|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=20758 |
|
| Comments: 62 (Read/Post) Favorites: 0 (View) |
Submitted
on: 03-23-2003
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Car |
|
|
Description:
'88 CRX, n.a., claimed to run 12.45. |
Showing page: 2 of 4
[ 1 2 3 4 ]
 |
| #21 |
4-10-2003 @ 06:47:55 PM |
| Posted By : Bling24 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#7, turbonator sounds like a super powered vacuum cleaner or a superpowered dildo :P
|
|
| #22 |
4-24-2003 @ 11:13:06 AM |
| Posted By : 426plymouth |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#20, LoL...get a radiator and paint it silver and just mount it up front...make em think you have a hellishly massive intercooler...possibly have a air tank to mimic the blow off valve sound at shifts...
|
|
| #23 |
10-14-2003 @ 07:34:40 AM |
| Posted By : comradesampo |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I don't believe that time for a second. What do you need to get a CRX into the 12s, 300hp? 350?
|
|
| #24 |
10-14-2003 @ 08:15:04 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Depending on configuration, some CRXs actually weighed less than 2000 lbs (the later SIs weighed more, if I recall). With that little weight, you'd only need to be at mid-200s at the crank to hit 12s.
|
|
| #25 |
10-14-2003 @ 08:18:11 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#24,
Year-Make---Model------weight
1988 Honda CRX DX MT 1922
1988 Honda CRX HF MT 1819
1988 Honda CRX Si MT 2017
[Edited by Lemming on 10-14-2003 @ 08:18:30 AM]
|
|
| #28 |
10-14-2003 @ 08:33:48 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#26, Well, this is probably true, but there is a reason why people (other than ricers) would modify the hatchbacks and CRXs. If you can get traction, it doesn't take much power at all to make one go fast.
|
|
| #31 |
10-14-2003 @ 08:35:37 AM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#3, As usual, ambient is the only person who would believe the owner/ricer of this car.
|
|
| #32 |
10-14-2003 @ 08:39:05 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
One little calculator I just tried said that 12.78s would only need 223 bhp (189 fwhp) in a 2000-lb car, but I don't really trust anything that simplifies that much.
[Edited by Lemming on 10-14-2003 @ 08:40:23 AM]
|
|
| #33 |
10-14-2003 @ 08:41:20 AM |
| Posted By : kstagger |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#32, I found a calculator once that would use the FWD vs RWD as one of the parameters...
|
|
| #34 |
10-14-2003 @ 08:41:41 AM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Well considering these cars had only 63-90 hp stock (depending on model)...that's a big feat without an engine swap.
|
|
| #35 |
10-14-2003 @ 08:43:52 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#33, That's better. This one just used weight and ET, and didn't take into account driveline choice. That, and suspension setup, can make a huge difference in 60' times.
|
|
| #36 |
10-14-2003 @ 08:44:51 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#34, True. I wonder how much an H22 would affect the weight. Those engines made ~195 bhp in stock form in a Prelude.
|
|
| #38 |
10-14-2003 @ 08:49:07 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#37, True dat. I could probably knock several tenths off my car's 1/4 mi. ET (if I actually cared) by going to 3.73s or 4.10s.
On the other hand, I think most Hondas leave the factory with pretty high final drive ratios, which would serve to explain how the riceboys can go though 4 gears before hitting 30. :-)
|
Showing page: 2 of 4
[ 1 2 3 4 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
