spike blue
Member
- :
- 2007 mazda CX-7,Kia sephia 2006 Audi A4 Sline
we'll see that
First Drive: 2006 Honda Civic Si
- Thread starter mikeyb
- Start date
How is honda behind the times? Hell, their sohc D series motors from the early 80's will still outlast most modern motors today. There is nothing behind the time about Honda....even their performance cars are LEV! They took a 2.0L motor and make 200whp while getting good gas mileage off pump gas! Look at those K20A motors, they're running high 12's with just some nasty cams and hondata.
Even my "crappy" 05 si is LEV (super emissions friendly) has fun short gears (4.76) and runs 15's.
I used to think hondas were crappy for a bit compared to the competition. Non-SI civics still come with rear drums! Drums! hahahh. Even in the 80's honda was "behind" feature for feature. Toyota had cars making more than 100hp per liter N/A, rear discs, and had 5 spd fuel injected base model cars long before Honda finally got with the program in 1988. Hell, there's even an 80's Toyota motor with ITB's. But it just doesn't matter. Honda makes solid products that deliver, generation after generation. I really don't like the new SI but im sure it will be a great car and will still be AHEAD of the market.
And yes, the new Si is 3% more than the current Si, $19,700. I'm sure there will be a premium for a little bit but that will wear off.
Even my "crappy" 05 si is LEV (super emissions friendly) has fun short gears (4.76) and runs 15's.
I used to think hondas were crappy for a bit compared to the competition. Non-SI civics still come with rear drums! Drums! hahahh. Even in the 80's honda was "behind" feature for feature. Toyota had cars making more than 100hp per liter N/A, rear discs, and had 5 spd fuel injected base model cars long before Honda finally got with the program in 1988. Hell, there's even an 80's Toyota motor with ITB's. But it just doesn't matter. Honda makes solid products that deliver, generation after generation. I really don't like the new SI but im sure it will be a great car and will still be AHEAD of the market.
And yes, the new Si is 3% more than the current Si, $19,700. I'm sure there will be a premium for a little bit but that will wear off.
Hughes412 said:
HP and torq numbers are useless. The important part is the accelleration they provide as that is all they really are a measure of. All of the cars I listed rival or in the scions case will rival the SI's accelleration for similar money. The WRX is no where near $10K more expensive, in that range your talking STI. At any moment anyone can get a WRX for under $22K. I have shopped it, not to mentioned owned one.
It's interior looks nice, fit and finish wise. It is easilyover the chevy and dodge but I would not place it over the WRX or scion. I have taken them all apart. Well in this case I have taken apart the last generation civic. Toyota, Subaru and honda are all about the same in this regard in my opinion.
As for a turbos, I have seen toyota turbo cars last damn near forever. My girlfirends father put over 300000 on his supra. A turbo engine if properly designed will last just as long as any other form. The problem is when people strap turbos to engined designed to run NA. Rather NA or turbo, power is power and stress is stress. To generate a cerian amount of power you must first generate a certain amount of stress in a cylinder. One is not clearly better then the other. If turbos are inherintly worse for longevity then someone better tell every trucker on the road becuase they are under the impression their trucks which are turbo'd can last untill one millions miles and only need to do oil changes every 12000 miles. Not to mention get better millage then any NA engine, diesel or gasoline, that could ever even be dreamed of.
Lets also not forget that in an earlier era, the japanese overbuilt engines far more then they do today to ensure there longevity. This was not something unique ro honda. Toyota and mits did the same friggen thing.
Last edited:
Replica said:
I never said they were crappy or behind the times in general automotive design. They are simply behind the times when it comes to suping up econmy class cars for performance, which is rather sad as they really are the ones that got it started. If this car was capable of running mid 14's with better handling then they would be onto something.
Personally,the Si looks a thousand times better than the plain,boring,heavy ass tC.I also think the K20 series is the best engine out right now.I mean,no other NA 2 liter can put out 210 hp(05' Type S).That's insane.Anyway,getting back to the Si,for 20k,you get a lot...6spd,LSD,17",197 hp,nice interior,etc.Hell,it's already added to my list of cars for the future.
As far as NA Vs. Turbo,I think turbo is great,****,if I had the $$$,I'd get an Evo MR, but if I were ever to get an Evo or WRX,I'd leave the stock turbo on,since turbo does wear out the engine faster than NA.It is called "forced induction" for a reason,guys!Yeah,you get a shitload more hp,but your forcing the engine to work harder.And plus you obviously don't get turbo lag w/ NA.So for now,I'm sticking my idol,Dore-Dore aka Keiichi Tsuchiya and go NA for awhile,(lol2)
As far as NA Vs. Turbo,I think turbo is great,****,if I had the $$$,I'd get an Evo MR, but if I were ever to get an Evo or WRX,I'd leave the stock turbo on,since turbo does wear out the engine faster than NA.It is called "forced induction" for a reason,guys!Yeah,you get a shitload more hp,but your forcing the engine to work harder.And plus you obviously don't get turbo lag w/ NA.So for now,I'm sticking my idol,Dore-Dore aka Keiichi Tsuchiya and go NA for awhile,(lol2)
Phoenix5 said:
Not true.
POWer is power. In a combustion chamber you must create an explosion of a certain magnitude to turn the engine at a certain power. Rather you create that expolsion with a turbo or NA its still the same magnitude. Either avenue is perfectly safe and can allow an engine to last forever if it is so built.
A 2 liter engine making that much power isn't all that impressive on its own. It how honda allows that car to get exxtreamly good gas millage with that power level. Although alot of that is attributed to VTEC amung other switch over systems. Whic ofcoarse have the down side of not showing much power before the switch.
Well I'm not a pro on FI cars but so far I've heard nothing but bad things about turbos. True some people can run for a long time but they are the few. A NA car has less to worry about, and less to break. It's all a personal preferance, I like to go the safer route.
honda is behind in the bench racing world. so? it doesn't have the m0st3st h0rsepow3rz, y0! big deal.
the tC is a nice car and a great value, but it's a cruising car with a Camry engine. period. it's not a performance car like the last Celica was.
there are plenty of cars that are much more impressive on the street than, say, an RSX-S (or most any Honda product). the SpecV is one, mostly b/c of its torque. but none of those cars are as good when driven hard as the Acura. the Acura (and i suspect this Si) get better the harder you drive them. that's not the case w/ the tC or the Sentra...or at least that's what i've heard.
it's not unlike the Protege vs. the corolla. the corolla drives nicer on the highway, but which one do you want to drive hard?
i'd still rather have the acura over the new Si, and it's not b/c i love badges or leather. that's a ridiculous statement. first, it's a hatch; second (and more importantly), it weighs less than the Si (which is incredibly porky). sure could use that LSD, though.
i wonder if the Si unit would drop in?
edit: btw, that toyota engine w/ the ITBs was a japan-only 20-valve (5 per cyl) version of the 1.6L 4A-GE motor...170hp, IIRC. very sweet.
the tC is a nice car and a great value, but it's a cruising car with a Camry engine. period. it's not a performance car like the last Celica was.
there are plenty of cars that are much more impressive on the street than, say, an RSX-S (or most any Honda product). the SpecV is one, mostly b/c of its torque. but none of those cars are as good when driven hard as the Acura. the Acura (and i suspect this Si) get better the harder you drive them. that's not the case w/ the tC or the Sentra...or at least that's what i've heard.
it's not unlike the Protege vs. the corolla. the corolla drives nicer on the highway, but which one do you want to drive hard?
i'd still rather have the acura over the new Si, and it's not b/c i love badges or leather. that's a ridiculous statement. first, it's a hatch; second (and more importantly), it weighs less than the Si (which is incredibly porky). sure could use that LSD, though.
i wonder if the Si unit would drop in?edit: btw, that toyota engine w/ the ITBs was a japan-only 20-valve (5 per cyl) version of the 1.6L 4A-GE motor...170hp, IIRC. very sweet.
Hughes412 said:
You can not judge a turbo engine by what you have read here. None of the 3rd generation proteges were ever ment to run FI, not even the MSP. It runs the same NA FS-DE engine that originaly put out 100 hp just like the rest of them.
You also can not go by what Honda owners say about them as no honda runs FI by design, again its not designed too. ALl turbo honda's are equipt in the aftermarket. Look at cars that were truely built to run a turbo like the old 323, toyota supras, the 1.8T volkswagons and audi's, current WRX's, not to mention every large truck diesel engine that again will literaly hit 1 million miles. They all are properly designed turbo cars that will last as long as their NA counter parts.
So I've been reading up on this thing a bit....bare with me, I ain't no SI pro.
So it's 2900 lbs, 197 hp, gets 22mpg in town, 0-60 in 7.2 sec, and 1/4 mile just over 15
What is wrong here?
My speed is just over 2800 lbs, 170hp, gets 25-28 in town, 0-60 ( depending on which magazine you read) anywhere from 6.7-7.1, and 1/4 ( again, Magazine thing) 14.9 - 15.3.
Plus, I have a better stereo, better wheels, 4 doors, more room and a much better interior.
I don't know why I'd be intersted in this thing right now. Some of these numbers I am seeing don't make sense.
So it's 2900 lbs, 197 hp, gets 22mpg in town, 0-60 in 7.2 sec, and 1/4 mile just over 15
What is wrong here?
My speed is just over 2800 lbs, 170hp, gets 25-28 in town, 0-60 ( depending on which magazine you read) anywhere from 6.7-7.1, and 1/4 ( again, Magazine thing) 14.9 - 15.3.
Plus, I have a better stereo, better wheels, 4 doors, more room and a much better interior.
I don't know why I'd be intersted in this thing right now. Some of these numbers I am seeing don't make sense.
Newf said:
The biggest thing your not seeing or saying is the torq. Yes it's almost 200hp but it still has no torq. Now all you have to do is fix that and put a v-tec controler and I bet you'll see a hell of a monster. HP is good for sustaining speed but if you don't have any torq you will lack in acceleration.
Newf said:
Ok, looks like you're doing some convenient rounding up (and down) here. The MSP's curb weight is 2844 while the Si's is 2877. A neglible difference to say the least. Your mpg are also off. While the Si is rated ad 22mpg in the city, the MSP isn't rated at 25-28 (that's merely what you average overall) but instead, 24. Hwy is 31 and 30 respectively so it's once again neglible.
Newf said:
Not really sure where you're getting 7.2 seconds from but the article clearly said 6.7. I've seen our 1/4 times vary as well but I'd say, overall, the performance of this car should be on par with ours.
While I agree it's not the most impressive thing in the world for a car with considerably more hp to essentially put up the same performance numbers,(obviously tq plays a role here) if that's all you're looking at you're missing the big picture. Putting aside the fact that, unlike the msp, these will be out in droves in no time... simply put, this car is a honda. Whether the mazda fanatics on here (and I'm one of them) want to admit it or not, honda makes some of the best, if not THE best built cars in the world. Mazdas are good too... jut not quite as good. This isn't oppinion. I could list plenty of sources to back this up but since I'm sure most of you already agree, that would be a waste. While this plays a role in reliability, since the msp is as reliable as they come (unless of course you mod it, something I'm sure the Si will have no trouble with) the real value is in the resale holding up. But I digress... The point is, for about the same amount of money most of us bought our speeds for when they first came out (prior to the rebate nonsense) you get a quick car that handles like it's on rails (sound familiar? any msp owner who knocks this car's performance needs to put the crack pipe down since it'll be about as equal to our car as any other out there). While it might not be a 4 door, I for one wouldn't mind that. It's subjective of course. I think I've taken more than 1 person for a ride like... I don't know, twice! the back seats basically just serves as a place to put my golf bag. Not having the extra set of doors wouldn't bother me one bit. Though its debatable, the somewhat sportier look may be enough to tip the scales.
The interior.... that's subjective as well. Some people will like the digital speedometer and other touches while others would prefer a more typical layout like ours. Everyone will like those nice seats (ours our the worst dude) and steering wheel audio controls. (nope, don't have those) In the end, honda builds quality cars inside and out. Whether you like the way it looks or not, there's no question that it'll rank among the best in NVH, fit&finish categories. The msp? though I don't mind... it's got its issues.
Lastly, you're right about the stereo. In a way we're lucky Mazda hooked us up with such a nice "stock" system. On the other hand, somtimes I wish they handn't. One of the reasons the NVH issues of the msp don't bother me that much is because I'm constantly listening to music. I've been considering throughing a cool g into upgrading the system (better speakers and and an amp to run them mainly) maybe a better sub while i'm at it. What holds me back is the fact that I have an already sweet setup that I know I'd get pennies on the dollar after ripping it out. Since the target market for this car is all about the tunes, I'm sure there was a meeting or two at Honda about this at honda. The stock system sounds pretty good... as far as stock goes. It's got the mp3 hookup which is a nice bonus. Even still, honda realizes that most music buffs will look to the aftermarket for an upgraded system. Since a system comparable to ours can be had for less than you might think, I don't see this as a huge downside. In fact, I hope my next car has the most basic system imaginable. Ripping that out and replacing it with what I truly want is a lot easier than ripping a far better than average setup like ours out.
So you're not interested.... thats' cool. For the record, neither am I! While 1sty's a bit off on some of his points, he's right about this car being in the middle of the pack when it comes to performance. (though, it's also in the middle to low end of the pack in regard to price so....) the point is, you already have this car. The only difference is yours has 4 doors and wears a mazda badge. The lack of interest isn't surprising. Getting this car would be whats known as a lateral move. Flashback to whatever it was you were driving before the msp and picture yourself still in that ride, looking for a replacement. Since the msp isn't made anymore, perhaps this car would interest you afterall.
I had this nice long reply all type up, I hit the button to post it....and poof...gone. wtf?
so #$%@$% that.
I'll sum it up.
No convenient rounding of numbers done. Just that the MSP has more reviews on it. Granted, some are off the top of my head, I don't have every review sitting on my desk. I posted ranges because depending on which magazine you read ( which I stated already ) the numbers can be all over the place. I haven't seen many SI reviews. Most of them are simple estimates. Car and driver has a decent one though...it was on spike tv last weekend to. My main point of my post was asking if the numbers I was seeing on the civic are for real, because they seem really low. That is all. No need to get all defensive
I love Honda's. Had 3 preludes. One of which was a 97' also @ 197 HP. DO NOT make me out to be another Honda Hater on this site thank you very much.
Think back to what I had before the MSP eh? Well, 2001 MP3, then before that a 2000 Civic....how's that for irony. Yes, I traded it within a year. actually 16 months
You would think a 197hp, "2877lb" car would be quicker. You can play the torque game if you want...I loved that comment...this is my first car I guess oh, and I joined the forum Yesterday too
It looks like my Mazda dealer here in town might be in trouble. I am not sure if keeping my MSP is a safe thing to do. This has happened before with Mazda in the early 90's, and they shut down leaving many Mazda owners screwed. I love the Mazda Product, no question that my MSP is one of the most fun cars I have ever owned. I LOVE MY MAZDASPEED and was looking forward to another.
But, if I am forced to go anywhere else....Honda it is. But
Honda Accord - ugly. father is on his 2nd one. 2003 Accord coupe, v6, ground effects etc. I liked his 1999 a lot better. Solid built car, just big, ugly front...not for me. I'm hoping a major redesign is in the near future. the 2006 "redesign" isn't much of a redesign for me.
Civic Sedan - Everyone has one. Boring...nuff said
S2000 - Drool. But, waste of time and money where I live. Can you say SNOW
Prelude - God I wished they still made this car. I'd have one again in a second and there would be no dilemma.
Which leaves me to the Si or SiR. Do I want to be like every kid racer? Nope. But what choice do I have left? I don't want a RSX....too damn small, and I hate the dash. I'm going to give the Sir a serious look, then see.
I am really surprised at the 22mpg on this car though. I can remember looking at mustangs years ago at 17mpg thinking that was wayyyy to low.
I do hope the seats in the new civics are better. I have a bad neck/back, and I do not miss sitting in the 2000 Civic I had at all. This is also a preference thing of course, but the MSP seats I could sit in all day. Ironically, Dad's nice plush leather seats in his accord also hurt my back.
Let see if I can submit this one....crosses fingers.....
so #$%@$% that.
I'll sum it up.
No convenient rounding of numbers done. Just that the MSP has more reviews on it. Granted, some are off the top of my head, I don't have every review sitting on my desk. I posted ranges because depending on which magazine you read ( which I stated already ) the numbers can be all over the place. I haven't seen many SI reviews. Most of them are simple estimates. Car and driver has a decent one though...it was on spike tv last weekend to. My main point of my post was asking if the numbers I was seeing on the civic are for real, because they seem really low. That is all. No need to get all defensive
I love Honda's. Had 3 preludes. One of which was a 97' also @ 197 HP. DO NOT make me out to be another Honda Hater on this site thank you very much.
Think back to what I had before the MSP eh? Well, 2001 MP3, then before that a 2000 Civic....how's that for irony. Yes, I traded it within a year. actually 16 months
You would think a 197hp, "2877lb" car would be quicker. You can play the torque game if you want...I loved that comment...this is my first car I guess
oh, and I joined the forum Yesterday too It looks like my Mazda dealer here in town might be in trouble. I am not sure if keeping my MSP is a safe thing to do. This has happened before with Mazda in the early 90's, and they shut down leaving many Mazda owners screwed. I love the Mazda Product, no question that my MSP is one of the most fun cars I have ever owned. I LOVE MY MAZDASPEED and was looking forward to another.
But, if I am forced to go anywhere else....Honda it is. But
Honda Accord - ugly. father is on his 2nd one. 2003 Accord coupe, v6, ground effects etc. I liked his 1999 a lot better. Solid built car, just big, ugly front...not for me. I'm hoping a major redesign is in the near future. the 2006 "redesign" isn't much of a redesign for me.
Civic Sedan - Everyone has one. Boring...nuff said
S2000 - Drool. But, waste of time and money where I live. Can you say SNOW
Prelude - God I wished they still made this car. I'd have one again in a second and there would be no dilemma.
Which leaves me to the Si or SiR. Do I want to be like every kid racer? Nope. But what choice do I have left? I don't want a RSX....too damn small, and I hate the dash. I'm going to give the Sir a serious look, then see.
I am really surprised at the 22mpg on this car though. I can remember looking at mustangs years ago at 17mpg thinking that was wayyyy to low.
I do hope the seats in the new civics are better. I have a bad neck/back, and I do not miss sitting in the 2000 Civic I had at all. This is also a preference thing of course, but the MSP seats I could sit in all day. Ironically, Dad's nice plush leather seats in his accord also hurt my back.
Let see if I can submit this one....crosses fingers.....
Last edited:
ill take one if i can't get an EVO for a great price. in my opinion, the interior on the Si is better than a speed and like he said, its a honda, some of the best built most reliable cars out there. i also like the fact that it is NA. im sure with a few mods this car could be easily over 200hp. two doors does suck but not for me, ill be in the front seat!
