Scott Sawyer sez:
>The '89- '91 Civic Si is already an HS car so it would make sense to
>leave it where it is. Remember, we're only talking 108 horsepower. The
>CRX is quite a bit shorter and lower than the Civic. It has always been
>classed at least 1-2 classes above the regular Civics so that isn't
>changing.
Being somewhat well-informed on Honda Civics and CRX's over the years, I can
offer that the 88-92 CRX Si versus Civic Si on-course time delta is about .5
seconds. This was verified when these cars were relatively new, using test
vehicles of similarly well-prepared state, over many events. It is mostly
due to the weight differences in the cars, about 150 lbs (88 CRX Si versus
89+ Civic Si).
The 86-87 Civic Si is not much different than the best of the early CRX Si's
('85) in overall performance, and both are now hampered in tire choice by
having to run 13" rims. When "the tire" was the BFG R1 226, the 88 CRX Si
was the fastest of all the Si's, mostly due to being able to run the biggest
tire (205/55-14). Given today's tire situation (Hoosiers and Kumhos do not
like overtiring a rim) and the skinny rims of these cars (5"), the situation
is muddied. Worst case, though, is a half-second delta across the whole lot
of them.
I do have to say that I was astounded when I read that the 89-92 Civic Si
was placed in HS for this last year via the early-season clarification. I
still think the car can contend with ES when properly prepared (and was
trying to convince Brian Priebe not to sell his for exactly that reason).
If I had not already purchased a new car for this year (Miata), I'd have
gone and gotten one immediately. IMHO, it is an overdog for HS and in any
new car classification proposals needs to be placed with the rest of the
CRX/Civic Si clan. If not, and I can't learn to drive this RWD Miata, I
might just have to return to HS... :-)
--Andy
|