Rep Power: 0

Okay, I've been reading posts about how some people smoked other cars that are faster than their's....

Totally believeable. But it's a fact that when you're racing with manual transmission, driver plays a critcal role in getting the car to move. Just because you beat someone in a race, does not mean your car is faster.

So to kill all the myths and assumptions, about how fast the 7th Gen Civics are, I've pulled some data out of major publications. Most of these guys use professional drivers and accurate equipment to clock their times. And they do multiple runs through out the day, and jot down the fastest times achieved.


From CAR & DRIVER:

Honda Civic EX Coupe
0-60mph: 8.4s
1/4 mile: 16.7s

Honda Civic Si Hatchback
0-60mph: 8.0s
1/4 mile: 16.2s

Dodge Neon R/T
0-60mph: 7.6s
1/4 mile: 16.1s

Mazda Protege MP3
0-60mph: 8.3s
1/4 mile: 16.2s

Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V
0-60mph: 7.4s
1/4 mile: 15.7s

Pontiac Vibe GT (twin of Toyota Matrix XRS)
0-60mph: 7.3s
1/4 mile: 15.7s

VW GTi GLS 1.8T
0-60mph: 7.3s
1/4 mile: 15.9s


From MOTOR TREND:

Honda Civic EX Coupe
0-60mph: 9.0s
1/4 mile: 16.5s

Chrysler PT Cruiser
0-60mph: 8.6s
1/4 mile: 16.6s

Hyundai Elantra GLS
0-60mph: 8.4s
1/4mile: 16.2s

Mazda Protege MP3
0-60mph: 8.9s
1/4 mile: 16.8s

Mitsubishi Lancer OZ Edition
0-60mph: 8.8s
1/4 mile: 16.6s

Nissan Sentra SE
0-60mph: 7.9s
1/4 mlie: 16.0s

Nissan Sentra SE-R SpecV
0-60mph: 7.2s
1/4 mile: 15.6s

Toyota Celica GT-S
0-60mph: 7.3s
1/4 mile: 15.5s

Toyota Corolla S
0-60mph: 8.8s
1/4 mile: 16.6s

Toyota Echo
0-60mph: 8.4s
1/4 mile: 16.5s

VW GTi GLS 1.8T
0-60mph: 7.6s
1/4 mile: 16.0s


The timres vary between the two publications, but the differences between the time for each vehicle is consistant. Seems like Car & Driver guys generally use better drivers.

The most shocking news--7th Gen Civics are indeed slower than the Hyundai Elantra and (gulp!) Toyota Echo. Of course, I didn't believe these numbers, until I test drove both cars. They do indeed feel a lot peppier. I thought it was just my "feeling" but numbers do not lie.

So for all you guys that say how you beat this and that car.... we know you're not lying. Just don't say your car is faster. Because that would be a lie.

 
Rep Power: 0

true that...

 
Rep Power: 0

Hey man you want a real good example, head over to the supra forums. There's a big discussion about a Supra beating a Grand National (Turbo Buick). They're going along the lines of what you're saying. The GN should have won but the driver was at fault.

Anyway, I don't care anymore, these days you can't say anything on the Internet without being flamed.

 
Rep Power: 0

That slow *** Echo...

 
Rep Power: 0

wooohooo i drive a slow car [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/IMG] ohh well i just need a car that gets me from point A to point B. and look good

 
Rep Power: 0

<< driver plays a critcal role in getting the car to move. >>



true

then why are u showing magazine times!?

there are 5 million variables in how a car beats another car!
its the same thing when magazine people test
y do u think edmunds can get 7.9s for our EX, while motortrend gets 9.0s?
which number are u gonna take?

this post is kinda pointless because, as long as we win, we're happy. so what if our car is actually faster or slower?

[IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

<< Hey man you want a real good example, head over to the supra forums. There's a big discussion about a Supra beating a Grand National (Turbo Buick). They're going along the lines of what you're saying. The GN should have won but the driver was at fault.

Anyway, I don't care anymore, these days you can't say anything on the Internet without being flamed. >>




Well that GNX probably was faster... I don't know the whole story, if they are modded, or stock etc...

But you know what? People flame you because of what they BELIEVE. Automobiles are becoming like religion now. Different gods, different cars. Everyone's got an idea on which car is faster.

However, as we all know, cars are NOT a belief. Acceleration times are measured in seconds, and it doesn't matter if you THINK your car is faster. The clock shows the truth, when both cars are driven by the SAME driver.

 
Rep Power: 0

in no way am I flaming but I will be the first to say:



driver is always a factor and will always be a factor.

 
Rep Power: 0

The vic is no barn burner. We all know that. The times in the magazines are with professional drivers striving to get the best out of the car. That's not reality. Out on the road, any car that isn't significantly faster than the vic is fair game. Say a cobra mustang vs. the vic. Even a bad stang driver will win that one. Something like the corolla, the protege,mp3, etc...it will always come down to the driver. The fact that the car is faster has absolutely no bearing whatsoever unless like I said, it is significacntly faster. Plus, cars with performance numbers that are w/i 1/2 sec of each other can basically be considered equal.

 
Rep Power: 0

<<

<< driver plays a critcal role in getting the car to move. >>



true

then why are u showing magazine times!?

there are 5 million variables in how a car beats another car!
its the same thing when magazine people test
y do u think edmunds can get 7.9s for our EX, while motortrend gets 9.0s?
which number are u gonna take?

this post is kinda pointless because, as long as we win, we're happy. so what if our car is actually faster or slower?

[IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/IMG] >>




Not really.

Maybe you won a race by a car length with your Civic EX. If you had a Sentra SE-R, you might've won it by THREE car lengths. The differences are there, clearly.

And as far as Edmund's 7.9s..... hey, maybe he's the next Michael Andretti. If he is, then I'm sure he could get better times with an ECHO as well. Maybe he'll drive it into 7.6s.

One thing is for certain though. Major publications, Motor Trend and such, use more accurate equipment than your local drag strip. They also test their cars with FULL tank of gas. They also keep driver's weight consistant, or consistant as possible.

I also put up times for 2 different publications for a reason, so you can see and compare. But if you noticed, even though one magazine is generally faster than the other (like Edmund's faster time), the margin between the cars are consistant.

And for your info, I've been on the Celica fourms, and people's doing 14's with stock GTS and 15's with stock GT. People are also doing 14's with stock Prelude on their own fourms. You are always going to see miracle times in EVERY FOURM. Those times surpass every tests scores achieved by the professionals.

But you know what? I *KNOW* a stock Mustang is faster than a Celica GTS, despite the 14 second time slip some people on that fourm claim to have. So use logic, and make your judgements.

 
Rep Power: 0

you also have to understand that there is a break in period. The car wont run as well off the lot sa it will with a few miles on it. How else can you explain a 16.7 or whatever it is, to a members 15.8 bone stock? I know he lowered pressure in his tires, and probably took out the spare, but that wouldnt make a second difference. Just something to think about

 
Rep Power: 0

<< you also have to understand that there is a break in period. The car wont run as well off the lot sa it will with a few miles on it. How else can you explain a 16.7 or whatever it is, to a members 15.8 bone stock? I know he lowered pressure in his tires, and probably took out the spare, but that wouldnt make a second difference. Just something to think about >>



Absolutely true... cars get faster fater break in period. And even more faster after 40,000km or so.

But non-break in period applies to all cars tested.... not just Civics.

That's why they also write long term reports, along with performance numbers tested again. All cars get faster after the 1st year write-up.

 
Rep Power: 0

whoa whoa whoa.. is the echo faster.. WTF

 
Rep Power: 0

I know, it's surprising..........

Just like how people on Miata fourm was mad as hell, when MR-2 Spyder was announced quicker....
"But but, my Miata did 1/4 mile in...."

As well as BMW fourms, when Acura 3.2CL Type-S was announced quicker....
"But but, my BMW did 1/4 mile in..."

And Celica fourms, when RSX-S was announced quicker...
"But but, my Celica did 1/4 mile in..."

Flames, flames, flames. Gotta love fourms. [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

MAN.....i dunno why all these people hatin' on you. i thought it was an informative post, and now you just have a better idea of how well you drive if you beat someone that has a car that can beat yours, but doesn't. i appreciate the information.

ps.......i always was a car and driver fan-screw the big bad motor trend thinking their always da bomb!!

 
Rep Power: 0

An echo is faster? and Elantra, I would have to say hell no , no matter what the numbers say, those 2 cars after a month of driving get worn down so much they are slow like hell, how do i know? i cause i tried both as rentals, they totally sucked

the thing is for numbers, are they actual times? or Calculated, i bet they are CALCULATED

 
Rep Power: 0

<< An echo is faster? and Elantra, I would have to say hell no , no matter what the numbers say, those 2 cars after a month of driving get worn down so much they are slow like hell, how do i know? i cause i tried both as rentals, they totally sucked

the thing is for numbers, are they actual times? or Calculated, i bet they are CALCULATED >>



They are clocked... not calculated [IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG]

Anyway, I've driven those two cars too, and they felt really peppy to me. Eleantra was definitely torquier (2.0L) and echo felt extremely light. You drive them too, obviously......

but you didn't clock them

 
Rep Power: 0

hmm they are clocked, are u dang sure? the elantra just felt like a cheap car to me that is, my friend tried one as a rental too, we raced that rental against a 6thgen ex (CDN) the 6thgen sedan had 106hp and typical mods, it killed the elanra, and the echo, OMG, crap car!!......... seriously you thought it was a nice car? anyways after stepping on it, and releasing u can see the speedometer drop all the way back down to 0 in a hurry, for sure i bet you can take those 2 cars, don't you think so?.......

 
Rep Power: 0

Guys I've heard this too. Echo's are pretty fast because Toyota kept the weight down on them. They weigh next to nothing.

 
Rep Power: 0

Echo's are faster, I've posted this before, for the exact reason above...they are hella light. Even though the engine is not as strong, weight makes a huge difference. It's not hard to see why it is lighter, it looks like a Ford Festiva or something you would drive in Europe. Small and compact = zippy car and even faster when modded.

I like the post but agree that there are more factors than just the ones they kept the same in the tests. Some engines are build better, and some worse. Air tempature/humidity matters alot more than people think and there is always the launch method to consider. I know the S2K frequently runs better times at the track than these mags get b/c of how it is launched. Unfortunatly the S2K needs cluch dumps above the v-tec engagement to run its best. I doubt they abused a new car that they have to return to the manufacturer by doing such a thing.

It is a good guide though and can help you from getting whooped by an obviously faster car.

 
Rep Power: 0

And I have posted this before, an Echo and Elantra are not faster just because of less weight. Their GEARING is not performance oriented like that of the EX... I have NEVER lost to an echo at the track.. the best that I have seen ran a 16.8 something. And does anyone wonder why the mags get times that are so crappy? They don't shift past redline. The 0-60 times in edmunds are 7.9, in MT its 9.0. Why? Well think about it, redline in 2nd on an EX is approximately 60mph. Now... if you push to 7000RPM... I can get my 0-60 in the 7.xx. If I shift at 6500rpm (like the mags), it takes up to another second depending on how bad I want to abuse my mounts and bushings. That is your discrepancy. I usually have to shift into 4th at the end of the 1/4 as well... USe this as you will, I was trained by the police tactical pursuit course when I was an officer, maybe thats why my times are as they are [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

<< The 0-60 times in edmunds are 7.9, in MT its 9.0. Why? Well think about it, redline in 2nd on an EX is approximately 60mph. Now... if you push to 7000RPM... I can get my 0-60 in the 7.xx. If I shift at 6500rpm (like the mags), it takes up to another second depending on how bad I want to abuse my mounts and bushings. That is your discrepancy. I usually have to shift into 4th at the end of the 1/4 as well... >>



Actually, they go higher than 6500RPM...

All mags will EXPLOIT the vehiles, including going OVER the redline. They'll find out which RPM to shift at that will give them the best time. Hence why they found out the Matrix XRS was just as quick as the Celica GTS, even though it was a lot HEAVIER (same gearing though). Celica GTS has a rev limiter at 7,800RPM, but they took the Matrix right up to a buzzy 9,000RPM.

Results? The 1/4 mile time was the same........ check in this month's Motor Trend, they have an article on it.

Guys that work for Motor Trend and others are not idiots. Some of them are even ex-pro racers.

I agree, no tests are perfect. And I am not saying a Civic cannot achieve better than 0-60mph in 9.0s. But what I am saying is so can an Echo (ie 8.4s)... and when tested by the SAME people, with 0.6s difference, it SHOULD make you think about it.

A lot of people talk about how their cars are WAAAY faster than Echo or any Hyundai. They were brought up to think Civics are the fastest cars on the road. You have to give credit, where credit is due.

 
Rep Power: 0

<<

<< The 0-60 times in edmunds are 7.9, in MT its 9.0. Why? Well think about it, redline in 2nd on an EX is approximately 60mph. Now... if you push to 7000RPM... I can get my 0-60 in the 7.xx. If I shift at 6500rpm (like the mags), it takes up to another second depending on how bad I want to abuse my mounts and bushings. That is your discrepancy. I usually have to shift into 4th at the end of the 1/4 as well... >>



Actually, they go higher than 6500RPM...

All mags will EXPLOIT the vehiles, including going OVER the redline. They'll find out which RPM to shift at that will give them the best time. Hence why they found out the Matrix XRS was just as quick as the Celica GTS, even though it was a lot HEAVIER (same gearing though). Celica GTS has a rev limiter at 7,800RPM, but they took the Matrix right up to a buzzy 9,000RPM.

Results? The 1/4 mile time was the same........ check in this month's Motor Trend, they have an article on it.

Guys that work for Motor Trend and others are not idiots. Some of them are even ex-pro racers.

I agree, no tests are perfect. And I am not saying a Civic cannot achieve better than 0-60mph in 9.0s. And I knew from the start, there are people with better times on this fourm. Same could be said about Echo's 0-60mph of 8.4s. I'm sure at a Echo/Yaris site, people are achieving better times. Stock tires make a difference (Civic's firestones do not help). They cannot give everyone Pirelli P-Zero tires.... stock is used, just like you would get the car from the dealership.

Another factor is, as good as these testers are, they only have the car for 1 whole day to get the best times. You guys have the same car for months on end to get the best times. But this applies to the Echo and other unlikely "quick" cars as well. Maybe EVERY mag finds the Echo easier to master. I somehow doubt it.

A lot of people talk about how their cars are WAAAY faster than Echo or any Hyundai. They were brought up to think Civics are the fastest cars on the road. But you know what? You have to give credit, where credit is due. >>

 
Rep Power: 0

I stopped reading after the first page....but the fact of the matter is, if I drive my Si (Ex for yous) and I beat a Viper (highly unlikely) I can still say I beat a viper and my car is faster.... this comparing to my car with me driving and his viper with him driving...
me &lt;------
Him/her &lt;------
all you guys &lt;------


hehehehe

Team RR [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

Pontiac Vibe GT (twin of Toyota Matrix XRS)
0-60mph: 7.3s
1/4 mile: 15.7s

VW GTi GLS 1.8T
0-60mph: 7.3s
1/4 mile: 15.9s



In a word, NO. There's no way in hell that the two results above are right, unless the test is completely biased.

 
Rep Power: 0

<< Pontiac Vibe GT (twin of Toyota Matrix XRS)
0-60mph: 7.3s
1/4 mile: 15.7s

VW GTi GLS 1.8T
0-60mph: 7.3s
1/4 mile: 15.9s



In a word, NO. There's no way in hell that the two results above are right, unless the test is completely biased. >>



I guess you don't agree with people doing 15's in this fourm with their 7th gen civic either huh? Bias? Nawwww never

 
Rep Power: 0

<< I stopped reading after the first page....but the fact of the matter is, if I drive my Si (Ex for yous) and I beat a Viper (highly unlikely) I can still say I beat a viper and my car is faster.... this comparing to my car with me driving and his viper with him driving...
me &lt;------
Him/her &lt;------
all you guys &lt;------


hehehehe

>>



Yes, comparing to THAT Viper.

But my whole point was, a lot of people will go around the internet, saying how 7th Gen Civics are FASTER than Vipers...

Get the point ? Read thru the past fourms. You will see people saying stuff like "Yeah I think 7th Gen Civics are faster than Sentra SE-Rs.. not impressed with those at all" and "I think Civics can take on Celicas"........... [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

Maybe modified, but not stock. I have test driven both of the cars that I referred to in the other post, and the GTi would beat the crap out of the XRS(Vibe GT). Let me say this one last time: MAG RACING IS BS. END OF STORY. I'm through arguing this. If you wanna believe everything you read, go ahead, I won't stop you.

 
Rep Power: 349

i agree with redfog here. i ahve driven my friends GTI and have driven my friends XRS. the GTI is faster no two ways about it.

 
Rep Power: 334

the drivers skill factor wouldnt be such a big deal if everyone drove AUTOS!![IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG]