InsideLine test S/C tC w/Video [Archive]

Munch

01-16-2006, 04:11 PM

Rich_Manas

01-16-2006, 04:30 PM

^^Don't need luck to reach 300whp. Just a ZPI stage 1. Besides, I wouldn't consider an SI an upgrade of exponential proportions. If you were to have said an Evo, or an STI...then I would have been like "Way to Go man". But an SI, just not enough to give up my tC for...JMO of course. Not doggin you or anything.

Yeah but for how long before you crack every piston at the ring lands :rofl: . I've seen more than one case personally :rofl: . Not worth it IMO.

^^Don't need luck to reach 300whp. Just a ZPI stage 1. Besides, I wouldn't consider an SI an upgrade of exponential proportions. If you were to have said an Evo, or an STI...then I would have been like "Way to Go man". But an SI, just not enough to give up my tC for...JMO of course. Not doggin you or anything.

same here. how is a Si way better than a tC? there's nothing in the Si exterior that would make a tC owner drool or under the hood to runaway in fear. if anything the tC looks better and in less than 2yrs has enough go fast parts to make honda envy.

Stock for stock the SI owns the TC. You can say what you want. I have a TC that went from boosted back to slow as hell. The car is a pig without forced induction, and very unpredictable when you boost it as far as the internals goes. Have fun with your cars. I like the SI better and that's what I'm getting. You like you r TC, good for you. Enjoy your car. It is what you wanted and what you paid for..................Correct :lalala:

yes, i agree stock for stock the Si is better performance car but the tC manual also undercuts the Si by $4k. add the S/C and few suspension mods and the performance gets closer.

do you think if you boost a K20 vs 2AZ it will be that much better. i have friends with 02 rsx-s who was either boosted or flashed and they all had their share of internal problems eventually. motors now are not as stout as motors of the past (2JZ/3SG) where you can have twice to three times the amount of power without any worries. motors like 2AZ, K20, 2ZZ are maxed out and if anyone wants to boost it "properly" they have to have beefier internals.

and i don't own a tC.

Phixeus

01-16-2006, 04:38 PM

"i have a Civic. It makes 500 hp and 23 lb ftq."
wow it sure is loud!
"yeah, the motor is doing to go any day now!"

^^^i dont know how many times ive heard and seen that before.

schwettynuts

01-16-2006, 04:53 PM

just get this

http://www.9secondracing.com/partnum/13397/parttype/190/partcat/39/1997-240SX-w/-RB26DETT-show-car.html

rhythmnsmoke

01-16-2006, 05:12 PM

ignitionr34

01-16-2006, 06:27 PM

i like new si's but the type s looks wayy better than it...
all in all i still love my tc but i give props for si and 200 hp engine it has and its defintely worth 20k but not 33k!!

killerxromances

01-16-2006, 06:43 PM

Munch

01-16-2006, 06:46 PM

rhythmnsmoke

01-16-2006, 07:05 PM

killerxromances

01-16-2006, 07:16 PM

Oh my god guys, we have a s/c tC vs. Si thread, search and debate there. How many debating threads do we seriously need?

FYI: As far as performance goes, the Si is a much better platform than the tC is off the lot. The tC is in no way made to be a performance car. The 2az was built pretty much from the ground up to be an economy 4cyl. (which obviously you can build the car up anyway to perform.) The Si/k20z1 was built from the ground up to perform, however also get pretty good gas milage. Its a true sports compact, completely on the other side of the spectrum is the tC.

Yes, you can build the 2az, i'm not bashing it at all. However, the k20z1 is a easier platform to work with with much more aftermarket out for it than the tC's 2az. When its all said and done, the tC still needs to step it up with aftermarket especially to even catch up to honda as far as potential goes. Even with custom built parts, most honda engines can be built and can be built safely/daily driver.

In all fairness bro...You are comparing a car that's been around for 2 years vs. a car that's been around for a decade+. The Civic didn't start out with a killer suspension setup, high reving 200hp engine, etc... All I can say is if we started this good off bat, then I can't wait to see what the next tC generation will be.

PS..You can say what you want about the K2Oz's, they still have weak a$$ TQ. Not to mention, for having an LSD and 197hp, it's only 0.1 secs faster. Not enough for me to back down to one on the street if I saw one.

Exactly why tC and Si shouldn't even be compared, they are not even in the same league. Sure, same sports compact class. But i stated before, two sides of the spectrum. I don't start the tC vs Si threads, i contribute because i'm knowledgable with both honda and toyota.

With that said, if you want to say the tC vs. Si isn't a fair comparison, i agree with you. They shouldn't really be compared, but, you don't need to take that up with me. You should take that up with those who feel the tC is right there with the Si.

As for weak torque, yes, not many honda's have lots of tq. However, tq alone does not win races nor does hp. You have to find a common ground of both, match that with gearing and a few other things. Gearing helps the Si, LSD, powerband helps, and yes, vtec helps with tqless. With that said, the motors are designed to be fairly tqless. They can make up for lack of tq with other things.

Not to mention, if tq really bothered you when you start modding a honda motor, it isn't impossble to jump the tq up a bit. Everyone has heard of the hks k20a with 350whp and 289ft tq, thats a fine example of a fairly tqless motor jumping with tons of tq.

Like i said, stock for stock, Si wins hands down. Mod for mod, generally speaking honda motors respond extremely well to mods and can perform very well without major long term issues. If we were to get away from this 1/4 love scionlife has (lol), autox and road courses i feel are the Si's strong points. At least, it has been that way in the past and when i test drove an 06' Si, it felt like it would share the same concept. Honda motors can be drag queens, but their cars with right set ups do extremely well in the track environment. I believe mod for mod, Si would win hands down in autox/road course.

I could go on but i'll stop. Point is, Si is a better performing car than the tC.

rhythmnsmoke

01-16-2006, 07:31 PM

rhythmnsmoke

01-16-2006, 08:50 PM

Acura showed us a prototype of the RDX unibody SUV that will go on sale this summer. Its powered by a turbocharged 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine (the first turbocharged engine in Acura's history) that makes a comfortable 240 horsepower and an impressive 260 pound-feet of torque. So called Super Handling All-Wheel Drive (SH-AWD) that can send power front to back and left to right is similar to the system that is in the RL sedan. No pricing was announced for the RDX, but we do know it will be built in Honda's Marysville, Ohio, plant.

Now instead of coming in a SUV, that engine came in the new SI, then that would be enough. I know someone is bound to try and swap this engine into their Civic.

Simplyscion

01-16-2006, 09:42 PM

another one of these vs. threads :doh:

how bout this...the si sucks, and so does the tC :rofl: ....
I'll stick with my small block Nova for when Im import hungry :lalala:

killerxromances

01-16-2006, 10:34 PM

^^Problem with the last part of you post is that NO ONE road courses their Civics. They only drag. That's the only place you see them is the drag strip.

And I wasn't saying you couldn't compare the tC to an SI. I was talking about in terms of Aftermarket support, the tC is still a baby, where as the SI has been the epitone of the import world.

But in terms of comparing car to car, a stock tC can beat every other SI that has been produced. So, I will say that it was fair to compare the two. The SI is not like a GOD over the tC. And the new SI isn't that much faster. It's going to come down to a drivers race if anything. To close of #'s to say it's SOO much superior. Again, It's not enough of a car that I would back down from it if I saw it on the street. Even though I'm stock (for the time being). I wonder if I could edge out a slight victory with just a short shifter.

By the way...If you pay 4k dollars more (And in some cases they are going for 30k+...lol), I would hope your car was better than mine, as you paid more. In fact your car had BETTER have a FAAAAARRRR superior rating than my tC to pay that much more. In terms of SI, that's not the case.

This back and forth is like comparing the XBOX 360 to the not yet released PS3. Of course the PS3 is going to be better, the 360 came out before hand, and Sony has a chance to find out what to do and what not to do before releasing the PS3, based off of studying what it's competitors are doing.

It only makes since that the next tC or whatever that comes out of Scion will be compariable if not out perform the new SI. This battle will go back in forth so long as they continue to make cars. It's called COMPETITION.

Well for one, the tC is not faster than other Si's. A friend of mine with a tC raced a 1999 Si and lost twice, and won twice. Both equal drivers. After he did i/h/e, he raced a 04' Si that had i/h/e and both basically tied twice. So to say the tC is faster than any other Si is a understatement.

Hondas only drag? Um, again you are incorrect. When i owned my gs-r, one of the clubs i hung out with went to autox events twice a month as a team and ran. Also, i might point out if you go to integra or civic forums, you will see an even balance of autox and drag. If anything, i see more tCer's than run 1/8th and 1/4 mile vs. anything else.

As i've said before, not all dealerships are doing the % mark up. Infact, most of them aren't and the ones that aren't are the ones selling civics.

rhythmnsmoke

01-16-2006, 11:48 PM

killerxromances

01-16-2006, 11:54 PM

^^I would gladly put our stock tC against any stock SI (including the new 06). It may be on a couple of message boards the balance is sorta equal, but how much does that account for all the racers out there?

Put it this way, we have yet to loose against an SI. Even went up against a lighly modded SI, and blow it away like it was standing still. That was when we were in the 05 tC with only an intake.

I'm sorry bro, but your friend can't drive. The last year the SI was out was what 2002? In which it's rated 0-60 @ 7.6 and 1/4 @ 15.8. Like I said, previous SI's are slower.

PS..Aren't you the guy that was arguing that a boosted xB would KILL a stock tC.. :silly:

Trust me, he can drive. Hes 30yrs old with around 11years of track experience, the guy with the Si was 25 and is a professional track instructor, hes been doing that for two years. I think they can drive.

I seriously doubt your stock tC blew the Si away like it was standing still. Like i said, they are pretty equal so the Si could win, or tC could win just debating on drivers. Maybe Si driver couldn't drive well?

And a boosted Xb can kill a stock tC depending on boost levels and output of whp. Think about it logically, a 130whp Xb against a 138whp stock tC. Only 8whp difference, xb's gearing is more aggressive for the fact stock numbers are low..so gearing is close(r) to use hp logically and practically. Not to mention, weight. Pretty big difference in weight as well.

But this isn't a boosted xb vs tC thread is it? So lets not talk about that, if someone wants to debate that with me take it up with aim or PM me.

kungpaosamuraiii

01-17-2006, 12:12 AM

That the tC can match or beat previous tCs just shows how good the tC is to be able to defeat race tuned cars of the past. The Si always a built sport compact whereas the tC is a sport compact with economy roots. The tC against the modern Si now though is no longer an even match. For the most part, the numbers are pretty close which accounts for the difference in torque and the relative closeness in weight. What the Si has after that is an unyielding torque line where the tC has a falling torque curve past 6.5k rpm. This allows the Si to make that 200~ hp and beat the tC.

That is in a drag race.

In an autoX it would be even worse. The Si has some sports suspension in lieu of the tC's slightly sporty but pretty mushy and flood ready near SUV like springs. Before comparison in autoX the tC NEEDS some new springs and sways. I'm sure you'll all agree that in stock form, the tC handles with porky finesse (that is to say, it's porky, but somehow feels exceedingly stable.. at least it did to me.)

Stock for stock, I don't think the tC should be compared to the new Si even if the tC could match and/or beat previous Si's. They were built from the start with different purposes in mind (K20z vs 2AZ-FE.) Once someone builds a tC into a slightly truer sports compact, THEN one can compare the two more legitimately.

Please don't think I'm knocking the tC. Like I said, that the tC can beat prior Sis that were made to perform quickly shows how good the 2AZ with its economy background performs. I personally like the 2AZ better because.. well.. boost a 2.4 and a 2.0 at the same level and let us see which block makes more power! Just need that damn LSD.. I don't care which kind. Any of them will do, torsen, viscous, conversion, powder, they'll all make the car faster (or seem faster, dare I say, be able to fly.)

Munch

01-17-2006, 12:14 AM

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 12:16 AM

No he wasn't. A boosted box might be able to kill a stock tC in a drag..................................................... I don't think so. A boosted box would be able to hang with one a stock tC though. A good run may be able to beat a stock tC but whatevers. killerxromances normally points out that his xB was able to beat several tCs in autoX.

That the tC can match or beat previous tCs just shows how good the tC is to be able to defeat race tuned cars of the past. The Si always a built sport compact whereas the tC is a sport compact with economy roots. The tC against the modern Si now though is no longer an even match. For the most part, the numbers are pretty close which accounts for the difference in torque and the relative closeness in weight. What the Si has after that is an unyielding torque line where the tC has a falling torque curve past 6.5k rpm. This allows the Si to make that 200~ hp and beat the tC.

That is in a drag race.

In an autoX it would be even worse. The Si has some sports suspension in lieu of the tC's slightly sporty but pretty mushy and flood ready near SUV like springs. Before comparison in autoX the tC NEEDS some new springs and sways. I'm sure you'll all agree that in stock form, the tC handles with porky finesse (that is to say, it's porky, but somehow feels exceedingly stable.. at least it did to me.)

Stock for stock, I don't think the tC should be compared to the new Si even if the tC could match and/or beat previous Si's. They were built from the start with different purposes in mind (K20z vs 2AZ-FE.) Once someone builds a tC into a slightly truer sports compact, THEN one can compare the two more legitimately.

Please don't think I'm knocking the tC. Like I said, that the tC can beat prior Sis that were made to perform quickly shows how good the 2AZ with its economy background performs. I personally like the 2AZ better because.. well.. boost a 2.4 and a 2.0 at the same level and let us see which block makes more power! Just need that damn LSD.. I don't care which kind. Any of them will do, torsen, viscous, conversion, powder, they'll all make the car faster (or seem faster, dare I say, be able to fly.)

I pretty much agree with everything except the box comment. :P

Yes, 2az/tC does need lsd. It would take care of a lot of issues, although i have heard a few tC's a starting to have misfire problems, sealed ring problems and piston issues with their boosted motors.

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 12:19 AM

:yawn: Oh brother. The TC is not all that. I have one that was boosted and now it is stock and it's a slow bloated PIG :rofl: . End of story. The car is not fast in stock form. It is slow as all hell. Sorry to ____ on anyone cheerios. But that's the way the ball bounces. I like the looks and the platform of the new SI and that;s what made me trade my old TC for it. I like it , and that's why I did it. All of this hog wash is not necessary. Both cars are nice looking to me, but the new styling of the SI, looks so much better to me. This is coming from a guy who hated Hondas with a passion until now. My plates tell the true story there. So now..................................CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG :rofl:

Yep. And i remember talking to munch (i believe it was you) about honda one time prior to the offical Si release, and i can say he did hate honda to hell and back. I'm glad he changed his views though, honda = :love: just as much as toyota does. Only major difference between honda and toyota is the fact honda puts more thought into performance aspect of things with every car they have. Of course, i'm not saying all cars they make are sport compacts but what i am saying is per class, each car has great potential except for one two. Which compare that to toyota designs, toyota is much, much more conservative compared to honda with performance.

rhythmnsmoke

01-17-2006, 01:58 AM

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 02:12 AM

I agree that Toyota is a little more conservative when it comes to the "performance" aspect of their line. I believe when they created SCION, they wanted to capture a little bit of that "performance" market back. But don't mistake their conservatism for a weakness. Remember, the turbo MR2 was built by who....Toyota. The Supra was built by who...Toyota. So, don't think they can't make a high performing automobile.

I'm not one for the new SI's styling. And yes, we blew away that SI. It was on a short drag track, and it got left like it was standing still.

The car is not fast in stock form. It is slow as all hell.

Previous SI's are even slower, so what does that say. The new 06 is not a blitz down the track either. JMO. I don't think anyone was looking down upon the new SI, and rasing the tC on a pedestal. All anyone really is saying is that the new 06 SI is not all that to trade a tC in for, and sure as hell not all that to cost 30k dollars.

You guys need to quit referring to the few dealerships charging extremely high figures. Its a $20,000 Si, well, well worth the money when it comes to a performance compact.

Yes, Toyota has designed cars that performed extremely well. But the tC is not an mr2 nor supra. If Toyota wanted to capture the performance aspect again with the release of the tC, they wouldn't have sticked an oversized underpowered 2.4l in it. IMO. If they wanted to capture more performance within the Toyota background they would have probably used the 2zz, probably wouldn't have gone with an extremely heavy top with the solid glass roof and a few other things would have been different.

Instead of performance aspect, toyota wanted to build and make cars for Scion that could be had fairly cheap, have personality unlike other Toyotas, be unique and so on. This does not exclude the tC from anything.

Yes, the 2az can be built up. But so can any other motor out there. The 2az was not designed with performance on their minds. Which is why the k20 is a much safer, and better platform to start building from vs. the 2az.

Instead of telling me i'm mistaken Toyota with weakness, maybe you guys should take a look and see where the tC is as far as its place in the sport compact world. Its brand new, its not build for performance by any means. Its a nice, quick compact with standard features most cars in its price range either have but are options/trim levels, or don't have at all. Its made to be comfortable, and affordable for the younger crowds. (not saying it doesn't attracted older men and women, infact, its made to please all in the long run)

Bottom line is, some of you guys are really down playing the Si and what it can do, and really giving the tC the upper hand. Its understandable, since most drive tC's but please, all i ask is you remember where the tC's place is.

For the record, i'm not saying the Si is on the top of the food chain either. But its most certainly above the tC in every aspect of performance.

Munch

01-17-2006, 02:17 AM

All anyone really is saying is that the new 06 SI is not all that to trade a tC in for, and sure as hell not all that to cost 30k dollars.

It's a set in the right direction for me and I paid no where near $30. That's the biggest joke I've seen all day :rofl:

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 02:18 AM

rhythmnsmoke

01-17-2006, 02:51 AM

Munch

01-17-2006, 02:57 AM

And for the record, I know their are better cars than the tC. But amongst SI's only the new 06 is better.

And that is why I made the trade :lalala:

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 03:03 AM

rhythmnsmoke; i may have read the comment wrong but much was talking about the tC being extremely slow in stock form, not the Si.

And as i stated before, tC is equal to the previous Si body style. I know this from what my friend experienced, theres another guy on here that has raced stock for stock.

I know for a fact, i don't care how good of a driver you are rhythmn, there is no was you put the Si to shame like it was standing still. Sure, you could have beat the Si, i give you that but theres no way you smoked the living crap out of him/her unless, they weren't that good of a driver. Driver plays the biggest role with cars.

:yawn: It got whooped. And when spring comes in and the track opens back up, I will get vids for you of us whooping up on them some more.

Instead of telling me i'm mistaken Toyota with weakness, maybe you guys should take a look and see where the tC is as far as its place in the sport compact world. Its brand new, its not build for performance by any means. Its a nice, quick compact with standard features most cars in its price range either have but are options/trim levels, or don't have at all. Its made to be comfortable, and affordable for the younger crowds. (not saying it doesn't attracted older men and women, infact, its made to please all in the long run)

Maybe you should have warned ZPI before they invested money in creating a boosted tC pushing 350+, and maybe you should have warned Jo Tech that they were wasting their time when they developed a 600HP tC, and maybe you should warn Dezod as well as Turbonetics that the tC's 2az was a waist of time before they made 250+whp on the platform (Not to mention, all except the Jo Tech one, is on UN-BUILT motors). I think we know EXACTLY where the tC's place is in the tuner world (with the tail lights in front of the SI if you ask me...:rofl: )

Bottom line is, some of you guys are really down playing the Si and what it can do, and really giving the tC the upper hand. Its understandable, since most drive tC's but please, all i ask is you remember where the tC's place is.

Same can be said, that you are up-playing the SI like it's the greatest things since sliced bread.

The new 06 SI is a little bit better than the tC. The old SI's would get hushed up real quick though.

And for the record, I know their are better cars than the tC. But amongst SI's only the new 06 is better.

I don't recall ever saying the 2az didn't potential, did i? :no: Jo-tech didn't even use but maybe 20% of what the 2az has, the rest was custom built. I'm a fan of ZPI, don't get me wrong with that, but nor did i say the 2az couldn't be built either.

Before you start throwing numbers out there, you might also realize the 2az hasn't been pushed over a long period of time running 15psi for instance, pushing 300whp. Even companies you have mentioned will tell you this, they design for power and hope the motor will last. But in reality, no one really knows. Also, with that said theres already a few people on the boards with piston and piston ring issues. And i've heard two stories now of misfires running high psi ranges.

I might also point out that theres B16's running 250whp for fairly long periods of time, without major issues and thats more whp per liter than the 2az.

Also, with K series for instance, theres countless 250-260whp n/a build ups with the k20z3, k20a, k20a2 that last and is reliable, tuned for street. How many n/a tCs do you know that push 200whp? Not many, again, most due to aftermarket support, but theres also other reasons as well.

Again, i never said the 2az couldn't be modified and didn't have potential. What i am saying is however, the k20 is a better platform to start from than the 2az is. Also, k20 has more potential than the 2az as far as n/a and some f/i set ups, mostly due to how its designed.

Theres no replacement for displacement, thats a lot of what people say. However, displacement means nothing when the motor can't handle but so much power due to what its designed for.

Since you used Jo-tech for example, also being they didn't really use a 2az. There are 500whp+ boosted B20's, K20's, and other honda motors using a lot more of what honda provided vs. jo-tech.

Like i stated before, if Toyota really wanted to push performance on the tC, they would not have used the 2az. Period.

rhythmnsmoke

01-17-2006, 03:24 AM

:yawn: k10, 15, 20 whatever floats your boat bro.... The only view I have seen of an SI was in my rearview mirror as I walked it. That and the B16a1 equipped Teggy, as we gained and passed it by a half car length at minimal.

PS..you probably think the xB motor has better potential than a tC...lol. Just messin with you bro. Don't take this so seriously. You like Honda motors. I like to have TQ to go with my HP, hence why we don't buy Honda Civics(Si's). It's all a matter of opinion and preference.

By the way, can you show me the threads where people where having misfires, and pistons go, as I have seemed to overlooked those people, and only read about the people who have put 20k miles on their turbo (such as ZPI, ScionDaD, Dezod and a few others).

And that is why I made the trade

Not good enough though.

davedavetC

01-17-2006, 03:32 AM

daymmmnnn :rofl: :rofl:

all i can say is

i :love: my tC

ryno379

01-17-2006, 04:06 AM

Let me add support to rhythmnsmoke's claim about destroying a Civic si. I molested a 99 si last summer with my NA tC. I had zero go-fast mods. In fact, I had a stereo in the car (a little extra weight). I beat him so bad in the first race that I couldn't believe it. He said he missed a gear and wanted to run again. I went again cuz I wanted a fair race (and I felt bad for him). The next race was closer, probably not more than about 2 car lenths. Oh yeah, he had an intake and exhaust too. Either he was the worst driver I've ever seen behind the wheel of a Honda, or the 99/00 si is not nearly as quick as a STOCK tC. Oh, I also beat a Sentra SE-R V Spec that day (now I'm just bragging).

rhythmnsmoke

01-17-2006, 04:27 AM

Good kill....Keep up the good work. I lost to a Spec V by about half a hand. It was super close. That was the only race at the track we had that night that was a close one. I race a Teggy that night too, and him off the line and everything. He couldn't catch up, but then I freakin mis-shifted going into 3rd, and lost. Didn't get a chance to redeem myself, as these were the finals. Then the Teggy turns around and looses to some crappy car, all because of misinformation. The teggy had like a breather, header, intake, exhaust, and some other goodies.

Phixeus

01-17-2006, 12:13 PM

Hp sells and Tq moves. like i said before i love civic dyno's

500 hp 25 lbftq

schwettynuts

01-17-2006, 03:39 PM

I just rode an 06 si last night. SI is better for sure. But if I had to make my decision again for the price, the look, and the stuff comes with it, I would still have chosed the tC.

senseiturtle

01-17-2006, 04:03 PM

ack154

01-17-2006, 04:25 PM

So... all "tC vs Si" crap aside... I just sent an email to Edmunds pretty much asking what kind of crack they're smoking to get $26k.

Here's what I sent:

Hi... I'm just looking for a little more info on what exactly was in your test Scion tC that brought it anywhere near a $26k price tag you mention. Even with the 18" wheels from the dealer, the strut brace from the dealer and the SuperCharger from the dealer, it would only come out to around $22k + tax and tags.

5speed base price: $17,000 (with delivery charge)
18" wheels: $1600
supercharger: $3500 installed
strut bar: $250

Total: $22,350.

Where is the other $4k?

I own a Scion tC and am a member on one of the prominent Scion websites and we can't figure out how in the world you came up with that number. And frankly, we think it just makes the tC look bad - especially saying that the $26k price tag is "hard to swallow." It's not $26k!!!!

The new Si is about $20k. The tC with JUST the supercharger is about $20.5k. Why not do a comparison with those numbers? Why add the 18" wheels and the strut bar (and whatever else you managed to find for that extra $4k).

Please... all that I ask is that someone reply with what exactly the price was for. There is an extra $4k somewhere and it's making the tC look way more expensive than it really is.

Thanks!

Phixeus

01-17-2006, 05:10 PM

Hp sells and Tq moves. like i said before i love civic dyno's

500 hp 25 lbftq

HP is the only figure necessary when determining acceleration. Torque numbers is somewhat worthless figure, as is there just to give you an idea of low end HP. Higher torque motors "get up and go" at lower RPM better due to a larger HP figure at that RPM.

Compare a F-series diesel truck and an F1 car. Weight issues aside, the 800hp/250 ft-lb racing motor will always destroy the 350hp/600 ft-lb truck.

A better comparison... Golf TDI vs. EP3 si. 90HP/180 ft-lbs vs. 160hp/130 ft-lbs. The 160hp motor will always win, even though its far behind in torque and near equal in weight.

There are several members on here who have made their mission to make it seem like the tC is the worst performing car in the scion lineup. It's bad enough the rest of the world dogs the tC, let alone other scion owners touting under 100 whp.

no i get the numbers, but an equal balance is what i thought the goal was. any way i was getting at the rediculas gap between the 2 on performance Honda motors.

back to the tC. as with any car the factory set us is for longevity and reliability. the tC was not designed for the pourpose for which most of us are going to use it. however we where givin a great platform. the motor is good and responds very well to boost, however as you will find with all cars that were designed to be N/A at high psi they all have problems. this is why people get new blocks, heads, pistons, rods, cranks, and cams. out of the box the tC might be slower but if i invest the difference in price into my tC i would be able to kill any car in the $20 to $25K range.

i paid $16,800 for mine and if i had $ 4 to $9 K into the car, ohh just imagine. your biggest problem then is competing with AWD cars for the hole shot. the Scion line was partialy developed for economy. low pice, low mx, and low fuel consumption. but i dont think i could have found a better NEW car for $16,800. granted i could have gotten a used SRT 4 or something, but really who wants to drive a Neon. i mean Mopar or No Car but not that car! hell i would have gotten a Cobalt SS but it was almost $10,000 more. and my buddy has one and eats gas.

as for the Civic being around longer that the tC, over the life span of that car, not one model has been the same as the last. every model and nearly every motor has been different in some way. so it shows to me that Honda did not get it right the first time. the reason that the new Si has the 200 hp motor in it this year is b/c Honda found out that every one was dropin the Teggy motor in the last edition. so who is Honda really cometing with, Scion or Acura?

it still looks like crap. but it is improving.

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 06:21 PM

Hp sells and Tq moves. like i said before i love civic dyno's

500 hp 25 lbftq

HP is the only figure necessary when determining acceleration. Torque numbers is somewhat worthless figure, as is there just to give you an idea of low end HP. Higher torque motors "get up and go" at lower RPM better due to a larger HP figure at that RPM.

Compare a F-series diesel truck and an F1 car. Weight issues aside, the 800hp/250 ft-lb racing motor will always destroy the 350hp/600 ft-lb truck.

A better comparison... Golf TDI vs. EP3 si. 90HP/180 ft-lbs vs. 160hp/130 ft-lbs. The 160hp motor will always win, even though its far behind in torque and near equal in weight.

There are several members on here who have made their mission to make it seem like the tC is the worst performing car in the scion lineup. It's bad enough the rest of the world dogs the tC, let alone other scion owners touting under 100 whp.

I love how people act on here. You don't like what someone says, oh, he drives an xb, so lets through the clever comment "you drive a car with a 1.5l 1nz. like you know what potential is." Wow, great call catching the obvious that i drive a box. And yes, xb will never be a drag queen but kind of think of it, i don't drag. Neither did i drag much when i built the gs-r, even though i ran low 13's n/a. (i could have done more to it, but i was pretty happy with that)

I don't have a problem with the tC, and i've stated that i don't know how many times. It's funny how just because i believe the Si is a better performance compact than the tC with a better platform for performance/potential, i'm automatically hating on the tC and think its worthless. It's amusing, and thats probably why other car forums make fun of the tC. Not because its a bad car, but because some of the owners think they drive some amazing compact that could easily smoke anything. It gives the rest of tC owners a bad name. Some of the tC guys i'm friends with, would more than likely agree with me.

datrickster24

01-17-2006, 06:33 PM

pfffft, i still think SC tc > civic si

-Dan

Phixeus

01-17-2006, 06:52 PM

Hp sells and Tq moves. like i said before i love civic dyno's

500 hp 25 lbftq

HP is the only figure necessary when determining acceleration. Torque numbers is somewhat worthless figure, as is there just to give you an idea of low end HP. Higher torque motors "get up and go" at lower RPM better due to a larger HP figure at that RPM.

Compare a F-series diesel truck and an F1 car. Weight issues aside, the 800hp/250 ft-lb racing motor will always destroy the 350hp/600 ft-lb truck.

A better comparison... Golf TDI vs. EP3 si. 90HP/180 ft-lbs vs. 160hp/130 ft-lbs. The 160hp motor will always win, even though its far behind in torque and near equal in weight.

There are several members on here who have made their mission to make it seem like the tC is the worst performing car in the scion lineup. It's bad enough the rest of the world dogs the tC, let alone other scion owners touting under 100 whp.

I love how people act on here. You don't like what someone says, oh, he drives an xb, so lets through the clever comment "you drive a car with a 1.5l 1nz. like you know what potential is." Wow, great call catching the obvious that i drive a box. And yes, xb will never be a drag queen but kind of think of it, i don't drag. Neither did i drag much when i built the gs-r, even though i ran low 13's n/a. (i could have done more to it, but i was pretty happy with that)

I don't have a problem with the tC, and i've stated that i don't know how many times. It's funny how just because i believe the Si is a better performance compact than the tC with a better platform for performance/potential, i'm automatically hating on the tC and think its worthless. It's amusing, and thats probably why other car forums make fun of the tC. Not because its a bad car, but because some of the owners think they drive some amazing compact that could easily smoke anything. It gives the rest of tC owners a bad name. Some of the tC guys i'm friends with, would more than likely agree with me.

wow, thats not what i was getting at at all. but good points however. i got the tC b/c it was cheap and different. all platforms have potintial. i was getting at is that most civic owners have gone for the high hp number and therefor sacrificed better performance else where. i think the Si is a nice car but i also think that Honda is over shooting the mark. it is aiming very high. all in all i would still pick the tC but i would not bag on someone for having a Civic or any other sport compact, well except maybe Mazdas b/c i hate thoes cars. bad experiance.

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 07:06 PM

^ Well look at that, someone else agrees and/or sees my points made eariler.

tC is a nice car but:
-Built to be a cheap, reliable quick car that has standard features that most don't for that price range. (especially)
-Built on fuel economy, not performance

Tq alone doesn't win races, nor does hp. I've already said this once and if anyone tries to argue with that, well, that shows how much knowledge you really have.

Both are nice cars, tC is not a performance compact though. Face the facts, that does not mean it can't produce good numbers nor does that mean the tC can't be built overall to perform well, but like i said before....Si is made to perform, it was designed to perform. K20z1 like it or not guys, is a better platform to start with than the 2az. 2az came out of a camry, okay. Realize that. Economy motor.

I will say it once i will say it again, if Toyota really wanted to strive performance on the tC they wouldn't have dropped the 2az in there. They would have went for something like the 2zz from the gt-s. That would be a much better platform to start with than the 2az. Much more aftermarket too.

atodak

01-17-2006, 07:30 PM

I know there are turbo'd gts' out there but I've heard from a few companies that the 2zz already has high compression and does not respond well reliability wise to boost......

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 07:42 PM

I know there are turbo'd gts' out there but I've heard from a few companies that the 2zz already has high compression and does not respond well reliability wise to boost......

Its a good motor for n/a build ups, and if you want to run safe on boost swap pistons.

rhythmnsmoke

01-17-2006, 08:08 PM

schwettynuts

01-17-2006, 08:21 PM

plus.. I dont think tC's fuel economy is that great.. maybe its just the way I drive? :lalala: And yes, arguing on the internet is retarded.

Here is my take, if someone would give me a straight trade for my rs1 with 06 Si, sure I will take it. But if i had to spend my money between the 2, i would take the tC. Just better for $$. Yes Si is nice but the price and the body style makes me look the other way.

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 09:42 PM

^^haahaaa....dude you seriously crack me up. The more I read your post, the more I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

I love how people put on this visad that Oh...they must have just took all the camry motors and just straight dropped them into the tC. Call up ZPI and ask Kenny exactly how similar the Camry motor is to that of the tC...I think you are in for a surprise.

HP is for bragging rights, TQ wins races...Now how is that so. The 1/4 mile is not that long. So, if I have really good low end TQ, vs a car with the TQ power of a lawnmower but high HP. When we launch off the line, I'm going to automatically jump on him. By the time he starts to catch up (due to having high HP numbers), I would have already crossed the 1/4 mile marker.

You say the SI was built for performance, and the tC was built for fuel economy, not performance. Damn if we keep up with the new 06 SI now, and smoke all previous SI's, then man what would the SI do if Toyota decides to build it for more performance than "fuel economy" as you stated.

Here let me be a little more blunt...You would have to pay me to trade in the tC for any Civic including an SI. The new styling blows big ones. Looks like someone took a pancake iron to an Accord.

We can theorize all we want to.....Oh the SI should win this, and the tC should win that. Theories here and there. The ONLY fact that I know of is, that I have smoked SI's. If you want a performance 4cyl, go get a Teggy, then we can talk. But don't show up with an SI unless it's the 06 model. Otherwise it will be like an ALi vs. George Forman fight. Quick 1, 2 and you are in my rearview!

PS...Lol..I love internet arguments. People take things so seriously. And everybody is an EXPERT!

The more i read your post, is like wise how you feel about me. :rofl: First of all, a tC (stock) can not beat a 06' Si, so i don't know how you are figuring you can keep up with it. Stock for stock, the 06' will smoke any tC. Second of all, both 2az's (camry and tC) are very similar, infact the differences between the two motors is about the same as the differences between the k20z1 and k20z3. Theres not a whole lot of difference, sure, there are some i agree, but not enough to make it sound like they are two completely different motors man.

You say you want performance go get a teggie, i already did. And you already know this, and incase you forgot i am the one that built a 231whp @ 7,100rpm (8,600rpm redline) gs-r that ran 1/4 in low 13's with custom made gears. (very close ratio 5spd) So, don't talk to me about if you want performance get an integra.

Now, as far as tC and Si goes. Yes, you are correct you will jump out in front off the line. I'm not denying that at all, you are absolutely correct. Pretty obvious, we all know honda motors are built for top end (90% of motors they make at any rate) and the 2az is more of a low-mid range motor. However, that doesn't mean you win in the end. Being this is about an 06' Si, the Si will catch up pretty fast, i'd say 2nd gear Si would be right beside a tC, end of 2nd Si will be ahead, and it would be over after that.

As for your other comments, fine, you don't like the styling of the Si or other civics. Thats opinion, and i respect that so long as you can respect someone else with other opinions. Which, so far on this thread you really haven't shown me that much respect. Looks doesn't judge how well a car performs, so that comment is pretty useless on the performance department.

Facts are facts, you are pretty bais with the tC as most of you guys. I have given both cars credit numerous times, some of you have yet to do so. (which i might add, fair credit and credit worthy.)

I'll post the credits again incase this is brought up:

06' Si:
-Built strongly on performance
-Solid, and great platform to build and start from. No matter how big or small you are wanting to go with it.
-Great fuel economy given what it is.
-Personal opinion, looks great.
-Great price ($19,990 don't bring up mid 20's crap, because thats not actual pricing. Only a few brave dealership will's.)
-Pretty good standard features
-Great motor

tC:
-Built to be quick, comfortable, reliable and affordable
-Fair platform to build from, potential is there but not like Si (especially whp per liter)
-Great standard features
-Personal opinion, looks pretty good
-Great gas milage given what it is
-Okay motor, oversized, underpowered. Not the best motor to start from but as stated above, there is potential there...just not as easy as k20.

So as you see, both have great things about them. But don't think the 2az is some great 4cyl with endless potential. Some of you guys thing its the best n/a 4cyl ever, or at least thats how it sounds. Its a good motor, but like i've said above.

hahaitzskippy

01-17-2006, 10:18 PM

rhythmnsmoke

01-17-2006, 10:25 PM

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 10:27 PM

SI > TC
in performance...

ask me which one looks better
TC > SI any day. many to almost all car review mags said teh same.

and ask if i would trade my TC for an SI

the answer is NO

stop this pointless argueing. NA vs NA. the FG coupe SI will win. dont believe me? why dont u race against one and back it up. if you beat the SI. switch cars and race again. see who wins.

and those TC biased people...
why arent tehre TC's in amatuer or professional races!?!?

i believe an SI won an event recently...

now if you wanna put on a turbo kit or SC... im not gonna say anythign about that, no personal experience and i dont tink there is sufficient data...

how bout we keep this down on earth

facts are facts and opinions will remain your opinions

so lets stop the arguing

:clap: :clap: Thank you! Finally someone that can state an opinion and actual facts, without trying to shut me or anyone else down.

As for f/i, k20z1 really doesn't have too many f/i set ups out. k20z3 has a few, k20a has a ton, k20a2 has a ton, and most other honda motors do. k20z1 has more n/a products for aftermarket vs. f/i... However, from my experience with honda's i would say that the k20z1 with a overall build up for boost, would out do the 2az. I can't say for sure, but i believe it would.

Reason why i say this is because the k20a can produce 350whp+ on boost safely with a build up to hold boost, psi levels are only 1-3psi difference between this example of 350whpish compared to zpi stage 1 for the 295-300whp tC.

Honda motors respond extremely well to mods, reason being is they are made more so for performance compared to toyota's in the same class. Example would be Si and tC.

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 10:32 PM

For the record Killerxromances...I didn't say the tC would BEAT and 06 SI. I said it would keep up with it. Now, if it isn't an 06, then it's getting walked no matter how many times you race.

By the way, I think this was the vid someone was looking for in a couple of post back (possibly one of those other tc vs. SI threads).

This is pretty much the view the SI gets when I ever race one.

http://thumbs.streetfire.net/A41F1563-3B22-406C-ABEC-19B34890A31A.jpg (http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=A41F1563-3B22-406C-ABEC-19B34890A31A)Click here to see Video (http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=A41F1563-3B22-406C-ABEC-19B34890A31A)

Then do what hahaitzskippy said and trade, i am willing to bet money you would win again driving the Si.

You can show me videos if you want, which is fine thats cool. Always fun to watch. However, i know for a fact tC is almost equal to the previous Si.

Lets see, i can take your word for it or someone who has been doing this kind of stuff for years...and raced someone with a few years of experience as well. No offense to your stories, but they are 95% equal with performance. (previous Si and tC) Like it or not, it really doesn't matter. Like i mentioned, do what haha said and swap, then lets hear you talk.

rhythmnsmoke

01-17-2006, 11:09 PM

kungpaosamuraiii

01-17-2006, 11:23 PM

Well the new parameters are that you should switch cars. If you ever get a chance to, please do.

rhythmnsmoke, I just have one thing to add at this moment in defense of the torqueless engines that Honda makes.

There are number B18s running 10's and less in the 1/4. Also, a lot of them are daily drivers. When the tC can do that I'll be impressed but I have my doubts of daily drivability at that point.

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 11:26 PM

Then do what hahaitzskippy said and trade, i am willing to bet money you would win again driving the Si.

You can show me videos if you want, which is fine thats cool. Always fun to watch. However, i know for a fact tC is almost equal to the previous Si.

Lets see, i can take your word for it or someone who has been doing this kind of stuff for years...and raced someone with a few years of experience as well. No offense to your stories, but they are 95% equal with performance. (previous Si and tC) Like it or not, it really doesn't matter. Like i mentioned, do what haha said and swap, then lets hear you talk.

It's funny how someone disproves a theory, the person who is so set up to believe it want's to change the parameters. Oh, well lets see it on a track...well, change the tires on the SI....well, how about a short shifter in the SI....Excuses, Excuses, Excuses. That's the problem with arguing over the internet. Someone ALWAYS has an excuse or wants to change the terms of the race. Give me a break bro. :tap:

How much whp you think you will get out of a k20a if boosted to 14psi? 14psi will net you around 400whp if not more on the 2az(hate using their name here, but ScionSpeed netted 426whp on 17-18psi.) Civic motors would have to be somewhere in the 25-30psi range to get that much whp.

You can not make the same whp on a 1.6 - 1.8L engine running at the same psi level as a 2.4L engine. The 2.4L will see higher #'s on the dyno purely from having a larger displacement (you cant change physics). Not to mention, 295-350whp has been seen on UN-BUILT 2az's.

Although not highly recommended, we don't need to BUILD the motor to see 295-300+ whp.

PS...you keep talking about the same two guys that you saw race. And your basis is off of 4 total races, with two guys driving. I don't think that qualifiies them as spokes people for the potential or estimated outcome of a race between a tC and 99-04 SI. If I had to chose, I would put my money on the tC everytime.

Your stories are no more valid than my stories. But I kinda ONE-UP'd you with the vid though... :rofl: :rofl:

Excuses? Dude, i said switch drivers not switch parts. You are the one, as well as others, that tend to find reasons as to why the s/c tC tied with an 06' Si on that magizine coverage. Not me, so don't even bring up excuses on my part.

Displacement doesn't prove that per psi gains will be more on a 2az vs. k20. All displacement proves, as generally speaking you can get more power overall vs. a smaller displacement motor. However, 1.8l's running 9's 1/4 kind of disproves the no replacement for displacement deal.

Scionspeed may have netted 400whp+, but scionspeed has also had quite a few complaints with ruined motors. Their also the last company you would want to buy a turbo kit from. 400whp on a 2az, not build up at all wont last much longer than weeks, maybe a month or so.

Also, 14psi does not give the 2az 400whp, it will be in the 300's. K20a with 14psi will probably give you in the range of 310-340whp. On the 2az, it would give you around 370whp. Sure, there is a difference but that doesn't prove anything. Neither motor would last that long without building up the internals and a few other things. So that doesn't really prove anything. All that proves is both motors would be in the 300's and both wouldn't last very long.

Yes, the races with my friend doesn't account for all si tc races nor does that make them spokes people. However, just because you have raced doesn't make you either. Guess what, no one is an "offical" spokes person. :rofl: However, the people that raced in the tc/si were professionals at what they do. You, from what i know, are not. And from what i saw in the video, Si driver obviously isn't.

rhythmnsmoke

01-17-2006, 11:42 PM

rhythmnsmoke

01-18-2006, 12:00 AM

Excuses? Dude, i said switch drivers not switch parts. You are the one, as well as others, that tend to find reasons as to why the s/c tC tied with an 06' Si on that magizine coverage. Not me, so don't even bring up excuses on my part.

Changing drivers is a parameter/codition/term of the race. Changes after the outcome does not go in your favor is....Say it With Me....An Excuse.

Just a little fact for you,

reported 06 SI 1/4 run = 15.1

best reported S/C tC 1/4 run = 14.8

Since when does 14.8 can't keep up with 15.1?

Displacement doesn't prove that per psi gains will be more on a 2az vs. k20. All displacement proves, as generally speaking you can get more power overall vs. a smaller displacement motor. However, 1.8l's running 9's 1/4 kind of disproves the no replacement for displacement deal.

You say this....

Then you turn around and contradict yourself by saying the following...

Also, 14psi does not give the 2az 400whp, it will be in the 300's. K20a with 14psi will probably give you in the range of 310-340whp. On the 2az, it would give you around 370whp. Sure, there is a difference but that doesn't prove anything. Neither motor would last that long without building up the internals and a few other things. So that doesn't really prove anything. All that proves is both motors would be in the 300's and both wouldn't last very long.

[quote]Scionspeed may have netted 400whp+, but scionspeed has also had quite a few complaints with ruined motors. Their also the last company you would want to buy a turbo kit from. 400whp on a 2az, not build up at all wont last much longer than weeks, maybe a month or so.

No one was talking about them as a company. Stop reading into it so much. I'm a ZPI customer bro.

Yes, the races with my friend doesn't account for all si tc races nor does that make them spokes people. However, just because you have raced doesn't make you either. Guess what, no one is an "offical" spokes person. Roll On Floor Laughing However, the people that raced in the tc/si were professionals at what they do. You, from what i know, are not. And from what i saw in the video, Si driver obviously isn't.

So, if I'm not a professional, and the SI driver I'm going against is not a professional...Wouldn't that make it a fair race? To Which I Whooped That A$$
:rofl: :rofl:

killerxromances

01-18-2006, 12:11 AM

^^You have to keep in mind that those same 10sec B18's are in a car that weighs no where near as much as the tC does. Therefore, a Civic with a swapped boosted motor doesn't have to put down a lot of whp to see it dip into the 13's, 12's, 11's.

So, the trade off is, they are lighter with less power. We have to be heavier with a lot more power. See where I'm coming from? Kenny@ZPI has dipped into the 12.4 sec 1/4 range, without an LSD, without gear ratio changes, without Built motor. And that was with a full interior. They want to make it into the 11's. I think if he where to gutt it, they would see 11's. And the Qualife LSD (expected to be released later this year), who knows what #'s they will see in the 1/4.

Yes, i am fully aware of power to weight and what it can do for you. But thats not the point, in order to reach 9sec 1/4 times you have to have a power, regardless unless you weigh 1,000lbs. Which then it becomes traction problems.

Kenny's tC doesn't just have a turbo slapped on either, he (if i'm not mistaken) has the most built 2az on here thats daily. hes also pushing more whp than 290-300whp last time i checked. I could be wrong, and if i am i will admit it but thats what i understand.

But you also have Si's, and other fairly similar weight hondas compared to the tC running 13's on n/a. I have yet to see a n/a tC break 14's regularly. Boosting is the easy way out. What i want to see is fully built n/a 2az's running 13's. Because until i see it, i seriously doubt its going to happen. I mean, with my old tegra for example. I was running constant low 13's with custom gearing, yes. But i had 231whp, i've seen 230whpish tC's only run high 14's, custom gearing won't shave that much time off.

Which brings me back to the point, the tC is not a performance car. If the Toyota wanted it to be an affordable performance compact, they could have done it. But guess what, they didn't. If they really wanted to focus more on performance, the tC wouldn't have a almost complete glass roof that weighs a ton. It wouldn't have the 2az, and there would be other differences and they could have done different standard features to still set it apart from others in its class. But they didn't. Its quick, it does have potential, yes. But how reliable will the tC be running high boost? Time will tell, theres already signs.

Also, no two non-professionals don't make it fair. The guy is not good at driving, apparently. And you are better at driving, which is obvious from the video.

killerxromances

01-18-2006, 12:21 AM

Quote:
Displacement doesn't prove that per psi gains will be more on a 2az vs. k20. All displacement proves, as generally speaking you can get more power overall vs. a smaller displacement motor. However, 1.8l's running 9's 1/4 kind of disproves the no replacement for displacement deal.

You say this....

Then you turn around and contradict yourself by saying the following...

[quote]Also, 14psi does not give the 2az 400whp, it will be in the 300's. K20a with 14psi will probably give you in the range of 310-340whp. On the 2az, it would give you around 370whp. Sure, there is a difference but that doesn't prove anything. Neither motor would last that long without building up the internals and a few other things. So that doesn't really prove anything. All that proves is both motors would be in the 300's and both wouldn't last very long.

And notice i said both around, i was giving those numbers as examples i could see producing. However, it could very well be the k20 higher, or both motors even. But you figure 340whp to 370whp, theres really not a big difference. A lot depends on the actual set up and other things that go into it, its hard to just say 10psi delivers ___ on ____ motor.

But i don't see how i contradicted myself, i said generally speaking. Which, displacement doesn't prove overall gains of specific mods. However, i do know the k20a turbo'd at 15.5-16psi puts it right at 350whp. I don't know specifics either. The ZPI stage 1 turbo is, 12psi? Some where around there sounds about right, which puts the 2az around 290-300whp. Just say 12psi and 300whp, you asked for 14psi..Two more psi would probably put the 2az around 320-330whp. Okay, lets say 330whp. The k20 take away around two psi from 350 would put it around 320-330whp. They are equal given the ZPI stage 1 is around 12psi, i forget actual levels.

But as i stated before, this proves nothing because without a built motor, at very least tranny work, some internal's and bottom end these motors, both of them, would give out very quickly. Which i might add, boosting a stock n/a motor is retarded.

kungpaosamuraiii

01-18-2006, 12:37 AM

I'm sorry, the argument is REALLY convoluted now.

I was going to say something but.. it wouldn't've made sense in context. What was the point, originally?

killerxromances

01-18-2006, 12:40 AM

I'm sorry, the argument is REALLY convoluted now.

I was going to say something but.. it wouldn't've made sense in context. What was the point, originally?

My point never changed. K20 is a better platform to start with than the 2az as far as potential and performance goes. Overall, Si is a better performance car than the tC...But, most people posting tend to believe the tC can beat Si's all day long...After that, it gets complex. :rofl:

rhythmnsmoke

01-18-2006, 12:44 AM

killerxromances

01-18-2006, 12:54 AM

ZPI Stage 1 is 10-10.5 psi. There are a couple of tC's running 10psi and have been for some time, on UN-Built motors.

Kenny is on 11psi by the way. I should know, I go up there about every 3 weeks.

But you figure 340whp to 370whp, theres really not a big difference.

30whp is not that big of a difference, you said it first.

06 SI = 197hp

05 tC = 160hp

197-160 = 37hp

I just love doing that to people....lol.

Do you even know why people build up their motors? ONE answer is so they can boost without to many problems. But what other explanations can you give?

Also, no two non-professionals don't make it fair. The guy is not good at driving, apparently. And you are better at driving, which is obvious from the video.

By the way, that's not my vid, nor is that me in the vid. I found that on streetfire.net.
Also, I take it by your statement that this is a DRIVERS race. So, why do you find it so hard to believe that we walked an SI?

Yes, i did say it first. 30whp is not a big difference..However, what you are not taking into consideration is the fact that 30whp is a big difference when you talking about 130-140whp and 170-180whp. However, the more power you are putting down the less 30whp matters. For instance, 1,000whp and 1,030whp..Yeah, you really aren't going to notice that 30whp of a difference.

Not to mention, the Si will be able to take better use of the whp vs. the 2az. 2az has extreme wheel hop and other traction issues once you reach 250whp+. The Si wouldn't, not to mention you are putting that power into a car thats made to perform. tC isn't. If i had to place a bet, on which car would last longer. 300whp tC or 300whp Si, with identical set ups, my money is going on the Si.

rhythmnsmoke

01-18-2006, 12:56 AM

Although close race, another example that TQ wins races.

RalliArt with just an Exhaust

VS

SI with Intake, Header, and Exhaust

http://thumbs.streetfire.net/4FC42314-0474-494A-852C-E2950FA28F56.jpg (http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=4FC42314-0474-494A-852C-E2950FA28F56)Click here to see Video (http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=4FC42314-0474-494A-852C-E2950FA28F56)

rhythmnsmoke

01-18-2006, 01:03 AM

davedavetC

01-18-2006, 01:06 AM

rhythmnsmoke

01-18-2006, 01:09 AM

^^Haaahaaa...you crack me up. I'm was working on a grill today. Got it all finished up, now I just need to get it shipped.

killerxromances

01-18-2006, 01:13 AM

hahah this thread title should be changed to either SI vs TC again, or rhythmnsmoke vs Killerxromances lol just my 2 cents :P lol between the 2 of you you know who my money is on hahah (seen as how that person already got some of my money :rofl: :rofl: ) :silly: :silly:

:rofl: :rofl: I knew he was buying people to agree with him. lol, jk rhythmn.

It should be called rhythmnsmoke vs killerxromances, i mean for the past 3 pages its mostly been me and him. Although we disagree, i do respect him in the end. Hopefully he shares the same respect back, in the end its just cars and as long as we can respect each other and each others opinions its all in fun game.

davedavetC

01-18-2006, 01:24 AM

^^Haaahaaa...you crack me up. I'm was working on a grill today. Got it all finished up, now I just need to get it shipped.

hehe its good to see i coulp help you out by getting your name out, but may i suggest one thing, you should go back and edit each one of you post before so that while each person is getting into this little arguement will see subliminally, *want a custom grill for your tC pm me* hahah it may work :silly: :silly:

killerxromances

01-18-2006, 01:25 AM

Yes, i did say it first. 30whp is not a big difference..However, what you are not taking into consideration is the fact that 30whp is a big difference when you talking about 130-140whp and 170-180whp.

I have yet to see a Dyno chart to verify the SI puts down 170-180whp. Until there is factual proof, we can only theorize and speculate.

And don't forget, the tC puts down MORE TQ to the WHEELS, than the SI has rated at the CRANK. So, where you say it's a bigger difference in low HP#'s, the tC makes up for it in TQ to the GROUND.

And I have said YES, stock vs stock, the 2006 Civic SI will beat the 2005 Scion tC in a race down the 1/4 mile. But it's going to be probably by a car lenght, which isn't enough for me to trade in a tC for an SI. Which Has Been The ONE Thing I Have Been Trying To Say From The Start Of This Whole Argument!

Well, 170-180whp is very accurate given its fwd and everything. I would be extremely, extremely surprised if it was less than 170whp.

As i've said before, tq alone does not win races..Anyone that knows anything about motors, drivetrains and racing knows this. Its a combination of things that overall allows a motor to out perform others. HP and TQ must work together in order to make a difference, not just one and not just the other. Not to mention, gearing also can effect things, lsd or not lsd, drivetrains, probably about another 20 little things to add on top of that.

Also, above you mentioned how the Si runs 15.1 and the s/c tC has ran as low as 14.8. While you are correct, few people do reach (very few) 14's with just a s/c, but with the same driver the Si can run 14.9-15.0 stock. With that said, a tC with s/c is almost identical to 1/4 times with a stock Si. Not your "s/c tC will smoke the living crap out of a stock Si" theories. You should know driver plays everything in racing, no matter if its 1/4, rally, road courses or whatever. I bet you someone than can take a s/c tC and run 14.9, you put them in a Si and the Si will be able to pull 14.9-15.0.

Even if we went with your theory of best time a Si could do is 15.1 stock (which is incorrect), and the best time a s/c tC (again, just s/c) of 14.8. Thats .3seconds faster, thats hardly "smoking" a stock Si. Not to mention, the tC has to be boosted inorder to even do that where as a stock Si does it..well, stock. You run the same psi on the Si that the tC is running, with a pretty much identical set up as far as f/i goes, the Si will win easily. But i know i know, "in order to be fair the tC needs the s/c to race a stock Si 1/4."

davedavetC

01-18-2006, 01:28 AM

^^^ :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: i knew the peace wouldnt last long,

NOW BACK TO YOUR SCHEDULED PROGRAM LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:eyebrow: :eyebrow: :eyebrow:

:lol: :lol:

actually i didnt even read it sorry killer, haha i just saw you quoting him and then you speak :rofl: :rofl:

THERE EDITED JUST FOR YOU KILLER

killerxromances

01-18-2006, 01:31 AM

^^^ :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: i knew the peace wouldnt last long,

NOT BACK TO YOUR SCEDULED PROGRAM LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

:lol: :lol:

actually i didnt even read it sorry killer, haha i just saw you quoting him and then you speak

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: You might want to edit that post and instead of not, say now, and instead of sceduled, put scheduled. :P

And whats peace? :rofl: jk

Phixeus

01-18-2006, 01:32 AM

davedavetC

01-18-2006, 01:33 AM

rhythmnsmoke

01-18-2006, 01:36 AM

^^Man, of course I do. You can only take what people say with a grain of salt. ESPECIALLY on the Internet.

I do have a question for you though...where is this Teggy that you built? Is it just your weekend warrior and you drive the xB as a daily driver? Do you have any pics or vid of the Teggy?

killerxromances

01-18-2006, 01:37 AM

oh sweet poetic justice. there is a guy who live around the corner from me that i caught comming home today that happens to have, you guessed it, an 06 Si. with the route we take home i have 2 things for you, from a roll on the high way, they are dead even match, but from a red light, i took him got 1 and 1/2 lengths and stayed there. so how is that, oh and the other guy has lots of racing exper. he just dropped an 02 S2000 to get it. he ran that car at the track every weekend in the high 11's low 12's. my tC bone stock with TWM SS. but that car is loud and rev happy. what does that thing red at? it sure does sound a lot like the new teggy.

1. I call bs on the redlight thing, bone stock tC runs very high high 15's to low 16's, stock Si runs very low 15's to 14.9ish with a very good driver. From a roll on the highway, that doesn't matter at all. Starting out at that speeds, most cars will run evenly matched.

And the Si redlines at 8,000rpm.

aslugger3b

01-18-2006, 01:45 AM

i work at honda and drive the si. to be honest with u its not fast at all. i test drove it with a mechanic and it wasnt as fast as it should be. the rsx is 10 times faster than the si. handling is way better but over not very impressed especially with the price too. i spoke with a gentleamn who bought one and after taxes and everything he spend almost 30k with the navi. the seats look like the seat that my friend has in is hatchback si. its looks cheap. the dash navi and handling are the only 3 things that impress me . after wanting one i rather stick with my tc and make more power with the 2.4L then the 2.0L honda si

rhythmnsmoke

01-18-2006, 01:46 AM

Even if we went with your theory of best time a Si could do is 15.1 stock (which is incorrect), and the best time a s/c tC (again, just s/c) of 14.8. Thats .3seconds faster, thats hardly "smoking" a stock Si. Not to mention, the tC has to be boosted inorder to even do that where as a stock Si does it..well, stock. You run the same psi on the Si that the tC is running, with a pretty much identical set up as far as f/i goes, the Si will win easily. But i know i know, "in order to be fair the tC needs the s/c to race a stock Si 1/4."

The argument is not the S/C tC would KILL an SI. The argument was that they were equal, if not the tC would edge out a slight victory.

And you mentioned
Not to mention, the tC has to be boosted inorder to even do that where as a stock Si does it..well, stock

My rebutal to that is the SI has to cost 4k dollars more to out do a stock tC. :nope:

rhythmnsmoke

01-18-2006, 02:12 AM

ryno379

01-18-2006, 03:04 AM

VTAAAAKKK BABY VTAAAAKKKK!!!

http://thumbs.streetfire.net/9234163D-46D3-461E-9355-3CA6914D2E7A.jpg (http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=9234163D-46D3-461E-9355-3CA6914D2E7A)Click here to see Video (http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=9234163D-46D3-461E-9355-3CA6914D2E7A)

PS...not my vid, and not me driving either.

Question, at what point does it become fair. Or do we have to automatically ASSUME that every tC driver that walks an SI must be better at driving?

I know what you mean. Last summer I beat a mid 90's Civic EX that was turbocharged (very close, but I still won). After the race he was like "wellI just got the car and I'm not used to it". This was when my tC was still stock.

kungpaosamuraiii

01-18-2006, 03:12 AM

Fair is when drivers switch cars to determine whether the cars or the drivers won.

If you win one and lose one it's the cars. If you win both it's the driver.

rhythmnsmoke

01-18-2006, 03:14 AM

^^heehee...there is an excuse for everything.

rhythmnsmoke

01-18-2006, 03:18 AM

Fair is when drivers switch cars to determine whether the cars or the drivers won.

If you win one and lose one it's the cars. If you win both it's the driver.

Yeah, I'm sure that I'm going to trust every total STRANGER out there to drive the tC while I drive his car. YEAH, I'm sure to have a good time explaining to the insurance company as to why some dude that I don't know had the keys to my car and wrecked it. OR BETTER YET, stole our tC, because he got tired of driving his slow SI. :rofl: :rofl:

VTAAAAAKKKK OW3N's YOU.

Seriously dude, That is the most unheard of logic I have ever read. No one goes around playing Musical Cars to find out who will beat who. You Race What You Bring end of story!

Seeing as how we can't get you to be a man about it, and except the fact that stock vs stock the tC is faster than all previous SI's, I guess we are only to believe that everyone that walks an SI must be the better driver, and infact it's not the cars at all.

Well, I thank you for the compliment that I'm a better driver than ALL SI drivers driving previous SI's.

rhythmnsmoke

01-18-2006, 03:53 AM

senseiturtle

01-18-2006, 05:20 AM

http://www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=100998

me vs. a well-driven ep3 Si.
video

tC - Intake, header
Si - Intake, exhaust

Cliffs - he gets the win light, I run better E.T. and MPH.

The previous generation Si and the tC are dead even. They were even when we were both stock, and they're still equal now with very few mods.

Timeslip is also posted on that thread. You'll see how even the drivers are, too.

atodak

01-18-2006, 12:01 PM

killerxromances

01-18-2006, 09:17 PM

By the way Killerxromances...You said that if they wanted to have performance out of the tC, then they should have went with the Celica motor right?

How many boosted Celicas are out there. History shows, that the motor doesn't respond well to boost. You would have to upgrade a lot more internals to get the Celica motor to handle as much boost as we have seen plenty of tC's handle on this very message board.

If equipped with a Celica motor, aftermarket support for the tC would be 10times slower. And there would be no where near as many Boosted tC's as we have now.

You keep bringing up boost, f/i set ups is not the only way to build a motor. For n/a support, the 2zz would respond much better than the 2az. And again, 2az hasn't been being boosted long enough to judge. For all we know, another year down the road and 20 boosted tCs had to replace or rebuild their motors due to high boost.

And 2zz doesn't go well with boost with stock compression mostly, swap the pistons and do a few other things it can handle over a long period of time around 8-9psi. Build it up more and it can handle more.

But like i said, boost isn't everything. Plus, i was giving the 2zz platform as an example, the point was if toyota wanted to push performance the 2az would not have been the motor they would have put in there.

And read what senseiturtle said, someone else who raced a previous Si that also says they are equal.

tC is not faster than all previous Si's, :blah: . You have my example, and you have senseiturtle example that just so happens to be on the boards. There are tons of other examples of this. Just because you race an Si and smoke him because he apparently can't drive no where near as good as you, doesn't mean you can flat out say Si is slow as crap and tC wins. Because it doesn't.

kungpaosamuraiii

01-18-2006, 10:45 PM

killerxromances

01-18-2006, 11:29 PM

[-snip snip save space-]

Heh, fair's fair. You can't say that ISN'T fair but I'm not going to say it's smart ;)

(Btw, you've been making a consistent error with the word "except." You're using it as the word "accept." I normally wouldn't care but you've done it a few times.)

Ahem. Anyways, I think I've been agreeing with you that the tC is at least as fast as previous Si's. Don't you agree that it just goes to show how good of a car the tC is stock? I mean think about it, the fuel economy based tC (can't say an FE head is otherwise, ductile iron sleeving and factory forged rods or not) can beat race engines that aren't even a decade old.

Your welcome about the compliment and congrats on the kills! It's nice seeing tCs doing some pounding. It's nice to hear about too rather than the perpetual comparisons between the 06 Si and the tC. Blah. And for the record, I firmly stand by that previous Si's are about equal if not a small bit better or worse despite the VTAK that the tC lacks an equivalent to (lift.) I also stand by that a stock 06 Si will walk all over a tC in any race save acceleration race in which it'll slightly nip ahead when the FE starts choking out. And finally, it's my opinion that the 2AZ can go further on less money than the K20z.

rhythmnsmoke, you've told others to read your posts before saying something that was already covered; I think I've already said most of this already..

anywho..

killerxromances, the 2AZ can go far if a few things are swapped out. 400 hp appears to be a safe point to decide to get some new sleeves but other than that, if a GE head appears for the 2AZ in the 8th gen JDM Celica, we'll have a true performer. With a GE head and some suspension parts, the tC will be more than a match for an Si. All else equal, there's no replacement for displacement. All other parts won't be equal, of course, but.... dammit, they'd better come out with that Celica. Hm, I may just import one..

I do agree with you, with the GE head it would help the 2az out so much as far as gains per mod. The 2az does have potential, and i know it does. Maybe i'll word my point a little differently to see if people understand what i'm saying a little better..

2az compared to the k20.. My arguement is, given my hands on experience the K20 does respond better with mods than the 2az does. Its platform is better, and safer when we talk bolt ons for stock...Including bolt on f/i set ups. I'm not saying the 2az can't handle its own, but what i am saying in order for the 2az to respond to modding more so like the k20 it needs some work. For example, the GE head you speak of..Which i might add would help an incredible amount as far as being able to mod, and keep it streetable.

Both cars have its highs and lows, just like any other car. However, performance isn't a high point with the tC, while it is quick and you can make it fast like any other car, it overall is not the best platform overall to start with. Especially with the motor, to say Toyota made the tC to be a performance compact imo is totally wrong. Because thats not what they were going for and it shows.

400hp imo is not a safe point for the 2az before you need to build to handle the boost. 400hp the 2az would be time bomb just waiting to go off without a major bottom end/internal build up to withstand psi levels and hp gains.

kungpaosamuraiii

01-19-2006, 01:04 AM

Oh of course. I was just talking about the sleeves and the rods. I don't think they'll deform before 400 hp.

And I still think that the 2AZ responds to boost better. The 2AZ just doesn't like bolt-on affairs like i/h/e. Header perhaps, but only because there is a cat on the stock header.

For instance, even with the advantage that would be equivalent to the GE head, the RSX-S does about the same hp number with a 7 psi Rev Hard kit. I can't compare for certain since the Turbonetics was dynoed with a Dynapak and the Rev Hard, a Dynojet, but the hp numbers were 10 off of each other, advantage to the K20. What is a little more fun to look at from the standpoint of a tC guy, is the torque output on the Turbonetics turbo kit making 262 ft-lbs versus the 200 ft-lbs that the Rev Hard kit makes. One more psi would most certainly, for one, equalize the two psi (so they're both at 8 psi) and give the final dyno advantage to the RSX-S but that is disregarding the 10% or so lower number on the Dynapak.

To say that performance is not the tC's high point and that the tC is not made to be a high performance coupe is entirely true.

But it's somewhat wrong to say that the tC is a poor platform to start off with. Although I always point at the FE head, the bottom end on the tC does show concern for power. With ductile iron sleeving and factory forged rods, the tC is a head and piston swap away from a very good performance platform (in terms of power only.)

That said, I'm going to restate a position of mine that I haven't stated in this thread.

I think that the tC is made through and through for moderately high performance levels. By this I mean around 300-350 hp easy. Higher than that get's iffy to the extreme. For bigger numbers, some major work needs to be redone. But until then, the tC's 2AZ is a pretty sturdy little block ready for some amount of thrashing.

rhythmnsmoke

01-19-2006, 01:30 AM

Ok, I'm going to chime back in here about the k20. As you keep comparing the 2az to the k20.

Several questions come to mind, because I don't know entirely to much about the SI (engine wise).

1) Did all previous SI's come with the K20 motor, or just the new 06?

More than a few times you have said that the K20 responds to mods better than the 2zz, which has spawned my second question.

2) What "mods" are you speaking of in particular? Can you clarify this for me? Are you trying to say that if I add a full cat-back system to the 2az powered tC, that I'm going to get substantially less % of increase in whp than if I was to add a full cat-back to the k20 powered SI? Small mods like that, can not justify that a k20 responds better to mods than the 2az.

3) How many boosted 2zz Celica's do you know of.?

4) Can you straight bolt on a turbo system to the 2zz powered Celica and yeild 250hp+ to the wheels without any upgrades to the engine AND remain reliable doing it?

5) If answered yes to question #4, can you point me in the direction of a company/vendor offereing a turbo kit for the 2zz Celica?

6) In comparison, how strong do you think aftermarket support GREW for the 2zz powered Celica when it first hit the street as it is for the 2az powered tC?

I don't think people where to eager to boost the celica as they did the tC. I don't recall Hotchkis, Turbonetics, Greddy...etc, making boost on 2zz Celica's when they hit the show room floor. With the tC, they were boosted, before people even knew what a tC let alone a SCION even was. Boost on the 2az came rather quick when the tC hit the road.

You can have an opinion, that's fine. But your opinion does not supersede FACTS. FACT is, the Celica, and it's engine died when toyota decided to replace it's 3s-gte turbo charged 200hp, AWD setup with a Not so friendly boosting 2zz, FWD setup.

And IMO, GIVEN EQUAL Drivers, I think the tC wins the shotgun down the 1/4. In the corners the SI should win, due to better handling and lighter body. But down the 1/4, against a tC, I would never put my money on the SI.

I was surfing around Streefire.net (which Ironically there are NO, I repeat NO vids of a boosted Celica nowhere on the site, and there are like 5 or 6 vids of boosted tC's on the site already, and the Celica has been around a lot longer).

Anyhow, I ran across one vid of a Celica beating some SVT Focus, and I started to read the comments on the vid. NATURALLY, it turned into a flame war, but what got me was this dude started talking. I don't know him personally, but he claimed to have a Bachelors degree in engineering, and have been to school for cars for like 7 years. Anyhow, this is what he had to say about the Celcia engine...

The toyota engine is a 1.8 economy engine. They add to the body sty le to make it look fast. The 1.8 if you review history is not a good engi ne. It doenst handle boost well and under boosting conditions begins to b reak down. The pistons are not forged and will not handle the extra power . The engine is not capable of boost applications reliabily. The engine is built for max fuel efficiency with a hint of performance. In order to have real performance he would have to upgrade every internal/ as well as upgrading his drive train.

Boost is tricky on a Naturally aspired car li ke the celica. It is like russian rullette. either you get it or you don t. More importantly the fuel system would have to be upgraded as well as the cars engine management system.

PS...Sorry for the long post. :P

garyc_01

01-19-2006, 01:33 AM

ok guys, stop with the arguements.. i would like to tell everyone here that tc just came out so all the tcs out there from stock to mods. a si will win. i own a 06 tc too,was close to wait and check out the new 06 si. but you know what? i got a tc instead. some of the honda's eng. was made for performance. the tc eng. was really not made for it. due to reliability that's wat toyota stands for. a 2az are camry motors wit slight internals. differances scion is the fairy new and im sorry to say this agian civic will win as far as everything. cause honda target was for really performance. and toyota was target for realibity. aftermarket parts everything you see from magz. to speed shops to internet performance shops hondas are all over it. and alot of tuners been playing about with civics more. as far as wat i know i still perfer a tc over a si. and if im right next gen of tc depending on sales and all the stuff the next tc will have over 230hp w/ fi... last thing DONT HATE!!

rhythmnsmoke

01-19-2006, 01:52 AM

^^ :yawn: Not with the engine from the factory. Which I think everyone seems to mislead people, cause they automatically associate the Civic with an engine swap, like it came from the factory like that. :blah:

Again, FACT outweighs Opinions. FACT, you are going to get less whp on the 1.6-1.8 FACTORY motor in the Civic than that you would on the FACTORY 2.4L tC. You Can't Change physics my friend.

On another note, the Civic has been around a long time in the import world, which has it's benefits (you can get a crap load of goods/services for any one of them) and it's downside (B16, 18, H22 Civics, hatchbacks, SI's are Played out). Nobody is doing them anymore, and they have went to the ricers.

garyc_01

01-19-2006, 02:05 AM

i was talkin about from stock to mods no swaps. i still like the tc over the 06 si

rhythmnsmoke

01-19-2006, 02:18 AM

i was talkin about from stock to mods no swaps. i still like the tc over the 06 si

Then you really are stretching it.

:yawn: Haven't lost to a stock SI yet, or modded Civics with I/H/E (stock regular Civics are a waste of my gas).. And if I did, I would respect him for being the faster man/woman, and not make stupid ricer excuses.

Man, I hope someone brings an 06 SI to the track when it warms up here.

garyc_01

01-19-2006, 02:20 AM

rhy, vs 06 si? and ur must be stock too or who ever

rhythmnsmoke

01-19-2006, 02:30 AM

^^I already said the 06 SI should win against a Stock tC. My argument was that all previous SI's stock vs stock are slower than the tC.

I will take one for the team :P

PS...By the time it warms up here (Freakin dosen't snow when it suppose to, instead it snows here in the middle of Jan. Crazy TN weather!), we will be lightly modded. ZPI S-pipe, exhaust, and ver. 2 crank pulley will be worked in at the end of this month.

garyc_01

01-19-2006, 02:36 AM

i agree the last gen.. si was crap.. and they couldnt even get rid of them the msrp was like 19k and the dealer by my drop 3k 2 get rid of them

senseiturtle

01-19-2006, 03:53 PM

I dont know what Si's you've been running, but the tC is not faster than the previous generation Si's.

They are equal.

And this goes for everyone, please feel free to back up your statements with videos, timeslips, and facts. I'm hoping to encourage much less "i smoked it" statements, which are unverifiable to say the least.

The EP3 si makes the same power, is lighter, and has more aggressive 3-4-5 gearing. It will win in the long run. And before you start screaming "torque," you need to do some research on what truly matters in a full-out drag race.

killerxromances

01-19-2006, 09:20 PM

killerxromances

01-19-2006, 09:21 PM

ignitionr34

01-21-2006, 05:33 PM

my friend gotta an ep too... didn't race him but i can tell from driving his car and driving my car... its pretty much a drivers race... lowend i'd prolly take em. and highend he'd take me

btw, i'm jus curious, does anyone know what forged internals we have on the 2az?

TimmyT

01-21-2006, 08:04 PM

K lets talk Gas.

K20z3 = LEV running on Premium only gas
11.1 compression ratio
2.0 l displacement

2azfe = ULEV running on regular octane
9.5.1 compression ratio
2.4 l displacement
There are already aftermarket piston heads for NA and FI applications 11.1 and 8.5.1 respectivly. wich sell for around 700 bucks.

If you are going NA and the 2az had a compression ratio of 11.1 what do you think the outcome would be vs. the k20z3?

This is on an NA tC. not even boosted.

People say F/I is the replacement for displacement. This is NOT the case. Run 8 psi on a 2.0l and then 8 psi on a 2.4l and see who makes the power.

the 2az is a MUCH better platform to start with than the k20z3... You want to know why? Its easier to make HP than it is to make torque.

This is why torque wins races.
The point has already been made by comparing the dynos on a boosted rsx-s vs a boosted tC @ the same psi.
The HP numbers were pretty much the same. But the Torque Numbers were WAAAAAY off. For a Honda engine to make the torque the 2az produces it would suffer Top end and then be at the HP dis advantage (NO replacement for displacement)

Another thing with High compression engines @ N/A specifications. To prevent engine damage you must do both or one of two things.
1. Lower compression ratio
2. Replace internal components

the 2az's weakest area are the piston heads and seals. The ENTIRE az family of toyota engines have:
1. Forged Steel Connecting rods
2. One piece Cast Crank Shaft
3. Ceramic Coated piston heads
4. Cast Iron Sleeves

Also. I don't have the link now but I will edit and show you a great thread on the k20z3 engine. For you honda fanbois that think the Civic pretty much has an RSX-S engine.
(The outcome of this is going to be in favor of the civic. But this is just to prove the ignorance and bias of honda ricers in general that think they know what they are talking about with out doing research)

The 06 Si k20z3 is more closely related to the TSX engine than the RSX.
Civic Si engine info (http://www.8thgencivic.com/honda-civic-forum/1165-k20z3-engine-info-pics-included-56k-go-walk-dog.htmlurl)

senseiturtle

01-21-2006, 08:11 PM

Horsepower and gearing win drag races.

This is beating a dead horse.

TimmyT

01-21-2006, 08:14 PM

Sheesh are you guys going to make me post the gearing ratios of both cars to show that the Si and tC have almost exact same gearing?

Civic si gear ratio (http://www.supercars.net/cars/3261.htmlurl)

gear ratios 3.267:1, 2.130:1, 1.517:1, 1.147:1, 0.921:1, 0.659:1

The tC gear ratios can be found in the PDF file in the tC section.

tc gear ratios 3.54:1, 2.05:1, 1.33:1, .97:1, .78:1

So there goes the "Civic has the gearing advantage" rebuttle...

Cause it doesn't.

1st gear: Tc has a shorter gear. by about .27 teeth per inch.
2nd gear: Civic has a shorter gear by .08 teeth per inch
3rd gear: Civic has a shorther gear by .187 teeth per inch
4th gear: Civic has a shorter gear by .145 teeth per inch
5th gear: civic has a shorter gear by .141 teeth per inch

While 2-5th gear shows civic has slightly shorter gears. It is not enough to give it any type of advantage in performance with the 24 ft lb torque deficit to a NA tC, or the 50 ft lb torque deficit to a S/C tC.

BreakTheStatic

01-21-2006, 11:27 PM

^^^^ Very nice posts. Most of the info you need to compare the two engines/transmissions right there :)

killerxromances

01-21-2006, 11:37 PM

Too bad he isn't looking beyond the tq differences and looking at the design of other factors. Tq doesn't win races alone, this has been discussed over and over and this thread isn't about tq to begin with. If you want to start up a thread do so, but don't use this thread.

Obviously the combination of lsd, gearing, and other factors put the Si above the tC. Oh, how about the fact the Si was designed for performance overall compared to the tC. Well, thats probably a big part of it. How about also the fact that with just the s/c and no additional mods the tC only runs between 14.9-15.3+ depending on driver, while the Si bone stock can run 14.9-15.3+ depending on driver stock. Neither is all that fast, people agree with that yet people get offended when someone says a s/c on a tC isn't that fast after they spent the $4,000 in parts and labor for it.

K20z3 is also more so mod happy than the 2az, in most cases. I also might point out TimmyT's psi theroy with 2.0l vs. 2.4l motors. Gains will be very similar on both, displacement generally does not decide gains per mod or per psi level, it only usually decides overall whp/tq abilities. Which, with the displacement of the 2az hasn't done anything too incredible yet. 2.4l with 300whp is impressive for what car it is, but not for displacement arguements. Not when 1.8l's run that fairly easily with the right time and money.

TimmyT

01-22-2006, 12:08 AM

This thread is about the s/c tC. And by going off of honda and toyota numbers. Both vehicles weigh the same, both vehicles have similar bhp, I just proved both have similar gearing. What is left?
The LSD and torque.

Now since this is a s/c tC thread. LSD is nice, but in straight line. Do you think it makes up for almost a 60 ft/lb torque deficit?
Since the vehicles are similar in almost every way in the power train. It comes down to torque as the only main difference and that difference is Huge..

You can't say the k20z3 responds to mods better than the tC... You know why? Show me parts # for aftermarket parts for the z3?

People have fabricated and fashioned CAIs for the Si from RSX-S platform. But thier are no official parts for the k20z3 and no official gains per part.
Now do you want to know why the rsx-s parts aren't a direct bolt on?.... Cause the civic isn't an RSX-S! The engine bay is much smaller and The engine is closer related to a TSX...

You claim I am not looking beyond torque.. Well you aren't looking beyond HP. Everyone knows HP is easier to produce than torque. I have yet seen any 1.8 l making 300 whp with the same torque numbers as a 2.4l making the same whp.

Let me put it in something related to this thread.

2,905 lb vehicle with 190 whp, and 185 ft/lb of torque
vs.
2,877 lb vehicle with (i'll be liberal with this) 180 whp and 125 ft/lb of torque.

Wich vehicle has more power? and based off these numbers wich vehicle should be quicker?

When All factors (HP, weight, Gearing) are pretty much identical and what is left is torque. What wins races?

LSD doesn't win races. LSD helps, but it is not going to make up for the deficit the Si has in torque.

The torque wouldn't be sucha big deal if the Si, Like the tC, wasn't a fat arse.

We didn't even touch on power band. All the way up to 6200 rpm the s/c tC out powers the civic in HP and torque. Below 5000 RPM the civic si doesn't even come close to the same power output of a s/c tC.

Up to about 4,000 rpms the NA tC outpowers the Civic in Hp and torque......

You said it your self. ", displacement generally does not decide gains per mod or per psi level, it only usually decides overall whp/tq abilities."

Greater displacement = greater potential?????

And you only partially touched on my so called "Theory"

The 2.0l will not have similar numbers mod for mod or psi for psi.

It might have similar top end gains.... or perhaps similar low end gains. But it will always be one or the other and not both.
To match the top end of a larger displacement engine It will sacrifice low end power. To match the low end it will sacrifice top end power.

I have seen a 300 whp b16 eg vic running turbos and a sprayed intercooler.
You honda guys go "WOW! 300 whp!!!!"
Then the rest of us laugh (I am not kidding here when i put this number up) when we see 200 ft/lb of torque.

I am willing to bet money that the turbonetics, dezod or zpi tC running around 230-250 whp and about 80 ft/lb more torque than that civic will run the 1/4 faster

The math is all wrong. For the vic mags are using the formula 2+2=5, and for the s/c tC 2+2=3.

Everything about the s/c tC vs. the civic si points to the s/c tC being faster than the vic straight line.

The fact that in thier tests the Si and tC performed the same is fishy.

Either 1. They had tons of wheel spin/hop

And if 1 is correct then 2 is a given

2. the driver sucked

and if 2 is correct then 3 is a possibility

3. The driver didn't take the s/c tC to near redline b4 shifting to get optimal power.

Long post :relief:

killerxromances

01-22-2006, 12:18 AM

Did i say the k20 in the Si was a rsx-s? Rsx-s has a k20z1 rather than k20z3, this has already been talked about if you had read prior to coming on this particular thread.

As for 1/4 times. My 97' gsr last dyno'd 231whp @ 7,100rpm (raised redline of 8,600rpm), and tq was 158. With custom gearing and all top end (i had virtually no top end, which never bothered me. Honda designs their motors to be top end power plants anyway) i still ran a constant 13.3-13.5 1/4. 230whp tC's are barely breaking mid 14's even with your upper 100's, low 200's in torque numbers.

Also, if you notice a lot of the honda's breaking low 12's high 11's have 300whp-400whp and have low tq numbers compared to the hp numbers. So your arguement that tq wins races is false if you factor in everything else. Traditionally, yes you are correct. But traditionally we would also be talking about cars that weigh in some cases two times what the regular car weighs due to materials used..Which in that case, tq would matter the most.

Diseals are another prime example. Tons, and tons of tq, but with low whp applications they are slow as crap. Neither whp or tq alone will win races, you can deal with that fact.

killerxromances

01-22-2006, 12:22 AM

I might also point out the fact k20z3 does have aftermarket, if you actually looked online for parts you can find them. Not as common as the k20z1, k20a, k20a2, B16, B20 or whatever else yet. Not as common, but it will be blown up all the same. Especially JDM carriers and part companies.

TimmyT

01-22-2006, 12:27 AM

Thats all fine and dandy... Let's see all other tC's that are running 230 ish whp and see what torque numbers they are putting down. GET OFF YOUR HP Horse!

The fact is there is no replacement for displacement.

You are basing your argument on vehicles that weigh a good 500+ Lbs lighter than BOTH cars wich all have greater Torque than the Civic SI (Not the tC Though :P ANd barely more than a NA tC)

You are correct in saying neither WHP nor Torque alone. wins races. BUT more often than not Torque is the deciding factor of winning and losing races.

I Said when Weight, gearing, and HP are virtually identical. Torque is the deciding factor. Making HP is easier than making torque and thats why torque wins races.

Also for your aftermarket support for the k20z3. I asked for part #s. I can give you plenty of aftermarket part #s for the tC.

Another horse you gotta get off of is: "I See a lot of hondas in the 11s.. blah blah blah."

The tC has been out for a year. the 2az has been out for longer, but since it was in a family sedan it hasn't been in the aftermarket performance community.
So since its introduction into the tuning world in the tC, just like the tC, it is an infant and will grow.

Within the 1st 8 months of the release of the tC. Scionspeed had a daily drivin tC in the 12's almost 11s. on stock internals with a Phantom grip LSD and custom dual exhaust @ 15 psi i believe.

So in the first 8 months of its life the tC almost touched in the 11's you honda guys are so proud your vehicle platforms, wich have been researched and developed for over a decade, are able to do.

killerxromances

01-22-2006, 12:39 AM

I will also point out these factors of the K20z3:
-K20z3 has a K20a2 style head, based off a2 model K series.
-K20a3 influenced balance shaft.
-Camshafts are K20z1 style and very similar to the z1 series
So on.

These are only a few highlights of the K20z3. A downfall though, is the ecu. Unlike other K-series, it seems honda has stuck a ecu in the z3 that is mod friendly to a certain degree. However, ECU swaps is easier on a honda than a toyota. Not to mention, with companies like Spoon the k20z3 within its first year should see very good numbers, and looks promising to hold up to the K series name.

I might also point out again with the 2.0l 2.4l displacement psi theory of yours, and a few others. The Rsx-s reaches 300whp+ with CN "stage 1" turbo as one example, running on 9-10.5psi. Very, very similar to what ZPI has been able to show.

The k20z3 has a great deal of potential, but as for aftermarket currently the parts are there, but limited. Infact, very limited. However, by december there will be more parts for the k20z3 compared to the 2az i am willing to bet. There are already parts rolling out that have been in design phases prior to Si being released. Companies did what ever they could to start designing due to they new Si owners would be ready for parts right after they bought their cars.

Tons of JDM companies are also on the "bandwagon" with design and development phases now and plan to start releasing as early as mid-spring. So with this said, due to the design of the k20z3 it has tons of potential, and does and will respond better to mods than a 2az. Infact, most honda motors respond better to mods than the 2az. Some don't, but a lot of them do. Which is part of the reason why the 2az has viritually had no aftermarket support prior to the tC being released.

killerxromances

01-22-2006, 12:44 AM

TimmyT

01-22-2006, 12:55 AM

killerxromances

01-22-2006, 01:07 AM

On the road to where honda engines are now. How many engines were destoryed? The fact is they did it.

No replacement for displacement.

This is a fact! Geez get it through your head!

2.0l making 250 whp.. and how much torque?
2.4l making 250 whp and how much torque?

I hate having to repeat myself but you have the tendancy to force people to do so!

For a smaller displacement engine to produce the same WHP or top end. It must sacrifice torque or low end. and vice versa.

So a 2.0l can make the same HP as a 5.0l, but will never make the same POWER. it will be lacking in one form or another.

Also would you read my post and Click on the civic si engine link so you can learn something about the car you are talking about? I'm currently on 56k so I don't have the time or inclination to take direct quotes from that thread because its full of pictures and diagrams of the engine.(Hondtards love pictures, makes reading easier)

I don't need to click your link, i'm active on honda forums as well as acura forums from my gsr days. You wouldn't need to repeat yourself if you quit going on and on about the same thing that has already been discussed already. You can stop anytime now, actually i would perfer you to stop repeating yourself.

How many times do I have to tell you, tq doesn't win races. You say you agree yet every post you bring up "how much tq does ____ make, how much does _____ make in tq compared to the tC with ____ mods."

No replacement for displacement, again i have to repeat myself, should only be used as a general rule of thumb not to take it to heart. Also, what does a 5.0l have to do with anything? There are plenty of large placement motors that barely reach 250hp and 230tq. That proves nothing, especially when we are talking about a 2.0 and a 2.4l. We are aren't even talking about a full liter in difference, and here you are bringing up 5.0's. lol

Yet again, displacement doesn't prove whp/wtq gains per mod, per psi, it only proves overall out come of performance potential. However, this is also only to be used in general term due to the fact lack of designs on a higher displacement motor can actually be used against it in terms of reliable gains with long term, and short term abuse. With that said, displacement theory can only be used to a certain degree because design of motor, tranny, also makes or breaks what potential is there. The 2az is not designed for power, its designed to have a decent amount of power and tq, and still get good economy. Sure, potential is there but you are blowing up the 2az to better than what it is. And as i've said many times now, the 2az hasn't been proven to last long term with boost or serious n/a. Time can only tell, and so far theres been a few already having issues with misfires, ignition and a few other things causing problems. Nothing too serious yet, but being theres already a few signs poping up tells me either tuning is off, or something within the motor's are giving out. One or the other.

TimmyT

01-22-2006, 01:28 AM

The 5.0 liter comment is in DIRECT Relation to the "No replacement for displacement" debate.
How you didn't understand that is beyond me.

AGAIN! You force me to repeat myself...

WTF don't you understand?! When HP is the same but torque is different?

ALSO Put a freaking Supercharger on a civic SI and a Garuntee you the s/c TC with no additional tuning or aftermarket parts will still out torque the civic. and having Forged steel connecting rods and a lower compression ratio of 9.5:1 With out any additional work can be boosted to higer lvls safer than the civic.

Go ahead! Boost a stock civic k20z3 to the max, and boost a Stock tC to the max (Wich scionspeed has done and the tC handled 18 psi of boost on stock internals before it started to lift the head)

And we'll see what makes more power. DANG I can't believe i gotta get upset about this crap.

Get your head out of your ___ kid. Numbers don't lie.

POWER is not Horse Power ALONE.

POWER is everything. HP.. Torque EVERYTHING.

Your stupid arse rebuttles "But but this 1.8 liter can make 300 whp just like a 2.4 liter...."
FLIPPIN' FINE AND DANDY!!!!

That 1.8l Is not making the Same POWER as the 2.4l.

Active on the honda forums my arse! Maybe in "Your GSR days"

But the head on the Civic Si is 100% 2.0l version of the TSX

If you clicked on the link I provided to a honda forum that you are so active on You would have learned that.

As for your lil "issues"...
Well hot dang! That one tC's wind deflector Blew up in the heat! Crap that means my car is only days away probably? Heck is probably some scion sun roof conspiracy...

I've seen one thread about a misfire... out of thousands of tCs sold.
I don't know the conditions of where they live how they drive, so how can I determine that it was 100% the tC's fault?
I know DOZENS of people that think they are the hottest drivers around but absolutely are horrible at driving...

My friend had a MT acura TL and thought he was the quickest thing on the road.
He'd take me for a "Thrill ride" and when i got out of the car all you could smell was clutch.. he quickly responded... "Do you smell my brakes??" When he did no hard braking whats so ever..

The point is Many people (particularly guys) won't admit they are less than a mediocre driver.
And unless you have conclusive proof that it was 100% engineering and not driver error Don't go around saying

"I heard this car did this... If you do that to it, then you'll blow it up!"

Typhoon

01-22-2006, 01:32 AM

Typhoon

01-22-2006, 01:32 AM

Now apart from all of that tc in my opiniong is a great car so is the si why are we arguing about tiny numbers in 1/4 miles and which engine is better. both arent enough far apart from each other for either to be considered much better.

killerxromances

01-22-2006, 01:58 AM

The 5.0 liter comment is in DIRECT Relation to the "No replacement for displacement" debate.
How you didn't understand that is beyond me.

AGAIN! You force me to repeat myself...

WTF don't you understand?! When HP is the same but torque is different?

ALSO Put a freaking Supercharger on a civic SI and a Garuntee you the s/c TC with no additional tuning or aftermarket parts will still out torque the civic. and having Forged steel connecting rods and a lower compression ratio of 9.5:1 With out any additional work can be boosted to higer lvls safer than the civic.

Go ahead! Boost a stock civic k20z3 to the max, and boost a Stock tC to the max (Wich scionspeed has done and the tC handled 18 psi of boost on stock internals before it started to lift the head)

And we'll see what makes more power. DANG I can't believe i gotta get upset about this crap.

Get your head out of your butt kid. Numbers don't lie.

POWER is not Horse Power ALONE.

POWER is everything. HP.. Torque EVERYTHING.

Your stupid arse rebuttles "But but this 1.8 liter can make 300 whp just like a 2.4 liter...."
FLIPPIN' FINE AND DANDY!!!!

That 1.8l Is not making the Same POWER as the 2.4l.

Active on the honda forums my arse! Maybe in "Your GSR days"

But the head on the Civic Si is 100% 2.0l version of the TSX

If you clicked on the link I provided to a honda forum that you are so active on You would have learned that.

As for your lil "issues"...
Well hot dang! That one tC's wind deflector Blew up in the heat! Crap that means my car is only days away probably? Heck is probably some scion sun roof conspiracy...

I've seen one thread about a misfire... out of thousands of tCs sold.
I don't know the conditions of where they live how they drive, so how can I determine that it was 100% the tC's fault?
I know DOZENS of people that think they are the hottest drivers around but absolutely are horrible at driving...

My friend had a MT acura TL and thought he was the quickest thing on the road.
He'd take me for a "Thrill ride" and when i got out of the car all you could smell was clutch.. he quickly responded... "Do you smell my brakes??" When he did no hard braking whats so ever..

The point is Many people (particularly guys) won't admit they are less than a mediocre driver.
And unless you have conclusive proof that it was 100% engineering and not driver error Don't go around saying

"I heard this car did this... If you do that to it, then you'll blow it up!"

:rofl: :rofl: Thats all i have to say, you are one of the most stubbern people on here.
When have i ever said "i heard this car did this, blah blah?"

Who said this was a strictly boost thread anyway? :rofl: This is pointless, i can't even talk to you. Bring rhythm back, at least he didn't hold onto the one thing that the tC has more in the entire debate of performacne. (tq) People like you are funny.

killerxromances

01-22-2006, 02:05 AM

Iam no car expert or on engines I read a lot of articles on engines and turbos but other than then its all what I know form people around so this is purely my opinion...now that I got that out of the way:

When I was looking for a new car I really wanted the rsx type s however got the tcfor the price and after I sat in it I loved. Needless to say I was thinking maybe I should have waited until the si came out. That was until I sat in the car, (I didnt like the outer body to begin with and hate the community that comes with civics) The interior is pretty crappy compared to the tc, the stereo cant be changed unless you change the whole plate which i imagine will be expensive and a pain. The seats are the crapy cloth that I always hated, the side cloth isnt great either. The dash board looks kinda ok if you are into that kinda of thing but the dash is stretched to the window which is prolly a safety feature but looks quite rediculous.

Now ones again I am no expert on cars so correct me if iam wrong but you keep saying how the tc is a not a perforamnce car - Agreed, However the tc has lots of upgrades for it available to make it better handling and faster and things just keep coming out.
The si - An economy sports tuned civic with an NA tuned engine. NA copression of 11-1 and smaller displacement doesnt make it an amazing mod for a turbo. Amazing track car yes (thats even if you actually take it to the track but thats besides the point) it was build for the track period def not for drag I can even dig up the vid of jap race car drivers saying this( moslty because they dont do drag they only care about tracks)

My friend turboed his acura rsx s pretty cheaply cause he got a used kit. However I was pretty dissapointed with his gains. Dont get me wrong amazing fast car but the gain for the psi wasnt what i thoguht it would be.

And one more then dont get me wrong iam not arguing that the tc is better track car then an si. I am however saying that you guys are being rediculous arguing of 1/4 times of less then .4 differnce on 15s real drag racers would laugh at that.

This also isn't a "real drag racer" forum. I also will point out i'm all for autox road course debates, but everytime i bring it up everyone goes back to 1/4 because thats apparently what 90% of everyone here does. Kind of sad, it got old IMO fast but oh well. So this is why we are having 1/4 debates.

Personally i think this is useless, Timmy has said nothing knew, he repeats everything he says constantly and everything he has saying has been covered x10.

I vote lock this thread, it was fun at the beginning but now its dragging on and no one is really saying anything knew.

I just hope when this thread gets locked, 5 more tC vs Si threads pops up. Enough is enough, Si is more of a performance car than the tC, it can out perform the tC mod for mod, it can out perform the tC n/a build up, f/i build up overall tC will take it for numbers but Si is very close behind. Blah blah blah, and lock.

Typhoon

01-22-2006, 02:21 AM

indeed I agree. One last thing to clarify though was that my point wasnt that the tc was a better performance car it obviousl is not a track car (not 1//4) My point was why are you guys arguing about less then.5 sec in the quarter mile like i said in 15s that number is laughable to a true drag racer a person that modifies their car to run strictly for drag events.

si is obviosuly a better track car stock for stock over the tc i mean comeon if you are going to say the tc is better you are way over your head in denial, suspension no lsd too much body roll heavier. However nothing that cant be fixed with mods.

In the end the cars arent tremendously different to argue about that was my point when they make a wrx (non sti) for 20000 then start saying how there is somethign much better for the money other then that whats the point pick what you like.

davedavetC

01-22-2006, 02:23 AM

this is so chilish its not even funny (anymore)

:yawn:

Typhoon

01-22-2006, 02:25 AM

btw to be fair I can say for a few grand more you can get a much better car say wrx say str4 but more money btw civic and wrx same price diff then the tc and civic. but then again for a few more grand there is always somethign better come on cant we just say that the civic is a better performance car (in auto x event, because liek i said the 1/4 diff is seriosuly laughable to be considered important nither of the cars is a 1/4 good run)but with a bigger price tag liek wrx is better then a civic with its price tag. But it can be made up in tune with that extra money so you wind up just pickign the car you liek anyways. Ok end rant.

Typhoon

01-22-2006, 02:30 AM

btw about auto x, can anyone help me out with how I can find a real track auto x event i find are only the cone kind.

TimmyT

01-22-2006, 02:31 AM

:rofl: :rofl: Thats all i have to say, you are one of the most stubbern people on here.
When have i ever said "i heard this car did this, blah blah?"

Who said this was a strictly boost thread anyway? :rofl: This is pointless, i can't even talk to you. Bring rhythm back, at least he didn't hold onto the one thing that the tC has more in the entire debate of performacne. (tq) People like you are funny.

You just posted not to long ago about a FEW people having mis-fires and other minor issues did you not? and becuase of the issues with a FEW cars you come to a conclusion that the 2az has something wrong internally? With out any evidence that it was 100% mechanical and not driver error that is an assumption of ignorance sorry to say.

This thread is about the supercharged tC... in the tC Forced induction forum....
That said this thread is about boost.

The s/c tC and civic is equal in almost every aspect save for 2.. the LSD and Torque.

I took your gearing advantage from you and proved it false.

The LSD isn't going to make up for a 10 whp difference (I still say its closer to 20, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) and a 60 ft/lb difference in straight line.

So in a Civic SI vs s/c straight line performance Debate. Someone Pro-tC would logically focus on What aspect? And what would someone pro-civic focus on?

Well on HP the civic is lacking.. on torque the civic is definitly lacking, Stale mate on the gearing..

The only thing left is the LSD in favor of the civic.. and guess what. In a straight line it isn't going to make up for where the civic is lacking.

So everything about the civic vs. TC thread is purely cosmetic or auto-x. (and there is nothing to say you can't get all parts necessary for auto-x'ing the tC delivered tomorrow if you have the money).

So that leaves cosmetic: Interior and exterior appearance is totally opinion based. Ride comfort and entertainment aspects are also opinon based.

You keep comming back with the Magazine comparison wich I have already made clear I think it was a favored article.

The ONLY thing keeping your debate alive is that article.

How bout proving some of the pro-tC guys wrong. Since we have done a fair job of dis-crediting your posts.

Prove me wrong that the Si doesn't have less WHP than the tC..
Prove me wrong that the Si only weighs about 28 lbs less than the tC..
Prove to me wrong that the Si has less torque than the tC..
Prove me wrong about the Si not having a gearing advantage over the tC..
Prove me wrong that the article was not one sided..

For a fair and un-objective comparison They should have matched mod for mod and then compared. AND yes I mean they should have supercharged the Civic Si, but guess what.. no aftermarket support. Although Mugen has a S/C Si I believe.

They should have supercharged the SI. slapped on the wheel and tire package. the lip kit. and all the options available. INCLUDING the new suspension package they have for the new generation civics.
Then compared price for price and pound for pound performance and value.

Then and ONLY then would they prove they were not making a favored decision for the civic SI.

Then and ONLY then. Will myself personally be satisfied with a comparison of the 2 vehicles.

My Only and MAJOR objection to that propogandist B.S. they call jounalism is how lop sided and favored it was. How it totally mis represented the scion tC and mis leads its readers.

And if you can't agree with that comparison. Then you should have your parents put some kind of restriction on your computer time. Cause you shouldn't be able to participate in any kind of debate other than ones involving the phrase:
"I know you are.. But what am I?"
:no: :no: :no: and :nope:

surfcity40

01-22-2006, 03:54 AM

this thread took four beers to read. longest ten minutes of my life! what all you "racer" types (no disrespect intended) seem to forget is....who cares? it's a freakin' tC and a civic!

sub-compacts in the under 25K range. i was half expecting to see a focus st owner chime in "the duratec 20 delivers plenty of torque and has 136 hp, while the most powerful engine available is the duratec 23 engine in the Focus ST, with 151 horses."

thanks, that was fun.

Undecided_Fate

01-22-2006, 05:39 PM

4GTSCION is one too many characters dude... you'd be better of with 4GET_TC or FKSCION or something to that degree :-p

Personally I'm stuck in between which to choose (S/C tC or Civic Si) They're both good cars from good companies. You really have to admire honda for sticking with the 197hp 2L as opposed to doing the popular thing and dropping a turbo/supercharged 2.2L+ motor in the ol' 'vic.

as for the pricing, as nice as the new Si is, I would never EVER pay 34K for one. For that just get an RSX which is essentially the same thing in a lighter package.....

Typhoon

01-22-2006, 07:47 PM

I know someone who works at a dealership they said that the car is going for 25,000 out the door which is overpriced but i guess some people cant baragin so that price is understandable but 34k anyone who pays that must have money to flush down teh toilet.. if I wanted an SI i can get it with all the packages for the base msrp :).

killerxromances

01-22-2006, 11:14 PM

lyrictenor1

01-23-2006, 02:09 AM

killerxromances

01-23-2006, 02:32 AM

You gotta remember that market location has a lot to do with this--w/ people from So. Cal being in love w/ theirs, I'm not surprised by the markup.

(I believe those window sticker prices that were posted on here are form So. Cal)

This is true, but to say the Si is a $25,000 car is wrong. While some dealerships (even east coast) have the mark up, majoirity don't. Thats kind of like saying tC owners have a $20,000 car since re-sale at dealerships have a overwhelming mark up. I've even seen xb/xa's stock, in decent shape with high milage sell for $20,000+.

Its a $19,990 car. Not mid 20's or 30's and that was my point.

Undecided_Fate

01-23-2006, 02:41 AM

Wow... I cant believe I did that ^^^^^^ (responded to a post from the first page without realizing there were 6 other pages! :-p my bad!

Munch

01-23-2006, 02:47 AM

4GTSCION is one too many characters dude... you'd be better of with 4GET_TC or FKSCION or something to that degree :-p

You get 8 characters in Ny. How do you think my current plate reads "4GETHNDA" :rofl: Trust me bro I already checked and the plate IS available. Check for yourself if yu don't believe me :rofl:

https://corvus.dmv.state.ny.us/personalizedPlates/emppasplatedisplay.cfm

lyrictenor1

01-23-2006, 03:57 AM

Killerromances, I'm right w/ you there-- i was also just saying that's what the market forces dictate around these parts, and if that's what people are willing to pay, well then that's what ya get..

rhythmnsmoke

01-23-2006, 04:57 AM

kungpaosamuraiii

01-23-2006, 06:06 AM

Don't forget to get it on tape.

You make me glad I didn't get that blue 99 Si for 4 grand.

killerxromances

01-23-2006, 12:00 PM

:yawn: Geesh! I thought I had put an end to this thread. Guess TimmyT picked up where I left off.

Anyhow...Anyone got any SI buds near me that I can roast. I like swatting those buzzy little bast*@#%

I don't have anyone near you, but if you want to travel to Ga i know quite a few Si's that will take your offer, and you wouldn't be able to touch them. Unless you think your tC can run low 14's to low 13's. Most of the guys i know in Ga are n/a, but theres two boosted Si's as well. If he still has his, i know a n/a 02' Si running high 12's n/a.

rhythmnsmoke

01-23-2006, 02:51 PM

^^umm...did you forget that I'm all stock. When I go boost, then my statement would read something like this...

"Anyone got any SI buds near me with a little something under the hood that I can roast, otherwise don't waste my time and more importantly my gas."

Therefore, I'm speaking on fairly stock SI's.....well, I'll let them have I/H/E, to give them a slight edge, so I don't beat them as bad....heheeeheeee..

PS...I'm actually a humble person by nature(stem from Martial Arts training), but talking sh$% is fun sometimes.

TimmyT

01-23-2006, 04:02 PM

killerxromances

01-23-2006, 04:06 PM

I'm still waiting on why the civic si is > then the s/c tC reasons. because honestly I see absolutely no reason why the Si is even close to being better than the s/c tC.

Killer is out of reasons to support the Si. Except for on a road course the SI would be faster than a tC.

Pound for pound price for price the s/c tC is a better car.

No, i'm out of reasons as to why i should continue debating with you. If you want my reasons, look back at the rest of my posts before you came on here and read. I'm not going to repeat everything i've already said for you.

Typhoon

01-23-2006, 04:21 PM

argue all you want about the si's price but like i said I know a person that works there he is a dealer and I doubt he was lying to me when he told me that every si he sold so far was around 25000. Rememeber this isnt scion they dont try to sell the car for base price the more the dealer marks up the car the more money he makes on the deal why wouldnt he try to mark it up. And on top of that no car is sold for the base price evey car I know you have to bargain for and the dealers always try to screw you by overcharging.

Ones again this isnt even an arguement I have proof of what the si is going for at the dealerhip thats sells a good amount of cars and I doubt they are the only ones selling it for that.

However I do agree that with bargbaining skills and knowledge of what the car is suppose to cost you can get it down lower but it will def not be for the price you see on the internet it will be marked up anyways people want these cars that means they get to sell to highest paying customer. As far as I know scion and saturn are the only two car companies that dealers arent allowed to try and pull anythign and you pay what you advertised for.

rhythmnsmoke

01-23-2006, 04:25 PM

Pound for pound price for price the s/c tC is a better car.

I concur.

TimmyT

01-23-2006, 04:33 PM

I have already obliterated your reasons on why the civic SI is a better car than a s/c tC. The SI isn't even a better car than the NA tC up to 4000 RPM.

I am looking for NEW reasons why you are supporting the SI. Because all your old reasons are all disproven, and Your knowledge of the vehicle you are supporting is limited.

I drive and own a scion tC. I have never owned a Honda.

1986 Turbo Supra
1995 Nissan 200sx SE-R
My 1998 Mitsu Mirage (Gas saver :P)
and Now my tC.

So After looking at the tale of the tape concerning the 2 vehicles I want some new information on why you think the Civic Si is a better car than the tC.

cmndrjamesbond

01-24-2006, 12:15 AM

Killerx, before you start running your mouth about the Civic Si putting down 180 whp, I suggest you take a look at AEM's intake dyno. 163whp pre intake ain't 180. If you wanna keep claiming that a higher geared 163whp Civic can take a 190whp S/C tC, then please, continue to do so, just don't expect anyone to believe anything you say anymore. Don't even think about claiming this dyno is inaccurate, its the same shop that dyno'd a tC at 143whp baseline.

http://www.aempower.com/pdf/dyno/21-516_06_Civic-Si_CAS-HP.pdf

killerxromances

01-24-2006, 01:14 AM

cmn - If they dyno'd a stock tC at 143whp, then their dyno is reading off. A stock tC, 95% of everyone who has dyno'd a stock tC will tell you it falls between 133-138whp on average. Theres also about five other dyno's i've heard/seen on honda/acura forums that show 180-190whp, some as high as 195whp but thats a little too high. This is also from companies, and one i've seen was a private owner on a honda forum i believe.

Timmy- You never fail to entertain me. No one has disproven anything i have said, all everyone has done is debated with me. Theres a fine line between debating and being completely disproven. Also, my knowledge upon honda, and experience with their cars and motors are more than most of you guys that are arguing with me. Even some that have debated with me that disagree with me recognizes that fact. Only knowledge that you appear to have is for the tC, thats the problem with these kinds of threads..Everyone has a bias opinion, but when someone that doesn't own either and steps in, they automatically know nothing and they should leave the thread because they don't own a tC. :blah:

Typhoon - As i have said many times now, not all dealerships are doing % mark up. Your friend obviously is one that is doing the mark up, but most dealerships (around here anyway) are selling base Si's for $19,990. You can disagree with me all you want, it really doesn't matter because in the end of the day $25,000 is a mark up over base.

cmndrjamesbond

01-24-2006, 01:21 AM

Hmm, so this inaccurate dyno magically inflated the numbers of the tC, while at the same time robbing the Si of 25 whp? Like anyone is going to believe that.

killerxromances

01-24-2006, 01:25 AM

Hmm, so this inaccurate dyno magically inflated the numbers of the tC, while at the same time robbing the Si of 25 whp? Like anyone is going to believe that.

If i recall, they didn't dyno the Si and tC back to back did they? This dyno they used may not even be the same one. Do you have specifics on the dyno for the tC and dyno for the Si? No, i didn't say it was the same dyno. What i said was, there are more dyno runs supporting my arguement than yours, and, the numbers for the tC is off. Quit jumping to conclusions with my words.

cmndrjamesbond

01-24-2006, 01:40 AM

Tell you what, I'll stop jumping to conclusions if you take up base jumping without a chute.

surfcity40

01-24-2006, 03:50 AM

so, i'm on my way to a birthday party last night and on the way this 06 si wants to race. freakin' beat him by two car lengths. so we pull over at starbucks and i say "dude, the only way we'll really know which car is faster is if we switch cars and do it again. so i ask the nine party clowns to get out of my car and wait at starbucks....took forever for them to pile out. then i get in this guy's car and i can't see a freakin' thing. it's night time but i'm in freakin' pick your zits bathroom lighting. he had fluorescent lights under every nook and cranny and they weren't like blue or some other soothing color... they were freakin' battery operated shop lights.

anyway, i'm settling in and he comes over and knocks on the driver window and goes, "i'm calling this thing off. there's no clutch, how do you shift this thing?"

i go "dude, it's an automatic." he goes, "so your point is?"

jk

killerxromances

01-24-2006, 04:14 AM

rhythmnsmoke

01-24-2006, 06:10 AM

kungpaosamuraiii

01-24-2006, 07:34 AM

TimmyT

01-25-2006, 12:00 AM

Timmy- You never fail to entertain me. No one has disproven anything i have said, all everyone has done is debated with me. Theres a fine line between debating and being completely disproven. Also, my knowledge upon honda, and experience with their cars and motors are more than most of you guys that are arguing with me. Even some that have debated with me that disagree with me recognizes that fact. Only knowledge that you appear to have is for the tC, thats the problem with these kinds of threads..Everyone has a bias opinion, but when someone that doesn't own either and steps in, they automatically know nothing and they should leave the thread because they don't own a tC. :blah:

I have proven that the gearing in the tC and Si are near identical, wich you have used as an advantage the SI has over the tC before.
You insist that the Civic Si is pretty much an RSX-S engine in a New body because its a K series engine. This is not the case and I have proven that by providing a link that shows information on the k20z3 engine and that it is more closely related to a TSX engine.

Now all that put aside. Comparing the vehicles side by side what sways your decision towards the Civic Si?
Cause from a non biased point a view. When you look at the base MSRP, The performance numbers, and everything else we have been discussing. The only thing the supercharged tC doesn't have over the Civic Si is the LSD.

So is the LSD the only reason why you would advise someone to buy a Civic Si over a tC?

yah Kungpao, the torque on the tC does = a lot of wheel spin. But I'd rather have the low power to work with than not to have it at all.

kungpaosamuraiii

01-25-2006, 01:09 AM

The wheel spin I'm almost confident would be of little consequence with an LSD so I'm not extremely worried about that. But I would really love it if all that torque the tC has would keep on building up to 7k RPM which the Si can do (its torque is a bit less than the tC's torque but its integral is larger than the tC's torque curve integral). Of course, the torque by itself doesn't make any speedy car but the product of torque and engine speed do. The tC has the torque but it doesn't make much torque at high engine speeds and that's one of the main pitfalls of the 2AZ-FE (I hope the GE head will fix that! if it comes out that is.. )

Err, where was I... Oh yes, it's not correct to say that torque is what wins races. Getting the car from one point to the next point is work and the ability to do that work is power so greater power is what wins the race. Now, with that said, it's been established that due to the relatively similar weights and all that business the Si isn't too much better than a tC (as one would expect for 200 bhp VTEC and LSD and all that) which just goes to show what a good car the tC is that it can hang with cars purpose built for performance. Slap a supercharger on the 2AZ.. well actually, I'm sure with the right drivers we should be seeing mid to high 14's on supercharged tCs. These professional drivers just haven't been able to get used to the tC's short gearing and quick torque.

Jeez, I lost myself again.. oh well. There are other reasons why I would get an Si over a tC. The Si comes straight from the factory with a superios suspension setup than the tC. The suspension on the Si is also more condusive to handling and the like modifications (think sway bar endlinks and outer/inner control arm unbalancing.) Aside from that, it has replaced displacement with high RPM to make power (think F1 cars that have miniscule 2.4 and 3.0 litre engines.)

I would still recommend a tC over an Si though as I still maintain that the tC has a better base block for big power (unless the K20z series are closed deck blocks?) Relatively low compression pistons and beefy internals as well as styling that I like and uniqueness relative to other cars without the blatant attempts at attention. And there is really no replacement for displacement as, with all other factors equal, displacement wins. The trick is getting the parts to equal the parts on a faster car.

rhythmnsmoke

01-25-2006, 02:15 AM

Jeez, I lost myself again.. oh well. There are other reasons why I would get an Si over a tC. The Si comes straight from the factory with a superios suspension setup than the tC. The suspension on the Si is also more condusive to handling and the like modifications (think sway bar endlinks and outer/inner control arm unbalancing.)

Your just going to replace it with Tein's later anyways... :P

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 03:05 PM

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 03:13 PM

Yea.. not having searched right now.. off the top of my head.. I have rarely seen a stock tC dyno less than 140 whp.

Also, most of these supercharged tC dynos look to be right around 190-200 whp leaning towards 192~ whp and not the 180-185 whp that you seem to be convinced of. Maybe I haven't seen that many dynos but I do think you're factually wrong about the apparently huge drive train loss the tC suffers.

BTW, TimmyT, torque is probably the tC's worst enemy too. Putting so much torque so soon, as you put it, below 4k rpm,coupled with the pretty angry gearing, means a lot of wheel spin. The relative lack of torque that the 06 Si has (or more rather the torque that it doesn't) probably allows the car to start moving a little bit before VTEC hits and throw the wheels into some smokey action. But that probably means people just launch higher and the point is null so it could very well be up to the LSD.

98% of all the dyno runs on this site with the s/c also have other existing mods, i have only seen one with a stock 2az/tC with a s/c and that dyno'd right at 188whp. Also, i have a friend that had bought the s/c prior to other mods, and when he dyno'd just the s/c he dyno'd 186.7whp. I have never seen a bone stock tC dyno above 190whp without other mods. If you can provide information that states otherwise (more than one case), then i can believe you.

Also, Timmy as i have told you before. You want my reasons for the Si read past pages of this thread, you keep asking me this and i have already gone over it more than once in the past. Deal with it. About the gearing, you also shared the Si was slightly geared more aggressivly 2-5th. Yes, very slightly however combine this with all top end power, vtec to keep it within powerband, and other things envolved with this process and it does overall play a bigger advantage other than just ratio's alone.

Also, some of you guys keep attacking what i say, remember that kungpaosamuraiii agrees with me. Well, from the stand point of an Si being more performance compared to the tC. While there are a few things we don't see eye to eye on, he overall seems to view my points the same. And with that said, he is pretty doe hard on the tC side. Theres a reason why hes agreeing with me, theres also others that agree with me as well that drive tCs.

With that said, get over yourselves.

Scion-ce

01-25-2006, 03:45 PM

rhythmnsmoke

01-25-2006, 04:58 PM

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 05:58 PM

98% of all the dyno runs on this site with the s/c also have other existing mods, i have only seen one with a stock 2az/tC with a s/c and that dyno'd right at 188whp. Also, i have a friend that had bought the s/c prior to other mods, and when he dyno'd just the s/c he dyno'd 186.7whp. I have never seen a bone stock tC dyno above 190whp without other mods. If you can provide information that states otherwise (more than one case), then i can believe you.

Actually, the first dyno for the supercharger that was posted on SL was 192whp. The only mod that was on the car other thatn that was the TRD axle-back, which we all know makes no power. So a stock tC with the TRD blower has dynoed up to 192whp.

Don't try and tell me the TRD exhaust gave it that 5-6 extra hp because we will all raise the BS flag. I don't care much for numbers. I have already raced an 06 si with my s/c tC (no other mods). I won't BS and say that I killed him, but I will say that I won by at least a car length. The driver of the Si was a friend of a friend. Don't know him that well, but I can tell you that he was no novice driver. Truth is, I don't consider myself that great of a driver. I still won. So how is that for real world application. People get too caught up in numbers.

TRD axle back alone gives 2-4hp gain. The exhaust with s/c would probably give at most 3-5whp gain being the fact you can't declare gains based on each mod, they work together all at once. With that said, you take even just 3whp away from the 192 and it puts it at 189whp. So, your point was what again?

And i appear to be the only one NOT looking at numbers.

rhythmnsmoke; The only thing i have said that can be included in your "need to back up with proof" statement is a s/c tC time compared to the 06' Si. Which, has already been proven with a major magizine. You guys don't like that, so you guys find every excuse possible as to why the tC lost. Its not my fault you guys can't believe it.

Also Scion-ce, i'd really like to see you beat an 06' Si by a car length. 1/4 Times are almost identical, at very most you would have beaten the Si by half a car length, and vise versa for the Si if both were equal drivers. So to say that you aren't BSing is either, in itself bs or you were a slightly better driver. And this is not coming from someone just going on and on, this is coming from actual facts.

I might also point out, i saw somewhere of a guy with an 06' Si that did two runs down 1/4. It was one of the honda forums i believe, or maybe cardomain. Earlier this week he did some runs, his Si is stock and did 15.09 and 15.13. With that said, exactly.

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 06:11 PM

heres some dyno 06' Si results, i'll try to find more since i know most of you will call bs and find ways to disprove as always. :blah:

http://tinypic.com/i53g4h.gif

http://tinypic.com/i53gaw.gif

BreakTheStatic

01-25-2006, 06:11 PM

And OutCrnrU ran a 14.66 with minor bolt ons. His car is also a lot heavier than a regular tC due to his full roll cage setup for autoX. There isn't any reason to question scion-ce's credibility.

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 06:15 PM

Having a hard time finding dyno sheets, but here are a few other dyno numbers:

whp: 193.0
wtq: 145.6

whp: 189.4
wtq: 142.7

whp: 187.1
wtq: 147.7

Thats all i can find right now.

Scion-ce

01-25-2006, 06:18 PM

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 06:19 PM

Scion-ce

01-25-2006, 06:23 PM

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 06:27 PM

Also Scion-ce, i'd really like to see you beat an 06' Si by a car length. 1/4 Times are almost identical, at very most you would have beaten the Si by half a car length, and vise versa for the Si if both were equal drivers. So to say that you aren't BSing is either, in itself bs or you were a slightly better driver. And this is not coming from someone just going on and on, this is coming from actual facts.

I might also point out, i saw somewhere of a guy with an 06' Si that did two runs down 1/4. It was one of the honda forums i believe, or maybe cardomain. Earlier this week he did some runs, his Si is stock and did 15.09 and 15.13. With that said, exactly.

Can you show me where the TRD axle-back gained 2-4hp? I used to have one, and I can tell you from a non-biased perspective, it yields NO power. Its just a muffler. That is besides the point.

I am definitely not BS'ing about beating the 06 Si. I launched better than he did. Simple as that. I have no reason to lie about it. Calling my claim BS is pure f@ggotry.

But lets look at it this way. Assuming the 06 Si and the s/c tC are equal(which they aren't), with a 100 dollar pulley you will gain 21whp (dyno proven). And that was only ZPIs 9lb pulley. NST sells a 9.5lb pulley for 90 dollars. 9.5psi will ALWAYS be > 9psi.

Show me how you gain 21whp+ on the 06 Si with a Ben Franklin.

You are also comparing a $100 supercharger mod to a $100 bone stock n/a motor. :blah: You can't compare it like that at all, it makes no sense. You guys are already having to boost your motor to just be even with a stock Si, but thats not good enough huh? You have to push it further go the extra mile just to beat a bone stock Si. Spare me.

You want to talk about it like that, then compare that $100 mod to a boosted 06' Si vs. a boosted tC. Otherwise, forget you even said that.

Also, a friend of mine dyno'd his tC with i/h/trd axle and everything together showed a 5whp gain total adding the trd. So, i would assume it gives around 2-4hp. You are trying to debate between your 0whp gain and my 1-1.5whp gain? Wow man, impressive.

I'm not trying to be a jerk to anyone, but you are trying to debate with me about stuff that is completely useless and pretty much common sense.

You might as well top it off and try to disprove my proof of the Si dyno runs. And incase you can't read that dyno run its as follow:

hp: 209.3
tq: 154.2

whp: 197.9
wtq: 148.6

Yes this is stock numbers, and below it i provided other numbers of other people's dynos without sheets. This is the only sheet i have found so far.

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 06:30 PM

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 06:34 PM

Wheres the dyno bashing people? Theres two dyno runs of an Si giving more whp than a s/c tC gives, and another two giving exactly what a s/c tC gives. And as far as wtq being 60wtq less than a s/c tC, show me a dyno run of the s/c tC (just s/c) giving 205wtq+. If it does give that much, wheel spin is definitely going to hurt your times majory. But from what i've seen, its not.

hotbox05

01-25-2006, 06:36 PM

outcrnu gets whooped by n/a rsx type s. so that's not sdaying much for him.

Scion-ce

01-25-2006, 06:41 PM

You are making no sense Killer.

First of all I can compare whatever I want. And the joke is on you, because you were laughin at someone and didn't have the facts straight. Thats called ignorance.

I wasn't sayin you need a 100 dollar mod for a s/c tc to beat an 06 si. I've already done it.

I wasn't debating 0whp vs. 1-2whp. You were. I was saying the diff is negligable. 192whp was with just the trd blower. Lets go by your figures though. lets say the s/c tC dynos at 190whp with no other mods. I mean the stock tC costs 3k less and has more tq at the wheels than the si has at the crank. impressive indeed :loser:

Those dynos you posted. I couldn't help but see that those were flywheel numbers. I really don't see what your point is arguing which is better. I have already beaten the Si on the road, where it really counts.

Scion-ce

01-25-2006, 06:47 PM

you say comparing the si and the s/c tc is pointless

well I say comparing the si and the stock tc is pointless

for 3k more i would hope it outperforms the stock tC.

I guess we can look at it this way.

Someone gives you $22,000
Someone gives me $22,000

you buy a Si and put 2k worth of mods

I buy a stock tC and add 5k worth of mods

Take a guess who will have the faster car

I think it makes more sense to compare cars that comparable in price.

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 06:48 PM

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 07:02 PM

another dyno run i found without dyno sheet:

Stock Si:

186.9whp
146wtq

Scion-ce

01-25-2006, 07:12 PM

Scion-ce

01-25-2006, 07:16 PM

another dyno run i found without dyno sheet:

Stock Si:

186.9whp
146wtq

Ok there you go. Even if we went by your s/c tC numbers, the s/c tC and si have equal whp and there is a 40wtq difference. The LSD and 6th gear will NEVER make up for that diff

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 07:38 PM

First of all, we have already talked about you beating a stock Si and it can't be done without him not being as good of a driver as you with you being stock or up to just a s/c.

What are you basing this on? dyno numbers? Weren't you the one saying you don't get caught up in numbers? Don't tell me it can't be done, because I has been done. You are saying I only won because he was a bad driver. You are full of it. You have nothing to base your statement on other than dyno numbers. Numbers mean nothing. Take it to the pavement. Thats where you'll find reall answers. Damn dyno queens

Dude, i've already said this numerous times. A few (three to be exact including two magizines) have covered the SI in a total of 6-7 runs all of which were low 15's, exactly the same as the s/c tC.

I might also add, before you bring up that 14.66 outcrnu run, hotbox told me he was in his club and the last run he did was 15.3...How do you explain that? I trust hotbox over you anyday, being he has no reason to lie about it and neither do i. The reason why i say you would, is because your dying to prove me wrong and say the tC is so much faster and so much better than the Si when it isn't. And incase you are wondering, i was talking to darren on aim if you don't believe me that he said that i could bring him in here to tell you himself. He even said he gets smoked by rsx-s's and the rsx-s is not that much faster than the 06' Si. It is faster, but not that much. Almost another equal car to the Si.

BreakTheStatic

01-25-2006, 07:42 PM

Scion-ce

01-25-2006, 07:49 PM

Dude, i've already said this numerous times. A few (three to be exact including two magizines) have covered the SI in a total of 6-7 runs all of which were low 15's, exactly the same as the s/c tC.

I might also add, before you bring up that 14.66 outcrnu run, hotbox told me he was in his club and the last run he did was 15.3...How do you explain that? I trust hotbox over you anyday, being he has no reason to lie about it and neither do i. The reason why i say you would, is because your dying to prove me wrong and say the tC is so much faster and so much better than the Si when it isn't. And incase you are wondering, i was talking to darren on aim if you don't believe me that he said that i could bring him in here to tell you himself. He even said he gets smoked by rsx-s's and the rsx-s is not that much faster than the 06' Si. It is faster, but not that much. Almost another equal car to the Si.

Dude, I don't give two sh!ts who darren is nor do I need you to bring him on here. I'm not pressed. How am I dying to prove you wrong? You must have me mistaken me for the other cats on this thread. I merely said I beat an Si by a car length. Did I ever say the s/c tC was SOOOOO much faster then the SI? If a car length is soooo much faster than I apologize for your confusion. Did I come on here sayin i smoked an Si like it was standing still? Did I saw I won by 4 car lengths? NOPE. I said I won by a slim margin. So relax.

As mentioned earlier, you can say the si is faster than an NA tC all you want. I don't care. This is a s/c tC thread, not NA tC. Of course the Si should outperform a NA tC. It costs 3K more. Its dumb to compare cars that have diff costs.

You sayin the Si is faster than an NA tC is no different than me sayin a base WRX is faster than an 06 Si. Of course it is. It cost 3k more, just like the Si cost 3k more than the tC. Whats your point?

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 07:49 PM

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 07:56 PM

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 08:01 PM

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 08:05 PM

^ Not making fun of the tC at all, but what i am saying is the tC is not in the same class as the Si.

rhythmnsmoke

01-25-2006, 09:03 PM

I might also add, even if you did beat the Si by a car length.

We are comparing a boosted tC to a stock 06' Si. This proves absolutely nothing in terms of how much better the tC is as far as performance. If anything, it disproves that. Because as i've said before, it takes mild boost to just keep up with a stock Si. Wow, congrats. You put the same amount of money in the Si and you will be faster, hell, just put i/h/e in the Si and it would be faster. In other words, you tC guys are spending close to $4,000 (if you get it installed by dealership) just to keep up with a stock Si, you put only $1,000 in the Si and its already faster.

The point is this...

if buying the SI, you would have already PUT a 3-4k dollars extra into a car, because you bought a more expensive car.

rhythmnsmoke; The only thing i have said that can be included in your "need to back up with proof" statement is a s/c tC time compared to the 06' Si. Which, has already been proven with a major magizine. You guys don't like that, so you guys find every excuse possible as to why the tC lost. Its not my fault you guys can't believe it.

Correction, it was a tie, not "the tC lost".

The dyno charts you posted were "Flywheel" horsepower. We are talking about power to the wheels. Yeah, I'm sure the car only lost 12 horsepower from the flywheel to the wheels...DAMN, Honda must have invented the greatest drivetrain of any other vehicle known to man, and installed it in a Civic SI. :silly: I wonder what other cars out there that has achieved only a 12 hp loss when putting it to the ground.

Lets say i/h/e, most common dyno runs are around 150-155whp. Lets just say for kicks and giggles 160whp. 160whp, 3,100lbs+ car (with driver and roll cage) running mid 14s? Right, most i/h/e tCs run anywhere from 15.4ish-15.7ish.

According to Car&Driver, a BONE STOCKtC

Standing 1/4-mile: 15.7 sec @ 88 mph

Plan and simple "Driver differences". Can't base your facts off of a few non-professional drivers, and say that all tC's with I/H/E run that slow. You are either faster than the next man or Your Not.

Last time I check, when you ask someone what their 1/4 time is, you go by their BEST RECORDED TIME, not their LAST run. If your best time is 14.6, then that's what you run in the 1/4.

The last thing I would like to say is this. PLEASE! PLEASE! stop trying to say because of like a total of 2 people who happen to have dyno or 1/4 times that this automatically means that this is the way the car performs and there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that someone else could yeild a faster result. You put to much weight on like a couple of sources, and come to a conclusion that everyone either drives like this and this is what they get. Dude seriously, You are either faster than the other guy OR your NOT. It's Black and White. This whole "Well, if the drivers were equal", or "Maybe you should switch drivers and see". That is a bunch of HogWash! You bring what you race. I be damned if I'm going to let some wannabe Vtec (but actually driving a DX model half the time) ricer wants to trade cars to see if in fact I'm the better driver. That is about the most Bull$!#@ excuse I've ever heard. You either WIN or You LOOSE, Take it like a man, and go put some more money into your car to make it faster. But I'm liable to slap you if you start whinning like a little girl and start making excuses ast to why you lost.

If the guy in the SI didn't feel that he was a good enough driver to beat the S/C tC, then he shouldn't be racing in the first place (because it's a drivers race). In Scion-ce's case, the SI felt he would win, to which he lost. The only thing good to come out of F&F is that.....

It dosen't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is Winning!

What's in "aarontrini85" tC

15.2 sec 1/4 mile hopeing to hit 14's n/a early spring
twm short shifter
sdparks (thanks sdparks) clutch stop
customist of the most custom intakes on scionlife lol
custom 2.5 inch spipe back exhaust
tein s-techs
nst under drive pully
apexi safcII
the other mods dont realy matter there more cosmetic

If he can make it down the 1/4 with only an I/E/Short Shifter and under drive pully in 15.2 secs, then obviously faster times can be reached with a S/C.

We have been going back in forth on what we want to put on our custom license plate. After reading this crap for the past 4 or 5 so pages, I think we should go with "VTEC8TR", just so I can ____ off the Honda boys....heeheeee...

ignitionr34

01-25-2006, 09:10 PM

there is actually another guy w/ just a modified stock airbox and removed rear seats who ran a 15.19...

rhythmnsmoke

01-25-2006, 09:36 PM

^ Not making fun of the tC at all, but what i am saying is the tC is not in the same class as the Si.

Not the same class, but not in a better class either.

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 10:16 PM

^ Not making fun of the tC at all, but what i am saying is the tC is not in the same class as the Si.

Not the same class, but not in a better class either.

21hp drivetrain loss? If you look at a lot of flywheel k20z3 dynos, you will notice honda actually down played the z3. Most results have been in the 210hp range, which if you look at the dyno results you will see it made 209hp. There are also several accounts of the crank hp being more than 197hp as sae rated. I've seen crank rates anywhere from 197-215hp. Most wheel ratings i've seen is mid 180's all the way to low 190's...some high 190's but i doubt that.

You figure 210hp, and just say 188whp, thats a 22hp drivetrain loss.

Its in a better class as far as performance goes, i hate to break it to you but as i have said numerous times, its more of a performance car than the tC is from the factory.

Also, you say you already spent $3,000 more than the tC..Obviously its a more expensive car, but so what. Price to price doesn't matter, its a more expensive car with more performance. IMO better performance platform than the tC, from experience and how the k20z3 is designed, truthfully it is a better performance base compared to the 2az.

Also, if your best time is 14.6, you usually would average high 14's. Theres a big difference between mid 14's and 15.3 1/4. Mid 14's you cannot do with just i/h/e, plain and simple. With a s/c, that would mean you would be in low 14's at least which is possible, but not with i/h/e and supercharge. That combo you would be in the mid 14's, not low 14's. And as we all know, the faster your time the harder it is to shave off time. You should know that.

Also, you don't go by best 1/4 times to begin with. You go by an average, best 1/4 times is like worst 1/4 times for someone. They are flukes, not common. Someone can hit 12.1 1/4 one time, and never hit it again and constantly hit 12.5-12.7's. You don't just go by 12.1 because they managed to hit it one time. Anybody can hit a great, perfect run once. But if you are not doing it all the time that really doesn't prove all that much now does it.

Everyone makes excuses as to why you should do ___ mods to the tC so you can beat the Si. It proves nothing, you can take any car and out run any other car on the road with ____ mods. Price matching is pretty retarded too. You can take a xb, price match it with mods to a $25,000 car and more than likely out run it with a motor swap and a few other things. Who cares, all that proves is you spent _____ amount of cash to equal a better performing car. With that said, all of what you guys are arguing with me for proves my point that the Si performs better, and is a better performance platform than the tC from the factory.

rhythmnsmoke

01-25-2006, 11:29 PM

killerxromances

01-25-2006, 11:43 PM

cmndrjamesbond

01-26-2006, 12:02 AM

Dude, you drive a box. Shut up and leave.

killerxromances

01-26-2006, 12:09 AM

Dude, you drive a box. Shut up and leave.

I can see you are the smart one here. Guess what color? :rofl:

Who cares what i drive, the only reason you don't respect my opinion is because i don't drive the all mighty tC. If i drove a tC then you wouldn't have said half of what you have, but because i drive a box you feel you have the right to place yourself higher in the community so you tell me to shut up and leave? Impressive, and very mature.

How about looking past what i drive. See, i have noticed a trend. The tC owners that agree with me, really don't get quoted or put down hardly at all. However, i get put down completely because i say the tC isn't a better performance car than the Si. Which makes you angry and all upset. Why would it make you upset, maybe because you don't like hearing the fact your tC is beat by a civic. (Si) Which is a lousy reason.

Just because you drive a tC doesn't make you higher up in the scale than i, but it apparently does make you cocky.

BreakTheStatic

01-26-2006, 12:26 AM

And OutCrnrU ran a 14.66 with minor bolt ons. His car is also a lot heavier than a regular tC due to his full roll cage setup for autoX. There isn't any reason to question scion-ce's credibility.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, and my box runs low 15's. Minor bolt ons as in i/h/e? Lets say i/h/e, most common dyno runs are around 150-155whp. Lets just say for kicks and giggles 160whp. 160whp, 3,100lbs+ car (with driver and roll cage) running mid 14s? Right, most i/h/e tCs run anywhere from 15.4ish-15.7ish. And your magical friend has more weight, roughly same power as these other ones and can pull off virtually a full second faster than these? :blah:

You made my day.
Being that this thread is discussing supercharged tCs, I thought it seemed obvious that my reference was to a car that had the trd s/c on it. His additional mods included an alphawerks header, catback exhaust, and an umnitza intake. He now has an upgraded pulley, but the 14.66 was achieved with only i/h/e (like I said, that was done with a full roll cage which adds considerable weight. If you ask me, that's pretty respectable, being that the mag couldn't even break 15 seconds with the TRD blower. I'd love to see the 60ft times from that test...

You are full of it. i/h/e on a tC does not equal mid 14's, and if you read my post above hotbox had told me his last run was 15.3.
Can you read? From the start I clearly stated that I was talking about a supercharged tC. I was referring to I/H/E IN ADDITION TO to s/c setup. This thread is about s/c tCs, therefore when I am discussing mods I'm talking about things done besides the s/c, because that should be known from the start. And as I just said, he ran a 14.66 @ 96mph with these mods: supercharger (should have been inferred from the thread topic...) an umnitza intake, alphawerks header, & 2.5" catback exhaust. He did run a 15.3 but it was definitely driver error because like you said averages speak louder than best or worst times, correct? He also ran a 14.67 @ 94mph & a 14.67 @ 96mph. Those three times are almost identical (and if you average the 4 times you'll get an answer of 14.825) so his best run of 14.66 was not a fluke. If anything, the high run of 15.3 seems very out of place. Possibly a bad launch, a misshift maybe? I'm not trying to attack you at all. I like the new Si a lot, but your attitude is horrendous. I was never disrespectful to you, why the need to say that I'm full of it? Was it because I had one simple fact that refuted what you were saying? I still agree that the Si is a better base platform for OVERALL performance. All I was trying to point out was that there are a few people that are performing better with the s/c tC than what the magazine stated.

TimmyT

01-26-2006, 12:30 AM

The focus of this thread is the s/c tC. And my personal argument is that the s/c tC IS a better performer than the civic SI. I can admit the NA Stock tC is not a better performer than a 06 Civic SI. The problem is YOU can't admit the s/c tC is a better performer than the civic SI.

AND DON'T bring up that propogandist article either. Because anyone that can do basic math can see something isn't right.

kungpaosamuraiii

01-26-2006, 12:40 AM

BreakTheStatic

01-26-2006, 12:44 AM

kungpaosamuraiii

01-26-2006, 12:55 AM

Now we gotta prove that in a straightline race, with all else equal, a supercharged tC will win against an Si!

If we can't prove that than NST and ZPI better start turning out those pulleys.

cmndrjamesbond

01-26-2006, 01:26 AM

killerx, I heard there is a hot Chevy Aveo vs xB thread out there. Better rally to it and defend your car's honor.

rhythmnsmoke

01-26-2006, 02:04 AM

^

Actually, i don't hate on the tC at all. I've said multiple times its a great car, maybe you overlooked that fact? I said it a lot in the beginning and in the middle of this thread. I respect the tC, i really do. What i don't respect, are those owners who believe the tC is so great and much better that what it is. See, some of you guys absolutely hate honda because of their owners. Not saying you are included in this, but its true. You guys put down civics, and the Si for all potential thats a given just because you see 16 year olds driving them like they are 10sec cars with a muffler and speed stickers.

Its kind of funny because a lot of the mods scion owners make fun of hondas for, for instance neon lights, i see an awful lot of those same owners that have neon lights on there car. Which i believe is a big part of the reason why some car forums hate the tC because of the owners.

Back to subject, as i have also said in the past both Si and tC have their strong points. The Si, hands down compared to the tC is a better performance car to start with than the tC. I have also said, that the tC is a great car if you are looking for a quick, comfortable fairly cheap compact to drive. While the Si is more along the lines of a rsx-s, and is a true sports compact where as the tC isn't. Its a compact yes, and yes it has potential however compared to the Si, it lacks in so much. I never start these tC vs. Si threads because to me its pointless. They are two cars in two seperate classes within the same compact world. But, people feel the need on here to hate honda and if they can't beat a honda, out comes excuses as to why.

I don't dislike Civics because of the owners that drive them(that's only 20%). The other percentage is from Styling, No TQ, To many people have them and we want to be different. In my case, I prefer higher TQ and decent gearing over low TQ and slightly better gearing. I will be honest and say we debated back and forth between two car choices. The RSX and the TC. After research, I determined that the tC was

1) Very stylesque
2) Better bang for the buck
3) Different
4) More room

Not to mention, we can make it do low to mid 12's with a Full interior with just a bolt-on turbo kit with the Engine from the FACTORY, and not have to do a motor swap.

So, the tC was chose and it's been full steam ahead ever since.

The same can be said for you though about making excuses when I say I walked all over this SI, or when I beat the B16a1 eqquiped Teggy w I/H/E. You start making excuses as to why they lost, and that I should have traded cars or that they were sucky drivers. So, you have to give credit and respect where it is due in order to recieve credit and respect. I must be a real man, as I don't make excuses if I lost. I just say better luck next time. :P

PS...I think I've seen mabye a total of probably 3 to 4 tC's with neon lights. I think that's more of an xB, xA mod.

ignitionr34

01-26-2006, 02:27 AM

killerx, I heard there is a hot Chevy Aveo vs xB thread out there. Better rally to it and defend your car's honor.
looool sorry but that was funny

killerxromances

01-26-2006, 01:36 PM

killerx, I heard there is a hot Chevy Aveo vs xB thread out there. Better rally to it and defend your car's honor.

Unlike some of you, i don't have to defend the xb in general out there. I don't feel the need to because i don't feel threatend by other cars out there in my class.

atodak

01-26-2006, 01:41 PM

can we end this? Come on guys you are both right

killerxromances

01-26-2006, 01:43 PM

So now we all agree that the Si is better from the factory.

Next up, we need to come to some agreement about the supercharged tC.

I just want to say that the Si will out handle a tC. After that, we I will say the table is evenly set because, remember, the supercharger doesn't make a tC handle better.

How about this for agreement..

N/a build up: Hands down Si.
From Factory: Hands down Si.
F/i build up: Anyones ball game between Si and tC, don't bring up the k20z3's high compression because we all know thats an easy fix with a swap of lower compression pistons. Also, don't bring up displacement. 2.0 k20a puts out 350whp with some set ups, i've seen much higher as well. Most i've seen (street legal, using the 2az and not a completely new motor) is around 450whp. I've seen honda motors in that range and beyond.
---------------------
Handling from factory: Hands down Si.
Modified: I'm going to say Si, but this is really a drivers debate on road course/autox. It really doesn't matter how properly tuned the set up is if the driver doesn't know how to properly handle the car. But it would be close with exact/similar set ups on each car. But i'm willing to say Si would win this.
--------------------
Best overall for the money: tC is better for the money if you aren't looking specifically at a performance compact. If you are looking for a performance compact, the Si is definitely the better choice. So its 50/50 really based on what the consumer wants. But to say either or wins this hands down is ignorant.

Most of this is exactly what i have been saying the entire time, but i believe what i stated above is fair to say. But i know someone is going to comment saying "your wrong" and give me some excuses as to why i'm wrong.

Scion-ce

01-26-2006, 02:03 PM

Unlike some of you, i don't have to defend the xb in general out there. I don't feel the need to because i don't feel threatend by other cars out there in my class.

Of course you don't feel threatened by other cars in your class. Who the hell would feel threatend by a Geo Metro?

killerxromances

01-26-2006, 02:04 PM

Scion-ce

01-26-2006, 02:09 PM

Clever, and you feel like you should put down the box why? Because you drive a tC? Okay.

No, not because I drive a tC, but rather because you drive a toaster with wheels

killerxromances

01-26-2006, 02:14 PM

Clever, and you feel like you should put down the box why? Because you drive a tC? Okay.

No, not because I drive a tC, but rather because you drive a toaster with wheels

Oh okay, well as long as you feel better about yourself making fun of the box..Thats all that matters.

rhythmnsmoke

01-26-2006, 02:35 PM

killerxromances

01-26-2006, 02:48 PM

How about this for agreement..

N/a build up: Hands down Si.

I just find it interesting how you reach a conclusion based off of lack of evidence. How do you compare an engine that has all the N/A build up parts available for it already, (due to being around for ever), to an eninge that is just now starting to see this side of the fence. How about you give it another year or two before making that conclusion (we already have lower compression pistion, head packages, and I believe rods are being developed somewhere). It's just a matter of time bro.

From Factory: Hands down Si.

It better be, if you plan on paying $3-4k more.

F/i build up: Anyones ball game between Si and tC, don't bring up the k20z3's high compression because we all know thats an easy fix with a swap of lower compression pistons. Also, don't bring up displacement. 2.0 k20a puts out 350whp with some set ups, i've seen much higher as well. Most i've seen (street legal, using the 2az and not a completely new motor) is around 450whp.
I've seen honda motors in that range and beyond.

That bold part of the paragraph is what I'm talking about. You seem to try to skew things. You throw in this little inuendo that you seen them in that range and beyond, but fail to leave out "on a built motor". Implying that a 2.0L put out as much as a 2.4L 2az on a stock block with the same mods. Which I'm going to have to disagree with you. 2.0L with the same psi level as a 2.4L will not yeild the same hp. Therefore, displacement does play a factor, so quite trying to make it seem irrelevant when it isn't (Need I have to mention the TQ difference too).

(street legal, using the 2az and not a completely new motor) is around 450whp.

I say show me a Civic pushing that much on the motor that can in it from the FACTORY (no engine swap), without having to poor a crap load of money into it.

When i talk f/i set ups, i'm talking about a built motor for the k20 and 2az. Anyone who runs high boost on a stock motor is a retard and is just waiting to blow a motor...Regardless of displacement.

Also i notice you talked about the 2az having low compression pistons available on the n/a quote. N/a high compression works best, lower compression works best for f/i. You quoted n/a for that comment, i'm assuming you were meaning to talk about f/i.

Also you talk about the 2az being new, well the k20z3 is just as new as the 2az when it comes down to it. However, its based on a few different platforms of honda and after doing research prior to the Si being released, the motor like other hondas is perfect for n/a set ups. And i do not doubt it will be just as compariable n/a as building a z1, k20a or k20a2..So on. Its a great designed motor with tons, and tons of potential.

Also, all you have to do is look on line on forums and other websites to see tons of 300whp+ honda motors built without swapping motors. Your arguement of not pooring lots of money into it really shouldn't play a role in what you are trying to prove. You have to dump a lot of money into the 2az for it to reach 300whp sort of speak. Just the turbo a lone (stage 1) is $5,000+ after install (assuming you don't have the tools and tuning knowledge to do it yourself)...You would then need to beef up some internals and some more work to make that reliable. I don't care what anyone has done, long term abuse with a larger turbo set up pushing that much whp on an original n/a motor without a proper prep-build is useless. No matter what motor we are talking about. To do a f/i set up properly, safely, reliable and worth while you don't just slap a turbo on and go. So i don't get why you are making money an issue when in the end, you are spending close to the same amount on a k20 f/i set up as you would a 2az f/i set up..(basing this on similar f/i set ups for both cars and so on.)

rhythmnsmoke

01-26-2006, 03:29 PM

When i talk f/i set ups, i'm talking about a built motor for the k20 and 2az. Anyone who runs high boost on a stock motor is a retard and is just waiting to blow a motor...Regardless of displacement.

I wouldn't consider 10psi "HIGH" boost.

Also i notice you talked about the 2az having low compression pistons available on the n/a quote. N/a high compression works best, lower compression works best for f/i. You quoted n/a for that comment, i'm assuming you were meaning to talk about f/i.

yes I was talking about F/I. But there are 2az pistons for N/A as well.

Also you talk about the 2az being new, well the k20z3 is just as new as the 2az when it comes down to it. However, its based on a few different platforms of honda and after doing research prior to the Si being released, the motor like other hondas is perfect for n/a set ups. And i do not doubt it will be just as compariable n/a as building a z1, k20a or k20a2..So on. Its a great designed motor with tons, and tons of potential.

When I was speaking on terms of age, I'm including "leniage". The Leniage goes a lot further back with k20 than the 2az. The 2az is getting attention, so give it time before making these absurd assumptions.

Also, all you have to do is look on line on forums and other websites to see tons of 300whp+ honda motors built without swapping motors.

Now lets look at our D17 stock motor which is rated at 117hp on the EX model. So lets say you boost stock and you would roughly get around 150-170hp on 7-8 possibly 9psi of boost on your stock motor.

The most i have ever seen or read about that the D17 motors put out was 245hp on built internals.

Took that little quote from 7thGenCivic.com. Like I said, you want a 300hp it's going to take an engine swap.

Also in terms of engine swap (swapping in a K20) this guy made a DIY and this was all of his cost.

Here is the pricing of the parts i paid for everything. All these parts were new from the dealer unless otherwise stated that i got it from the junkyard

k20 intermediate shaft.................$220
Axles from 02+ si.........................$100 from junkyard
RSX Subframe............................$600(quoted from acura) $150 from junkyard
Hasport Mounts............................................ .$400
Shifter Assembly.......................................... ...$100
Shifter Cables............................................ ....$300
02+ si radiator. i used the rsx radiator.................$150 (TYC brand)
fans.............................................. .................$30 universal fan from autozone
02+ si upper radiator hose..................................$13
02+ si lower radiator hose...................................$11
RSX Throttle cable............................................. $40
RSX Fuel Line.............................................. ......$45
RSX Brake booster line........................................$45
RSX Purge Line.............................................. .....$40
02+ si ac line from compressor to condensor............$100
RSX Clutch Line From slave to master.....................$20 from junkyard
RSX high pressure power steering hose...................$240
RSX Power steering return line...............................$50
92-95 Civic Power steering resevoir with bracket.......$50

Optional Stuff:
Hondata........................................... ................about $900
Hasport/Hybrid Racing Engine Harness....................about $300**
(complete new harness)

Just remember that this does not include the motor... i have seen complete motors that go for as low as $2000 for the SI to as much as $5000 or more for the JDM type R...

So now when you add everything that brings it up to roughly
$5900 or possibly lower to as much as $8900 or more

$8,900 FOR 200HP! :eyes:

Your arguement of not pooring lots of money into it really shouldn't play a role in what you are trying to prove.

Money is a MAJOR factor for a some kids who only work at $8 dollars hr (and that's stretching it). And want to build a nice streetable car. They can buy a mid 90's civic from a junk lot and spend nearly 10g's to make it remotely fast. Or they can finance a 2006 car for more money, reliability, warranty. And put 3g's in it, and make nearly 300hp on the stock motor. But in terms of the 06 SI, they would have spent all their money up just trying to purchase the car.

You have to dump a lot of money into the 2az for it to reach 300whp sort of speak. Just the turbo a lone (stage 1) is $5,000+ after install (assuming you don't have the tools and tuning knowledge to do it yourself)...You would then need to beef up some internals and some more work to make that reliable.

I have to disagree with you sir. It's all in the tune. With the right tune, you can run a long time on just what the 2az comes with from the factory. It's not weak you know. There are forged parts already in it. At min. would mean swapping out for some low compression (for boost) pistons, that cost roughly $500 dollars.

I don't care what anyone has done, long term abuse with a larger turbo set up pushing that much whp on an original n/a motor without a proper prep-build is useless.

Without proper TUNE is useless. Build-up, eeyy not so much.

No matter what motor we are talking about. To do a f/i set up properly, safely, reliable and worth while you don't just slap a turbo on and go. So i don't get why you are making money an issue when in the end, you are spending close to the same amount on a k20 f/i set up as you would a 2az f/i set up..(basing this on similar f/i set ups for both cars and so on.)

You can pretty much slap on a Stage 0, a good Tune, and you are good as gravy. But you don't have to take my word for it. Just confirm it with Kenny @ ZPI. I'm sure he will open your mind about the 2az.

rhythmnsmoke

01-26-2006, 03:36 PM

well.. its that time..yes that time of day... some of you may have read about me posting about my weird motor and stuff... To bring you up to speed on whats going on read this...

http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthrea...95&page=1&pp=25

and read this too

http://www.7thgencivic.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=214864

Took me a while but i have figured how to do the wiring of all the electronis from the guage cluster to the fan switch to the O2 sensor.. So now everything works even Power steering and A/C and no check engine lights.

Now the swap is in my car and running full fledge kick ___... basically when i race my friends rsx with the same mods as me... i pull ahead of him by half a car or so...

my mods so far are
Hondata
Type S manifold and Base TB.. (took out the dual intake runners)
Megan Race headers
Megan Race Downpipe
Custom 2.5 Piping
Megan Race Exhaust
Custom 3in Intake

[b]Figured out what the motor was.. its from a type s k20a in japan.. so basically its a jdm k20a with less power then the k20a type r.. if you look in this months edition of import tuner the whole issue is literally covered with k20 stuff... this motor i have is rated at 160hp stock according to the specs in the book..

and if anyone needs any help on there swap while i make this DIY here ask me or you can wait till the next few days when i get the DIY made.
__________________

__________________

we spent 8 hours tuning the thing.. you gotta remember that this motor has no base map for it on kpro considering we dont know which motor it is if you read the post from above.. so basically it was like this

we found the best map we could use and started from there..

1st run was at 99whp
then tuned more and got 140whp
then more and more and then finally before i went home we got it to 190whp and 120torque and it still has more tweaking to go..

then after much work here is the end result

Still needs more tuning.. right towards the end of the run like around 8000 the motor is not getting enough air.. so once i get the bigger TB in we go back to the dyno again.. right now i am using the base TB cause the TPS off my type S throttle body broke off.

Max HP - 201hp
Max TQ - 163tq

Do you Seriously think this dude spent less than $3k (comparing to a Stage 0 equipped tC, which makes 240-260whp and 250-260wtq) just to swap out his engine?

rhythmnsmoke

01-26-2006, 03:43 PM

So, again, I stand by the the fact, that if your goal was 250whp it's going to take you more money, time, labor to reach it than taking 2-4hrs to bolt on a tC turbo kit.

F/i build up: Anyones ball game between Si and tC, don't bring up the k20z3's high compression because we all know thats an easy fix with a swap of lower compression pistons. Also, don't bring up displacement. 2.0 k20a puts out 350whp with some set ups, i've seen much higher as well. Most i've seen (street legal, using the 2az and not a completely new motor) is around 450whp.
I've seen honda motors in that range and beyond.

Oh, on that bold part again, you failed to mention that the Honda motor would have to be running twice the amount of boost to get in that range. You fail to disclose the details when you made that statement.

290whp 330wtq on a 2az is reachable at 10.5psi (Dlytone's car results)

290whp 330wtq on a Honda motor would need to be around 20+psi give or take a few.

TimmyT

01-26-2006, 04:01 PM

Killer just can not admit that the S/C tC is better (Straight line) than the Civic si.

He can not come to terms with facts and numbers. Wich do not lie.

He is basing his opinion on engines and vehicles that have been around for 1-2 decades. Then knocking the 2az that has been in the tuning world for about a year and a half.

He is not making any informed opinions in this debate. Letting his personal feeling sway logic.

killerxromances

01-26-2006, 04:41 PM

We are talking about a civic Si with a k20 already in it, motor swap isn't something it needs. You are also only showing one side of the arguement. Si is not the only car with a k20 in it man.

killerxromances

01-26-2006, 04:44 PM

killerxromances

01-26-2006, 04:50 PM

rhythmnsmoke; get your facts straight. The ZPI stage 0 does not dyno at 260whp, i've only seen one dyno but for it but it was at 230whp. I might also point out again, f/i on a n/a motor is useless without a prep-build. I don't care who just slaps it on and drives it, or what any company says you can do. (yes, i respect ZPI and others) Boosting a n/a motor requires certain mods to keep it lasting, point blank. Especially with almost a 100whp increase...Use common sense.

TimmyT- I can't take you seriously, especially when every post you say "wich" instead of "which" every time. Please use spell check if you can't catch a simple error like that. I can face the facts, and this is coming from someone who claims the k20z3 is basically a tsx? :rofl:

TimmyT

01-26-2006, 04:52 PM

killerxromances

01-26-2006, 04:59 PM

Why everyone is talking about F/I is because the forum and topic of this ENTIRE thread is about the inside line evaluation of the s/c tC,you Brought up the "F/I setup is anyone's ball game" Comparison of the 2 cars, And the reason why we are even talking about the Civic SI in this thread is because of Speed magazines comparison of the Civic Si and the Supercharged tC. So the comparison makes it on topic.

Killer. You constantly assume the k20z3 is anything like the RSX-S engine and it is NOT.

You think just because the k20a1 etc has aftermarket parts the k20z3 will just share those parts.

Im not saying the z3 will not have aftermarket support, but you can not just grab an RSX aftermarket part and bolt it up to the k20z3. Because:
1. They are different engines.
2. They are different Cars. Wich means they have different dimensions. Wich means The parts just won't fit properly.

:rofl: :rofl:

I have said this numerous times to you, please read my posts in regardes of this.

As i have said many times, i will say this one last time. I know theres differences between the k20z1 and k20z3, i also know they are two different motors. Now for the love of scionlife, quit bringing that up because i have never stated these two motors were the same nor have i said parts for the z1 will work with the z3.

You on the other hand compared the k20z3 to a k24a2. You are trying to tell me i basically know nothing about the car i'm talking about, yet you are trying to compare these two? The z3 has more in common with the z1, k20a2 than it does the 24a2.

TimmyT

01-26-2006, 05:20 PM

You sir are so ignorant. If YOU know that the motors are different. Then why are you referring to performance gains of the other k series engine?

Its like me saying "Oh well the 2jz can do this.. and the 2az has a "2" in it so it can do the same thing."

And the information I have on the CIvic Si and the k20z3 engine is not by my Design, but by information provided by people who OWN 06 Civic SIs. So its not my comparison. Its thiers.

If you have anything smart to say about the comparison don't come looking here. Go talk to Civic Si Owners.
Again proving your ignorance. If you clicked on the link I provided the HEAD on the k20z3 is more related to the TSX than the RSX. Civic SI owners themselves Say this..

killerxromances

01-26-2006, 05:34 PM

TimmyT

01-26-2006, 05:43 PM

killerxromances

01-26-2006, 06:01 PM

http://www.8thgencivic.com/honda-civic-forum/1165-k20z3-engine-info-pics-included-56k-go-walk-dog.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Click and learn something.

You were commenting about potential of past K series motors. and that a certain PSI of boost on (insert K series) yields blah blah blah performance.

You are again downplaying the 2az engine explaining that @ 10 psi of boost (insert K series) has XXX whp and XXX ft/lb of torque. But you don't post the numbers of a 2az @ 10 psi of boost.

If thats not what you were trying to get across than please correct me....

For grins i clicked that link, and that proves absolutely nothing on your side. Yes, it has k24a2 similarities and even shares same parts as the k24a2. It also shares strong similarities from a k20a2, k20z1, k20a, k20z1.

Your link provides nothing new in my book, the only thing that it proves as you see that it shares the same head and one or two other things and you all of a sudden say its a direct connection of a k24a2. It has similarities and shares parts of other motors as well, its a unique k20 series in the sense it does share much of its parts with other motors on a wide scale. (not all k series are equal)

The k20z3 i never said was a k20z1, i just said in its design its more of a k20z1 than a k24a2. While some major parts are shared with the 24, that doesn't make up the entire motor either.

I might also point out that the k20z3 was designed to be an updated version of the k20z1. (1st rsx-s prior to k20z1)

TimmyT

01-26-2006, 06:09 PM

The k20z3 shares more parts with the k24, I never said it was a direct duplicate of the k24. I said it was more closely related to the k24 than the other k20s. and "I" didn't even really say it. Civic owners did and I provided a link where they said it

Regardless. The information I provided gives the civic SI's k20z3 more appeal being more related to a k24 than the other k20s.

rhythmnsmoke

01-26-2006, 06:48 PM

rhythmnsmoke; get your facts straight. The ZPI stage 0 does not dyno at 260whp, i've only seen one dyno but for it but it was at 230whp.

1) I do have my facts straight sir. I said BETWEEN 240 and 260whp.

Take a gander SIR...
On the LEFT is the Supercharger Dyno and on the Right is a Stage 0 with only a FMIC as an upgraded option, to which 90% of the time, people are going to install anyway!

http://www.zeropointindustries.net/gallery/albums/06superchargedtc/trd1.jpg

THESE ARE WHP #'s NOT FLYWHEEL!

I might also point out again, f/i on a n/a motor is useless without a prep-build. I don't care who just slaps it on and drives it, or what any company says you can do. (yes, i respect ZPI and others) Boosting a n/a motor requires certain mods to keep it lasting, point blank. Especially with almost a 100whp increase...Use common sense.

HUUMM....Who do I believe, some random Honda loving guy on a Scion board, or 3+ companies (ZPI, Turbonetics, Dezod) saying that 6-8lbs of boost on the 2az with the right Tune is reliable on the stock motor. :ponder:

Just incase you cry "they just want your money", I have you know, Kenny is more of friend of mine than he is ZPI to me. I don't think he would take my money and feed me false info. bro.

Some more good stuff I found on 7thGenCivic.com for our amusement.

Progression of my K20A *including dyno graphs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hello, I'm not sure if anyone's been keeping track of my dynos ... but just a brief summary...

I typically dyno at this shop called Hookups in Upland, CA. If anyone knows Upland, they have an elevation of 900-1300 ft (depending where you are). With each power mod I added, I would dyno again ... so here goes:

Mods:

K20A
17x7.5" ssr comps (13 pounds)
215/40/17 tires (19 pounds)
Type S Injen CAI
oem DC5-R header/cat
stock DC5-R ecu
stock DC5-R full catback exhaust (2.5" new piping on the axleback)
Nextgear Intake Manifold Gasket

dyno graph here 10/22/05

I pulled peak 200 whp, 138 wtq

Added mod:

DC Sports ceramic race header

dyno graph here 11/19/05

This time I pulled peak 207 whp, 143 wtq

Added mod:

-T1R 2.5" b-pipe (stock dc5-r is 2.125")
-225/45/17 Michelin Pilot Sport 2's (4 pounds heavier each than my previous tires)

I guess I never got around to uploading this dyno graph ... but I gained about 1 peak whp and gain 4-6 whp in the midrange in some places (after vtec). Not bad for having much heavier tires to spin.

And finally, yesterday, I dyno'ed at a different shop in Irvine, CA, which is much closer to me. I didn't add any mods, but this shop is at sealevel, unlike Upland which again is 900-1300 ft. elevation.

dyno graph here 01/10/06

I pulled 212 whp, 146 wtq.

After that, we then proceeded to remove my DC5-R axleback ... and then ran again twice and got 214 whp, 148 wtq.

good stuff, eh? ... I'm running SUPER SUPER lean from 5000-6000 rpms, which is why my power has a ridiculously huge dip ... super lean as in 15.5:1 a/f.

Next mod: K-Pro.
__________________
TiMEX. Do you have one?

212 whp, 146 wtq - dynojet 01/10/06

1/4: 14.315 with a 2.422 60' (dc5r header, dc5r b-pipe) 10/29/05

The most thing I really wanted to note is that look at what had to be done to yeild a 14.3 1/4. A swapped motor, and mods on top of that, and that's what he yeilded in the 1/4.

rhythmnsmoke

01-26-2006, 06:49 PM

Reading later in the thread a guy asked the dude that I just "Quoted" from the site this:

I have a couple questions. First if you do not mind me asking how much from start to stop did you spend. Two how hard is it to smog a swapped newer car in Cali. Its just so hard to work on any thing new that I stick to older cars. But I so want to build a streetable k20 in a crx or ek/eg. Btw your ride is siiick post up more vids maybe even track runs!

To which the guy responded.

I spent probably almost $9k so far include all of my swap mods ... not including the rims.

Hmm...put $9k in a Civic and barely break 200whp or put $3k into a tC (which I might add is even cheaper than a regular 06 Civic) and break 250whp on merely 6lbs. :ponder:

rhythmnsmoke

01-26-2006, 06:56 PM

Just a funny little story about our mutual friend who drives the Teggy with the B16a1 swapped in it. The conversation goes like this.

Me: Yeah, can't wait till this spring when we can go turbo

Teggy Guy: Did I hear you say turbo?

Me: Yeah, soon I hope. It's going to be on about 6psi's.

Teggy Guy: (Puzzled look on his face, as in "that's rather weak")...

Me: Oh, it's just to start out with. It puts down good #'s.

Teggy Guy: How much?

Me: Oh, about 250 hp 260 tq to the wheels.

Teggy Guy: (Puzzled face again, but this time more like a look of shock!) All the while taking a second glance over at the TC as it sits beautifully in the drive way.

Teggy Guy: Man, you making me second guess what I'm doing with my car then.

:rofl: :rofl:

rhythmnsmoke

01-26-2006, 07:13 PM

Did some more poking around on 7thGenCivic.com and came upon a thread intitled...*Official* Turbo whp listing!

So, I thought I would take a look at the #'s some of them were putting down.

Comparing to a 2.4L 2az on STOCK internals boosting at 6psi's and pumping out:

247whp
257wtq

These are the #'s the Civic boys were putting out. Some on stock engines and some with engine work done. Pay CLOSE attention to the PSI levels in relation to the whp and wtq.

Well I've seen a few members on here that say they have their motors fully built and what not and I wanted everyone to post up their set up and their numbers. this time we should sticky this one for refrence.

Hyaboosta:
Stock Internals
Garrett T3/T4 .48AR
SFP manifold
Emanage- all harnesses
Greddy Type S BOV
Tial 38mm Wastegate
Turbo XS dual stage BC
Spearco IC

194whp/174tq @ 8psi

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are mine:

Garrett T3/T4 57 trim .48AR
Maxrev manifold
SAFC hack with type s injectors(soon to be emanage)
HKS BOV
Tial 38mm wastegate
precision intercooler
stock internals also

178whp / 171tq @ 6psi

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

T3/4 Precision turbo/intercooler
Custom piping
Tial wastgate
210 whp 198tq @ 12psi
Fully done internals
Stock injectors
Return fuel system

Car is on the shop getting RSX injectors, New P&P head, fuel rail and other fuel mangement items
I'll post my new numbers when fully done.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stock Internals
Garrett GT28R
HKS manifold
Emanage- all harnesses
Greddy Type-RS BOV
internal Wastegate
Johnnyrace FMIC
Auto Trans

169.8whp/154tq @ 7psi

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

164hp/162tq @ 6psi
2001 lx
t3 (sf manifold)
MF2 extra injector controller
sf intercooler

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

SF turbo kit
Emanage
rsx injectors
BCE built head
wiseco pistons
crower rods
ARP headstuds
greddy rs bov
profec b BC

236whp 238tq @ 15 psi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

200 HP and 196 ft-lbs of torque at 8 psi. That was with Electronic Boost Control problems so I probably made even more power than that.

Edit: I sold my kit. I'm buying a 350Z. Time for twin turbos

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turbonetics t03/04b
HKS SSQ BOV
Tial Wastegate
Spearco intercooler
RevHard manifold
Haltech F5 fuel controller
stock block with ARP head studs and OEM headgasket
225whp/194tq at 10psi
197whp/176tq at 8psi

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

<====*2002 Ex Sedan Automatic*
TSI Extreme kit
Garrett t25BB turbo
Stock internals
TSI BC, MAP etc
TCI auto Stage 2 transmission kit for automatics, and TCI auto torque converter

in the beginning ....
162.8whp/154tq @ 6psi
now running 12 PSI.. need to re tune and dyno will post up after thats done

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Custom Turbo Kit
245.9 whp, 207.4 tq @ 14psi

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Garrett t3/t4e 50 trim
RC 440's
SFP Turbo Manifold
D16y8 Intake Manifold Swap
AEM Standalone Engine Management System
2.5" Stainless Downpipe
2.5" Aluminized Intercooler Piping
Full 2.5" Open Exhaust
Golden Eagle Vacuum Manifold
AEM 3.5 Bar Map Sensor
Tial 35mm Wastegate with Atmospheric Dump Tube

Dynojet tuned at 6 psi
194whp/178tq

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Same setup at 13.5 psi
247 whp 212 tq

:yawn: And you say DISPLACEMENT does not make all that much of a difference. Notice the Last one recorded. It took him 13.5psi to achieve what we do on 6psi! Like I said DOUBLE the psi to equal the same #'s (or close to it, seeing as how the TQ is lacking).

I also might mention, CN (i believe thats the company) turbo for the k20z1 dyno'd at 301whp 240wtq @ 10 psi, so it would not need 20+ psi.

Prove it, where is the dyno chart and specs on the project?

I think there is a misconception, that when you see a Civic doing 12sec 1/4 miles, you think "Dang it must be putting down like 300whp". When in fact it is their LIGHT WEIGHT, not HP that alows them to get down the 1/4 fast. So, don't try to make it seem that they are fast due to some good HP numbers. If a tC goes down the 1/4 fast, you KNOW it's due to having some good hp, because WEIGHT is definitely not our strong point. We need the extra HP and TQ to get us there fast.

However, the new 06 SI is just as porky as the tC :lalala:

Comparing Engines to Engines sir, I've said it once, and I'll say it again...."2.0L at 6psi will not give the same hp as 2.4L at the same psi." :no: