2002 Civic Si versus worst year of the mustang V8..1996
Thread Starter
K Motor Lover Baby!
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
From: San Angelo, Texas, US
Rep Power: 0 
Originally posted by S2000man01
Ok, let me get some basics down here quick. A stoichmetric air/fuel ratio (stoichmetric meaning what is considered the perfect mix) is 13.7:1. Lower means richer.... higher means leaner. Stoichmetric would generally be the ideal fuel mixture for the combustion chamber. However, most compressions combined with the octane of fuel (generally no higher than 91 to 93 octane) would see some detonation with a 13.7:1 fuel ratio if this was used commonly during acceleration.
SOOOO... what this means is MOST cars come from the factory with a built in "dummy" curve, meant to protect the car from detonation. Even more so does this happen in cars that require premium gas, so that way if some dingleberry puts in regular, it won't destroy the car.
Hence, most cars would probably carry an average air/fuel of around 12. Some cars ARE tuned more aggressively from the factory, like the Nissan 350Z for example. This gives the engine a bit more power, but takes away that "dummy" ratio should improper fuel hit the tank.
HOWEVER, this has an adverse affect. When you add bolt on mods, like intake header and exhaust, this naturally MAKES YOUR AIR/FUEL LEANER. Meaning if you were 13:1, i/h/e might make it 13.5:1. Since the 350Z is curved close to 13.5:1, when you add bolt ons, it makes the air/fuel TOO lean, causing detonation and a loss of horsepower. This has been proven, because bolt ons for the 350Z generally cause a loss of power. Likewise, what has also been proven is adding high octane gives an increase of power to the 350Z because of the increased air/fuel, and the higher octane fuel's resistance to detonation.
However, just for fun, let's throw in the ECU. SOME ECU's are made with different mappings for different situations. Others are passive and simply have closed and open loop mappings.
Then there is the civic Si and RSX and S2000 and other cars with such ECU's that actually ADJUST for an increase in air/fuel ratios. So your civic initially gets X gain from the bolt ons, but over time, much like the S2000, the ECU learns and readjusts your fuel curve back to stock. You are still making the extra power from your bolt ons, but you have lost a bit of your "original" X gains because the ECU made your air/fuel a little richer again. (the 350Z ECU does not do this which is why power is lost with bolt ons. the bolt ons make the air/fuel too lean and the ECU doesn't adjust for it)
So what does this mean for you? Your air/fuel is probably close to what your stock air/fuel was when the car had nothing on it at all. And a 12-13:1 air/fuel ratio is about what a car should be at, so other than the initial spike of 15:1, I'm not sure what they are thinking is hurting your air/fuel? If anything, you could make it a little leaner with a VAFC and that would give you some more power. But your air/fuel looks fine to me for a car running with what you have.
Sorry for the long read, but I'm just trying to explain best I can. I do have SOME idea of what I'm talking about.
If I get a chance, I will ask UL from s2ki if he has anything to add. (UL owns his own dyno shop and has a GREAT DEAL of automotive knowledge. In fact, Hondata uses HIS dyno shop for their R&D so he kinda knows his stuff)
Ok, let me get some basics down here quick. A stoichmetric air/fuel ratio (stoichmetric meaning what is considered the perfect mix) is 13.7:1. Lower means richer.... higher means leaner. Stoichmetric would generally be the ideal fuel mixture for the combustion chamber. However, most compressions combined with the octane of fuel (generally no higher than 91 to 93 octane) would see some detonation with a 13.7:1 fuel ratio if this was used commonly during acceleration.
SOOOO... what this means is MOST cars come from the factory with a built in "dummy" curve, meant to protect the car from detonation. Even more so does this happen in cars that require premium gas, so that way if some dingleberry puts in regular, it won't destroy the car.
Hence, most cars would probably carry an average air/fuel of around 12. Some cars ARE tuned more aggressively from the factory, like the Nissan 350Z for example. This gives the engine a bit more power, but takes away that "dummy" ratio should improper fuel hit the tank.
HOWEVER, this has an adverse affect. When you add bolt on mods, like intake header and exhaust, this naturally MAKES YOUR AIR/FUEL LEANER. Meaning if you were 13:1, i/h/e might make it 13.5:1. Since the 350Z is curved close to 13.5:1, when you add bolt ons, it makes the air/fuel TOO lean, causing detonation and a loss of horsepower. This has been proven, because bolt ons for the 350Z generally cause a loss of power. Likewise, what has also been proven is adding high octane gives an increase of power to the 350Z because of the increased air/fuel, and the higher octane fuel's resistance to detonation.
However, just for fun, let's throw in the ECU. SOME ECU's are made with different mappings for different situations. Others are passive and simply have closed and open loop mappings.
Then there is the civic Si and RSX and S2000 and other cars with such ECU's that actually ADJUST for an increase in air/fuel ratios. So your civic initially gets X gain from the bolt ons, but over time, much like the S2000, the ECU learns and readjusts your fuel curve back to stock. You are still making the extra power from your bolt ons, but you have lost a bit of your "original" X gains because the ECU made your air/fuel a little richer again. (the 350Z ECU does not do this which is why power is lost with bolt ons. the bolt ons make the air/fuel too lean and the ECU doesn't adjust for it)
So what does this mean for you? Your air/fuel is probably close to what your stock air/fuel was when the car had nothing on it at all. And a 12-13:1 air/fuel ratio is about what a car should be at, so other than the initial spike of 15:1, I'm not sure what they are thinking is hurting your air/fuel? If anything, you could make it a little leaner with a VAFC and that would give you some more power. But your air/fuel looks fine to me for a car running with what you have.
Sorry for the long read, but I'm just trying to explain best I can. I do have SOME idea of what I'm talking about.
If I get a chance, I will ask UL from s2ki if he has anything to add. (UL owns his own dyno shop and has a GREAT DEAL of automotive knowledge. In fact, Hondata uses HIS dyno shop for their R&D so he kinda knows his stuff) I hear you about the 350z, I read about that in a car and driver mag, I believe. You are making since about the honda ecu. Maybe it's the weather causing some weird a/f in the beginning and then that lean out in the middle? I'm running 93 all the time, since I had the car. So I think with what you said, something like a apexi a/f may help a tad, but not near as much as team extreme had me to believe. Maybe the hondata will help a little more than the a/f controller. I've seen some dynos with i/h/e and hondata and the gasket making 165whp and 135 in torque, but every car is different given areas and temps. I may just save my money and either go all motor with a DC5R ($$$$) or a K20a, or just go turbo. I'd like to stay all motor, it's not like I'm expecting to be the fastest out there anyway. Thanks, you did make since, you may be the only one that disagreed, but you logic is making more since to me.
Thanks.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 
Yes, with ODBII and our learning ECU's, sudden changes or constant changes in weather and humidity can affect your ECU. It's just a normal part of our ECU's. And your air/fuel ratio probably leans just slightly in the middle (that little hump) because your vtec cam kicks in. Your engine is getting a bunch of air it didn't have before, and that causes the slight spike. In the older VTEC engines without i-VTEC you'd see a drop in air/fuel and then the spike. But the i-VTEC eliminates that drop, which is what gave you the "kicking in" sensation of VTEC. Now you just get the short spike.
Also, the gradual drop in your air/fuel (getting richer mixture) is normal as you increase in rpms. The ECU plays it safe to prevent detonation at higher rpms.
So I really do think your fuel curve is normal and just fine. However, you'd benefit from the hondata flash, as it makes your whole curve and timing more aggressive.
Also, the gradual drop in your air/fuel (getting richer mixture) is normal as you increase in rpms. The ECU plays it safe to prevent detonation at higher rpms.
So I really do think your fuel curve is normal and just fine. However, you'd benefit from the hondata flash, as it makes your whole curve and timing more aggressive.
Registered!!
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Rep Power: 0 first: wow s2000man i read everything you posted, i'm not sure i totally understand everything you said, but you really know your stuff. 
second: 02SilverSiHB when you said your tires where spinning i understood that you were moving, just not gettin good traction. i didn't mean to bash on you, i just said it is hard to believe because of you spinning first. if you recall i also said, i believe that you could beat that year mustang. oh and if you had the chance to come down here, you could race my cousins manual 1996 mustang gt convertible, its not very fast compared to other mustangs, but his best 1/4 mile time was 12.8
second: 02SilverSiHB when you said your tires where spinning i understood that you were moving, just not gettin good traction. i didn't mean to bash on you, i just said it is hard to believe because of you spinning first. if you recall i also said, i believe that you could beat that year mustang. oh and if you had the chance to come down here, you could race my cousins manual 1996 mustang gt convertible, its not very fast compared to other mustangs, but his best 1/4 mile time was 12.8
Thread Starter
K Motor Lover Baby!
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
From: San Angelo, Texas, US
Rep Power: 0 Originally posted by JRS1civic
first: wow s2000man i read everything you posted, i'm not sure i totally understand everything you said, but you really know your stuff.
second: 02SilverSiHB when you said your tires where spinning i understood that you were moving, just not gettin good traction. i didn't mean to bash on you, i just said it is hard to believe because of you spinning first. if you recall i also said, i believe that you could beat that year mustang. oh and if you had the chance to come down here, you could race my cousins manual 1996 mustang gt convertible, its not very fast compared to other mustangs, but his best 1/4 mile time was 12.8
first: wow s2000man i read everything you posted, i'm not sure i totally understand everything you said, but you really know your stuff.
second: 02SilverSiHB when you said your tires where spinning i understood that you were moving, just not gettin good traction. i didn't mean to bash on you, i just said it is hard to believe because of you spinning first. if you recall i also said, i believe that you could beat that year mustang. oh and if you had the chance to come down here, you could race my cousins manual 1996 mustang gt convertible, its not very fast compared to other mustangs, but his best 1/4 mile time was 12.8
well, I'm sure that guy might have been spinning out in first also...he did have a 1996 and it looked like stock rims and the same stock width tires....maybe he even had bald tires, who konws.About that mustang that hits 12.8
I don't think I can compete with that! Thread Starter
K Motor Lover Baby!
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
From: San Angelo, Texas, US
Rep Power: 0 Originally posted by S2000man01
So I really do think your fuel curve is normal and just fine. However, you'd benefit from the hondata flash, as it makes your whole curve and timing more aggressive.
So I really do think your fuel curve is normal and just fine. However, you'd benefit from the hondata flash, as it makes your whole curve and timing more aggressive.
Registered!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas, US
Rep Power: 0 WTF? How are you all so stupid
OMG I see all these noobs on here so quick to throw the BS flag... does no one know anything about this year of stang??! This is the WORST year EVER for the v8 mustang, this stang is SOOOOOOOOOO frikin slow. This would be a VERY tight race between a modified Si and a V8 Mustang. Hell the new "fast" mustangs run 14.8 in the 1/4, the 96 year ran a low to mid 15, some saw even high 15s. So to say that he cant beat one on the street is absurd. Especially if you consider that you can goto the drag strip and beat them in the race but lose in the 1/4 mile to them because they got a crappy response time. And for the person who pulled out the crap about 219 hp and 285 lbs of torque? So what?!?! Thats in a 3200 lbs car with 2 people and its a convertable?! Are you even aware of the amount of friction that occurs on a convertable at speeds above 35 mph!! At about 45 mph depending on wind conditions wind becomes the ultimate factor in reference to friction, so if you have your top down with a friend in your car that normally only runs 15.2s on its best run at the strip your going to be running high 15s for sure. And an Si can easily run faster than a high 15. Even the power to weight ratio is better on the Si than on the 96 GT... I mean.. come on, what do you base your stats on people?
Thread Starter
K Motor Lover Baby!
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
From: San Angelo, Texas, US
Rep Power: 0 Re: WTF? How are you all so stupid
Originally posted by Diemos
OMG I see all these noobs on here so quick to throw the BS flag... does no one know anything about this year of stang??! This is the WORST year EVER for the v8 mustang, this stang is SOOOOOOOOOO frikin slow. This would be a VERY tight race between a modified Si and a V8 Mustang. Hell the new "fast" mustangs run 14.8 in the 1/4, the 96 year ran a low to mid 15, some saw even high 15s. So to say that he cant beat one on the street is absurd. Especially if you consider that you can goto the drag strip and beat them in the race but lose in the 1/4 mile to them because they got a crappy response time. And for the person who pulled out the crap about 219 hp and 285 lbs of torque? So what?!?! Thats in a 3200 lbs car with 2 people and its a convertable?! Are you even aware of the amount of friction that occurs on a convertable at speeds above 35 mph!! At about 45 mph depending on wind conditions wind becomes the ultimate factor in reference to friction, so if you have your top down with a friend in your car that normally only runs 15.2s on its best run at the strip your going to be running high 15s for sure. And an Si can easily run faster than a high 15. Even the power to weight ratio is better on the Si than on the 96 GT... I mean.. come on, what do you base your stats on people?
OMG I see all these noobs on here so quick to throw the BS flag... does no one know anything about this year of stang??! This is the WORST year EVER for the v8 mustang, this stang is SOOOOOOOOOO frikin slow. This would be a VERY tight race between a modified Si and a V8 Mustang. Hell the new "fast" mustangs run 14.8 in the 1/4, the 96 year ran a low to mid 15, some saw even high 15s. So to say that he cant beat one on the street is absurd. Especially if you consider that you can goto the drag strip and beat them in the race but lose in the 1/4 mile to them because they got a crappy response time. And for the person who pulled out the crap about 219 hp and 285 lbs of torque? So what?!?! Thats in a 3200 lbs car with 2 people and its a convertable?! Are you even aware of the amount of friction that occurs on a convertable at speeds above 35 mph!! At about 45 mph depending on wind conditions wind becomes the ultimate factor in reference to friction, so if you have your top down with a friend in your car that normally only runs 15.2s on its best run at the strip your going to be running high 15s for sure. And an Si can easily run faster than a high 15. Even the power to weight ratio is better on the Si than on the 96 GT... I mean.. come on, what do you base your stats on people?
notice how that guy YES hasn't replied in a while hahahahaha! Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 Re: WTF? How are you all so stupid
Originally posted by Diemos
OMG I see all these noobs on here so quick to throw the BS flag... does no one know anything about this year of stang??! This is the WORST year EVER for the v8 mustang, this stang is SOOOOOOOOOO frikin slow. This would be a VERY tight race between a modified Si and a V8 Mustang. Hell the new "fast" mustangs run 14.8 in the 1/4, the 96 year ran a low to mid 15, some saw even high 15s.
OMG I see all these noobs on here so quick to throw the BS flag... does no one know anything about this year of stang??! This is the WORST year EVER for the v8 mustang, this stang is SOOOOOOOOOO frikin slow. This would be a VERY tight race between a modified Si and a V8 Mustang. Hell the new "fast" mustangs run 14.8 in the 1/4, the 96 year ran a low to mid 15, some saw even high 15s.
Originally posted by Diemos
Especially if you consider that you can goto the drag strip and beat them in the race but lose in the 1/4 mile to them because they got a crappy response time.
Especially if you consider that you can goto the drag strip and beat them in the race but lose in the 1/4 mile to them because they got a crappy response time.
Originally posted by Diemos
And for the person who pulled out the crap about 219 hp and 285 lbs of torque? So what?!?! Thats in a 3200 lbs car with 2 people and its a convertable?! Are you even aware of the amount of friction that occurs on a convertable at speeds above 35 mph!! At about 45 mph depending on wind conditions wind becomes the ultimate factor in reference to friction, so if you have your top down with a friend in your car that normally only runs 15.2s on its best run at the strip your going to be running high 15s for sure.
And for the person who pulled out the crap about 219 hp and 285 lbs of torque? So what?!?! Thats in a 3200 lbs car with 2 people and its a convertable?! Are you even aware of the amount of friction that occurs on a convertable at speeds above 35 mph!! At about 45 mph depending on wind conditions wind becomes the ultimate factor in reference to friction, so if you have your top down with a friend in your car that normally only runs 15.2s on its best run at the strip your going to be running high 15s for sure.
Originally posted by Diemos
Even the power to weight ratio is better on the Si than on the 96 GT... I mean.. come on, what do you base your stats on people?
Even the power to weight ratio is better on the Si than on the 96 GT... I mean.. come on, what do you base your stats on people?
Why do you come in and just make stuff up? Better yet, I'll chalk it up to "you simply didn't know the facts". Well now you do.
02silverSiHB, don't think this is cutting on your win. I still think you won, and beat a crappy driver. But it's good for you, because you beat a faster car.
Registered!!
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
From: Another Dimension
Rep Power: 0 Re: Re: WTF? How are you all so stupid
Originally posted by S2000man01
Where the heck do you get YOUR facts from? A 2800lb/160 horsepower car has 17.5 pounds per horsepower. A 3400lb/220hp mustang has 15.45 pounds per horsepower. So the better power to weight ratio goes to the stang.
Why do you come in and just make stuff up? Better yet, I'll chalk it up to "you simply didn't know the facts". Well now you do.
02silverSiHB, don't think this is cutting on your win. I still think you won, and beat a crappy driver. But it's good for you, because you beat a faster car.
Where the heck do you get YOUR facts from? A 2800lb/160 horsepower car has 17.5 pounds per horsepower. A 3400lb/220hp mustang has 15.45 pounds per horsepower. So the better power to weight ratio goes to the stang.
Why do you come in and just make stuff up? Better yet, I'll chalk it up to "you simply didn't know the facts". Well now you do.
02silverSiHB, don't think this is cutting on your win. I still think you won, and beat a crappy driver. But it's good for you, because you beat a faster car.
96 Mustang GT Convertible (Manual) weighs 3471/215 hp = 16.14 power/weight ratio
EP Hatch weighs 2744/160 = 17.15.
I'm just **** and like for things to be more exact. Plus, 50, 100 lbs, etc can make a difference.
None the less, the Mustang power/weight ratio is better, just not as big of a spread as stated.
I would also agree that the Mustang is a faster car (brand new). However, being that the car is like 7 years old, has probably been ragged out, and possibly not been well-maintained, then the engine could be running like crap. Just my 2 cents.
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
From: wilkesboro, Other, ZEBRA
Rep Power: 0 Re: Re: Re: WTF? How are you all so stupid
Originally posted by zetaR
S2000, you're correct that the mustang has a better power to weight ratio. However, I'm sure you were rounding numbers, but you went and rounded up the weight of the Si and rounded down the weight of the Mustang (plus the hp # was a tad off).
96 Mustang GT Convertible (Manual) weighs 3471/215 hp = 16.14 power/weight ratio
EP Hatch weighs 2744/160 = 17.15.
I'm just **** and like for things to be more exact. Plus, 50, 100 lbs, etc can make a difference.
None the less, the Mustang power/weight ratio is better, just not as big of a spread as stated.
I would also agree that the Mustang is a faster car (brand new). However, being that the car is like 7 years old, has probably been ragged out, and possibly not been well-maintained, then the engine could be running like crap. Just my 2 cents.
S2000, you're correct that the mustang has a better power to weight ratio. However, I'm sure you were rounding numbers, but you went and rounded up the weight of the Si and rounded down the weight of the Mustang (plus the hp # was a tad off).
96 Mustang GT Convertible (Manual) weighs 3471/215 hp = 16.14 power/weight ratio
EP Hatch weighs 2744/160 = 17.15.
I'm just **** and like for things to be more exact. Plus, 50, 100 lbs, etc can make a difference.
None the less, the Mustang power/weight ratio is better, just not as big of a spread as stated.
I would also agree that the Mustang is a faster car (brand new). However, being that the car is like 7 years old, has probably been ragged out, and possibly not been well-maintained, then the engine could be running like crap. Just my 2 cents.
also if its an auto itll have more drive train loss... so that 215hp in the manual isnt going to feel the same or put at the same as the 215hp in the auto...story is totally believeable even the manuals verts were barely low 15 second cars
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 He said he was pretty sure it was stick shift. As I said, y'all know I think he beat him that's no question. Just trying to edumucate people to be careful in thinking that the 96 mustang is some turd that any EP hatch can beat.
Registered!!
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
From: Riverside, Cali
Rep Power: 0 good job on the race...and like everyone knows...anything can happen on the streets...just makes me wonder what those year GT's run stock...or what your mods really did to your car...cause my friends auto v6 stang with a few minor bolt ons beat our friends new SI, like yours, that was stock though...have u ran your SI at the track yet?
Thread
Thread Starter
Honda Civic Forum
Replies
Last Post
CarStuff
Safety/Security Items - SRS, Keys, Immobilizer, airbags, ABS
6
Dec 6, 2020 12:52 PM
smmahan
7th Generation Civic 2001 - 2005
2
Apr 15, 2015 08:17 PM
CapYoda
General Automotive Discussion
9
Nov 11, 2001 05:17 PM
