Civic SI 'it will reverse your thinking'

Home  \  Asian Imports  \  Civic SI 'it will reverse your thinking'

http://www.modernracer.com/spyshots/spyshotshondacivic1.jpg

CIVIC SI (2006) DO YOU LIKE IT
----------------------------------
http://carnews.nu/wallpapers/06s.jpg
'MOVE OR BE MOVED'

posted by  jasjitdhillon09

yea. i had a dream where i saw a red one :)

posted by  6000LE

i hear they arent that quick, but handle goooood :hi:

posted by  C c C

Not quick compared to what? vtec.net had 0-60 times in the high 6s. I call that pretty quick. That's a bit quicker than most cars it competes against.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Ooh ok. Arent they like 160 stock or something??
(idk thats why im asking) :oops:

posted by  C c C

It's a nice car, but betcha you can't change Oomba's mind...I heard that there was some sort of problem with them, but can't remember what...I'll tell y'all if I do... :doh:

posted by  chris_knows

No.


Above all, its a Honda

posted by  Oomba

im disappointed at honda.

they actually dared take the engine out of the RSX and just throw it into the Civic and call it a whole new car.... thats just cheating ffs.

why bother buying an RSX then? just for luxury? you already have the power and most of the handling in the civic already.....

posted by  Inygknok

Because RSX sounds so much cooler.... :laughing:

posted by  Pythias

So? Nissan, GM, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, BMW, and Mercedes Benz have been doing it for years. And so has Honda. Lots of brands have the same engine through their lines, what difference would that make?



Of course. Nevermind that it promises to be faster in every way from a Mitsubishi Eclipse which you do like, but because of a little bit of chrome on the front and rear signifying it's a Honda you don't like it. Whoop dee ****ing do.

posted by  hondaman

ya but eclipse own the civic by looks lol + if u buy it now you get free gas for 1 year lol

posted by  V-Tec

its str8.... but the eclipse has a better design.... on anotha note-- dagg... Toyota needs to come out with somethin.... bring back the supra or somethin.... heck even the celica-- aight- they got the scion tC... and its nice if you put mad $$ into it- so is everythin else if you put mad loot into it- but on the real- the corolla S.... is so so.... and I work for Toyota... :banghead: so i'm a bit fed up on this whole "no real sports car outside of the Lexus line (IS 430/ sc if lux)" phase - sorry for the rantin... i'd just like to see a freakin 07 supra that spanks the new z's both in performance(a given) and design... i do love nissans, but back to the program- that honda is aight, but next to that bugatti- dont do that... now its looks like hot garbage :laughing:

posted by  cL300zx

You're tihnking about 02-05 Civic Si I think. Those were 160hp (As was the 99-00Si). The new 2006 Si rated by the new SAE optional standard at 197hp but really puts over 220hp at the crank.

posted by  thunderbird1100

A. They didnt just "Take the enigne out of the RSX-S and put it in the new Si". The engine is different in quite a few aspects. Yes, it is still a K20, but not a K20z1, its offical name is the K20z3.

B. The RSX/RSX-S are being discontinued after next year (2006).

C. The new Si is built on a completely different platform than the RSX-S and shares nothing really but some engine parts. Not only that, but the Si offers an LSD, which the RSX-S does not have.

posted by  thunderbird1100

The Eclipse has a better design in what aspect? Looks?

Because the new Civic Si is much superior in handling, interior and it's powerplant over the Eclipse.

posted by  thunderbird1100

haha- obvious honda fan....yep- looks... the honda is str8... but at first glance it doesnt really catch the eye- other than the s2K and the ol' prelude.. before mods hondas are KNOWN to bore.. :laughing:

and check the spec's
against tha 06 eclipse GT

eclipse
263hp -factory
3828cc
V6

civic
197hp
1998cc
inline 4... powerplant

posted by  cL300zx

First off, Mitsubishi rates their engines on the old SAE standard while Honda does not. With dynos of the new Si, it shows it putting out at least 220hp at the crank on the old standard that practically everyone else uses.

Second off, why in the hell are you comparing a $24k Eclipse GT to a $20k Civic Si? The Civic Si competes against the $20k 2.4 I4 Eclipse GS. Which puts out 162hp on the old SAE standard (About 153-155hp on the new standard). Now lets take into account weight. The 162hp 2.4 Eclipse weighs in at 3275lbs while the Civic Si comes in right at 2900lbs. Seeing the picture now? Let's compare power/weight ratios of the 2.4/3.8 Eclipse and the new Si.

Eclipse GS - 3275lbs/162hp = 20.22lbs/hp
Eclipse GT - 3475lbs/263hp = 13.21lbs/hp
Civic Si - 2900lbs/220hp = 13.18lbs/hp

Even the GT cant surpass the Si in power/weight. The GT and Si will have similar acceleration numbers but the Si might even be quicker since it has a better engine mounting system (no wheelhop) and has a LSD.

HAndling we all know the Si wins hands down...

And not all Hondas are "known to bore" before mods... Especially some of the old CRX's.

BTW - I'm not only a Honda fan, but also a Nissan and Porsche fan.

posted by  thunderbird1100

chris_knows....... when you say theres something "wrong" with the Si does that go for all Civic coupes?

hope not because i plan on buying a coupe LX within the next month :ohcrap:

posted by  SmartOne

eclipse=chick car :laughing:

posted by  ToshoRcing

tru i agree that the eclipse is a chick car.... an accord likewise :laughing:

posted by  cL300zx

Eclipse would kick the Civics ass.

And just because its a pos honda it handles well?

posted by  Oomba

In my opinion, hondas handle very well. Sh*t with a few suspension mods it can handle better than most of the cars out there :laughing:

posted by  C c C

Based on what?


No, unlike you thunderbird actually looks up stuff to base his opinions on.

posted by  hondaman

Basing opinions... Hmm, you're started to sound like that idiot ChrisV. YOU DONT NEED FACTS TO BACK UP OPINIONS. If that were true, then they WOULD be facts, not opinions.

The people on this forum are rediculous. I wouldn't jump on you guys for not liking GM. But I say I dont like Honda and its "DEATH TO OOMBA." You are disgraces to automotive enthusiasts everywhere.

posted by  Oomba

No, no...you said the Eclipse would kick the Civic's ass...that's stating a "fact", not an opinion. And I'd like to know what you base that on. It would be to your advantage to back those statements that are just opinions, because without it, you're just spewing shit.

Maybe it's because you haven't yet given a good reason as to why you don't? I would argue with anyone who disliked any car company without a good, solid reason. Which you do not have. And until you like cars for what they are, not because of some silly pieces of chrome distinguishing between brands, then I think perhaps it is you who is a disgrace to automotive enthusiasts.

posted by  hondaman

no oomba, opinions backed up with factual information would just be EDUCATED opinions. of course, education is something you seriously lack, in any sort of manner.

i dont like hondas myself at all, but i still give them credit where credit is due, and the modern day hondas are being made to handle very well.

btw, it's spelled ridiculous. but thats just my opinion.... backed up by facts from a dictionary.... written by people educated in the language..... but thats just my opinion backed up by their degrees in such areas.......

posted by  Inygknok

Oh the ignorant speaks again.

No, it handles well because you remain an ignorant fool.

posted by  thunderbird1100

God you're a moron.

Saying the new Civic Si handles better than the Eclipse is not an OPINION AT ALL. It's a FACTUAL MATTER. Either it does or doesn't.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Cool tihng I found out watching a video of the new Si today. I found out they tested the LIMITED top speed of it on a hub hp measuring dyno. They drove it up to 157mph before the limiter kicked in. One word: WOW. That's fricken fast. In the real world with air resistance and such it should at least be able to see 145mph. PRetty fast for a STOCK CIVIC, eh oomba? :laughing:

posted by  thunderbird1100

What is the Civic's qurater mile time? Its 0-60?
First page thunderbird1100 said on vtec.net they said it gets 0-60 in the high 6's. 2006 Eclipse GT is 5.9s
Whats the quarter mile time on the new Civic? Im pretty sure not better then the Eclipse's 14.2s.

posted by  nsupra27

Why are we comparing the Si ($20k) to the GT ($24k) again? The Si first off competes aginast the GS ($20k). The Si's 06 is in the high 6s mainly because it takes two shifts (3rd gear) to get to 60mph. It would easily be in the mid 6s if it only took one shift (but who cares about 0-60 since it measure sn oreal world performance figure?).

Just like to ask though where you got 14.2 for the GT. I've searched around and got nothing near 14.2 and 5.9s? Fastest I found was this...
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=9634&page_n umber=3

Which says 14.5 and 6.1.

Take note how poor handling the GT has, an abysmal .81g on a 300ft skidpad, that's really bad. An Accord V6 pulls higher than that. It would be no match between the GT and Si on a road course...Si hands down.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Betcha my truck could do that :wink2:

posted by  99integra

**** Car and Driver(Ricer), Motor Trend has much better results, and plus the people at Car and Driver probably can't drive for shit.

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0507_mitsu_eclipse/index4.html

posted by  nsupra27

It always ends up boiling down to Civic against Eclipse :sleep:

Anyways seeing as though the Eclipse will never make it to Europe the Civic will definately win in the sales stake.

However I don't like the look of the new Civic, it's gotten bigger yet again!!

posted by  fudge

I wouldn't call the drivers at car and driver bad. Considerering they have been around longer than 50 years and I'm pretty sure their test drivers have driven SEVERAL hundred vehicles and logged many track hours. Am I saying they are the best? No, but I'm saying they are no different really than motor trend.

I noticed in that test they only pulled .79g (probably on a 200ft skidpad though) but still a paltry 65.7mph through the 600ft slalom. These are really slouchy for some handling numbers.

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0507_citylites/index8.html

The Ford Focus ST (66.6mph and .82g), not noted for being a good handling car at all, pulled better slalom and skidpad numbers than the GT did. As did the Corolla XRS (66.8mph and .85g).

Take note, the Corolla did those numbers on 195mm size tires! That's the same width as on my 1990 ACCORD.

posted by  thunderbird1100

You're a retard.

posted by  Pythias

I was watching an ad for that new civic, honda claims it runs 197 horespower, i bet it goes down when they run it under that SAE dyno thing.

posted by  Slapshot

And you drive a POS automatic V6 F-body. Wanna fight about it?

The people at Car and Driver rate sports cars on stupid shit like cargo room and trunk space. I wouldnt hold their opinions on any sports car as valid. Sales numbers have nothing to do with how good a car is.

posted by  Oomba

I never said it has anything to do with how good a car is. But from the companies point of view that's all that matters.

posted by  fudge

197 hp IS on the new SAE standard. Remember Honda and Toyota are basically the only companies to have adopted the new standard which lowers hp.

On a dynapack the Si makes 204hp at the hubs. Which translates into about 190-195fwhp on a dynojet and at least 220hp at the crank.

posted by  thunderbird1100

How does skidpad and slalom numbers have ANYTHING to do with cargo room? Are you saying they aren't qualified to say how a car handles? You know they get to drive cars that any of us will never even get to get in (Enzo, Carrera GT and such). And around road courses at that. Am I saying they are the best drivers i nthe world? no, but they sure do have a better and more valid opinion than most of anyone on here.

posted by  thunderbird1100

The writers at car and driver are aging grandparents. They do comparos on sports cars and base the winner on stupid things like luxury features.

They picked the cars to compare based on their horsepower, but dont rate them on performance?

posted by  Oomba

Then why bother bitching about how THEY rate them and just look at the performance figures? Is it that hard to make up your own mind? Or does someone have to rate everything how you want it?

Did you not notice YOU were the only one that mentioned anything about how they rate cars. Everyone else is talking about RAW performance figures. You just happened to try and sneak in something irrelevant in to prove an invaild point.

posted by  thunderbird1100

If they spend most of their time thinking about stupid stuff like that then who is to say theyre putting their heart into coming up with the best performance numbers they can?

posted by  Oomba

Overall, I think the new civic is a pretty nice car. I don't have a source right now to back this up, but I remember reading a test in the library (forgot what magazine), and I remember seeing 7s for the zero to 60. It also said 136mph top speed (rpm limited).

It's a cool car, but I still like my lude better :thumbs:

posted by  Vlad

Let me point out that Car and Driver tested the new Veyron and not once did they talk about cargo room and interior space.

posted by  99integra

and you drive your feet! suppose you STFU, oomba!?

posted by  dodger65

Becuase normally they match or come within a percent or two of every other magazine that tests the same exact car in similar conditions? Really, you're making yourself look more and more like a fool!

posted by  thunderbird1100

Vtec.net got 6.8s for 0-60 and 157mph on a dynapack for top speed (Although this isnt the real top speed on the road).

posted by  thunderbird1100

i think they are nice i just wonder about the power

posted by  lamboluver

why is oomba banned???

posted by  jedimario

I dunno but it's a good move.

posted by  fudge

Eventhough your banned I figure I'll reply. I don't drive it anymore I sold it dumbass.

On a side-note everyone don't take oomba as an example of what people from Ohio are like. He's one of the "special" few. And yes I mean that in the worst possible way.

posted by  Pythias

Dumbass prolly changed it to his user title :wink2:

posted by  99integra

No he didn't change his user title, he is banned, and can someone tell me why?

posted by  nsupra27

I knew you would be dissapointed nsupra. You and Oomba had a lot in common and fought by each other.

posted by  fudge

IF I had to bet it might be because of THIS comment, among his many other just idiotic posts... When he said "This joke of a forum where 99% of these people are ricers" or something of that sort. Probably didnt go over too well with the mods. If I was a mod though (not dissing on ANY of you mods because I know you're busy with a lot of other things on here) but I would of banned him within his first 100 posts.

In other news, how do you become a moderator on these forums? Bav, Cliff?

posted by  thunderbird1100

i HATE the body style. it looks nothng like a civic... the ONLY thing i like is the 6speed tranny and the engine

posted by  mazda6man

i dont really like the body either

posted by  ToshoRcing

No love for the LSD? First time Honda has put an LSD in anything since the ITR here i nthe U.S. (besides the NSX).

posted by  thunderbird1100

I like the new Si Coupe. Looks nothing like a Civic? How did the '93 Civic Coupe look anything like a '76 Civic CVCC? How did either look like an '84 Civic S hatchback?

I think this coupe has excellent potential.

posted by  ChrisV

backing oomba i have a 91 talon tsi same as eclipse turbo and have yet to loose to a honda nothing against them id get a crx if i could find one that wasnt ragged out and body in descent shape they handle great ( ive driving :thumbs: one)

posted by  widget

I think that this civic sort of looks like the Saturn 2dr. Coupe.
If you look at the front anyways.

posted by  snakeeyes911

My TL has a front helical LSD.

I personally like the new look of the civic. The old styling was so blah. I test drove one, they're pretty damn quick. Not exactly the same torquey power i have on top in my car, its more high strung, but it still packs a punch. The only thing i don't like about it is teh interior its trying to hard to be modern and futuristic. That and the whiny high pitched exhaust, but you can't avoid that with any stock 4cylinders.

posted by  aerith

The Civic Si exhaust note is pretty sweet, havent heard it in person but in videos it sounds nice (cant hear it in person until next month). I should of meant to say Honda sports car with LSD. Matter fact the more I thin kabout I even think the S2000 has an LSD (maybe not?). Anyways, an LSD is a rare thing to see from Honda, especially on a $20k vehicle (cheapest it has come out on yet).

posted by  thunderbird1100

when t comes to FWD, i really dont care if it has LSD... granted sure its cool and all...

posted by  mazda6man

Doesnt matter to me if it's FWD or not, if it handles excellent it handles excellent :mrgreen:

posted by  thunderbird1100

its a honda we know its not quick

posted by  ferrariman666

Wow that's not biased. Although you enjoy Ferrari's and I tihnk they are not that quick either. MY 300ZXTT found have fun with a little old 360 Modena.

Plus I think anyone with even a stock S2000 or NSX would highly disagree. Especially those NSX owners that have went 175mph in their stock NSX.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Actually, when it comes to FWD, LSD makes more difference than in a RWD car for handling...

In fact, when it comes to handling these days, tires are the limiting factor more than whether the car is FWD, RWD, or AWD.

posted by  ChrisV

ferraris arnt fast??? what the **** did you snort today??? 400-hp, 3.6-liter V-8 and it runs 12.8

300zxtt runs 14.1 maybe with your shitty mods it runs 14 flat ferrai kicks your ass

posted by  ferrariman666

Think of this pumpkin, the Supra costs like 3 times less than the Ferrari

posted by  99integra

I like the way Honda's are beggining to look....no longer all bland and uninspiring lol :thumbs:

posted by  Cliffy

whatever you think of the new civic SI styling u gotta admit that that K2 motor in a 2600lb car is an intriguing option. Plenty of room to upgrade -- Acura-esque in its fit & finish.

posted by  hawgs74

What does a Supra have to do with a a Ferrari and 300ZX?

posted by  nsupra27

I think he meant to say that the 300ZX costs like three times less than a Ferrari :thumbs:

posted by  Cliffy

First off, the 360 Modena is not 400hp. It is 395hp/275tq :thumbs:

Second a 300ZXTT doesnt run a 14.1 stock, that's slow as shit. I did 13.70s in mine when it WAS stock (w/80k miles on the odo), and I'm certainly not the best driver in it (fastest I've ever seen a stock one was 13.40s).

Third, my 300ZXTT with my mods is putting down the same horsepower AT THE WHEELS the 360 does at the crank at least. My full exhaust ALONE gives about 35-40whp over stock.

Fourth, Before all my new wheels/tires and suspension mods with just the engine mods I did 12.80s as my best E/T's. With the much better suspension setup and much gripier tires (I havent ran it yet) but it SHOULD be in the 12.50-12.60 range. Which is in fact a few tenths faster than a stock 360 Modena. Not to mention now it handles a bit better than a 360 with all the new suspension goodies and wheel/tire combo.

I'm still laughing at how you think a stock 300ZXTT runs 14.1's in the 1/4 (hell even 3000GT VR4's run faster than that, as do 99-04 Mustang GT's). What's even more funny is you think with ALL my mods im only a tenth quicker. What joker...heh

Also to mention...

Cost of my 300ZXTT - $12,000, brand new it was ~$30,000 +- $3000.
Cost of a 360 Modena - Nothing under $70,000-$80,000 used, new ~$150,000.

Who wins the battle? :mrgreen:

BTW - If you're going to obsessive over an exotic company, at least do it over one that is good, Such as PORSCHE :hi:

posted by  thunderbird1100

I knew he was gonna say something exactly like that! lol :laughing:
Don't even bother posting actual facts, he doesnt believe online or magazine articles...

posted by  nsupra27

What a moron. Most internet sites that post times are in fact not credible for the most part (just made up) or dont run the car to its full extent. MAgazines are legit but not 100% in running cars to their full potential. While some magazines (like C&D, M/T and R/T) got 138s-13.9s or so i nthe new Mustang GT, MM&FF got a little quicker, because they know how to drive the car and powershift. I never said I dont believe EVERY online site or EVERY magazine, you totally miscontrued what I said and made it into an ignoramous comment.

posted by  thunderbird1100

In 3 years or so, you will eat your words. The new NSX with a V10 will put upwards of 400 hp. 360 modena? Its like comparing a mustang to a Z06. The 360 is fast but its no 400-450 hp all aluminum/carbon fibre hand built sports car. The new NSX will cost less then the average ferrari with more horsepower, better build quality, better fuel efficency, and better dependability.

And what's wrong with Honda? Ferrari is a small automaker, the japanese automakers are enormous compared to their european counterparts. The Japanese automakers are the largest automakers after GM and Ford. Not even Diamler Chrylser is as large as Toyota. Toyota is the richest automaker in the world; they have 38 billion usd sitting in the back just in case, this doesn't include any of their plants or other properties, its cold hard cash just there in case of a rainy day. Honda is a large company; if they wanted to make a super car, they would give ferrari a run for its money; they have the resources, they have the money, they have an unrivaled R&D department.

Unrivaled R&D department you say? Here are some things they have done; First production Hybrid Vehicle; Insight, First production Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle; FCX. BAR-Honda 007 the most advanced car running in the league with one of a kind carbon fibre transmission. Asimo; the first robot to walk exactly like a human being and perform tasks like a human being. HondaJet; A business class personal jet that uses Honda engines and a Honda designed chassis and aerodyanmics with 40% better fuel efficency then class leaders. Honda Legend; the most technologically advanced production car on the road with night infrared/radar sensors to see pedestrians or possible obstructions even in complete darkness. I don't see Ferrari going anywhere in R&D; their recipe for cars have remain unchanged in the last decade or so; albeit its a damn good recipe, but technology is going to catch up with them eventually.

The money in the auto market is not in the exotic sports car market. The money is in the family class sedans and mini vans. Why are Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari, and other exotic sports car brands always tetering on the brink of bankruptcy? Because not many people can afford a 250k car, but most people can afford a 20k Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla.

I'm not trying to be a jackass. If you want to be a biased jerk saying Honda sucks. Then i can be a biased Honda loving jerk and say Ferrari sucks, you won't stand a chance.

posted by  aerith

You know whats faster and cheaper than both? 2006 Corvette ZO6.

posted by  nsupra27

You don't know that. The V10 NSX isnt even out yet. You can't say the Corvetter is faster. Its probaly not, the extra two cylinders make a difference, and judging by Honda's way of doing things its going to at a high compression ratio so probally 450-550hp, unless they are going to do a small V10. And the Mid engine layout will probaly yield better handling. They are probaly also going to employ the VCM, so that like 4 cylinders shut off if not in use.

The V10 also means increase in weight; but that doesnt mean it will mess up the front to back ratio since its Mid-engine layout; its easier to compensate for the extra weight. Also, the old NSX is a decade old and it outhandles alot of newer sports cars, except the Z06. So, i'm putting my money on the new NSX on being a better car overall except the value factor. The NSX is going
to cost twice as much as the Z06.

Of course i will never make enough money to buy either, they're too impractical, i forsee the most expensive car in my future would be a M5, thats a 110,000 but its much more practical since it has 4 doors and all.

posted by  aerith

Chances are the NSX will be alot lighter in weight than the Vette, too. So it'll out handle and out perform it...probably :2cents:

posted by  Cliffy

I personally can't wait to see how the NSX will turn out.

posted by  hondaman

Honda is starting to pick it up. My friends at Acura Canada Headquaters say that in the next 2-3 years, they are revamping the whole line of cars. Give the TL AWD, TSX-Turbo(rumor), RL V8 or IMAV6, new RSX after they kill off the current one, MDX based on the brand new pilot dated to come out in 2-3 years, RDX turbo inline 4 or V6. And of course the V10 NSX.

posted by  aerith

lol....is that not classified infomation?

posted by  Cliffy

It is until you start buying him a couple of beers. And then wait till he's nice and friendly, then start asking....questions...

posted by  aerith

I'd probably have told you without the beers....I'm good like that lol :thumbs:

infact...we do the Security for Honda at site here in England....they build the Engines there :hi:

posted by  Cliffy

cliffy bad with secrets :laughing:

posted by  C c C

LMAO, typo, had a long day :doh:

posted by  99integra

The V10 NSX isnt even out yet so how do you know? Cheaper, that's a certain, but then again the Z06 isn't a hand built exotic supercar like the NSX always was and will be.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Or you could just go to an enthusist site and look around. They have a whole bunch of rumors/news at vtec.net.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Your Message