Superior Roadholding?

[K2e2vin]

almost any stock car(thats also not a supercar or of that nature) without some sort of air dam or spoiler doesnt have any downforce, but infact has lift. the bernoulli effect explains this.

a b16a can run on 87... if your looking for good mileage, look for a 88 or 89 HF; light car with motor that is very good on gas(also lighter car=better mpg).

 

[Citizen_Insane]

Don't buy an HF if you're not swapping. They're slow as shit. I had one....then it got a b16 . I can tell you, that the b16 swap is worth it. Its an awsome swap, but if you're strapped for cash, a JDM DOHC ZC will give similar results but with less aftermarket support and no VTEC.

 

[Panther550]

Originally posted by ktanaka@Mar 4 2005, 12:31 PM
Don't buy an HF if you're not swapping. They're slow as shit. I had one....then it got a b16 . I can tell you, that the b16 swap is worth it. Its an awsome swap, but if you're strapped for cash, a JDM DOHC ZC will give similar results but with less aftermarket support and no VTEC.

[post=469253]Quoted post[/post]​

Don't worry, finding an HF for sale where I live is very rare. I've been searching for CRXs for sale for about 3 months now and haven't seen any HFs for sale and only one DX, the rest have been Si's. Besides I'm thinking I can get relatively similar numbers as a NA b16a with a supercharged z6 w/ a zc/si hyrbrid transmission and ATS 4.73 final gear, along with all the other upgrades available for the z6 engine, but for less money than a NA b16a.

I was wondering though, even though a supercharged engine has a lower compression ratio because forced induction increases the chances of detonation would I have to use 91 octane in a supercharged engine or would 87 octane be alright.

 

[K2e2vin]

it can be tuned to run 87(retard ignition, etc.)

 

[Panther550]

Originally posted by K2e2vin@Mar 4 2005, 02:06 PM
it can be tuned to run 87(retard ignition, etc.)

[post=469283]Quoted post[/post]​

Does that mean that i could also tune a b16a to run 87 octane or how much would i have to lower the compression ratio from 10.2:1 to run 87 octane.

 

[MikeBergy]

Originally posted by Panther550+Mar 4 2005, 03:18 PM-->

K2e2vin

@Mar 4 2005, 02:06 PM
it can be tuned to run 87(retard ignition, etc.)

[post=469283]Quoted post[/post]​

Does that mean that i could also tune a b16a to run 87 octane or how much would i have to lower the compression ratio from 10.2:1 to run 87 octane.

[post=469353]Quoted post[/post]​

Yes, a b16 could be detuned to to run 87, but if you have emissions tests up in Canada, it will probably not pass, because it will pass more unburnt fuel mixture into the air. As for your comment on the aerodynamics of the cars in question, I can tell you just by looking at those cars that they have no chance of producing any noticeable downforce on the car. I am an aero engineering student here in California, close to graduation, so I can tell you in all honesty I know what I am talking about. If you want to compare the aerodynamics on the cars, it would be best to look at the frontal cross-sectional area of each car; the less the area, the less drag the body will produce, and the less Force required to keep the car in motion. This has to do with efficiency, and the less drag a car has, the less gas a car has to burn to drive. This is only really going to be noticeable at high speeds. Also the shorter the car, the less skin friction will have an affect on the overall drag. Sharp edges also create flow separation, so generally, the smoother the car, the more efficient it will be (look at the fugly ford taurus, prbably one of the most aerodynamically efficient cars on the road. too bad it's a piece of crap). Don't even worry about the differences in any downforce that might be created by the different cars; I assure you it is a futile waste of perfectly good brain power. But it is good that you are thinking of these things this way. It's a good way to tell if someone is truly interested in knowledge of how things work. May I ask what you are studying at school? It sounds to me like you have a feel for design, but you are asking questions that are not really big factors when choosing the right car for the job. I was having those troubles with a propulsion system I am designing for our aircraft design class. Good luck with finding the right car. Just make sure you actually like the car's feel; that is what is going to keep you happy with the car down the road.

 

[Panther550]

Wow that's really cool that you're an engineer and everything. With what you said though wouldn't it make sense that the Del Sol or Civic Si would create the less drag because the body contours on those cars are a lot smoother than on a CRX and their overall lengths are shorter than a DC2 so less skin friction.

As far as school goes I'm actually a first year trying to get a bachelor of commerce but with a major in east asian studies (i.e. import cars). But i have always had an interest in design, there's just not enough money in it. Actually originally when i was in highschool I was looking at doing concept art for auto manufacturers, but there are so very, very, very few jobs available for that sort of thing. Thanks for the help though it helped a lot.

Oh and no we don't have emissions tests here.

 

[MikeBergy]

Some say that the 92-95 civics were the most aerodynamically efficient. From looking at them, I'd have to agree. But the crx has a slight weight advantage, and the del sol has that floppy targa top to make structural flex a little more of a pest, but there are tradeoff for all these factors. It just depends on what you want. You first have to ask yourself what do you want to get out of the car? Name off specifics of what you wan the car to do for you, then get into these studies you are looking into, and see what drops out as you narrow your selections down. As for your schooling, it sounds like you might have some fun times travelling in the future. There is money to be had in the engineering world, you just have to have an open mind about the first few years of employment. You might not, and probably will not get your dream job right away, but if you stick to it, you'll usually end up with something you like. I'm not going to turn down 45-50k a year starting salary, which is the going rate for fresh out of college aero grads. That's like 3-4 times as much as I am making now, and it only goes up from there.

 

[phunky.buddha]

Originally posted by MikeBergy@Mar 5 2005, 01:42 AM
There is money to be had in the engineering world, you just have to have an open mind about the first few years of employment. You might not, and probably will not get your dream job right away, but if you stick to it, you'll usually end up with something you like. I'm not going to turn down 45-50k a year starting salary, which is the going rate for fresh out of college aero grads. That's like 3-4 times as much as I am making now, and it only goes up from there.

[post=469540]Quoted post[/post]​

All my starting offers were > $50k, so Mike- you should be able to top that... especially if you're looking at a California based position.

 

[Panther550]

Well despite how cool engineering sounds, i'd first have to do some serious upgrading before even considering it (i.e. physics, math, chemistry, and calculus, maybe even English if my mark isn't high enough) so that's something I'd have to put a lot of thought into.

I have another question. It's not the same as my original question, but I think it's related.

I'm wondering if anyone knows the front/rear weight distribution percentages for the cars that I originally posted on this thread.

The reason I'm wondering is because like I've said before I live in canada where it snows and rains a lot, and sliding on ice is a lot different than sliding in heavy rain because no matter which direction you steer in, the car continues to travel in the same direction as it was right before losing traction. And so the only way to control a car under such conditions is to either slow down a whole lot or drift through it, and I've kind of started to enjoy drifting on icy and snow packed roads in my mom's '95 Integra LS.

But I'm thinking that if I got a CRX which has a weight distribution of like 61/39 front/rear that it'd be a lot harder to control the drift than a car with a weight distribution closer to 50/50. And I'm also not sure if a longer wheelbase would make drifting easier or harder to drift, or control the drift.

*Note* I'm not looking at doing any sort of drift competitions or anything I just find it really fun, and I've only ever driven front wheel drive cars so i wouldn't be comfortable getting a rear wheel drive vehicle. And I'm also assuming that '89-'91 CRX's would be easier to sustain a controlled drift than an '88 because the don't have RWS.

Any feedback would be great.

 

[phunky.buddha]

No clue... but I think our Civics generally have more than 60% of the weight up front. I do know that a lot of the guys in Japan who race Civics prefer the sedans because of the better weight distribution. Either way, I don't think you should choose your Civic chassis based on f/r weight- you're going to have to do some work on all of them to shift weight to the rear anyway.

Shorter wheelbase cars will of course be more twitchy, so you're going to be able to get into AND out of trouble faster, and longer wheelbase cars will be more gradual in their transitions.

 

[MikeBergy]

Originally posted by Calesta@Mar 6 2005, 09:33 AM
No clue... but I think our Civics generally have more than 60% of the weight up front. I do know that a lot of the guys in Japan who race Civics prefer the sedans because of the better weight distribution. Either way, I don't think you should choose your Civic chassis based on f/r weight- you're going to have to do some work on all of them to shift weight to the rear anyway.

Shorter wheelbase cars will of course be more twitchy, so you're going to be able to get into AND out of trouble faster, and longer wheelbase cars will be more gradual in their transitions.

[post=469848]Quoted post[/post]​

I don't think that the differences in weight distribution are going to be really noticeable to you. You are choosing between cars that are very similar to each other, and use the same drivetrain setup and chassis design, for the most part.
Plus, you aren't drifting in the racing sense, and so I don't think the weight distribution is going to a key factor in how the car behaves on ice. With ice, I would assume you'd want as much traction to the drive wheels as possible, and so I'd want more weight on the front than back. So it may be optimal in your case to have a weight dist. more biased toward the front if you want to have the most conrol. That is why fwd cars have better traction than rwd cars in the raind and snow and ice.

 

[Panther550]

I guess that makes sense, although on wet or dry pavement I think it would be better to have less weight up front.

 

[MikeBergy]

Originally posted by Panther550@Mar 7 2005, 01:19 AM
I guess that makes sense, although on wet or dry pavement I think it would be better to have less weight up front.

[post=470165]Quoted post[/post]​

Not necessarily. Remember, the drive wheels are in the front, not the back.

 

[Panther550]

But with greater traction in the front wouldn't it be harder to sustain a balanced drift. I mean on ice you want that added traction to help steer the car, but without ice the front wheels already have a fair amount of traction and the only way to drift, or I should say 4-wheel drift is if the front wheels have traction equal to the rear wheels.

 

[phunky.buddha]

Without control over the rear wheels aside from the brakes, you're just going to be drifting in a "slide and pray" motion most of the time anyway. If you want the best handling, try and get to 50/50... the car will be easier to control in a slide as well- but Mike's right- it might not be the best setup for traction in the wet/ice.

 

[Panther550]

I was wondering, if i converted the rear drums to rear discs would that add or subtract weight in the rear.

 

[MikeBergy]

weight difference will be negligible.

 

[Panther550]

I was wondering which car has a better front/rear weight distribution, a '89 CRX or a '89 Civic, cuz i can get the civic real cheap whereas the crx's close buy a like 3-4 thousand dollars more. And i hate how the civics look, but if they're better then maybe i'd reconsider.

edit - does anyone know what the jdm chassis code is on '87 CRX's cuz i can get those cheap, and eventhough they don't look as good as '89 CRX's they're still better than '89 Civics. Oh and is they any aftermarket support for '87 crx's.

edit- can you put a b16a in a '87 crx?

 

[MikeBergy]

Originally posted by Panther550@Mar 8 2005, 11:37 PM
I was wondering which car has a better front/rear weight distribution, a '89 CRX or a '89 Civic, cuz i can get the civic real cheap whereas the crx's close buy a like 3-4 thousand dollars more. And i hate how the civics look, but if they're better then maybe i'd reconsider.

edit - does anyone know what the jdm chassis code is on '87 CRX's cuz i can get those cheap, and eventhough they don't look as good as '89 CRX's they're still better than '89 Civics. Oh and is they any aftermarket support for '87 crx's.

edit- can you put a b16a in a '87 crx?

[post=471027]Quoted post[/post]​

redpepper racing. Somebody post a link, cuz I've never been there, just heard about it. The weight distribution will not be noticeable on these cars, they are too similar.