Fit vs. 87 Civic Si vs. 91 CRX Si

[OscarJr@JacksonRacing]

Sorry if the graph looks poor, but this shows a good comparison of the old small Honda cars.

Green - 1991 CRX Si with 193,000 miles (Most Powerful)

Blue - 2007 Fit MT (Middle)

Red- 1987 Civic Si with 180,000 miles (Lowest)

For those that were interested, there is the data!

[pingpop]

Thanks for the post, very interesting!

pingpop

[Digimer]

I don't know much about how Dyno's work, so forgive a stupid question, but that seems pretty far off the 107hp advertised. Not complaining, I love my Fit (MT), just curious about the difference.

Thanks!

Digi

[JDMchris.com]

Originally Posted by Digimer

I don't know much about how Dyno's work, so forgive a stupid question, but that seems pretty far off the 107hp advertised. Not complaining, I love my Fit (MT), just curious about the difference.

Thanks!

Digi

Dyno's rate a cars horsepower at the wheel. The horsepower advertised on the Fits sticker is rated at the flywheel. There is a loss of usable HP when putting power from the motor to the ground.

[OscarJr@JacksonRacing]

Originally Posted by JDMchris.com

Dyno's rate a cars horsepower at the wheel. The horsepower advertised on the Fits sticker is rated at the flywheel. There is a loss of usable HP when putting power from the motor to the ground.

This is correct, Dynojet chassis dynamometers measure cars at the wheels.

Here is an interesting piece of information. The CRX Si was rated at 108 HP and the Fit 109 HP. We believe the transmission in the Fit has heavier parts and bearings in it compared to what the CRX had, and might cause the lower power numbers.

[crxgator]

or that crx has a ton of carbon build-up...;)

[Digimer]

Originally Posted by JDMchris.com

Dyno's rate a cars horsepower at the wheel. The horsepower advertised on the Fits sticker is rated at the flywheel. There is a loss of usable HP when putting power from the motor to the ground.

Ah, okay that makes sense. Thanks kindly for clearing that up for me!

Digi (whose quite the novice at car stuff :p)

[Deivioncrx]

Go 87 Si, E-AT FTMFW



The D16A6 in the CRX Si was rated at 108hp so it seems like it was fairly underestimated, if you count 18% drivetrain loss(MT).

The L15 in the Fit is 109hp so it was almost perfectly rated.

And the D15A3 in the Civic Si was 91hp, so it was slightly undrated aswell

[OscarJr@JacksonRacing]

Originally Posted by Deivioncrx

Go 87 Si, E-AT FTMFW



The D16A6 in the CRX Si was rated at 108hp so it seems like it was fairly underestimated, if you count 18% drivetrain loss(MT).

The L15 in the Fit is 109hp so it was almost perfectly rated.

And the D15A3 in the Civic Si was 91hp, so it was slightly undrated aswell

This is true.

I believe that the Fit Transmission is a little more substantial too.

[Karvin Karl]

What are the vehicles respective weights? (Power to wt. ratios)

[Deivioncrx]

fit is 2500, CRX is 2100 and 87 Si is 1950

[s.gaspar]

i like the comparisons here, im going from a 86 civic si to a fit, while im building a 86 crx. Deivioncrx, im also on rpr, my name is DSK 86CRX, but the comparision is one of the reasons i chose the fit it reminds me of my cars, but a hell of a lot more reliable and comfortable.

[Deivioncrx]

Youll like it, Lowered about 1-2" with some 205 or 215/50/15's and it will handle just a good as the 1/3g

[OscarJr@JacksonRacing]

I want to find a clean 88-91 CRX Si or Civic Si now... so hard to find nowadays though.

-Oscar Jr.

[Raaaaaaaaaay.]

Originally Posted by OscarJr@JacksonRacing

I want to find a clean 88-91 CRX Si or Civic Si now... so hard to find nowadays though.

-Oscar Jr.

Id kill for a 88-91 WagoVan. In red too :o
It would be old skool and then new skool. If I found one I wouldnt go crazy engine wise. Id do a simple mini me

Wish my friend would sell me her 89. Lowered on FatFives with a cat-back. Just need the motor. ;)

A buddy of mine has a 89 CRX Hf. (Posted Pics) 1.5L block with 1.6L head non Vtec. Cam gear, intake, exhaust, fuel rail, EPROM. Weve raced a few times and he pulls me by a decent car to 2 cars. He really gets me up top.
I think my Fit does good since its still the OEM motor. Not to mention I can still add a header and B-pipe. Along with other goods.

[neofit1]

Just curious,

Was the Dyno on the Fit run with a manual or automatic transmission? Is there typically any extra loss in hp in manual vs auto?

Bob

(Happy owner of new stock Fit Sport)

[OscarJr@JacksonRacing]

Originally Posted by neofit1

Just curious,

Was the Dyno on the Fit run with a manual or automatic transmission? Is there typically any extra loss in hp in manual vs auto?

Bob

(Happy owner of new stock Fit Sport)

All the vehicles in the test were Manual transmission cars.

[Spule 4]

Originally Posted by Deivioncrx

Go 87 Si, E-AT FTMFW



The D16A6 in the CRX Si was rated at 108hp so it seems like it was fairly underestimated, if you count 18% drivetrain loss(MT).

The L15 in the Fit is 109hp so it was almost perfectly rated.

And the D15A3 in the Civic Si was 91hp, so it was slightly undrated aswell

The other factor to remember is the changes to the SAE (US) horsepower calculations and certification program by the SAE from around the early 2000s for factory (PR/advertised) numbers.

[biscuitninja]

Nice to see comparisons like this, the Fit is probably light years ahead in suspension chassis design (crash protection). But wow, nearly 500lbs difference.
ON a different note, Oscar, why'd you choose the Rotrex supercharger vs other COTS units? Just wondering, my twin and I designed a system just like yours with the same supercharger. Good luck
-bix

[spuddy]

Originally Posted by Mx6GT89

Id kill for a 88-91 WagoVan. In red too :o
It would be old skool and then new skool. If I found one I wouldnt go crazy engine wise. Id do a simple mini me

Check this link out FS: 1991 Honda Civic RT4wd red wagon Chicago burbs - Private Car 'For Sale' Classifieds - NASIOC