96-99 Civic Hatchbacks

So where does the "e" and the "k" come in?

i only pretend to know about hondas... sooo, i dunno..?

EK would refer to the generation.

An EG Civic is the previous, 1992-1995 generation.


Automakers have their names for their chassis, I think the "E" in the name means essentially the same thing as "H" would be for our cars.

I'm more of an expert of the Toyota and Nissan systems: things like JZA80 (1993+ Supra) and R34 (Skyline GT-R)

If you are only getting those times out of a turbo'ed car, then you probably won't get too much more speed out of it.

ya those are pretty good......i think

i knew that you would know... bastard

By my calculations thats ~270hp & ~251lb.ft at the engine. Thats not really that great, but it isn't bad. That is a 24 valve engine so it breathes really well, which is awesome for a turbo car. Not only that but it has a turbo on it, and what seems to be a great intake manifold and a good exhaust setup.

Now, lets compare this to my car. My car has a 3.1L 12 valve pushrod engine with stock exhaust manifolds, a turbocharger that belongs on a 2.0L engine, a very small cam (.394 lift & 197* duration) that isn't turbo oriented in any way, a HORRIBLE intake manifold, 52mm throttle body, and poor flowing heads. It also has over 100,000 miles on it and is 14 years old. With 6psi boost it made 182.2hp at the wheels (~227 at the crank) on pump gas, this is with the stock restrictive computer and a basically completely stock setup with the exception of a removed cat and K&N filter on the turbo, may I also mention that I had a blown headgasket at this time. And pulling a 3500+lb. car with an auto trans it ran 14.9 this way. Then I put a chip in it adding ~4psi boost and the car gained amazing amounts of hp and tq. With a 2 tenths worse 60' on a warmer day the car ran 3 tenths faster pulling off a 14.69. This would be a 14.20 with the same 60' and track conditions as the 14.9. So my guess is that it is making right around 200whp or so with that setup, and my car is an automatic so it has more power loss through the tranny than his manual does and it still had a blown headgasket. I am about to put a mild cam in my car along with an underdrive crank pulley and a few other minor things along with fixing my blown headgasket and I *should* be running about 13.80'* or so with it. Now this is with stock heads, intakes, throttle body, exhaust manifolds, a stock 2.25" exhaust, etc.... and in a 3500+lb. car with a 14 year old engine with 100k+ on it. This contour has P&P'ed intakes and "head inlets" whatever that means...maybe just the intake side of the heads were ported or something (which doesn't make much sense on a turbo car but whatever) and a 3" exhaust, along with a few other things. Now obviously a 13 second time is not bad for a V6, but considering what has been done to it, its not impressive to me, especially since my worn out pushrod V6 should be making more power than that even though it is a much worse setup.

Just my $.02.

Shawn

The nice thing about those Contours is the gearing.

I drove a '98 Contour LX for about 2 years (it was my mom'* old car). It had the I4 Duratec 2.0L, and it wasn't anything special as far as horsepower, but let me tell you something: that car didn't have a tach, but I bet that damned engine redlined to near 7500 rpm. From a completely stock I4 with a five-speed manual, first gear would take it to 35. I bet second would have been somewhere around sixty. I don't know who the hell was playing with the gear ratios, but it sure sounded fun. Threw me back in my seat, too.

I could only imagine what fun that turbo'd six would be.