Motor Trend 2006 Car of the Year

[haypops]

Well the radio is an integral part of the VW electronic system, but its probably not a good thing.

[regfootball]

Why not? The engine is only one part of what makes a car go, not the whole. If you are judging a car entirely by its engine, you are missing the big picture.

[post="57083"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

i am saying that most americans need or want a car with more substance under the hood and at much fewer rpm than this thing. i stick by my earlier statement that one big reason this car won was because it was offered also as a hybrid. take that away and the merit of this car line becomes extremely ordinary. it offers no distinct superiority in engines, performance, styling, packaging, room, price, ANYTHING. MT was simply humping the hybrid bandwagon and throwing a bone at the ricers so they could lower their subscriber demographic. Edited December 12, 2005 by regfootball

[siegen]

i am saying that most americans need or want a car with more substance under the hood and at much fewer rpm than this thing.

The gearing and lower weight of the Civic make up for the lower TQ amount, and people who are looking for this kind of car will pay just as much attention to the EPA mileage numbers (24/32 vs 30/40) as the TQ numbers. The test drive of course will be the deciding factor, and the Civic doesn't have a big disadvantage in the "butt-dyno" area that you may think. The curb weight of the Civic is 2,690, while the Cobalt is 3,216 (these are both the auto version sedans). Then looking at the gearing (with final drives calculated in):

Civic
1st - 11.83
2nd - 6.81
3rd - 4.53
4th - 3.20
5th - 2.33

Cobalt
1st - 10.74
2nd - 5.88
3rd - 3.63
4th - 2.47

The Civic has more torque multiplication in 1st gear, yet its 5th gear is taller than the Cobalts 4th gear. In 1st gear at peak TQ, the Civic will be putting 1514 lb-ft of TQ to the front wheels, while the Cobalt will be putting 1664 lb-ft of TQ to the front wheels. Not that big of a difference considering the big difference in curb-weight, the Civic will probably be faster from light to light with a minimal load of passengers (things become different with a full passenger load and 200 lbs of luggage though). And as you already see in the dyno overlay I posted, if they decide to take a couple trips to the red line on some back roads (it could happen!), they will be very pleased with the Civic's higher rev limit and more linear TQ distribution.

it offers no distinct superiority in engines, performance, styling, packaging, room, price, ANYTHING.

Packaging? Come on, stop guessing and go to the manufacturers websites and compare features.

Performance? I just gave you all the performance information, like I said there's more to a car than its engine. Engines? Honda's engines have been top notch for decades, why would this engine be any different? The price is just right, room is a little less than the Cobalt, and styling is completely subjective. If you ask me, the Cobalt's design is good and solid, but dated.

[regfootball]

The gearing and lower weight of the Civic make up for the lower TQ amount, and people who are looking for this kind of car will pay just as much attention to the EPA mileage numbers (24/32 vs 30/40) as the TQ numbers. The test drive of course will be the deciding factor, and the Civic doesn't have a big disadvantage in the "butt-dyno" area that you may think. The curb weight of the Civic is 2,690, while the Cobalt is 3,216 (these are both the auto version sedans). Then looking at the gearing (with final drives calculated in):

Civic
1st - 11.83
2nd - 6.81
3rd - 4.53
4th - 3.20
5th - 2.33

Cobalt
1st - 10.74
2nd - 5.88
3rd - 3.63
4th - 2.47

The Civic has more torque multiplication in 1st gear, yet its 5th gear is taller than the Cobalts 4th gear. In 1st gear at peak TQ, the Civic will be putting 1514 lb-ft of TQ to the front wheels, while the Cobalt will be putting 1664 lb-ft of TQ to the front wheels. Not that big of a difference considering the big difference in curb-weight, the Civic will probably be faster from light to light with a minimal load of passengers (things become different with a full passenger load and 200 lbs of luggage though). And as you already see in the dyno overlay I posted, if they decide to take a couple trips to the red line on some back roads (it could happen!), they will be very pleased with the Civic's higher rev limit and more linear TQ distribution.
Packaging? Come on, stop guessing and go to the manufacturers websites and compare features.

Performance? I just gave you all the performance information, like I said there's more to a car than its engine. Engines? Honda's engines have been top notch for decades, why would this engine be any different? The price is just right, room is a little less than the Cobalt, and styling is completely subjective. If you ask me, the Cobalt's design is good and solid, but dated.

[post="57322"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

why would i want a crappy ricer civic when the Mazda3 is a classy appealing car. push it all you want. the new civic is ordinary, cheesy, and limited in appeal.

[The O.C.]

why would i want a crappy ricer civic when the Mazda3 is a classy appealing car.  push it all you want.  the new civic is ordinary, cheesy, and limited in appeal.

[post="57329"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No arguments with you on the Mazda3......however, regarding your opinions on the Civic, let's revisit your comments in about a year....when we have solid sales figures.

You will be proven wrong.

[Flybrian]

He wasn't really saying anything about sales, merely what he likes (right?). Anyway, sales doesn't always = superior. The Camry is a best-seller, but there are better sedans, notably Accord.

[The O.C.]

He wasn't really saying anything about sales, merely what he likes (right?).

Anyway, sales doesn't always = superior. The Camry is a best-seller, but there are better sedans, notably Accord.

[post="57407"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm mostly referring to the "limited in appeal" comment.

If I'm right, the Civic will continue to be one of the best-selling compacts in the segment....and you can hardly call that "limited in appeal."

[regfootball]

No arguments with you on the Mazda3......however, regarding your opinions on the Civic, let's revisit your comments in about a year....when we have solid sales figures.

You will be proven wrong.

[post="57406"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

i guess if we all magincally revert to age 28 and just saw 'fast and furious' for the 28th time.

[regfootball]

I'm mostly referring to the "limited in appeal" comment.

If I'm right, the Civic will continue to be one of the best-selling compacts in the segment....and you can hardly call that "limited in appeal."

[post="57408"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

by limited in appeal i mean, NARROW demographic as opposed to BROAD demographic.

overextended but overly image conscious twentysomethings, ricers, and hybrid ecoweenies who couldn't wait for the Prius may buy the car in droves.

hey, its a decent car. it just completely lacks overwhelming credentials to be CAR OF THE YEAR.

[sciguy_0504]

For me, it's that it is not as significant as other entries. Sure, I hate the sedan styling, interior styling and hybrid rims (or lack of) but a new Civic is like a new F150, Corvette or Camry...you know it's probably going to be top-notch and best in-class so there's nothing significant about it.

[siegen]

by limited in appeal i mean, NARROW demographic as opposed to BROAD demographic.

overextended but overly image conscious twentysomethings, ricers, and hybrid ecoweenies who couldn't wait for the Prius may buy the car in droves.

hey, its a decent car.  it just completely lacks overwhelming credentials to be CAR OF THE YEAR.

why would i want a crappy ricer civic when the Mazda3 is a classy appealing car. push it all you want. the new civic is ordinary, cheesy, and limited in appeal.

So where do you get your demographic information anyways? Just using the term "ricers" and "ecoweenies" makes it very hard for me to take you seriously. Comparing just the Sedans, how is the Mazda3 a better buy than the Civic? I think you're basing a lot of your facts on your own personal opinion and not liking the styling of the new Civic.

Plus, the base Mazda3 only makes 135 peak TQ, based off of your previous arguments, that can't be nearly enough for an American buyer, right? :) Edited December 13, 2005 by siegen

[regfootball]

So where do you get your demographic information anyways? Just using the term "ricers" and "ecoweenies" makes it very hard for me to take you seriously. Comparing just the Sedans, how is the Mazda3 a better buy than the Civic? I think you're basing a lot of your facts on your own personal opinion and not liking the styling of the new Civic.

Plus, the base Mazda3 only makes 135 peak TQ, based off of your previous arguments, that can't be nearly enough for an American buyer, right?  :)

[post="57574"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

that's still more torque than the Si, isn't it?

[Polish_Kris]

that's still more torque than the Si, isn't it?

[post="57876"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Just admit it, you don't like the Civic because you think it looks ugly, good, that's your opinion.

[regfootball]

Just admit it, you don't like the Civic because you think it looks ugly, good, that's your opinion.

[post="57904"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

ugly is only one component of the equation. the engine is average in terms of output. My God, not even 140 lb. ft of torque in a PERFORMANCE CAR (Si)? at what 6500 rpm?

they only place where having that useless of a powerband would benefit you in on the track. And last I checked we spend almost all our driving on the street.

[Polish_Kris]

ugly is only one component of the equation.  the engine is average in terms of output.  My God, not even 140 lb. ft of torque in a PERFORMANCE CAR (Si)?  at what 6500 rpm?

they only place where having that useless of a powerband would benefit you in on the track.  And last I checked we spend almost all our driving on the street.

[post="58027"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Hondas have never been about 0-60, it's always been about 1/4 mile, on the track performance. From personal experience, an American car can take any Honda engine off the line, but when it comes to performance during travel, the Honda takes it. (Torque vs. HP, HP vs. Torque)

[siegen]

the engine is average in terms of output.  My God, not even 140 lb. ft of torque in a PERFORMANCE CAR (Si)?  at what 6500 rpm?

Honda has 139 TQ listed on their site, however an independant dyno done on a Dynopack (reads TQ at the hub) read over 140 TQ and 197 HP peak. I have posted that dyno chart up on this forum twice before (probably somewhere in this thread lol).

Funny how the Si doesn't make as much TQ as the Cobalt SS, yet makes close to the same peak HP number and gets very close to the 1/4 mile times despite being N/A and weighing the same. Horsepower is an equation of work (TQ) done over time (RPM). Making TQ in a higher RPM is better than making TQ in a lower RPM. The Si has an incredible TQ curve, which makes over 130 TQ from 2500rpms to 8100rpms (thats 10% of its peak TQ throughout 5600rpms). Gone are the days of the B16 (6th gen Si) high horsepower super peaky powerbands.

[regfootball]

I GET WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING BUT IT WOULDN'T HURT FOR THEM TO HAVE A REAL PEAK TORQUE OF ABOUT 170 OR MORE. 140 IS TO LOW TO BE USABLE ON PUBLIC ROADS IN URBAN SETTINGS. Edited December 13, 2005 by regfootball

[siegen]

I GET WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING BUT IT WOULDN'T HURT FOR THEM TO HAVE A REAL PEAK TORQUE OF ABOUT 170 OR MORE.  140 IS TO LOW TO BE USABLE ON PUBLIC ROADS IN URBAN SETTINGS.

[post="58234"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

They could easily attain a peak TQ of 170 or more by using a 2.4L block instead of the 2.0L block. The 2.4L TSX uses a very similar engine to the RSX and Civic Si, except Honda changed the crank (stroke length) and rods (rod length), essentially "stroking" the engine, to acheive the higher displacement. That was needed because the TSX weighs a bit more, and its intended purpose involves mostly low RPM range driving. Also notice how the red line is over a 1000k less than the Si/RSX Type S.

The problem with just using a different stroke and rods in the Si to give it that 2.4L displacement, is its fuel economy will suffer, and the effects of a lower R/S ratio (piston side loading) and the breathing of the engine will lower the rev limit. The car works great as a high revving car, and I think the TSX engine would hurt the feel of the car, aside from lowering the fuel economy. You may surprised, but a lot of the people who buy these cars will spend more time in the upper rpms listening to that wonderful exhaust note than than you think.

And for the last time, yes 140 TQ is plenty for around town. The transmission's PRIMARY job is torque multiplication. It can make that 140 TQ into over a 1000 TQ, which is definately enough for around town.

[sciguy_0504]

People (or ricers) love the exhaust noise after they put the "wuss can" on it. No thanks. I hated going from the Grand Prix to the xB in reference to the exhaust. It just sounds wussy, girly, etc. Ultimately, I'll take a V6 or higher.

[pow]

People (or ricers) love the exhaust noise after they put the "wuss can" on it.  No thanks.

I hated going from the Grand Prix to the xB in reference to the exhaust.  It just sounds wussy, girly, etc.  Ultimately, I'll take a V6 or higher.

[post="58285"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Si's engine is in a completely different compared to the xB's in terms of sound quality.

[Polish_Kris]

I GET WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING BUT IT WOULDN'T HURT FOR THEM TO HAVE A REAL PEAK TORQUE OF ABOUT 170 OR MORE.  140 IS TO LOW TO BE USABLE ON PUBLIC ROADS IN URBAN SETTINGS.

[post="58234"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

There is a reason why Honda engineered it like that, why don't you drive one, and then come back online, and comment on what you thought.

The results are usually different in real world driving than on paper.

[regfootball]

They could easily attain a peak TQ of 170 or more by using a 2.4L block instead of the 2.0L block. The 2.4L TSX uses a very similar engine to the RSX and Civic Si, except Honda changed the crank (stroke length) and rods (rod length), essentially "stroking" the engine, to acheive the higher displacement. That was needed because the TSX weighs a bit more, and its intended purpose involves mostly low RPM range driving. Also notice how the red line is over a 1000k less than the Si/RSX Type S.

The problem with just using a different stroke and rods in the Si to give it that 2.4L displacement, is its fuel economy will suffer, and the effects of a lower R/S ratio (piston side loading) and the breathing of the engine will lower the rev limit. The car works great as a high revving car, and I think the TSX engine would hurt the feel of the car, aside from lowering the fuel economy. You may surprised, but a lot of the people who buy these cars will spend more time in the upper rpms listening to that wonderful exhaust note than than you think.

And for the last time, yes 140 TQ is plenty for around town. The transmission's PRIMARY job is torque multiplication. It can make that 140 TQ into over a 1000 TQ, which is definately enough for around town.

[post="58252"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

toyota and honda are always stingy with displacement.

[regfootball]

They could easily attain a peak TQ of 170 or more by using a 2.4L block instead of the 2.0L block. The 2.4L TSX uses a very similar engine to the RSX and Civic Si, except Honda changed the crank (stroke length) and rods (rod length), essentially "stroking" the engine, to acheive the higher displacement. That was needed because the TSX weighs a bit more, and its intended purpose involves mostly low RPM range driving. Also notice how the red line is over a 1000k less than the Si/RSX Type S.

The problem with just using a different stroke and rods in the Si to give it that 2.4L displacement, is its fuel economy will suffer, and the effects of a lower R/S ratio (piston side loading) and the breathing of the engine will lower the rev limit. The car works great as a high revving car, and I think the TSX engine would hurt the feel of the car, aside from lowering the fuel economy. You may surprised, but a lot of the people who buy these cars will spend more time in the upper rpms listening to that wonderful exhaust note than than you think.

And for the last time, yes 140 TQ is plenty for around town. The transmission's PRIMARY job is torque multiplication. It can make that 140 TQ into over a 1000 TQ, which is definately enough for around town.

[post="58252"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

sorry, too much shifting required. and 8000 rpms all the time would get tiring when all you want to do is listen to some tunes

[Flybrian]

sorry, too much shifting required.  and 8000 rpms all the time would get tiring when all you want to do is listen to some tunes

[post="58530"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Brother, you make me laugh. Seriously. You rock.

We do need to take it back a notch, though. Siegen, et al do make valid points. Civic really just isn't your cup o' tea. No biggie; isn't mine either. I like my cars free of Down Syndrome. But its okay.

[regfootball]

There is a reason why Honda engineered it like that, why don't you drive one, and then come back online, and comment on what you thought.

The results are usually different in real world driving than on paper.

[post="58522"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

considering the new and improved civic has like ONE WHOLE EXTRA cubic feet of interior space over its cramped predecessor, i'll save myself the time. there are much more useful cars out there for me for the same money with more space and good real world mpg that don't need to be so highly strung just to get them to go anywhere.

and i doubt i would want to be seen in traffic driving one.....

"hey, look at that punk youngster driving in the civic!!!" Edited December 14, 2005 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Brother, you make me laugh. Seriously. You rock.

We do need to take it back a notch, though. Siegen, et al do make valid points. Civic really just isn't your cup o' tea. No biggie; isn't mine either. I like my cars free of Down Syndrome. But its okay.

[post="58531"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

i'm not sure why honda and toyota continually get excused for their torqueless 4 cylinder carsthat have no displacement. they can get respectable ZERO-sixty times with them, but go back and check the 5-60 times after that. yeah, on the interstate i'd lovethe high rpm performance, but they gotta start upping the displacement and bring up the usable torque on them too.

[andy82471]

i'm not sure why honda and toyota continually get excused for their torqueless 4 cylinder carsthat have no displacement. they can get respectable ZERO-sixty times with them, but go back and check the 5-60 times after that.  yeah, on the interstate i'd lovethe high rpm performance, but they gotta start upping the displacement and bring up the usable torque on them too.

[post="58533"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Name one 4 cylinder engine that is known for its torque? 4 cylinder and torque don't go hand in hand.

[NeonLX]

Name one 4 cylinder engine that is known for its torque?  4 cylinder and torque don't go hand in hand.

[post="58578"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I dunno. That big 2.7L four they used in the Nissan pickups was pretty darned torquey, as is the 2.5L four in the Altima.

The Detroit Series 50 4-cyl. diesels we have in some of our medium duty vehicles at work are pretty darned torquey too.

Or the HUGE 4-cyl. diesel engine we had in our old International TD-14A crawler tractor on the farm had loads of torque--it topped out at 1300 RPM!

4-cyl. engines can be torquey, if they have enough displacement. But 4s also get kinda shaky if the displacement is too large (hence the balance shafts).

I've been around some really gutless sixes with minimal torque too--that dinky little 1.8L V6 in the Mazda MX-3 comes to mind...or the Mitsu 2.5L V6 used in Dodge Stratus/Chrysler Cirrus in the 1990s...again, it eventually comes down to displacement.

I think there are good displacement ranges for different cylinder configurations in automotive applications. Four cylinders seem to do their best in the 1.5L-2.5L range, while sixes seem to do their best in the 3.0L-4.0L range. Of course, some of the old big sixes like Ford's 300 (4.9L) and Chevy's 292 (4.8L) were great for pickups, so there's no hard & fast rule...

[sciguy_0504]

The Si's engine is in a completely different compared to the xB's in terms of sound quality.

[post="58299"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It's still a 4 banger. I'd much rather be hearing something a little bit more muscular.

[The O.C.]

i'm not sure why honda and toyota continually get excused for their torqueless 4 cylinder carsthat have no displacement. they can get respectable ZERO-sixty times with them, but go back and check the 5-60 times after that.  yeah, on the interstate i'd lovethe high rpm performance, but they gotta start upping the displacement and bring up the usable torque on them too.

[post="58533"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Seriously....how many 4cyl imports HAVE you driven?

Everyone on here is forgetting that it's not just the torque....it's the whole packaged deal.

Every Honda 4cyl I'VE ever driven revs very freely.....and scoots through the RPM band like a hot knife through butter. Cars like this you don't mind using some revs....even if they're hooked to autos.....

Plus you have to factor in gear rations......vehicle weight......actual horsepower.....

Seems like lots of people on here think that taking an import 4cyl to higher revs is a bad thing.....yeah, most of you are used to GM pushrod V6s so I can understand why you'd take that position.......

There are very few import 4cyls that are less-than-impressive.....maybe the Corolla 1.8L....HOWEVER, drive even that car (or a Vibe, etc.) with a manual shift and it's actually pretty peppy....only the auto is a big letdown.

Current model Accords, Camrys, Altimas, and Mazda6s with 4cyls and autos are smooth performing, quiet (though Altima growls a bit) and don't really seem to lack ANY performance for day-to-day town or freeway driving. (I've had each, even the Accord, as a rental recently.)

[CaddyXLR-V]

I'd prefer not to go out and test drive any 4cyl, domestic or import. I doubt they will have the 280ft lbs of torque my Grand Prix has. GMs Quad 4 did feel torquey in my 97 Grand Am though.

[Cory Wolfe]

Name one 4 cylinder engine that is known for its torque?  4 cylinder and torque don't go hand in hand.

[post="58578"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ever hear of a Nissan 240SX? Yeah...

I'd prefer not to go out and test drive any 4cyl, domestic or import. I doubt they will have the 280ft lbs of torque my Grand Prix has. GMs Quad 4 did feel torquey in my 97 Grand Am though.

[post="58734"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well, yours was a Twin Cam 2.4L while mine was actually a Quad4 2.3L. I know it was just an updated version of mine, but it makes a lot of difference. Mine has always felt torque-less... it hated hills (yes, this is before the engine problems). I remember my mom's 96 GASE wasn't torqueless. One hill that my GA hated, it was completely fine. Earlier Quad4s may be different, especially HOs, but for the most part they were about horsepower, not torque. The updated Twin Cam must have fixed it... greatly. I mean, that 96 GASE is still the quickest car my mom has owned (others: 00 Blazer, 00 GASE, 89 Regal, and 83 Turismo). Pretty sad... :P

[siegen]

Seems like lots of people on here think that taking an import 4cyl to higher revs is a bad thing.....yeah, most of you are used to GM pushrod V6s so I can understand why you'd take that position.......

I just want to reiterate what you said, because it is probably one of the biggest reasons people get bad impressions from Toyota/Honda 4cyl powered cars when first driving them. When I first made the switch from my 2.8 V6 '88 Regal to the 1.6 I4 '93 Civic (long since stolen, lol), I drove around and tried to shift at about 2krpms, and cruise at 1500rpms. I was so used to the way the Buick drove and the other bigger engines cars I drove (mainly trucks), that I was actually driving the Civic wrong and didn't know it. I drove around like that for close to a year, but wasn't unsatisfied at all.

It wasn't until my Acura that I actually looked in the manual at the recommended shift points and started logging my mileage, that I realized how these cars are supposed to be driven. Now I shift at 3krpms through the first few gears, and 2.5krpms the rest. I get better gas mileage now than I used to when I shifted at lower rpms (about 28mpg 95% city) and cruising around the city is definately more fun (don't worry, stock exhaust system).

Btw, I know a lot of people with higher mileage versions of my car that take it to the red line almost every day, and their engines are still running strong. Must be those tight tolerances heh heh :lol: Edited December 15, 2005 by siegen

[regfootball]

Seriously....how many 4cyl imports HAVE you driven?

Everyone on here is forgetting that it's not just the torque....it's the whole packaged deal.

Every Honda 4cyl I'VE ever driven revs very freely.....and scoots through the RPM band like a hot knife through butter.  Cars like this you don't mind using some revs....even if they're hooked to autos.....

Plus you have to factor in gear rations......vehicle weight......actual horsepower.....

Seems like lots of people on here think that taking an import 4cyl to higher revs is a bad thing.....yeah, most of you are used to GM pushrod V6s so I can understand why you'd take that position.......

There are very few import 4cyls that are less-than-impressive.....maybe the Corolla 1.8L....HOWEVER, drive even that car (or a Vibe, etc.) with a manual shift and it's actually pretty peppy....only the auto is a big letdown.

Current model Accords, Camrys, Altimas, and Mazda6s with 4cyls and autos are smooth performing, quiet (though Altima growls a bit) and don't really seem to lack ANY performance for day-to-day town or freeway driving.  (I've had each, even the Accord, as a rental recently.)

[post="58711"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I owned a Prism (Corolla) with the 1.8 and yes, it was sort of peppy to 50 mph if you shifted right, and as long as you had momentum. its lack of power in many situations actually made it unsafe. Hard braking at 70+ followed by a need to accelerate rapidly to avoid traffic, and the thing simply fell on its face...even downshifting to third or second. No torque to get the car moving again. The ecotec from GM is a far superior engine because it has torque. And I mean the base 2.2. the Ion redline i drove went like stink and had awesome power up high and down low.

Also I've driven a Vibe GT and it was a pain in the ass. Had to get it up to 5000 rpm or more just to get it to move. Then it was really noisy. Loud and grating. Not very fun or powerful.

Even driving great 4 cylinders like the 9-3 saab, you get into a 6 cylinder car immediately after that and you wonder why you even considered the four. 6 cylinder is the way to go if you can swing it. Edited December 15, 2005 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Seriously....how many 4cyl imports HAVE you driven?

Everyone on here is forgetting that it's not just the torque....it's the whole packaged deal.

Every Honda 4cyl I'VE ever driven revs very freely.....and scoots through the RPM band like a hot knife through butter.  Cars like this you don't mind using some revs....even if they're hooked to autos.....

Plus you have to factor in gear rations......vehicle weight......actual horsepower.....

Seems like lots of people on here think that taking an import 4cyl to higher revs is a bad thing.....yeah, most of you are used to GM pushrod V6s so I can understand why you'd take that position.......

There are very few import 4cyls that are less-than-impressive.....maybe the Corolla 1.8L....HOWEVER, drive even that car (or a Vibe, etc.) with a manual shift and it's actually pretty peppy....only the auto is a big letdown.

Current model Accords, Camrys, Altimas, and Mazda6s with 4cyls and autos are smooth performing, quiet (though Altima growls a bit) and don't really seem to lack ANY performance for day-to-day town or freeway driving.  (I've had each, even the Accord, as a rental recently.)

[post="58711"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

the mazda6 and altima fours are buzzy, i've driven those too. the camry is a decent four cylinder, but a v6 in that car is still a better solution.

[Drew Dowdell]

Name one 4 cylinder engine that is known for its torque?  4 cylinder and torque don't go hand in hand.

[post="58578"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Jeep Wrangler?

[regfootball]

Jeep Wrangler?

[post="58946"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

because it has sufficient displacement. not a measly 1.8 litres and 8500 rpm.

[regfootball]

just was reading M/T's rag again why is it that the lowly Cobalt SS sedan had a better 1/4 mile time than the supposedly awesome neck snapping power machine with the 8000 rpm they call the Civic si? for a car that pins its hopes on performace and the Si cannot beat the cobalt in the 1/4 mile.

[siegen]

just was reading M/T's rag again why is it that the lowly Cobalt SS sedan had a better 1/4 mile time than the supposedly awesome neck snapping power machine with the 8000 rpm they call the Civic si?

for a car that pins its hopes on performace and the Si cannot beat the cobalt in the 1/4 mile.

[post="61771"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Sedan doesn't come with the 207 Supercharged engine, where did you find the numbers for it?

[regfootball]

the motor trend car of the year testing. the cobalt was even NON supercharged!!!!!!!!! imagine that! the cobalt 2.4 outdoes the power machine Civic in the 1/4 mile!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BrewSwillis]

the motor trend car of the year testing.  the cobalt was even NON supercharged!!!!!!!!!

imagine that!  the cobalt 2.4 outdoes the power machine Civic in the 1/4 mile!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[post="61886"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah, but the CiviD has that "gotta have" factor!! :rolleyes:

[regfootball]

Yeah, but the CiviD has that "gotta have" factor!! :rolleyes:

[post="61933"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

wrong magazine! Car and Driver twists their results to reflect personal bias based on gotta have it factor!

[regfootball]

that cobalt does not rev to 8000 rpm to make that scorching qtr mile time! how could it possibly be that fast!

[siegen]

Can you link me the review or is it subscriber only? I'm too lazy to look (didn't find anything under the basic search).

[BrewSwillis]

wrong magazine!  Car and Driver twists their results to reflect personal bias based on gotta have it factor!

[post="61940"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

They're obviously not the only ones......anymore.

[Cory Wolfe]

Can you link me the review or is it subscriber only? I'm too lazy to look (didn't find anything under the basic search).

[post="61987"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well... I don't have a link, but this is straight from the magazine...

Cobalt SS sedan:
0-60 mph: 7.1 sec
1/4 mile: 15.6 sec @ 90mph
60-0 mph: 132 ft
Lat. accelleration: .83g
600ft slalom: 64.1 mph
MT figure 8: 27.2sec @ .63g
EPA economy: 25/34 mpg

Civic Si coupe:
0-60 mph: 6.7 sec
1/4 mile: 15.7 sec @ 94mph
60-0 mph: 122 ft
Lat. accelleration: .90g
600ft slalom: 67.2 mph
MT figure 8: 26.5sec @ .65g
EPA economy: 22/31 mpg

So... yes, better in the 1/4 mile by .1 sec. What a huge difference... :P Oh, and just for fun...

Solstice:
0-60 mph: 6.7 sec
1/4 mile: 15.3 sec @ 89.6mph
60-0 mph: 117 ft
Lat. accelleration: .90g
600ft slalom: 66.1 mph
MT figure 8: 26.6sec @ .66g
EPA economy: 20/28 mpg

:D

[regfootball]

that wasn't the SC cobalt either. the civic has a better 0-60 than the non SC cobalt. one for them, but I want to see the 5-60 times. the high strung ricers usually have much worse 5-60 times than the 0-60+high rpm clutch drop times. wow, the non SC cobalt has much better mileage for a better 1/4 mile time too. HMMMMM, so much for wonderful honda fuel efficiency with that VTEC too...........

[regfootball]

BV, do you have the Motor trend test data for the Cobalt SS supercharged? they might have it printed in an index in the back.

[regfootball]

from MT

"Our Cobalt performed well within expected tolerances, returning a 6.1-second sprint to 60 mph and a 14.4-second, 99.3-mph quarter (within a tenth and one mph of our last test)."

so there's your proof right there that the Civic does not have a substantial performance advantage of a sort to warrant it being a COTY. In fact, it seems to me the Cobalt SS SPANKS the Civic and its 8000 vtec rpms. Again, they gave it to honda because of payola, ricer demographics they want to sell ads to, and the fact you can get the Civic with a hybrid for the ecoweenie factor. The performance of the Si is not superior to the extent that its worth an award of this CALIBER.

it can't even beat the non supercharged chevy in a 1/4 mile sprint!

I bet it can't even beat it in a rolling start 5-60!

'oh but its a honda so even though its down on power its still the best overall car'.

Like the bullshit tests the TSX wins. Gimme a break. A euro accord with a 4 banger is all it is.

Honda was mad because the SRT4 and Focus SVT were called better cars than its last Si with the bent nail shifter. Honda got pissed and bribed Angus and the buddies with lots of cash and Honda dirt bikes and the threat to take away their office Ridgelines indefinitely so they couldn't carry their surfboards to the beach and drink spritzers kept cold in the bed trunk/cooler. Edited December 21, 2005 by regfootball

[Cory Wolfe]

Well... that might be a little extreme, but I don't care. I'll take the Solstice over both. :D