• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What do you think should be able to take corners faster?

F

fleabag

Banned
A Honda Civic 4 door '96 that weighs like 2400lbs with 185/65-14 high performance tires or a Volvo S60 4 door '04 that weighs like 3400lbs with 235/45-17 high performance tires?

I was thinking that while the Volvo does indeed have wider tires than the Civic, at the same time I can't get over the fact that it weighs 1000lbs more despite being around the same size.


So, what do you guys think?


With this new information in mind:
Honda Civic '96 Article:
Stats

Volvo S60 Stats Stats

Stat: '96 Civic 0.77g on the skid pad, 62.7mph through the slalom.
Stat: '02 S60 2.4T 61.9mph through the slalom.

More stats, where it shows the numbers are perfectly clear cut...
2000 Civic LX
2001 S60 T5
Integra Type R

I choose to add the Integra Type R to this lineup because it's based upon the Civic Platform and while it does have quite a few modifications in terms of the engine and suspension, this is fine because it just shows the platform's potential. One thing that should be noted though is that the tires are 195/55-15 tires though it doesn't specific the brand of tires... But with that aside, this car destroys the Volvo in handling performance if the numbers are any indicator.
Motor Trend
Slalom: 67.8mph
Skidpad: .92g
60-0 braking:121feet
0-60 7 seconds
1/4 mile: 15.3 seconds

Again I'm fully aware that the Integra Type R is not the same car but IS based upon the same platform which actually affords one the ability to literally transplant parts from the type R to the Civic if one so desired. While a lot of people would balk at that idea, what it also means is that high quality after market parts which would work on the Integra also work on the Civic.

I guess what I can learn from this thread is that while the Civic in its default form with its stock economy tires is probably worse at handling than the Volvo, it isn't by that much and a modification like better tires would seem like it'd be enough to at least match the Volvo and with a tire and rim width matching that of the Volvo, in my opinion would be enough to beat it by a small amount.
 
S60 pulls .85g on a skidpad. Civic? .77g.

The Volvo S60 will take corners faster because it's a relatively modern sports sedan and not a 14yo econobox.
 
Volvo, no doubt.

I'm always amazed at people who equate the Civic with any level of performance. It's a throw away, fuel sipper, commuter car - that's it.
 
Originally posted by: JLee
S60 pulls .85g on a skidpad. Civic? .77g.

The Volvo S60 will take corners faster because it's a relatively modern sports sedan and not a 14yo econobox.
Click to expand...

Where did you get those numbers?
 
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: JLee
S60 pulls .85g on a skidpad. Civic? .77g.

The Volvo S60 will take corners faster because it's a relatively modern sports sedan and not a 14yo econobox.
Click to expand...

Where did you get those numbers?
Click to expand...

Don't question the police. Respect his authoritah!
 
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: JLee
S60 pulls .85g on a skidpad. Civic? .77g.

The Volvo S60 will take corners faster because it's a relatively modern sports sedan and not a 14yo econobox.
Click to expand...

Where did you get those numbers?
Click to expand...

Google.
 
Originally posted by: iFX
Volvo, no doubt.

I'm always amazed at people who equate the Civic with any level of performance. It's a throw away, fuel sipper, commuter car - that's it.
Click to expand...

With enough money you can make any car fast and handle.
 
90hp means the civic doesn't even take straight roads fast, let alone corners. Weight doesn't mean much here.
 
Originally posted by: Malak
90hp means the civic doesn't even take straight roads fast, let alone corners. Weight doesn't mean much here.
Click to expand...

Let's say you've already at speed or you're going down hill but have encountered some windy roads.
 
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: Malak
90hp means the civic doesn't even take straight roads fast, let alone corners. Weight doesn't mean much here.
Click to expand...

Let's say you've already at speed or you're going down hill but have encountered some windy roads.
Click to expand...

Umm like said above no no and no.
 
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: Malak
90hp means the civic doesn't even take straight roads fast, let alone corners. Weight doesn't mean much here.
Click to expand...

Let's say you've already at speed or you're going down hill but have encountered some windy roads.
Click to expand...

Umm like said above no no and no.
Click to expand...

This. The poll options need fixing as well. There's a lot more to handling than tires.
 
What are you trying to establish? If you are trying to test the effect of weight, you need two cars of the same type, one with extra weight. If you want to test the effect of a greater tire contact patch you need two identical cars with differing tire configurations.

In your example you have different cars. This means they will handle differently no matter what you do. In your example you have different weights. Automatically you have different car dynamics, i.e., it's a given they will behave differently. In your example they have different tire configs. Again, this in combination with the other differences means you have a completely pointless test.

Other issues I have with the test is car A could have a softer spring setup, dependent upon model, car B could have a different suspension type, such as a rear torsion beam, solid axle, double wishbones, Z axle, etc.

Anyway, JLee answered it. S60.
 
The volvo.

Also what DBZ said.

Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: Malak
90hp means the civic doesn't even take straight roads fast, let alone corners. Weight doesn't mean much here.
Click to expand...

Let's say you've already at speed or you're going down hill but have encountered some windy roads.
Click to expand...

Umm like said above no no and no.
Click to expand...

This. The poll options need fixing as well. There's a lot more to handling than tires.
Click to expand...

There is a lot more to tyres than width*...

*not suggesting that JLee doesn't know this.
 
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: Malak
90hp means the civic doesn't even take straight roads fast, let alone corners. Weight doesn't mean much here.
Click to expand...

Let's say you've already at speed or you're going down hill but have encountered some windy roads.
Click to expand...

Umm like said above no no and no.
Click to expand...

This. The poll options need fixing as well. There's a lot more to handling than tires.
Click to expand...
I think you guys misunderstood, I didn't say all the reasons why I think the civic would beat the Volvo, I just mentioned a few. The question is going by what is known about the Volvo and the Civic, like that the Volvo has a Macpherson strut suspension for the front and multilink in the rear while the civic has double wishbone front and back. Are you people suggesting that because the civic is an economy car that the springs and shocks aren't stiff enough or designed around handling well?


The reason I ask is that when driving the S60, while it seems to hold the road pretty well, I always have this eerie feeling that if I take a turn just a little bit faster that it will either lose total grip or it'll tip over and I'll crash. While I haven't driven a civic, just the feel of the Volvo due to its weight just makes me feel like the civic would be able to handle the corners better and not feel like it's goanna tip over. For example, if I follow the road and take a corner on a slope where the direction I'm turning into is more elevated than the direction I'm turning away from, it feels like this alone could cause me to lose grip.

I guess in very simple terms is that I feel like the Volvo has too much body roll for a "sports car" and while it's no SUV, I'd expect a lot more from it but I feel the reason is obvious....it's because it's too heavy! Can't a car do well on the skidpad but still have too much body roll for any banked turns that are working against you?
 
Weight is of relatively little importance. When you go around a corner the weight is pulling you off the road more but at the same time it's also pushing you into the road more so you need more outward forces to dislodge the tires from the ground. So more important is the center of gravity relative to contact points in the road and tire materials and widths.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Weight is of relatively little importance. When you go around a corner the weight is pulling you off the road more but at the same time it's also pushing you into the road more so you need more outward forces to dislodge the tires from the ground. So more important is the center of gravity relative to contact points in the road and tire materials and widths.
Click to expand...

Well that's the thing, wouldn't a Volvo S60 have a higher center of gravity than a '96 Civic sedan?
 
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: Malak
90hp means the civic doesn't even take straight roads fast, let alone corners. Weight doesn't mean much here.
Click to expand...

Let's say you've already at speed or you're going down hill but have encountered some windy roads.
Click to expand...

Umm like said above no no and no.
Click to expand...

This. The poll options need fixing as well. There's a lot more to handling than tires.
Click to expand...
I think you guys misunderstood, I didn't say all the reasons why I think the civic would beat the Volvo, I just mentioned a few. The question is going by what is known about the Volvo and the Civic, like that the Volvo has a Macpherson strut suspension for the front and multilink in the rear while the civic has double wishbone front and back. Are you people suggesting that because the civic is an economy car that the springs and shocks aren't stiff enough or designed around handling well?


The reason I ask is that when driving the S60, while it seems to hold the road pretty well, I always have this eerie feeling that if I take a turn just a little bit faster that it will either lose total grip or it'll tip over and I'll crash. While I haven't driven a civic, just the feel of the Volvo due to its weight just makes me feel like the civic would be able to handle the corners better and not feel like it's goanna tip over. For example, if I follow the road and take a corner on a slope where the direction I'm turning into is more elevated than the direction I'm turning away from, it feels like this alone could cause me to lose grip.

I guess in very simple terms is that I feel like the Volvo has too much body roll for a "sports car" and while it's no SUV, I'd expect a lot more from it but I feel the reason is obvious....it's because it's too heavy! Can't a car do well on the skidpad but still have too much body roll for any banked turns that are working against you?
Click to expand...

You asked which car would be faster in corners. I posted significant differences in skidpad performance - hard numbers indicating which car would prevail. Yet you're still arguing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top