PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 25 Feb 2012 12:12 AM by  AutoXCamaro
Any rumors on FSP moves?
 211 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 4 of 11 << < 23456 > >>
Author Messages
RtsLanE5
New Member
New Member
Posts:32


--
22 Oct 2009 05:24 PM
Im suprised they put the Si on the same line. A dx or hx (whatever the bottom barrel base is) and a vtec engine is going to be suuuper fast. unless the slight loss in torque negates any advantage, which I doubt.
REALSPEED74STS
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Oct 2009 06:21 PM

Storm wrote:
splash wrote:
....... the EG Civics get the Z6 motor and Si tranny now, and the EK Civics get the Y8 motor now... Joy
What does this mean in english? Can ya break it down for someone who knows nothing about Hondas except that they're all lion cheetahs? [:P]

what it means in realistic terms is FSP will now be a spec 92-95 civc class, they will destroy everything in FSP. I have been against this from the start, the 92 civic dx hatch in SP trim weighs 1925lbs, and the D16Z6 motor fully built will make 140whp with the 4.25 final drive it will accelerate like a CSP miata.

GTIspirit
New Member
New Member
Posts:23


--
22 Oct 2009 07:16 PM

MattP wrote:
I guess it's time to write the letter to move the 16V Scirocco to the same line as the rest of the A1 VW's in FSP, and move the other 16V stuff into FSP for 2011...

Thanks in advance for voicing your support to the SEB. I was starting to feel like I was the only one stupid enough to still be running a 87 GTI 16V in DSP, still holding out hopes that it would be more appropriate classified in FSP.

splash
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:960


--
22 Oct 2009 07:36 PM

Yeah, I had the EG's pegged at 137whp and about 1900lbs, but the gist is the same. It still doesn't have any torque, but the new gearing should take care of that.

I thought it weird that this went through so easily, essentially creating an EG version of a CSP EF Civic Si. Sure, the EF is an also-ran in CSP, but DSP sure doesn't want it. I don't know what made them think FSP did.

REALSPEED74STS
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Oct 2009 07:49 PM
they should have about 112-115 ftlbs so thats pretty stout....
REALSPEED74STS
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Oct 2009 07:51 PM
GTIspirit wrote:

MattP wrote:
I guess it's time to write the letter to move the 16V Scirocco to the same line as the rest of the A1 VW's in FSP, and move the other 16V stuff into FSP for 2011...

Thanks in advance for voicing your support to the SEB. I was starting to feel like I was the only one stupid enough to still be running a 87 GTI 16V in DSP, still holding out hopes that it would be more appropriate classified in FSP.

I think that they should be in FSP but they should be on a separate line from the A1 GTI's

Vanimaniac
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:256


--
22 Oct 2009 07:54 PM
splash wrote:

Yeah, I had the EG's pegged at 137whp and about 1900lbs, but the gist is the same. It still doesn't have any torque, but the new gearing should take care of that.

I thought it weird that this went through so easily, essentially creating an EG version of a CSP EF Civic Si. Sure, the EF is an also-ran in CSP, but DSP sure doesn't want it. I don't know what made them think FSP did.

I guess it will make the rest of us work just a little bit harder. Bring it on! [:)]

Van

splash
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:960


--
22 Oct 2009 11:13 PM

I just figured they'd wait to see how the cars they recently moved down do before they made the existing top of the class faster.

I mean, all of the cars they've moved down will have trouble getting under 2200lbs, if they can even get close. I wouldn't mind so much if the EG Si was on a separate line, there's no way it could get to 1900lbs.

The EG Si was already an also-ran in DSP, but I doubt DSP would have wanted that car if they could have started with a stripper CX shell. At the very least it would no longer be an also-ran there.

Jason, the listed weight difference between a EG CX and a EG Si seem inordinately large. Other than the D16, power steering, and the sunroof, where does it all come from?

justint5387
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:176


--
22 Oct 2009 11:40 PM

Wow.... what kind of move is this? There is no point of running this class anymore. They are basically moving a mid-pack DSP car and letting it to cut a hundred pounds and run in FSP.

Swapping a D16Z6 on a CX shell will dominate the class, are you telling me that the Civic wasn't fast enough already??? They had been finishing in the trophy consistently already.

The other EG civic probably had 120whp and weigh about 1950lbs. The D16 will add at least 15hp...


neilschelly
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:154


--
23 Oct 2009 04:49 AM
justint5387 wrote:

Swapping a D16Z6 on a CX shell will dominate the class, are you telling me that the Civic wasn't fast enough already??? They had been finishing in the trophy consistently already.

That was the general tone of my comments to the SEB. Basically, it's a given that faster cars will come into FSP as it's a catch-all class, and I have no problem with that. However, they shouldn't bring down faster variants of cars already dominant in the class.

I think this Civic reorganization is comparable to bringing the 2.5RS down to FSP on the same line as all the other '93-'01 Imprezas. It'd let you take a DSP car, make it 100lbs lighter, and run it in FSP. Or, it'd let you take an FSP car that's already pretty fast and bump it up an easy 20HP or so.

-N

JBrettHowell
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Oct 2009 05:49 AM

Just to add a little bit of fact to the discussion, here are the dyno charts from my 92 DX that admittedly had a bit of room for development on the top end (hytech header, megasquirt, port matching), but I doubt there was much more than 120 peak hp at the wheels possible, and as one can clearly see the curve is a bit peaky (torque curve is not overwhelming either). The D16Z6 motor will have a little bit more grunt due to the extra 100 cc's of displacement and with the right bit of VTEC tuning (yo) should net an additional 8-10 peak hp, but will likely be even more peaky.

Weight-loss-wise my car was pretty close to maximized and weighed in at 1970 lbs. with a quarter tank of gas.

The difference in factory-reported curb weights between the Si and DX come from the sunroof and amenities (power windows, etc.).

In my opinion the biggest advantage in this move for the EGs is the Si gearbox because the gap between 1st and 2nd on the DX unit was painful (2nd was too tall for tight sections, and 1st was nearly useless once the car was rolling).

I do believe the resulting combination will be better and one of the top cars in the class along with a properly built and driven Neon, 6th gen Civic, some of the BMW possibilities, etc. I don't think it will be an overdog.

MattP
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:350


--
23 Oct 2009 06:29 AM

splash wrote:
The EG Si was already an also-ran in DSP, but I doubt DSP would have wanted that car if they could have started with a stripper CX shell.

Since the VX (super high mileage stripper version of the the 92-96 Civic that actually started out lighter than the CX) had VTEC you could already build a super light EG Civic in DSP.

soslow93
New Member
New Member
Posts:59


--
23 Oct 2009 06:33 AM

same power, similar steering ratio, same suspension geom... but 92-95 -200+ lbs! cant outrun weight!!!!! have fun guys! scca should just take all the underdeveloped cars and move them to fsp! dont worry about development well just complain and get moved to a slower class... sounds good to me! ex\si motor and trans in a cx chassis FTW!!! great job!


JBrettHowell
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Oct 2009 06:35 AM
MattP wrote:
Since the VX (super high mileage stripper version of the the 92-96 Civic that actually started out lighter than the CX) had VTEC you could already build a super light EG Civic in DSP.

The VX chassis weighed the same as the CX chassis - only difference was the narrower and lighter wheels that came on the VX. Also the VX has a VTEC-E motor and I am pretty sure it has always been in FSP with the rest.

JBrettHowell
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Oct 2009 06:37 AM

soslow93 wrote:
same power, similar steering ratio, same suspension geom... but 92-95 -200+ lbs! cant outrun weight!!!!! have fun guys! scca should just take all the underdeveloped cars and move them to fsp! dont worry about development well just complain and get moved to a slower class... sounds good to me! ex\si motor and trans in a cx chassis FTW!!! great job!

Where are you getting this 200+ lbs. figure?

MattP
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:350


--
23 Oct 2009 06:40 AM
JBrettHowell wrote:
MattP wrote:
Since the VX (super high mileage stripper version of the the 92-96 Civic that actually started out lighter than the CX) had VTEC you could already build a super light EG Civic in DSP.

The VX chassis weighed the same as the CX chassis - only difference was the narrower and lighter wheels that came on the VX. Also the VX has a VTEC-E motor and I am pretty sure it has always been in FSP with the rest.

VTEC is VTEC even if it's for mileage purposes in my view. The listing in DSP didn't say "Civic EX, Si ('92-'95)", it said "Civic SOHC, VTEC (’92-’95)".

Moot point now, I guess.

JBrettHowell
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Oct 2009 06:51 AM
MattP wrote:
JBrettHowell wrote:
MattP wrote:
Since the VX (super high mileage stripper version of the the 92-96 Civic that actually started out lighter than the CX) had VTEC you could already build a super light EG Civic in DSP.

The VX chassis weighed the same as the CX chassis - only difference was the narrower and lighter wheels that came on the VX. Also the VX has a VTEC-E motor and I am pretty sure it has always been in FSP with the rest.

VTEC is VTEC even if it's for mileage purposes in my view. The listing in DSP didn't say "Civic EX, Si ('92-'95)", it said "Civic SOHC, VTEC (’92-’95)".

Moot point now, I guess.

The SEB would beg to differ as a letter was written years ago asking for a clarification and the response was that the VTEC and VTEC-E motors were considered to be different and the VX was not included in the DSP listing.

soslow93
New Member
New Member
Posts:59


--
23 Oct 2009 06:53 AM
Jinx weighed 1900 two years ago, added power steering for last season and is now currently weighing 1925... we are at 2140!!! and fully update backdate!!! looks like 200+ to me~!
MattP
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:350


--
23 Oct 2009 06:56 AM
JBrettHowell wrote:
MattP wrote:
JBrettHowell wrote:
MattP wrote:
Since the VX (super high mileage stripper version of the the 92-96 Civic that actually started out lighter than the CX) had VTEC you could already build a super light EG Civic in DSP.

The VX chassis weighed the same as the CX chassis - only difference was the narrower and lighter wheels that came on the VX. Also the VX has a VTEC-E motor and I am pretty sure it has always been in FSP with the rest.

VTEC is VTEC even if it's for mileage purposes in my view. The listing in DSP didn't say "Civic EX, Si ('92-'95)", it said "Civic SOHC, VTEC (’92-’95)".

Moot point now, I guess.

The SEB would beg to differ as a letter was written years ago asking for a clarification and the response was that the VTEC and VTEC-E motors were considered to be different and the VX was not included in the DSP listing.

Interesting, I did not know that.

JBrettHowell
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Oct 2009 07:04 AM
soslow93 wrote:
Jinx weighed 1900 two years ago, added power steering for last season and is now currently weighing 1925... we are at 2140!!! and fully update backdate!!! looks like 200+ to me~!
Ah, you were talking between generations. I thought you were talking about between and 5G Si and a CX.
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 4 of 11 << < 23456 > >>


Leroy Engineering Micro Button Sunoco 88x31 Button
Woodhouse Motorsports
SPS 88x31 Button G-Loc Button
Vorshlag 88x31 Button

Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank



Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner