Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Honda Civic Si / SiR 2005 and earlier

1138139141143144157

Comments

  • The 5 door hatch is only superior to the Si if you need the extra 2 doors.
  • boston14boston14 Posts: 111
    The Mazda 3s has a engine that is a little bit different in feel than the SI. Has a lighter feel to the throttle and spins a little quicker. The first time I tired the 3 it felt like a sportbike engine. Very quick Revs.

    Its a hard choice between the SI and 3.
  • I looked at both, to me the 4 doors make it look like a family station wagon.
  • mautomauto Posts: 75
    "Its a hard choice between the SI and 3."

    17" wheels vs. 16"

    More torque (w/no mpg penalty) vs. less

    50k b to b warranty vs. 36k

    Curtain air bag vs. none

    Selling like hotcakes vs. giving them away

    Sounds like an easy decision to me.
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    2 door sporty hatch vs. 5 door sporty wagon....

    Again there's no comparison between the two cars. Might as well compare them to a minitruck.
  • Worse crash test scores versus better (just because a car has side curtain airbags, it doesn't automatically mean you are safer in it than a car without them)

    According to edmunds; slower 0-60 time vs. faster.

    An excellent manual transmission vs a good one.

    Excellent rep for reliability vs. an ok rep.
    (might be why the latter needs a longer warrenty)

    I could of course go on. Ultimately I am not trying to dis the Mazda in favor of the Civic, they are both very good cars. For some, indeed for perhaps the majority the Mazda will be a better choice (anyone who needs an automatic, or wants certain luxury features like leather seats, etc). On the flip side though there is alot to recommend the Civic; its a solid little run about with good performance, good utility and its a bit different than most things you will see on the road. Its relatively weak sales also means that it will be easier to negotiate a price than on a car that is selling like hot cakes.

    So mauto, while the decision might be easier for you, for some it might be a bit more difficult.
  • I wouldn't say there is no comparison between them. In fact other than the extra doors, or lack there of, I would say the two are very comperable vehicles. Both are sporty hatchbacks targeted at the younger crowd with excellent cargo utility.

    Indeed unless your requirements include 4 doors or an automatic transmission (and some people's of course do) then I think it would be natural to cross shop these vehicles; heck last year when I thought I needed to replace my VW I certainly did.

    --
    Bill
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    All cars are comparable in one way or another. I could have bought anything from an Civic EX to a EVO. But if you don't care for the Mazda3 because it has a plastic core support, find the steering position canted toward the center of the car, and the faric on the seats feels like cheap stretched nylon over foam, you don't want a 3. I like my steering wheel, solid feeling construction, and suede bolsters on my current(third EP) SI.
  • Right but my point is that the two cars in question are not exactly apples and oranges. They are in the same class (compact hatchbacks, with a bit of a sport image), same general ball park on price. Really if Honda had brought over their 5 door Civic (which is much like the 3 door) and gave it the Si treatment then they would be direct competitors, as it is they are nearly so.
  • It's an individual thing - to me they are apples and oranges. i don't want a "sport wagon" I want a hatchback. If I was in the market for a hatchback right now, I would be looking for 3 doors.

    Bottom line is, the Mazda 3 does not share a bodystyle with the Si.
  • I grant that there are differences between the cars, just like there are differences between every car. I was specifically trying to counter gee35coupe's contention that seemed to indicate that the two cars are so different as to make it silly to compare the two.

    I can certainly understand that everyone has individual preferences that would rule one or both of the cars out for them, but I think the cars are close enough in their functionality and their prospective audiences that it makes sense to compare them here.
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    Disappeared in this country. If the cars were that close, there would be many more of them. But it looks like there is a stong enough "preference" where automakers feel most people would buy a five door but not a three. I, as in me, as in this consumer, loves my SI evev though I had the choice to get any of the five doors out there.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    I don't think that it would have hurt Honda to offer a 5 door hatch in this country. The car is in existence in UK. They would just have to bump up the production and put the current Si's engine in it, instead of UK's 1.3 or 1.7 engines. Then they can go ahead and put the current RSX-S engine in the 3 door hatch, to make it more sporty than the 5 door. And maybe offer the 5 door with a diesel. I would be the first one to dump my Si for a diesel Civic 5 door, if the prices are reasonable, of course.
  • I don't know whether a 5-door Civic Diesel would sell or not, but I would definitely like a k20a2 powered Civic Si.
  • john500john500 Posts: 409
    Let's say I have two cars. One is a stock 2003 Honda Civic SI (horsepower 160, torque = 132 ftlb). The second vehicle is a hypothetical 2003 Civic SI with a V6 engine that has the same horsepower but higher torque ( for example, horsepower = 160, torque = 160 ftlb). If all other parameters were identical (vehicle weight, driver weight, gear ratios, driver shifting experience, etc.), would the V6 make it down a quarter mile track quicker (because of a longer length of time at a higher horsepower while shifting through the gears) or would the cars reach the quarter mile marker at about the same time?
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    The diesel Jetta's are quicker than the base model gas for that reason. The diesel puts out less hp but more torque so it's quicker up to a certain speed.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    It's hard to say. The V6 would be faster in each gear (more area under the torque curve = more speed) but it'd have to shift sooner. The I4 might catch up while in first gear once the V6 has shifted. You can probably calculate the problem pretty exactly if you actually have the curve showing torque to revs. I have a feeling the V6's flatter torque curve would overcome the gearing issue.

     

    Around a track, the I4 would be able to take some of the corners in a lower gear and would be my favorite.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    Let's say I have two cars. One is a stock 2003 Honda Civic SI (horsepower 160, torque = 132 ftlb). The second vehicle is a hypothetical 2003 Civic SI with a V6 engine that has the same horsepower but higher torque ( for example, horsepower = 160, torque = 160 ftlb). If all other parameters were identical (vehicle weight, driver weight, gear ratios, driver shifting experience, etc.), would the V6 make it down a quarter mile track quicker (because of a longer length of time at a higher horsepower while shifting through the gears) or would the cars reach the quarter mile marker at about the same time?

     

    No need to ponder, no need for a V6. A Civic Si with a K24 transplant is faster. Whether the transplant is from Accord (160 hp, 160 lbs.ft.) or TSX (200 hp, 170 lbs.ft??). There is an Si out there with a "Frankenstein" engine, it has a K24 block, and K20A2 head (from RSX-S). It was featured in SCC a couple of summers ago. It was faster than CTR on the track. The fatter torque curve made it a really nice car to drive in traffic or on the track.
  • just for conversation sake, had our first 8 inches of snow in the driveway today, Si did well...I hate to shovel if I don't have to....
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    just for conversation sake, had our first 8 inches of snow in the driveway today, Si did well...I hate to shovel if I don't have to....

     

    The stock Michelins are very good in the snow. I had no problem driving in the 4 blizzards we got last year. I had a 60 mile (one way) commute. I did have to slow down to 50-60 mph from my usual 75-80 mph. One time, there was this Ford Explorer who thought that he was better suited for the conditions. He high beamed me to get out of his way, and I did move to the center lane. a couple of seconds later I saw his tail lights switch into head lights and then tail lights again, and then he hit the center guard rail. I swirved around him with no problem on the stock Michelins.

    Last summer, I replaced them with Bridgestone Potenza 950, which were advertized as all season. They are much better in the dry, and wet than Michelins. And, as advertized, they are excellent in the snow as well. I was thinking of getting winter tires from Tirerack, since I moved to Buffalo and it snows here on a daily basis. But, I think I can drive on the Potenza's through winter. I am very impressed, so far.
This discussion has been closed.