New Civic Si's from SEMA

Home  \  Asian Imports  \  New Civic Si's from SEMA

Various pictures of new Civic Si's from the SEMA show. The main car of the show!

Temple of Vtec's Si -> About 250-255hp N/A
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-004.jpg
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-007.jpg
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-022.jpg

Various other Si's.
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-025.jpg
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-028.jpg
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-032.jpg
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-034.jpg

posted by  thunderbird1100

MORE Si's...

http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-037.jpg
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-038.jpg
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-040.jpg
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-044.jpg
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-052.jpg

posted by  thunderbird1100

Even more Si's!!!!

http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-058.jpg
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-063.jpg
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-069.jpg
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/443105/005sema_civic-084.jpg

Which is your favorite and least? Mine favorite is the flat black Si and my least favorite is the camoflage Si.

Note: The second to last Si pictured is the Si that will run in the 25 hours of Thunderhill this year. Honda has had some good placings in Thunderhill. Last year a TSX won its class and took 3rd overall.
The last pictured Si's are HFP equipped Si's. The HFP package will run about $4000 installed with a 3 year warrenty from Honda.

posted by  thunderbird1100

The pictures don't work, so I had to copy and paste their URLs, but here's my favourite picure:
http://photobucket.com/albums/b323/chris_knows/?action=view¤t=005sema _civic-032.jpg
(had to put it in photobucket)

posted by  chris_knows

My favorite one is the orange one, and least favorite is also the camo.

posted by  Vlad

Cant see the pics, sorry.

posted by  StiMan

me either

posted by  mx3_monster

Dammit, okay. You must need to be a member of TOV to view the pictures. Try this link to the alblum of them, and if it says you must be a member it takes 10 seconds to sign up...it's free.

http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=443105

Or do what Chris did.

posted by  thunderbird1100

looks bloated, no thanks :sleep:

posted by  importluva

Gained a few pounds, but gained a lot more power. 220-225hp at the crank.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I LOVE this look... been planning on painting my car flat black for a while. (the car is way more striking in person).

Least favorite is the purple camo car (it wasn't as repulsive in person).



Everything I've read to date is 197hp, no more, no less. Please show your references...

posted by  Bino

Sorta resembles a Scion in my opinion... or a focus... maybe a cross between both... :doh:

posted by  Pythias

The stock car is 197 hp in the new system, in the old system it works out to like 210hp or something. I think the ones that he was showing were of other companies Si's not the stock ones.

posted by  StiMan

I am aware they revised the SAE HP rating system... and so that's now what we work under. So, 197hp is.... 197hp.



That statement doesn't make any sense. If he was trying to base the power level on what the companies had upgraded them to... there's probably a 150hp differential between some of those cars. I would have expected at least a tad bit of logic from you STI...

posted by  Bino

Maybe it's a 2dr. sport compact... and therefore resembles all other sport compacts in some way. The same way every minivan looks like all the others, and all the supercars resemble each other as well.

posted by  Bino

Listen, I cant even see the pictures, so I dont even know what hes showing.

The comment about the 220 hp thing was about the picture of one of the Sis. The picture showed a modded Si, which importlova said was "bloated." To which thunderbird said "Gained a few pounds, but gained a lot more power. 220-225hp at the crank"; ie: the modded Si had far more hp than the stock one; you then said to check your numbers but the 197 hp had to do with stock one, not the modded Si. So in the end we both were wrong at several points. I first thought that the picture was of a stock Si, but looking back it must be of a modded Si; when I said that it was of the new SAE tests I was under the impression that refered to the 220 as the stock Sis hp in the old system. You are wrong because the 220 was for a modded Si, not a stock one.

I know theres alot of circumlocution going on there, but understand? :thumbs:

posted by  StiMan

I would understand... if there were a picture of an SI associated with the "220-225hp at the crank" comment, but there's not. It's just a blanket statement that seems to have no connection but to the "bloated" comment, which can only logically be associated with all SI's off the showroom floor.

So, no, I wasn't wrong about anything.

But, I can't very well take any satisfaction in any of this... because you can't see the pictures. So, we'll call it square.

posted by  Bino

Fine with me. Peace. :thumbs:

posted by  StiMan

Just click here guys :thumbs:

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

:laughing: My probe would spank a stock Si, even if im only pushin like 164. I think. How much does the Si weigh?

posted by  TurboLag

Yo, Turbo, why no STi Fanclub sig? :laughing:

posted by  StiMan

it got effed up like 4 months ago

If you can get me a new one ill put it back in :thumbs:

posted by  TurboLag

It's rated on the NEW SAE system (that I might add really only Toyota/Honda have fully adopted) at 197hp, and that's severely underrated.

Here's a dyno of a stock Si on a dynapack (slightly higher numbers than a dynojet because it's HUB hp not wheel hp).

http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=403644

That's 204 mearused hub hp in fully stock trim with next to zero miles on the odo. On a dynojet that would be about 190-195whp, which equates out to be a good 220-225 crank hp.

Notice in the update they measured a broken in model they drove cross country 3500 miles and it went UP to 209hub hp in fully stock trim, which is a for sure 225+ crank hp. With the free mod of JUST the airbox COVER removed it went up to 218 HUB HP. They have tested the 05 RSX-S (rated at 210hp on the older SAE system) on this same dynapack and got only 185 hub hp. So the Civic Si is significantly higher in crank hp since it's putting down way more than 185 hub hp.

posted by  thunderbird1100

No no, it's the system Honda and Toyota are working with, all other major manufacturers havent applied the new SAE system to all their vehicles or even most of them yet. Most are still on the old system (such as Nissan) because it yields higher (more artifical) hp numbers.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Thet statement I made about 220-225crank hp was for a STOCK untouched Si. The only comment I made about power was on the Temple of Vtec's project Si which is making 250 hp N/A (modded, obviously).

posted by  thunderbird1100

A probe will not spank a new Si, it would have trouble beating the 99-00 and 02-05 model with 160hp!

The new Si is coming in at approx. 2800lbs. But I'll say this for a (third?) time. IT has 220-225 crank hp. A Probe GT would be looking at the Si's ass after each car shifted out of 1st.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Thanks for clearing that up.


Turbo: http://81x.com/Authors/Consul/Turbo.jpg

posted by  StiMan

Yeah... I raced a 99 Si a few months ago, beat it by 2-3 car lengths...

posted by  nsupra27

Si wasn't racing. But then again, was this straight line only? Because Si's are tuned for handling. Anywho, a 160hp Si should have no trouble keeping up with a 164hp Probe...

posted by  thunderbird1100

Funny you say that, because we actually took a pretty big turn during the race, and still beat it. http://car-forums.com/talk/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
You seem to just be comparing horsepower. Just so you know, the Probe was known for very good handling, and the Probe has about 50 more ft-lbs of torque then the 99 Civic Si.

posted by  nsupra27

Yes... exactly how the 2dr sports car the Firebird resembles the 2dr sports car the Mustang... very similar aren't they?

posted by  Pythias

Actually, over teh decades, it's been shown that cars of similar eras in similar roles will tend to be similar to each other. Sometimes not (like your camaro/mustang comparison) but usually they do. And if they arent' your main area of interest, even moreso.

Can you tell the difference at a glance between a '30 Ford and a '30 Chevy?

posted by  ChrisV

The Probe isnt known for good handling, just the Probe GT. And still, it isn't anything spectacular. I still find it hard to believe you beat an Si by that much considering they even do faster 1/4 miles on average, and handles slightly better (although debateable) than the Si. I won't believe it until I see it. It's like saying a guy in a 03up V6 Accord beat a guy in a 99-04 Mustang GT, obviously either the guy is lying or the guy in the Mustang couldn't drive. Toruqe shouldn't matter at all in a race of FWD's, it's high end hp that wins races, not low end torque (how many times have I said that now??). Plus, if anything the extra torque the Probe GT has is really a DISADVATNAGE because it will spin its wheels more on launch than the Si. I didn't forget torque, I just didn't want to use it as it was pointless to use i na discussion such as this. Although you are forgetting one serious factor, weight. Where the Si owns the Probe GT. The Probe GT (1997) weighs 2925lbs while the 1999 Si weighs 2585lbs. That puts the power/weight ratio definatley in favor of the Si.

99-00 Civic Si = 16.16lbs/hp
97 Probe GT = 17.84lbs/hp

I'm not saying you're lying, not saying the Si would blow the doors off a Probe GT, but I am saying the Si is the better car.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I guess it all comes down to drag co-effeicient :laughing:

posted by  chris_knows

and Hondas tend to have the best drag coef's in the industry! Last I checked the Accord was sometihng like .29 or .3

posted by  thunderbird1100

Thats what I meant... :screwy:


Who cares if its FWD or RWD, sure RWD will launch better but torque is still what wins races.
I'm not even gonna go further in explaining to you because your Honda biased mind won't understand.


Not really... and plus I have a LSD in my car.



Umm.. I have a 1993, which weights 2815, that making the power/weight ratio 17.16, which is not a huge difference from 16.16.

posted by  nsupra27

Yes, in a 2dr. coupe, fastback, long hood, proportions sort of way... they DO resemble each other quite a bit.

posted by  Bino

Yup they even both have a steering wheel as well as a gas and break pedal, some even have a clutch!

posted by  Pythias

Ugh, moron.

Don't pass off your lack of knowledge onto me by saying "your honda biased mind wont understand". I've said this before and I'l lsay it again, I love many cars from MANY companies. Look at what I own, not JUST a Honda, but a Nissan as well! Another name for higher end torque is CALLED high end horsepower, that's the name we use for high end power, sure it's just torque times rpm divided by 5252, but that's the terminology, sorry you dont understand it. Peak torque doesn't matter in a RACE like this, peak HORSEPOWER is much better indicator. If you want to talk about torque so much join a TRUCK forum. Again, LSD's wont save you from spinning the wheels on launch, it will improve it, but not save it. I've been in several LSD equipped cars where they easily spun the wheels on a not too high rpm launch. It just makes sense, the more torque you have to the FRONT wheels of a car the more chance you have to SPIN the wheels upon launch. Not to mention torque steer. But I'm assuming this race of yours wasn't from a launch.

Still, even with your 93 ( i just used the closest year of the Probe GT to the Si) you still have a 1lb/hp DISADVANTAGE in power/weight.

posted by  thunderbird1100

The black one is the only one I wouldnt spit on if I was close enough. I'd probably take it.

posted by  PontiacFan27

Depends, how many times have you been wrong?

posted by  PontiacFan27

Sure if you want to talk about truck pulling, low end torque deifnatley matters. When you're in a 1/4 mile race, do you race below 2000-3000rpms or do you work in the upper 50% of your rpm range? When you're in road course race do you WANT to shift too soon to go out of the upper rpm powerband where al lthe high end horsepower is? This is why high end horsepower matters in races, and why people dont call it "torque", even though it IS torque, we use another name for it simply because torque lovers are truck lovers. You too, probably dont understand the concept. If "torque" mattered as much as you make it out to be, F1 cars would make 350hp 900tq and not 900hp 350tq. They wouldn't rev to 19,000rpms, and certainly would need maybe only a gear or two.

But to answer your question, A LOT less than you. And I've been here over a year longer.

posted by  thunderbird1100

You just dont reason to facts placed in front of you. You thinking you're never wrong is just an illusion that only exists in your mind.

Low end torque doesnt matter I guess, so I guess launching doesn't matter.

posted by  PontiacFan27

Ugh, way to dodge everything with an insult, typical you.

You need to re-think things here.

Okay, launch. Do you launch at 2000rpms with a 9000rpm redline S2000? NO (more like 4500-5000rpms).

Realize this, the MORE low end/mid-range torque you have in a FWD the MORE you will spin the wheels on launch, that's why its better to have LESS torque. Same goes for even RWD, although less of factor (no torque steer). Plus, you stay in the lower-mid rpm range for how long in the 1/4 mile? A whole tenth of a second for launch? That's why it DOESN'T really matter. You launch a Civic Si at say 3500rpms you stay at 3500rpms for a hundreth of a second and never see it again down the 1/4 mile. You see 4500rpms and up the repeatedly thereafter. This is WHY high end Horsepower matters MOST in these situations. Got it?

posted by  thunderbird1100

Torque only exists in the low end? At high end torque makes no difference...

There are two ways of making power, high revving for more horsepower, and higher displacement for more torque. I'm sorry you cant handle the fact that an American car beat your precious Type-R, but its true.

posted by  PontiacFan27

So a Civic that gets it's torque at very high rpm is better then a car that gets it's torque at low? Say you take a car that gets torque at high rpm against a car that gets it at low. The car with low end torque is gonna take off much faster then the car with high, because its got most of its power from the start, as for the high end car that has to wait until it gets to high rpm until it gets its power, which the car with low end is already flying down the track just as the high end car is getting its power.

posted by  nsupra27

NO! You completely miscontrued the idea.


I already said the NAME for high end torque we give is called HIGH END horsepower (that higher end torque (in the upper rpm range), times rpms, divided by 5252! = high end horsepower, or around the peak horsepower), to give it an easier distinction.


No shit, we all know that, I've stated this WAY long ago and many repeated times since. I just dont happen to believe stuff without witnessing it or having proof, especially when it doesn't make sense or VERY debatable, sorry I'm not a sheep like yourself.

posted by  thunderbird1100

A. Not really, it can be a disadvatage at times though. It all depends.

B. Not the case in every situation, the low end torque car with MORE torque down low will have MORE of a chance not being able to plant the power as easily as the car with LESS torque down low (While the low end torque car will spin its tires the not as low end torque car will have no troubles planting ALL its power). You also have to think, while you may launch at 3000rpms the Si can launch higher to get the same effect torque effect. Like say you make 110tq at 3000rpms, while the Si might make 110tq at 5500rpms.

It all depends on a lot of factors though, none of my stuff goes for every situation nor does your deductions, both are valid though.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Dude (Thunderbird), stop saying RPMs , it is not a plural statement. When you make the acronym plural you remove the normalizing factor.

But, yeah, you're basically correct through all of this. A car can have 600ft-lbs of torque or 110ft-lbs of torque. When you launch... it doesn't matter. The coefficient of friction at the tires is only going to sustain X amount of torque. Any number greater than that will result in spinning tires and a loss of traction. If both vehicles make 600hp, it's going to boil down to the driver, it doesn't make a @#$ bit of difference how much torque the vehicles make. Because horsepower is a measure of how much work can be done by the motor. It ultimately takes work to make a vehicle fast. Refer to the comment about the Formula 1 cars. That was right on the money.

posted by  Bino

Your Message