comments from other people about my car
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,344
From: Queens, NY
Originally Posted by Espeed
Toyota > Honda.
Honda Civic is not and never will be a fast car.
They are dependable, that's it. VTEC does not
KICK IN" having 8,000 RPM's dosen't mean poop. The RX8 has 8k and more power, and I can smoke that and a Honda S2000, the Honda S2000 brags 237 HP, woopdie doo without TQ to back it up, the only place your going is to the rear of my tC's bumper.
You can rebuild the tC block, change some sensors and modify the computer and have a 10K redline with a huge garret turbo and a built and sleeved block.
Because you have adequate TQ, and add an LSD on for better control, I'm pretty sure you could probably take on a turbo 350Z, keep in mind this build would cost about how much you paid for the car but still. 10k redline is hot.
Honda Civic is not and never will be a fast car.
They are dependable, that's it. VTEC does not
KICK IN" having 8,000 RPM's dosen't mean poop. The RX8 has 8k and more power, and I can smoke that and a Honda S2000, the Honda S2000 brags 237 HP, woopdie doo without TQ to back it up, the only place your going is to the rear of my tC's bumper.
You can rebuild the tC block, change some sensors and modify the computer and have a 10K redline with a huge garret turbo and a built and sleeved block.
Because you have adequate TQ, and add an LSD on for better control, I'm pretty sure you could probably take on a turbo 350Z, keep in mind this build would cost about how much you paid for the car but still. 10k redline is hot.
But from my experience, ppl like to emphasize what they have what and others dont have.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 570
From: Riverside/IE, CA
The real skinny on torque & power:
Torque is what you feel, but it isn't actually the engine torque. It's the wheel torque. Wheel horsepower is pretty close to engine horsepower, only lower by some amount which is lost to friction. But wheel torque is a totally different thing from engine torque. It's quite common for a car to have a wheel torque of 2000 lb-ft. That's because engine torque is multiplied by the transmission to produce wheel torque, and the transmission can be designed to choose pretty much whatever multiplier you want. If a car produces less engine torque, the manufacturer will just choose a larger multiplier to produce optimal wheel torque. For example, here is a comparison of theoretical wheel torques, not counting friction, between a BMW 325 and Ford Mustang GT:
BMW 325xi
175 lb-ft.
3.23:1 final drive
1st gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 4.21:1 = 2380 lb-ft.
2nd gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 2.49:1 = 1410 lb-ft.
3rd gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 1.66:1 = 940 lb-ft.
4th gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 1.24:1 = 700 lb-ft.
5th gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 1.00:1 = 565 lb-ft.
Ford Mustang GT
302 lb-ft.
2.29:1 final drive
1st gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 3.37:1 = 2330 lb-ft.
2nd gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 1.99:1 = 1380 lb-ft.
3rd gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 1.33:1 = 920 lb-ft.
4th gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 1.00:1 = 690 lb-ft.
5th gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 0.67:1 = 460 lb-ft.
As you can see, although the Mustang has almost twice as much engine torque, its wheel torque will be almost the same as the BMW in every gear. So torque is pretty irrelevant.
The importance of power (wheel horsepower) is that it determines the maximum wheel torque you can get at a particular speed. The rule power = torque x RPMs / 5252 is true at the wheels too. To go 30mph, a typical 2 foot diameter tire would have to rotate at 420rpms. Supposing the car has 200 wheel hp you can solve the equation and get 2500 lb-ft. as the maximum possible wheel torque. At 60mph, the tires are rotating at 840rpms, and solving again you can get 1250 lb-ft. of torque. You still have to stick to the rule that wheel torque is engine torque times some multiplier, but shifting gears gives you some choice in the multiplier so you can come close to the theoretical maximums 2500 lb-ft. and 1250 lb-ft. above.
As you can see wheel torque is less at higher speeds, but more for any given speed if you have more power.
So the simple (sort of) answer is that power counts, torque doesn't. The more complicated truth is that torque counts a little. More specifically, the rpms given with the torque count. If the rpms are low and the torque is still high, that's a clue that the torque and power are good at all rpms. On the other hand, if the torque is at high rpms, near the rpms given with the power, power is good at high rpms only, and torque may also be good at high rpms only. Also, seeing a range of rpms with the torque as the Volvo has in its specs is good, since it should mean that the torque is flat or higher throughout that range.
Torque is what you feel, but it isn't actually the engine torque. It's the wheel torque. Wheel horsepower is pretty close to engine horsepower, only lower by some amount which is lost to friction. But wheel torque is a totally different thing from engine torque. It's quite common for a car to have a wheel torque of 2000 lb-ft. That's because engine torque is multiplied by the transmission to produce wheel torque, and the transmission can be designed to choose pretty much whatever multiplier you want. If a car produces less engine torque, the manufacturer will just choose a larger multiplier to produce optimal wheel torque. For example, here is a comparison of theoretical wheel torques, not counting friction, between a BMW 325 and Ford Mustang GT:
BMW 325xi
175 lb-ft.
3.23:1 final drive
1st gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 4.21:1 = 2380 lb-ft.
2nd gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 2.49:1 = 1410 lb-ft.
3rd gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 1.66:1 = 940 lb-ft.
4th gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 1.24:1 = 700 lb-ft.
5th gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 1.00:1 = 565 lb-ft.
Ford Mustang GT
302 lb-ft.
2.29:1 final drive
1st gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 3.37:1 = 2330 lb-ft.
2nd gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 1.99:1 = 1380 lb-ft.
3rd gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 1.33:1 = 920 lb-ft.
4th gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 1.00:1 = 690 lb-ft.
5th gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 0.67:1 = 460 lb-ft.
As you can see, although the Mustang has almost twice as much engine torque, its wheel torque will be almost the same as the BMW in every gear. So torque is pretty irrelevant.
The importance of power (wheel horsepower) is that it determines the maximum wheel torque you can get at a particular speed. The rule power = torque x RPMs / 5252 is true at the wheels too. To go 30mph, a typical 2 foot diameter tire would have to rotate at 420rpms. Supposing the car has 200 wheel hp you can solve the equation and get 2500 lb-ft. as the maximum possible wheel torque. At 60mph, the tires are rotating at 840rpms, and solving again you can get 1250 lb-ft. of torque. You still have to stick to the rule that wheel torque is engine torque times some multiplier, but shifting gears gives you some choice in the multiplier so you can come close to the theoretical maximums 2500 lb-ft. and 1250 lb-ft. above.
As you can see wheel torque is less at higher speeds, but more for any given speed if you have more power.
So the simple (sort of) answer is that power counts, torque doesn't. The more complicated truth is that torque counts a little. More specifically, the rpms given with the torque count. If the rpms are low and the torque is still high, that's a clue that the torque and power are good at all rpms. On the other hand, if the torque is at high rpms, near the rpms given with the power, power is good at high rpms only, and torque may also be good at high rpms only. Also, seeing a range of rpms with the torque as the Volvo has in its specs is good, since it should mean that the torque is flat or higher throughout that range.
Senior Member
SoCal tC Club
SL Member
Team N.V.S.
Scinergy
Scion Evolution
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 15,699
Originally Posted by CuRiOuSfIsH
Originally Posted by TongMan
I like Honda...it's the drivers that I don't like as much.
screw other people and their opinions... the tC's camry engine is reliable and i plan to run my car for many many years and into the ground.
so what if the performance aspect of the tC may or may not be competitive amongst other cars? did you buy the car to race? or to drive?
as a dd car.. it gets good mileage.. as a showy car.. it's economical and great in value for a foundation.... for performace... it's also a good foundation and it's quite peppy enough on the highways and such to keep up with other sporty performance vehicles.
the truth be told.. the tC isn't a sports car... though many individuals treat it as one.. and because so... most insurance companies treat it as such as well.... which doesn't help anyone out at all....
Member
SL Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 67
From: Aiea, Hawaii
I'm glad to see that there are people in this community who understand what kind of a car the tC is. To have a hissy fit when someone says your car isn't as good as something different is rediculous unless YOUR car can really keep up in that particular aspect or class.
tCs are a good car. Let the community reflect that.
tCs are a good car. Let the community reflect that.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 172
I work at a toyota dealership and I noticed that most tC owners that come to service their vehicles are females. But, I fiqured that most male owners probably do their own service on their tC. I think it's a half & half gender based car. A nice looking car loaded with features at an affordable price can attract anybody. Performance on tC kinda sucks though.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,221
You will love the WRX, had a WRX wagon for four years before I moved to the tC. I know, some people are probably asking am I crazy, but when I can pay for my tC and my insurance for less then the cost of upgrading to the STI, it is tough to go with the Subi. Especially since I am not living at 9,600' anymore!!! I love my tC and have had many compliments. Never came across any haters here in PHX, just other Hondas or RSXs throwing up the duece! It's all import tuner love and we just like different flavors, that's all!!!!
I did have a good one the other day though... Was just finishing up a hike with my girl in Sedona when we came up to the tC with 8 super silvs staring at it. We got up close to the car and I hit the alarm, they all kind of stood back and looked around. Once they saw the car was mine, they asked...almost in perfect unison...."What is it?" I replied "A Scion." One of the gentleman in the group said "We can read that." I felt like asking him "Then what the hell did you ask me for?" Instead I was the nice young man they like to see and explained about the car.
I have heard about other people in the community having this happen to them, but never happened to me till Friday. I loved it, it gives you a chance to explain what Scion means to you. All I have to say is...
If you love your car and it is everything you want, then forget everyone else. If they don't like it, then they don't have to buy one! Like I said early, thanks to the spice of life, we have Vanilla and Choclate!!!!!!!
I did have a good one the other day though... Was just finishing up a hike with my girl in Sedona when we came up to the tC with 8 super silvs staring at it. We got up close to the car and I hit the alarm, they all kind of stood back and looked around. Once they saw the car was mine, they asked...almost in perfect unison...."What is it?" I replied "A Scion." One of the gentleman in the group said "We can read that." I felt like asking him "Then what the hell did you ask me for?" Instead I was the nice young man they like to see and explained about the car.
I have heard about other people in the community having this happen to them, but never happened to me till Friday. I loved it, it gives you a chance to explain what Scion means to you. All I have to say is...
If you love your car and it is everything you want, then forget everyone else. If they don't like it, then they don't have to buy one! Like I said early, thanks to the spice of life, we have Vanilla and Choclate!!!!!!!
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,344
From: Queens, NY
Originally Posted by TrafficinLA
The real skinny on torque & power:
Torque is what you feel, but it isn't actually the engine torque. It's the wheel torque. Wheel horsepower is pretty close to engine horsepower, only lower by some amount which is lost to friction. But wheel torque is a totally different thing from engine torque. It's quite common for a car to have a wheel torque of 2000 lb-ft. That's because engine torque is multiplied by the transmission to produce wheel torque, and the transmission can be designed to choose pretty much whatever multiplier you want. If a car produces less engine torque, the manufacturer will just choose a larger multiplier to produce optimal wheel torque. For example, here is a comparison of theoretical wheel torques, not counting friction, between a BMW 325 and Ford Mustang GT:
BMW 325xi
175 lb-ft.
3.23:1 final drive
1st gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 4.21:1 = 2380 lb-ft.
2nd gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 2.49:1 = 1410 lb-ft.
3rd gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 1.66:1 = 940 lb-ft.
4th gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 1.24:1 = 700 lb-ft.
5th gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 1.00:1 = 565 lb-ft.
Ford Mustang GT
302 lb-ft.
2.29:1 final drive
1st gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 3.37:1 = 2330 lb-ft.
2nd gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 1.99:1 = 1380 lb-ft.
3rd gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 1.33:1 = 920 lb-ft.
4th gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 1.00:1 = 690 lb-ft.
5th gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 0.67:1 = 460 lb-ft.
As you can see, although the Mustang has almost twice as much engine torque, its wheel torque will be almost the same as the BMW in every gear. So torque is pretty irrelevant.
The importance of power (wheel horsepower) is that it determines the maximum wheel torque you can get at a particular speed. The rule power = torque x RPMs / 5252 is true at the wheels too. To go 30mph, a typical 2 foot diameter tire would have to rotate at 420rpms. Supposing the car has 200 wheel hp you can solve the equation and get 2500 lb-ft. as the maximum possible wheel torque. At 60mph, the tires are rotating at 840rpms, and solving again you can get 1250 lb-ft. of torque. You still have to stick to the rule that wheel torque is engine torque times some multiplier, but shifting gears gives you some choice in the multiplier so you can come close to the theoretical maximums 2500 lb-ft. and 1250 lb-ft. above.
As you can see wheel torque is less at higher speeds, but more for any given speed if you have more power.
So the simple (sort of) answer is that power counts, torque doesn't. The more complicated truth is that torque counts a little. More specifically, the rpms given with the torque count. If the rpms are low and the torque is still high, that's a clue that the torque and power are good at all rpms. On the other hand, if the torque is at high rpms, near the rpms given with the power, power is good at high rpms only, and torque may also be good at high rpms only. Also, seeing a range of rpms with the torque as the Volvo has in its specs is good, since it should mean that the torque is flat or higher throughout that range.
Torque is what you feel, but it isn't actually the engine torque. It's the wheel torque. Wheel horsepower is pretty close to engine horsepower, only lower by some amount which is lost to friction. But wheel torque is a totally different thing from engine torque. It's quite common for a car to have a wheel torque of 2000 lb-ft. That's because engine torque is multiplied by the transmission to produce wheel torque, and the transmission can be designed to choose pretty much whatever multiplier you want. If a car produces less engine torque, the manufacturer will just choose a larger multiplier to produce optimal wheel torque. For example, here is a comparison of theoretical wheel torques, not counting friction, between a BMW 325 and Ford Mustang GT:
BMW 325xi
175 lb-ft.
3.23:1 final drive
1st gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 4.21:1 = 2380 lb-ft.
2nd gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 2.49:1 = 1410 lb-ft.
3rd gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 1.66:1 = 940 lb-ft.
4th gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 1.24:1 = 700 lb-ft.
5th gear - 175 x 3.23:1 x 1.00:1 = 565 lb-ft.
Ford Mustang GT
302 lb-ft.
2.29:1 final drive
1st gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 3.37:1 = 2330 lb-ft.
2nd gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 1.99:1 = 1380 lb-ft.
3rd gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 1.33:1 = 920 lb-ft.
4th gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 1.00:1 = 690 lb-ft.
5th gear - 302 x 2.29:1 x 0.67:1 = 460 lb-ft.
As you can see, although the Mustang has almost twice as much engine torque, its wheel torque will be almost the same as the BMW in every gear. So torque is pretty irrelevant.
The importance of power (wheel horsepower) is that it determines the maximum wheel torque you can get at a particular speed. The rule power = torque x RPMs / 5252 is true at the wheels too. To go 30mph, a typical 2 foot diameter tire would have to rotate at 420rpms. Supposing the car has 200 wheel hp you can solve the equation and get 2500 lb-ft. as the maximum possible wheel torque. At 60mph, the tires are rotating at 840rpms, and solving again you can get 1250 lb-ft. of torque. You still have to stick to the rule that wheel torque is engine torque times some multiplier, but shifting gears gives you some choice in the multiplier so you can come close to the theoretical maximums 2500 lb-ft. and 1250 lb-ft. above.
As you can see wheel torque is less at higher speeds, but more for any given speed if you have more power.
So the simple (sort of) answer is that power counts, torque doesn't. The more complicated truth is that torque counts a little. More specifically, the rpms given with the torque count. If the rpms are low and the torque is still high, that's a clue that the torque and power are good at all rpms. On the other hand, if the torque is at high rpms, near the rpms given with the power, power is good at high rpms only, and torque may also be good at high rpms only. Also, seeing a range of rpms with the torque as the Volvo has in its specs is good, since it should mean that the torque is flat or higher throughout that range.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 36
From: slo
Originally Posted by zensoku
I'm sorry most of you guys will not like hearing this but...
I'm sick and tired of people complaining that someone doesn't like they're tC and compares it to whatever. When you say that they're "hating" on you for whatever and then you talk poop about how their car doesn't have torque or a glass sunroof is just hating back isn't it? I liked having my car because I thought the owners were pretty cool. Hondas ARE GOOD CARS but had a few sour apples to ruin the bunch.
I originally wanted to stay as far away from scion as possible. I did not like the generation Y image that they were going for. IMO its all about subs, TVs, and lights. That's why they made the xA and xB. All show. Not saying that I don't have a DVD player in my car
. I just like to have a bit more "*****" to what I drive from the factory than a 1.5L or 1.6L. I am an ex-prelude owner, so I wanted my next car to be able to have a little bit respect engine wise. The tC was a nice solid engine. Nothing great, but decent. I could ask for much more in the suspension department but nothing aftermarket can't fix. Other than that I just liked the potential that it had for turbo. I'm sorry if this is angering anyone, but I'm not exactly happy when I see threads like these.
Espeed get off your high horse. It's not like the corolla, which is comparable to a civic sedan, is a fast car either. Even the XRS. POS compared to a Si. Yeah a Si lacks torque and isn't as fast as a Supra. This is why cars are put into different classes. You could compare it more to a Celica GTS, Sentra SE-R. You may get off the line faster than the civic. No maybe not because our stock tires are "poop." That's about it though. Civics can be fast cars. Turbo or N/A they can be built pretty well. I love my tC to a certain extent, but not to this point where I must justify your vehicle choice by bashing another car that you feel is "lesser." I'm sure you don't like people hating on you. Don't hate on them as well.
As for you Paulwong:
You just checked this and you just checked that. Why don't you just check that there is no civic si sedan. Maybe you believed the dealer that you were really test driving a civic si sedan but it was really they're lowest of the low dx model with the poop d17 engine. As for the glass sunroof. If it's not for looks then what is it for? For me it just looks cool. I don't really use it for anything. O wait. Girls love it. It has a purpose.
I'm sure there are now people that don't really like what I had to say. If you spent the time to read this, I thank you. I'm sorry if a came off a bit harsh. Espeed just seems to have a grudge against Hondas and Paulwong just seems to be totally misinformed. I sympathize with you Paul that someone compared your car with another car that was built more with performance in mind. Don't think of it as him insulting that your car does not compare performance wise. Just think of him as misinformed to compared two different vehicles. It's like trying to compare camry with a celica gts. They're both not a ferrari, but they're both not quite on the same playing field.
Thanks for letting me vent. Go flame me or watever. Not sure if I'll see this thread again but watever.
I'm sick and tired of people complaining that someone doesn't like they're tC and compares it to whatever. When you say that they're "hating" on you for whatever and then you talk poop about how their car doesn't have torque or a glass sunroof is just hating back isn't it? I liked having my car because I thought the owners were pretty cool. Hondas ARE GOOD CARS but had a few sour apples to ruin the bunch.
I originally wanted to stay as far away from scion as possible. I did not like the generation Y image that they were going for. IMO its all about subs, TVs, and lights. That's why they made the xA and xB. All show. Not saying that I don't have a DVD player in my car
. I just like to have a bit more "*****" to what I drive from the factory than a 1.5L or 1.6L. I am an ex-prelude owner, so I wanted my next car to be able to have a little bit respect engine wise. The tC was a nice solid engine. Nothing great, but decent. I could ask for much more in the suspension department but nothing aftermarket can't fix. Other than that I just liked the potential that it had for turbo. I'm sorry if this is angering anyone, but I'm not exactly happy when I see threads like these.Espeed get off your high horse. It's not like the corolla, which is comparable to a civic sedan, is a fast car either. Even the XRS. POS compared to a Si. Yeah a Si lacks torque and isn't as fast as a Supra. This is why cars are put into different classes. You could compare it more to a Celica GTS, Sentra SE-R. You may get off the line faster than the civic. No maybe not because our stock tires are "poop." That's about it though. Civics can be fast cars. Turbo or N/A they can be built pretty well. I love my tC to a certain extent, but not to this point where I must justify your vehicle choice by bashing another car that you feel is "lesser." I'm sure you don't like people hating on you. Don't hate on them as well.
As for you Paulwong:
You just checked this and you just checked that. Why don't you just check that there is no civic si sedan. Maybe you believed the dealer that you were really test driving a civic si sedan but it was really they're lowest of the low dx model with the poop d17 engine. As for the glass sunroof. If it's not for looks then what is it for? For me it just looks cool. I don't really use it for anything. O wait. Girls love it. It has a purpose.
I'm sure there are now people that don't really like what I had to say. If you spent the time to read this, I thank you. I'm sorry if a came off a bit harsh. Espeed just seems to have a grudge against Hondas and Paulwong just seems to be totally misinformed. I sympathize with you Paul that someone compared your car with another car that was built more with performance in mind. Don't think of it as him insulting that your car does not compare performance wise. Just think of him as misinformed to compared two different vehicles. It's like trying to compare camry with a celica gts. They're both not a ferrari, but they're both not quite on the same playing field.
Thanks for letting me vent. Go flame me or watever. Not sure if I'll see this thread again but watever.
i never drive the si sedan, but i did drove the civic ex many times, n drove civic si coupe once, i don't like how the front is like... i just don't like it.. feels like a lowered mini van or murano..
Member
SL Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 67
From: Aiea, Hawaii
Originally Posted by PAULwong
i never drive the si sedan, but i did drove the civic ex many times, n drove civic si coupe once, i don't like how the front is like... i just don't like it.. feels like a lowered mini van or murano..
Originally Posted by PAULwong
i was about to buy the civic si sedan, but 2 months before i bought my car, i changed my mind
Dude don't go off on a civic si being a terribly slow car when you've only experienced the economy sedan. It's a bit different. Just a lil...
. You probably test drove the Si below 3k rpms if you think it has no power.As for the front, I had a hard time getting used to the tC because of how short the front is. It was like driving my mom's Sienna again. Of course this is because I was used my prelude which had a longer hood.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 36
From: slo
i m not looking for a fast front wheel drive car at this price, but the way civic si and regular civic looks little bit different n the engine, our tc is not fast either, some people just think that y buying a tc when i can get a rev happy civic si, i still like the civic si but i just don't like to drive it
Member
SL Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 67
From: Aiea, Hawaii
^lol. I own a tC and love it, but I still love and respect the Hondas. My Lude was good to me. I'd trade in the tC for another Honda so I could get a better performing car, but insurance would be painful.
PAULwong, I stand corrected. Honda has a new Civic Si sedan for 2007. OMG I WANT TO TRADE MY TC NOW. When did they release it???
PAULwong, I stand corrected. Honda has a new Civic Si sedan for 2007. OMG I WANT TO TRADE MY TC NOW. When did they release it???
