1996 Honda Civic 3 door coupe DX classing

[idahospeeddon]

Hi all,

Long time solo guy but trying to get into door to door. I have a 1996 civic 3 door DX and can't seem to find a class that works for this car. Am I missing something. I see lots of classes for Si models and 88-91 and 92-95 and newer 2001 models but 96-2000 seems to be left out.

Thanks for any help.

Don Miller

[77ITA]

Indeed, the car is not classed. You will need to write the clubracing board on the matter and submit a VTS. Information on requesting a car to be classed can be found at www.scca.com (http://www.scca.com)

I actually have a '96 DX hatchback as a daily driver. It would make a good ITB car, or maybe even an ITA car if it can be made light enough!

[Knestis]

The previous generation DX is listed in A, at a horrific low 2050# with driver. If you really want to do the IT world some extra good, send in your request to have the '96+ DX classified (be specific about years and list them all), AND send in a separate request that the earlier one in A get re-examined to be sure it's correct.

The issue is that this going to be that it will be what we've grown to refer to loathingly as a "tweener" - a make/model that can be either a featherlight A car (that is expensive or even impossible to get to weight) or a FAT B car. It's going to be very important to know what the stock cars actually weigh.

It's probably safe to assume that the HB, Coupe, and Sedan won't end up on the same spec line. If you have dimensions for all of them, think about indicating what they are so we can get all of them handled at once. If you ask just for the DX Coupe, you'll get just the DX Coupe.

K

EDIT - I'm personally thinking it would be better served as a heavier B car but that's just me...

[R2 Racing]

EDIT - I'm personally thinking it would be better served as a heavier B car but that's just me...

I thought the same for the '92-'95 DX yet it still sits in ITA at an impossible weight. Would be an awesome car in ITB - cheap, plentiful parts, stupid easy to work on, and competitive. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Xian]

Don't the 96+ cars have larger brakes than the 92-95 but a fairly similar engine? D16Y8 or something like that? I seem to remember reading that it's basically a newer version of the "old" engine in the 88-91 Civic/CRXen. Still seems like both of them should be in B somewhere... maybe 2450-ish?

Christian

[bonespec]

I thought the same for the '92-'95 DX yet it still sits in ITA at an impossible weight. Would be an awesome car in ITB - cheap, plentiful parts, stupid easy to work on, and competitive. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Why I never even tried getting into SCCA racing with my 93 DX HB. I'n it's "wrecked" condition it would be PERFECT to convert into a IT car, and with simple factory parts will make as mush power as the Si HB.

But darn IT rules........

[Knestis]

The good news - though it will be slow coming - is that with the "VIN Rule" off the books, you will be able to build an Si out of a DX shell, assuming that all of the parts on the final car are as would have been delivered on an Si.

If someone will write the various requests, the ITAC will review and make recommendations to the Board:

* List the '96+ DX Coupe
* List the '96+ DX HB
* Consider moving the '92-85 DX to ITB at its process weight

Remind me what the stock HP/Torque figures on each of the DX's is, and we can do some napkin math to predict what the process weight will be. They have double A-arm front ends too, right?

EDIT - Heck, list the later DX 4-door, too. It might be on the same spec line as the coupe if the mechanicals and basic dimensions (WB, track, etc.) are the same, or on a separate line if not.

K

[Xian]

The good news - though it will be slow coming - is that with the "VIN Rule" off the books, you will be able to build an Si out of a DX shell, assuming that all of the parts on the final car are as would have been delivered on an Si.

Glad to hear that this rule is still on track :happy204:


If someone will write the various requests, the ITAC will review and make recommendations to the Board:

* List the '96+ DX Coupe
* List the '96+ DX HB
* Consider moving the '92-85 DX to ITB at its process weight

Remind me what the stock HP/Torque figures on each of the DX's is, and we can do some napkin math to predict what the process weight will be. They have double A-arm front ends too, right?

EDIT - Heck, list the later DX 4-door, too. It might be on the same spec line as the coupe if the mechanicals and basic dimensions (WB, track, etc.) are the same, or on a separate line if not.

K
I'm guessing that you meant to say the 92-95 (see bolded above) and just mis-typed?

What I found was:
96+DX Coupe & DX, LX Sedan 106hp/103tq
96+CX & DX Hatch 106hp/103tq
Both of the above utilize a 1.6 liter engine that (I believe) is very similiar to the D16A6 in the 88-91 Civic/CRXen. i.e. to my knowledge they don't have any type of YTEC, yo. I'm pretty sure there were some intake manifold differences (maybe better?) but am not completely sure of the details.

92-95 DX Hatch 102hp/98tq
92-95 DX Coupe 102hp/98tq
92-95 DX & LX Sedan 102hp/98tq
All of these use a 1.5 liter that (I believe) is also similiar to the D16A6 in the 88-91 Civic/CRXen, albeit with a smaller displacement. This engine didn't have the loathed DPFI of the 88-91 DX's that makes their engine such a dog.

I haven't looked it up but I think the Sedan and Coupe share the same wheelbase... someone please correct me if I'm wrong... and that the Hatch has a shorter wheelbase. Trackwidth should be the same or very, very close to it for all cars of the same generation.

All the above share the same basic suspension design front and rear and can pretty much swap parts around with the 94+ Integras. The front suspension has double A-arms and the rear has the trailing arm/upper& lower control arm setup seen on damn near everything from 88+

Christian, who doesn't attest to the above information being "gospel" but it should at least be a decent start.

[Knestis]

We're probably looking at ITB cars, at 2175# +/- for the older one and maybe 75# heavier for the '96+ version. That's my math, not official ITAC figuring so I reserve the right to have messed it up. :)

I don't have first-hand experience with those chassis but based on my limited knowledge, that seems like it might be achievable.

Put in the requests.

K

EDIT - there might be an extraneous factor here, if one of these engines is the same as the ITA CRX. There's a huge body of knowledge built up around it and, whether we like it or not, the "real world gains" have influenced the weight spec of that car. It would *probably* be applied here equally, if it's the same powerplant.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Send in your requests. If this is indeed the same 1600 that powers the 88-91 CRX/Civic Si then it will probably get listed at the same weight as those cars in ITA.

But we haven't seen the info yet. Could go either way.

[Xian]

If the 88-91 DX is classed correctly at 2240 in ITB then I would imagine that both of these cars would be heavier. Both the 92-95 and 96+ cars are going to have substantially more motor in them than the earlier DPFI cars.

As far as engine similarities, I'm pretty sure the motor for the 92+ DX's is a D series derivative that should respond very similiarly to the CRX engine when give the same level of IT legal prep. Maybe 120ish at the wheels for the 92+ cars vs. 105ish at the wheels for the 88-91 DX's?


Send in your requests. If this is indeed the same 1600 that powers the 88-91 CRX/Civic Si then it will probably get listed at the same weight as those cars in ITA.

But we haven't seen the info yet. Could go either way.

It isn't exactly the same but I believe that nearly all it's parts are relatively interchangeable i.e. manifolds, heads, etc. I remember reading about the Honda guys pulling the intake manifold off either the 92-95 or 96+ cars b/c it flowed better than the earlier manifolds. Then again, I'm not sure what stock compression #'s look like and if the cams are identicle...

Christian

[bonespec]

hehe, D15B7 is baically a cross betweem a D15B2 but with MPFI from the CRX Si.

Use the CRX Si cam and Z6 intake (few can tell the differnce from a distance) and with typical IHE yet thru the OEM cat I laid out 118 whp in 1999.

No milling for legal increased displacement, nor overbore, no port matching.

Doesn't have quite the midrange TQ of the bigger stroke D16, but it will run quite nicely.

I know this is outside IT rules, but it would be fun, in theory about the perfect ITA combo to compete with the CRX's if it is about 50 pounds lighter.

[Xian]

hehe, D15B7 is baically a cross betweem a D15B2 but with MPFI from the CRX Si.

Use the CRX Si cam and Z6 intake (few can tell the differnce from a distance) and with typical IHE yet thru the OEM cat I laid out 118 whp in 1999.

No milling for legal increased displacement, nor overbore, no port matching.

Doesn't have quite the midrange TQ of the bigger stroke D16, but it will run quite nicely.

I know this is outside IT rules, but it would be fun, in theory about the perfect ITA combo to compete with the CRX's if it is about 50 pounds lighter.

So just to clarifiy:

The 92-95's use a similiar D15 engine to the 88-91 DX's but with a much better fuel injection system (MPFI vs. DPFI)... the 92-95's don't run the same crappy intake manifold design as the 88-91 DX's do they? I would imagine this would give them improved final prep #'s similiar to but not the same as the 88-91 Si cars?

Do you know about the similiarities between the 88-91 D16 and the 96+ non-VTEC D16's? Doesn't the 96+ run something like a D16Y8?

Thanks for the info!!

Christian

[R2 Racing]

Ugh. So much wrong info, and Bone not helping with mix-matched Frankenstein engine whp claims.

I can probably clean this up tonight when I get home with correct (IT classification pertinant) info. Actually, maybe a month ago Giles and I PM's back and forth about this subject. Maybe I can find that, as it had a lot of this info in it.

edit - I found it! BTW, EF is '88-91 & EG is '92-95. Here's what I had compiled/written:


I figure you might know the answer to this question. Has the '92-95 Civic DX been considered for a move to ITB?

Right now it's in ITA at 2050lbs, which is laughable if anyone thinks you could actually hit that. I don't know if I could even get an EX to its classified 2305lbs. Our old ITC car was classified at 2140lbs and I never came close to hitting that.

Compared to your EF DX that got the move to ITB, it's not that different. Power is the biggest difference, which looks like this:
EF DX - 92hp & 85 lb-ft with DPFI
EG DX - 102hp & 92 lb-ft with MPFI

The gear ratio's are actually worse:
EF DX - 3.25, 1.89, 1.26, 0.94, 0.77
EG DX - 3.25, 1.76, 1.17, 0.91, 0.70

The brakes appear to be virtually identical:
EF DX - (F) 242 x 21 Vented Disc, (R) 181 x 39 Drum
EG DX - (F) 240 x 21 Vented Disc, (R) 180 Drum

Other than that stuff, the displacement (1495cc) and compression ratios (9.2) are identical. The wheelbases are 98.4" for the EF and 101.3" for the EG. Plus both cars came stock with 13" wheels, and the aero is probably very similar for the two. Rear suspensions are virtually identical. In the front, the EF uses a front radius rod setup while the EG uses a rearward radius rod setup, but are pretty much identical in operation.

With the EF DX classified in ITB at 2240lbs, I don't see why the EG DX couldn't be put in ITB too around 2400-2450lbs. Does that sound like enough for the extra 10hp and 6lb-ft over the EF? With almost everything else being nearly the same, that's about all that would need to be adjusted for.

I think that classification would be really good for ITB. There's a ton of those cars around with great aftermarket support. You know people would build them. So what's your opinion on it?

Andy, any other info needed to run it through the process? That info is just what I can access right now. I don't have any information for the EK ('96-'00) DX's right at the moment, but I can add it later.

[Xian]

I can probably clean this up tonight when I get home with correct (IT classification pertinant) info.

Thank you and please set me straight if anything I dug up isn't correct!



Still seems like both of them should be in B somewhere... maybe 2450-ish?




With the EF DX classified in ITB at 2240lbs, I don't see why the EG DX couldn't be put in ITB too around 2400-2450lbs. Does that sound like enough for the extra 10hp and 6lb-ft over the EF? With almost everything else being nearly the same, that's about all that would need to be adjusted for.


Nice to see that my guesstimate isn't too far off the anticipated weight :)

Christian

[idahospeeddon]

Wow, I really thank everyone for the information. I will wait another few days and then pen a letter to the committee and see what they come up with.

Thanks, Don

[R2 Racing]

Andy, any other info needed to run it through the process?

Hello? Bueller? I'd like to get a general idea of if there's any chance at all before going forward with sending the paper.

Speaking of which, how does one go about sending this info in and trying to get the car moved? I've never done it before.

[Knestis]

It will absolutely be considered for movement. The chance of it actually happening depends on the specifics of what is submitted.

Send whatever you've got to make the case to [email protected]. It will get forwarded to the ITAC for discussion, then we'll make a recommendation back to the board.

K

EDIT - remember that your best case is made on data about the stock car. Any "who beats what on the track" stuff will pretty much be ignored.

[Xian]

It will absolutely be considered for movement. The chance of it actually happening depends on the specifics of what is submitted.

Send whatever you've got to make the case to [email protected]. It will get forwarded to the ITAC for discussion, then we'll make a recommendation back to the board.

K

EDIT - remember that your best case is made on data about the stock car. Any "who beats what on the track" stuff will pretty much be ignored.

That's prety much the way it worked for me. When I requested to get the 90-91 EX classed, I believe that sent an email request to the CRB and got a response back asking for a VTS (vehicle technical specification) Form. I completed and returned the VTS and within a couple of months saw the update in the FastTrack :)

Christian

[Rud]

Doesn't the 96+ run something like a D16Y8?


The D16Y8 was the 96+ EX engine. SOHC VTEC, 127hp/108lb-ft.

[jimmyc]

maybe this is a dead subject, but i will confirm what Kevin R. has said, and people should reject/disregard any thing else in this thread.


It is important for the ITAC and other to remember that the 88-91 Crx/civc SI/ex motor what one of, if no THE most under rated motors from the honda/acura factory.


While the DX motor in the 92-95 civic will probably produce a few more HP and Tq then the 96-00 civic DX, it is hard/impossible to say what the difference would be. FYI the 96-00 civic DX/cx have a throw back IM/TB like the 88-91 civic/crx DX, but it has MP.

IMO any thing, weight wise, for these cars below, 2200 in IT trim is REALLY REALLY being optimistic. I have a 93 honda civic for H4 (which has MUCH more liberal rules about weight removal) and it wasn't easy to get to the 2220lbs for minimum weight. In fact i have happy at the 2215lbs with an empty gas tank.