Honda Civic Si / SiR 2005 and earlier

mdriver · September 2001

If the Civic EX currently sells for about $17k, how could the new Si sell for the same price? The Si will have the upgraded engine and alloys to name just two enhancement over the current EX. The 99-00 Si cost $18k and it had no ABS. My guess is $18,500 for the Si with side airbags.

If one checks out the Honda UK site for the Civic 3-door hatch, you will find that the equivalent to the U.S. Civic EX coupe (feature wise) is actually cheaper than the U.S. EX. Their prices include sales tax, therefore you have to add whatever the sales tax is in the U.S. to do a comparison. The new hatch is infinitely better designed than the coupe offering considerably more room. I think they also come with folding mirrors too.

diploid · September 2001

Is about right. I can bet that when supply is abundant, a base RSX can sell for as low as 19K. To have an Si cost 18.5K, when an additional .5 is all that's needed to get an RSX, is nonsense.

mdriver · September 2001

Why would you compare the list price of the Si to a "haggled over" price of the RSX? You are right about the $500 difference if there are plenty of RSXs to choose from and only a handful of Sis. Since nobody can predict what discounting there will be on the Si, we can only talk about what we think the sticker will say. If the sticker of the Si is the same as the EX coupe 5sp (about $17k), then it would seem that you are getting the 16" alloys and i-VTEC for free by buying the Si over the EX. For this reason alone, the Si has to be more than $17k (sticker price).

diploid · September 2001

I think there's more than just the price difference. The U.S. isn't particularly fond of hatchbacks (at least not until recently).

Why is it that Honda decided to only have the Si in hatchback style? I think the Si should appear in coupe style. Honda should just bring over the functional hatchback as a regular model.

ghulet · September 2001

Maybe Honda is trying to by putting out the Si in hatch form only, or maybe they're trying to get some old Si customers back, since the Si 'traditionally' (til 98) was a hatchback.

robertsmx · September 2001

I consider it a good thing that Honda brought back SI as a hatchback. It wasn't until 1999 that Civic SI was sold as a coupe.

Based on CTR reviews from Europe, we're in for a surprise. One of them has to do with people who will find the interior too big, and the other is for people who will find it really spacious!

This is my first post in this thread, but I noticed that some people were feeling proud to say that Honda copied Ford's design for Focus, by comparing the 2002 Civic SI to ZX3, and even to 1992 hatchback. Apparently, they have no idea what 1996 Civic hatchback looked like. Except for the greenhouse (2002 has it similar to 1992 version), the rest of the styling is almost identical.

Oh yes, and reviewers have also loved the position of the shifter. IMO, this was a bold move by Honda.

diploid · September 2001

I remember when that debate was going on.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who realized what the Civic had looked like before the Focus came out.

robertsmx · September 2001

I thought posting couple of thumbnail pictures would enlighten those who didn't know about Civic hatchback styling from the near past.

1996 Civic

2002 Civic

The 2002 styling takes its 'greenhouse' cues from 1992 hatchback (longish looking window). Unfortunately, I couldn'timmediately find a comparable picture of the 1992 hatch to post here.

The only resemblance I see between Focus and Civic is in headlamp resemblance. But then, large round headlmaps were the strongest and unique exterior features for the 1996-2000 Civic, while Ford was selling Escort. So it makes sense to say that Ford made the Focus to resemble Civic, not the other way around.

diploid · September 2001

The current Civic's headlights seem to evolve from the Honda Insight- which was out before the Focus.

robertsmx · September 2001

Although the headlamps have slightly shrunk in the coupe/sedan with the 2001 changes, but they continue the theme started by Honda in 1996. The hatchback however has the headlamps taken directly from the previous generation Civic sedan, and so does the 2002 CR-V.

diploid · September 2001

the 2002 CR-V copied the body style of the Ford Escape. Some can say that it is an evolution of the last generation CR-V, but it just so happens that the new CR-V evolved to look quite similar in body form to the Escape.

So I guess it evens out the score.

robertsmx · September 2001

the front bumper, I don't see anything on the CRV copied from Escape. I'd love to find out where do they resemble. CRV is another example of evolution, I will try to post comparative pictures here later.

diploid · September 2001

With side views of both models. You will see how the CR-V resembles the Escape in the execution of the car's overall shape. It basically looks like an Escape with rear tail lights that runs the 3/4 length of the whole back and a spare tire tacked on. Now compare that with a picture of the outgoing CR-V model, and it's obvious where Honda received its inspirations.

himiler · September 2001

Can we keep this a SUV-Free Zone? It suffices to say that all the "cute-utes" pretty much look the same in my rear-view mirror.

diploid · September 2001

But we were discussing how people were accusing Honda of copying Ford Focus's headlamps, which is simply not true.

However, my point was that Honda is guilty of copying other cars, just as every other automaker is.

robertsmx · September 2001

When the CRV comes out, check every panel there is. I bet you'll see an evolution. The upper rear quarter is more 'squarish' now (earlier it was rounded and tapered), which to me seems to resemble a Land Rover. In fact, the CRV now looks like a baby MDX, except for the fact that the liftgate is more angular in the Acura.

Escape to me looks like a baby Explorer to me, which makes sense as well. Although I always thought that the Explorer was sitting on its butt while being driven around.

We can discuss this in CRV (SUV) thread though, where I have posted pictures.

hondavtec · October 2001

The Temple of VTEC has a news item referring to Autoweek's test of the new Civic Si hatchback in Germany. Autoweek's article mentions that the spring/shock rates of the new Si are almost identical to those of the European Civic Type-R, that the acceleration/speed is not as dramatic as past Si's (even though the 0-60 acceleration figure is expected to remain unchanged), that the 50-80 m/hr acceleration time is lower than that of the B16A Si, and that the vehicle is estimated to weigh over 2700 lbs (This is most likely due to the weight of the larger engine. However, I am surprised that the changeover to a Hatchback body does not compensate for the added weight of the engine.)

You may view the news item at the following address: <http://www.vtec.net/news/items/850.html>

himiler · October 2001

The extra weight isn't under the hood, I'm afraid. Just look at the poor thing...it's too friggin' long and tall! A 2700lb. "performance" car riding on skinny 195/60-15 tires? What a cruel joke from Honda this has turned out to be.

Let's review: for around 20(!) Large, you get a bloated, underpowered, under-tired (in typical Honda fashion) car that could only look stylish to anyone over the age of 60.

Honda is doing the right thing by only importing 15,000 of 'em. The words of Mr.T come to mind--"I pity the fool!"

mdriver · October 2001

Unfourtunately, much of the weight is in the body structure which enables the Si to score well in crash tests. No real way around that, unless you build an aluminum frame and body. The hatchback style is a welcome breath of fresh air in Honda's otherwise bland lineup. Over 60s usually won't go near a hatchback. I think the tires are 16" not 15", but agree that it is still undertired, like every other Honda made.

silver_bullet · October 2001

... has a somewhat disjointed article on the new Si, and a cover photo to boot. The more I read about this car, the less interested I am. Glad I have a deposit down on a new Mini Cooper

It won't be as fast as an Si, but I'm betting it will be better built and more fun to drive.

diploid · October 2001

I think Honda was too busy focusing on the Ford Focus when they redesigned the Civic. The Focus hatchback is just too bulbous, and Honda jumped to mimic it because they saw the sales number for the Ford. The last generation Civic hatchback was the best looking one.

periwon · October 2001

Is now on their online site:

http://www.autoweek.com/

It's not really a road test, but more of a driving impression, without any test data. I'd think that the SI should perform just the same as the base RSX. Speaking of the RSX, has anyone seen a test of the base one? All those I've read have been for the Type S.

diploid · October 2001

Must they test drive the car in the rain...I hate when these journalists do that.

Although from those pictures, the wheels don't look so small.

nakins · October 2001

I really doubt that Honda took the design for the Si from the Focus. If you look at the headlights, for example, they are definitely of Asian inspiration. American car makers have always be the last to mod headlights, an then, they follow European trends. There was probably a concept car a few years ago that introduced this Si/Focus look that everyone is copying. Even a couple of Peugeot's look like this.
From what I've read, Honda is trying to build cars under a global model process, such that the same model can be sold all over the world with little or no or easily done mods. And this makes sense. However, There are a number of cars that Honda makes that will never see the light of a North American day. As far as I can tell, The Stream, the Civic Vi, and the Jazz (Fit), are going to be sold everywhere except North America. Why? It's not because we drive on the right side of the road. It because North American market wants just the opposite of what everyone else wants. We want big SUV's and cars that look like they cost more than they really do, or cars that project an image of wealth (whether we have that wealth to back it up or not). They (the rest of the world) has to contend with gas prices that would turn Americans inside out if they had to pay what they do.
The hatchback in the US has never been a car for the successful image that Americans crave, thanks to American Motors (the Gremlin and Pacer folks).
The Civic and Accord coupes and sedans have have that image. And there lies the problem for Honda and the rest.
Americans are tired of Mini-Vans, They are for the lower classes now. SUV's will go the same way when everyone gets tired of asking them what soccer team their kids play on. And if gas prices got back up to the near $2.00 a gallon price of so not so long ago, pickup trucks and the like are going to be put under tarps along with the boat.
I suggest that everyone go take a look at European/Asian/Down under car web sites and see what we won't be getting.

civic_cx_92 · October 2001

1) I can't understand why it weighs 2,700 lbs empty. (that's 850 lbs more than my old '85 Civic S)
2) Honda could've at LEAST let it have the base RSX engine, Si torque gets de-rated to 130lb-ft.
3) One good news, hybrid (engine swap) should be easy fitting a RSX-S engine into the 2001-2 Civic DX coupe (2405 lbs empty).
4) I am a American who still enjoy the minivan, our '97 Grand Voyager SE is a perfect family vehicle.

robertsmx · October 2001

1) I can't understand why it weighs 2,700 lbs empty. (that's 850 lbs more than my old '85 Civic S)
My guess is about 2650 lb. (about 35-40 lb. more than the 2000 Civic SI). Every car is getting heavier by year. 2600 lb. (Civic) to 2900 lb. (Sentra V-Spec) is becoming the norm of compact cars. There are too few cars in the sub 2500 lb category (Insight, Echo, MR-S), base Celica GT and Miata barely make it with near 2500 lb. curb weight.

2) Honda could've at LEAST let it have the base RSX engine, Si torque gets de-rated to 130lb-ft.
It is probably the same engine, but quite likely not being advertised with the same rating, if that happens. The other variations of the 2.0 liter I-4, all have 138-141 lb.-ft in Japanese market but only 154 HP.
When Honda launched the new Civic Type-R in Japan, it got a reduction in 'peak' torque from 152 lb.-ft to 148 lb.-ft (compared to 2002 Integra Type-R), but there was also a drop in peak power from 220 HP (ITR) to 215 HP (CTR). I don't see a drop in power happening in this case, as the Civic SI has a 160 HP engine, just like RSX (base).

3) One good news, hybrid (engine swap) should be easy fitting a RSX-S engine into the 2001-2 Civic DX coupe (2405 lbs empty).
I'm not sure how that is going to work. The new 2.0 liter engine is quite possible similar in external dimensions (and weight) as the current Civic 1.7 liter engine, but spins in the opposite direction.

civic_cx_92 · October 2001

I'm afraid 2002 Golf GTI 1.8T with 180hp/174 lb.-ft torque'll eat the Civic Si/Acura RSX alive.

diploid · October 2001

Those numbers look impressive. But I think it's rational to wait and see how much the VW will weigh, as well as the gearing ratios.

robertsmx · October 2001

I'm afraid 2002 Golf GTI 1.8T with 180hp/174 lb.-ft torque'll eat the Civic Si/Acura RSX alive.
If that is the case, you shouldn't worry too much about Civic SI.

civic_cx_92 · October 2001

2002 Sentra SE-R spec v, would you believe $17,539 including the $540 destination charge...that's the MSLP.

175 hp/180 lb.-ft torque with 6-sp manual, 2743 lbs. empty.

TMV depends on the demand

165 hp/175 lb.-ft torque 5-sp SE-R could be had for $16,539

civic_cx_92 · October 2001

2002 Sentra SE-R spec V
EPA gas mileage

2.5 5-sp M 24/29 mpg

2.5 6-sp M 22/28 mpg

87 octane...PREMIUM GAS NOT REQUIRED

RSX-S and 2002 Golf GTI 1.8T requires Premium gas.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2000.htm

revka · November 2001

is now available. Here's a direct link to First Drive: 2002 Honda Civic Si, by Brent Romans. What do you think?

Revka

Host

Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards

sunilb · November 2001

sounds like there are a lot of trade-offs with this iteration. The beauty of the Si used to be that it was nimble, screaming, and had a great suspension. Sounds like this engine is somewhat better, but lacks the trait Honda has been known for: a kick in the pants when the VTEC engages.

Plus, I'm still not sold on these "taller, but narrower" cars (particularly, the Civics/RSXs). Seems like it raises the center of gravity which isn't good for anyone.

It's good to see that they've added an immobilizer.... a few years late for me though (if it was on my 99 Si, perhaps it wouldn't have been stolen from me!).

himiler · November 2001

The new issue of R&T Magazine mentions that the high cowl in the Si isn't one its more endearing features. I guess they forgot to thank the front struts and high-mounted steering gear. You've really got to love those skinny little tires, too.

robertsmx · November 2001

"We're on an autobahn in the eastern part of German, and we're traveling at an indicated 130 mph. Our Honda Civic Si tracks as if it were on rails... The car feels familiar. In fact, it feels a lot like a German car." (BTW, Civic Si was designed in Germany)

At 130 mph! Thats good news to me. No, I'm not going to go 130 mph, but more often than not, most cars tend to lose their steering feel at 65-70 mph.

"the new hatchback feels like a bank vault when on the move, such is its sense of solidity and quietness".

In general, they seem to like the car, including the position of the shifter, the gear ratios, the suspension/chassis response.

Looks like Edmunds reviewers were in Seattle for the test drive.

sunilb · November 2001

okay, this may sound minor, but it irks me:

It appears from the pics at http://www.vtec.net/civic/02si/index0.html

That the latest Si (along with the RSX)... has no armrest between the two front seats! What gives? During a long drive, these are definitely needed.

robertsmx · November 2001

Probably available as an accessory. I'd have prefered to have it with floor mounted gear box.

phaedrys · November 2001

As far as I know, the RSX does not have it as an option, and I doubt that the Si does either. I haven't even seen any aftermarket ones for the RSX, though by now they may be out with a few.

davekmdmd · November 2001

What's wrong at Honda/Acura, everything is getting high, wider, heavier, slower? Gone are the just plain old, fun to drive, immensely useful Hondas of years past. The new SI with 160 HP is probably on par, performance wise with old SIs (like the 91 CRX Si, etc). UK gets the Civic Type R, we get squat. Sorry for the *itching but where are the fun, albeit unitarian cars that made Honda famous?

Dave K.

robertsmx · November 2001

I agree. Honda would have killed the competition by just installing the 200 HP engine from RSX-S in the Si. But let us see what the new hatch is about. It is definitely heavier, and slightly taller, but first Civic to have a 2.0 liter engine as well.

davekmdmd · November 2001

I haven't seen specs, but I believe the 2.0l 160HP Si motor is the base RSX motor. There are two (and I assume soon to be three variants) of this new 2.0 K motor; the base 2.0 with 160, the Type S 200 HP, and the rumored 220?HP Type R K motor. The problem, as I recall, is that the base 160 and 200 HP motors do not share head/cam goodies. I read an analysis some months ago but just can't recall the details. I believe the base 160 motor only has iVtec on intake. The 200 gets iVtec on intake and exhaust plus other go fast goodies. Translation, making a 160HP K motor into a 200HP K motor is going to be awfully, awfully expensive, prohibitively so.

I'm ticked, the UK gets the CTR and we get a slightly warmed over commuter. It just might be better for me to stick with my 98 Coupe and stuff a B18C into it or get an 92-95 EG hatch and stuff a B18C motor into it.

I was really hoping that the new hatch would be a pocket rocket. I hate to say this but it will take continued market-share erosion before Honda wakes up. They invented (without really "inventing") the sport import car craze. Now they are giving it up without a whimper.

Dave K.

diploid · November 2001

I do believe they're the same engines. The Si just has 10 lbs. less torque.

The Type-R has ~220hp and I think 151(?) lb-ft of torque, compared with 200hp and 142 lb-ft of torque for the Type-S.

davekmdmd · November 2001

Folks,

I'm betting the 160 HP 2.0L is the base RSX motor that's been tuned a bit differently. (I sure hope I'm wrong about this). This motor is the K20A, whereas the good stuff is in the K20C. The A has 9.8:1 compression but the C has 11.0:1. The A has iVTEC on intake only and lame vtec at that (I'll get to that in a minute). The C gets both intake and exhaust. The lame A's vtec is almost like the old Civic HX vtec where only 3 valves operated at low speed and vtec allowed the 4th to open. Anyone with this style HX will tell you how enemic it was. However it did make for good gas mileage and reduce emissions. The A's vtec opens one intake all the way normally (and the cam lob is fairly conservative). The other lobe barely cracks open the other intake at low speed. This creates a swirl that's good for gas mileage and reduced emissions (just like the HX). At "VTEC" the rocker on the lame lob gets locked into the other normal lob so at VTEC you get a normal 4 valves opening scenario. To be fair the cam is also varied so there's some trickier there. The net affect however is that the K A's vtec is a shadow of the B18C or B18C5's vtec (or the B16A5's) rip.

The C motor not only gets the good VTEC, and higher compression, but it gets stronger connecting rods, and oil squirters for the piston. The intake manifold is different as well and naturally the Si gets a 5 speed tranny whereas the RSX's get 6 speeds; screwed again. To be fair though it does get electrically assisted rack and pinion power steering and a close ratio gear box.

The weight is 2744, 28lbs MORE than the RSX base. The wheels/rims are 15" with huge 195/60 tires that most folks will throw out before showing up at home with the car.

It's clear that American Honda wants you to buy the car and hope that tuners, American and worldwide, can give the car some decent performance. So look at the new Si as a $18-$19K starter project car. Add $1200 - $2000 for decent wheels and tires, then lowering springs, and maybe some shocks, ... Of course you can get the new SI and wait for 2.0 Type S motors to show up in salvage yards, which they inevitably will. Seeing that GSR motors still command $3500-$4,000 I guess you can pick one up for $4000+ or so along with the ecu and 6 speed tranny.

(Sorry for the caustic post, but I own 5 Hondas and was hoping the new SI would be a great pocket rocket. I'll stop posting now and behave).

silver_bullet · November 2001

Before I went to all that trouble and expense, I'd take the same $$$ and spend it on a WRX. Lots of fun, don't have to build it yourself, and you get a warranty too.

robertsmx · November 2001

davekmdmd, you do have a very good point in your post (#293). Honda probably concentrated on supplying a very capable chassis in the form of Si, and some features that tuners will appreciate after they are done with the rest of it (eg. variable gear steering). The reason the car weighs almost 400 lb. more than previous hatchback is to give a chassis that can take a lot more, and be struturally as rigid as possible.

silver_bullet:
Outside drag racing, WRX and Si will serve completely different purpose. Rallye inspired chassis doesn't do well on tracks with tight curves, because of their basic engineering. They can be tuned for track, but then, they would lose some of their 'rallye inspired' strengths. A compromise everybody must deal with.

greenguy · November 2001

http://www.ustcc.com/

Not to flame but this is probably the best test of a cars racing "on the street".

Rally will test the cars dynamics and the drivers as well.

take care and Happy Turky Day!

seminole_kev · November 2001

you know they rally (or rallye depending where you're from) on asphalt too. Great handling cars.

robertsmx · November 2001

Rallye inspired cars do good on long sweeping curves on asphalt, but not around tighter turns. Because handling tuning itself is a bunch of compromises. And that hurts, here, or there.

seminole_kev · November 2001

Robert - you must not watch WRC racing! Those guys fly around pinpoint turns on asphalt. Of course they're some of the greatest drivers out there. (make those Nascar morons look like valet attendents).

robertsmx · November 2001

I have watched WRC racing, not as regularly as CART/F1 racing though. The last race (not WRC) I watched was about couple of weeks ago that I hit accidently while flipping channels. Mitsubishi EVO, Honda City, Suzuki Esteem etc. running through coffee plantations in South India.

Honda Civic Si / SiR 2005 and earlier

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles