taylor414ce2003
Dedicated LVC Member
It can only take circular left hand turnsMediumD said:
raced a civic in my mark
- Thread starter turborich
- Start date
A stock Civic Si will likely beat a Mark VIII in any race- with it's 200hp 4 cylinder-
and these new compacts are comfortable and "only" $20k
The Mazdaspeed 3 has nearly as much stock horsepower as the Mark VIII with it's 2.3 liter engine. It's trounce a Mark or LS in any race for $24k
The Mark VIII was designed almost 20 years ago. In '93 it was a beast, with a hundred more horsepower than the Mustang, and more than the 350 GMs too.
But the new Toyota Camry is faster than the Mark VIII now. (0-60 in 6 sec)
The technology curve has passed us. The past 14 years were good. Time to start considering the Mark more in terms of the style and collect ability and less in terms of racing.
and these new compacts are comfortable and "only" $20k
The Mazdaspeed 3 has nearly as much stock horsepower as the Mark VIII with it's 2.3 liter engine. It's trounce a Mark or LS in any race for $24k
The Mark VIII was designed almost 20 years ago. In '93 it was a beast, with a hundred more horsepower than the Mustang, and more than the 350 GMs too.
But the new Toyota Camry is faster than the Mark VIII now. (0-60 in 6 sec)
The technology curve has passed us. The past 14 years were good. Time to start considering the Mark more in terms of the style and collect ability and less in terms of racing.
Dr. Paul said:
You're right- specifically it's 65 hp difference, I was just rounding up for dramatic affect. Thinking more in terms like 200 v. 300hp
The '91 was rated at 225. I think the 1987 was rated around 175. And the 1979 was rated around 140.
Point being- time is slipping the 8 by. It's not the "sleeper" that it once may have been. More and more economy cars are slipping by it in terms of performance, not to mention build quality.
chicken
SHEOOOOOOOOT
here ya go http://www.turbovan.net/van.html02LSE96LSC91SE84TC said:
but it could be kinda fun to beat the hell outa some people, but when the day is done its stull a f*in DODGE :yuck:
MediumD
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Civic SI - no, they're slower trust me.
Mazda also has a TURBO on that 2.3 engine..
Quicker to 60 does not a quicker car make.
They might be pretty close stock, but take a look at what it takes to make any of the above cars 12 second cars for example... we really just need a bit of spray, gears, stall, maybe drag radials, I guarantee it'll take twice the money to get the other cars in that range.
Trust you, but not the entire auto press?MediumD said:
So according to the journalists:
The Civic Si it does 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and the quarter mile in 14.9 and 45-65 in 3.4 seconds.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0606_midsize_coupe_comparision/specs_pricing.html
Would it matter if it had a proppellor and a wound up rubber band?
The point is it does 0-60 in 5.9 second, the 1/4 mile in 14.3 at 99.4 mph, and 45-65mph in 2.8 seconds.
Now let's compare those numbers against the Mark VIII.
0-60 in 6.9 seconds, the 1/4 mile in 15.2 at 95.5 mph, and the 45-65 in 3.7 seconds.
Actually, 0-60 does make a car quicker, especially when the quarter mile and the passing speed are faster as well.
I don't know anyone who wants to do a daily 60-120 mile commute in a 12 second car, so I really don't care or see how it's relevant.
If you want a 12 second car, and the ease of doing so is what is considered important, we'd all have Fox body Mustangs with roll cages. Point is, in 2007, these economical cars are just as fast if not a little faster as the Mark VIII. And cars that are in the same "class" as the Mark VIII was in 1993 are now doing 0-60 in the 5 second range.
Progress has moved by. The Mark's performance is still very respectable. But it is no longer the sleeping giant it once was. Not when a new Toyota Camry with a six cylinder will smoke it.
MediumD
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
First off I love bench racing or mag racing in this case... Even so you mean to tell me Mark VIIIs aren't capable of high 14s stock? I beg to differ. The Mazda having a turbo isn't important until you try to make it look like such a kick ass motor at 264(or so) hp out of 2.3L, that would be awesome out of a N/A but it's not a particularly big feat out of a 2.3 turbo.
Regarding the Camry, 0-60 in and of itself doesn't mean much, if the 1/4 mile ET and trap are higher then it's quicker sure. If you want to mag race here's what MSN says:
Toyota Camry XLE - V6 3.5L (268 hp) 6A + ABS (0-60) 6.70 (ET) 15.05 98.80(mph)
I wouldn't imagine the 5MT being more than a tenth or two quicker, and once again high 14s aren't a problem for Mark VIIIs.
First you want to talk about performance, now you don't care about having a quick car?? Regardless a long commute in a spray/gear/stall Mark wouldn't be a problem, leave out the gears and you wouldn't even know the difference between a high 12s car and a stock one. BTW you don't need a roll cage running 12s.
Anyway I get your point the Mark VIII isn't king of the road but don't make it sound like every :q:q:q:qbox they make is gonna walk it.
kustomizingkid
Dedicated LVC Member
One big point sticks out in my mind. Rear wheel drive vs front wheel drive. What fun is driving a front wheel drive car?
blk96LSC
LVC Member
as far as the stock SI Vs. MarkVIII thing goes...
I proved that one wrong tonight.
I ran a civic si (2000+ year. Not sure. Late model, though. Hatchback.) from a 60 punch, 75punch, and from a dig..
And all he could do was look at my taillights.
It was lame.
Anyone can quote a magazine, but get out and see for yourselves. Our cars aren't outdated just yet.
[and i'm totally stock, btw.]
I'll give you guys the results of my run against an 87 vette taking place next week, too. That run should be interesting.
I proved that one wrong tonight.
I ran a civic si (2000+ year. Not sure. Late model, though. Hatchback.) from a 60 punch, 75punch, and from a dig..
And all he could do was look at my taillights.
It was lame.
Anyone can quote a magazine, but get out and see for yourselves. Our cars aren't outdated just yet.
[and i'm totally stock, btw.]
I'll give you guys the results of my run against an 87 vette taking place next week, too. That run should be interesting.
Maybe a few could in 1994. Now, not so likely.MediumD said:
Frankly, I think a dependable and efficient 2.3 liter engine making 264 is pretty kick ass. And to add any more horsepower to the car would be useless because of the torque steer. Regardless, it seems pretty fast to me, both when I read the numbers or when I have driven it.
And, for the sake of this thread, we're comparing it to a 4.6 liter, 32 valve, V8 that is only producing 280 (or so) hp.
Regardless how it makes it's power, it's still considerably faster than the Mark VIII. In a straight line or in the twisties. And, sadly, all these cars will out handle the Mark, and have much a stiffer chassis.
Is MSN a "mag."
But still, let's then quickly establish, even those numbers report the Camry faster than the '93 Mark. YOU can't imagine the Camry being much faster... but you do acknowledge that a friggin' Camry is now faster than the Mark VIII.
The Mazdaspeed3 is considerably faster than the Mark VIII, but you don't think that matters because it has a turbo charged 4, and not a 4 cam v8.
And the Civic Si is just as fast as the Mark VIII, gets better gas mileage, better build quality, and better handling, but that doesn't matter to you.
A 12 second car is not usually a "quick" car, that's a car that's been designed to drag race. As a driving enthusiast, I'd rather have a car that moved forward fast, but also had the ability to turn and stop.
When we're talking about performance cars, we're not talking about which one can be customized easiest to give fast drag time. Typically when a discussion devolves into that, it means one side is trying to create an artificial scenario that they think they are advantageous.
"Well, this car might not be as good, but I can make it better for less money."
Are you high? How many 12 second Mark VIIIs do you know of? And do you have any idea of the investment and labor involved in doing something like that. Look at Driller's car. He's no where near the 12 second mark and he's invested considerably time and energy into his car.
And I don't know how many 150 shots a 145,000 mile mark VIII would withstand without substantial rebuilding throughout the drivetrain.
And you're not going to get a Mark into the 12s without changing the gears. Seeing as how we're dealing with 14 year old cars with 150k plus miles on them, do you really want to run nitrous, even occasionally, on your daily driver- the one you depend on to get to work?
BTW you don't need a roll cage running 12s
Anyway I get your point the Mark VIII isn't king of the road but don't make it sound like every :q:q:q:qbox they make is gonna walk it.
Not every car- virtually everything in it's class and increasingly even the compact cars. All of the new cars are getting really fast.
The Mark is still respectable, but don't expect to win all the stop light races you might engage in anymore. When a 5 door hatchback like the speed3 or a family mover like a Camry will take it, the times have changed.
And if you think it sucks for Mark VIII owners, the LS guys are STILL slower than us.
02LSE96LSC91SE84TC
Dedicated LVC Member
Wrong. Its a shame you guys don't visit all the forums here.Calabrio said:
Frogman
Dedicated LVC Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,914
- Reaction score
- 1
Dr. Paul said:
Maybe so, but God Damn it, they look good! :lol:
02LSE96LSC91SE84TC
Dedicated LVC Member
MediumD
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio you won't even acknowledge that a Mark VIII can run 14s stock... I can't argue with someone who won't acknowledge something that's been proven over and over again. The only one of the cars you listed that's definitely appreciably faster than the VIII is the Mazdaspeed 3. The Civic SI is NOT, the Camry is NOT. Unless you think Mark VIIIs are incapable of anything better than low-mid 15s, it all goes back to you underestimating the Mark VIII. As far as cars in/near it's class, yep they're generally faster now as well they should be. As for the sport compact crowd, a few of them are faster, some of them are similar, some of them are slower - they're supposed to be sporty anyway so they should ALL be faster. The family cars and econoboxes are still, with very few exceptions, slower than the Mark VIII.
Here's the thing about the Mazdaspeed 3. You were trying to make it look like "gee look, this mazda makes almost as much power as a Mark VIII out of a engine half the size." You neglected to mention it had a turbo. You were trying to make it out to be way more impressive than it was.
I'm only talking about straight line racing. Handling is nice, but it's pretty much impossible to compare car handling to other car people. You can't say "I did the standard autocross course in 39 seconds" or whatever, because there IS no standard course, whereas you can easily say "I run the 1/4 in 13.4." People race stoplight to stoplight WAY more than they race around curves, it's safer, there's less room for excuses, and there are way more straight roads here than curvy ones. So I personally think handling is nice but not as important than straight line acceleration. If you want handling none of these cars handle really well anyway.
I could also give less of a crap about MPG, I get 20city/30highway and that's enough for me. It would be really sad if the Civic SI didn't get better mileage than a big ass car like the Mark VIII.
Of course driller isn't in the 12s, he's going the N/A route which is much, much harder. I don't know how many 150 shots a 145k Mark will take either, but heck if you're comparing it to a $21k Civic SI you can either find a VERY low mileage Mark or rebuild the entire drivetrain twice over.
I'm not defending the Mark VIII as gods gift to performance, like I said I'm just saying not every pos an asian car maker puts out on the market is going to beat it. It's funny how you exaggerate a situation to the point of making an ass of yourself.
Calabrio said:
Here's the thing about the Mazdaspeed 3. You were trying to make it look like "gee look, this mazda makes almost as much power as a Mark VIII out of a engine half the size." You neglected to mention it had a turbo. You were trying to make it out to be way more impressive than it was.
I'm only talking about straight line racing. Handling is nice, but it's pretty much impossible to compare car handling to other car people. You can't say "I did the standard autocross course in 39 seconds" or whatever, because there IS no standard course, whereas you can easily say "I run the 1/4 in 13.4." People race stoplight to stoplight WAY more than they race around curves, it's safer, there's less room for excuses, and there are way more straight roads here than curvy ones. So I personally think handling is nice but not as important than straight line acceleration. If you want handling none of these cars handle really well anyway.
I could also give less of a crap about MPG, I get 20city/30highway and that's enough for me. It would be really sad if the Civic SI didn't get better mileage than a big ass car like the Mark VIII.
Of course driller isn't in the 12s, he's going the N/A route which is much, much harder. I don't know how many 150 shots a 145k Mark will take either, but heck if you're comparing it to a $21k Civic SI you can either find a VERY low mileage Mark or rebuild the entire drivetrain twice over.
So you rail on about the Mark VIII being a slow POS that handles like a pig runs 15s and you say that? You're SO full of it.
Dr. Paul said:
I'm not defending the Mark VIII as gods gift to performance, like I said I'm just saying not every pos an asian car maker puts out on the market is going to beat it. It's funny how you exaggerate a situation to the point of making an ass of yourself.
MediumD
Dedicated LVC Member
If a car A is quicker to 60 but car B runs the 1/4 in less time and traps higher... which one is quicker Paul?
Well if you want to talk about quick or fast in the drag racing world, quick is your ET and fast is your MPH. I ran my dad's bone stock 96 Mark VIII a couple months back and it did 14.93 at 95.79mph in drive.