Car Enthusiast Club [Now Motorcycle friendly!] - First thread to 150k! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Bitter]

4 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Nah more like

 

[bcredeur97]

Help 

[Bitter]

6 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

Help 

Time to go buy a new car and burn that one to the ground.

 

Actually what an adorable little fatty there, looks like a harmless orb weaver. They're pretty docile when they're not on their webs.

[Levent]

Parents bought this piece yesterday. Unaligned panel gaps, missing carpets, missing first aid kit. 25 kms into the ownership and I was already greeted by sensor errors when parking. Shitty interior design (like extremely retarded gear selector placement and design, oh you want to reverse, oh you hit the front defrost button that is conveniently placed 5 cm away from the knob? You know have to click the AC button and manually turn that shit down. Extremely shitty design). I am not sure what the package is but allegedly this is the best trim and only engine package you can get these in here. 3008 with 1.6 160PS engine (not the PHEV sadly).

Spoiler

I am not a fan of this dealer either, car was dirty inside out. Saw feet marks on the fucking dash. I had to bitch to them that if this what $50K gets me in a brand new car in this dealership, they shouldnt expect me back here after 1K km checkup at all. They played dumb card on me when I told them this car had a lot of unaligned panels and told me they cant fix it, meanwhile I told them I can fix these with couple of tools.

[TVwazhere]

49 minutes ago, Bitter said:

Time to go buy a new car and burn that one to the ground.

 

Actually what an adorable little fatty there, looks like a harmless orb weaver. They're pretty docile when they're not on their webs.

I agree with both parts of this

[AlwaysFSX]

1 hour ago, Levent said:

Parents bought this piece yesterday. Unaligned panel gaps, missing carpets, missing first aid kit. 25 kms into the ownership and I was already greeted by sensor errors when parking. Shitty interior design (like extremely retarded gear selector placement and design, oh you want to reverse, oh you hit the front defrost button that is conveniently placed 5 cm away from the knob? You know have to click the AC button and manually turn that shit down. Extremely shitty design). I am not sure what the package is but allegedly this is the best trim and only engine package you can get these in here. 3008 with 1.6 160PS engine (not the PHEV sadly).

  Hide contents

I am not a fan of this dealer either, car was dirty inside out. Saw feet marks on the fucking dash. I had to bitch to them that if this what $50K gets me in a brand new car in this dealership, they shouldnt expect me back here after 1K km checkup at all. They played dumb card on me when I told them this car had a lot of unaligned panels and told me they cant fix it, meanwhile I told them I can fix these with couple of tools.

Was that in a front end accident at the factory? lol

[Levent]

22 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Was that in a front end accident at the factory? lol

Apparently this is a feature from factory. I went for a better look just now and realized trunk lid is not even aligning with cars lines.

 

[AlwaysFSX]

51 minutes ago, Levent said:

Apparently this is a feature from factory. I went for a better look just now and realized trunk lid is not even aligning with cars lines.

 

Well developed machinery making that car /s

[DANK_AS_gay]

So, after having the Honda for a month at most, I want more power. 140hp is not enough for a 3000lb car. Now, because of the CVT, I am shooting for 40 hp more at most, enough to make a difference when I need it to (and I have needed it to, multiple times), but not so much that I damage anything. I am mostly looking for low end torque. Any ideas? 

Info: The HR-V is based on the 3rd gen Fit, and I have the 1.8l I-4 (R18Z9)

Evidently a supercharger actually would do something for this engine, according to a random guy on a forum that made some sense lol.

"A supercharger wouldn't affect fuel economy much, given that you can keep your foot out of it. For an engine designed for minimum pumping loss, a blower would be a great match up. The supercharger came from Detroit's 2 stroke diesels. It was designed to keep positive pressure on the cylinders, to scavenge them of exhaust, by keeping fresh air flowing in. The R18's low pumping loss design could take advantage of that same type of positive pressure & scavenge flow. And because they are belt driven instead of load dependent like a turbo, you get the advantages without having to put your foot in it and spin the revs up."

I dunno how true that is. I hope it isn't, because I'm not spending 5k on a kit for 60 hp. Is there any other way? Especially one that won't wake my neighbors?

[Bitter]

Hondata tune it?

[DANK_AS_gay]

12 minutes ago, Bitter said:

Hondata tune it?

How do I check if it works on my model? Hondata does Integras and Civics, but I can't find Fits/HR-Vs.

Would this work since they have the same/similar engines?

https://www.hondata.com/flashpro-civic-2012-2015-us-1.8-carb?search=1.8

[iDeFecZx]

5 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

 I'm not spending 5k on a kit for 60 hp. Is there any other way? Especially one that won't wake my neighbors?

Replace it with a car that has the power you want

[AlwaysFSX]

1 hour ago, iDeFecZx said:

Replace it with a car that has the power you want

Naw we just love blowing CVTs in this thread.

[IPD]

7 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

So, after having the Honda for a month at most, I want more power. 140hp is not enough for a 3000lb car. Now, because of the CVT, I am shooting for 40 hp more at most, enough to make a difference when I need it to (and I have needed it to, multiple times), but not so much that I damage anything. I am mostly looking for low end torque. Any ideas? 

Info: The HR-V is based on the 3rd gen Fit, and I have the 1.8l I-4 (R18Z9)

Evidently a supercharger actually would do something for this engine, according to a random guy on a forum that made some sense lol.

"A supercharger wouldn't affect fuel economy much, given that you can keep your foot out of it. For an engine designed for minimum pumping loss, a blower would be a great match up. The supercharger came from Detroit's 2 stroke diesels. It was designed to keep positive pressure on the cylinders, to scavenge them of exhaust, by keeping fresh air flowing in. The R18's low pumping loss design could take advantage of that same type of positive pressure & scavenge flow. And because they are belt driven instead of load dependent like a turbo, you get the advantages without having to put your foot in it and spin the revs up."

I dunno how true that is. I hope it isn't, because I'm not spending 5k on a kit for 60 hp. Is there any other way? Especially one that won't wake my neighbors?

You can't keep your foot out of a supercharger.  You CAN keep it out of a turbocharger's boost.  Superchargers are belt driven--meaning that whatever RPM the engine is turning at, the supercharger is turning as well.  It may not be providing boost--but it is parasitic loss for the entire RPM band.

 

P.S.

AFAIK, using positive pressure to scavenge your cylinders in a petrol engine is Miller Cycle.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_cycle

 

And unless the engine was built for this originally, it takes some work to get the valve timing to work correctly with this setup.

[iDeFecZx]

1 hour ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Naw we just love blowing CVTs in this thread.

Amen

[jagdtigger]

Testing new rear cam:

Old sjcam has a torn off charger connector and it was faster to buy a new cheap camera...... (ill repair it later, at least i will have a backup)

[DANK_AS_gay]

3 hours ago, IPD said:

You can't keep your foot out of a supercharger.  You CAN keep it out of a turbocharger's boost.  Superchargers are belt driven--meaning that whatever RPM the engine is turning at, the supercharger is turning as well.  It may not be providing boost--but it is parasitic loss for the entire RPM band.

 

All of the superchargers advertise a 45% or about that much increase anyways, I am looking for roughly 25% to not blow anything up.

A cold air intake would be pointless, and add almost nothing for 500$+. An exhaust would be loud and pointless without an intake anyways, and would be 1k$ for like 5hp. Obviously modifying this car is a lesson in futility.

Disappointing. I thought that there would be people modifying the Fit, and when I found out the engine was in the civic too, I REALLY thought there might be something out there.

[bcredeur97]

10 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

All of the superchargers advertise a 45% or about that much increase anyways, I am looking for roughly 25% to not blow anything up.

A cold air intake would be pointless, and add almost nothing for 500$+. An exhaust would be loud and pointless without an intake anyways, and would be 1k$ for like 5hp. Obviously modifying this car is a lesson in futility.

Disappointing. I thought that there would be people modifying the Fit, and when I found out the engine was in the civic too, I REALLY thought there might be something out there.

You'll definitely lose fuel economy if you get a supercharger without a bypass valve so that the air bypasses the rotors under low loads. They really aren't much of a hit to fuel economy as long as they have one of those. 

Turbo is still more efficient though... you're not taking power from the motor to compress air, you're just reusing what the engine would normally "waste". 

All of that said, just go get a different car if you want more power. The problem with modifying cars is you can quickly end up with a $50k HR-V that no one wants because they can just go buy a $20k mustang and destroy it

[IPD]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

Testing new rear cam:

Old sjcam has a torn off charger connector and it was faster to buy a new cheap camera...... (ill repair it later, at least i will have a backup)

About the only "stock" features from the past 20 years or so that new cars have--that actually like--are all-digital LCD gauges, USB functionality built-in, and top-down cameras.  Top-down cameras are virtually impossible to retrofit into older cars without some serious tinkering ability.

[IPD]

55 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

You'll definitely lose fuel economy if you get a supercharger without a bypass valve so that the air bypasses the rotors under low loads. They really aren't much of a hit to fuel economy as long as they have one of those. 

Turbo is still more efficient though... you're not taking power from the motor to compress air, you're just reusing what the engine would normally "waste". 

All of that said, just go get a different car if you want more power. The problem with modifying cars is you can quickly end up with a $50k HR-V that no one wants because they can just go buy a $20k mustang and destroy it

True.  But this is where the I4 Ford Ecoboost with twin-scroll turbo really shines.  Twin-scroll turbos will make SERIOUS power, but the fact that it's turbo still means you can tenderfoot it for fuel economy.

[jagdtigger]

7 minutes ago, IPD said:

About the only "stock" features from the past 20 years or so that new cars have--that actually like--are all-digital LCD gauges, USB functionality built-in, and top-down cameras.  Top-down cameras are virtually impossible to retrofit into older cars without some serious tinkering ability.

I think you over estimate how hard it is. Especially how easy it is to get replacement head unit with camera support. BTW in this case the camera is sitting on the back box of my motorcycle.... (obviously i need a longer arm so it can reside in the "shadow" of the back box so it wont have this much of wind noise)

[IPD]

12 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

I think you over estimate how hard it is. Especially how easy it is to get replacement head unit with camera support. BTW in this case the camera is sitting on the back box of my motorcycle.... (obviously i need a longer arm so it can reside in the "shadow" of the back box so it wont have this much of wind noise)

You would need multiple camera feeds seamed together to make it work.  At least 4, usually more.  Not exactly easy, considering that it would pretty much have to be done by hand--as every vehicle has different exterior dimensions.

 

Plus, retro-fitting a camera without it appearing conspicuous--is also quite difficult.  A backup camera is one thing.  Putting one in each tail-light, headlight, side-mirror, etc--not very easy at all.

[vetali]

5 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Naw we just love blowing CVTs in this thread.

Only if they have aggressive gear ratios.

[jagdtigger]

2 minutes ago, IPD said:

Putting one in each tail-light, headlight, side-mirror, etc--not very easy at all.

Because you overthink it, put two on the mirrors on each side and its pretty much done for the sides. On front and rear you only really need 1 really wide angle.

[IPD]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

Because you overthink it, put two on the mirrors on each side and its pretty much done for the sides. On front and rear you only really need 1 really wide angle.

Perhaps.  But I don't like the "barebones" look where you get extreme distortion at times.  I'd rather have more cameras.  But anyways....

 

I have yet to own a car built this millennia....and I haven't had a good reason to yet....