fastest 1/4
New Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 892
Likes: 0
From: Louisiana
Rep Power: 0 
Originally Posted by Redline04
Here's the origional thread
http://www.7thgencivic.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=188385
All the details to my cars setup are in my profile. Launch was between 4000-5000 RPM.
PM me if you have anymore questions. I am out of the country right now, but I do have access to computers most of the time.
http://www.7thgencivic.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=188385
All the details to my cars setup are in my profile. Launch was between 4000-5000 RPM.
PM me if you have anymore questions. I am out of the country right now, but I do have access to computers most of the time.
AKA Mr. 60ft. Not to be confused with Civic_Redline
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
From: Barksdale AF Base LA
Rep Power: 0 Well my car kept bogging below 4000 and with the DR's I thought they would just stick, but they were still spinning just not as bad as the stockies. I think I was over heating them. If only had more practice with them I could have got a 1.9 60 ft and maybe a 14.9. I'm thinking about getting some slicks, but I don't know if everything could handle a 4-5k launch with instant grip. If I don't spray in 1st gear I may be ok.
You should def. get some DR's. I'd also recommend some light weight wheels. The stock steelies are heavy, especially the 15's on the EX. I'm looking at these Kosei K-1 TS. 14"x6 only 9.2lbs for $120 a piece.
http://www.tirerack.com/images/wheel...1_ts_ci3_l.jpg
You should def. get some DR's. I'd also recommend some light weight wheels. The stock steelies are heavy, especially the 15's on the EX. I'm looking at these Kosei K-1 TS. 14"x6 only 9.2lbs for $120 a piece.
http://www.tirerack.com/images/wheel...1_ts_ci3_l.jpg
AKA Mr. 60ft. Not to be confused with Civic_Redline
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
From: Barksdale AF Base LA
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by aznboysrfr
redline: you should really think about getting a cold air intake ...
Registered!!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: warren ohio
Rep Power: 0 
changed my setup around..
got rid of 2.25inch exhuast and making a striaght 3 inch leaving the right side of car and running 12lbs of boost tuned on uberdate...
will be about 355whp....
should be close to 11's on my buddies drags....
wish me luck again!!!
got rid of 2.25inch exhuast and making a striaght 3 inch leaving the right side of car and running 12lbs of boost tuned on uberdate...
will be about 355whp....
should be close to 11's on my buddies drags....
wish me luck again!!!
AKA Mr. 60ft. Not to be confused with Civic_Redline
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
From: Barksdale AF Base LA
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by gsrchad
i launched at 2,500rpms, and got 2.16 60 foots on my kuhmo's... and i launched at 2000 on my nitrous and got 2.102 60 foot time..
redline, question... was that 15.1 in the 1/4 on nitrous?
redline, question... was that 15.1 in the 1/4 on nitrous?
I don't want to start up all the contraversy again, but just take a look at this thread.
http://www.7thgencivic.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=197424
Last edited by Redline04; Feb 17, 2005 at 10:25 PM.
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: allen park,michigan
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by Redline04
15.114@90.12MPH
As far as I know that is the fastest ET for a NA D17A1
As far as I know that is the fastest ET for a NA D17A1
^ cuz the date is wrong
somebody did a d16y8 intake manifold conversion ... now redline should do that with a skunk2 d16 intake manifold w/ a hondata intake manifold gasket
that would be sweet.
I wish you would use a cai ...
somebody did a d16y8 intake manifold conversion ... now redline should do that with a skunk2 d16 intake manifold w/ a hondata intake manifold gasket
that would be sweet.
I wish you would use a cai ...
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 399 
Originally Posted by hondaonchrome
i could be wrong but why is it that your car is a 04 but your date on your time slip is july of 01 hmmmm?????
the track machine prints the wrong dates at that track. i called the track and verified this with a manager, as well as verified the date that was printed for the date he ran.
now for god sakes let it die, and people get over it. he ran a 15.1.
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: allen park,michigan
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by S2000man01
i will say this for probably the 10th time now.
the track machine prints the wrong dates at that track. i called the track and verified this with a manager, as well as verified the date that was printed for the date he ran.
now for god sakes let it die, and people get over it. he ran a 15.1.
the track machine prints the wrong dates at that track. i called the track and verified this with a manager, as well as verified the date that was printed for the date he ran.
now for god sakes let it die, and people get over it. he ran a 15.1.
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
From: Louisiana
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by hondaonchrome
i was just wondering if maybe he ran that in a different civic or something and just had them prints up to show what he ran in a different civic,,,,,,thanks for letting me know...sorry but if you put up that kinda **** its vulnerable to get that kind of response,,,u know...
Do some research before posting...
Registered!!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: warren ohio
Rep Power: 0 I'm not taking sides, since I've seen some incredible times first-hand, but there are some things you need to clear up, Redline.
1- They (clubrsx posters) say that the timeslip you posted proving your 15.1 is from 2001, when your car is a 2004. Can you post the timeslip again, or link us to it to see this?
2- You WERE stock when you ran a 15.1 ? If not, what were your mods?
The clubRSX post says that you ran that time with 250lbs weight reduction and slicks. My personal concerns are,
1- 250lbs may not be enough to justify a near .7 drop in time. 500lbs maybe, but you're dealing with a >100 wheel torque car. D-series motors just don't have much pull. V8's can get away with being heavy.
2- 90 MPH is a little low for a car that has to depend on high end to get it through the 1/4. That sounds more like a WRX time and mph. Low 60' and E.T., but low MPH for the time. Honda cars are usually trap in the mid 90's to hit 15.0.
3- Any 2.0 60' from ANY FWD vehicle, slicks or not, is insane. That implies a lot of torque to pull you off the line, as well as a lot of grip. FWD 4-cylinders have neither. What size slicks were you running?
It's not "impossible," just very "improbable."
i drag race every year, infact i am forced to because of my sponsers...
and i would like to add a few things
about numbre 1. is linked to number 2 quite a bit. but to use general numbers 250 isnt going to get you .7 its impossible
number 2. is the biggest crock of crap i have ever heard. he obvuiously has no idea what hes talking about. 90mph for a low 15's is right on target... a wrx with 90mph traps would have a lower 1/4 mile time.. i did 14.5@93, 14.8@96 ( spun...) 13.6@102 and 13.66@104....
and a 2.0 60 foot time with out slicks is im possible... i know for a fact you had to have slicks. you dont need torque for this, all you need is a decent let of slicks and reving the motor and floating the gas . i have an lsd tranny and decent tires, and with nitrous netted a very low 2.1 so there is no way a n/a 1.7 beat me with out even an lsd....
but a 15.1 is possible... with wind behind you, a track with low elavation, slicks, tons of mods and an angel pushing you...
if you did that all motor, you still can do anything but fi and nitrous. so thats very possible. at 2300lbs, im guessing it would require slicks and about 160hp and 110torque... so thats very duable.... good job by the way...
1- They (clubrsx posters) say that the timeslip you posted proving your 15.1 is from 2001, when your car is a 2004. Can you post the timeslip again, or link us to it to see this?
2- You WERE stock when you ran a 15.1 ? If not, what were your mods?
The clubRSX post says that you ran that time with 250lbs weight reduction and slicks. My personal concerns are,
1- 250lbs may not be enough to justify a near .7 drop in time. 500lbs maybe, but you're dealing with a >100 wheel torque car. D-series motors just don't have much pull. V8's can get away with being heavy.
2- 90 MPH is a little low for a car that has to depend on high end to get it through the 1/4. That sounds more like a WRX time and mph. Low 60' and E.T., but low MPH for the time. Honda cars are usually trap in the mid 90's to hit 15.0.
3- Any 2.0 60' from ANY FWD vehicle, slicks or not, is insane. That implies a lot of torque to pull you off the line, as well as a lot of grip. FWD 4-cylinders have neither. What size slicks were you running?
It's not "impossible," just very "improbable."
i drag race every year, infact i am forced to because of my sponsers...
and i would like to add a few things
about numbre 1. is linked to number 2 quite a bit. but to use general numbers 250 isnt going to get you .7 its impossible
number 2. is the biggest crock of crap i have ever heard. he obvuiously has no idea what hes talking about. 90mph for a low 15's is right on target... a wrx with 90mph traps would have a lower 1/4 mile time.. i did 14.5@93, 14.8@96 ( spun...) 13.6@102 and 13.66@104....
and a 2.0 60 foot time with out slicks is im possible... i know for a fact you had to have slicks. you dont need torque for this, all you need is a decent let of slicks and reving the motor and floating the gas . i have an lsd tranny and decent tires, and with nitrous netted a very low 2.1 so there is no way a n/a 1.7 beat me with out even an lsd....
but a 15.1 is possible... with wind behind you, a track with low elavation, slicks, tons of mods and an angel pushing you...
if you did that all motor, you still can do anything but fi and nitrous. so thats very possible. at 2300lbs, im guessing it would require slicks and about 160hp and 110torque... so thats very duable.... good job by the way...
Powered by Honda...
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
From: Savannah, GA
Rep Power: 272
Originally Posted by S2000man01
i will say this for probably the 10th time now.
the track machine prints the wrong dates at that track. i called the track and verified this with a manager, as well as verified the date that was printed for the date he ran.
now for god sakes let it die, and people get over it. he ran a 15.1.
the track machine prints the wrong dates at that track. i called the track and verified this with a manager, as well as verified the date that was printed for the date he ran.
now for god sakes let it die, and people get over it. he ran a 15.1.
AKA Mr. 60ft. Not to be confused with Civic_Redline
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
From: Barksdale AF Base LA
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by Wolfgang5884
here's mine
Last edited by Redline04; Feb 20, 2005 at 12:02 PM.
Originally Posted by gsrchad
I'm not taking sides, since I've seen some incredible times first-hand, but there are some things you need to clear up, Redline.
1- They (clubrsx posters) say that the timeslip you posted proving your 15.1 is from 2001, when your car is a 2004. Can you post the timeslip again, or link us to it to see this?
2- You WERE stock when you ran a 15.1 ? If not, what were your mods?
The clubRSX post says that you ran that time with 250lbs weight reduction and slicks. My personal concerns are,
1- 250lbs may not be enough to justify a near .7 drop in time. 500lbs maybe, but you're dealing with a >100 wheel torque car. D-series motors just don't have much pull. V8's can get away with being heavy.
2- 90 MPH is a little low for a car that has to depend on high end to get it through the 1/4. That sounds more like a WRX time and mph. Low 60' and E.T., but low MPH for the time. Honda cars are usually trap in the mid 90's to hit 15.0.
3- Any 2.0 60' from ANY FWD vehicle, slicks or not, is insane. That implies a lot of torque to pull you off the line, as well as a lot of grip. FWD 4-cylinders have neither. What size slicks were you running?
It's not "impossible," just very "improbable."
i drag race every year, infact i am forced to because of my sponsers...
and i would like to add a few things
about numbre 1. is linked to number 2 quite a bit. but to use general numbers 250 isnt going to get you .7 its impossible
number 2. is the biggest crock of crap i have ever heard. he obvuiously has no idea what hes talking about. 90mph for a low 15's is right on target... a wrx with 90mph traps would have a lower 1/4 mile time.. i did 14.5@93, 14.8@96 ( spun...) 13.6@102 and 13.66@104....
and a 2.0 60 foot time with out slicks is im possible... i know for a fact you had to have slicks. you dont need torque for this, all you need is a decent let of slicks and reving the motor and floating the gas . i have an lsd tranny and decent tires, and with nitrous netted a very low 2.1 so there is no way a n/a 1.7 beat me with out even an lsd....
but a 15.1 is possible... with wind behind you, a track with low elavation, slicks, tons of mods and an angel pushing you...
if you did that all motor, you still can do anything but fi and nitrous. so thats very possible. at 2300lbs, im guessing it would require slicks and about 160hp and 110torque... so thats very duable.... good job by the way...
1- They (clubrsx posters) say that the timeslip you posted proving your 15.1 is from 2001, when your car is a 2004. Can you post the timeslip again, or link us to it to see this?
2- You WERE stock when you ran a 15.1 ? If not, what were your mods?
The clubRSX post says that you ran that time with 250lbs weight reduction and slicks. My personal concerns are,
1- 250lbs may not be enough to justify a near .7 drop in time. 500lbs maybe, but you're dealing with a >100 wheel torque car. D-series motors just don't have much pull. V8's can get away with being heavy.
2- 90 MPH is a little low for a car that has to depend on high end to get it through the 1/4. That sounds more like a WRX time and mph. Low 60' and E.T., but low MPH for the time. Honda cars are usually trap in the mid 90's to hit 15.0.
3- Any 2.0 60' from ANY FWD vehicle, slicks or not, is insane. That implies a lot of torque to pull you off the line, as well as a lot of grip. FWD 4-cylinders have neither. What size slicks were you running?
It's not "impossible," just very "improbable."
i drag race every year, infact i am forced to because of my sponsers...
and i would like to add a few things
about numbre 1. is linked to number 2 quite a bit. but to use general numbers 250 isnt going to get you .7 its impossible
number 2. is the biggest crock of crap i have ever heard. he obvuiously has no idea what hes talking about. 90mph for a low 15's is right on target... a wrx with 90mph traps would have a lower 1/4 mile time.. i did 14.5@93, 14.8@96 ( spun...) 13.6@102 and 13.66@104....
and a 2.0 60 foot time with out slicks is im possible... i know for a fact you had to have slicks. you dont need torque for this, all you need is a decent let of slicks and reving the motor and floating the gas . i have an lsd tranny and decent tires, and with nitrous netted a very low 2.1 so there is no way a n/a 1.7 beat me with out even an lsd....
but a 15.1 is possible... with wind behind you, a track with low elavation, slicks, tons of mods and an angel pushing you...
if you did that all motor, you still can do anything but fi and nitrous. so thats very possible. at 2300lbs, im guessing it would require slicks and about 160hp and 110torque... so thats very duable.... good job by the way...
---
1- according to his profile, it's a 200 pound weight reduction and there is a long thread on how he did it
3 - idiot. 2.0 is an insane 60' from ANY fwd car? ... I've seen many, many times on H-T that have a 2.0 60' time or less ... I've seen as low as 1.6xx
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
From: Louisiana
Rep Power: 0 Dont go into the 14's when you get back brad because no-one can believe you now let alone if you make it into the 14's with only bolt-ons, weight reduction, and DR's. You dont have to explain yourself 60 times to people who join up to say your times are impossible when people (who doubted you) have validated your times and now believe you.
Registered!!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: warren ohio
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by aznboysrfr
2- he wasn't stock
---
1- according to his profile, it's a 200 pound weight reduction and there is a long thread on how he did it
3 - idiot. 2.0 is an insane 60' from ANY fwd car? ... I've seen many, many times on H-T that have a 2.0 60' time or less ... I've seen as low as 1.6xx
---
1- according to his profile, it's a 200 pound weight reduction and there is a long thread on how he did it
3 - idiot. 2.0 is an insane 60' from ANY fwd car? ... I've seen many, many times on H-T that have a 2.0 60' time or less ... I've seen as low as 1.6xx
wtf, i said it was possible, but not with road tires. and i know its not stock.. it cant be... read the post before talking...
and 200 isnt that hard to do. i did 95lbs just with sound material in my car, not to mention, interior, ps, a/c.
