2006 Civic Si
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
quote:Spinning a smooth engine in the 7000 to 9000 rpm range actually becomes extremely enjoyable once you get used to it. I've come to appreciate it more than a torque monster that gets rough as the revs climb. Of course, if you can have both: even better! A buddy of mine was telling me that he was driving an RSX Type-S and it was slow. I told him that I thought it would go pretty good in the 6000 to 8000 rpm range. He said he was shifting at 6000 rpm.
Originally posted by FL-400S: 200hp and 117 torque probably![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif)
![[Duh!]](/forums/graemlins/pat.gif)
Here are some more/better pics..
http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=328122
quote:Could it be that those black headlights were just stuck on there instead of the real headlights to preserve design secrecy until they officially launch the new car?
Originally posted by FL-400S: Looks nice, except for those stupid blackout headlights.
I'm always amazed how manufacturers slowly ruin cars over time.
Car's made even heavier ...with more power (which the weight increase ruins) and inferior suspension (strut based instead of double wishbone) vs the older civics.
At least it looks nice.
In another 10 years we'll all have 400 bhp vehicles that weight 5000-6000 lbs. Go technology.
quote:If you do a little research, you will actually find that the RSX with the strut suspension handles better than the outgoing Integra with the wish bones.
Originally posted by crossbow: .......and inferior suspension (strut based instead of double wishbone) vs the older civics.....
The RSX has a double wishbone rear. (strut front)
And the Integra is a much better handling vehicle...which is why you always see it autocrossing, while the RSX's are no where to be seen.
Of course you never see that when you look at pieces of paper, cause those pieces of paper are comparing stock cars with stock tires vs other stock cars with stock tires. And marketing/pr would never allow a "new" replacement model to be inferior on pieces of paper vs the "old" outgoing model.
Simple tire swap and everything changes.
Visit http://www.sccaforums.com/index.php for more information. The old civic hatch and the old integra are some of the best handling cars on the market.
So I'd say to you...do a little research (brush the PR aside), and you'll find out the Integra is a better handling car then the RSX .
Car manufacturers love to fiddle with numbers to make the new vehicles seem better then the old...when in reality, its usually quite the opposite. This is heavily reinforced by bias review agencies, which are sponsored by the car manufacturers. Its old when you look outside of the mainstream reviewers...that you actually find people willing to point out how newer models are actually inferior to some of the older ones.
New cars have more power...but are much heavier then the old. Older cars have superior drivetrains (look at the old corolla, it was a FR RWD!!!!), while new ones have consumer driven ones (FWD, opendiffy). If you yank the new engines out of most of the current cars, and plop them in something like a 1983-85 corolla (also known as the infamous AE86), it'll blow the socks off pretty much everything on the street.
[ February 16, 2005, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: crossbow ]
.
Car manufacturers love to fiddle with numbers to make the new vehicles seem better then the old...when in reality, its usually quite the opposite. This is heavily reinforced by bias review agencies, which are sponsored by the car manufacturers. Its old when you look outside of the mainstream reviewers...that you actually find people willing to point out how newer models are actually inferior to some of the older ones.
New cars have more power...but are much heavier then the old. Older cars have superior drivetrains (look at the old corolla, it was a FR RWD!!!!), while new ones have consumer driven ones (FWD, opendiffy). If you yank the new engines out of most of the current cars, and plop them in something like a 1983-85 corolla (also known as the infamous AE86), it'll blow the socks off pretty much everything on the street.
[ February 16, 2005, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: crossbow ]That was all said to really say nothing. Some of the best handling passenger cars on the market (BMW) use those very same struts. It's not as inferior as we have been led to believe. The Integra was around for how many years? The RSX will be figured out just as it was.
Regardless, a strut based suspension is inferior in all aspects to a wishbone based one. A strut based suspension advantages lie in cost/size. Strut based suspensions cut down on cost, and allow for more engine bay room (which is why bmw uses them so they can fit those sweet inline-6's in there)
A wishbone based suspension may only gain half a degree of camber in its first inch of suspension travel, but it could gain almost a full degree in the following inch of travel! A McPherson strut suspension, used in everything from the front of a BMW M3 to the Mazda3, does not do this. A strut type suspension could gain the same half a degree in its first inch of compression, but would gain less than half a degree beyond that.
Quick diagram of wishbone vs strut based camber changes in a turn.
A good example of what happens when you throw up comparable spec'd cars when one has strut and the other has double wishbone's.... is all the recent cadillac reviews. They feature double wishbone front/rear...and are definitely sticking it to BMW performance wise.
The problem with double wishbones...is they cost alot, and take up a significant amount of engine bay room.
For further evidence of the superiority of double wishbones...check out the Pro World Challenge racing series. The BMW's aren't doing so hot vs the double wishbone cars...even when the cars with the double wishbones are FWD vs the superior FR RWD layout of the beamers.
[ February 16, 2005, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: crossbow ]
A good example of what happens when you throw up comparable spec'd cars when one has strut and the other has double wishbone's.... is all the recent cadillac reviews. They feature double wishbone front/rear...and are definitely sticking it to BMW performance wise.
The problem with double wishbones...is they cost alot, and take up a significant amount of engine bay room.
For further evidence of the superiority of double wishbones...check out the Pro World Challenge racing series. The BMW's aren't doing so hot vs the double wishbone cars...even when the cars with the double wishbones are FWD vs the superior FR RWD layout of the beamers.
[ February 16, 2005, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: crossbow ]crossbow, I couldn't agree with you more. I ranted and raved about the new Civic and how all vehicles built on that platform would be tainted by the reversion to "McCheapson struts." This includes the CRV as well as the RSX.
Strut set-ups are used in cars a lot these days because they are cheaper, lighter and make "packaging" the rest of the components in the vehicle easier, even "crumple zones."
I was set to buy an RSX or a Civic Si in 2002 or 2003 ... but in protest, I bought a Nissan Sentra SpecV instead (yes, I know it also has struts).
I had a (very long) thread on this you might have participated in back in late 2002, early 2003.
I assume this new Civic will have struts as well? ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif)
I hope they don't add weight to it too. ![[Frown]](images/icons/frown.gif)
I liked the handling of my 2,300 lb. '95 Civic Coupe. ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif)
Still, I like the New Civic Si a lot. I'm not intimidated at all about having a high-revving engine which makes its best power at the top of the rev-band. That's what 6-speeds are for.
People who can't handle this should stay out of sports cars. ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif)
--- Bror Jace
I hope they don't add weight to it too. I liked the handling of my 2,300 lb. '95 Civic Coupe.
Still, I like the New Civic Si a lot. I'm not intimidated at all about having a high-revving engine which makes its best power at the top of the rev-band. That's what 6-speeds are for.
People who can't handle this should stay out of sports cars.
--- Bror JaceBror,
Shame I wasn't into cars back then. Its amazing...you buy a family sedan that happens to handle just a tad bit more then most cars in the class...and the next thing you know your signed up for track days at vir. Go figure .
Then of course you learn that FWD opendiffy sucks...its a vicious circle! (now add an LSD..and the right weight distribution...and you can start smiling more )
What I find most interesting about the whole macstrut thing...is honda in the 90's heavily marketed the fact their cars had doublewishbones and everyone else had struts. Alot of the commericals pointed out this fact, and definitely hammered in the point of the superiority of such a system.
Now its left most of their lineup. I guess they had to drop prices to compete =/.
.
Then of course you learn that FWD opendiffy sucks...its a vicious circle! (now add an LSD..and the right weight distribution...and you can start smiling more )
What I find most interesting about the whole macstrut thing...is honda in the 90's heavily marketed the fact their cars had doublewishbones and everyone else had struts. Alot of the commericals pointed out this fact, and definitely hammered in the point of the superiority of such a system.
Now its left most of their lineup. I guess they had to drop prices to compete =/."What I find most interesting about the whole macstrut thing ... is Honda in the 90's heavily marketed the fact their cars had double-wishbones and everyone else had struts. A lot of the commericals pointed out this fact, and definitely hammered in the point of the superiority of such a system."
I said the exact same thing to a Honda salesman in 2003. The same guy who sold me my new '95 Civic.
As I expected, he had no answer for me. My anser to his non-answer was that I passed on the '03 Civic Si. ![[Razz]](images/icons/tongue.gif)
Isn't it merely the Civic platform which switched over to struts? Doesn't the Accord still have double wishbones?
--- Bror Jace
Isn't it merely the Civic platform which switched over to struts? Doesn't the Accord still have double wishbones?
--- Bror Jacequote:Aye...and thus so does the TSX. One of the reason's its popped up in the Scca pro world challenge series (along with the Mazda 6). I think technically the accord has double wishbone front AND rear. Combined with the engine in the EX coupe...and that 6spd MTX...pretty sweet car. Just wish it was a few hundred pounds lighter
Isn't it merely the Civic platform which switched over to struts? Doesn't the Accord still have double wishbones?
.Having come from a '94 Civic Si with double-wishbone suspension to an '02 RSX with struts, I'd have to say that my RSX handles better hands down. It has much less body roll, and the RSX just feels better in my hands in almost any situation. It also drifts very predictably for a FWD car--much better than the old Civic Si.
I totally agree with you, Crossbow, about weight though. The weight hurts handling, gas mileage, and tire life. There's no way around that.
I prefer the hatchback Civic Si to the sedan. Has Honda given up the hatchback Si for '06?
Is this the same engine now in the Accura TSX 2.4 (200HP)??
Well Jay,
You also have to take into effect age and components. If the RSX is using better shocks and stiffer springs, along with newer bushings, etc etc...of course its going to handle better.
Also remember tire and wheel selection has a HUGE amount to do with overall vehicle handling. Lower profile summer tires will grip substaintally better then high profile all-seasons and allow for much better lateral stability.
Give me a 94 civic si, and I'll make it turn circles around your rsx with less then 1k invested. I know...thats what my friend just did to me .
Stock vs stock, its very easy to make a newer model superior to an older one. Just fiddle with tire type/size, and damper/spring rate. Adjust camber, and toe can also greatly effect a vehicles handling in a new version vs an old. A great example of distancing brands is the new ford mustang. Why does the V8 version handle better then the v6? Ford wanted it to. Check the tire/wheel sizing differences and tire selection between the two vehicles.
This isn't to say a new RSX doesn't handle better then an old civic si. Of course it handles better. The conversation is that the potential of the civic to eclipse the rsx exists, as the doublewishbone suspension is technologically superior to macstruts.
I know...thats what my friend just did to me .
Stock vs stock, its very easy to make a newer model superior to an older one. Just fiddle with tire type/size, and damper/spring rate. Adjust camber, and toe can also greatly effect a vehicles handling in a new version vs an old. A great example of distancing brands is the new ford mustang. Why does the V8 version handle better then the v6? Ford wanted it to. Check the tire/wheel sizing differences and tire selection between the two vehicles.
This isn't to say a new RSX doesn't handle better then an old civic si. Of course it handles better. The conversation is that the potential of the civic to eclipse the rsx exists, as the doublewishbone suspension is technologically superior to macstruts.Subjective looks aside, I really like the way the new Civic SI is shaping up;
*factory* standard LSD on a $20K car?? No-cost option of summer hi-perf tires instead of A/S?? AutoXers are gonna love it. the early magazine reviews are really positive; R&T said they even prefer it to the Mini cooper S, from an enthusiast standpoint.
- Status
