Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Honda Civic Si / SiR 2005 and earlier
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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.
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.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who realized what the Civic had looked like before the Focus came out.
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.
So I guess it evens out the score.
However, my point was that Honda is guilty of copying other cars, just as every other automaker is.
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.
You may view the news item at the following address: <http://www.vtec.net/news/items/850.html>
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!"
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.
Although from those pictures, the wheels don't look so small.
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.
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.
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.
If that is the case, you shouldn't worry too much about Civic SI.
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
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
Host
Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards
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!).
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.
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.
Dave K.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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!