that cleared everything up.
Well if the arm is taking longer due to a longer stroke, its going to take a longer period of time for the full movement of the arm. I'n turn produceing more power over a longer period of time. I'll simplify (big torque long stroke) better? Everything in this world operates under a clock moron. :rolleyes: You find me a place where time stops and I'll side with you.

as for RWD vs FWD its an age old argument and I agree RWD has its advantages, but explain why the crx has less wheel spin that the hemi.....could it be the weight!:eek: (hybridsol's delsol runs 11's and would smoke an M3 off the line, alot better than on a twisty road. Infact the M3 should have had the advantage there)

As for DSM's there just not my fortay, stick a turbo on the type R and tell me which car wins the fucking race asshole (which one has stock FI?????). you want to compare the evo to a honda compare it to an NSX.

side note- WTF is up with all the newbie's mouthing off???? redneck383 cbass (I hate to say it but the porshe nazi knows his shit) and hybridsol are three of the experts on this forum. Keep it up guys, your gonna get gang banged by the AF dream team.....well there's still a few more ppl who haven't shown up, give it time.

Who knows, I'm a newbie myself, and I only mouth off to the people who don't know what they're saying or they're mouthing off and complaining about something stupid.

Originally posted by 911GT2
And for all of you that tried to tell me I'm wrong about torque, here's what hybridsol said:



Torque is not dependent on time whatsoever. He may have just misworded it, but as some of you have said (apparently trying to prove me wrong??), torque is dependent on the force given and the length of the moment arm.

Hope that cleared everything up.
Torque is a force used to rotate or turn things, right? Any time you've used a wrench to tighten a nut you apply force. If torque is dependant on the force given the force given would be dependant on integrals of time. In rotational motion, torque plays the same role as force in linear motion. The torque is defined as the force multiplied by the perpendicular distance between the force and the pivot. Force is related to time as is torque, due to the fact that you need force to generate torque. In an engine the combustion of gas in the cylinder creates pressure against the piston. That pressure creates a force on the piston, which pushes it down. The force is transmitted from the piston to the connecting rod, and from the connecting rod into the crankshaft causing it to spin. The horizontal distance changes as the crankshaft spins, so the torque also changes, since torque equals force multiplied by distance/integrals therefore it must act directly in relation to time. I did read an Engine power article in which they seemed to believe that torque and power had nothing to do with time, but since torque is related to power it has a big effect on both. I'm pleased that you find my style to your likeing and welcome to AF. You don't seem to be new, seeing as you have over 200 posts but I've been absent for some time due to finals and various other school related activities. I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot, but your title is a bit biased toward Honda owner's, and if you can't already tell I love almost everything about honda, due to the fact that there quite cost efficient/ cost effective for me. As most AF member's know I'm a die hard mustang fan, yet I lack the funds to build the car I desire (One day though). As for FWD vs RWD, I didn't say RWD lacked benefits. I was just trying to show you that FWD isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be (using my vehicle as an example). :)
PS- calm yourself DOHC, lets try to keep this friendly.

damn...i missed out on all the fun :D

DSM's don't do anything better than a civic......

As for DSM's there just not my fortay, stick a turbo on the type R and tell me which car wins the fucking race asshole you want to compare the evo to a honda compare it to an NSX.

Do you see the first quote, you said civic you dumb fuck, not NSX.
Also you named DSM's in general not a specific one. That means you said any DSM can't do anything better than a civic. You should watch your mouth.

You want even comparisons, then for the same amout of money needed to turbo a type-r, an EVO or Eclipse will put it to shame.

Who cares if anyone is a newbie, just cause you've been on the boards longer doesn't make you more knowledgeable about cars, nor does it give you the right to act as if you run the place or insult people.

Originally posted by hybridsol

Torque is a force used to rotate or turn things, right? Any time you've used a wrench to tighten a nut you apply force. If torque is dependant on the force given the force given would be dependant on integrals of time. In rotational motion, torque plays the same role as force in linear motion. The torque is defined as the force multiplied by the perpendicular distance between the force and the pivot. Force is related to time as is torque, due to the fact that you need force to generate torque. In an engine the combustion of gas in the cylinder creates pressure against the piston. That pressure creates a force on the piston, which pushes it down. The force is transmitted from the piston to the connecting rod, and from the connecting rod into the crankshaft causing it to spin. The horizontal distance changes as the crankshaft spins, so the torque also changes, since torque equals force multiplied by distance/integrals therefore it must act directly in relation to time. I did read an Engine power article in which they seemed to believe that torque and power had nothing to do with time, but since torque is related to power it has a big effect on both. I'm pleased that you find my style to your likeing and welcome to AF. You don't seem to be new, seeing as you have over 200 posts but I've been absent for some time due to finals and various other school related activities. I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot, but your title is a bit biased toward Honda owner's, and if you can't already tell I love almost everything about honda, due to the fact that there quite cost efficient/ cost effective for me. As most AF member's know I'm a die hard mustang fan, yet I lack the funds to build the car I desire (One day though). As for FWD vs RWD, I didn't say RWD lacked benefits. I was just trying to show you that FWD isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be (using my vehicle as an example). :)
PS- calm yourself DOHC, lets try to keep this friendly.

But if you want to use your time analogy, you could just use an engine with a shorter stroke as well. It's not specific to long stroke engines at all.

For example, two engines travelling at the same angular speed will both exert their forces during the exact same time interval. Torque is not dependent on time.

Here's now torque is not dependent on time, it's easy when you think of it:

Look at torque as angular force. It doesn't have a dt (integral, not sure what notation you use). Power (angular power in this case) is dF/dT. Power is force exerted over time. Torque is what you feel, power is what you feel during acceleration.

And I think it's quite obvious that neither of us are in the dark about integral calculus or its applications to physics so feel free to go at it technically.

Originally posted by Rein
Cbass: Do you have a link to the site from which that Porsche in your signature came?

http://www.mathewscollection.com/images/porsche/924gts_450.jpg

Looking under his sig and seeing the "924 GTS" could've given you a good google search, which is just what I did. Sweet car though eh?

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron

Well if the arm is taking longer due to a longer stroke, its going to take a longer period of time for the full movement of the arm. I'n turn produceing more power over a longer period of time. I'll simplify (big torque long stroke) better? Everything in this world operates under a clock moron. :rolleyes: You find me a place where time stops and I'll side with you.

as for RWD vs FWD its an age old argument and I agree RWD has its advantages, but explain why the crx has less wheel spin that the hemi.....could it be the weight!:eek: (hybridsol's delsol runs 11's and would smoke an M3 off the line, alot better than on a twisty road. Infact the M3 should have had the advantage there)

As for DSM's there just not my fortay, stick a turbo on the type R and tell me which car wins the fucking race asshole (which one has stock FI?????). you want to compare the evo to a honda compare it to an NSX.

For the torque, see my explanation to hybridsol. He actually has something to add, so I addressed him first. And don't call me a moron. You don't know me.

As for the hemi's bad launch, I say driver skill. Hybridsol must be a excellent drag racer. And besides, low weight should increase the likelihood of wheelspin. Remember, Frictional force=Normal force (actually greater than the weight over the rear wheels, but for the sake of argument we'll just say the weight that rests over the rear wheels in a RWD car)*coefficient of friction (solely dependent on tires/pavement).

For the car that weighs more (let's call the coefficients of each car equal for the sake of argument), the frictional force will be greater. Therefore you require more torque to break them free. Remember, there's ideally no friction in the turning of a wheel. No sliding, no slipping.

And fuck man, DSM's have fuel injection, know your shit before spouting off. The only reason you hear about DSMers talk about buying injectors is to increase injector capacity to facilitate more boost. And with a Civic-R, turboing that and spending commensurately the same on a DSM, the DSM will stomp. Each and every time. It'd even stomp the NSX in acceleration and some parts of handling.

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron
side note- WTF is up with all the newbie's mouthing off???? redneck383 cbass (I hate to say it but the porshe nazi knows his shit) and hybridsol are three of the experts on this forum. Keep it up guys, your gonna get gang banged by the AF dream team.....well there's still a few more ppl who haven't shown up, give it time.

I have more posts than you. Just because I started posting in a new section doesn't make me a "newbie". I hate people who spout off the knowledge they think they have more than people who speak the truth, no matter what their post count.

And if I'm the "Porsche Nazi", so be it.

And BTW dream team: bring it.

i believe this thread has lost itz way and is fading into another subject:rolleyes:


how bout those lakers:D out of the playoffs:ylsuper


so have we reached a conclusion on this thread:confused:

Same conclusion as always...to the pros or the newbies: To each his/her own.

Originally posted by Rein
Same conclusion as always...to the pros or the newbies: To each his/her own.

If we all agreed on everything, the world would be a MUCH duller place.

I am recent and longtime Honda owner. As a current Isuzu/Nissan owner, and also as a former owner of Toyotas(3), Mazdas(2), Chevys(2),a Ford and a Pontiac, I think I can speak from experience when I say that a car is a car is car...enjoy what you have, and it is totally pointless to try and minimize other's enjoyment of their choices just because you don't agree. Just to expand, I also come from a family that has owned everything from Ford trucks, a VW Beetle, an Olds Cutlass (with a LOUD big-block), Jeep Wranglers, to Lexus.

This is why I named myself who I am.

in refering to ur avatar:

go carrrnuttt, itz ur birthday, go carrrnuttt :hehehe:

Originally posted by 911GT2


But if you want to use your time analogy, you could just use an engine with a shorter stroke as well. It's not specific to long stroke engines at all.

For example, two engines travelling at the same angular speed will both exert their forces during the exact same time interval. Torque is not dependent on time.

Here's now torque is not dependent on time, it's easy when you think of it:

Look at torque as angular force. It doesn't have a dt (integral, not sure what notation you use). Power (angular power in this case) is dF/dT. Power is force exerted over time. Torque is what you feel, power is what you feel during acceleration.

And I think it's quite obvious that neither of us are in the dark about integral calculus or its applications to physics so feel free to go at it technically.
angular speed is obtained by measuring the angle in radians through which an object rotates in a certain number of seconds, and then dividing the total angle by the time. Those two engines or automotives would have to be exactly the same since even slight time integrals would set your torque curve differently. Two motor's one using a long stroke and the other a short stroke, would have completely different torque/ force. Yes its very specific to a long stroke engine. I'm going try this one more time. Lets use a door knob this time. If you turn the doorknob one full revolution, you will have moved the weight 6.2832 feet. It's all physics, the circumference equals 3.1416 * the diameter, in this case two feet. By turning the knob with the one pound weight attached to the ruler, it translates to an 6.2832 ft-lbs of work. Now, we divide 33,000 ft-lbs by 6.2832 feet, we come up with 5252 revolutions per minute (RPM). Simply put, one ft-lb of work at 5252 RPM equals 33,000 ft-lbs of total work, or 1 HP. So, HP = (Torque * RPM) / 5252. Whomever told you torque had nothing to do with time was wrong. Force is applied to work, force as you know works in conjunction with torque. Basically torque is the force applied over time. Horsepower is the ability to do work over time. Ok the point I tried to get across was lost so lets try again, take the example of the Honda S2000 2.0L motor (rated at 240 HP) versus the E36 M3 motor (3.2L, rated at 240 HP) since you seem to be so fond of geman engineering. The S2000 motor produces 240 HP at it's peak of 8300 RPM ok. The E36 M3 motor produces an identical 240 HP at it's peak of 6000 RPM. However, the BMW motor produces 236 lb-ft of torque at a relatively low 3800 RPM, while the S2000 motor produces a mere 150 lb-ft of torque at 7500 RPM. Yet if one compares 1/4 mile times and 0-60 MPH times, they are nearly identical. How can this be, given the vast difference in torque output of each motor right? A car accelerates hardest at it's torque peak. In the case of the M3, this occurs at a low 3800 RPM. On the Honda, peak acceleration doesn't occur until 7500 RPM, and peak HP is achieved at 8300 RPM. Where the BMW is forced to shift at 6000 RPM (it's HP peak), the Honda is still pulling towards it's torque peak, and eventually it's HP peak. So while the Honda motor doesn't pull harder than the BMW, it's (high torque peak) allows it to pull longer understand? The next principle of physics that applies to torque and horsepower that I'd like to point out, is that torque can be multiplied through gearing, while horsepower remains unchanged. The Honda can be geared to produce sufficient torque in the low RPM range to allow it to accelerate strongly right up until it hits it's own torque peak. This also allows the Honda to accelerate strongly up to it's HP peak at 8300 RPM prior to shifting. As each car shifts gears, you are effectively reducing the torque available to the rear wheels in exchange for speed. This is what allows a car with significantly less torque, but equal HP, to accelerate at a nearly equivalent pace.
Ok simplified think of it this way. Take a standard, 12-speed mountain bike. Put it in 12th gear, and try to pedal up a moderate hill. Pretty tough, isn't it? Now put the bike in 1st gear, and pedal down that same hill. Pretty soon, your legs will be moving so fast that you are the limiting factor in how fast your bike can travel. It is at this point that you would shift gears, and exchange available torque for more speed. I hope this more adequately shows my point.

Originally posted by 911GT2

And fuck man, DSM's have fuel injection, know your shit before spouting off. The only reason you hear about DSMers talk about buying injectors is to increase injector capacity to facilitate more boost. And with a Civic-R, turboing that and spending commensurately the same on a DSM, the DSM will stomp. Each and every time. It'd even stomp the NSX in acceleration and some parts of handling.
Honda's are cheaper to modify than most auto's. But that is relative to your location. NSX.....cmon now. (he's talking about forced induction, not fuel injection.)

Originally posted by BLU CIVIC
i believe this thread has lost itz way and is fading into another subject:rolleyes:


how bout those lakers:D out of the playoffs:ylsuper


so have we reached a conclusion on this thread:confused:

The topic has travelled to a much more interesting and thought provoking place.

And the conclusion (mine at least): ricers do it for others, real enthusiasts do it for themselves. End of story, I will discuss no further.

Originally posted by hybridsol

angular speed is obtained by measuring the angle in radians through which an object rotates in a certain number of seconds, and then dividing the total angle by the time. Those two engines or automotives would have to be exactly the same since even slight time integrals would set your torque curve differently. Two motor's one using a long stroke and the other a short stroke, would have completely different torque/ force. Yes its very specific to a long stroke engine. I'm going try this one more time. Lets use a door knob this time. If you turn the doorknob one full revolution, you will have moved the weight 6.2832 feet. It's all physics, the circumference equals 3.1416 * the diameter, in this case two feet. By turning the knob with the one pound weight attached to the ruler, it translates to an 6.2832 ft-lbs of work. Now, we divide 33,000 ft-lbs by 6.2832 feet, we come up with 5252 revolutions per minute (RPM). Simply put, one ft-lb of work at 5252 RPM equals 33,000 ft-lbs of total work, or 1 HP. So, HP = (Torque * RPM) / 5252. Whomever told you torque had nothing to do with time was wrong. Force is applied to work, force as you know works in conjunction with torque. Basically torque is the force applied over time. Horsepower is the ability to do work over time. Ok the point I tried to get across was lost so lets try again, take the example of the Honda S2000 2.0L motor (rated at 240 HP) versus the E36 M3 motor (3.2L, rated at 240 HP) since you seem to be so fond of geman engineering. The S2000 motor produces 240 HP at it's peak of 8300 RPM ok. The E36 M3 motor produces an identical 240 HP at it's peak of 6000 RPM. However, the BMW motor produces 236 lb-ft of torque at a relatively low 3800 RPM, while the S2000 motor produces a mere 150 lb-ft of torque at 7500 RPM. Yet if one compares 1/4 mile times and 0-60 MPH times, they are nearly identical. How can this be, given the vast difference in torque output of each motor right? A car accelerates hardest at it's torque peak. In the case of the M3, this occurs at a low 3800 RPM. On the Honda, peak acceleration doesn't occur until 7500 RPM, and peak HP is achieved at 8300 RPM. Where the BMW is forced to shift at 6000 RPM (it's HP peak), the Honda is still pulling towards it's torque peak, and eventually it's HP peak. So while the Honda motor doesn't pull harder than the BMW, it's (high torque peak) allows it to pull longer understand? The next principle of physics that applies to torque and horsepower that I'd like to point out, is that torque can be multiplied through gearing, while horsepower remains unchanged. The Honda can be geared to produce sufficient torque in the low RPM range to allow it to accelerate strongly right up until it hits it's own torque peak. This also allows the Honda to accelerate strongly up to it's HP peak at 8300 RPM prior to shifting. As each car shifts gears, you are effectively reducing the torque available to the rear wheels in exchange for speed. This is what allows a car with significantly less torque, but equal HP, to accelerate at a nearly equivalent pace.
Ok simplified think of it this way. Take a standard, 12-speed mountain bike. Put it in 12th gear, and try to pedal up a moderate hill. Pretty tough, isn't it? Now put the bike in 1st gear, and pedal down that same hill. Pretty soon, your legs will be moving so fast that you are the limiting factor in how fast your bike can travel. It is at this point that you would shift gears, and exchange available torque for more speed. I hope this more adequately shows my point.

But you're missing my original point. Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same.

It travels a longer distance yes, but torque has nothing to do with distance traveled.

And I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but on moment arm length and force exerted. There's one flaw in your thinking: you're looking at torque as an integral when it's not. Integrate torque, you get an angular version of power, which then depends on torque given over a period of time t.

And if you're gonna use the E36 M3 motor, use the Euro (320hp) version. The US version is muffled and restricted to no end. And Hondas can emphasize torque by gearing, you can never get torque out of the S2000's 2.0 liter. That's a no-no.


And a car accelerates best at its power peak. There's a reason F1 cars never drop below 14K RPM. Their torque peak is around 10-12, but they never touch that. No race cars EVER hit their peak torque during all-out racing. That's an indicator.

And while it shows A point, it doesn't really show much pertinent to the argument. Read over my last post and take a good long think. And while you think, remember that torque is independent of time. That's a given fact.

Originally posted by hybridsol

Honda's are cheaper to modify than most auto's. But that is relative to your location. NSX.....cmon now. (he's talking about forced induction, not fuel injection.)

My bad....

And Hondas are much more expensive to mod than other cars such as Fox Mustangs or F-bodies. They're much cheaper and give much more power for the money and despite what some of you all-out anti-live rear axle people think, they can be made to handle very well.

And I maintain my statement. Give a GSX a 20G and 720cc injectors along with the exhaust required to put that much air through it and it will outaccelerate an NSX. My statement stands.

And BTW, if he's talking about the Mitsu having a turbo being a bad thing it's an even dumber statement. Riddle me this: what's more difficult on an engine, 9K rpm redlines with a high CR or boost with a low CR?

Originally posted by 911GT2

And BTW, if he's talking about the Mitsu having a turbo being a bad thing it's an even dumber statement. Riddle me this: what's more difficult on an engine, 9K rpm redlines with a high CR or boost with a low CR?

Maybe so, but Honda as well as people that own and have driven them will tell you the motor in an S2000 is most comfortable at anything above 5000 RPMs. That's the nature of that motor, if it was so difficult on it, they wouldn't have designed it to rev that high.

Originally posted by AirAllen01
Who knows, I'm a newbie myself, and I only mouth off to the people who don't know what they're saying or they're mouthing off and complaining about something stupid.
well then its good your not mouthing off now. :D

Originally posted by 911GT2



And if I'm the "Porsche Nazi", so be it.

And BTW dream team: bring it.
Your not Cbass is, I woulden't reffer to you as knowledgable. Stubborn is a better word.

Originally posted by 911GT2


But you're missing my original point.

It travels a longer distance yes, but torque has nothing to do with distance traveled.

And I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but on moment arm length and force exerted. There's one flaw in your thinking: you're Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same. looking at torque as an integral when it's not. Integrate torque, you get an angular version of power, which then depends on torque given over a period of time t.

And if you're gonna use the E36 M3 motor, use the Euro (320hp) version. The US version is muffled and restricted to no end. And Hondas can emphasize torque by gearing, you can never get torque out of the S2000's 2.0 liter. That's a no-no.


And a car accelerates best at its power peak. There's a reason F1 cars never drop below 14K RPM. Their torque peak is around 10-12, but they never touch that. No race cars EVER hit their peak torque during all-out racing. That's an indicator.

And while it shows A point, it doesn't really show much pertinent to the argument. Read over my last post and take a good long think. And while you think, remember that torque is independent of time. That's a given fact.
-Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same.-

aren't seconds a measurement of time? What are radians measured into genius?

-And I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but on moment arm length and force exerted. There's one flaw in your thinking: you're Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same. looking at torque as an integral when it's not. Integrate torque, you get an angular version of power, which then depends on torque given over a period of time t.-

Backing ourself into a corner aren't we? Torque is primarly based on mathmatics, involving integrals......how do you think angular power is measured?

-Force is applied to work, force as you know works in conjunction with torque. Basically torque is the force applied over time. Horsepower is the ability to do work over time. Ok the point I tried to get across was lost so lets try again, take the example of the Honda S2000 2.0L motor (rated at 240 HP) versus the E36 M3 motor (3.2L, rated at 240 HP) since you seem to be so fond of geman engineering. The S2000 motor produces 240 HP at it's peak of 8300 RPM ok. The E36 M3 motor produces an identical 240 HP at it's peak of 6000 RPM. However, the BMW motor produces 236 lb-ft of torque at a relatively low 3800 RPM, while the S2000 motor produces a mere 150 lb-ft of torque at 7500 RPM. Yet if one compares 1/4 mile times and 0-60 MPH times, they are nearly identical. How can this be, given the vast difference in torque output of each motor right? A car accelerates hardest at it's torque peak. In the case of the M3, this occurs at a low 3800 RPM. On the Honda, peak acceleration doesn't occur until 7500 RPM, and peak HP is achieved at 8300 RPM. Where the BMW is forced to shift at 6000 RPM (it's HP peak), the Honda is still pulling towards it's torque peak, and eventually it's HP peak. So while the Honda motor doesn't pull harder than the BMW, it's (high torque peak) allows it to pull longer understand?-

This comparison part of hybridsol's argument is all he needs to prove the first post you made to contradict him wrong.
I suggest you lose the attitude, it says in your profile you were born in 84. Meaning your probably still attending high school, by all means find one of your teacher's who is farmiliar with there principals and read them each post. See who they side with, let me add that hybrid is a mechanical engineer who is currently on the path to a masters, and could be more qualified then most of your teachers.

I must be honest about the whole ricer situation though, they piss me off too. I have to say wings the most, you know the big ones that serve no downforce purpose whatsoever.

Originally posted by 911GT2


My bad....

And Hondas are much more expensive to mod than other cars such as Fox Mustangs or F-bodies. They're much cheaper and give much more power for the money and despite what some of you all-out anti-live rear axle people think, they can be made to handle very well.

And I maintain my statement. Give a GSX a 20G and 720cc injectors along with the exhaust required to put that much air through it and it will outaccelerate an NSX. My statement stands.

And BTW, if he's talking about the Mitsu having a turbo being a bad thing it's an even dumber statement. Riddle me this: what's more difficult on an engine, 9K rpm redlines with a high CR or boost with a low CR?
First of all niether of us are anti "live rear axle". I'm a bowtie man and hybrid likes his piece of shit ford mustangs (jp) ;) you'll run into more problems with the stang than a honda any day, and lets see you find a Fox body thats not rusting and one that you can make into a 10 sec marvel for 4 grand. You said yourself there's no such thing as a 4 g 10 sec car. All of sudden you think you can build one?

Check out how many problems you run into with any mitsubish product, I have to ask have you actually really ever worked with an eclipse or other mitsubishi product? If you had you would realize you run into a million problems with even trying to raise boost. NSX would smoke the gsx don't believe me? look up the stats on both cars.

Boost with a lower CR b/c lets be realistic you always want to raise the boost. You see more cars detonating with turbo's than with a high redline.

Originally posted by crankwalk 2g


Do you see the first quote, you said civic you dumb fuck, not NSX.
Also you named DSM's in general not a specific one. That means you said any DSM can't do anything better than a civic. You should watch your mouth.

You want even comparisons, then for the same amout of money needed to turbo a type-r, an EVO or Eclipse will put it to shame.

You failed to provide an equal comparison, so I did.

Prove it......

Originally posted by KrNxRaCer00
damn...i missed out on all the fun :D
just when you thought it was over, it appear your just in time, lol. :D

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron

just when you thought it was over, it appear your just in time, lol. :D

:hehehe: all this physics is over my head. i should have stayed awake in that class. but this is good entertainment to read an also its quite informative.

yes...i think EVERYONE agrees ricers are weak, but cars can be done tastefully an be dressed up nicely.

Originally posted by KrNxRaCer00


:hehehe: all this physics is over my head. i should have stayed awake in that class. but this is good entertainment to read an also its quite informative.

yes...i think EVERYONE agrees ricers are weak, but cars can be done tastefully an be dressed up nicely.

ricers aren't week...just uninformed....like they were making a master piece and somewhere along the line lost focus.....:hehehe:

Now.. I'm no Physics major...

But I think I can clearly see that 911GT2 just got Ka-smacked in the knowledge department.

Now I'm not saying you're a dip. You obviously know alot of stuff... But.. you've got somethings flipped around in your head. The number one example of this is...

And I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but on moment arm length and force exerted. There's one flaw in your thinking: you're Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same. looking at torque as an integral when it's not. Integrate torque, you get an angular version of power, which then depends on torque given over a period of time t.

That right there tells me you're grasping the concept but just dont see it yet.

And since t'is the season for Matrix quotes... Free your mind. HA HA... :rolleyes:

:p

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron

-Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same.-

aren't seconds a measurement of time? What are radians measured into genius?

Man, stay informed or shut up. Angular velocity, radians per second has nothing to do with stroke if the engines are operating at the same rpm (which is incidentally a measure of angular velocity)

-And I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but on moment arm length and force exerted. There's one flaw in your thinking: you're Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same. looking at torque as an integral when it's not. Integrate torque, you get an angular version of power, which then depends on torque given over a period of time t.-

Backing ourself into a corner aren't we? Torque is primarly based on mathmatics, involving integrals......how do you think angular power is measured?

Angular Power is what you would think of as horsepower. Which is an integral of torque. I'm not backing myself into any corner. Again, be informed or don't try and sound like a smartass. I don't mind explaining, but if you're trying so sound cocky proving me wrong you'll be put in your place

-Force is applied to work, force as you know works in conjunction with torque. Basically torque is the force applied over time. Horsepower is the ability to do work over time. Ok the point I tried to get across was lost so lets try again, take the example of the Honda S2000 2.0L motor (rated at 240 HP) versus the E36 M3 motor (3.2L, rated at 240 HP) since you seem to be so fond of geman engineering. The S2000 motor produces 240 HP at it's peak of 8300 RPM ok. The E36 M3 motor produces an identical 240 HP at it's peak of 6000 RPM. However, the BMW motor produces 236 lb-ft of torque at a relatively low 3800 RPM, while the S2000 motor produces a mere 150 lb-ft of torque at 7500 RPM. Yet if one compares 1/4 mile times and 0-60 MPH times, they are nearly identical. How can this be, given the vast difference in torque output of each motor right? A car accelerates hardest at it's torque peak. In the case of the M3, this occurs at a low 3800 RPM. On the Honda, peak acceleration doesn't occur until 7500 RPM, and peak HP is achieved at 8300 RPM. Where the BMW is forced to shift at 6000 RPM (it's HP peak), the Honda is still pulling towards it's torque peak, and eventually it's HP peak. So while the Honda motor doesn't pull harder than the BMW, it's (high torque peak) allows it to pull longer understand?-

This comparison part of hybridsol's argument is all he needs to prove the first post you made to contradict him wrong.
I suggest you lose the attitude, it says in your profile you were born in 84. Meaning your probably still attending high school, by all means find one of your teacher's who is farmiliar with there principals and read them each post. See who they side with, let me add that hybrid is a mechanical engineer who is currently on the path to a masters, and could be more qualified then most of your teachers.

I'm finished first year Mech. Engineering myself. So yeah, he's more qualified than I am, but that doesn't matter. If a man with a PhD tells you gravity pulls up do you blindly listen and believe?

And that's like me, instead of using the older SiR in comparison, using the new one. It's clearly deficient, and my point is shown by the Euro E36 M3 which produced 320 healthy horsepower.
I must be honest about the whole ricer situation though, they piss me off too. I have to say wings the most, you know the big ones that serve no downforce purpose whatsoever.

Originally posted by RedNeck383
Now.. I'm no Physics major...

But I think I can clearly see that 911GT2 just got Ka-smacked in the knowledge department.

Now I'm not saying you're a dip. You obviously know alot of stuff... But.. you've got somethings flipped around in your head. The number one example of this is...

And I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but on moment arm length and force exerted. There's one flaw in your thinking: you're Travelling at the exact same rpm, it doesn't matter whether your stroke is long or short. You're still travelling through x radians in t seconds. In both cases, exactly the same. looking at torque as an integral when it's not. Integrate torque, you get an angular version of power, which then depends on torque given over a period of time t.

That right there tells me you're grasping the concept but just dont see it yet.

And since t'is the season for Matrix quotes... Free your mind. HA HA... :rolleyes:

:p

I repeat: Torque is not dependent on time, but Power is. This angular version of power is what you would best relate to as horsepower.

Power is the integral of torque.

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron

You failed to provide an equal comparison, so I did.

Prove it......


So you did?!? You think that a $125 000(CDN) exotic cars like the NSX is an equal comparison to a $ 45 000(CDN) EVO 8, you have problems.

You really belive that if the EVO completly out performs the Civic -R from factory and an equal amount of money is put into both that it won't out perform it again. You have serious problems.

It's quite clear that you prefer Hondas, you let your money do the talkin there, but at least respect DSMs. They fucking rock.

As far as if torque is goes this is what I think, torque = force x distance(distance of the force point load to the pivoting axis). Now force = mass x acceleration, acceleration = origional velocity - final velocity / time. Therefor time affects acceleration which affects force which affects torque.

Think of it this way if I was to lean on a wrench with all my weight it might not crack the nut loose but if i was to jump on it the acceleration of my weight falling increases the force that in turn increases the torque applied to the nut.

That is as simple as I can put it. I usually agree with all your comments 911GT2 but I think you might be wrong on this one.

Originally posted by 911GT2

Man, stay informed or shut up. Angular velocity, radians per second has nothing to do with stroke if the engines are operating at the same rpm (which is incidentally a measure of angular velocity)

Angular Power is what you would think of as horsepower. Which is an integral of torque. I'm not backing myself into any corner. Again, be informed or don't try and sound like a smartass. I don't mind explaining, but if you're trying so sound cocky proving me wrong you'll be put in your place

I'm finished first year Mech. Engineering myself. So yeah, he's more qualified than I am, but that doesn't matter. If a man with a PhD tells you gravity pulls up do you blindly listen and believe?

And that's like me, instead of using the older SiR in comparison, using the new one. It's clearly deficient, and my point is shown by the Euro E36 M3 which produced 320 healthy horsepower.
Thats where your wrong its all mathmatics, measurements are mathmaticlly formulated. Think about what your saying?

-looking at torque as an integral when it's not.-
-Which is an integral of torque.-
Yes you are backing yourself into a corner. Please put me in my place.... Eveything you said in the paragraph above had to do with torque in relation to time. You don't have to be a physics major to know that, although it helps. :D Everyone in this thread saw that. I think you need to look up the definition of relation.

If a first year mech tells you that torque has nothing to do with time and a mechanical engineer from PSU tells you time is related to torque. Ppl are going to listen to the more qualified, and in this case he's correct. Ok this is from my hallscience book pg. 274 paragraph 2 "The external torque applied in integrals to the body about the space fixed axis around which the body is rotating (or going to rotate) is the moment of inertia of the body about that axis times the angular acceleration of the body."

Your comparison is not equal in HP or quarter mile times, find a comparison that proves you right and him wrong. Then map it out as he did step by step. What SIR????? he said an s2000.
-It's clearly deficient, and my point is shown by the Euro E36 M3 which produced 320 healthy horsepower.-
prove it, both of the cars he mentioned are limited or "muffled" as you said in america.

Originally posted by crankwalk 2g



So you did?!? You think that a $125 000(CDN) exotic cars like the NSX is an equal comparison to a $ 45 000(CDN) EVO 8, you have problems.

You really belive that if the EVO completly out performs the Civic -R from factory and an equal amount of money is put into both that it won't out perform it again. You have serious problems.
Yes I did, only in terms of performance.
if you want to look at it in terms of a money comparison, look at the cost of the evo 8 in comparison to a civic type R.

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron

Yes I did, only in terms of performance.
if you want to look at it in terms of a money comparison, look at the cost of the evo 8 in comparison to a civic type R.

Out of all Civics I could choose from the similar price is why I chose the type-r it in the first place. Evo 8 about $45 000(cdn) and the Integra Type-r was $40 000-$45 000, I expect that the Civic -r would be about the same since its not sold here.

Tell me 'bout it. It's gettin kinda crazy in here. I can't hang with the two geniuses going back and forth. I don't really mouth off that much. Only when someone mouths off to me first.

Originally posted by crankwalk 2g


Out of all Civics I could choose from the similar price is why I chose the type-r it in the first place. Evo 8 about $45 000(cdn) and the Integra Type-r was $40 000-$45 000, I expect that the Civic -r would be about the same since its not sold here.
were looking at a difference of a around 10 g's the evo's going for 30 grand and the type R (take note I'm talking about 2000- below type R these go for around 15 g's) the most comparable out now would be the rsx type S which goes for around 20 grand. I could make a godly fast integra or rsx with that amount of money left over.

The civic type R is $21,000.

this thread still alive:o

Originally posted by BLU CIVIC
this thread still alive:o

LOL, that's what I'm saying, but at least it's still on topic... ;)

I'm talking about Canadian dollars and here the Civic -r doen't exist so I'm basing my estimates on the Integra-R, it cost $40 000 canadian dollers when new( I should know I almost bought one;) )


My cousin bought a 2000 4 door civic with absolutly no options an it cost her $17 500 thats ridiculously over priced. So there is no way a Civic-r would be cheaper.

Originally posted by crankwalk 2g
I'm talking about Canadian dollars and here the Civic -r doen't exist so I'm basing my estimates on the Integra-R, it cost $40 000 canadian dollers when new( I should know I almost bought one;) )


My cousin bought a 2000 4 door civic with absolutly no options an it cost her $17 500 thats ridiculously over priced. So there is no way a Civic-r would be cheaper.
Two of my friends have type R integra's one in yellow and the other in championship white. My friend CJ works at an acura dealership, these are the prices in america. Why are they so rediculously overpriced in canada?

I don't know, I had a 92 prelude that I bought for $10 000 used and sold it for $9200 with almost 200 000 km. Hondas are really overpriced here. A friend of mine was going to buy an RSX but decided to wait for the WRX STI insead b/c it will cost just a few grand more.

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron

Thats where your wrong its all mathmatics, measurements are mathmaticlly formulated. Think about what your saying?

-looking at torque as an integral when it's not.-
-Which is an integral of torque.-
Yes you are backing yourself into a corner. Please put me in my place.... Eveything you said in the paragraph above had to do with torque in relation to time. You don't have to be a physics major to know that, although it helps. :D Everyone in this thread saw that. I think you need to look up the definition of relation.

If a first year mech tells you that torque has nothing to do with time and a mechanical engineer from PSU tells you time is related to torque. Ppl are going to listen to the more qualified, and in this case he's correct. Ok this is from my hallscience book pg. 274 paragraph 2 "The external torque applied in integrals to the body about the space fixed axis around which the body is rotating (or going to rotate) is the moment of inertia of the body about that axis times the angular acceleration of the body."

Your comparison is not equal in HP or quarter mile times, find a comparison that proves you right and him wrong. Then map it out as he did step by step. What SIR????? he said an s2000.
-It's clearly deficient, and my point is shown by the Euro E36 M3 which produced 320 healthy horsepower.-
prove it, both of the cars he mentioned are limited or "muffled" as you said in america.

LAST TIME I REPEAT THIS:
Torque= NOT AN INTEGRAL
Power=Integral of torque

FUCK....stop randomly quoting me wrongly, those two statements were about two different fucking things!!

And you're missing my point about the E36 M3. It shouldn't be used for comparison because the Euro and American versions were so starkly different. That's all I said, you keep taking my words out of context.

Originally posted by crankwalk 2g
As far as if torque is goes this is what I think, torque = force x distance(distance of the force point load to the pivoting axis). Now force = mass x acceleration, acceleration = origional velocity - final velocity / time. Therefor time affects acceleration which affects force which affects torque.

Think of it this way if I was to lean on a wrench with all my weight it might not crack the nut loose but if i was to jump on it the acceleration of my weight falling increases the force that in turn increases the torque applied to the nut.

That is as simple as I can put it. I usually agree with all your comments 911GT2 but I think you might be wrong on this one.

OK, you do have a point here. But your example is off.

Look at it this way: you have a block sitting on a rough surface. The static coefficient of friction deems it to require 10 N to break the friction (similarly to the bolt). No matter whether you gradually increase the force or you hit it with an instantaneous 10 N force, it'll move. If the wrench doesn't move, you haven't given the provided force. Acceleration just gives more force.

And BTW, what you're talking about is impulse, which is greatly related to momentum.

And btw, the acceleration part of your derivation simply implies that the force will cause the moment arm to accelerate. Simply that.

Originally posted by 911GT2


LAST TIME I REPEAT THIS:
Torque= NOT AN INTEGRAL
Power=Integral of torque

FUCK....stop randomly quoting me wrongly, those two statements were about two different fucking things!!

And you're missing my point about the E36 M3. It shouldn't be used for comparison because the Euro and American versions were so starkly different. That's all I said, you keep taking my words out of context.
Thank god.... I was getting sick of you repeating yourself.
Torque= measured in integrals of time.

I fail to see where I quoted you wrong?

you right I am b/c it was a perfectly good comparison.

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron

Thank god.... I was getting sick of you repeating yourself.
Torque= measured in integrals of time.

I fail to see where I quoted you wrong?

you right I am b/c it was a perfectly good comparison.

You're confusing torque with power.

When you have force/time, that's a unit of power.

I think you just helped me out alot, I couldn't seem to think of that before, thanks.

Final statement of my case: when you have a force (or torque) exerted over a period of time (be it an integral or an actual set period), it is no longer a torque but power.

Originally posted by 911GT2


You're confusing torque with power.

When you have force/time, that's a unit of power.

I think you just helped me out alot, I couldn't seem to think of that before, thanks.

Final statement of my case: when you have a force (or torque) exerted over a period of time (be it an integral or an actual set period), it is no longer a torque but power.
No I'm not torque is related to time. torque can be measured with in integrals of time.

the hell I did

obviosly your not done talking, everyone here seems to agree with hybridsol, seeing as he is right. He hasen't said anything for a few pages now and his point still stands, 3 other ppl have sided with him since them. Even your statements show that torque is related to time as do your examples.

No they don't, just because you cut and paste statements from two different parts of a post talking about two different things doesn't mean I'm the one mixed up.

But my general point is that when you take time into account, you're talking about torque applied over a period of time, which is power.

Originally posted by 911GT2
No they don't, just because you cut and paste statements from two different parts of a post talking about two different things doesn't mean I'm the one mixed up.

But my general point is that when you take time into account, you're talking about torque applied over a period of time, which is power.
you should really look up the word relation....... seriously..... this is getting rediculous.

Power is definitely related to torque. Sure, it's torque over a period of time. But that period of tiem is what I'm getting at: whether it's a small (read:integral) of time or a specific period of time, force (torque in this case) spread over a period of time is what's called power.

torque's (relation) to time not power we already agree torque and power relate which further proves my point might I add. [Integral: essential to completeness : an integral part of the curriculum> b (1) : being, containing, or relating to one or more mathematical integers (2) : relating to or concerned with mathematical integrals or integration c : formed as a unit with another part.]

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron
torque's (relation) to time not power we already agree torque and power relate which further proves my point might I add. [Integral: essential to completeness : an integral part of the curriculum> b (1) : being, containing, or relating to one or more mathematical integers (2) : relating to or concerned with mathematical integrals or integration c : formed as a unit with another part.]


They're clearly related. Force over time is power. Force in this case is torque.

Originally posted by 911GT2



They're clearly related. Force over time is power. Force in this case is torque.
Which would provide a relation between torque and time. Proving my point that has been debated for the last 3 pages.

Torque - dependent on forceand distance

Power - dependent on torque and time

there

Originally posted by 911GT2
Torque - dependent on forceand distance

Power - dependent on torque and time

there
well torque itself is dependant on time, but even in that description your proving that torque is related to time......

Seriously man, I'm begging you, go ask one of your proff's so he can swat you on the back of the head with a book.

you know what hp means?

its a measurement related to horses

it relates to how far a horse can shift a certain amount of weight in a given time
Time note is not a variable (i learned this in Physics)

and Torque (wait let me get my physics book out i don't want Mr you know who to pull something outta his ass to make me look bad) i found an equation that is

torque = force x perpendicular distance between forces

the only equation for power is the one for work which is

W = Fd or work = force x distance
Pwer is the rae at which it does work
P= dW/dt
so
Power = change in Work over change in time

whoa thats a funny one it is dependant on time ...............

and power isn't based on torque :p

I think i just got lost in a sea of physics.

ok after reading a millionpages of posts i can hadly remember what was the pint of this thread.....


on the whole torque dispute i belive the is just a miscomunication...i belive what dlbovhedrcamron tris to say that just torque itself without being aplied over a time period is useless it will no not do anything...basically that a 100Tq 0 Hp engine will will not move....all the toque in the world will not help you unless you aply it over time....

while....911gt2 tries to point out that torque as stand alone force; itself its not dependent on time


hopefully i understood what you guys were tring to point out and did not mudied the waters furher.

Originally posted by Neutrino
ok after reading a millionpages of posts i can hadly remember what was the pint of this thread.....


on the whole torque dispute i belive the is just a miscomunication...i belive what dlbovhedrcamron tris to say that just torque itself without being aplied over a time period is useless it will no not do anything...basically that a 100Tq 0 Hp engine will will not move....all the toque in the world will not help you unless you aply it over time....

while....911gt2 tries to point out that torque as stand alone force; itself its not dependent on time


hopefully i understood what you guys were tring to point out and did not mudied the waters furher.

Exactly. Without POWER you can't move.

But torque alone isn't dependent on time.

I don't know exactly what is being debated here...
But when I think of torque, I usually think of a foot long lever... Say you put a 12lbs. weight at the end of that lever, the force being exerted on the lever is then 12-foot-lbs. of torque (I think so) I really don't know how time fits into that measurement, unless you are talking about calculating torque from horsepower....
Anyway Horsepower = Torque x RPM, therefore torque over a period of time is horsepower.

O.K. now I read it, now I know what's going on.
No, torque measurement really has nothing to do with time. The point that was trying to be made was that with a larger stroke, the stroke lasts longer, therefore torque is being applied to the crankshaft for a longer period of time in every power-stroke in a engine with a longer stroke than it is in an engine with a smaller stroke. That simple - pretty self explanatory. (more piston travel = more time that force can be applied to the crank)

Originally posted by 911GT2
Torque is not dependent on time whatsoever.
here's what he said, now I can tell that not everyone read the entire thread (NSX-R-SSJ20K) seems to understand.

Originally posted by 2strokebloke
No, torque measurement really has nothing to do with time. The point that was trying to be made was that with a larger stroke, the stroke lasts longer, therefore torque is being applied to the crankshaft for a longer period of time
well then torque measurment would have alot to do with time.

(When you get on a dyno do numbers instantaneiously appear?)

Let me ask you something, say you have a torque wrench and you set it to 36-foot-lbs. Whether you torque that nut at 36lbs. for three seconds, or two hours, you're still torqueing it to 36lbs. plain and simple.

Originally posted by 2strokebloke
O.K. now I read it, now I know what's going on.
No, torque measurement really has nothing to do with time. The point that was trying to be made was that with a larger stroke, the stroke lasts longer, therefore torque is being applied to the crankshaft for a longer period of time in every power-stroke in a engine with a longer stroke than it is in an engine with a smaller stroke. That simple - pretty self explanatory. (more piston travel = more time that force can be applied to the crank)

i agree with that....what i really think dlwoverhedcamron tries to say is that unless you apply torque over time you'll get nothing

Originally posted by 2strokebloke
Let me ask you something, say you have a torque wrench and you set it to 36-foot-lbs. Whether you torque that nut at 36lbs. for three seconds, or two hours, you're still torqueing it to 36lbs. plain and simple.
meanwhile its still dependant upon time. Its taking time to apply force is it not?

Torque is not dependent on time. Torque x Time = POwer. in the case of cars.... horsepower. I think peeps are confusing power on torque. TORQUE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON TIME <- - - - - -Had to say it again...POwer is dependent on torque and time. I have provided 3 sites to clear up the argument on torque below.

To DblOvrhedCamron, you keep on saying torque is DEPENDENT on time, and its not. Yes torque is RELATED to time, ONLY for the SOLE PURPOSE THAT power is created when you use torque over a period of time. The amount of torque used over that period of time is used to measure power (torque x time = power) Torque is not measured in time. power is measured in time. your confusing torque over power. SO...TORQUE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON TIME. POWER IS DEPENDENT ON TIME. your mxing them up.

To Cranwalk 2g,

As far as if torque is goes this is what I think, torque = force x distance(distance of the force point load to the pivoting axis). Now force = mass x acceleration, acceleration = origional velocity - final velocity / time. Therefor time affects acceleration which affects force which affects torque.

You got this all wrong. the torque is the force (torque = force). the equation goes like this like i stated before (torque x time = power). Mass, velocity, acceleration, original velocity, and final velocity has nothing to do with the purpose of torque x time = power. leave it out it makes the aurgument too unecessarily complicated. Were just dealing with torque, time, and power. just three of these things.

Its very simple. 911gt is right. what he's saying is this (torque x time = power). just look at this equation, then read the sites below. Please, just read the sites below........



http://auto.howstuffworks.com/horsepower2.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com//fpte.htm
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

hybridsol made a simplified explination using a wrench and a door knob on page 7.

You're confusing, what torque is and how it's measured with how it's created in the engine.
Torque is not dependant on time, torque is force, when you measure torque time does not enter into it - when you stand on a scale, you see your weight, it's not dependant on time.
Torque multiplied by time and distance is power, I think everybody gets that now...
But yes, the longer the stroke, the longer torque is applied, the more torque you end up having. So in an IC engine (but say, not in a steam engine, where maximum torque can be applied at 0rpm) torque is dependant on how long the power stroke lasts, which of course is controlled (for the most part) by the length of the stroke.

Fuck, finally some people get it.

DOHC, please read over the posts. Torque isn't dependent on time, power is.

Originally posted by superbluecivicsi
Torque is not dependent on time. Torque x Time = POwer. in the case of cars.... horsepower. I think peeps are confusing power on torque. TORQUE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON TIME <- - - - - -Had to say it again...POwer is dependent on torque and time. I have provided 3 sites to clear up the argument on torque below.


Originally posted by 2strokebloke
You're confusing, what torque is and how it's measured with how it's created in the engine.
Torque is not dependant on time, torque is force, when you measure torque time does not enter into it - when you stand on a scale, you see your weight, it's not dependant on time.
Torque multiplied by time and distance is power, I think everybody gets that now...
But yes, the longer the stroke, the longer torque is applied, the more torque you end up having. So in an IC engine (but say, not in a steam engine, where maximum torque can be applied at 0rpm) torque is dependant on how long the power stroke lasts, which of course is controlled (for the most part) by the length of the stroke.


i agree

This thread is rediculious, I see all your points but you have to look at the fact that if time wasn't present, torque wouldn't exist. (existance itself deals with time). This argument has gone long enough lets let it die. Notice how I posted nothing further after 911gt2 tried to contradict me, I know I'm right. 911gt2 also believes he is right therefore this argument will never end. I could give equations and Laws of physics that prove my point all day and it will still be argued. This thread has also strayed very far from its original topic.

Originally posted by hybridsol
This thread is rediculious, I see all your points but you have to look at the fact that if time wasn't present, torque wouldn't exist.

That is exactly the point! NO TIME = NO TORQUE. Just like in the simple equations I gave earlier. Unless any of you people have a vast understanding of physics or are mechanical engineers dont post b/c u have no clue what u are talkin about.

when you stand on a scale, you see your weight, it's not dependant on time.

Acutually it is b/c weight is your mass x gravity and gravity is dependent on time.

You got this all wrong. the torque is the force (torque = force). the equation goes like this like i stated before (torque x time = power). Mass, velocity, acceleration, original velocity, and final velocity has nothing to do with the purpose of torque x time = power. leave it out it makes the aurgument too unecessarily complicated. Were just dealing with torque, time, and power. just three of these things.

If you think that it is too complicated for you then dont comment on things you dont understand, I am not going to simplify it so people with a 12th grade knowledge of physics can keep up.

Originally posted by hybridsol
I could give equations and Laws of physics that prove my point all day and it will still be argued. This thread has also strayed very far from its original topic.

Amen. Let's just put this thread behind us, because it seriously is getting us nowhere other than a wasted time of bickering. :rolleyes:

yes and now back to the original topic....i personally prefer one of the string theory (based) origin of the universe concepts that starts with an original universe (all energy particules and no matter) with ocasional collisions....of couse one collision got big egough taht it reached the critical mass for the big bang (mass a a proton) and formed the universe....i like this better that Hawking's theory.....


lets see if we can bring toque into the equation here....maybe the origin of the honda engines too:D ......postwhoring forever:p ;)

Torque = force multiplied by distance (no, not: time x force x distance, or even distance x time x force - just force x distance, that's all it is, and that's all it ever will be)

Back to the original topic (page one) Perhaps you do not like it when people modify their cars, but it's not like they're modifying your car, and for this you should be grateful. :D Some people get great satisfaction from making a machine better (in their own opinion) you're going to have to live with it, after all it is their car and not yours.
And it's not unique to Hondas either - ever since there have been cars, there have been people modifying cars.
Perhaps you wouldn't want your car to be like that - fine don't make yours like that. Apparently they want theirs to be like that (or closely aproximating that anyway) It's all like bees... don't bother them and they won't bother you :)

Originally posted by 2strokebloke
Torque = force multiplied by distance (no, not: time x force x distance, or even distance x time x force - just force x distance, that's all it is, and that's all it ever will be)

Yes torque = force x distance, but force is dependent on time, if time = zero then force = zero then toque is also zero. You are not breaking it down enough to find that time is related to it.

I don't want to keep explaining the same thing over and over, if you can't see the relation by now then you never will so its useless to try and convince anyone.

Point taken, it is somewhat the same thing I've been trying to get across - it takes time to make torque, but you do not use time to measure torque.

Originally posted by Neutrino
yes and now back to the original topic....i personally prefer one of the string theory (based) origin of the universe concepts that starts with an original universe (all energy particules and no matter) with ocasional collisions....of couse one collision got big egough taht it reached the critical mass for the big bang (mass a a proton) and formed the universe....i like this better that Hawking's theory.....


lets see if we can bring toque into the equation here....maybe the origin of the honda engines too:D ......postwhoring forever:p ;)
you don't think that the big bang theroy was based on time? If you want to get into the creation of our planet why not look at evolution as well. Chemical reations take time just like everything else does.

Oh yea thats not the original topic.....

Originally posted by DblOvrhedCamron

you don't think that the big bang theroy was based on time? If you want to get into the creation of our planet why not look at evolution as well. Chemical reations take time just like everything else does.

i was just postwhoring:D ...although that is truthfully one of the big bang theories

Originally posted by 2strokebloke
Point taken, it is somewhat the same thing I've been trying to get across - it takes time to make torque, but you do not use time to measure torque.

Actually to measure the torque of a rotating shaft you need to use radians /second along with other variables.

If torque does not exist then you use time to apply it(torque wrench), if it does exist then you need time to measure it(rotating shaft).

Originally posted by crankwalk 2g


Actually to measure the torque of a rotating shaft you need to use radians /second along with other variables.

If torque does not exist then you use time to apply it(torque wrench), if it does exist then you need time to measure it(rotating shaft).

You don't need the speed, but only the instantaneous angular acceleration. Remember, ideally (assuming there's no friction or heat losses) it takes the same force to accelerate from 1rad/s to 2 rad/s as it does to accelerate from 101 to 102. Velocity is unimportant.

Originally posted by 911GT2


You don't need the speed, but only the instantaneous angular acceleration. Remember, ideally (assuming there's no friction or heat losses) it takes the same force to accelerate from 1rad/s to 2 rad/s as it does to accelerate from 101 to 102. Velocity is unimportant.
The radian per second squared (symbolized rad/s2 or rad · s-2) is the unit of angular (rotational) acceleration magnitude in the International System of Units (SI). This is the rate of change of angular speed or velocity. The angular acceleration vector also has a direction component that can be defined in either of two senses: counterclockwise or clockwise.
The average angular acceleration can be obtained by evaluating an object's instantaneous angular speed (in radians per second) at two different points t1 and t2 in time, and then dividing the distance by the span of time t2 - t1 (in seconds). Suppose the instantaneous angular speed at time t1 is equal to u1, and the instantaneous angular speed at time t2 is equal to u2. Then the average angular acceleration magnitude bavg (in radians per second squared) during the time interval [t1, t2] is given by:

bavg = (u2 - u1) / (t2 - t1)

Instantaneous angular acceleration magnitude is more difficult to intuit, because it involves an expression of rotational motion over an "infinitely short" (interval of time). Let p represent a specific point in time. Suppose an object is in rotational motion at about that time. The average angular acceleration magnitude can be determined over increasingly short time intervals centered at p, for example:

strait outta the text books, it seems crankwalk 2g was right. You do need speed and it is dependant upon time.

Originally posted by 911GT2


You don't need the speed, but only the instantaneous angular acceleration. Remember, ideally (assuming there's no friction or heat losses) it takes the same force to accelerate from 1rad/s to 2 rad/s as it does to accelerate from 101 to 102. Velocity is unimportant.

In US units torque = 63 000 x power / rpm. This simple formula will give you the torque at any engine speed. The rpm is commonly used to express the angular velocity. If you change the rpm you will greatly affect the torque output.

Originally posted by 911GT2


You don't need the speed, but only the instantaneous angular acceleration. Remember, ideally (assuming there's no friction or heat losses) it takes the same force to accelerate from 1rad/s to 2 rad/s as it does to accelerate from 101 to 102. Velocity is unimportant.

Also if velocity is inimportant as you say, then the angular velocity could be zero and it would not matter but if the angular velocity is zero then the shaft is not spinning wich means that the torque is non existent since torque is twisting force the shaft cannot be in a stopped position.

LET IT DIE....JUST LET THE SUBJECT DIE :cry: :cry: :cry:

damn...i was planning on goin to bed like half an hour ago and i couldnt stop reading this redundant freaking thread with all its physics and bickering...shit....ricer kids suck...they give a bad name to people who actually do something decent to their honda and not make it look all stupid with big wings and APC stickers....turbo your honda and put a little body kit on for fun, show the intercooler through the big gap in the front so people know you dont fuck around ...and no big wings please...and yes..altezzas are gay

to each his own

Originally posted by hondatool
damn...i was planning on goin to bed like half an hour ago and i couldnt stop reading this redundant freaking thread with all its physics and bickering...shit....ricer kids suck...they give a bad name to people who actually do something decent to their honda and not make it look all stupid with big wings and APC stickers....turbo your honda and put a little body kit on for fun, show the intercooler through the big gap in the front so people know you dont fuck around ...and no big wings please...and yes..altezzas are gay

to each his own


ypu forgot the poeple who actually buy intercoolers and set them up without having a turbo...so even seein an intercooler might not mean you have a turbo.....its very sad:(

I agree to disagree, no more posts from me on this subject. Believe what you want to believe even if its wrong.

Look, I still believe I'm in the right here, but if there's evidence (i.e. links, literature, etc.) that you can show, not opinion, I'd be glad to read it. If I'm wrong so be it. But in my mind at least, none of you have proven me so.

Originally posted by 911GT2
Look, I still believe I'm in the right here, but if there's evidence (i.e. links, literature, etc.) that you can show, not opinion, I'd be glad to read it. If I'm wrong so be it. But in my mind at least, none of you have proven me so.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci530159,00.html

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/circ/node3.html

http://www.nmri.go.jp/bfree/slope_exp02/index_e.html

http://physnet2.pa.msu.edu/home/courses/183A/183Acorelessons.html#Torque%20and%20Angular%20Acce leration%20for%20Rigid%20Planar%20Objects:%20Flywh eels

these are just a few, though if you are a mechanical engineering major and you've taken core physics then it should be in your book on the page I have listed a page or two back.

You don't have to believe me, go ask a proffesor or email him. they give you there email on your syllabus.

its a way to make your car unique
it is a good way to take up time
a good way to get to know new people
it is a good learning experiance
it can lead to new hobbies

ok well i drive a crx and im building a motor in my garage right now for cause my cars light and people always want to race, so why not smoke them right, but at heart im a mini trucker, i have an 85 sonoma, slammed and i have a all race sb 400 in it, interior totally done, red on the lower and white above, did it all myselfand im designing new doors i cant talk about cause someone else will end up doin it if i say what it is, i do it cause i love to look at my creations and the look on others faces, when it comes to mini truckin we seem to be in a league of our own, sort of like our own little worlds that not many understand, like when i body dropped a truck people always why would you do that,? cause it looks mint and everyone wants the lowest truck title, which is currently like 3 feet or something

Okay, I don't even know why I am replying to this, expect for the fact that I get sick of people insulting as us just becuase we drive hondas. I know this trend is a little old, but it just annied the hell out of me, so I had to respond. First off, why do I drive a civic? Becuase I am still under 25, and they are extremely cheap to insure, and they are reliable for the most part. This is one reason why I bought my civic. But I didn't by a 15k car, I can't afford that. I am paying my way through college. I could afford $3,500 and for that price, the civic gave me the best combo of reliableity and inexpensive insurence rates that I could get. But do you actually think that it's my dream to drive around a stock 92 civic? of course not, but at the time, I knew since I owned it outright, that's what I'd have till I was out of college. This is where modifactions come in. I did modifiactions slowly over the time I owned the car, I didn't just, "buy a 15k car and dump 10k into it." When my origanl engine died? I swaped in an LS, $3000 was cheaper than buying another 5th gen civic, and it had very low milage on it. There was no way I would have gotten a car with a nice power/weight ratio like that, with 23k, for that price. So in went the engine. This tends to be how my mods started. Suspension? Needed a new one, stock struts and springs where gone, so I completely overworked that. I didn't just throw a body kit onto a slow otherwise stock car either. I looked around, and when the time presented itself to do some body modifications? why not. Nothing short of a ferreri or RUF R Turbo will stify me stock. I want my car to reflect what I want it to look like. Not what some other desginer said it should look like. That is why I modify my car, and that is why I am learning to do custom rod work. For me, this is a hobby now. Every car I see, weatehr it be honda, lexus, poreshe, etc, I see something to work with. Something I can transform into the car I want it do be, not the car the factory desinger wanted it to be. And as putting money into mods and the value of your car. When I bought my car, I got it for $3500. I was rear-ended last fall. Do you know why my car was repaired, and not a "total-value loss"? because of the mods I had done, my attorney and I easliy prove to the insurence company that my car's fair market value was between $10,000-11,500. That's the value my car was legally recognized as having. A far cry from the $3500 it was the day I bought it. The best part? my insurence is still that of a civic though, which is to say, affordable. It's not gobs of money, but still. The value of my car didn't stay stagnet at $3500 after mods, the value increased. Sure, that may not be "getting every penny in return," but thats not what it's about. For me, the car is a canvus, like a painting. It's my blank slate to work with. Different people have different reasons for doing things to cars. And I have seen plenty of things on cars, hondas and otherwise, that I just think are plain cheesy. But I am not gonna go bitch and insult everyone cuz of it, after all. If they own the car, they can do with it what they please, it doesnt matter if I like it or not. But as for reasons people do this to their cars? There are many reason's, for me. I don't like stock factory carsm and this is a hobby. I have learned more about cars since I started modifying my civic than I even knew before. or maybe modifying cars runs in the family. My cousin in in his 40's, and has been modifyig cars and motorcyles since the 60's and the days of old-school american muscle cars. For him and me, it's a hobby too, a fun way to spend time, and at the end of the day, you something to show for all your work. If you don't like modified Honda's, then there is probaby a better way to spend your time than telling us how stupid we are in here.

that speech ownz

I'd look at it from the jump off the bridge perspective. If everyone jumped off a bridge would I jump? Of course I would! There wouldn't be any chicks to fuck!