Pricing Released on 2006 Civic SI

Home  \  Asian Imports  \  Pricing Released on 2006 Civic SI

Well, I finally found out how much I'm paying for my SI. The only option I'm getting is the summer tire option. HEre's how they break it down.

2D 2.0 Si - 6-Speed Manual Transmission

2D 2.0 Si - 6-Speed Manual Transmission w/Summer Tires

2D 2.0 Si - 6-Speed Manual Transmission w/Navi

2D 2.0 Si - 6-Speed Manual Transmission w/Navi & Summer Tires

I'm paying the second price and every price you tack on $550 for destination and handling. So my final price is $20,740. Honda did deliver though an "under $20,000 SI" yet again. So I'm happy about that. IMO and in many other this is the second best performing sport compact in the segment of FWD's "around $20,000" (USed to be under $20k, but now a lot of them are OVER $20k). Second to only the SRT-4, which costs $21,295 ($1,105 more than an Si). But, the SI comes with a lot more features and standard at that the SRT-4 doesn't. IF you option out the SRT-4 to be as close in features with the SI (adding the premium Kicker sound system, side air bags and sunroof) the price jumps to $23,230 (making the SI look like the bargin!). With the money left over if you wanted to play that game you could make the SI almost as quick as the SRT-4, and it already handles better. got 255hp N/A out of their SI with only about $1800 in mods (higher prices too, all custom work stuff). And got 270hp N/A with $4k in mods (including suspension, wheels/tires, carbon fiber trunk/hood). Imagine that, a daily driving 2.0L N/A making 270hp, incredible.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Big news :roll:

posted by  PontiacFan27

the only problem i see with an N/A I4, is once you pass like 180hp, you're not gonna get the torque to match... look at the s2000, 250hp, not even 165lb-ft. so while it may have 270hp, i wouldnt wager it having any more then 200lb-ft of torque... and PROBABLY the number is closer to 180lb-ft... the 2006 civic ex is over 2700lbs, compared the the srt-4's 2900lbs. having 180lb-ft on a slightly lighter car wont compare to having the near 250lb-ft on the srt-4.

the civic will be a great car, no doubt, but saying you can get it to 270hp (without mentioning the still low torque numbers) is somewhat misleading when comparing it to an unmodded srt-4... give the srt-4 a stage 1 mopar kit.. it'll match, and excede that 270hp (and have the torque to get there)

posted by  pik_d

I still find it funny you troll on all my posts, grudge or something, it's okay you can let it out.

posted by  thunderbird1100

The thing is, you dont WANT all that torque in FWD. That's why mentioning high torque numbers in a FWD is a DISADVANTAGE not an ADVANTAGE. That's more of a chance you have to spin wheels on launch, torque steer and cause wheel hop. And with the 270hp they are pulling N/A I'm sure torque is really no higher than 165-170 ft-lbs (which is a pretty incredible amount from a 2.0L I4). The whole point I argued is since a comparable SRT-4 costs over $3k more you could easily catch up to it with some mods and still be under the cost of a SRT-4 (I said IF you wanted to play that game).

BTW - The Mopar Stage 1 doesn't get even close to 270hp from the SRT-4...The Stage 1 package only bumps power up by 10hp and 10tq (240hp/260tq). You'd have to buy the Stage 2 package to get closer to 270hp, which the Stage 2 takes it to 265hp/280tq. Not to mention, but once you do get the Stage 2 package (and spend about $2000 on top of that $23,230) your SRT-4 is now NOT emissions legal and will fail an emissions test. Also, I dont know why you used that as an argument, because that's only MORE money, which was my entire point...The Civic SI costs much less...

posted by  thunderbird1100

btw, is it out yet? cuz i saw a new civic on the road this weekend, grey.... and i thought they wouldnt be sold until the start of 2006.

posted by  Inygknok

I'm not sure if we'll actually be paying those prices though, some dealers will initially want to milk the situation and have markups in prices.

posted by  hondaman

hmm, i guess i was confused about the stage 1/2 thing. i've looked at it in the past, just not recently.

anyway, if you're paying $21k for an srt-4.. you're paying way too much. a quick search for srt-4s on (looking at 2005's with under 500 miles, aka, brand new), you can find them at $19,995. the MSRP (that i'm assuming you checked at is over what the dealer will let you walk away with paying... and even more then what the dealer will ask for, if you find the right one.

besides, the 2005's have a front LSD, which helps to control the torque steer, which apparently is not as much of a problem as you would think a FWD car with 250lb-ft of torque would have.

from road and track (2006 honda civic si article, no linkage due to "advertising", find it yourself) the civic si got a 200ft skidpad of .85g, a 700ft slalom speed of 68.6mph, a 133ft 60-0 breaking distance, and a 6.8s 0-60 time.

compare to a neon of a year or two older, also from road and track (high desert showdown from august 2004), the neon srt-4 gets a 200ft skidpad of .83g, a 700ft slalom speed of 64.9mph, a 120ft 60-0 breaking distance, and a 5.7s 0-60 time.

so, while the civic si is obviously the better preformer in terms of handling, the srt-4 is faster in terms of speed, and probably faster on a road course. (ofcourse only my assumption)

i'd also make the assumption that the civic is a far more easy car to go about doing daily driving... considering that's how the acura RSX is described.

posted by  pik_d

Sounds pretty solid...can't wait to see some around here :smoke:

posted by  chris_knows

No, I just think its funny how you make pointless threads about a car that handles worse than a Ford Probe.

posted by  PontiacFan27

All 2006 Civics have been out for a while (DX/LX/EX/Hybrid) except for the SI. The earliest date of arrival of the SI I know of is December 7th (day mine is supposed to arrive). That's what the guys at my dealer told me. The Honda Fit should be out in the next two/three months as well.

posted by  thunderbird1100

You're right, and I failed to mention that. The two people that also bought a pre-sold one from my dealer paid a few thousand over MSRP, only reason I'm getting to pay MSRP is A. We've bought two cars from this dealer and B. I spend a bunch of time there and a lot of people know me, although not so much anymore since I'm in Baton Rouge most of the time. All SI's will surely be gone come the new year. 3 of the 6 at my dealer have already been sold, and dont arrive for another week or two.

posted by  thunderbird1100

The SI is new for 2006, I was comparing a 2006 SRT-4 to a 2006 SI. The 2005 SI is a pretty sorry performer... I quoted direct prices from Dodge's webpage. But anyways I'll go along, in that $19,995 price, does it include the standard features on the SI that are options on the SRT-4 (which are side air bags, sunroof and the sound setup)? I realize you obviously won't pay MSRP for a SRT-4 as it seems they aren't selling as well as Dodge wants them to anymore and can probably pick up a $23k MSRP SRT-4 for probably $20k, or less. I was just quoting prices that are completely factual, no "guessing" involved.

I think I've probably said this 2-3 times befor eon here but I'll say it again. While an LSD DOES help control FWD "issues" of overpowering it doesn't eliminate the issues. I've driven an SRT-4 before and while it doesn't exhibit a lot of torque steer, it's still EASILY noticeable because of the power it's putting to the front wheels, it also understeered a little more than I liked, but it was acceptable.

I have the article. Just like to note a few things, the SI takes TWO shifts to get to 60mph, while the SRT-4 takes only ONE (That tends to add quite a few tenths, like i nthe case of the original EVO VIII 5spd Vs. STi 6spd, the STi was sometimes 4-6 tenths slower from 0-60 just because it took an extra shift). But 0-60 ISN'T a measure of performance, so, who cares? For some reason Honda has been putting shitty brakes on a lot of their cars in recent years, so that might explain why the long stopping distance. That seems to always be the weak point in every Honda vehicle, brakes. But I hear a lot of guys just change the brake pads to something much better and see a 10-15ft difference right off the bat from just that.

Yes, the SI handily outhandles the SRT-4, that's no question. It's also easy to see the SRT-4 out accelerating the SI. One tihng you failed to mention about performance is 1/4 mile times, in which R/T got 15.1 from their SI and 14.5 from their SRT-4. Obviously not the best times for either car (as other places are getting 14.1-14.2 for the SRT-4 and 14.7-14.8 for the SI). Another major difference is the interior, a place in which the SRT-4 I think falls way short of the SI in terms of quality and looks. But, interiors are all opinion. The SI and SRT-4 would actually probably be about the same in daily driving for ease of use in my opinion, but I haven't driven the SI yet. The SI takes more revs (redline of 8100) but the SRT-4 has a turbo you have to wait for. So both cars have their daily driving trade-offs. The RSX has a much lower powerband than the SI. Which makes it easier for daily driving.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Oh so it all comes back to that inane thread...

That explains a lot.

Keep on'a trollin :clap:

BTW - If you think the new SI handles worse than Probe you have REALLY serious ignorant esque issues.

posted by  thunderbird1100

the what? the srt-4 is dead, untill the dodge caliber takes the neon's place

if you're not paying that $23k, how is it factual? i'd consider the price you walk away with as "factual". except for your case, since you had a little help with the price (which i congradulate you on)

does having a bit of torque steer completely outweigh being faster... if you're autocrossing or racing, i highly doubt it

just because 60-0 isnt a measure of engine preformance, doesnt mean it's not a measure of preformance... i personally would like to have a car that came stock with the shorter breaking length...

i didnt see the quarter mile time in the civic si article, so i left them both out. from what i understand, isnt an si basicly the same as an rsx-s? and i've heard from almost every review that the rsx-s is a better "all around" car, fun on the track (yet still slower then an srt-4, cobalt, etc), but also a car that behaves well on the road. i've never driven an srt-4, so i cant comment from first hand experience, but i can read reviews... and i doubt i'd magically have a completely different perception on the way a car drives. about the turbo, the srt-4's torque is rated 250lb-ft at 2200rpm's... so i'd say you dont have to wait long. ;)

another thing i'd like to add, considering that there IS no 2006 srt-4, you could just pick up an srt-4 with under 5000 miles for maybe $18k, put in a better suspension system, and theoretically have a much better all around car (in both handling, and speed) then in the new civic si.

posted by  pik_d

Don't even bother arguing with him, because you know if it's not a Honda it must suck. :roll:

posted by  nsupra27

D'oh, didn't know that, still says $21,295 for the MSRP though on Dodge's site for the '05.

Because no one knows "the price you walk away with" unless you BUY one. You can't mess up factual MSRP figures. That's the only reason I used it.

It's not anything THAT major, I just listed it as one of it's drawbacks, which it is.

I said 0-60 ACCELERATION is not a performance figure, not braking distances. Braking distances are a VERY valid performance figure.

The 2006 SI and RSX-S are two COMPLETELY different cars (the 2002-2005 Si share the RSX/RSX-S platform). Based on two COMPLETELY different platforms and share nothing more than an engine and gearbox (which in both cases are tuned differently). Remember, the 2006 Civic is complete redesigned, the RSX is staying the same until it is axed for the 2007 model year. The SRT-4 exhibits some turbo lag, I noticed it (Although not nearly as bad as the WRX), and you can definatley tell it's NOT an N/A car when driving it around as a daily, my first hand experience.

Yeah, you could, you can also tear up your warrenty as well, because it's no good after you do that.

posted by  thunderbird1100

And here comes the second analProbe.

posted by  thunderbird1100

yea, i dunno why they dont specify that it's 2005, not 2006 models

yea, you cant mess them up, but like you said, most people will probably pay MORE for the civic si then what MSRP says... but pay LESS for an srt-4...

fair enough, it just seemed you were stressing the fact

uh.. haha, guess i bit of dislexia there... but actually, i'd say low end acceleration figures ARE a preformance figure... how is it not?

i'll take your word for it... but i'll still wait to see how you compare the two once you have your civic si. ;)

how possible is it to get the civic to 270hp while maintaining a valid warranty? besides... plenty of people are willing to discard their warranty the second they get their car... if they know enough to fix (or replace) parts, and it's worth it to make the srt-4 (or any car) that much better... then rock on. and if the difference between .83g and .85g is THAT important to them, then i'm sure a warranty is the last thing on their mind. :wink2:

posted by  pik_d

I agreed to that.

0-60 was just some random figure magazines came up with and all use as their main "performance" figure it seems. I has nothing to do really with what real world racers would care about. Braking distances are EXTREMELY important to road racers and 1/4 mile times are most import got it, drag racers.

I never said it was possible to get the Si to 270hp while maintaining the warrenty, I was just stating that even with the Mopar Stage 2 package your SRT-4 is no longer emissions or road legal. You'd be suprised, not as many people mod their new cars to void their warrentys as you think, in fact, it's quite stupid. If you get a 3 or 5 or 6 year warrenty, make as much use of it as possible, because 99 times out of 100, YOU WILL run into a problem where the warrenty will cover it. At times something that is FULLY covered under warrenty IS REALLY expensive to replace even if you replace it yourself if you voided your warrenty (As we have found out with our 2000 Town and Country). Like on our 2002 RL the front under body rubber spoiler has been replaced 2 times fully covered under warrenty. If it wasn't under warrenty we'd pay $230 each time for a new one (so there's $460 right there lost).

posted by  thunderbird1100

YOUR a dick :thumbs:

id bet on my honda that he knows more about cars than you... and i probably know more than you if you make ignorant biased posts like that.

posted by  Stem

i guess thinking about it that's true. 0-60 time would only be useful for the start of a race, getting out of a pitstop, or recovering from having to stop unexpectantly durring a race

heh, well you brought up that a civic si (purchased at MSRP) could be made to have higher horsepower then an srt-4 (also purchased at MSRP), so i figured i'd bring up your own point to counter somethig you said earlier. :laughing:

anyway, i drive the srt-4's mild brother, the neon r/t, and while there is obviously the feasable possibility of a 2.0 -> 2.4 turbo swap, i have no plans of doing so. (not to mention all the other mods that can be done to neons) but only because of money. (well... really because i dont have the money). the warranty is rather a moot point for me. and since i'm the 2nd owner of the car, i'm not sure how much is even covered under the warranty for me anyway...

posted by  pik_d

Thats how thunderbird acts. He ignores all facts that prove something is better than his precious Hondas. He says he doesnt beleive them.

posted by  PontiacFan27

Funny that only YOU and maybe one other believes that...Here's another ass cheek to complement yours :asshake:

BTW - Those weren't "facts" in that other thread, just some random internet site's fictious "guestimated" Nuburgring times. Any moron with half a brain could of figured that out... If you actually BELIEVED that site you must believe in world peace...

That site actually had the idiocy of listing a Nurburgring time of the S2000 as ONLY (I think it was 8 seconds) faster than a Probe GT, obviously WAY off.

posted by  thunderbird1100

See what I mean, biased.

posted by  nsupra27

You obviously ignored the statement of "that site has bogus 'gring times"...

Yeah, like a 240hp 2800lb RWD S2000 (which is one of the BEST handling sports cars on the market for under $50,000) was actually only 8 seconds faster around the 'gring than a 164hp 2900lb FWD Probe GT....because that makes a whole lot of sense. :banghead:

Maybe if was 8 seconds quicker around a sub 2:30 MINUTE track, it would at least make a LITTLE sense, but around a 8+ minute track, it's laughable. And anyone with HALF a NON_BIASED brain unlike you would realize that.

IT seems to be YOU'RE the biased one as you find FALSE information to try and prove your point. Try again. What, are you and your second analProbe pontiacfan trying to COMPETE to obtain the first ever "Dumbass of the Decade Award" here on C/F?

EDIT: Ah here, I found that dumb site you refer to over and over again and actually believe...

It actually says the '00 S2000 is only ONE second quicker around the 'gring than a '97 Probe GT (9:58 vs. 9:59) we ALL know not to believe the crap this site posts! :laughing:

Here's some other funny ones: It says the '97 Prelude SH is 2.5 seconds slower around the 'gring than a Probe GT, almost as equally laughable :orglaugh:

Here's a REAL laugh, it says a '93 300ZXTT (9:47) is 12 secons quicker than the Probe GT, AND 11 seconds quicker than an S2000? :laughing:

Even I know a 300ZXTT can't beat a S2000 around a road course, and I OWN a 300ZXTT!

Oh, here's a laugh, it says the SRT-4 is 2.3 seconds slower around the 'gring than a PRobe GT.... :laughing:

Says a '02 SE-R Spec-V is 9.4 seconds slower around the 'gring against the Probe GT :laughing:

Wow, this site sure is a gas. :orglaugh: What else do have to lie about now?

posted by  thunderbird1100

Well after thunderbird's post... would the two dumbasses please stand up? :laughing:

posted by  Pythias

I'll help them....

Okay, has anyone else found it interesting they both have the number "27" in the last part of their S/N, and tend to ALWAYS agree on everything?

Hmmm....Might only be dealing with ONE dumbass :laughing:

posted by  thunderbird1100

in what thread was he using "information" from that website?

posted by  pik_d

I just want to state that Torque steer is important. I live with it everyday. And a LSD does not fix it, in reality it is because of the LSD in my car that causes the torque steer to be so noticeable. The 2006 comes with a new steering angle sensor logic mechanism to reduce torque steer.

I agree on the Honda braking distance subject. Although the Honda's have long breaking distances, i find that Acura cars have pretty good brakes. Even the AT TL with the 11 inch discs was a bit too bitey for me, much less the 13 inch Brembos i have in the front.

I think the owner of that website owns a probe gt, and in order to make himself feel better he has to posts bogus times. On the Nurburgring, i think the S2k would at least have a half a minute lead. Considering some of those turns are pretty curvy.

posted by  aerith

Glad to show you

Search for the thread, "integra". 2nd page at the very top nsupra27 said...

Which that just reminded me, an ITR losing to a Probe GT around the 'gring....BWHAHAHAHA :laughing:

posted by  thunderbird1100

hm, well the first srt-4's didnt have an LSD, and the last 2 years did. and i'm pretty sure reviews claim that it helped.

all those nurburgring are crap... the McLaren F1 had around an 8:40 listed there... no way it takes over 7:30 minutes for the F1 to complete a lap... :banghead: the corvette at at 8:50... the z06 cars can do under 8 minutes...

EDIT: i just wish there was a very comprehensive english list of official nurburgring times...

posted by  pik_d

The S2000 doesn't even need TURNS to walk a Probe GT...puuuhhhleasseee.

S2000 1/4 mile = 14 flat (conservative)
Probe GT 1/4 mile = 15.50's (optimistic)

S2000 top speed = 154mph drag limited (gearing takes it up to 172mph)
Probe GT top speed = 132mph

It would walk the Probe GT IN every turn, before AND after every turn. I can't imagine the rate an S2000 would pull away from a Probe GT on the long straight at the 'gring.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Wow. :laughing:
I wasn't even talking about that website, nor was I even talking about the Probe being faster then an S2000. How the hell did you get to talking about all that shit from a post about you being biased?? :screwy:

posted by  nsupra27

Newsflash, I know you weren't, I was just showing how stupid some people can be like yourself in beliving everything to support their cause. And I know you didnt bring it up IN THIS THREAD, but in the other thread you did actually believe a Probe was faster around the 'gring than a Integra Type-R, which in turns means you have to believe the S2000 is only a second faster than the Probe around the 'gring since the information came from your beloved site. Plus, I didn't bring it up for you, I brought it up for pik_d because he ASKED.

Oh yeah, go ahead and try and avoid everything that makes you look like a tool, and continue with trying to displace your stupidity onto myself, maqkes you look all the more a hack job, PontiacFan27 :laughing: . :clap:

Oh and BTW - You can still make yourself look like a moron by calling me biased (which of course I'm far from as I love a lot of different cars form different manufacturers, hell OWN a 300ZXTT). But if you ask me, YOU are the sorriest BIASED hack job on these forums as you have to use FALSE and MISLEADING information to try and prove why your car is better than others. :thumbs:

posted by  thunderbird1100

Mhmmmm looks like someone got (

posted by  Pythias

bottom line is the 2006 Si is a really nice car is the S2000, just try to ignore the pontiac and probe driving haters.

posted by  ToshoRcing

Your Message