test drove the 2013 civic si
 

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!!

My brother has an SI (2012). You're right it does not feel like a sports car, but if you need 4 doors and good practicality/mpg that is a great way to go.
I am surprised it felt heavy, it is a pretty light car with decent steering and a great transmission. With the summer tires it holds the road pretty well as well, and the extra torque is definitely noticeable.
The 2012 was a little soft but I heard they tightened up the 2013? Not sure if this is true or not...
I think it is a great car, however definitely not a sports car, more of a "sporty" eco box. If I needed the extra space I would probably go for it, but as is I do not, so the FR-S is better for me.

I felt I was going grocery shopping. The engine does feel strong but didn't sound like my 2011 si. The front wheel drive sucks honestly, It is convenient and great features for the money but I couldn't wait to drive my frs again.

That's because it's the sports version of a family sedan, rather than a purpose-built sports car. Similar to how a CTS-V would feel heavier and less responsive than a ZR1 Corvette, even though they share the same engine (pretty much). Don't get me wrong, I love the CTS-V, but there's a big difference between a performance version of a normal car, and a car that is purpose built.

HFP hung with the BRZ... in fact it edged it out. May not be as much of a turd as you believe.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBPq7D28xGg"]2013 Subaru BRZ vs. 2012 Honda Civic Si HFP - YouTube[/ame]

And if you changed the the awful Primacy tires to something like Dunlop Star Spec tires it would not have been close:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/special-...transformation

The FR-S against a MazdaSpeed3 and WRX was last on the stock tires around the track. With the tire swap (on the stock rims) it was first. The tire change alone lowered the track time by over 2 seconds.. 2 seconds! That is huge. My guess is the BRZ on better tires would beat the Honda by 2 second easy and it would be much more fun doing so.

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

I wonder what tires were on the HFP? Honda lists them as high performance all season.
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-si-coupe/hfp.aspx

What we need is to see them on the same tires try again.

Pretty sure if you wanted to do special edition cars and looked at HFP Civic vs TRD GT86 against each other the 86 would win consider the tires will be swapped out and the HFP barely beat the BRZ with stock tires on

The Civic is a decent enough car for FWD, but unless you need more space, why settle for the understeer and extra heft when the BRZ exists? From the video you posted, starting at ~3:50:
He's wrong about the BRZ tires being all-season, but it's not surprising the HFP is grippier.

They went on to comment that it was the closest track shootout they've ever had, and though the HFP was faster around the track by one tenth of one second, it has much stickier tires. They said that if you swapped those tires onto the BRZ, it'd be about 2 seconds faster (and that'd bring it up to the same price as the HFP), while again commenting about the joy of RWD and how balanced the BRZ is.

It was pretty clear which vehicle they preferred.

si has a bad ass motor but the chassis sucks

all we are missing is bigger rims.

Wonder how it compares to the 2007. My coupe had HFP suspension, Hondata, and 235/40-18s.

I miss some things about it -- much nicer interior, less road noise, better engine note, great shifter, VTEC lunge, better audio, tighter turning radius, more storage capacity, little things like the passenger door unlocking when the car was turned off, more comfy seat, better lighting, etc.

FR-S has a better ride (obviously), better outward visibility, significantly better gas mileage, slightly better brakes, and then the big thing: way nicer balance, power slides, rotation, the ability to take turns at speeds that would have the Si plowing and pushing, etc. And no rev-hang.

Still, my girlfriend firmly believes the FR-S was a solid downgrade. So there you have it folks.

why does this thread keep happening?

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.

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

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.

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 ;)

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

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.

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.

Holy shit @ your username.

Oh wow. That's mighty close, sir.

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.

Waiting for Tomato87 to show up...

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.

Yep. You said everything. The bean counters took over. There's no more passion which is sad. They were about hardcore, pure track cars at one point. There's nothing I'd buy from Honda or Acura today.

Toyota was indeed lacking performance, but then you look up and they were shooting out the IS-F, LFA, 86. Supra is the only thing missing. They are doing much better at making fun cars. I imagine the GS-F will be coming soon too.

Honda is asleep at the wheel. Their luxury cars are getting beat down something fierce, there's no more cheap fun cars they make, and the NSX will be lame (hell it'll be built in Ohio, nuff said)

Frankly I could care less about the IS-F (overpriced and not as good as either the C63 or the M3, plus the RS4 at least offered AWD) or the LFA (uber expensive and ultra-rare) since realistically I'm not going to find myself owning one anytime soon. Yes, the 86 is fun, and definitely one of the best enthusiast cars they have put out. No question. But before that, no one was home.

But the point I was trying to make was that two unlikely companies who hadn't really made anything amazing on their own (at least something that most people could afford) combined efforts and made something pretty cool. Honda's kind of like that (as their S2000 died out, but the Civic Si was a little fun with the K20 but the K24 kind of killed it) but Mitsubishi had the AWD handling game right in the Evo, whereas Subaru's AWD handling game was good but always lagging behind. I'm just saying a joint effort between them might have been interesting since Mitsubishi sucked as a company but the Evo is pretty good, since the 86 ended up being more than the sum of its parts and far more entertaining than anything either company had come up with in recent years.

I've always wondered what a coupe with RWD and the S-AYC from the Evo could do. Maybe that with an NA Honda motor and a higher end version with the 4B11 (or some turbocharged motor) also with S-AYC, maybe even the whole S-AWC too. It's wishful thinking, but it would've been interesting for them to go after the same niche, or to even chase one down that the 86 isn't likely to go into (since there aren't any confirmations of a higher-output model slated for release, and AWD isn't a possibility right now).

I wonder what a Nissan/Honda/Mitsu/Subaru/Toyota car baby would be?

:P

[In Ace Ventura voice] I thought you'd never ask! [Inhales deeply]

But seriously... I don't know why Honda never even thought about reaching out to Mitsubishi just to strike back. Obviously it's easier for Toyota and Subaru (since Toyota owns something like 10% of Subaru), but it was still an odd pairing at first.

86/FR-S/BRZ competitor: K20 motor with 6-speed manual, RWD and Mitsu's S-AYC rear LSD (badged as a Honda)
Imaginary BRZ STI competitor: 4B11 motor with 6-speed dual clutch, RWD and Mitsu's S-AYC rear LSD (badged as a Mitsubishi to make servicing easier, maybe also Honda)
And then maybe a variant of that with the full S-AWC to make it more interesting. (badged as a Mitsubishi)

Honda has been building cars in Ohio for over 30 years. Not to mention the giant R&D facility (you know, the one with direct on property access to the giant test track facility TRC... one of the attractions is a 7 mile long 5 lane wide oval track) LITERALLY down the street from where the car will be produced. With respect to this point, I'm 100% certain you have no idea what you're talking about.

I want something like the s2000 to come back

I used to be a big fan of Honda, I grew up driving my moms 92 Prelude Si and owned a couple first gen Acura TSX's. I haven't been a fan of much of their stuff lately but I do like the 13 Civic Si and Accord Sport with manual, check out this review of the Accord.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...rm-test-review

Interestingly enough, as time goes on their cars have gotten worse and worse. The 90's were great, 2000's were eh, and 2010's have been bad. With respect to this point, I'm 100% positive you have no idea what you're talking about. LOL, R&D... what a joke.

Ironically, I was speaking to some in-house service techs and some people who work at independently-owned shops. They say the cars built in Japan are typically much more reliable by a big margin than their counterparts built stateside.

you wot m8?

This is true for the most part on all the big Japanese brands, most Infiniti's and Lexus models are built in Japan and the Honda/Acura's built in japan were much higher quality.