Stock RL VS. Stock '06 SI same dyno, results in here.....

[INNOVA]

Welp I thought this would make you guys happy... both runs were done consecutivly same time, place etc...



Stock Redline:

Look at that beautiful curve! Sorry no torque readings this time but it was 188 Wheel Ft Pounds of Torque




Stock '06 Civic SI

A bumpy ride up to 174fwhp.



Also here is a 02 RSX Type S. CAI, Race Header, Exhaust @ the same place:







A S2000 was there as well and It put down 198 HP.....

[zeebees]

Is this because of the variable valve timing with the "vtec" engine? What is the SI is it a v6 or what?

[TXRLU]

SI is a 4 banger. I'd love to see the torque curve comparisons on these vehicles. I guess I'll hit Google...........

Hmmm, nothing on Google but I did find a couple of RSX Type-S' with a weak 128 lbs/ft of torque.

So the 215 HP to the wheels was COMPLETELY STOCK? Interesting how that bump in the A/F ratio is about the same engine speed that I notice the jerkiness in 1st and 2nd gear.........

[Freakazoid]

AHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHA

i love it

but as for the s2k, 04+ versions of that car it was obvious honda didn't want a 0-60 car, so that hp drop from their claim is RIDICULOUS (40hp?) but honda doesn't seem to care that mucha bout that.

SI and RSX-S is hilarious though lol

[INNOVA]

Yes the '05 RL and the new SI were both stock. I'm pretty sure the S2k was as well.

[crazybrew609]

if thats all the hp the rsx is putting out i feel stupid.. cause one of my friedns has the exact same mods and he pulled a 1/4 time identical to mine

[Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by crazybrew609

if thats all the hp the rsx is putting out i feel stupid.. cause one of my friedns has the exact same mods and he pulled a 1/4 time identical to mine

now that I think about it, I wonder if there might have been some error along the way or something....?

I know the RL is faster than the rsx, but 40 hp would make it a LOT faster (remember that's with mods too), it should be more or less straight out SMOKING the rsx.
same thing with the S2K, I know magazine racing is stupid, but realistically with the numbers given through the dynos, now that I thinka bout it, the RL should be more or less smoking any of the cars listed, straight out destroying them.
S2K is rated by most magazines being a solid .5-1 second faster in the 0-60, that and the 40 hp drivetrain loss is one hell of a loss.... with the numbers with that the RL should have at least been closer to the S2K in most 0-60 times



not saying it's bs, just seems really weird now that I'm thinkin about it

[RL-2005]

s2000 is rwd so it will definitely be able to launch harder

RSX-s has so little torque it can launch higher in the powerband without spinning

both weigh 100 pounds less than a RL

[Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by RL-2005

s2000 is rwd so it will definitely be able to launch harder

RSX-s has so little torque it can launch higher in the powerband without spinning

both weigh 100 pounds less than a RL

The thing is the S2K's differential can't handle big clutch dumps, so the launching with that is actually going to be pretty limited, which is also the reason they introduced a clutch delay, which in turn also makes the high rpm shifts not as effective, both things, especially with a car with 20 less whp than the RL would be making it at least a bit closer. Even with the 100 less lbs on it. (only corresponds to what a 3-4% difference in weight? as compared to 10% in horsepower). Plus the entire S2K's lack of torque and beginning speed. I dunno I just think that the 2 cars should have been closer than a solid second difference with all that.

As for the RSX, true it can launch harder but the car still has very little torque, and while it would have 100 less pounds, it would have 50 less whp stock than a RL, that would still then tend itself to be obliterated by the RL... imo. Not just the simple edging out/walking on it seems to tend itself to.

Just my 2 cents, feel free to disagree

[Freakazoid]

btw the other thing that threw me off is the SI, which was supposedly supposed to be weaker than the RSX-S, would be assumed to actually have more HP than the rsx ? or at least probably the same? (roughly what like 185 hp with the mods on the RSX, vs the 174 stock of the SI)