Honda Car Forum

Top posting, responding to nothing specific.

electricked, I agree with everything you said, more or less. Yes, it's the
"clowned box" (LOL!) cars that make me cringe, as well as the noise
polluters (exhaust or stereo). Too bad there aren't more Honda sleepers.

I guess I'm done ranting (I do this in here every few months or so). Thanks
for the detailed responses.
--


Mark
'99 Civic Si


"electricked" <no_emails_please> wrote in message
news:NIidnSozCcnU9u7dRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>
> "Mark Gonzales" <enter_my_name@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:c4vl1k$122$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Thinking back over all of these Hondas at that time, I don't recall a
> single
> > one being modified (cosmetic nor performance).
>
> Times have changed I guess. Wouldn't you appreciate the availability and
> comparatively inexpensive part cost for performance upgrades? I
definintely
> do. Cosmetic, that's another story. To each their own.
>
> > For whatever reason, we
> > appreciated Hondas for what they were and the way that Honda engineered
> > them.
>
> I bet. People still do but they try to get some more juice out of the
lower
> end hondas so they can compete with the higher end--S2k, NSX, you name
> it--with much lesser price than the higher end cars. Not everyone's got
> money hanging out of their pockets, and performance upgrade on an underdog
> is the way to go for the lower/middle class families.
>
> Again, availability and price is what makes this possible. If you'd look
in
> the technology, it's the same, things change because there's an
availability
> of resources and they're not as expensive.
>
> > Fast forward to 2004 and it's hard to find an unmolested Honda on
> > ebay.
>
> Maybe that should tell Honda something. If you don't want to see a
molested
> honda maybe the stock should come with more power. If a bunch of stuff is
> put for show then I agree, a lot of people overdo the flash mods and it
> starts looking like a clowned box than anything else.
>
> Some mods I agree with are clear corner lights, maybe HIDs or something
that
> improves visibility, etc. Body wings, spoilers and fart pipes that are
there
> just for show get me mad, but hey, to each their own. If you got the money
> do what you want with it, I wouldn't care.
>
> > It's usually Civics that get the worse of it, but Accords get the
> > treatment sometimes too.
>
> Read above. Civics are less powerful than the accords. Accords come with
> reasonable power for everyday driving so they don't need to be modded as
> much to gain some "get-go" power.
>
> > At least most people have the good sense to leave
> > the higher-end cars alone like the S2000 and NSX, as well as other
higher
> > end Hondas and Acuras.
>
> Why would you want to mod an S2K, NSX or Acuras? They've been highly tuned
> up, specifically made for recreational use, and already got enough
"go-get"
> power, especially the S2K and NSX. They've been made aerodynamic already
so
> you don't need to put wings and whatnot. They look cool too. But not
> everyone's got the funding, and let me tell you, insurance ain't cheap
> either on those beasts!
>
> > Of course, I'm referring to cosmetic "enhancements" more than anything.
>
> Well, true, everyone want to be like big pappa NSX. Too bad not everyone
has
> the cash to afford it.
>
> > My how times have changed, eh? ;-)
> > --
> >
> > Mark
> > '99 Civic Si
>
> They've definitely changed but I think it's for the better. Of course,
there
> are always the idiots who do cosmetic changes for show more than
performance
> and for me those are the rice boys. I mean you gotta get some girls right!
>
> Anyway, I keep my honda's stock. The reason I stick to honda is that they
> are not as bulky as some other cars, they are comperatively aerodynamic,
and
> most of the time they drive smoother than other cars in their
class--forgot
> to mention they are cheaper on the pockets :-)
>
> I agree with you though, most of the cars out there are just show and no
go.
> I dream to see some tuned up civics that really do what it advertises on
> that big front windshield!!
>
> --Viktor
>
>

Tegger® wrote:

> "Mark Gonzales" <enter_my_name@comcast.net> spake unto the masses in
> news:c4u9m8$q5c$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com:
>
>>Sounds sweet. But like I said earlier, I have no problem with Civic
>>tuners. It's all the rice that bothers me.
>
> There ya go!
>
>>It's oh so rare but it is cool to see a legitimately fast Civic that's
>>kept a sleeper.
>
> Now that's a good point. Why does "fast" have to look so, well, obvious?
>
> Remember the '80s phrase "Q-ship"?

LOL - "Q ship" is term originally used in WW I (and again in WW II) to
describe heavily armed ships which were disguised as helpless merchant
ships. The bad guys show up expecting easy pickings and get a big "Oh,
shit!".


http://www.fact-index.com/q/q_/q_ship_2.html

Gus <GusPod@optOFFline.XXXX.net> spake unto the masses in
news:V5Occ.3124$Po2.958021@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net :

>
> LOL - "Q ship" is term originally used in WW I (and again in WW II) to
> describe heavily armed ships which were disguised as helpless merchant
> ships. The bad guys show up expecting easy pickings and get a big "Oh,
> shit!".
>
>
> http://www.fact-index.com/q/q_/q_ship_2.html



Well there ya go. Thanks for the history. I guess the phrase got revived in
the '80s for use on that type of car.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda FAQ
http://www3.telus.net/public/johnings/faq.html

How to find anything on the Internet or in Usenet Groups:
www.google.com
www.groups.google.com

"Mark Gonzales" <enter_my_name@comcast.net> spake unto the masses in
news:c50381$93r$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com:

> "Tegger®" <teggeratistopdotcom@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns94C3DF99676CCteggeratistop@207.14.113.17.. .

>>
>> Still got my '91, bought new. It's bone-stock.
>
> Cool. Yeah, these were really sharp. Never cared for the last gen but I
> liked the first two...
> http://www.franksimports.com/2UNZ956.html



That's an LS? No spoiler, plastic wheel covers? I'll bet it's an RS, not an
LS. That's the way they were sold up here, anyway.



--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda FAQ
http://www3.telus.net/public/johnings/faq.html

How to find anything on the Internet or in Usenet Groups:
www.google.com
www.groups.google.com

Tegger® wrote:
> Gus <GusPod@optOFFline.XXXX.net> spake unto the masses in
> news:V5Occ.3124$Po2.958021@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net :
>
>
>>LOL - "Q ship" is term originally used in WW I (and again in WW II) to
>>describe heavily armed ships which were disguised as helpless merchant
>>ships. The bad guys show up expecting easy pickings and get a big "Oh,
>>shit!".
>>
>>
>>http://www.fact-index.com/q/q_/q_ship_2.html
>
> Well there ya go. Thanks for the history. I guess the phrase got revived in
> the '80s for use on that type of car.

Definitely! It's sometimes interesting to see where these terms
originated & when.

Mark Gonzales wrote:

>
>
> I do like the new coupe's styling (exterior and interior) even if it has
> softened up a bit. In some areas, the interior makes mine look Mickey Mouse.
> I've always appreciated the Civics' safety record. But I've seen some
> unHonda-like fit-and-finish flaws on both new Accords and Civics that has me
> worried. QC needs to be raised up a notch, IMO.
>
> Does Crush ever stop in and say hello? ;-)

The group was quite lively when he was around (even though he was a border line
troll).
Haven't heard from him in several month. I guess he's found somewhere else to
preach about Torque.

Pars
98 DX Hatch


>
> --
>
> Mark
> '99 Civic Si
>
> >
> > l8r,
> > Pars
> >
> > Mark Gonzales wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...ivic25-ON.html
> > >
> > > "For years, Honda kept a hands-off attitude to the Civic customizing
> craze,
> > > generally avoiding a direct marketing appeal to young enthusiasts, a
> group
> > > sometimes referred to in the industry as "the fast and furious," after a
> > > movie with that title that celebrated the import-car street-racing
> culture.
> > > In 2001, Honda redesigned the Civic and made it more family-friendly and
> > > sedate, which in turn left the tuners feeling slighted."
> > >
> > > "Last summer, at an import-racing event in Irwindale, Calif., the crowd
> > > booed when the announcer mentioned Honda."
> > >
> > > Well, I guess I never had a problem with legitimate Civic tuners
> (although
> > > I've never understood it) but it seems you're all moving on. But can you
> > > take the ricers with you please?
> > >
> > > Ricers, Honda doesn't want you! Honda doesn't support you! Your
> ill-fitting
> > > body parts, outrageous spoilers, and obnoxious exhausts are spoiling
> their
> > > image of refinement and perfection. Honda ask that you to go f up
> another
> > > kind of car (I personally recommended the Ford Focus) and leave the poor
> > > Civic alone!
> > >
> > > Honda, listen to Car & Driver when they note that the Civic is becoming
> a
> > > POS and START MAKING IT BETTER...
> > >
> http://caranddriver.com/article.asp?...&page_number=5
> > >
> > > Well, actually they only called it a "loser".
> > >
> > > That is all.
> > > --
> > >
> > > Mark
> > > '99 Civic Si
> >

"Tegger®" wrote:

>
> >
> > It's oh so rare but it is cool to see a legitimately fast Civic that's
> > kept a sleeper.

True, those sleeper are a blast. It's even more fun when the other person
doesn't realize that they've been wasted by a sleeper *grin*.

Toyota plans on putting in the 1.8L 180hp engine into their Corolla. If you
loose the spoiler and the side skirts which is standard for that model, it
would make a perfect sleeper.

Pars

>
>
> Now that's a good point. Why does "fast" have to look so, well, obvious?
>
> Remember the '80s phrase "Q-ship"? It meant a car with much more power and
> better handling than stock, but that looked totally factory-original. All
> go, no show. Much more tasteful. The cops never knew as long as you didn't
> put the pedal down. Sort of the descendant of the base '64 Chev Bel Air
> 409.
>
> --
> TeGGeR®
>
> The Unofficial Honda FAQ
> http://www3.telus.net/public/johnings/faq.html
>
> How to find anything on the Internet or in Usenet Groups:
> www.google.com
> www.groups.google.com

>
> >
> > Remember the '80s phrase "Q-ship"?
>
> LOL - "Q ship" is term originally used in WW I (and again in WW II) to
> describe heavily armed ships which were disguised as helpless merchant
> ships. The bad guys show up expecting easy pickings and get a big "Oh,
> shit!".

Cool, now I know where the term came from. It was use in 'Honor Harrington'
science fiction series by David Weber.
It's an entertaining read.

Pars


>
>
> http://www.fact-index.com/q/q_/q_ship_2.html

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 01:23:12 -0400, "Mark Gonzales"
<enter_my_name@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Tegger®" <teggeratistopdotcom@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote in message
>news:Xns94C3DF99676CCteggeratistop@207.14.113.17. ..
>> "Mark Gonzales" <enter_my_name@comcast.net> spake unto the masses in
>> news:c4t9jf$k25$2@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com:
>>
>> > Follow-up..
>> > ========
>> >
>> > The first Hondas that REALLY caught my attention...
>> > http://www.velocityjournal.com/ip/stk/4142.html
>> > http://www.velocityjournal.com/ip/stk/4143.html
>> >
>> > They may look dated today, but in 1986, these cars were sharp!
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, but I never liked the pop-up headlights. When the gen2 came out in
>> '90, then I was interested.
>>
>> Still got my '91, bought new. It's bone-stock.
>
>Cool. Yeah, these were really sharp. Never cared for the last gen but I
>liked the first two...
>http://www.franksimports.com/2UNZ956.html
>http://www.franksimports.com/3ROC727.html
>
>I still like this one though...
>http://www.franksimports.com/3VHU484.html
>
>But this one never grew on me...
>http://www.franksimports.com/3DVW499.html

I've owned all three - the '92/'93 was the best, apart from a couple of
things like the horrible headlamps (9004XV light output) and seats which
are not too comfortable on a long drive; 2nd gen had the real double
wishbone suspension. Whatever the failings of the 3rd gen, it's still a
far better car than the 1st gen. 1st gen had that horrible strut front
suspension with a longitudinal torsion bar<yugh> in front, panhard rod
solid axle in rear and the engine was just too gutless - it was also worse
at rusting of bodywork.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> spake unto the
masses in news:fb2970pupecdp0i77ihq8hp5dkpon7tufb@4ax.com:

> 1st gen had that
> horrible strut front suspension with a longitudinal torsion bar<yugh>
> in front, panhard rod solid axle in rear and the engine was just too
> gutless - it was also worse at rusting of bodywork.



Interesting that you should bring that up. Rust is a sort of hobby of mine
on account of where I live (southern Ontario, Canada).

------

The '90-'93 Integra suffers from relatively little rust, with the '90s
starting only in the last two years to look ratty.

The Civic from '88 to '92 appears to have *much* worse rust than the
Integra, and I wonder if the steel came from a different supplier. The rear
edge of the rocker panels is often perforated, and I've seen outer rocker
panels gone completely.

The 3rd gen Integra has much less rust than the '93-'97 Civic.

'93-'97 Civic has got to be the very worst for rust since the '80s Civics.
Every single one has extensive rust in the rear wheel well lip area, with
bumpers frequently detached at its leading edges. Door bottoms are often
bad as well.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda FAQ
http://www3.telus.net/public/johnings/faq.html

How to find anything on the Internet or in Usenet Groups:
www.google.com
www.groups.google.com