test drove the 2013 civic si

[thill]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

Exactly, equal tires and its not even close. I would like the 2.4 liter from the new Si though...

Yeah, but then you lose the boxer engine which means the car would sit up higher, car would most likely weigh slighly more, and the car would not have the balance it has now. I will take the boxer engine and the handling

Aftermarket with the boxer engine will give you more hp and torque if you want it.

Honda does make sweet engines though. I have owned several and we currently have a 2013 Honda Odyssey Touring parked next to my BRZ.

I like the new Civic SI, but it is nowhere near the drivers car the twins are.

[BlaineWasHere]

Originally Posted by Bt216

My sister was buying a new civic. So it was my chance to test drive the si. The one I tested had the honda performance package. I was disappointed the car feels heavy, the handling and steering wasn't even close to the frs. The seats are ugly and they don't grab you like the frs seats does. I felt I wasn't driving a sports car.. FRS ALL THE WAY!!

You weren't driving a sports car, you were driving a hopped up compact sedan.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Originally Posted by Retro86

all we are missing is bigger rims.

There's a recent review floating around where the overseas GT86 is compared to a base Cayman. The GT86 in that comparison had some TRD package that includes bigger wheels, and the reviewer said that even though it had a larger footprint and better tires than the standard model, it doesn't really help since it gives more grip that isn't fully utilized with the car's stock output.

Don't get me wrong, better tires on an otherwise stock car will certainly help.

[Eurasianman]

Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83

There's a recent review floating around where the overseas GT86 is compared to a base Cayman. The GT86 in that comparison had some TRD package that includes bigger wheels, and the reviewer said that even though it had a larger footprint and better tires than the standard model, it doesn't really help since it gives more grip that isn't fully utilized with the car's stock output.

Don't get me wrong, better tires on an otherwise stock car will certainly help.

I still do not quite get this. With more grip, there would be less wheel spin, and therefore, the engine would be able to deliver all of its power to the wheels efficiently.

[Chimpo]

Originally Posted by thill

Yeah, but then you lose the boxer engine which means the car would sit up higher, car would most likely weigh slighly more, and the car would not have the balance it has now. I will take the boxer engine and the handling

The S2000 used an inline 4 (not to mention that the original 2.0L made 240HP without direct injection), and it seems to handle okie dokie

[tomato86]

Had a 07 Si, engine screamed but that was it. Honda screwed up not bringing the Civic Type-R over

[MountainManFR-S]

Along with my FR-S I also own a 2012 SI sedan. It is lowered on D2 coilovers and has a catback exhaust. With some decent tires the SI treated me very well in the mountains and at a few autocrosses. It's nothing compared to the FR-S in my opinion but I needed something for the wife and baby.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Originally Posted by tomato86

Honda screwed up not bringing the Civic Type-R over

Not really. It would've been a cool car, but they probably had enough business sense to know that they'd likely be selling at a price point that wouldn't have much bang-for-the-buck while being in a price bracket filled with cars that were faster and likely more fun to drive too. Also, it would've caused too much competition with the RSX, which was why they gave it the crappy 160 hp motor. Sure, they eventually put the full-strength 200 hp K20 in the 2006 Civic Si, but it was too little too late, but at least at that point, they didn't mind the internal competition so much since the RSX already had its opportunity to shine and make some money for them before killing it off.

I remember the RSX Type-S being somewhere around $23-24k if I remember correctly, while rumors of the Type-R coming stateside again would've put it right around $29-30k. At the time, that kind of money could've gotten you an Evo (which in 2003 had a starting MSRP of $28,987, plus another few hundred dollars if you wanted the wing) or STI (which was right around $30k). 2002 and onward became a rough time for NA sport compact cars priced in the mid-$20k range and higher, since the turbocharged cars were coming out, some with AWD, and costing not too much more while being way easier to mod.

[tomato86]

Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83

Not really. It would've been a cool car, but they probably had enough business sense to know that they'd likely be selling at a price point that wouldn't have much bang-for-the-buck while being in a price bracket filled with cars that were faster and likely more fun to drive too. Also, it would've caused too much competition with the RSX, which was why they gave it the crappy 160 hp motor. Sure, they eventually put the full-strength 200 hp K20 in the 2006 Civic Si, but it was too little too late, but at least at that point, they didn't mind the internal competition so much since the RSX already had its opportunity to shine and make some money for them before killing it off.

I remember the RSX Type-S being somewhere around $23-24k if I remember correctly, while rumors of the Type-R coming stateside again would've put it right around $29-30k. At the time, that kind of money could've gotten you an Evo (which in 2003 had a starting MSRP of $28,987, plus another few hundred dollars if you wanted the wing) or STI (which was right around $30k). 2002 and onward became a rough time for NA sport compact cars priced in the mid-$20k range and higher, since the turbocharged cars were coming out, some with AWD, and costing not too much more while being way easier to mod.

I'm sure it would've been neutered somewhat, but Honda is losing the battle right now. Their lineup once contained s2000, Prelude, Integra, Civic Si/Type-R, NSX, now it's junk like the CRZ which is mocked globally, a 2.4L junk Civic Si, and... a future $32270537 NSX. The execs at Honda are lost.

[tomato88]

Originally Posted by tomato86

I'm sure it would've been neutered somewhat, but Honda is losing the battle right now. Their lineup once contained s2000, Prelude, Integra, Civic Si/Type-R, NSX, now it's junk like the CRZ which is mocked globally, a 2.4L junk Civic Si, and... a future $32270537 NSX. The execs at Honda are lost.

Holy shit @ your username.

[tomato86]

Originally Posted by tomato88

Holy shit @ your username.

Oh wow. That's mighty close, sir.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by tomato86

I'm sure it would've been neutered somewhat, but Honda is losing the battle right now. Their lineup once contained s2000, Prelude, Integra, Civic Si/Type-R, NSX, now it's junk like the CRZ which is mocked globally, a 2.4L junk Civic Si, and... a future $32270537 NSX. The execs at Honda are lost.

Agree, Honda seems lost these days. I'm sure they're doing fine financially (the Accord and Civic will always be high volume cash-cows), but Honda used to be synonymous with motorsport and affordable, yet lightweight/sporty cars. Now they've killed off nearly all of their affordable, sporty cars (s2k, integra/rsx, nsx, prelude). And the Accord and Civic are no longer the lightest/sportiest offerings in their respective classes. Both cars have gotten bigger and heavier over the years, and have lost distinctive features like double-wishbone front suspension. These used to be the unique features that set Honda apart and reflected their passion for motorsport.

Honda even recently admitted that the last generation Civic was not a competitive product, and had been designed with the global recession in mind for a certain price-point. I can't imagine the passionate Honda of the 1990's making that mistake. Seems the bean-counters have taken over. That's probably good for short-term profitability, but I can't help but think this philosophical shift will come back to bite Honda in the long-run. People used to be passionate about owning Hondas, now there's nothing really to set them apart from other bland car manufacturers. I honestly can't even tell what direction Honda is heading now. Perhaps some sort of environmentally-friendly, pretend-sporty direction?

Honda needs to get their collective heads out of their rears and go back to their roots.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by tomato86

Oh wow. That's mighty close, sir.

Waiting for Tomato87 to show up...

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Originally Posted by tomato86

I'm sure it would've been neutered somewhat, but Honda is losing the battle right now. Their lineup once contained s2000, Prelude, Integra, Civic Si/Type-R, NSX, now it's junk like the CRZ which is mocked globally, a 2.4L junk Civic Si, and... a future $32270537 NSX. The execs at Honda are lost.

Considering how Toyota was in a similar situation (Supra died over a decade ago and the MR2 was also killed off) and Subaru made AWD cars that were quick but sucked through the corners, it's interesting that their combined efforts made such a cool car. In the back of my mind, I used to think it would be cool if Honda did something with Mitsubishi to make a competing car, especially seeing how both companies have their counterparts in Toyota and Subaru, respectively (in some way, though only the Impreza/WRX/STI compete with the Lancer/Ralliart/Evo rather than their entire lineup). You'd think that they'd have the potential to make something pretty intriguing.