Motor Trend 2006 Car of the Year

[siegen]

It is a much more significant entry than a new Civic.  It may not be a revolutionary car overall but it is a revolutionary car for the American auto industry and that is significant.

Like I tried to point out before, a new Civic is comparable to a new F150 or Corvette.  You know it's going to be best in-class because it's the respective manufacture's bread-and-butter, "halo" (in a sense) product.  I find there's nothing really significant about that and COTY is supposed to be awarded to significant cars.

[post="49112"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

If the new Civic didn't come out for 2006, the Fusion would have probably won, since it is very significant (apparently) in the same respect that the Accord is significant. But the Civic satisfies such a large array of consumers, where the Fusion only comes in a sedan version. I'm not saying they should offer a coupe or a high performance model, but if the Fusion offered a hybrid version, that put out some good marketting numbers, I bet it would have had a much better chance at winning.

I think most of the people here who doubt the Civic's significance when compared to its previous versions, don't know enough about Civics to realize how big of a step this is.

now i get it.....it won because it satsifues the ricers (si) and the greenies (hybrid)

Hybrids don't only appeal to greenies, they appeal to a lot of normal consumers who don't want to go to the gas station as much, and maybe save a few dimes in the process. Of course let's not argue about the economical aspecs of a hybrid, since that's already been covered a million times.

Sure it satisfies the ricers, but it also satisfies performance minded people like me. I hate how most of the people on this board use the term ricer so blatantly, it really annoys me. I hate ricers, as do you, but you have to admit, without them the car scene wouldn't have its comic relief.

repeat 140 lb. ft.!!!!!!

And 197hp at the brake hub, out of a 2.0L n/a engine.

The Civic Si does the 1/4 mile in 15 seconds, out slalom's the Viper and most other sports cars, comes with a host of features (premium sound, side air bags, etc), a limited slip diff, 4 seats, a big trunk, gets over 30mpg, and only costs 20k. Sounds pretty damn good to me.

[regfootball]

Hybrids don't only appeal to greenies, they appeal to a lot of normal consumers who don't want to go to the gas station as much, and maybe save a few dimes in the process. Of course let's not argue about the economical aspecs of a hybrid, since that's already been covered a million times.

Sure it satisfies the ricers, but it also satisfies performance minded people like me. I hate how most of the people on this board use the term ricer so blatantly, it really annoys me. I hate ricers, as do you, but you have to admit, without them the car scene wouldn't have its comic relief.
And 197hp at the brake hub, out of a 2.0L n/a engine.

The Civic Si does the 1/4 mile in 15 seconds, out slalom's the Viper and most other sports cars, comes with a host of features (premium sound, side air bags, etc), a limited slip diff, 4 seats, a big trunk, gets over 30mpg, and only costs 20k. Sounds pretty damn good to me.

[post="49675"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

"Hybrids don't only appeal to greenies, they appeal to a lot of normal consumers who don't want to go to the gas station as much, and maybe save a few dimes in the process."

save a few dimes on GAS. but spend another 150 bucks a month more on car payments? that makes wonderful sense.

"Of course let's not argue about the economical aspecs of a hybrid, since that's already been covered a million times"

you can't brush that aside, that's the CORE OF THE ARGUMENT. the current cost/benefit of a hybrid is NEGATIVE.

"And 197hp at the brake hub, out of a 2.0L n/a engine."

without any torque, don't forget to mention that. Edited November 28, 2005 by regfootball

[Flybrian]

"Hybrids don't only appeal to greenies, they appeal to a lot of normal consumers who don't want to go to the gas station as much, and maybe save a few dimes in the process."

save a few dimes on GAS.  but spend another 150 bucks a month more on car payments?  that makes wonderful sense.

"And 197hp at the brake hub, out of a 2.0L n/a engine."

without any torque, don't forget to mention that.

[post="49758"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's a decision made by the purchaser. Trading in a freshly paid-off car for a hybrid is pretty foolish if your sole intention is to save some money on gas. Regardless of what the vehicle is, a more logical and fiscally responsible solution would be to drive less, drive more efficiently, or purchase a used compact in good condition that gets 30-40mpg for commuting.

Of course, hybrids have other benefits like lowered emissions and that 'feel-good' emotion I suppose. I personally feel good with more cash in my pocket, but hey, that's me.

[BlkHhr104]

Uhh the Z06 wasnt a contestant?

[siegen]

"Hybrids don't only appeal to greenies, they appeal to a lot of normal consumers who don't want to go to the gas station as much, and maybe save a few dimes in the process."

save a few dimes on GAS.  but spend another 150 bucks a month more on car payments?  that makes wonderful sense.

"Of course let's not argue about the economical aspecs of a hybrid, since that's already been covered a million times"

you can't brush that aside, that's the CORE OF THE ARGUMENT.  the current cost/benefit of a hybrid is NEGATIVE.

Also, a lot of people lease vehicles. So a hybrid actually is a good economical solution for them, as they will save money on gas, while not paying much, if any, more on their monthly lease payment.

Not that it matters. Just leave it to Toyota to make everyone sing praises about hybrids with their glorious marketting. Then Honda doesn't even have to try to market their hybrid, as people will come looking for them.

without any torque, don't forget to mention that.

The Si makes 147 peak TQ at the brake hub. That's more torque than most any other N/A 2.0L engine. Also, the Si makes within 10% of that TQ amount from 3000rpms all the way to redline.

It's kind of pointless to talk about peak numbers though, so thanks to the Temple of Vtec here's an actual dyno of the Civic Si, taken with a Dynopack that measures accurately from the brake hub (this does factor in losses for accessories like p/s, a/c, and the alternator). You can see the Si is actually under-rated.



You'll have to mentally smooth out the graph, as it's rather rough with no wheels to help smooth it out (like you would see on a Mustang Dyno or Dynojet). The red line is the one we're focusing on here (the light blue line is without the intake box cover on, which shows obvious room for improvement with a well designed intake system).

You can also see the two individual powerbands in the TQ graph, thanks to the variable valve lift mechanism (vtec). If the engine didn't have vtec, the TQ and HP would drop off at 6000rpms rather steeply (which would give it only a 140HP rating).

Back on topic though. I'm sure you know that horsepower = torque x rpms / 5252. From this equation, you can see that it's better to make TQ in the higher rpms than the lower RPM's, as more work (HP) will be accomplished. The Si engine is an outstanding n/a engine, since the power delivery is so linear (aside from the slightly rough vtec transition point) all the way to redline. How do you think it gets its 15sec 1/4 mile times while still weighing in at a hefty 2900 lbs+?

[regfootball]

Also, a lot of people lease vehicles. So a hybrid actually is a good economical solution for them, as they will save money on gas, while not paying much, if any, more on their monthly lease payment.

Not that it matters. Just leave it to Toyota to make everyone sing praises about hybrids with their glorious marketting. Then Honda doesn't even have to try to market their hybrid, as people will come looking for them.
The Si makes 147 peak TQ at the brake hub. That's more torque than most any other N/A 2.0L engine. Also, the Si makes within 10% of that TQ amount from 3000rpms all the way to redline.

It's kind of pointless to talk about peak numbers though, so thanks to the Temple of Vtec here's an actual dyno of the Civic Si, taken with a Dynopack that measures accurately from the brake hub (this does factor in losses for accessories like p/s, a/c, and the alternator). You can see the Si is actually under-rated.



You'll have to mentally smooth out the graph, as it's rather rough with no wheels to help smooth it out (like you would see on a Mustang Dyno or Dynojet). The red line is the one we're focusing on here (the light blue line is without the intake box cover on, which shows obvious room for improvement with a well designed intake system).

You can also see the two individual powerbands in the TQ graph, thanks to the variable valve lift mechanism (vtec). If the engine didn't have vtec, the TQ and HP would drop off at 6000rpms rather steeply (which would give it only a 140HP rating).

Back on topic though. I'm sure you know that horsepower = torque x rpms / 5252. From this equation, you can see that it's better to make TQ in the higher rpms than the lower RPM's, as more work (HP) will be accomplished. The Si engine is an outstanding n/a engine, since the power delivery is so linear (aside from the slightly rough vtec transition point) all the way to redline. How do you think it gets its 15sec 1/4 mile times while still weighing in at a hefty 2900 lbs+?

[post="49823"][/post]

to me the VW and Saab turbos or subie turbo and the GM ecotec supercharged are a better solution if you are trying to pump hp out of only 2.0 litres. or, increase the displacement to 2.4 or 2.5 litres and get some grunt.

i mean, if i bought a civic and was only getting 19.7 mpg with it (Road and Track) i wouldn't be calling it any kind of economy car. in fact, not even cracking 20 mpg is quite piss poor for a car that's under 3000 pounds with a stick. even the ecoweenies would agree on that point.

but who knows, maybe that's all the cobalt gets too. thing is, the cobalt cracks 6 seconds from zero and its 5-60 time is not too much higher than that. the civic did 6.8 for R/T and honda's own clock says 7.3. my guess is the 5-60 time C/D will achieve is around 7.8 seconds.

that's not very quick.

and there's no fuel efficiency or space benefit. and, its not exactly a classy looking car. i.e. it only has appeal to gen Yers and punks without licenses. the dashboard itself is atrocious.

that don't spell COTY to me. more like FLAVOR OF THE MONTH. Edited November 29, 2005 by regfootball

[haypops]

The Si makes 147 peak TQ at the brake hub.

[post="49823"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

According to the Honda web site, that 147 figure is a very unimpressive 132.

[siegen]

to me the VW and Saab turbos or subie turbo and the GM ecotec supercharged are a better solution if you are trying to pump hp out of only 2.0 litres.  or, increase the displacement to 2.4 or 2.5 litres and get some grunt.

Forced Induction is definately an easy and inexpensive way to get more power out of a small engine, and with conservative tuning, a FI car can get OK mileage while out of boost. However, FI is not the most reliable way to increase power in a small engine. Increasing combustion chamber pressures is a good way to blow head gaskets. The possibility of detonation is many times more likely under boost, that means the air/fuel mixture will combust spontaneously before the spark plug starts the ignition sequence. The Turbo or Supercharger itself is another expensive part to fix if it breaks, and not to mention they need their own oil lines, brackets, and other goodies (more complicated engine compartment, more expensive repairs). There are a lot of other problems associated with Forced Induction. I know OEM turbocharged or supercharged engines won't have nearly as many problems as aftermarket turbos for n/a engines, since they generally run more conservative boost amounts and tuning, but the wear and tear will be greater on a FI car, specially one's that often taken to the track (when compared to a n/a car) regardless.

i mean, if i bought a civic and was only getting 19.7 mpg with it (Road and Track) i wouldn't be calling it any kind of economy car.  in fact, not even cracking 20 mpg is quite piss poor for a car that's under 3000 pounds with a stick.  even the ecoweenies would agree on that point.

That 19.7 figure was most likely taken with several visits to the track to get their performance times, and a lot of time spent on back roads at WOT. I don't remember the mileage off hand (it's been posted on reviews before) because Honda doesn't have the new Si on their website yet, but I know it wasn't bad, and was better than the Cobalt SS.

[Newbiewar]

Let's see...

2006 Buick Lucerne
2006 Cadillac DTS
2006 Chevrolet HHR
2006 Chevrolet Impala
2006 Pontiac G6 Coupe
2006 PONTIAC SOLSTICE

What other cars are new from GM this year?

While the other three entries aren't anything spectacular, the success of the HHR and the Pontiac Solstice are nothing to scoff at.

Not to mention...

2006 BMW 3-Series
2006 Dodge Charger
2006 Ford Fusion
2006 Hyundai Sonata
2006 Infiniti M
2006 Lincoln Zephyr
2006 Mazda MX-5 (Miata?)
2006 Mercury Milan

Hell, I'd sooner give the award to...

2006 Lexus GS
2006 Lexus IS
2006 Toyota Avalon

And that's not even all of this year's new cars.

All of which I'd rather own than the Civic.

[post="46724"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

dont anyone forget the unforgetable Z06... thats a hell of a car...

[Sixty8panther]

Some past MTCOY award winners that deserved the honor. (unlike this POS Honda) 1949 Cadillac Motor Division 1952 Cadillac Motor Division 1957 Chrysler Corporation 1959 Pontiac Motor Division 1960 Chevrolet Corvair 1961 Pontiac Tempest 1962 Buick Special 1965 Pontiac Motor Division 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado 1967 Mercury Cougar 1968 Pontiac GTO 1972 Citroen SM 1973 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 1977 Chevrolet Caprice 1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 1984 Chevrolet Corvette 1988 Pontiac Grand Prix 1991 Chevrolet Caprice Classic LTZ 1992 Cadillac Seville Touring Sedan 1998 Chevrolet Corvette Some others that DIDN'T. 1958 Ford Thunderbird 1970 Ford Torino 1971 Chevrolet Vega 1974 Ford Mustang II 1975 Chevrolet Monza 2+2 1976 Chrysler, Dodge Aspen / Plymouth Volare 1981 Chrysler K Cars, Dodge Aries / Plymouth Reliant 1983 AMC / Renault Alliance 1999 Chrysler 300M

[siegen]

Some past MTCOY award winners that deserved the honor. (unlike this POS Honda)

Do you ever back up your arguments? :P

[Flybrian]

1999 Chrysler 300M

[post="49893"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Wha...? Name another good new car for 1999. 300Ms still look good today - they were the last of the correctly-named Letter cars and one the new 300 could learn from in terms of interior design.

[Hudson]

Some past MTCOY award winners that deserved the honor. (unlike this POS Honda)

I don't understand your choices of the 1988 Grand Prix and the 1992 Seville being GOOD choices and the K-Car and 300M being bad. I'd definitely swap those around.

And the Civic has been a good choice each and every time it's won the award...1980, 1984, 1988, and 2006

[regfootball]

Forced Induction is definately an easy and inexpensive way to get more power out of a small engine, and with conservative tuning, a FI car can get OK mileage while out of boost. However, FI is not the most reliable way to increase power in a small engine. Increasing combustion chamber pressures is a good way to blow head gaskets. The possibility of detonation is many times more likely under boost, that means the air/fuel mixture will combust spontaneously before the spark plug starts the ignition sequence. The Turbo or Supercharger itself is another expensive part to fix if it breaks, and not to mention they need their own oil lines, brackets, and other goodies (more complicated engine compartment, more expensive repairs). There are a lot of other problems associated with Forced Induction. I know OEM turbocharged or supercharged engines won't have nearly as many problems as aftermarket turbos for n/a engines, since they generally run more conservative boost amounts and tuning, but the wear and tear will be greater on a FI car, specially one's that often taken to the track (when compared to a n/a car) regardless.
That 19.7 figure was most likely taken with several visits to the track to get their performance times, and a lot of time spent on back roads at WOT. I don't remember the mileage off hand (it's been posted on reviews before) because Honda doesn't have the new Si on their website yet, but I know it wasn't bad, and was better than the Cobalt SS.

[post="49870"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

the evidence is not there to suggest the civic has any extraordinary aspect of performance, user accomodations, space, style, etc.....over its competition. again FOTM not COTY. Honda's been writing big checks.

[The O.C.]

the evidence is not there to suggest the civic has any extraordinary aspect of performance, user accomodations, space, style, etc.....over its competition.  again FOTM not COTY.  Honda's been writing big checks.

[post="50129"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You're fighting a losing battle.....

[Sixty8panther]

I don't understand your choices of the 1988 Grand Prix and the 1992 Seville being GOOD choices and the K-Car and 300M being bad. I'd definitely swap those around.

[post="50035"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

If I have to own a mid size FWD car from the late 80s the Grand Prix makes a great choice. A 5-speed was still available as were DOHC and Turbocharged engines. Next queston:

1992 Seville and the subsuqent Northstar was an AMAZING vehicle. A+++ all the way. Think about it: 99% of the time I hate FWD and yet I own a 1997 STS. Back in the late 90s my best friends mom had a 1992 SLS and we used to go joyriding in that car... years after it debued it still looked better INHO than most of the new luxury cars. (Lexus, Acura, Infiniti...)


K-car... you MUST be freekin Joking right??? If you think there is anything positive about a Chrysler K car then you are living in a fantasy world. Brand new they were still worthless. Yes it saved Chrylser in the 1980s when cars were a dirty word but they were still horrific cars. Ugly, slow & unergonomic with the durrability of a Wal*mart Throwaway camera.



Now onto the piece de resistance: The Chrysler 300M.

First off do you know why it was originally called a "300" series car?

Thought not. It was because the originals w/ fire breathing V8s (like the original HEMIs) had 300+ horsepower. Evry one from the original 300(a) to the 300L had a big genuine V8, RWD and a roomy cabin with luxurious styling.

So assuming that you don't find it's FWD layout completely unappealing given the car's heretige the 240 horsepower still makes the car one of the most undeservig car ever to wear a classic car nameplate.

240 Horsepower is pretty damn short of 300 horsepower. Not even close. Do not pass 'Go' do NOT colect $200. You're fired.

The car's short rear overhang and feminime fascia also did not appeal to me at all. If they had called it a Newport or Imperial I would still call it lame but at least it would not be insulting.

The new 300C does everything right that the old 300M got wrong. It eliminates the feminine & compact styling cues, brings togeather a modern HEMI wiht RWD and a IRS plus a rock soild chassis with a decent tranny unlike the POS FWD ones that seem to blow up atwo Transmissions every fiscal year.

And the Civic has been a good choice each and every time it's won the award...1980, 1984, 1988, and 2006

I'll agree with you about '84 and '88 even though I would still have never bought one except for maybe a CRX.

[Satty]

Some past MTCOY award winners that deserved the honor. (unlike this POS Honda)

1991 Chevrolet Caprice Classic LTZ

[post="49893"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'll respond to this when I quit laughing. The whale, the old man's car, the least sporty car of the 90's, probably shouldn't have been Car of the Year, unless there were no other domestic debuts that year. Wow. Worst COTY EVER! Like a Tilt-A-Whirl on wheels, getting thrown in every direction without a hint of body control. I would love to know what the Caprice was up against. Had to have been some super-crappy competition for a car thats only really good at getting grandma to church to win.

[Sixty8panther]

You're fighting a losing battle.....

[post="50172"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

please elaborate:

[siegen]

the GM ecotec supercharged are a better solution if you are trying to pump hp out of only 2.0 litres.

Comparing the Cobalt SS S/C to the Civic Si has already been done. The Cobalt is only marginally faster (14.8 vs 15.1 1/4), yet it weighs about the same (maybe less) and is supercharged up to 12 PSI with a lot more low end TQ. The Limited Slip diff is an option (which was equiped on these test runs done by R&T), and the 5sp gearbox comes out of a Saab. Comparably equiped the Cobalt S/C will probably cost about 2k more than the Si as well, although the exact pricing for the Si hasn't been released yet (and dealers will undoubtably inflate the price).

And for the 0-60 times, the Si requires a shift to 3rd gear (since it comes with a 6sp gearbox), which accounts for several tenths of a second. The 1/4 times give a better idea of the performance of the engine in a straight line.

I have to disagree. FI is not always a better solution for pumping power out of a 2.0L (it is the less expensive solution no doubt when compared to N/A). Honda proved this as it did with it's 1.8L and 1.6L engines.

the evidence is not there to suggest the civic has any extraordinary aspect of performance, user accomodations, space, style, etc. over its competition.

Go on...

[BrewSwillis]

Comparing the Cobalt SS S/C to the Civic Si has already been done. The Cobalt is only marginally faster (14.8 vs 15.1 1/4), yet it weighs about the same (maybe less) and is supercharged up to 12 PSI with a lot more low end TQ. The Limited Slip diff is an option (which was equiped on these test runs done by R&T), and the 5sp gearbox comes out of a Saab. Comparably equiped the Cobalt S/C will probably cost about 2k more than the Si as well, although the exact pricing for the Si hasn't been released yet (and dealers will undoubtably inflate the price).

And for the 0-60 times, the Si requires a shift to 3rd gear (since it comes with a 6sp gearbox), which accounts for several tenths of a second. The 1/4 times give a better idea of the performance of the engine in a straight line.

I have to disagree. FI is not always a better solution for pumping power out of a 2.0L (it is the less expensive solution no doubt when compared to N/A). Honda proved this as it did with it's 1.8L and 1.6L engines.
Go on...

[post="50217"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

So, after all that......you are saying the CiviD loses.....right?? :P

I doubt it will be cheaper too.

[Sixty8panther]

Sixty8: Some past MTCOY award winners that deserved the honor. (unlike this POS Honda)

1991 Chevrolet Caprice Classic LTZ

Satty:

I'll respond to this when I quit laughing. The whale, the old man's car, the least sporty car of the 90's, probably shouldn't have been Car of the Year, unless there were no other domestic debuts that year. Wow. Worst COTY EVER! Like a Tilt-A-Whirl on wheels, getting thrown in every direction without a hint of body control. I would love to know what the Caprice was up against. Had to have been some super-crappy competition for a car thats only really good at getting grandma to church to win.

Plenty of room in the backseat to get Sodomized though.



Thanks for you insight on how the Caprice did not stack up well in the skidpadd test & cornering department when comapared to a 5.0 Mustang. :rolleys:


I think the Honda Civic sucks becasue it is not avaiblable with a bench seat or air ride suspension. [/emulative sarcasm] Edited November 29, 2005 by Sixty8panther

[Drew Dowdell]

No, the Vega was the worst COTY. The B-body Caprice was a good car when not equiped with the 4.3 litre. The 300M was COTY and it was just a downsized LHS. 1995 was the Chrysler Cirrus 1983 was the AMC/Renault Alliance 1981 was the Dodge Aries/Plymouth Reliant 1980 was the Chevy Citation 1976 was the Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare' 1975 was the Chevy Monza Certianly you can find ONE of those on the list to pick as worst COTY ever over the Caprice. Oh yeah, and since sport is such a BIG consideration for COTY: 2004 Toyota Prius* *not saying it wasn't worthy of COTY, it is, but it isn't sporty as has been suggested the COTY should be.

[Satty]

I'm not saying that the COTY has to be sporty, it shouldn't be a land barge that flops around without a hint of body control. Composure is different from sportiness. Composure is not falling over into the passenger seat when making a soft turn at 20mph.

[Drew Dowdell]

The car's short rear overhang and feminime fascia also did not appeal to me at all. If they had called it a Newport or Imperial I would still call it lame but at least it would not be insulting.

[post="50208"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Actually that design was originally planned to be the next Eagle Vision till that division got axed.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm not saying that the COTY has to be sporty, it shouldn't be a land barge that flops around without a hint of body control.  Composure is different from sportiness.  Composure is not falling over into the passenger seat when making a soft turn at 20mph.

[post="50236"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Fine:
1990 Lincoln Town Car
1979 Buick Riviera S
1977 Chevrolet Caprice
1976 Chrysler, Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare
1970 Ford Torino


I'll venture to guess that the 1991 Caprice is still tighter then any of those listed above. Face it, the Caprice was a good car. It was reliable, durable <see the Jay Leno video>, relatively efficient with the 5.0, police and taxi cab drivers loved them.

Just because it doesn't handle the way you like doesn't mean it doesn't deserve COTY. The Civic handles NOTHING like I would like. Based on ride and handling the DTS or Lucerne would have been my pic.

[Drew Dowdell]

Plenty of room in the backseat to get Sodomized though.

[post="50227"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Lets give it a try 68. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Flybrian]

The new 300C does everything right that the old 300M got wrong. It eliminates the feminine & compact styling cues, brings togeather a modern HEMI wiht RWD and a IRS plus a rock soild chassis with a decent tranny unlike the POS FWD ones that seem to blow up atwo Transmissions every fiscal year.

[post="50208"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Blow up trannies? Since when are you a MOPAR mechanic? Fiscal year? What?

And of all people, you should despise two aspects of the new 300C...
1) The 'Hemi' is not really a Hemi
2) Chrysler abandoned twenty some years of heritage by giving it the 'C' designation. What alphabet are they working off of?

They styling of the 300 stinks anyway - built around a grille in the front, blocky on the sides, and bland in the back. The interior is bad, too. Charger is multitudes more unique.

[Drew Dowdell]

Blow up trannies? Since when are you a MOPAR mechanic? Fiscal year? What?

The LH cars are known for blowing trannys........ uhm... that didn't come out right. :unsure:

They styling of the 300 stinks anyway - built around a grille in the front, blocky on the sides, and bland in the back. The interior is bad, too. Charger is multitudes more unique.

Sing it sista!

[sciguy_0504]

I don't think I've laughed harder at a C&G thread...

[siegen]

So, after all that......you are saying the CiviD loses.....right?? :P

I doubt it will be cheaper too.

[post="50222"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm saying the Civic Si is on par with the Cobalt SS in terms of straight line acceleration, yet it weighs the same or a little more, has more features, is NOT supercharged, and has the same amount of displacement. I think the original question was about performance for the Si. I'm not going to say anything about mileage, but I can almost gaurantee the Si gets better mileage (I don't know if I've seen the EPA ratings or not, or if it's tested yet).

It is easy to overpower a car. Chevy could put in a 2.4 S/C engine into the Cobalt and really beat the competition in acceleration. But there are compromises, such as price, mileage, reliability, and weight (handling, braking, etc).

I priced up a Cobalt SS with the extra features, and its MSRP was about 24,500 plus destination. People are speculating for 21-22k for the Civic MSRP, and it comes with all of the features standard.

Edit: In defense of the Cobalt. It is a slightly roomier car, and with the low end TQ, it will be easier to drive for most people. And it is a nice alternative for a sport compact than either imports or a Ford Focus. I would definately drive it over a Ford Focus that's for sure. And I'm not even going to mention the Neon, because... well it's a Neon :huh: Edited November 30, 2005 by siegen

[Cory Wolfe]

I think most of the people here who doubt the Civic's significance when compared to its previous versions, don't know enough about Civics to realize how big of a step this is.

Sure it satisfies the ricers, but it also satisfies performance minded people like me. I hate how most of the people on this board use the term ricer so blatantly, it really annoys me. I hate ricers, as do you, but you have to admit, without them the car scene wouldn't have its comic relief.
And 197hp at the brake hub, out of a 2.0L n/a engine.

The Civic Si does the 1/4 mile in 15 seconds, out slalom's the Viper and most other sports cars, comes with a host of features (premium sound, side air bags, etc), a limited slip diff, 4 seats, a big trunk, gets over 30mpg, and only costs 20k. Sounds pretty damn good to me.

[post="49675"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I will say that I also hate blatant use of the term rice around here...

Anyways, I agree that it's pretty significant as it is definitely the best car in its class (regardless of styling; that's completely subjective as we all know) and that its a much better vehicle than the previous Civic. The more I think about it, the less I think it didn't deserve this award. I mean, it may have just been my bitterness about the Solstice not winning and that the new Civic's styling isn't exactly gorgeous (but not ugly either; just that the sedan is a little abnormal while only the Si looks good, IMO). Actually, if the mechanics stayed as they are, but the body and interior were redone or atleast revised... I would most likely agree with it winning. :P

Comparing the Cobalt SS S/C to the Civic Si has already been done. The Cobalt is only marginally faster (14.8 vs 15.1 1/4), yet it weighs about the same (maybe less) and is supercharged up to 12 PSI with a lot more low end TQ. The Limited Slip diff is an option (which was equiped on these test runs done by R&T), and the 5sp gearbox comes out of a Saab. Comparably equiped the Cobalt S/C will probably cost about 2k more than the Si as well, although the exact pricing for the Si hasn't been released yet (and dealers will undoubtably inflate the price).

And for the 0-60 times, the Si requires a shift to 3rd gear (since it comes with a 6sp gearbox), which accounts for several tenths of a second. The 1/4 times give a better idea of the performance of the engine in a straight line.

I have to disagree. FI is not always a better solution for pumping power out of a 2.0L (it is the less expensive solution no doubt when compared to N/A). Honda proved this as it did with it's 1.8L and 1.6L engines.
Go on...

[post="50217"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm saying the Civic Si is on par with the Cobalt SS in terms of straight line acceleration, yet it weighs the same or a little more, has more features, is NOT supercharged, and has the same amount of displacement. I think the original question was about performance for the Si. I'm not going to say anything about mileage, but I can almost gaurantee the Si gets better mileage (I don't know if I've seen the EPA ratings or not, or if it's tested yet).

It is easy to overpower a car. Chevy could put in a 2.4 S/C engine into the Cobalt and really beat the competition in acceleration. But there are compromises, such as price, mileage, reliability, and weight (handling, braking, etc).

I priced up a Cobalt SS with the extra features, and its MSRP was about 24,500 plus destination. People are speculating for 21-22k for the Civic MSRP, and it comes with all of the features standard.

[post="50217"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I, for one, can agree with you that the Civic Si is a better car than the Cobalt SS SC. It's more well-rounded than the Cobalt, performance wise. It may not look better, but it doesn't look outdated like the Cobalt. That and it's interior isn't plain. I will say the the only thing about the Civic's interior that bothers me anymore is the layout of the gauges...

They styling of the 300 stinks anyway - built around a grille in the front, blocky on the sides, and bland in the back. The interior is bad, too. Charger is multitudes more unique.

[post="50217"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Heh... I totally agree. :D I hate the 300's styling. Maybe even more than the Aztek's... :lol:

[Hudson]

If I have to own a mid size FWD car from the late 80s the Grand Prix makes a great choice. A 5-speed was still available as were DOHC and Turbocharged engines. Next queston:

1992 Seville and the subsuqent Northstar was an AMAZING vehicle. A+++ all the way. Think about it: 99% of the time I hate FWD and yet I own a 1997 STS. Back in the late 90s my best friends mom had a 1992 SLS and we used to go joyriding in that car... years after it debued it still looked better INHO than most of the new luxury cars. (Lexus, Acura, Infiniti...)
K-car... you MUST be freekin Joking right??? If you think there is anything positive about a Chrysler K car then you are living in a fantasy world. Brand new they were still worthless. Yes it saved Chrylser in the 1980s when cars were a dirty word but they were still horrific cars. Ugly, slow & unergonomic with the durrability of a Wal*mart Throwaway camera.
Now onto the piece de resistance: The Chrysler 300M.

First off do you know why it was originally called a "300" series car?

Thought not. It was because the originals w/ fire breathing V8s (like the original HEMIs) had 300+ horsepower. Evry one from the original 300(a) to the 300L had a big genuine V8, RWD and a roomy cabin with luxurious styling.

So assuming that you don't find it's FWD layout completely unappealing given the car's heretige the 240 horsepower still makes the car one of the most undeservig car ever to wear a classic car nameplate.

240 Horsepower is pretty damn short of 300 horsepower. Not even close. Do not pass 'Go' do NOT colect $200. You're fired.

The car's short rear overhang and feminime fascia also did not appeal to me at all. If they had called it a Newport or Imperial I would still call it lame but at least it would not be insulting.

The new 300C does everything right that the old 300M got wrong. It eliminates the feminine & compact styling cues, brings togeather a modern HEMI wiht RWD and a IRS plus a rock soild chassis with a decent tranny unlike the POS FWD ones that seem to blow up atwo Transmissions every fiscal year.
I'll agree with you about '84 and '88 even though I would still have never bought one except for maybe a CRX.

The 1988 Grand Prix was NOT offered with a DOHC engine nor was it offered with a turbo (came out in 1989, I believe) nor was it offered with a 5-speed (again, came later). The "winner" of the 1988 COTY award had a 2.8L OHV V6 and a 4-speed automatic transmission...and a recall of which I previously mentioned.

Similar arguments can be made AGAINST the Seville since it wasn't offered with the Northstar V8 in 1992.

I'm not joking about the K-Car. I owned one for 95,000 miles and had very few problems. Granted, I've had good luck with "bad" cars, but my Aries impressed even hardened muscle car guys (one particular GTO restorer thought my Aries had surprising balls).

And yes, I do know what "300" meant in the original Chrysler series (I'm an automotive historian...don't underestimate me). I have more of a problem with calling it "M" than "300" (there were many "lesser" 300s offered over the years. The 300M was, at the time, the best sport luxury sedan offered by an American brand in 1999...just like the C-300 was in 1955.

The styling of the 300M was masculine, actually (and designed to be exported to compete against the Europeans). The power was substantial for 1999 (listed as 253hp in 1999).

Try again.

[Flybrian]

I'm not joking about the K-Car. I owned one for 95,000 miles and had very few problems. Granted, I've had good luck with "bad" cars, but my Aries impressed even hardened muscle car guys (one particular GTO restorer thought my Aries had surprising balls).

[post="50417"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Its a fact that the poor opinion of K-cars is a blend of general dislike for 1980s Detroit compacts and the woeful condition most are found in today, the later of which is not the fault of the car at all.

A co-worker of mine has one, a ca-ca brown '81 Aries Hemi (that's right - look it up) sedan that's ugly, boxy, but surprisingly not uncomfortable, a little punchy, and proving more reliabile than his '93 Explorer.

[Cory Wolfe]

If I have to own a mid size FWD car from the late 80s the Grand Prix makes a great choice. A 5-speed was still available as were DOHC and Turbocharged engines. Next queston:

The 1988 Grand Prix was NOT offered with a DOHC engine nor was it offered with a turbo (came out in 1989, I believe) nor was it offered with a 5-speed (again, came later). The "winner" of the 1988 COTY award had a 2.8L OHV V6 and a 4-speed automatic transmission...and a recall of which I previously mentioned.

Yeah... the DOHC 3.4 came in 91 and the ASC Mclaren turbo came in 89. I'm not quite sure when the 5-speed manual came for either the 2.8L or 3.4L, but I always thought it was available when those engines were first available. But, yeah... the actual winning GP wasn't all that great, Sixty8. Even Hell's Pontiac fanatic can tell you that... :P

[Hudson]

Its a fact that the poor opinion of K-cars is a blend of general dislike for 1980s Detroit compacts and the woeful condition most are found in today, the later of which is not the fault of the car at all.

A co-worker of mine has one, a ca-ca brown '81 Aries Hemi (that's right - look it up) sedan that's ugly, boxy, but surprisingly not uncomfortable, a little punchy, and proving more reliabile than his '93 Explorer.

Mine was S-Brown as well....but it was Metallic S-Brown with aftermarket white pin stripes. Mine didn't have the Mitsubishi 2.6L (the "Hemi" you referred to) but had the Chrysler 2.2L 2bbl SOHC four mated to a 4-speed manual. It had to be one of the last 6-passenger (mine had six sets of seatbelts and vinyl bench seats) cars with a floor-mounted stick shift. For a mid-sized (it was, according to the EPA) 2-door sedan, it carried passengers relatively comfortably (plus 15 cubic feet of trunk space) and turned 25-32 mpg daily. And, because my car was woefully lacking in options (AM radio and cruise control but no A/C or power steering), it was relatively quick....and handled surprisingly well for a skinny tired (5.5-inch wheels) FWD econo sedan.

I wish I still had it.

[Flybrian]

Yeah, the one my co-worker has is 'loaded' for a K-car and all the power do-dads work perfectly fine. In all honestly, a lower-mileage good-condition one would make an excellent commuter/beater vehicle since they're virtually worthless by this time. The major factor dissuading me would be safety, though I'd feel better in an E-Car like a 600 or Caravelle which are surprisingly numerous around here.

[Sixty8panther]

I can not believe someone woud ever find a redeming quality in a K-car. ANY K-car is a tremendous Pile of $#it to me and always will be. The only ones I'd even buy (if it was in great shape & cheaper than a new car battery) would be one of the Shelby GHL cars... but even then it's kind of sad to waste any amount of time or effort doing anything more than an oil change to it. To me the 4 gallons of gas in the tank of a K-car are worth more than the rest of the car combined. Satty: Here's a mind blowing concept: Some people (me included) love owning a big cushy couch on wheels.... the Caprice was competition to a Crown Victoria not the Honda Accord. I'm not sure what part of " C A P R I C E C L A S S I C L T Z " you don't understand. It's supposed to be a big land barge, not a freekin BMW M5. Perhaps I have my prioritires mixed up but if I was going to reinact the chase scene from Ronin I would not drive a Caprice Classic LTZ wiht a GVWR of 5000lbs. Sounds to me like you need to buy an '88 Corsica, slap on a set of 18" rims, eibach springs and a strut tower brace, then go do the slalom arund the mall parking lot's light poles. :rolleyes: Fly: So let me get this straight, the same person who thinks the current Grand Marquis (& siblings) is an antiquidated, tacky POS that should be discountinued finds redemig value in a 80s Caravelle or Dodge 600. I'm speechless. Edited November 30, 2005 by Sixty8panther

[bobo]

I've driven several K-cars at work, and I even took one home for several months. It was basic, but dependable transportation. Much better than Tempos, J-bodies, and I would also say N-bodies of that vintage.

[Flybrian]

Some people don't find any redeaming qualities in a Caprice Classic. Just because its a tiny, tinny FWD economy car doesn't make it bad. Its not supposed to be a "freekin" Eldorado or Diablo.

[Satty]

....blah blah blah....
Sounds to me like you need to buy an '88 Corsica, slap on a set of 18" rims, eibach springs and a strut tower brace, then go do the slalom arund the mall parking lot's light poles. :rolleyes:
....blah blah blah....

[post="50520"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight..........so because I dont like my sedans to feel like they are going to roll over like an Explorer, it means I want a piece of $hit GM tossed out in the 80's with a couple hundred in mods? Thats the beauty of living in the time frame I live in, I can go right now and buy a new car, fresh off the truck, that handles the way I think a car should handle and ride comfortbly. Now if I were stuck living in the 60's, that would be hard to do. I love it when people brag about their 196x (insert sports car here) having 400+ horsepower then get blown away on a back road because their cars dont handle twisty stuff well. Driving involves doing more than going in a straight line, cars should be made to do the same.

[CARBIZ]

A couple years ago, I bought a '87 Reliant from a customer for $300. The a/c worked great, no rust. The guy was 80 years old and the car was immaculate. It cost me $600 to safety and I drove it for 3 months until I was rear ended by a big Audi. The Audi had to be towed. I drove the K-car for another week before the adjustor wrote it off. They gave me $2,000 for it. Y'know, it was surprisingly roomy inside and decent on gas. They were dirty cheap to fix and alhtough a current Elantra could drive circles around a K-car, I won't take anything away from Chrysler for making the K-car. In the 80's, most cars were POS - that is why I get so upset about Toyota apologists who love to bring this dirt up about crappy Citations or Skylarks - everybody built crap in the '80s. It was an embarassing decade.

[Hudson]

Yeah, the one my co-worker has is 'loaded' for a K-car and all the power do-dads work perfectly fine.

In all honestly, a lower-mileage good-condition one would make an excellent commuter/beater vehicle since they're virtually worthless by this time. The major factor dissuading me would be safety, though I'd feel better in an E-Car like a 600 or Caravelle which are surprisingly numerous around here.

I don't see why safety would be a negative. The Aries/Reliant bodies were built in the old-school American style. They were tough and strong bodies (trust me...I tested mine). It was a very safe car. And the primary reason to get an E-Body over a K-body would be to get the extra rear seat/trunk space, since they are nearly identical from the B-pillar forward. I always liked the 600ES (5-speed manual sedan) and the New Yorker Turbo.

I can not believe someone woud ever find a redeming quality in a K-car. ANY K-car is a tremendous Pile of $#it to me and always will be. The only ones I'd even buy (if it was in great shape & cheaper than a new car battery) would be one of the Shelby GHL cars... but even then it's kind of sad to waste any amount of time or effort doing anything more than an oil change to it.

To me the 4 gallons of gas in the tank of a K-car are worth more than the rest of the car combined.

There were no Shelby K-Cars. The GLH ("goes like hell") package was offered on the Omni. Dodge Shelby packages were offered on the Rampage, Charger, and Daytona, and Shelby packages were offered on the Omni (GLH-S), Charger (GLH-S), Lancer, Shadow (CSX), and Dakota...none of which were K-Cars.

You've obviously never driven any of these cars. They were great basic transportation in their Dodge forms (and far from the POS you believe them to be)...and the GLH (and especially the GLH-S) were really fun to drive...and getting to be valuable as well.

[Sixty8panther]

You've obviously never driven any of these cars. They were great basic transportation in their Dodge forms (and far from the POS you believe them to be)...and the GLH (and especially the GLH-S) were really fun to drive...and getting to be valuable as well.

[post="50606"][/post]

Not only have I driven every kind of K-car POS they ever made I've driven a kit car "Mercedes Benz 500SL" built on a '88 Lebaron chassis. I worked as a car salesman for years and I've driven practically everything from a Suzuki X90 to a Porsche 911.

When I worked at Tucks Trucks GMC I was in the used car/highline building. My desk was always wedged between a couple of sports cars like for instance a slightly used Mercedes 600SL and a Honda S2000.

See that red 911 Cabriolet inside the building behind my Camaro? I splapped a dealer plate on that car several times while I was working there and took that baby for a spin, I've burned rubber in the first three gears on that car o back roads of New England.


So please, tell me again how I have no idea what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:






K-cars... give me a break. I've traded in more POS 1980s Mopars on new Chevys and used Pontiacs than I care to remember and none of my customers ever said "I'll miss that old Chrysler". I almost bought a Reliant for $50 for the demolition derby but I think for $100 the Volvo was a much better deal.

Fly: for someone who wanted Plymouth to die becasue of a bland and redundant product line it seems pretty insane you would defend the K-car. :blink:

[Hudson]

Not only have I driven every kind of K-car POS they ever made I've driven a kit car "Mercedes Benz 500SL" built on a '88 Lebaron chassis. I worked as a car salesman for years and I've driven practically everything from a Suzuki X90 to a Porsche 911.

When I worked at Tucks Trucks GMC I was in the used car/highline building. My desk was always wedged between a couple of sports cars like for instance a slightly used Mercedes 600SL and a Honda S2000.

See that red 911 Cabriolet inside the building behind my Camaro? I splapped a dealer plate on that car several times while I was working there and took that baby for a spin, I've burned rubber in the first three gears on that car o back roads of New England.
So please, tell me again how I have no idea what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:

K-cars... give me a break. I've traded in more POS 1980s Mopars on new Chevys and used Pontiacs than I care to remember and none of my customers ever said "I'll miss that old Chrysler". I almost bought a Reliant for $50 for the demolition derby but I think for $100 the Volvo was a much better deal.

Fly: for someone who wanted Plymouth to die becasue of a bland and redundant product line it seems pretty insane you would defend the K-car. :blink:

After this puffy posting, I stand on my previous statements.

[Sixty8panther]

Yup... future collector cars. I can just see a GLH going through Barrertt Jackson and Denis Gage getting all aroused as it tops out at $1490, mint. Ground up restoration.

Let's take a look on eBay. No cars listed right now but there is a few parts:

A turbocharger going for $15.... a complete 39K mile engine and Trans package in great shape for $500 "buy now" starting bid of $100. Yup, real highly sought after.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1985-1986-D...sspagenameZWDVW

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1985-2-2-Om...sspagenameZWDVW

[Satty]

See that red 911 Cabriolet inside the building behind my Camaro? I splapped a dealer plate on that car several times while I was working there and took that baby for a spin, I've burned rubber in the first three gears on that car o back roads of New England.
So please, tell me again how I have no idea what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:

[post="50691"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Wow. How mature.

[Sixty8panther]

Let's take a poll on maturity Sodomy boy. You know what? %$#@& you! The Caprice Classic is bad car like you're a gentleman. Between your posts about Mullets, white trash, sodomy and constant stereotyping of everyone and everything you are the last one on this board to be talking abuot maturity. You were talking about a good handling car, well there you go, name a car that handles better than one of the winningest manufacturers of sports cars ever. But then again while a 911 is designed to be a LeMans race car the Caprice has a different puropse which by no means involves a tight suspension, stiff ride and Recaro seats. I'm not closed mined I just know what I like and a K-car is not one of them, while a last gen. B-body IS.

[z28luvr01]

Guys....stop it. Now!

[siegen]

Man things are getting nasty in here.

Back to the Civic that everybody loves!!! :lol:

I doubt it will be cheaper too.

[post="50222"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Dealer pricing has just been released on the '06 Si! MSRP is indeed a shade under 20k like Honda promised. Here's a TOV article with more detail.

As long as dealers don't gouge on pricing or give significant discounts on the Cobalt, the Si will come in at $19,990, while the Cobalt SS (equiped with side air bag, sun roof, and premium sound system options) will come in at $23,475 (both before destination). I couldn't find the LSD option for the Cobalt, so I don't know if that is included in that price, or if it's an additional dealer charge. Edited November 30, 2005 by siegen

[Hudson]

Yup... future collector cars. I can just see a GLH going through Barrertt Jackson and Denis Gage getting all aroused as it tops out at $1490, mint. Ground up restoration.

There are two Shelby GLH-S for sale in Hemmings right now. One for $8,000 and one for $10,000. Neither is outrageously priced.