2017 civic Si vs....

[darthpnoy1984]

Originally Posted by johan

I owned an 06 FA1, 08 FG2 and 11 FA5. Them feels.

Especially if you convert the FG front and rear end to the FD2 my favorite gen Civic of all time I hated how Honda would always gimped us with watered down versions.

I also at one point owned an 06 FA coupe as well such a fun car to drive until I sold it for a CL9 TSX.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brzaapi]

Well, I think it looks like a fun car. I really want to drive the SI and especially the R. But, I still think there are better FWD cars to play with. As for a DD they would both work depending on what you want. I don't like FWD cars much, but I would still like to drive both of these. I would like the R to be the FWD car to change my mind. Like how a 1LE Camaro, made me buy a 3900lb cow and actually enjoy driving it around the track.

The R reviews I have read mention understeer, quietly but they do always mention it. when you read between the lines and get past the cool, new kid on the block rhetoric, It seems that the car has quite a bit of understeer. It may turn in more aggressive than the Golf R, but it has been noted to understeer quite a bit. The new suspension arms up front seem to get rid of torque steer, but no Bueno on understeer.

Now maybe I am blowing the understeering thing out of the proportion. But when a car is new, anything that is not liked is mentioned quickly and then glossed over by some counterpoint by the magazine. But a year later, when it isn't the new car, they are trying to sell....You hear a more honest opinion on a cars shortcomings.

Still, when you are asking almost Focus RS, STI, Golf R money. And you are FWD and likely lighter than all the other competition, with all the go-fast looks...then I don't want to hear about understeer.

Still something about this car, has me intrigued. Maybe it is that Honda is finally making something fun again, maybe its me being hopeful of a new S2000. And Honda has lost their excitement, and I am hoping despite the R's possible flaws, that Honda may be taking a step towards making some fun cars again.

[johan]

Originally Posted by brzaapi

Well, I think it looks like a fun car. I really want to drive the SI and especially the R. But, I still think there are better FWD cars to play with. As for a DD they would both work depending on what you want. I don't like FWD cars much, but I would still like to drive both of these. I would like the R to be the FWD car to change my mind. Like how a 1LE Camaro, made me buy a 3900lb cow and actually enjoy driving it around the track.

The R reviews I have read mention understeer, quietly but they do always mention it. when you read between the lines and get past the cool, new kid on the block rhetoric, It seems that the car has quite a bit of understeer. It may turn in more aggressive than the Golf R, but it has been noted to understeer quite a bit. The new suspension arms up front seem to get rid of torque steer, but no Bueno on understeer.

Now maybe I am blowing the understeering thing out of the proportion. But when a car is new, anything that is not liked is mentioned quickly and then glossed over by some counterpoint by the magazine. But a year later, when it isn't the new car, they are trying to sell....You hear a more honest opinion on a cars shortcomings.

Still, when you are asking almost Focus RS, STI, Golf R money. And you are FWD and likely lighter than all the other competition, with all the go-fast looks...then I don't want to hear about understeer.

Still something about this car, has me intrigued. Maybe it is that Honda is finally making something fun again, maybe its me being hopeful of a new S2000. And Honda has lost their excitement, and I am hoping despite the R's possible flaws, that Honda may be taking a step towards making some fun cars again.

I think I've just gone past hope, to jaded. It's not a feeling I like having.

Would I love for Honda to build something reasonably priced, RWD, 2 doors, coupelike - yes - I would. Would I buy said car - most likely - yes, I would. But Honda hasn't built a RWD coupe that wasn't an NSX since the old S600. So... it's not going to happen. I like the S2000 a lot, I owned one for a short time, but I can't own one again. I'm too tall, I didn't fit in there, and I wouldn't fit in a new one either. I need a coupe, for my safety.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by johan

I think I've just gone past hope, to jaded. It's not a feeling I like having.

Would I love for Honda to build something reasonably priced, RWD, 2 doors, coupelike - yes - I would. Would I buy said car - most likely - yes, I would. But Honda hasn't built a RWD coupe that wasn't an NSX since the old S600. So... it's not going to happen. I like the S2000 a lot, I owned one for a short time, but I can't own one again. I'm too tall, I didn't fit in there, and I wouldn't fit in a new one either. I need a coupe, for my safety.

Yep. Wouldn't hold out much hope they will resurrect a a RWD. Looks like they are going with the same plan as Toyota and trying to bring back excitement by dressing up their high volume sellers and screaming "WE ARE NOT BORING. LOOK JUST LOOK. NOT BORING. REALLY IT ISN'T!" into the wind.


Coincidently enough the stuff Strat linked about Toyota this morning seems to apply perfectly to Honda as well.


"USA Today reports that Toyoda admitted that the company still has “room for improvement,” which means the Camry (and its other cars! Did you know it makes other cars? It does!) could get wilder—especially with $1.3 billion dumped into its Georgetown, Kentucky plant where a lot of the Camry upgrades will occur. How... wild! Just like Toyota these days"


http://jalopnik.com/toyota-please-st...ing-1795100473

[strat61caster]

what about stock for stock autocross / general performance?

Around a corner I'll take an 86, everywhere else the Honda probably does pretty damn well, especially straight line with the turbo (hell even the non-Si 1.5L tuned probably roasts an 86). I don't see anything that would make it great for backroads/autox (suspension design, weight, tire clearance, etc.)

I'll echo @brzaapi on everything else, I'm hopeful this thing is a return to form for Honda, but initial reports aren't too promising, good, yes, but only a small step on a long road back up the hill. I want the Type-R to be the best FWD can be, but it sounds like it falls short and we must resort to looking back almost 20+ years to get a great handling FWD road car.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Yep. Wouldn't hold out much hope they will resurrect a a RWD.

They did, just not for Americans.




Frustratingly I think Honda CAN build the cars we want, and they could do it without any pain on their end (not like the long hurdle filled gestation period the 86 had) but don't out of fear that they won't sell well.

[johan]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Frustratingly I think Honda CAN build the cars we want, and they could do it without any pain on their end (not like the long hurdle filled gestation period the 86 had) but don't out of fear that they won't sell well.

This has been the case for the last 15 years.

- They could have, but never did, put the J series in a RWD platform. It's an excellent, revvy V6.

- They could have (and fucking should have), put SHAWD in a sportscar. 4-cylinder or 6 cylinder, I don't care. Why the fuck didn't they do it!?!?! It was world beating AWD technology and they just relegated it to stupid overweight sedans/suvs.

- The most glaring stupidity is that the K20 never made it into anything RWD. One of the most gloriously engineered motors ever produced - and all it ever saw was FWD. Just mind boggling.

There was so much opportunity, and they just didn't seize any of it. It hurts my insides. Oh the cars we could have / should have experienced. UGH.

[reeves]

I just hope the 2017 si isn't like the previous model. My wife has a 2006 civic coupe, and I HATE driving her car. Everything from the steering wheel to the seat, the console controls, and the stupidly extreme slant of the windshield. As if blind spots weren't bad enough in the rear with C pillars, they had to make a couple more in the front as well.. which is what the A pillars on these civics have become.

[RedGlare]

I may be a bit bias since I dd'd an FB6 (2013) Si for a little over 2 years, for a DD it was perfect, the KA24 made a great power to weight ratio on that chassis, I didn't feel like it lacked torque, (it made 170 @ 4400rpm), what it lacked was a little bit of a top end - I am not asking for 300, but I felt like if it had 230-240hp up top with 170tq it would have been near perfect.

I will definitely wait to make any judgement after I drive the new Si, but I feel like they missed the boat on the new generation, should have squeeze out 240 ponies, didn't alter torque much. I know aftermarket can fix that, but there is a reason an engine puts out what it does, whether its longevity/durability or fuel economy, when you start messing with factory power figures you are altering so many variables that for a daily driver its just not worth it.

My chief concern is this;

They now entered the GTi/ Focus ST arena and they are definitely outgunned and outpriced, it will be interesting to see if the driving dynamics will redeem the relative lack of power vs its competitors.

[SlowCarFast]

The motor with the si tune makes it feel like a rocket. Very similar to the Fiesta St in power delivery. Butt dyno says definitely faster that the twins in a straight line.

Inputs are all solidly in the "good" category. Not quite as much feedback as the twins.

Rev hang is present and annoying when shifting like you stole it.

I unfortunately have not gotten to hoon one enough to comment on the handling much. Feels planted though.

[KR-S]

I have a problem with the $35K asking price for a Civic, even if it is a Type R.

However, I can't deny that it's really damn fast if it can pull off a 7:43 lap time around the Nurburgring.

Originally Posted by johan

- They could have (and fucking should have), put SHAWD in a sportscar. 4-cylinder or 6 cylinder, I don't care. Why the fuck didn't they do it!?!?! It was world beating AWD technology and they just relegated it to stupid overweight sedans/suvs.

The $35K pricepoint would have made more sense if the CTR had SH-AWD for sure. Still don't know why it wasn't included but clearly the engineers know better, so I won't question their judgment.

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Frustratingly I think Honda CAN build the cars we want, and they could do it without any pain on their end (not like the long hurdle filled gestation period the 86 had) but don't out of fear that they won't sell well.

If they are confident enough to sell a $35K Civic, they sure as hell aren't (or at least shouldn't be) worried about a $35K RWD coupe with the same engineering.

Originally Posted by johan

- The most glaring stupidity is that the K20 never made it into anything RWD. One of the most gloriously engineered motors ever produced - and all it ever saw was FWD. Just mind boggling.

There was so much opportunity, and they just didn't seize any of it. It hurts my insides. Oh the cars we could have / should have experienced. UGH.

It isn't given a K designation, but how much do the F20C and F22C motors have in common with the K-series line? I was always under the impression that it was somehow related to the K-series.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by KR-S 86

I have a problem with the $35K asking price for a Civic, even if it is a Type R.

That's the same logic people use to shit on the 86 with 'only' 200 horsepower for $26k.



Some people just don't get it. And besides, this thread is about the Si, not the Type-R.

[KR-S]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

That's the same logic people use to shit on the 86 with 'only' 200 horsepower for $26k.



Some people just don't get it. And besides, this thread is about the Si, not the Type-R.

Are you saying I don't get it? I just said that I can't really deny it's damn fast if it can run a 7:43 around the Nurburgring. The only thing I can't wrap my head around is $35K for a Civic, where my complaint is the drivetrain layout, not the horsepower, if that's what you were getting at.

This thread has brought up the Type-R several times, so why can't I give my opinion on it?

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by KR-S 86

The only thing I can't wrap my head around is $35K for a Civic, where my complaint is the drivetrain layout, not the horsepower, if that's where you were getting at.

This thread has brought up the Type-R several times, so why can't I give my opinion on it?

Exactly, you have a hang-up on a trivial aspect of the car given the engineering that's gone into it, you've missed the point. People gripe about heavy pony cars, boring economy cars, low power momentum cars, etc. They've missed the point.

Would taking the word Civic off the car make it suddenly worth more money? Certainly not where it matters.

Off topic is off topic.

[KR-S]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Exactly, you have a hang-up on a trivial aspect of the car given the engineering that's gone into it, you've missed the point. People gripe about heavy pony cars, boring economy cars, low power momentum cars, etc. They've missed the point.

Would taking the word Civic off the car make it suddenly worth more money? Certainly not where it matters.

Off topic is off topic.

Who says I'm hung up? I'm well aware that there is some serious engineering behind it if it can pull off a 7:43 lap time. I'm not dismissing the whole car based on that alone, but go ahead and say I don't get it.

I'll look forward to seeing this car on the road, and that's the last I will say as I'll keep my mouth shut from now on since this is off-topic.