Improve my Civic's performance?
NAM #0001
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,050
Likes: 0
From: Cornelius, NC
Originally Posted by chimchim
Someone's being a technicality pest. 
The HX has VTEC-E, so yes, it has VTEC.
However, if you follow the context of the thread it's quite obvious that everyone is talking about the performance oriented VTEC... aka the high RPM cam lobes activated by VTEC. Conversational context cannot be ignored.
The HX has VTEC-E, so yes, it has VTEC.
However, if you follow the context of the thread it's quite obvious that everyone is talking about the performance oriented VTEC... aka the high RPM cam lobes activated by VTEC. Conversational context cannot be ignored.
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,033
Likes: 1
From: GA
I would vote for a supercharger. No you won't have 200HP, but it'll be a nice improvement over what you have now. It'll be more daily driveable too. SC's provide power in the lower RPM range, not just at the top. Now a DOHC swap w/ a supercharger would be even better.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
"It'll be more daily driveable too."
Nothing wrong with its daily drivable performance at stock.
A stock Ex to a stock Si is about 30 or so hp diffrence along with a small amount of weight. Si averages around high 15's to low 16's in the quarter and the Ex is mid to high 17's. I don't feel the diffrence between these 2 cars. This is why I say a supercharger on a stock Ex is a waste of money if you ask me unless it was on a bigger engine.
I do like chimchim's advice, If you aren't flooring it or reving it really high then your not using the full potential of the stock engine.
Nothing wrong with its daily drivable performance at stock.
A stock Ex to a stock Si is about 30 or so hp diffrence along with a small amount of weight. Si averages around high 15's to low 16's in the quarter and the Ex is mid to high 17's. I don't feel the diffrence between these 2 cars. This is why I say a supercharger on a stock Ex is a waste of money if you ask me unless it was on a bigger engine.
I do like chimchim's advice, If you aren't flooring it or reving it really high then your not using the full potential of the stock engine.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
there is a considerable difference between the ex and si. i have and si and my wife has and ex, both 2000. i think it all depends what kind of money you are looking at spending. to add the amount of power to really feel a difference is not cheap to me, depending on what cheap is to you. i have a few bolt on and still saving for a turbo/supercharger, but i really wish i just done a swap and got a gsr or if really wanted to drop a dime the new k20 out of the rsx.
my bum is on the swedish!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
Originally Posted by OblivionLord
A stock Ex to a stock Si is about 30 or so hp diffrence along with a small amount of weight. Si averages around high 15's to low 16's in the quarter and the Ex is mid to high 17's. I don't feel the diffrence between these 2 cars. This is why I say a supercharger on a stock Ex is a waste of money if you ask me unless it was on a bigger engine.
I do like chimchim's advice, If you aren't flooring it or reving it really high then your not using the full potential of the stock engine.
New Zealand
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
From: Northern Va.
Originally Posted by 18secFerio
I've seen stock ex's running high 16s. its not hard if you're a good driver.
