HKS turbo GD article: 2007 HKS Honda Fit Sport Turbo - Specialty File/Specialty Files/Tuner Cars/High Performance/Hot Lists/Reviews/Car and Driver - Car And Driver

Stock GE article: 2009 Honda Fit Sport - Road Test/Honda/Acura Central/High Performance/Hot Lists/Reviews/Car and Driver - Car And Driver

"The new Fit gets to 60 mph in 8.5 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 16.6 seconds at 83 mph."

vs

"The HKS Fit Sport pulls to 60 mph in 8.6 seconds, 0.4 second quicker than our last Fit stocker, and the 16.7-second quarter-mile is but a 10th quicker."

So the stock 09s are actually quicker 0 - 60 and to 1/4 mile.

 

??? That has to be a Type "O"...

 

Unless they messed up on print as well since I got that magazine and it has the same 2 articles and same numbers.

 

I saw that too and those numbers seemed awfully slow to me. If it was 30 crank HP that might be right, but who in their right mind would spend $3400 on 30 crank hp?

 

Interesting

 

\

All within statistical range, no real difference. However, 60 to 100mph, where it really counts, the 09 is statistically slower.
Statistically means taking several measurements to calculate the mean, 3 sigma variation, and the significance of the new data from the old. Except for the 60 to 100 times the differences were meaningless. The problem is the 0-60 times are so variable due to things not controllable that any difference with half a second is not indicative.Run the same data tomorrow and the results may reverse.

 

I am sure most of us realize if you timed 10 runs only 1 our 2 will be the same. Pointing out a stock 09 is faster or about the same 0 - 60 and to 1/4 mile is what this post is about. 60 - 100 has no meaning to me since I am not going to hit 100 mph. I don't need a ticket.

 

There is a test in statistics that indicates the certainty that a new set of data is different from the last. Lets take a set of acceleration numbers from 60 to 100 (the reason for 60 to 100 is that it is a true indication of acceleration relatively free of the conditions that lead to uncertainty in 0-60 runs. You can use 30 to 60 just as well.).
Let's say the tests were 16.7. 16.8, 16.9, 16.5, 16.6. 16.7 16.8, 16.7, 16.8, and 16.7 seconds.
The average of those runs is 16.72 sec and the 3 sigma range (96% of all readings in a very large number of runs) is 16.72 +/-.33 seconds. A test of significance for 10 runs means that a new average would have to be more than 0.17 seconds different in order to be really different with a confidence of 95%.
I'm using the certainty constants for 95% from memory so I may not be exatly correct but thats not the point. The point is using just one number to compare to another isn't accurate.
In the case of the 09 vs the 08 the 09 jumps off line quicker but loses from then on. And if the 08 gets a better hook up the 09 is a goner from the start. Both the 1/4 mile and 0-60 numbers have no real difference; the car with the better driver or better launch will win every time but a very close launch win for the 09 will go to the 08 because from then on he's pulling the 09.

 

i still don't get it. edmunds seems to post the most realistic numbers, and their ge is slower than the last stock ge they tested.


even if a stock ge is faster than a stock gd3, there has to be something wrong with these numbers because the turbo should let it pull ahead. unless that body kit and those wheels weigh a ton.


having said that, if my a/t gd3 was that fast to sixty, i'd be happy.

 

The 2 sets of data are from the same issue of the same magazine, not saying they are collected at the same time but at least close in time frame. Magazine test are usually several runs and take the average dropping the best time and the slowest time. Even 60 - 100 have other factors. Aero dynamics, air temperature, are density, gearing, red line. weight in the car, driver. All in all, HKS 08 and stock 09 acceleration numbers are very similar. The combination of new gearing and slight more power over the whole power band made the 09 equal or better to 09 with 30 more hp.

 

C&D is also rather famous for not thrashing their "loaned" tester cars. Although this particular turbo kit seems a little anemic to me. I mean if you are gonna boost why not add forged internals and bigger injectors so you can have some fun? Hell you could dump a fifty shot of nitrous into a stock Fit and get the same results (before it blew up that is LOL)

 

At only 6 psi the boost just made up fior the power required to soin the turbo. It takes 10 psi to gain even 25 to 30%.

 

sounds like we just need a good 'ole fashion head to head in real life to quench this debate...

 

I think what we really need is a good Ol' fashon K20 swap to hush all the numbers