Motor Trend 2006 Car of the Year

[regfootball]

Guys....I'm not going out to buy a Civic or anything......MY choice in this segment WOULD be a Mazda3s sedan.

I'm just TRYING to make a point about the fact that you simply CANNOT generalize about the performance, flexibility, or economy of a vehicle simply based upon the stated horsepower and torque figures.

I understand EVERYONE (damn near) on this site HATES the Civic.....okay then.....

But HOW many of you have driven both a NEW Civic and the Cobalt (for example...?)  And not just "around the block?"

[post="63801"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

i might have to try one, just to see how much it sucks. i cannot imagine spinning 7000 rpm for any motivation to be fun. The Vibe GT i drove needed to be wound to 6000 rpm to get out of its own way, and it was loud and noisy and in general totally unsatisfying. if the civic has a torque band and is powerless like that, then there's no reason for me to drive a civic

[CaddyXLR-V]

Guys....I'm not going out to buy a Civic or anything......MY choice in this segment WOULD be a Mazda3s sedan.

I'm just TRYING to make a point about the fact that you simply CANNOT generalize about the performance, flexibility, or economy of a vehicle simply based upon the stated horsepower and torque figures.

I understand EVERYONE (damn near) on this site HATES the Civic.....okay then.....

But HOW many of you have driven both a NEW Civic and the Cobalt (for example...?)  And not just "around the block?"

[post="63801"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I dont like the Civic, but then again, I dont really like the Cobalt either. The Mazda 3 would be my choice if I had to pick a compact car, unless GM ever decides to bring us the Astra hatch. But I dont agree that the Civic is so great of a car. 1/2 a second is pretty significant for 0-60. But anything over 8s 0-60 is too slow to matter anyway.

[Polish_Kris]

Wait, Wait, Wait, now you're arguing over 1/2 second differences, the Civic for once is not a sport's car, it's an econo-box, and always will be.

[siegen]

Someone said something about ecotec loosing torque at 5000 and this is where small cars really need it ? Come on please, where are we at here ? Is this the trip to and from work everyday or Watkins Glen ? I'll try to tell you again its going to be hard to establish credit with some of these unusual statements. I bet I could go test drive 100 well used Jap cars and redline them all and be the first one to do so on at least 98 of them.

So you're saying TQ past 5krpms doesn't matter? Even in a family car?

The way I see it, there are two ways of building a family-sedan engine (aside from F/I). Use more displacement, so you don't have to worry about high end TQ (since your engine produces the same amount of usable TQ [HP] in the lower rpms as the competition), or you can use less displacement, but use technologies to allow the engine to breathe in the higher rpms, so you can create power on demand and achieve better fuel economy in the low rpms. These are the two different approaches GM and Honda took, and they are very different.

In these family sedans, doesn't economy matter more than performance? First you're commenting on how the base Cobalt performs better in WOT tests than the base Civic, then you're saying these cars never see WOT or above 5krpms. Stop contradicting yourself.

When I say power on demand, when the throttle is floored (in an auto), the transmission will put the engine into the rev range where it makes the most power. The Civic's powerband is peakier than the Cobalts, but it also has a 5sp transmission, with a shorter gear split than the Cobalt's.

[razoredge]

OC, Im not sure but Im afraid you may have misunderstood my post. I literally meant I was glad you made the point, as you stated "CANNOT generalize about the performance, flexibility, or economy of a vehicle simply based upon the stated horsepower and torque figures" This is also always used against GM as well and shows the bias the media uses. If its a Japanese car its OK and will be ignored, if its a GM is will be riddin and shoved in everyones face until all are convinced not to buy a GM.

Reg - and so many fail to get the job done B) you know what Im talkin 'bout

siegen - I cant help ya, your not seeing the point. I did not contridict myself, you just do not understand what I was saying. First I could care less about above 5000 unless Im having a testosterone moment, Im pretty sure I have more of those than most adults. I seriously doubt many cars ever see 5000 rpm. I have spent so much time on the roads and the only time I see anyone wind out their engine is usually a teenager or the muturity challenged adult such as myself, even then we are very very rare. So theres for.... what you need above 5000.

Now - torque ? Torque matters little once the HP gets to work, which is what you have at high RPM's. So I think we simply have a Japanese publicity stunt to demyth the fact that they are high RPM HP makers with no balls. I mean its OK to bash the GM's because they got tons of balls but shift at 5500-6000 rpm's. So whats the problem with pointing out the fact that the Japanese have lots of...... zing at rpms never used in daily driving ?

I have made my living at the handgrips of a 6 hp hand held engine spinning 13,000 all day long so please dont think Im clueless about powerbands. I have a 90 hp diesel log skidder that peaks at 2000 rpm's and could drag 15 of your civics backwards while they puffed clouds of blue smoke off their tiny little tires. I know about torque, gear ratios, inertia, HP, powerbands and RPM's.

Simply put, I think alot of the buzz around these "hitec" engines is that they need to be buzzing to show the "tec" and GM is not as "behind" in the tec as so many try to claim, just more practical as to the reality of how a engine is drivin in dayly commutes and its not at Watkins Glen. We all know RPM's and power bands evolve around the camshaft timing...right ? We could put aftermarket cams in our GMs and have the equivalent to your hitec high performancd riceroni. We would sacrifice low RPM torque for high RPM HP......nothing new there. Unfortunantly the media tests drives and gives results on drivetrain performance as if they are race cars. Do they ever talk about the ability to walk away from a intersection by simply pressing the pedal about a 1/2 inch ? like we all do everytime ?

No one drives around spinnin 5000 rpms, sorry.

[CaddyXLR-V]

No one drives around spinnin 5000 rpms, sorry.

[post="63967"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I dont need to :AH-HA_wink:

[siegen]

Now - torque ? Torque matters little once the HP gets to work, which is what you have at high RPM's.

We could put aftermarket cams in our GMs and have the equivalent to your hitec high performancd riceroni. We would sacrifice low RPM torque for high RPM HP......nothing new there.

[post="63967"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Sorry Razor, I was getting you and Reg a little mixed up.

I didn't miss the point though. GM is good at making engines with low end TQ that still get very good mileage. Honda designs engines very differently. I think 95% of the people on this board who bash the Civics for not making a high peak TQ number (without looking at the displacement and curb weight), do not understand how a car and all of its components work together (transmission, unsprung weight, electric-drive accessories, etc). I also think 95% of the people that bash Honda's in general haven't even driven one. My 1.8L makes enough TQ in the low RPMs (below 3krpms) to get my 2700lb car around town very quickly, and still get 27mpg (which is above its EPA rated city mileage). I do have a direct comparison, which is a 2.0L Ford Escort which I drive almost every week, and is significantly slower around town, yet weighs 250 lbs less, has a peak TQ number that occurs over a 1450rpms sooner (at 3750 rpms), and has a cam profile that favors the low rpms. Both cars have similar mileage (78k and 87k) and gears (5sp manual). Shouldn't the Escort be faster below 3krpms at part throttle?

Putting a more aggressive profile camshaft(s) into a GM engine won't give the same effect, because low rpm power and idle will suffer. The variable valve lift mechanism gives these Honda engines very flat TQ curves (like I showed on page 10) as compared to a one TQ curve/one cam profile engine. This mechanism is not the same as a VVT mechanism, which only varies the timing.

GM is not as "behind" in the tec as so many try to claim, just more practical as to the reality of how a engine is drivin in dayly commutes and its not at Watkins Glen.

I think it has more to do with cost and profit than being behind in technology. GM could incorperate a lot of technology into their engines if they wanted to, but they do not have the ability to mass-produce the engines and keep them price competative. Honda has been doing it since the 80's (high technology head designs that is), they have F1 to test new technologies, and they don't have as much overhead as GM does (with the unions and all).

[Cory Wolfe]

Well, I'll just say this... The GM Quad4 in my 95 GA had to be wound out for power. Of course, it only had a 6100 rpm red-line (I think...?). That and it hated to rev. It had enough torque below 3000 rpms until you went up a hill. 2800lbs, 150hp, and about 150 lb/ft of torque. If you kept the rpms up, which it hated to do, it moved semi-quickly for what it is. My point? It hated to rev and doing just that one night, I blew it up. Now it's for sale as you can see by looking at my sig. Easy revving engines are a good thing, regardless of where the power is at. :P Because I'd still be driving my GA if it wouldn't have blown up (basically) which it wouldn't have done if it had revved easily (come on... I was below the redline by a few 100 rpms, damn thing). You see? :lol: :D Okay, my rant is over.

[razoredge]

Well, I'll just say this...

The GM Quad4 in my 95 GA had to be wound out for power. Of course, it only had a 6100 rpm red-line (I think...?). That and it hated to rev. It had enough torque below 3000 rpms until you went up a hill. 2800lbs, 150hp, and about 150 lb/ft of torque. If you kept the rpms up, which it hated to do, it moved semi-quickly for what it is.

My point? It hated to rev and doing just that one night, I blew it up. Now it's for sale as you can see by looking at my sig. Easy revving engines are a good thing, regardless of where the power is at. :P Because I'd still be driving my GA if it wouldn't have blown up (basically) which it wouldn't have done if it had revved easily (come on... I was below the redline by a few 100 rpms, damn thing). You see? :lol: :D

Okay, my rant is over.

[post="64282"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

thanks for the in depth mechanical overview Vips :blink:
get back to me in 10 years <_<

[The O.C.]

i might have to try one, just to see how much it sucks.  i cannot imagine spinning 7000 rpm for any motivation to be fun.  The Vibe GT i drove needed to be wound to 6000 rpm to get out of its own way, and it was loud and noisy and in general totally unsatisfying.  if the civic has a torque band and is powerless like that, then there's no reason for me to drive a civic

[post="63824"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

See? That's my point about driving the Honda. The Toyota 1.8L H.O. engine in Vibe GT, Matrix XRS, Celica GT-S cannot compare to Honda's V-Tec engines, etc.

The Hondas don't take near as much time to get into the powerband....and produce much more flexible power down low. The Toyota is a very bad example (IMHO) of a "typical" "high-revving" Japanese 4cyl engine.

Even the S2000 I drove a month or two ago wasn't bad. Sure most of it's power was above 6,000rpm, but even way below that, it was smooth, tractable, and nice to drive. It's wasn't sluggish at all on the low end....it's just that the MAJOR power boost came higher up.....

[The O.C.]

Well, I'll just say this...

The GM Quad4 in my 95 GA had to be wound out for power. Of course, it only had a 6100 rpm red-line (I think...?). That and it hated to rev. It had enough torque below 3000 rpms until you went up a hill. 2800lbs, 150hp, and about 150 lb/ft of torque. If you kept the rpms up, which it hated to do, it moved semi-quickly for what it is.

My point? It hated to rev and doing just that one night, I blew it up. Now it's for sale as you can see by looking at my sig. Easy revving engines are a good thing, regardless of where the power is at. :P Because I'd still be driving my GA if it wouldn't have blown up (basically) which it wouldn't have done if it had revved easily (come on... I was below the redline by a few 100 rpms, damn thing). You see? :lol: :D

Okay, my rant is over.

[post="64282"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

BV you are right about the Quad4.....but unfortunately, really, the Quad4 was a pretty bad engine. I had an Acieva SCX W41 with the 190hp Quad4 and you really can't compare the Quad4 to modern import multi-cam/multi-valve 4cyl engines.....or even to the Ecotec L4.

Quad4 didn't like to rev, yet that's where it produced most of it's power. It was noisy and rough. Road test acceleration numbers looked good....but the reality of living with a Quad4 was much worse.

GM hasn't done a good 4cyl engine until the Ecotec.....and it's NOW a pretty good one.

But if you are using the Quad4 as an example to guess what you'll think of a Honda 1.8L or a Mazda 2.3L will be like to drive, you are comparing apples to oranges.

[CaddyXLR-V]

BV you are right about the Quad4.....but unfortunately, really, the Quad4 was a pretty bad engine.  I had an Acieva SCX W41 with the 190hp Quad4 and you really can't compare the Quad4 to modern import multi-cam/multi-valve 4cyl engines.....or even to the Ecotec L4.

Quad4 didn't like to rev, yet that's where it produced most of it's power.  It was noisy and rough.  Road test acceleration numbers looked good....but the reality of living with a Quad4 was much worse. 

GM hasn't done a good 4cyl engine until the Ecotec.....and it's NOW a pretty good one. 

But if you are using the Quad4 as an example to guess what you'll think of a Honda 1.8L or a Mazda 2.3L will be like to drive, you are comparing apples to oranges.

[post="64698"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I thought my quad 4 grand am was pretty fun. I know I smoked quite a few cars with it too.

[SingleStylish]

Even better... a Quad 4 with a rusted out tailpipe still sounds better than a fart can on a Civic. AND I LIKE HONDA'S!!! My first car was an '88 Olds Cutlas Calais Q4.

[Cory Wolfe]

thanks for the in depth mechanical overview Vips  :blink:
get back to me in 10 years  <_<

[post="64623"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Nah... how about now?

BV you are right about the Quad4.....but unfortunately, really, the Quad4 was a pretty bad engine.  I had an Acieva SCX W41 with the 190hp Quad4 and you really can't compare the Quad4 to modern import multi-cam/multi-valve 4cyl engines.....or even to the Ecotec L4.

Quad4 didn't like to rev, yet that's where it produced most of it's power.  It was noisy and rough.  Road test acceleration numbers looked good....but the reality of living with a Quad4 was much worse. 

GM hasn't done a good 4cyl engine until the Ecotec.....and it's NOW a pretty good one. 

But if you are using the Quad4 as an example to guess what you'll think of a Honda 1.8L or a Mazda 2.3L will be like to drive, you are comparing apples to oranges.

[post="64698"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No... I was just ranting. I was more or less just saying how bad of an engine GM made. No comparison to a modern GM engine or a foreign engine. Mainly saying that some people in thread are giving any foreign engine a hard time... that's undeserved, IMO. That and I'd love to have an engine that revs easily... and that won't blow up when doing so. :D

I thought my quad 4 grand am was pretty fun. I know I smoked quite a few cars with it too.

[post="64704"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well... if you had a Quad4. :rolleyes: The Twin Cam may be just an updated Quad4, but they are perform differently. I've driven both... my mom had one like yours. I know...

Even better... a Quad 4 with a rusted out tailpipe still sounds better than a fart can on a Civic.  AND I LIKE HONDA'S!!!  My first car was an '88 Olds Cutlas Calais Q4.

[post="64722"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's one thing I did like about it... Quad4s sound awesome. Definitely the best sounding 4cyl I've heard.

[razoredge]

So whats with the "revs easily" crap. Sometimes people throw that out and it sound to me like an engine seizing, theres only one engine I have ever heard that does not "rev easily" and the air cooled DEUTZ diesel, for some reason, I believe its the was they are governed they are really loagy at the rate they increase RPMs, all other engines I have ever been around snap with a crack of the throttle. I never heard of this doesnt "rev easily"until I came here that is, 30 years of engines and suddenly I find theres a new engine plague on the loose........check the oil! :lol: "Doesnt like to rev", what do you do, ask it "do you like to rev?" and it comes back saying "no, please, dont make me rev today !" :lol: Q4's had head & gasket problems, everyone knows and its a shame because is was pretty much GM's first high production aluminum DOHC engine. Its should not have been so problematic and that should have been cured within two MY's. So now, that said.......Vips did your engine "blow up" or did you simply pop a gasket?...big difference between blowing a head gasket and blowing up an engine. Then did you shut it down or did you finish it off. Theres a difference there too... between putting a rod through the block or burning a piston and running an engine to see if a problem such as a blown head gasket goes away. I blew a head gasket and warped an aluminum head on a Datsun L20B a highly reputable engine in its day, it was entirely my fault but I was clueless at that time. I did however take it apart, send the head out for milling and reassembled it, right out in the driveway and it was good to go again. I also had a some head problems with a high milage 22R Toyota.....another highly reputable engine throughout the 80's. It was something that just happened, pumping compression into the water jacket and pushing the coolant out the overflow, I attribute it to age and 209,000 miles. I was told this was a common proble after age on the 22R. I never bothered tearing that one down but put a newer low milage 22R and all was good after that.....until the tranny dropped a roller from the input shaft....cha ching $$$$$$. So this extends what OC was saying about specs and stats. Same as how you can not completely judge performance on a spec. sheet, you can not also assume even the best of engines will not fail.

[regfootball]

Wait, Wait, Wait, now you're arguing over 1/2 second differences, the Civic for once is not a sport's car, it's an econo-box, and always will be.

[post="63848"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

so what is so significant about another typical run of the mill econobox then? NOTHING that should warrant COTY.

[regfootball]

GM was utterly clueless on how to build a 4 cylinder mill until the ecotec, now the ecotec is one of the few four cylinder motors that has great flexibility in the powerband and still gets good mpg and revs when asked. Its definitely better than toyotas 1.8 and while maybe not the epitome of the engineering that the honda is, is probably more agreeable for the driving that more of the population does. Edited December 30, 2005 by regfootball

[haypops]

GM was utterly clueless on how to build a 4 cylinder mill until the ecotec, now the ecotec is one of the few four cylinder motors that has great flexibility in the powerband and still gets good mpg and revs when asked.  Its definitely better than toyotas 1.8 and while maybe not the epitome of the

[post="64864"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Saturn 1.9 l. 4 cylinder was the precusor of the ecotec, performed well, very economical, and was long lived (400,00 plus miles).

[regfootball]

The Saturn 1.9 l. 4 cylinder was the precusor of the ecotec, performed well, very economical, and was long lived (400,00 plus miles).

[post="64902"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

the saturn motor, compared to the competition was buzzy and short on power output. but yes, it was a pretty good mill. the ecotec compares better.

[siegen]

So whats with the "revs easily" crap.

[post="64848"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think people are referring to "revs easily" when the car is in a gear. It boils down to engine power, having a flat torque curve, and gearing.

A car that has a flat TQ curve will rev evenly and quickly up to its redline (how quickly depends on the gearing and the TQ amount). A car that has its TQ drop off after its early peak will not rev as easily since the acceleration either tops off or slows down as the car revs higher (depends on how fast the TQ drops compared to the RPMs). Hondas almost always have flatter TQ curves than their non-VVL/VVT counterparts, and usually make a peak HP number that occurs much later because of this (as long as the TQ curve stays flat, the HP will keep rising as RPMs rise, hp = tq * rpm / 5252). So that is why you always hear people saying they "rev easier".

[Flybrian]

I'm going to just come out and say I've actually learned quite alot on both sides because of this thread. For real. And I mean besides that Reg is totally going to buy a Civic.

[Cory Wolfe]

So whats with the "revs easily" crap. Sometimes people throw that out and it sound to me like an engine seizing, theres only one engine I have ever heard that does not "rev easily" and the air cooled DEUTZ diesel, for some reason, I believe its the was they are governed they are really loagy at the rate they increase RPMs, all other engines I have ever been around snap with a crack of the throttle. I never heard of this doesnt "rev easily"until I came here that is, 30 years of engines and suddenly I find theres a new engine plague on the loose........check the oil!  :lol: "Doesnt like to rev", what do you do, ask it "do you like to rev?" and it comes back saying "no, please, dont make me rev today !" :lol:

Q4's had head & gasket problems, everyone knows and its a shame because is was pretty much GM's first high production aluminum DOHC engine. Its should not have been so problematic and that should have been cured within two MY's. So now, that said.......Vips did your engine "blow up" or did you simply pop a gasket?...big difference between blowing a head gasket and blowing up an engine. Then did you shut it down or did you finish it off. Theres a difference there too... between putting a rod through the block or burning a piston and running an engine to see if a problem such as a blown head gasket goes away.

I blew a head gasket and warped an aluminum head on a Datsun L20B a highly reputable engine in its day, it was entirely my fault but I was clueless at that time. I did however take it apart, send the head out for milling and reassembled it, right out in the driveway and it was good to go again. I also had a some head problems with a high milage 22R Toyota.....another highly reputable engine throughout the 80's. It was something that just happened, pumping compression into the water jacket and pushing the coolant out the overflow, I attribute it to age and 209,000 miles. I was told this was a common proble after age on the 22R. I never bothered tearing that one down but put a newer low milage 22R and all was good after that.....until the tranny dropped a roller from the input shaft....cha ching $$$$$$.

So this extends what OC was saying about specs and stats. Same as how you can not completely judge performance on  a spec. sheet, you can not also assume even the best of engines will not fail.

[post="64848"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Oh, Razor... you crack me up... :P

Revs easily... Whatever you may think of it, my Quad4 hated to rev. It has nothing to do with it being in gear. It is the engine itself. Meaning... it feels like you are going to hurt the engine by revving it. That's what it means and that's how the Quad4 in my GA felt. It ran excellently other than it ticking, which, didn't harm it in any way. However, it hated to rev. It was the nature of the engine. It wasn't because something was wrong with it, like you may think. That's just how Quad4s were. I'm obviously not the only one to notice the... well, obvious.

Anyways, I guess I'll have to tell the story of my car blowing up gain for you to understand. One night, I am driving my GA. I start going up a very long and steep hill. I throw it in third, since it always bogged down in 4th. That, and I lost my momentum because of a van that turned off right before the hill. As I started up it, I was also being tailgated by a truck, which, I hate to death. So I wind it up to about 5800 rpms at around 70 mph. Well, that lead to a cylinder knocking... according to those I've talked to, a rod bearing appearantly. Not the headgasket. So, for the most part, it blew up. That is only a vague way to describe it since I do not need to write a paragraph everytime I talk about it. Why did it happen? Not necessarily because it hated to rev, but that is just what it seemed like to me. Nobody, including my dad, has been able to offer to different explaination other than "it just happened". So... your thoughts? ...after I talked about this 2 months ago?

Also, I did keep running it for a few days since it was the only transportation I had for the time being. I stopped once it seemed it wouldn't last. It has, though. It still runs and I will drive it when I need to. Originally, the thought of it not lasting was caused because of some confusion between my dad and I. Still, I know it can't be run like that forever. It either needs rebuilt or replaced. I don't have the money to do either, that is why I am selling it and my ATV. That and to get a better car... the one featured in my sig. :D

[sciguy_0504]

I loved to rev the 3800 in my Grand Prix. Sounded sweet.

[CaddyXLR-V]

I loved to rev the 3800 in my Grand Prix.  Sounded sweet.

[post="65009"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yes they do, especially without the restrictive factory airbox so can hear the supercharger whining. I'm getting my exhaust done tomorrow, and this weekend I'm putting a smaller pulley, so more whine, and better exhaust sound. Perfect :)

[Cory Wolfe]

I loved to rev the 3800 in my Grand Prix.  Sounded sweet.

[post="65009"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Don't get me wrong... I loved to rev my Quad4. I just killed it by doing so, I guess. :D

[regfootball]

[COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue]

I'm going to just come out and say I've actually learned quite alot on both sides because of this thread. For real. And I mean besides that Reg is totally going to buy a Civic.

[post="64947"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

G&G is a good place to come out if you are inclined....but that's not your bag......

no, you could never convince me to get a civic. Edited December 30, 2005 by regfootball

[razoredge]

So I wind it up to about 5800 rpms at around 70 mph. Well, that lead to a cylinder knocking... according to those I've talked to, a rod bearing appearantly.

[post="65000"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I didnt follow you GA threads after the first few posts. I always got right to work on my cars to figure out the problem and I could see that was not going to happen so I just didnt follow it.

So it spun a rod bearing, not blew up

I had a Honda that spun a rod bearing out of the clear blue. Low mileage, clean car too. Must be I should have asked it "do you like to rev?"

The Alero rental I had with the 2400 must have "liked to rev" because it went like hell. Maybe it had those special roller camshaft chain belts.

[The O.C.]

Well... if you had a Quad4. :rolleyes: The Twin Cam may be just an updated Quad4, but they are perform differently. I've driven both... my mom had one like yours. I know... 

[post="64762"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Twin Cam WAS a major improvement over the Quad4.......true.....

The Ecotec is even better though and very comparable to any import 4cyl.

[Cory Wolfe]

I didnt follow you GA threads after the first few posts. I always got right to work on my cars to figure out the problem and I could see that was not going to happen so I just didnt follow it. 

So it spun a rod bearing, not blew up

I had a Honda that spun a rod bearing out of the clear blue. Low mileage, clean car too.  Must be I should have asked it "do you like to rev?"

The Alero rental I had with the 2400 must have "liked to rev" because it went like hell. Maybe it had those special roller camshaft chain belts.

[post="65193"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I said I just vaguely use blew up to describe it... If 'vaguely' is a word, that is... :P

And I see you still do not understand what we're talking about since you are twisting around what I say. I'm not directly blaming it blo... sorry, throwing a rod bearing because it didn't like to rev. I know there has to be a reason for it, but I'm just using that as its excuse because nobody seems to be able to figure it out. Here's a question... can you? That and you definitely don't understand easiness to rev. My GA... for a 4cyl, it was fast too. Torqueless, but once I ventured into higher RPMs, it was fast. That has absolutely nothing to do with how easily it revs. It is all a feeling, most notably. Have you ever had the feeling that you are going to harm the engine by doing something? Well, that's what it feels like when revving. I understand it, the OC understands it... I mean, I first heard it from magazines and I could relate to what they were talking about.

[Sal Collaziano]

That's a pretty cool interior for a Honda Civic...

[Robert Hall]

After seeing a few Civics in person, it looks like they watered down the design for the US...the 5dr available in the UK looks much more interesting, with its distinctive headlight and taillight treatments and rear end shape....the rear ends on the US trunked models look like an afterthought...

[regfootball]

After seeing a few Civics in person, it looks like they watered down the design for the US...the 5dr available in the UK looks much more interesting, with its distinctive headlight and taillight treatments and rear end shape....the rear ends on the US trunked models look like an afterthought...

[post="76874"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

there was nothing to water down because there was no semblance of 'design' to start with.

I re-read the COTY article again a few days ago and I still am completely wondering how in the hell it won other than if you read the backgrounds of the editors who were evaluating the cars, i think only one drove a domestic as a daily driver, and they all drove asian or euro stuff, in disprortionate % to what the actual population drives. I think one staffer didn't even have a car for crying out loud. That's like letting Nader vote on COTY. Edited January 19, 2006 by regfootball

[Hudson]

there was nothing to water down because there was no semblance of 'design' to start with.

I re-read the COTY article again a few days ago and I still am completely wondering how in the hell it won other than if you read the backgrounds of the editors who were evaluating the cars, i think only one drove a domestic as a daily driver, and they all drove asian or euro stuff, in disprortionate % to what the actual population drives.  I think one staffer didn't even have a car for crying out loud.  That's like letting Nader vote on COTY.

You've obviously not driven the Civic SI. It deserves the accolades it's getting.

[Snate]

You've obviously not driven the Civic SI. It deserves the accolades it's getting.

[post="76901"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The SI is a very small part of Civic sales...probably even less than the SS Supercharged is to Cobalt sales.

Still doesn't solve the ugly part though.

[siegen]

The SI is a very small part of Civic sales...probably even less than the SS Supercharged is to Cobalt sales.

Show me the numbers.

Still doesn't solve the ugly part though.

It looks better than the Cobalt SS with its 18 inch stunna rimzzz. See I can have an opinion too.

[Flybrian]

The Cobalt rims are fine, its that dumbass Piper Cherokee wing on the back that's annoying.

[Snate]

QUOTE(Snate @ Jan 19 2006, 01:34 PM)
The SI is a very small part of Civic sales...probably even less than the SS Supercharged is to Cobalt sales.


Show me the numbers.

Sorry I don't recall every saying anything for certainty. I would be very shocked if Civic SI sales were a bigger percentage of overall Civic sales than SS Supercharged Cobalts are of overall Cobalt sales.

It looks better than the Cobalt SS with its 18 inch stunna rimzzz. See I can have an opinion too.

Good for you...too bad I was talking about the entire dorky Civic line. The SI is ok...the rest is bad to worse. Feel free to disagree.

[regfootball]

had our civic been like this

km77

then perhaps you could make a somewhat legit argument for this thing to be considered for COTY

[Polish_Kris]

had our civic been like this

km77

then perhaps you could make a somewhat legit argument for this thing to be considered for COTY

[post="80863"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agree... why isnt the hatch coming here?? Come on, in Canada, it would sell at an awesome rate, if priced right...

[pow]

I agree... why isnt the hatch coming here?? Come on, in Canada, it would sell at an awesome rate, if priced right...

[post="83602"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That'd make an awesome EL or whatever they call it there. From what I've seen, it's a very impressive and innovative car.

[siegen]

The Hatch was designed and built in Europe for Europe, I don't think they would give it to us without a fight (lol). Other than the head and tail lights, I think it is a really nice design. The thing I don't like about the headlights is how they appear to go across the entire front end. I think TSX-style head lights would be sportier. It also comes with a wider engine selection (including a diesel).

[regfootball]

from edmunds Current Odometer: 1,680 Best Fuel Economy: 26.6 mpg Worst Fuel Economy: 18.9 mpg Average Fuel Economy (over the life of the vehicle): 23.2 mpg NICE FUEL ECONOMY! :lol2:

[regfootball]

small car, not a lot of space....only 23 mpg.....

[Snate]

from edmunds

Current Odometer: 1,680
Best Fuel Economy: 26.6 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 18.9 mpg
Average Fuel Economy (over the life of the vehicle): 23.2 mpg

NICE FUEL ECONOMY! :lol2:

[post="115217"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's actually better than the other test for the Si...I forget which magazine it was from but it only averaged 19 MPG.

[The O.C.]

That's actually better than the other test for the Si...I forget which magazine it was from but it only averaged 19 MPG.

[post="115251"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'd be thrilled to have a 200hp sports coupe that ran from 0-60 in less than 7secs with an average fuel economy of over 23mpg (in varied driving.)

[Snate]

I'd be thrilled to have a 200hp sports coupe that ran from 0-60 in less than 7secs with an average fuel economy of over 23mpg (in varied driving.)

[post="115351"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

In the context of everything else...its fuel efficiency really isn't that impressive.

[siegen]

from edmunds

Current Odometer: 1,680
Best Fuel Economy: 26.6 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 18.9 mpg
Average Fuel Economy (over the life of the vehicle): 23.2 mpg

NICE FUEL ECONOMY! :lol2:

[post="115217"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

C&D only observed 20 mpg in the Cobalt SS.

You want good mileage, go get your damned Yaris you've been talking about so much :P

I'd be thrilled to have a 200hp sports coupe that ran from 0-60 in less than 7secs with an average fuel economy of over 23mpg (in varied driving.)

Exactly, and considering that 23mpg overall mileage included a large percentage of performance runs (when compared to regular driving), it is very good.

The 26mpg is probably more realistic for a driver who isn't going to be racing to get to every destination.

[Snate]

C&D only observed 20 mpg in the Cobalt SS.

You want good mileage, go get your damned Yaris you've been talking about so much

and the Cobalt SS is noticeably faster.

[CaddyXLR-V]

I'd be thrilled to have a 200hp sports coupe that ran from 0-60 in less than 7secs with an average fuel economy of over 23mpg (in varied driving.)

[post="115351"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You mean like my 240hp Grand Prix? Well now it has 280hp, but I still average 23mpg in mixed driving. Not to mention it is now 8 years old.
I dont drive like an old lady either, I love to hear my SC whine, it's kind of an addiction.

But seriously, 200hp and 23mpg combined isnt even anything special, especially for a car that size. Edited April 2, 2006 by CaddyXLR-V

[siegen]

and the Cobalt SS is noticeably faster.

[post="115621"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

R&T timed the Si at 15.1 and the SS at 14.8 for the 1/4. Not that noticable really, considering that margin could be made up or lost by the driver. The Cobalt SS is an easier car to drive fast, but not necessarily faster.