siegen

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:

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...

I think the exterior is just as bland as any Toyota, which isn't neccessarily bad at all. The interior definately looks techy. It may be too techno for some consumers, but I think it will really appeal to the younger buyers (and that doesn't mean only teenagers, probably late 20's and younger).

Do you ever back up your arguments? :P

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.

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+?

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. 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.

Sounds like the Military might get involved if they're that serious. :blink: Ah yes! Because we are just a huge herd of sheep who mindlessly listen to the media. It's too bad the chinese are having difficulties convincing us to buy their product (notice how he doesn't call it a vehicle, but a "product"). It sounds to me like this guy is a bit over zealous.

Yes, an Acura INTEGRA! lol, similar chassis to the civic, completely different car. I used to own a Civic too, superb car, inside and out (it was a '93). Aside from that. My car was a fleet vehicle for its first 65k miles. You'd think of all the previous owners it could have, being a fleet vehicle would bring it the most abuse and neglect (since the drivers of it don't own it, the company does). Aside from a stiff heat control lever, slightly squeeky hatch and some door dings, it is in perfect condition. Hell it's at 78k miles and that is literally all that's even slightly wrong with it. Not trying to hyjack the thread, but you shouldn't comment on a car, or a whole car company for that matter, without experience with them. That could be considered slander if anybody took you seriously :lol:

It's hard to comment on the quality of a vehicle you have never owned. Even a vehicle that you bought used, or rented, or drove for a while. Who knows what kind of abuse was put into it beforehand. If you have owned, say a Nissan Sentra, from day one, and take care of it, and it falls apart, then you can rightly say that Nissan Sentras (from that year range at least) are crap! Lol, I wouldn't comment on a car just based off of hearsay or a magazine review of the car. And since I doubt you've driven every year of every Nissan, new from the factory, there's no way you can come to the just conclusion that Nissan makes garbage vehicles.

Now once Toyota starts selling more cars in America than in Japan (does it already??), the world will really be upside down!

The NSX is a little underpowered for its price, but it's not a drag car. It is designed for the track, and at any reasonably technical track, it will hold its own or beat the Corvette (now the Type R version, that's a different story). The NSX has had virtually no changes since it was released in 1990. Each engine is hand built, and not shared on any other platform, so it is expensive to produce. The upside is you get a car that will last much longer than any normal assembly line built car will (engine balancing and fine tuning of parts), and you get the pride of owning one, as it is far more rare than any other sub-100k car. I actually see more 360 Modena's than I do NSX's. The Viper vs. Corvette argument has gone on forever, and it seems like a new comparison pops up every other week in some magazine or car show (including Fifth Gear). I don't really know, I like the Viper better in my own opinion, but the Corvette offers more performance for your money (they are a lot more common as well). As for Porsches, I think they're mainly for the name and prestige of owning one, similar to the NSX, except they're much more common. When it comes to the Evo, it's fast, AWD, inexpensive, and even has 4 doors, but it probably won't appeal to the people buying those other cars. It looks odd, I don't know if I really like it or not, and of course it's 4 doors (which is BAD!). And the thing that really seperates the Corvette and Evo from the other supercars, is the fact that they're just so common, and relatively inexpensive. The reason the other more expensive, yet seemingly slower cars, are still around, is because of this.

The main reason, I believe, for such inconsiderate and unskilled driving, is due to America's lack of respect for the driver's license. It is simply too easy to obtain one in America, and drivers on the road know this, therefor they take driving for granted. Driver's Ed classes are a joke (specially the ones taken through HS), the test at the DMV is a joke, and the 10 minute drive with Mr. Clipboard is a joke. How much does it cost? $20? $30? $300 for the class (which you can probably get deducted)? Of course if you wait until you're 18 you don't even have to take a class (so if you wait 2 years you magically learn how to drive?). And then once you have the license, you're free for 4-5 years before they check up on you. They do an eye test and ask you if your height, weight, etc has changed. Then you're free for another 4-5 years. People that can't even read at a Middle School level are out on the roads. The Solution is not to provide carpool incentives, or make more fuel efficient cars, or even to make smaller, safer cars at that. The solution is to make driving courses manditory to obtaining a driving license, and make them hard, very hard (and expensive). New drivers should have to know every single detail, and should have to spend a lot of time behind the wheel with a highly trained instructor in all conditions, rain, night, freeway, etc. If you're going to be participating in an event every day of your life for an hour or more each day, you should probably know every rule and regulation, and better prepare yourself for that event, right? With less people being able to drive, and having to ride with their co-workers/class-mates, the roads will become less crowded, gas will be in less demand, and the people who are able to drive will consider it a privilege and not take it for granted (and they'll be more skilled and prepared).

Well aren't you just full of opinion and insightful comments today? :P Some people need 4 doors. The 350z would be more comparable with the GTO. Not that I like the 350z. Again, some people need 4 doors, or want something bigger. The Solstice's main competition is the Mazda Miata Mx-5, not the RX8. The Corvette is a nice car, but a much less expensive Mitsubishi Evolution MR will do just about anything it does, and a lot more. When compared to what? Again, that magic number 8. It seems like a lot of people are fixated on that number. Anything less is weak, anything more is exotic. 8 cylinders is the only way to be american!

The Solstice is great and everything, especially for Pontiac. It looks good and will definately get attention. But for a performance car (a roadster at that), it is rather lacking. The Civic Si performs better in about every aspect (R&T measured a 4ft longer 60-0 braking distance however), gets better mileage and is more livable. The Civic Si, getting a 40hp limited slip HP boost as well as lots of upscale ammenities, is a large step for Honda, and has already made a large splash in the performance car segment, even though it hasn't even hit the showrooms yet. Then there's the Sedan, which gets 30/40 EPA mileage, even though it comes with a lot of Acura-like features, and is by no means bare bones (btw, that rating is for the automatic, not manual). Then there's the Coupe, and of course the Hybrid model. Why do you guys not think the Civic was deserving of this award?

Honda's first vtec prodution engine back in 1989, used 2 different cam profiles, and a hydraulic powered dowel pin to connect each of the two rocker arms on the intake or exhaust side per cylinder to another rocker arm between them. That rocker arm was mated to a much more aggressive cam lobe. In 2000, Honda incorperated VTC, which is the continuously variable valve timing that you're talking about. It will retard or advance either camshaft up to 50°. You still didn't answer my question though, about how GM's system is more simple or elegant than anybody elses. It sounds like it is based very much off of what everybody else already uses/used.

No CVT Odyssey's in America, so this won't effect us. It seems like a lot of Toyota recalls are also JDM or UKDM only. Maybe they don't have as much quality control over there, or they out-source the parts to some lower quality manufacturers. I wonder who the manufacturer of the pump is.

So the Vue Hybrid will be using a very similar or lightly modifed Accord hybrid powerplant? Even though the Accord hybrid is a performance-based hybrid system, it does bump the EX Auto V6 from 20 / 29 to 29 / 37, while increasing the performance when its needed. How is it so elegant? And how is iVTEC so complicated?

Come on, that is purely personal opinion, and is not a "reason" that it is a better choice. IMO, I like the Solstice overall, but the front grille just yells "Pontiac" too loud. If they would have done something different with that grille and the too-big fog lights, I would probably like the car better. The rest of the body really looks nice compared to the Miata (did I say Miata? I meant mx-5). When you look at the numbers though, the Mia... err Mx-5 is a better buy, depsite any small handling differences/preferences.

No, those "ricers" will hopefully stick to their crap box CRX's as they will never have enough money to buy a new Civic. They spend too much money on $140 intakes, $500 fart cans, and $1500 rims. As far as the magazine. You may be referring to Road and Tracks: East meets West comparo. Read it again, and you'll see that the Acura is much more refined than the Cobalt. It loses (if you want to say that) 587.1 points vs the Cobalt's 587.4 points, due in large part to the fact that the Cobalt is supercharged. The Acura Type S is designed to be sporty but luxurious at the same time. If they compared the Cobalt SS to a JDM Type R (Honda Integra Type R), the cobalt would've lost by a much larger margin. While on that note, the new Civic Si is rumored to be taking the place of the RSX Type S (but staying with Honda of course), with most of Honda's lineup moving up, and not really having a place for the RSX. Nothing has been said for sure though, but the Si does come with a better engine, an LSD, and a better suspension setup than the RSX Type S. If compared side to side, the RSX's lower weight would be the only thing helping it. While on Road and Track, it looks like they have a comparo of the two Roadsters you guys have been talking about, here.

I'd hope not. I think that other Ridgeline that supposedly had 4 blown shocks (according to the Honda Stealership) after very "light" use by one magazine was a bit odd. I found the AutoX video, it's at this article. It's the 3rd video down, "One Lap in the Ridgeline".

Well I'll tell you that interior looks a lot better than the interior on my Sierra. The interior is very cheap on the Sierra as well, but I wouldn't expect it to be nice looking considering its usage. Funny how a picture can make or break a vehicle, literally. Anybody who photographs cars often knows never to use the flash! The guys at TOV just posted a bunch of new Ridgeline pictures here. They haven't posted a video yet, but expect one to come soon. They also show the in bed trunk being used to its fullest! (I'll give you a hint, it starts with a b, ends with an r, and gets you drunk... oops I think I gave it away). They also have a nice autoX video taken from the inside of the Ridgeline (these guys get to romp on pretty much any new vehicle Honda puts out). I'll look for it since it's in the archive, because it's pretty nice, and the engine sounds great at WOT.

I think the front end really needs to change, it looks too old and wimpy when compared to the rest of the car and its size. Not that it's a bad car, it will certainly attract a lot of people, they just need to modernize it a little more, and give it a more aggressive look. The Dodge Charger on the other hand, is a beautiful car. The front end is very aggressive looking, and the whole body style, despite the 4 doors, looks like it's ready to charge. Throw-backs may be the only may for America to regain its lost footing in its own country. Give us some real tough looking, powerful cars and market it in the right way, and people will buy them.

For a serious towing/hauling or off-roading vehicle, they shouldve made the system work a little differently. For mileage and average consumer driving skill, being in FWD the majority of the time while driving is a good thing (but still having realtime AWD if traction is an issue). Under 19mph I believe, you can push a button that locks the torque distribution to 70% rear, 30% front. Not sure exactly how that works though, obviously it's not very viable if you have to use it at every stop light :blink: . I think they should offer a button that keeps it at about 30/70 all the time (gotta love buttons) for extended towing through both city and highway.

And here's a review from Canadian Driver for the CSX. The blue color they chose is about the ugliest color they could make though <_<