2013 Subaru BRZ vs 2012 Honda Civic Si HFP

[brichard0625]

Even tho people complain that these cars are in different classes because rwd/fwd i think it makes sense to review both of these cars. Only reason i say this because the young kids that are buying these cars will always cross shop these cars honestly. If your looking for a brz/frs im sure more than 50% of the ppl are still thinking hmmm how bout an si, gti, even tC only because the prices are pretty much dollars apart. I agree with the reviewer tho, put better tires on the brz/frs and im sure beat the si hpf hands down cuz these stock tires howl like crazy! n like someone else said im sure toyo/baru are getting annoyed about the complaints about the tires and rims and im sure they will change next year or will have a package out

[industrial]

It's an okay review. Nothing surprising at all. The review notes that the civic seemed to have more power and is more practical than the BRZ. Yup. And with a well engineered HFP, the civic can keep up with the BRZ. Not surprising. The reviewer makes no conclusions which is either cowardice or for the editorial benefit of the magazine and Honda.

The civic SI being the car young car people wanted for years? nope...not since 99-00

What better way to find out which is the better car than lap times around a race track? nope...lap times only tell which is faster.

Every sports car should have a push button start? nope...

The civic being FWD will be better in the snow? I'd like to see that. Really, with the HFP. You will go NOWHERE.

Where do they come up with this shit?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by industrial

It's an okay review. Nothing surprising at all. The review notes that the civic seemed to have more power and is more practical than the BRZ. Yup. And with a well engineered HFP, the civic can keep up with the BRZ. Not surprising. The reviewer makes no conclusions which is either cowardice or for the editorial benefit of the magazine and Honda.

The civic SI being the car young car people wanted for years? nope...not since 99-00

What better way to find out which is the better car than lap times around a race track? nope...lap times only tell which is faster.

Every sports car should have a push button start? nope...

The civic being FWD will be better in the snow? I'd like to see that. Really, with the HFP. You will go NOWHERE.

Where do they come up with this shit?

sounds like you didnt watch the video seeing as they say that the tires kept the civic in the comparo.

[flippy]

i love the crappy music -____-

[industrial]

Originally Posted by fatoni

sounds like you didnt watch the video seeing as they say that the tires kept the civic in the comparo.

I did watch. And you didn't read what I wrote. It's not surprising at all that a car with sporting intentions and with similar power and weight with better tires laps slightly faster. Not surprising at all. What is surprising is all the stupid commentary in between the stupid introduction and the "duh" conclusion.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by industrial

I did watch. And you didn't read what I wrote. It's not surprising at all that a car with sporting intentions and with similar power and weight with better tires laps slightly faster. Not surprising at all. What is surprising is all the stupid commentary in between the stupid introduction and the "duh" conclusion.

okay. you said they make no conclusions but they said that on the same tires the brz would be at least 2 sec faster. that sounded like a conclusion to me

[Turbowned]

It probably doesn't matter anyway if they're only building 500 examples of the Civic. I'm sure they'll mostly be going to die-hard Honda guys who wouldn't consider the BRZ anyway. Good luck getting your hands on one even if you do like it better!

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by fatoni

thats a totally arbitrary mindset. i could just as easily say that track tests are meaningless unless power is the same or weight is the same. throwing in those tires at that price is an advantage for the civic, plain and simple. the only thing that i think should be used to level the playing field is dollars.

Not necessarily arbitrary. You make a good point about comparing dollar for dollar. Especially since the Tire on the Civic is almost $100/tire more expensive than the Primacy HP tire on the BRZ. The reason why I think tires are not arbitrary is that they are the most effective and cost effective way to reduce lap times next to removing weight.

The tire is the only thing between the car on the asphalt. The variable introduced by a differentiation in tires is so massive it trumps other more minor variances. Even if you took 2 identical cars but with different tires what do you get? Well, it's no longer a car test, it's a tire test. So with these cars, if you put on equivalent tires then it becomes, once again, a car test. When the things touching the ground are essentially equivalent then it becomes a test of 2 different "complete" platforms. The difference in power/weight/diff/drivetrain layout may be different but the result is the "sum of the parts". It's very difficult to test the "sum of the parts" when tires can easily and drastically alter or mask the massive parts of the equation.

Now, if this was a comparison of the car driving around city streets and mpg and driver comfort and blah blah blah then tires aren't really a factor but this isn't that type of test really. This is a lap time test.

[industrial]

Originally Posted by fatoni

okay. you said they make no conclusions but they said that on the same tires the brz would be at least 2 sec faster. that sounded like a conclusion to me

You know what would be conclusive? If they just said they liked X better than Y because of A, B and C. What would be really interesting is if they got a set of Primacy tires and put them on the civic. That kind of comparison hasn't been done and would be "interesting". This test would've been "interesting" if it was released 4 months ago. With all the other reviews out there now, this is just a meh review.

Simply put, just two guys taking the cars out on a track day and being told to keep the script nice and generic is just not interesting to me. I agree with the test being valid. It is. It's just not interesting at all.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by MRZ415

I personally think the Stock tires are a plus since it does have LESS grip,
so its easier to SLIDE around a corner compare to super sticky tires which
will improve lap times but make me possibly smile a bit less.

I agree. I like James May here. I like lower grip for more fun at lower speeds and I find it fascinating that the engineers of a sports car applied this principle. It's kind of unheard of nowadays.

I don't want to have to pull 1.5 G's at 100mph in order put a smile on my face, even though doing so is fun too.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Not necessarily arbitrary. You make a good point about comparing dollar for dollar. Especially since the Tire on the Civic is almost $100/tire more expensive than the Primacy HP tire on the BRZ. The reason why I think tires are not arbitrary is that they are the most effective and cost effective way to reduce lap times next to removing weight.

The tire is the only thing between the car on the asphalt. The variable introduced by a differentiation in tires is so massive it trumps other more minor variances. Even if you took 2 identical cars but with different tires what do you get? Well, it's no longer a car test, it's a tire test. So with these cars, if you put on equivalent tires then it becomes, once again, a car test. When the things touching the ground are essentially equivalent then it becomes a test of 2 different "complete" platforms. The difference in power/weight/diff/drivetrain layout may be different but the result is the "sum of the parts". It's very difficult to test the "sum of the parts" when tires can easily and drastically alter or mask the massive parts of the equation.

Now, if this was a comparison of the car driving around city streets and mpg and driver comfort and blah blah blah then tires aren't really a factor but this isn't that type of test really. This is a lap time test.

you could replace the word "tire" with "power" or "suspension" or "weight" and that is why i think its arbitrary. the tire is just as much a part of the package as something like sway bars or an exhaust. those things can make or brake a car as well. drive an nc with rx8 sways and it transforms the car but nobody brings that up. thats a much cheaper fix than new tires but for some reason that isnt valid?

[MVJ1975]

I agree, the test is valid. Where I think they go wrong is in the use of the Si HFP. They should have either compared the stock Si vs the stock BRZ, or taken the cost difference of the HFP and also applied it to the BRZ in the form of tire and wheel upgrades.

However, if they had done so, I suspect the Si wouldn't have looked quite so good.

[Chauntalei]

Originally Posted by fatoni

okay. you said they make no conclusions but they said that on the same tires the brz would be at least 2 sec faster. that sounded like a conclusion to me

I didn't see anything like that at all. I saw them compare the HFP to the stock Si, where the author said that he felt the HFP would be 2 seconds faster than the stock Si because of the upgraded tires/suspension. Not that the BRZ would be faster with new tires.

Originally Posted by article

I turned a 1-minute 28.5-second lap in the standard Civic Si coupe last summer, and given the stickier rubber and firmer suspension setup on the HFP version, I felt it would go at least 2-seconds a lap quicker and likely beat the BRZ in the process.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Chauntalei

I didn't see anything like that at all. I saw them compare the HFP to the stock Si, where the author said that he felt the HFP would be 2 seconds faster than the stock Si because of the upgraded tires/suspension. Not that the BRZ would be faster with new tires.

you should watch the video then