Anyone see Grand Am Cup Racing yesterday where an Si, RSX and another car crashed hard and rolled 5 times? Everyone walked away. If they had been driving Saabs, they all would have been killed including 50% of the spectators.
Honda Civic Si
- Thread starter Winston
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
riiight
This whole Saab thing is silly on a Civic SI thread. There is only one Saab that is in the same class as a Honda Civic SI and sort of, the Saab 9-2x Aero.
And this has none of the factors discussed about Saab including resale and mechanical issues as its really a rebadged Subaru. Its gone from the Saab lineup after it gets an incredible motor (2.5L turbo) mainly due to GM divorce from Subaru.
And this has none of the factors discussed about Saab including resale and mechanical issues as its really a rebadged Subaru. Its gone from the Saab lineup after it gets an incredible motor (2.5L turbo) mainly due to GM divorce from Subaru.
lol, what does that mean? @205k less? Sorry, I'm new here, I'll need a little help with the lingo. Please clarify.
I can only speak for the Canadian market, and I can assure you that a Saab Convertible holds it's value poorly. Typically losing $20-30k in the first 4 years. That's acceptable to you? Ok, your money I suppose. Small example, new 9-3 convertible in Canada is $54k + 15% tax + Freight and PDI = approximately $63K. Used saab convertible:
http://www.canadatrader.com/result/result.aspx?searchtype=adv&kw=&dp=&age=&kfr=1&kto=2000000&category=4000&mk=SAAB&md=9-3%20CONV.&yfr=1900&yto=2007&pfr=0&pto=9999999&postal=&distan ce=&city=&pro=®ion=&type=province&dm=1&mph=false
Honda Civics, or CRV, or Accord, or Acura, Toyota, Lexus.. take your pick, will typically depreciate up to 30% max in their first 4 years. Not the 50+% you see with other manufacturers. I know they are not the same class of car, but my point remains. I'm not evaluating how nice a car is to drive, or how luxurious it is. I'm evaluating it's total cost of ownership, and reliability, when buying new. Hondas, Toyotas, Lexus and Acura have consistently rated much higher then almost *any* European car like BMW, MB, Saab, VW, Audi, etc. To say different is avoiding the facts. I don't have a subscription to ConsumerReports, but a quick google shows summary results from their 2004 survey:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/08/pf/autos/cr_auto_reliability/
hmm.. is that a 9-3 I see in the 'lease reliable' category? Lol.. I guess ConsumerReports is as crazy as I am.
Glad to hear it. I'm sure there are dozens of success stories and I don't doubt it's a beautiful drivers car. My friends 9-3 convertible was a real dream to drive, absolutely beautiful car. I don't doubt that.
I guess it's one of those, "they don't make them like they used to" statements. Sure, I agree with that. My Dads 68 Nova would be running to this day if he tinkered with it for 40 years and kept the rust away. Those old american V8s will last forever. I still don't want one and I have no illusions that a Honda would last that long. Now let's fast forward to modern MBs, they consistently rate poorly for initial reliability. I personally wouldn't purchase any German car, as they have proven to be below average reliability for several years now. Not to mention the extremely high cost for regular maintenace, unless of course you DIY.
My father also owned a VW Rabbit diesel (which was passed down to me as my first car) that got over 350K km... wow 350km, that's awesome!! Does that qualify it for 'great car' status? No way, it was still a poorly built car in terms of all the little things that went wrong with it. Some VW drivers just accept those problems as 'normal'. lol.. even the VW dealers would use that line with my a friends Cabrio every month when she visited for another warranty issue.
One indestructible engine from Mercedes proves what exactly? I've seen old MB diesels driving around Montreal. You can usually spot them by following the trail of blue/black smoke. They shouldn't even be allowed on the road in my opinion. I have to close my windows and put the vents on recycle to avoid their exhaust. One of those cars probably outputs the same emissions as 200 Hondas.. lol.
And no where did I say that Toyota didn't have their sludge issues in certain engines also, as I'm sure many other companies do as well. But I wouldn't deny that these are defective engines just because I like Toyotas.
I saw the same race. Did you stick around for the commentary on those same hondas after they were disected? To their amazement they all had sludge problems, and some even blew up before the crash. I bet if Honda used saab engines the problem would varnish... err... I mean vanish
Sarcasm is good for the soul, keep it coming
webfors, I help moderate one of the largest (if not the largest) saab forum on the net. I see plenty of people with plenty of problems but I see plenty of people unnecessarily obsessing about their maintenance-just like they do on here about oil. As I said in my earlier post, the 99-03 engines have issues IF not cared for properly. Saab now has an 8 year unlimited mileage warranty on those engines if you can show an oil change history. If you or anyone'd like more info on saab engines, please don't hesitate to ask.
As I said, I buy them used so PLEASE go for that yota or Civic.
As I said, I buy them used so PLEASE go for that yota or Civic.
Thanks Brian, much appreciated. I'm going to get my friend in touch with Saab Canada again, whom I called today after reading those links regarding Saab acknowledging the issue.
When he called them a couple years back, they gave 0 help and left him hanging with a dead engine.
After speaking with Saab today, it appears their tune has changed, so I'll definitely pass the info on to him in the hopes that he'll get reimbursed.
And yes, I will still be buying a brand spanking new Si next year, with a full 100k km warranty, for a little more then the price of one used saab
When he called them a couple years back, they gave 0 help and left him hanging with a dead engine.
After speaking with Saab today, it appears their tune has changed, so I'll definitely pass the info on to him in the hopes that he'll get reimbursed.
And yes, I will still be buying a brand spanking new Si next year, with a full 100k km warranty, for a little more then the price of one used saab
JHZR2
Staff member
Sorry, i type too fast and inaccurately for a laptop keyboard... @$2-5k less is what I meant, i.e. low mile, late model Hondas and Toyotas are LOUSY deals compared to buying a new one.
webfors, I can see that you are reasonable, you have your experiences and know what you know, and just like to type a lot to get your point across - I can appreciate that, Im much the same
So, back to the Si discussion... what could match an Si???
a) a scion tc and $5k in pocket
b) a scion tc and $5k in upgrades to the suspension and powertrain
c) a mazdaspeed 3 and a few bucks left in the pocket
d) base model wrx (i.e. lower powered turbo model)
e) last of the line RSX type S
f) RSX with $4k in upgrades to the suspensionand powertrain
g) used M-roadster
h) used E36 M3
c is arguable - though it will be an awesome car, Im not sure that the total package will be that of the honda, tough for an ordinary car id take a 3 over a civic
d is also arguable - personally, I prefer the no nonsense interior of a wrx, and would feel more secure with the drivetrain of the wrx in such a small, power-dense car.
Hands down Id take a tC over an Si, even in base trim... Id definitely takea toyota 2.4L 4-cyl over some very power dense honda 4-cyl for driving enjoyment and longevity...
JMH
Lol, try a 94-98 Saab 900 turbo which you can pick up for anywhere from $3-7k depending on condition. Bone stock 0-60 in 6.8 sec, 185 hp, 15.5 sec 1/4 mile.....
The stock ecu and internals can handle at least 300 hp with a few grand in mods.
Wait a second, I think I'll buy another one!
Regarding the tC and Si, I think in stock form I'd definately take the Si. However, throw that supercharger on the tC and I'd be swayed.
The stock ecu and internals can handle at least 300 hp with a few grand in mods.
Wait a second, I think I'll buy another one!
Regarding the tC and Si, I think in stock form I'd definately take the Si. However, throw that supercharger on the tC and I'd be swayed.
JHZR2
Staff member
keep in mind the starting prices..
$ tC != $ Si.. when $tC=$Si the tC is a better car, IMO.
Good point on the saab 900... nice cars, dont know why I didnt think of them before. I wouldnt mind owning one, but I LOVE my 04 9-3SS! Im sure everyone will say that it wont handle like the Si can...
JMH
The tC is a sporty coupe. The Honda Civic SI is a sports coupe and a handler.
The torquey motor in the Toyota sounds nice though for a day to day drive. I long for an upgrade of my current 2004 WRX to a 2006. The increased torque and lowerer boost(lower rev req'd) turbo is great in the larger motor.
The torquey motor in the Toyota sounds nice though for a day to day drive. I long for an upgrade of my current 2004 WRX to a 2006. The increased torque and lowerer boost(lower rev req'd) turbo is great in the larger motor.
JHZR2
Staff member
The honda civic Si is a "sporty coupe" the same as the tC... this has been my claim since early on in this thread.
There is nothing "sports coupe" about a car that does 0-60 in 6.8 seconds.
I would venture to guess that any vanilla camry or accord v6 will out-accelerate it, and a plain jane mazda 3 sedan will handle as well as it.
So where is the sports benefit of this car???
How much worse does the tC handle than the Si??? I doubt the difference is large... heck, how much worse does your wrx handle than the Si, especially when youre realy trying to put the power down in the twisties? Id ventre to guess that it is not much worse either.
Nope, I cannot see the value in paying a premium for this vehicle simply because it is "performance oriented". Its engine might produce 200 hp, but frankly, for $22k at the dealer, this level of power, and even this power density from an engine is very ho-hum.
Giveme a honda fit and Ill have 98% of the fun of an Si for a lot less money and getting a lot better economy. If I want something that actually has some performance, there are so many better places to look.
JMH
There is nothing "sports coupe" about a car that does 0-60 in 6.8 seconds.
I would venture to guess that any vanilla camry or accord v6 will out-accelerate it, and a plain jane mazda 3 sedan will handle as well as it.
So where is the sports benefit of this car???
How much worse does the tC handle than the Si??? I doubt the difference is large... heck, how much worse does your wrx handle than the Si, especially when youre realy trying to put the power down in the twisties? Id ventre to guess that it is not much worse either.
Nope, I cannot see the value in paying a premium for this vehicle simply because it is "performance oriented". Its engine might produce 200 hp, but frankly, for $22k at the dealer, this level of power, and even this power density from an engine is very ho-hum.
Giveme a honda fit and Ill have 98% of the fun of an Si for a lot less money and getting a lot better economy. If I want something that actually has some performance, there are so many better places to look.
JMH
I looked at a tC, but did not like the large center console taking up the d/s right kneeroom. It's a pet issue of mine. My RSX has an open transition from dash to center console, so it is very comfortable to sit back and spread your legs. I sat in a new Rabitt and it was horrible. No more side-to-side leg room than the width of the steering wheel and you actually had to point your right leg outward from the hip to reach the gas pedal, ugh. Under the steering coluum was extra-stupid big, so you could not just plant your foot on the floor and rotate your leg out to exit...without clobbering your knee on the underside of the steering coluum. The most uncomfortable car ever. I sold my 2002 Audi for these type of reasons, something very stupid is going on with their interior designs. So, I'm saying there is more to a car than mpg. power, handling, reliability etc...COMFORT in a small car is very important and imo, overlooked.
BTW- the Civic has the e-brake right where your right knee would rest. Again, uncomfortable hard lever, but at least open nd you could cover the lever with some foam, like pipe insulation. Still, it was the deciding factor for me.
It's amazing how many people decide what car they're going to buy before they even test drive it and a few others. We get a lot of winter here, so the Subaru Impreza was high on the list of cars I was thinking of getting until I test drove it. It had no useful armrests, and good armrests for both arms are a must for me. Of the cars I was shopping, I felt most comfortable driving the Mazda3, and that also happens to be what I bought. Probably not a coincidence!
Agreed, comfort is #1, reliability and cost are #2 and #3.
I was quite disappointed when my new crv didn't come with armrests... armrests only come on the automatic, not the 5 speed. I guess they're worried us 5 spd drivers might bump our arms up against them.. lol.. couldn't we just flip them up when we don't want to use them? Wasn't happy about that, but that was my only gripe with the new v.
Mazda 3 is a great car, but I'm a litle worried about buying a new engine design. Isn't the 2.3 a completely new engine for mazda? Or does it have more history then I'm aware of? I have 3 friends who have them, and all 3 just love that car.
Scion isn't an option for us Canadians unfortunately. And mod'ing a new car isn't either, unless you don't mind voiding the warranty. Mazdaspeed models are traditionally quite expensive, new that is. I'm hesitant to buy any turbo engine used, since you don't know the history/abuse it's been thru, but I suppose that goes for any used car. Anyone have tips for buying used to cover those concerns? I haven't bought a used car in ages because of that phobia
I was quite disappointed when my new crv didn't come with armrests... armrests only come on the automatic, not the 5 speed. I guess they're worried us 5 spd drivers might bump our arms up against them.. lol.. couldn't we just flip them up when we don't want to use them? Wasn't happy about that, but that was my only gripe with the new v.
Mazda 3 is a great car, but I'm a litle worried about buying a new engine design. Isn't the 2.3 a completely new engine for mazda? Or does it have more history then I'm aware of? I have 3 friends who have them, and all 3 just love that car.
Scion isn't an option for us Canadians unfortunately. And mod'ing a new car isn't either, unless you don't mind voiding the warranty. Mazdaspeed models are traditionally quite expensive, new that is. I'm hesitant to buy any turbo engine used, since you don't know the history/abuse it's been thru, but I suppose that goes for any used car. Anyone have tips for buying used to cover those concerns? I haven't bought a used car in ages because of that phobia
Wow, can't believe people still using 0-60 figures to tag a car as a Sports oriented or not.
Guess my Miata is not a Sports Car since it takes 8 seconds to do 0-60...
I've driven the tC and Mazda3.
The tC did not make me change my mind about FWD.
The Mazda3-s comes very close, but still not quite there.
The Civic Si simply blew me away and made me rethink the whole FWD vs RWD argument. I still wish it were RWD, but the compromise is almost gone.
I've not driven a Honda Fit, but 9 second 0-60 simply does not do it for me, and I feel that adding the power to put it into 7 second territory would upset the balance too much.
I do wish it had more torque, but the relatively flat torque curve is amazing for such a high power density engine and results in quite a rush as the RPMs move north of 6k. It is entirely comfortable to drive it sedately, and when you want to heat things up, you drop down a gear or two and let the engine sing.
Keep in mind that my current cars are a 2000 Miata and '96 Impala SS, so I am very much a fan of RWD and handling.
Drive it before you naysay...
Guess my Miata is not a Sports Car since it takes 8 seconds to do 0-60...
I've driven the tC and Mazda3.
The tC did not make me change my mind about FWD.
The Mazda3-s comes very close, but still not quite there.
The Civic Si simply blew me away and made me rethink the whole FWD vs RWD argument. I still wish it were RWD, but the compromise is almost gone.
I've not driven a Honda Fit, but 9 second 0-60 simply does not do it for me, and I feel that adding the power to put it into 7 second territory would upset the balance too much.
I do wish it had more torque, but the relatively flat torque curve is amazing for such a high power density engine and results in quite a rush as the RPMs move north of 6k. It is entirely comfortable to drive it sedately, and when you want to heat things up, you drop down a gear or two and let the engine sing.
Keep in mind that my current cars are a 2000 Miata and '96 Impala SS, so I am very much a fan of RWD and handling.
Drive it before you naysay...
mmmmm... miata. Always wanted one, but no way my wife would let me buy a 2 seater convertible lol. Drove a friends about 7 years ago, what a blast. Handled like a rocket, reminded me of the handling in another friends TR7 when we were young punks, but waay smoother and much more poised.
I agree, I've been shooting off about the new Si, and haven't even driven it yet. I'm going to test drive it this weekend. With 70 extra ponies in the new Si, I can just imagine what it will do to me
However, I did own a 2004 Si, which was just an awesome car. It put a smile on my face every morning, and got 48mpg - that's the canadian gallon btw. Not sure how that converts, but it was great mileage.
I agree, I've been shooting off about the new Si, and haven't even driven it yet. I'm going to test drive it this weekend. With 70 extra ponies in the new Si, I can just imagine what it will do to me
However, I did own a 2004 Si, which was just an awesome car. It put a smile on my face every morning, and got 48mpg - that's the canadian gallon btw. Not sure how that converts, but it was great mileage.
JHZR2
Staff member
Am I missing something here? You claim that 0-60 is nearly menaingless, then say the honda fit wont do it for you because of its 9 second 0-60???
Like youll notice 1 second difference in 0-60 on anything but a test track or street race.
OK, lets analyze here. The civic was built from the wheels up as an economy car. no way around it, economy car. The miata? It was built on a platform designed to be a sporty car. With the right money and tuning, anyone can make a fwd rice rocket, and as much as people bash them, some of them are technically well built and fast... the Si is just a rice rocket that you can get built from the factory... great? so what?
If you want a sports car, buy one. Though the miata is no M roadster, it is a top notch little sporty car. The civic is an economy car in 'performance oriented' makeup. Small and 4 cylinders doesnt equal sporty or not in and of itself... but the basis and build of the car does.
Heck, the impala SS is just a whale of a police car that was tuned up with essentially a corvette engine and a lot of suspension upgrades. I dont deny that it was a great car to drive, and is a wonderful overall package... and if I had to choose, Id take an impala over an Si anyday.
A 200hp 4cyl engine that cant go faster than 6.8 seconds 0-60 is nothing special. the overall package isnt really anything special to me either... frankly accelerating hard and going relatively fast is one thing... making onramps and merges fun is something that a decent torquey engine can do well. But, weaving in and out or taking curves at too high of rates of speed to make use of the hadling capabilities at the limit (which is in reality what these cars are tuned to do) is just plain unsafe anywhere but the track.
The civic si doesnt do it for me... but as in all of these things, YMMV.
JMH
- Status
