Honda Civic Si

[1sttruck]

Execution results in textbook differing from real world as maximum mileage gets traded off for things like increased weight for safety, power curves and gearing for acceleration, tires for traction, etc.

One of better mileage numbers I've run across was from a lady filling up her diesel Passat, where she said that she ranges from 48 to 52 mpg. This is a car with an impressive cruising range and the ability to handle some load, hills, and such. Friends with Subarus have commented that they paid almost as much as I did for 3/4 ton 4x4 diesel pickup, and don't get much better mileage on the highway when they're travelling on vacation. Neighbors with Subarus seem to get at least 200k out of theirs.

I seem to get about the same in town mileage as Honda minivans and BMWs, my truck is probably 7000 lbs empty, is a 5.9L, so turbodiesels seem to be good candidates for discussion of fuel efficiency.

 

[Auto-Union]

My assertion is that the physics of (re) accelerating a LARGE car over and over in stop-n-go traffic will far outweigh any variances in engine efficientcy. Therefore, claiming the 'Vette offer some miracle of engineering in attaining decent hwy mileage is a bogus claim in terms of overall efficientcy.

XS, it would have been easier if I- misstated something, made an error of fact or just wrote something that made no sense, for you to be more specific in what your counter-claim was...rather than making a flip comment to ~generally~ contradict me. If I don't know what your objection is, I'm just going to re-stste my case more strongly, that gets the discussion nowhere. No hard feelings.

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winston:
So, this is a tiny car, and its highway mileage rating is only 32mpg?!?! The real world numbers from Car and Driver, etc is around 25mpg.

I don't care if it is fun to drive. Who wants to drive a cracker box that gets 25mpg!

I know Honda does not "do" turbo's, but it seems that a turbo is the best way to make a small performance engine. Look at the MPG numbers for the Audi's/VW 2.0T engines. Or how about the Mercedes supercharged 4cyl mileage numbers. Or Saab's turbo 9-3's.

Hmm..

---

I agree with you.. this is the case with most any econoboxes... see my post about the mazda 3.

My saab 9-3 0nly has 175 hp, but it has 195 lb-ft of tabletop-like torque from just off of fast idle through most of the way up. It has a low inertia turbo and thus no lag.

Sure the si will outperform my car in a number of metrics... and is a tad bit less than what my car cost me new... but will it fit the same amount of stuff inside and still be 35-40 MPG regularly on the highway, and 32-34 in mixed driving with lots of traffic? Id venture to guess not.

Its tough to compare this kind of car though... its designed for a different audience. The intelligence of building/buying it is arguable, but to each their own...

JMH

 

[goodvibes]

I don't have one now but I like refined high reving motors that you need to row to keep on song, especially in a light car with good dynamics. Ultimate grip is less important. It doesn't make things more fun as the limits can become to high to find. It comes down to what brings you some pleasure in driving. If that's mileage than don't buy one of these. Discussing mileage in these sorts of vehicles is fruitless.

 

[JHZR2]

discussing 'performance' in an economy car is also fruitless, unless its a few levels up, like an STi or lancer evolution.

JMH

 

[Auto-Union]

What I think is the RSX offers is a good balance. Like I've said before, people get too focused on one aspect of a car. No one vehicle can do it all.
Some aspects are somewhat exclusive of each other.
Sporty/Reliability
Efficient/Powerfull
Safety/Price

Another note on the RSX, it was chosen many, many times as the best Sport Compact by car publications. If I was racing in a bracket of $20k cars where mpg per tank was a factor....it would be a good choice. The Si at 7 sec 0-60 is not too bad.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/9845/cheap-speed-round-23-page6.html

 

[BrianWC]

Just one more rambling observation to throw in the mix...

I have a CR-V and a Saab 9-5. It's amazing the difference a turbocharger makes. I hate the constant kick down high revving nature of the V. It's embarassing to drive anywhere quickly. My 9-5 is practically as heavy, with 20 more hp but tons more torque, and with my mostly highway commuting I average about 30-32 with my saab and only around 24-25 in the V. Granted the aerodynamically challenged V is no Si but I was severely let down by the fuel economy (I never have seen the advertised 27 mpg hwy), not to mention the small gas tank.

Turbochargers aren't without their downsides though, with higher heat and back pressure plus their effects on oil in all but the best applications such as the new 9-3.

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Auto-Union:
What I think is the RSX offers is a good balance. Like I've said before, people get too focused on one aspect of a car. No one vehicle can do it all.
Some aspects are somewhat exclusive of each other.
Sporty/Reliability
Efficient/Powerfull
Safety/Price

Another note on the RSX, it was chosen many, many times as the best Sport Compact by car publications. If I was racing in a bracket of $20k cars where mpg per tank was a factor....it would be a good choice. The Si at 7 sec 0-60 is not too bad.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/9845/cheap-speed-round-23-page6.html

---

If the RSX provides as good an experience as my fiancee's 94 integra, then it surely will be a great car!


JMH

 

[goodvibes]

Gee, first place without being the fastest in a straight line. How did that happen. WRXs are just as much souped up economy cars as a SI and on a dated chassis at that. Feel and fun is more important on the road than shear #s. Don't get me wrong, I'd think long and hard if I was to choose between them. I just don't get the stated criterion. The SI pulls a 6.8 sec 60mph and feels faster than that. http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/sedans/0512_compact_sport_cars/

 

[Winston]

quote:

---

Are turbocharged engines usually MORE efficient

---

There are many design factors included in engine design. However, turbos, by themselves add efficiency to a given engine. Intercoolers add additional efficiency. Turbos utilize the energy from the waste heat of the engine to compress the air for the intake.

quote:

---

My assertion is that the physics of (re) accelerating a LARGE car over and over in stop-n-go traffic will far outweigh any variances in engine efficientcy. Therefore, claiming the 'Vette offer some miracle of engineering in attaining decent hwy mileage is a bogus claim in terms of overall efficientcy.

---

I do not think that Vettes do that well in stop-and-go traffic. They do well on the highway partially due to their aerodynamic efficiency and their small frontal cross section. Remember, it is not just Cd that affects the cars drag, it is the Cd x Frontal cross sectional area.

 

[Auto-Union]

J, believe me, Saab 93 was on my list.

 

[JHZR2]

lol, the RSX was on mine!

The dealer claimed that "Acuras are priced fairly at MSRP, so we dont discount them"

So I laughed and left.

It was one of the few decent 34 MPG cars that could be decked out as I liked. Granted, I do fit betterin a 4dr sedan!

JMH

 

[BrianWC]

I had the same experience with the Subie dealer. That's why we have a CR-V and not a Forester. Glad I didn't since now that I work for the forest service, that would have been over the top.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHZR2:
lol, the RSX was on mine!

The dealer claimed that "Acuras are priced fairly at MSRP, so we dont discount them"

So I laughed and left.

It was one of the few decent 34 MPG cars that could be decked out as I liked. Granted, I do fit betterin a 4dr sedan!

JMH

---

 

[dailydriver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Auto-Union:
Another note on the RSX, it was chosen many, many times as the best Sport Compact by car publications. If I was racing in a bracket of $20k cars where mpg per tank was a factor....it would be a good choice. The Si at 7 sec 0-60 is not too bad.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/9845/cheap-speed-round-23-page6.html

---

Wow, then my car, at < $20K new and tire mods, while getting 20mpg city even driven fairly hard and 32 mpg hwy. at > 70 mph is a real bargain, huh?? BTW, it's been just as "reliable" as ANY Honduh or TOYota for the last 95K miles of daily beatings in ALL weather conditions/seasons.
Also, just how heavy do you think C5/C6 Vettes are?? Hint; NOT much more than your "sport compact". Yes, you are right with a massive engine motivating a massive car, but the Vette is a massive engine motivating a svelte car, hence, GREAT performance with very good mileage. The f bodies are not much behind, and, as mentioned can also carry four people, just like your "sport" compact.

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dailydriver:
Wow, then my car, at < $20K new and strong>

---

I must have missed something... what car do you have? How did you get a car with those specs less than $20k new?

Thanks,

JMH

 

[goodvibes]

He's got something with a LS1. The last year you could buy a Z28(2002), it cost well over $25k(over $30K by now), weighed over 3500 lbs(lots more than the civic) and did 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. Real fast but these never got 30mpg in the real world. New Vettes can. <$20k and <5 sec. while not weighing much more than a SI are not correct statements for a stock F body.

 

[ajwan]

I have a RSX Type-S. From what I know, the 2006 Civic Si uses a very very slight variant on the Type-S engine. Both cars, respectively, pump out 197 and 200HP out of 2 Litres.

Aside from published milage, the milage I get largely depends on how I drive. Doing 70:30 city:highway, on tanks where I'm gunning it a lot, I will get 550 km out of a 50L tank (26 mpg). However, on tanks where I'm conservative, again doing 70:30 city:highway, I can get upwards of 660 km from 50L (31 mpg). Now here's the kicker. If I'm cruising on the freeway at 110 km/h (68 mph), with maybe a half-dozen shots at high rev to pass cars, I will get up to 775 km per 50 L (36.7 mpg). I've been able to make it from Ottawa to Toronto, Ontario (~450 km or 281 miles) on slightly more than half a tank of gas.

The beauty of it is that I'm getting excellent milage from a vehicle that, at the same time, will provide ample amounts of HP, if pushed.

My observations.

Regards,
Andrew

 

[rpn453]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHZR2:
discussing 'performance' in an economy car is also fruitless, unless its a few levels up, like an STi or lancer evolution.

JMH

---

Right. All cars should have either a 0-60 under 5 seconds and pull 1g on the skidpad, or a 0-60 above 15 seconds with a .5g skidpad and 50mpg.

 

[JHZR2]

right... more or less

The boy racer attitude is very fatiguing.

You know what they say... "____ or get off the pot" - nobody is interested in cars that will beat a camry or explorer from a stoplight. In fact, if the Si 0-60 is only 7.3 seconds, it probably wouldnt beat modern camrys or accords from stoplights - certainly not v6 models. Can the car actually provide performance or not? In this case, Id say not really.

IMO the car does nothing all that well - YMMV. Im free to have my opinion too.

JMH

 

[outersquare]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dailydriver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Auto-Union:
Another note on the RSX, it was chosen many, many times as the best Sport Compact by car publications. If I was racing in a bracket of $20k cars where mpg per tank was a factor....it would be a good choice. The Si at 7 sec 0-60 is not too bad.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/9845/cheap-speed-round-23-page6.html

---

Wow, then my car, at < $20K new and tire mods, while getting 20mpg city even driven fairly hard and 32 mpg hwy. at > 70 mph is a real bargain, huh?? BTW, it's been just as "reliable" as ANY Honduh or TOYota for the last 95K miles of daily beatings in ALL weather conditions/seasons.
Also, just how heavy do you think C5/C6 Vettes are?? Hint; NOT much more than your "sport compact". Yes, you are right with a massive engine motivating a massive car, but the Vette is a massive engine motivating a svelte car, hence, GREAT performance with very good mileage. The f bodies are not much behind, and, as mentioned can also carry four people, just like your "sport" compact.

---

5 years worth of inflation homie