Honda Civic Overperformance

I bought a 2003 Honda Civic EX 2 door last November (clearance
model).This is a STOCK vehicle and I noticed it had a 150mph speedo on
it.I got curious and paid a raceway (drag racestrip) $75 to test the top
end.I got up to 139mph before I ran out of track and had to decelerate.
Even during the run,I found out that it was barely controllable at
speeds above 105.
My question is: Why did Honda put such an engine (a basic 4-banger)
[VTEC 1.7L] in a frame body that really could not handle such speed?
Good golly,molly if this car was modified by street racers,who knows
what it could do(it probably would be a disaster waiting to happen).
I bought it as an economy car basically, so why manufacture it with this
kind of speed potential?

 

My two guesses:

1. Honda, more than anything, is an engine company, more than a body
company. Thus it's to be expected that the former exceed the later.
2. In the streets, where it really counts, top speed isn't as important.
People rarely hit anything above 100mph. It's the everyday, low speed
torque that matters.

I remember my old civic-derived 90 Integra handled pretty good at 125mph in
the NJ turnpike.

-Indirecto

 

Suspensions are modified as well.

 

It's a good thing your car is designed to understeer

 

Where is this place at?

Carl

 

....and Hondas are *known* for low speed torque! Riiiiight...

a

 

Interesting, I thought there was a cut off at 120mph?

 

I guess I wasted my money when I bought my Prelude in 01. Car & Driver
could only get 139 out of a 5th gen in their test.

 

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:22:42 -0700, (SAC 441) wrote:

||I bought a 2003 Honda Civic EX 2 door last November (clearance
||model).This is a STOCK vehicle and I noticed it had a 150mph speedo on
||it.I got curious and paid a raceway (drag racestrip) $75 to test the top
||end.I got up to 139mph before I ran out of track and had to decelerate.
||Even during the run,I found out that it was barely controllable at
||speeds above 105.
||My question is: Why did Honda put such an engine (a basic 4-banger)
||[VTEC 1.7L] in a frame body that really could not handle such speed?
||Good golly,molly if this car was modified by street racers,who knows
||what it could do(it probably would be a disaster waiting to happen).
||I bought it as an economy car basically, so why manufacture it with this
||kind of speed potential?

I guess Honda is one of the few companies who still believe the user should be
able to make intelligent choices about the use of a product. Darwin's Natural
selection plays a big part.

Texas Parts Guy

 

I'm think what Indirecto meant by "low speed" is under 65 mph, as opposed to
"low rpm", which obviously Honda engines do not have any torque.

 

I don't think they put in the engine for max speed, it's for better
acceleration at normal driving speeds. If you have an issue with the max
speed, then you should probably be lobbying for a speed governor, not a
reduced engine size!

 

;-)

I acknowledge that Honda engines are not torque-massive... though my accord
I4 is not bad.

-Indirecto

 

I don't find my Accord 2.2 lacking in torque either.

 

How did he get 139 (if he actually got it)? I test drove an 04 Civic LX and
the speed governer kicked in at 113. It still felt like it had a few more MPH
left in it too. Any way to kill the speed governor?