15th Oct 2007, 12:40

I use a little formula for evaluating horsepower from 0-60 performance that I learned on the Internet, of all places. :)

It's certainly not 100 percent accurate, and it won't work for mega-horsepower exotics, but for cars of up to about 400 brake horsepower it does come fairly close.

I've posted this elsewhere, so pardon the redundancy, but the formula is very simple:

HP = car weight (lbs) / 2 / 0-60 time (seconds)

So for the Peugeot 106: I round the weight of the vehicle up to 2200 lbs (about 1000 kg--car with driver & petrol.) Divide this by 2 and then again by the 0-60 time of 8.4 seconds, and we get a horsepower approximation of 131. The stock 1.6 litre engine for the Peugeot 106 GTi develops 120 horsepower, or about 91 percent of this figure, so the formula seems to hold pretty well for this application. Now, in order to have an acceleration of 0-60 in 6.4, seconds, you might need 2200 / 2 / 6.4 or about 172 horsepower. And if the 91 percent rule applies, then you could possibly get away with as little as 172 x.91, or 156 hp.

Whether this is in the range of possibility with only a handful of modifications to the Peugeot engine would be hard for me to say. But I would say that it would seem to be within the realm of probability.

However, I do know there's an old adage originally found in an American speed shop from the 1940s: "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?"

10th Jun 2009, 15:46

Why do people always go on about Type R's as if there the fasted thing going, they're over rated, and overpriced.

I have a 106 gti myself, and all that's done is 4 branch full exhaust system, ram air induction kit and power boost valve, and I have no problem sticking neck and neck with Type R's, and the thing about the 106 is you don't have to rev the crap out of it to get it to move either.

Like the first comment said, he has a few mods and I know for one that the standard airbox on the 106 is very restrictive. An induction kit makes a big difference, but standard to standard, yeah maybe it wouldn't keep up, but how much does a CTR cost? At least 7 or 8 grand? A good 106 for about 2 grand, the same mods I did only cost around 600euro, that's still about 1/3 the price of the CTR...

11th Jun 2009, 12:45

Not worth comparing the two cars because the Type R is leagues ahead in most aspects TBH, and it's upto the driver to decide if they think it's worth it to pay the extra premium to have better comfort, performance, residuals, reliability etc etc.

12th Jun 2009, 03:28

A 106 with those mods will still not stay with a Civic Type R. I'll prove it, you bring your banger 106 down and I'll race you in a standard Civic Type R. I've beaten all the chavs in the 106's, Saxo's etc etc with their bean can exhausts.

A Civic Type R is not the fastest thing out there, but it will definitely give a lot of cars a good run; even a 1.6 CRX is quicker and a lot better built etc etc than your 106.

23rd Aug 2010, 17:11

Even at 150 bhp, it's gonna be 150-ish bhp per ton, and less than the CTR, so how's it gonna kill it?

I don't doubt it would keep up with one, but it won't kill it. You'd be lucky to win, and it's not the most reliable engine with 120bhp, so will be even less reliable with 150, whereas the Honda unit is bullet proof, and if given similar mods to the 106, will nail it!

25th Aug 2010, 13:33

I like the fact that a list of things to tune the engine has been mentioned, which would cost a fortune to get the 106 to over 150bhp. A 20 year old CRX out the factory with the same size 1.6 engine came as standard with 160. Let's be honest, the 106 is a nippy car, but certainly not quick.

26th Oct 2010, 04:36

Good top end? Seriously?

Why would anyone take this comment written seriously? The Civic is a good car for what it is, and the reason it gets raved about is because it was by the best hot hatch of its generation - FACT. If it wasn't, why do all of the other owners of sporty hatches try to compare their car to one. I don't even own one any more, but it was a very good vehicle.