siegen

Ok, the Civic SI is a POS! Damn it seems like your guys' life goal is to find bad reviews of the Civic or anything that you can use to bash it. Maybe we should start a "Why the Civic Si Sucks" thread and just post all of our opinions on why it sucks so we don't have to regurgitate everything every week when a magazine comes out with a bad review of the car (because it sucks so much of course). The 0-60 is kind of high, but remember MT's 1/4 time for the Civic, 15.8? lol, the numbers for the Si are all over the place. From what I can remember, R&T has gotten some of the best numbers out of the Si (6.8 0-60, 15.1 1/4). It probably has to do with the DBW throttle and 6sp gearbox (really short 1st gear leads to lots of wheelspin). The Si does wonders on the track (where 1st gear isn't used), not as good in the straight line performance tests. Unfortunately track time comparisons are hard to come by, and honestly I don't think most magazine reviewers would be good enough to do half of the cars they drive any justice. I would like to see the Civic Si with a normal throttle cable and weigh a little less. The fact that it weighs more than the base Civic Coupe is exactly the opposite of what you should be doing when building a sports car trim (but then again, this isn't a Type R, but an Si).

http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-hy-ne...calendar-widget Long article. Reviewer got 30mpg combined driving (lead-footed none the less), and the car is awefully heavy for a 4cyl (at 3637 lbs). From the sounds of it, it will be quite the slow mover, and the gas savings aren't a whole lot over the Accord hybrid, which the reviewer remarks as "spanking-quick", lol.

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).

I could probably top that list with just my own experiences with GMs and Fords, lol. How did you get that compiled list? I could only get full paragraphs when I searched at that site (did you just summarize each?). For a 2002 Impala, it had 99 complaints. Dare I search for a Cavalier? From a faulty windshield? Lol, I would change insurance companies if they did that. My old car got stolen and stipped and my premiums didn't go up.

Thank you. I just want to add, that the new IMA can run on the electric engine alone, utilizing the 3-stage vtec - the engine can be shut off and valves kept closed to eliminate pumping losses (as described in the video). I don't know if they have this on the Accord. I doubt the electric motor, being so small, can accelerate the car swiftly from a stop, at least not as swiftly as the Prius. Edit: Apparently, the weight gain in the Accord (all 80 lbs of it) put it in a different testing bracket. I'm not sure entirely how that works, but the tests were more harsh, and the real world performance will not change at all compared to last years model.

It is just as much a hybrid as a Prius is, it just goes about it in a very different way. Who defined what a "full hybrid" is anyway? For those interested (about the 4cyl IMA, which shouldn't be too different than the Accord V6, other than no VCM). Don't let the music put you to sleep :AH-HA_wink:

Hey, at least it's not another Toyota thread! The Accord Hybrid is not designed to get great mileage like the other hybrids. Like it said in the article, it is designed to get the economy of a 4cyl with the power of a 6cyl. And it does just that, with even better performance than the 6cyl version. 25/34 isn't great for a hybrid, but it is for a loaded V6 with a lot of grunt. What's the deal with the big drop from last year? I doubt the drop will show up so much in real world conditions, since not much changed between the years.

Toyota knows that blandness is the key to appealing to the largest possible consumer base. This, however, takes it one step beyond bland, to a word that is not yet in the dictionary. I imagine someone will make a word to properly describe the blandness of the new Camry, they probably have scholars working on it right now.

I think they're talking factory specifications.

They have the reputation, therefor people will go on blind faith and trust in the Toyota name that everything will be problem free and be more innovative than its competition. Hardy har har... How do you know the magazine reviewers didn't screw it up? And how do you know the dealership didn't feed them a line of crap? If I took my car to the Honda dealership, and told them it felt like there was a problem with the way it handled, don't you think that is the perfect opportunity for them to sell me 4 new shocks? From my experience, absolutely yes.

Stop it with the government politics please. No one here wants to argue about it. Oh and...

Nice F-150... wait.. those head lights don't look right, and what's that on the grille.... Toyota??? Damn this thing almost looks like a good ol' American cookie cutter truck, with a little bit of Jap in the grille and headlight design. Toyota sure knows how to improve on a current design, but they aren't showing too much originallity with this. Oh well it's a truck, hopefully it comes with the goods to compete with the Big 3 (edit: and by hopefully, I mean )

33/38 for the manual and 31/38 for the 5sp automatic is still good though. I would have liked to see the freeway mileage at least one or two points higher than the Civic, but this is a rather tall car (with an assumingly higher coefficient of friction from its aerodynamics, plus it doesn't weigh much less than the Civic). The city mileage is great, specially considering how many features this car has (and a hefty weight of 2551 lbs for the Sport model 5sp Auto, 2432 lbs for the base model 5sp Manual). In comparison, the Aveo only gets 26/35 for the 5sp Manual and 24/34 for the 4sp Auto (and it weighs 100 lbs+ less).

That's the last thing we need, more SUVs! Damnit, get these things off the road! I can't see around them in my lowered import!!!! 20/25 isn't good enough, even if it does manage to achieve those numbers (I don't think you'll see 25mpg on the freeway, too much wind resistance and weight). The Odyssey gets 20/28 right now with a gasoline only engine, better handling, safety features, equal room, and a better resale value! Oh crap, you can't put 24 inch dubz on the Odyssey though, I guess you got me there! (/sarcasm) Who's going to be towing a boat with a hybrid SUV anyways? People that own boats don't have money to spend on anything other than their boat (it's true), specially not the premium price of a hybrid vehicle. FLAME ON!

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

The 2.0L Ecotec doesn't make as much power or TQ as Mitsubishi's 2.0L Evo engine, so what are you getting at?

I didn't know Toyota was selling rebadged Acura TSX's? Wow! :P

I really like this car. It will make a perfect replacement for my parent's aging Ford Escort (I'm getting tired of working on that pos). I personally do like the styling, and the sport model adds quite a few minor touches here and there to improve on it. The body colored head lights are good looking in my opinion.

I'm not surprised. For Toyota to make its big profits, it has to keep the overhead as low as possible. I also wouldn't be surprised if they're skimping on R&D for vehicle prototypes as well (compared to, say, 10 years ago), just to get them to market faster and spend less money with the engineers.

Is this a mid-year update or a new model? Or did they just clean up an old one, show it, and hope no one would notice it's exactly the same? :P Just playin...

The RDX is more pod like, whereas the Grand Am's was more integrated (and only 2 "pods"). I'm not sure if I really like the side view of the RDX's interior (driver's view is great), but it definately isn't close enough to the old Grand Am's to really worry about.

:rotflmao: I certainly hope none of you actually believed him (I'll give you a hint, look at sign up date).

Open wide, here come the bugs!!! MMMM yummy! That car's got a big enough mouth (err "grille") to swallow any of its competition whole!

Lol, give me a break. If you look hard enough at any two vehicles, you will find similarities!

260 TQ out of the 2.3L is pretty darn good for an economy Turbo engine. I still want to see the mileage ratings and other specs, but I think Honda may have done a really good job with this engine (being their first Turbo in America). With the HP only being rated at 240, the TQ must die off pretty early around 4.5-5krpms. I would love to see a dynochart of this engine, since it's pretty opposite of what Honda has ever done before here. I'm pretty sure nobody will be complaining about low end power when they drive this thing. Compare it to the Volvo XC90 2.5T, which is a 2.5L Turbo, and only makes 208 HP and 236 TQ. The RDX will probably be priced in the mid 30k as well, so it will have plenty of competition. Apparently they did. And yes... it is Super!