Honda Civic Si / SiR 2005 and earlier

john500

I've noticed that almost all of the normally aspirated 4-cylinder Honda engines have low torque values compared to the horspower output. Can someone explain the physics behind it (i.e. what factors are involved, stroke, head size etc

How could one make a four-cylinder engine with 200 hp and 200 ft-lbs of torque instead of 200 hp and 140 ft lbs of torque (i.e. RSX-S)?

Thanks.

nippononly

you could give it 200/200 as opposed to 200/140 by making it bigger or giving it forced induction. Honda doesn't like forced induction for street vehicles, and tends to use various tricks with the head to extend the power development up to really high rpm (the redline of the 210 hp RSX-S is 7800 rpm). These cars are revvers, not diesels or V-8s with lots of low-end torque. There is a school of thinking (to which I heartily subscribe!) that this is the most fun type of design for driving. On the flip side, they make very docile cars to drive in traffic or city congestion, all the while getting great gas mileage.

john500

I am currently paying about $2,000 a year (comprehensive, Louisiana, >25 y/o male, perfect driving record) to insure a 2003 Honda Civic SI. This is about $500 per year higher than comparably priced 2003 vehicles. Can some other people list their insurance prices please?

I don't believe that the theft rate and collision rate of the 2002-current Civic SI's are similar to the earlier model years (i.e. 1999-2000). Thus, a lower insurance price should be a result, based upon statistics collected over the last three years.

carlisimo

If your engine has a redline of 5252rpm, its torque and horsepower maximums will match. In a theoretical engine, you have the same amount of hp as torque at that engine speed. (That's a little simplified though, since torque curves aren't flat in real life. I think the horsepower curve is the integral of the torque curve.)

So if you have a low redline, like a diesel, you have higher torque numbers than hp. High redline like many Honda engines... higher hp than torque.

Displacement and compression ratio are big factors in torque. I'm sure everything else is too, but I don't know in what ways. Then you let the engine rev as high as you think is good for it. At very high revs, each rev might not be very torquey on its own, but you're putting that amount of torque-per-rev to the road at a rapid rate.

john500 - you're over 25? Damn, I'm under. Maybe I should stop thinking about the Si. I doubt they separate car generations for insurance purposes... not enough data on new Si's if the did. (There's a thread in the "Smart Shopper" forum with a lot of insurance experts... try there too.)

nippononly

I have what I think should be a similarly rated car - the RSX - and I pay $1600/year for full coverage, $50 deductible. I am >30 single male, no accident or ticket points on the record. That SI insurance sounds a little high, but maybe there is a big difference between >25 and >30? Integras historically have high insurance because of the high theft rate; don't know if the same is true for the RSX. Also, the SI is built only in England, the RSX only in Japan, and I am on the west coast. Wonder if that makes a difference.

gee35coupe

Insurance on my SI is 500 yr full coverage. I actually think it's less than that. I just don't have it in front of me right now.

nippononly

married people get all the benefits! :-P

One note: don't know about gee's SI, but my RSX is listed on the insurance as the primary car.

gee35coupe

Progressive doesn't rate them as primary or anything. We pay $1000/6 monhs for an 04 Odyssey, 04 Accord EX-L stick, 03 Civic SI, and a 1994 Lexus LS400. All full coverage $500 deductible ecept the Lexus which has $1000.

billmchale

You have a $50 deductable on your car insurance? Or is it $500? I wouldn't even report anything into the insurance under $500 cause it cost me more in the end.

nippononly

is $50. I figure like you - no point in having it (well, there would still be SOME point) with a really high deductible, although $500 would be manageable. I investigated the difference in premium between $500 and $50 deductibles, and it wasn't that much, so I went for the $50.

If I had gee's $500 deductible, my renewal that just went by would have been about $1400 instead of $1600.

gee35coupe

so the deductible is $500. Oherwise they would all be $1000.

billmchale

Which means that every 2 1/2 years you have earned your deductable back. I tend to keep a fairly large deductable becuase while it may not save me much, hey a hundred bucks is still 5 trips to the gas station.

nippononly

not claiming to be a financial wizard here, bill, just saying I like to have a small deductible if I need to make a claim. With the really junky roads here in California, rocks have cracked or broken two windshields and a fog lamp in the last four years - comp claimed them all at $50 apiece.

gee35coupe

$200 a pop. No big deal. I figure I can put $1000 on my credit card if I need to. But most importantly, I hope I never need it in the first place.

I've haven't used my comp/coll in over 10 years.

billmchale

You might be able to get a different deductable for glass. Mine is only $100 for glass, but higher for other sorts of damage.

nippononly

cracked on my Matrix last year, the car was less than six months old, so I insisted that it be replaced with original equipment glass - total cost about $950. I paid $50.

That car was also the one where the fog lamp got killed by a rock - the whole lamp had to be replaced (not surprisingly) - total cost about $400. I paid $50.

edunnett

My husband and I had been paying about $2400/yr to insure our 3 cars (86 civic, 04 forester, 04 cr-v) with state farm 30/60 across the board, $500 deductibles, good driving records, loyal customers, multiple policies... I recently compared insurance prices and saved $800/year going with Liberty mutual for 50/100 coverage. MetLife also offered $700 worth of savings and even Amica, the best rated insurance around offered savings over State Farm. I recommend going to http://www.insweb.com and getting quotes from other carriers. You can save a ton of money.
Elissa

blueiedgod

I have one problem with insweb, they are dishonest, or at least the companies they represent. The qoutes I got from them were one thing, but when exactly the same info was entered into a particular insurance company the qoute doubled. Of course I walked. Costco/AMEX insurance are the next best to Geico as far as the cost.

edunnett

Geico and Progressive are VERY expensive for me. Quotes were higher than what I was paying before. It all depends on your driving record, financial record, cars, etc. Each company seems to evaluate/valuate different cars and people differently. I got a discount from Liberty Mutual for having an advanced degree and depending on the company that I worked for I could have gotten another discount. Go figure. Problem with insweb I think has more to do with the form that you send information to them on not being as complete as is needed to evaluate every customer. I found my policy was $100 more per year than the quote I got from Liberty Mutual from insweb but that had to do with how I classified myself as a driver and how I distributed miles across three cars. I didn't put all the detail in to the quote request. For me, with a clean record and good financial history the quotes were right on target.
Elissa

anonymousposts

I've had a pretty good experience with Progressive. My husband and I pay $2000 per year for full coverage on a 2003 Si, 2004 Accord, 2004 Odyssey, and a 94 LS400. It's worth giving them a shot if you ask me.

burnout

Im a 15 year old male, well almost 16... i just bought a Civic Si (2000)... its nice has alot of horsepower for a 1.6 liter... IT COULD USE MORE TORQUE but im not really complaining about that.. the U.S. never gets THE GOOD CARS... (Nissan SKYLINE and CIVIC TYPE R just to name a few...) im not originally from the U.S. (Bosnia)... but i would really like to see that the U.S. stops getting the shorter end of the stick... i would have been ecstatic if i could get the Civic TYPE R (185hp out of a 1.6l !!!!!) well tell me what you think and thanks for reading

carlisimo

Congrats, that car should be a ton of fun. Not a good choice is you wanted torque, but revs are their own reward.

(And we do get the Nissan Skyline, as the Infinity G35, but we haven't gotten the Skyline GT-R... though they say they'll bring over the next one.)

blueiedgod

Im a 15 year old male, well almost 16... i just bought a Civic Si (2000)... its nice has alot of horsepower for a 1.6 liter... IT COULD USE MORE TORQUE but im not really complaining about that.. the U.S. never gets THE GOOD CARS... (Nissan SKYLINE and CIVIC TYPE R just to name a few...) im not originally from the U.S. (Bosnia)... but i would really like to see that the U.S. stops getting the shorter end of the stick... i would have been ecstatic if i could get the Civic TYPE R (185hp out of a 1.6l !!!!!) well tell me what you think and thanks for reading

Problem is that GOOD CARS cost money, plus it costs more to the manufacturer to certify these cars in the US, thus adding to the price.

Example 1: 2003 Honda Civic Type R retails for about $25,000 in UK, add A/C, and Radio and you have a $27,000 Civic. I know I would not pay $27,000 for a Civic unless it was casted out of solid Gold, and plated with Platinum.

Example 2: The current Infinity G35X is the closest you can get to Nissan Skyline GT-R costs $35,000 and more. Once the true GT-R makes it here, it will probably cost $40,000 or more.

mauto

Your Type R prices are close but the reason has more to do with exchange rate flutuation than costs to "certify" the car for the US. Most cars built in Europe meet just about every U.S. safety and emission requirement already. About the only thing left to do is to stick the useless airbag warning sticker on the sun visor.

In fact, the U.K. Type R has side airbags as standard. Don't see that on any U.S. Civics, optional yes, standard no. Indeed, even ABS is standard on all U.K. Civics. So much for U.S. safety regulations.

Finally, yes, the U.S. gets the "short end of the stick" when it comes to sporty cars. They get the new generation Focus, we don't. They get the Civic Type R, we don't. They get the excellent diesel choices, we don't. You can thank the Acura RSX as the sole reason the U.S. will never see the Civic Type R. Thanks Acura.

blueiedgod

The current Si is made in UK and is sold in US. Although it is not as impressive as Type R or anything else on the market, the UK's Civic Type S is here. I don't see people flocking to the dealerships to buy one. This one guy and I are the only two people who have current Si in my town of half a million, but there are tons of Civic's and RSX's. Swap the RSX type S engine and tranny into the Si, and you have the Type R. The rest of the world still gets Integra and Integra Type R and Civic Type R. Integra/PSX is not to blame. It is people who vote with their wallets.

I could care less if my car had air bags. They do more damage than safety. The air bag is there to prevent you from hitting the steering wheel, windshield, or side panels with your head, but if you are properly harnessed there is no reason for you to hit those things. If you want real safety get a 4 point racing harness.
This is what happends when you don't wear your seatbelt.
http://www.gt.ee/download/DuEnMovie_AUDI_vs_BUSZ.wmv

I would like that air bags were optional. Not just the side air bags, but all of them. I wear my seat belt, and the studies have shown that air bags are detrimental is many cases. The black powder exploding in your face is not something I am looking forward to everyday. I would rather have optional harnesses instead of a 3 point belt.

We do get the new Focus, it is sold as Volvo S40 and V40.

nippononly

"We do get the new Focus, it is sold as Volvo S40 and V40."
Except, of course, for the 5-cylinder Volvo engines which the Euro Focus does NOT have. Also some of the Volvo's standard safety features. Also...
They are only platform mates, nothing more.

I read an editorial in Auto Week recently that was talking about the fact that the mystique of the "type-R" badge has become mostly history at this point. Instead of standing for pure performance as it did in the 90s, it is now more of a top-of-the-line trim level. It has the power, yes, but it has the weight too (of standard ACC, power everything, a gazillion airbags, etc etc). Honda is backing away from pure factory performance, in search of the mainstream.

Of course, it also knows something people who post here find it hard to admit - serious performance costs, and most people in the U.S. just won't pay those costs for small cars. If they are spending much more than $20K or so, they are expecting V-6 or even V-8 power in their fast cars. Not to mention luxury features. Look how many of the TOTALLY SWEET 90s Integra type-R's sold - precious few. Right now there is an Integra type-R in Japan that is still the real deal pretty much. Will we ever get it here? Not on your life. People WANT A/C for $25K. And not many people would pay $25K for a Civic either (the Euro Civic type-R). Buy the RSX-S instead. At least you'll get the powertrain pretty much intact, and might even have a thou or two in change...

mauto

What do you think of the mileage ratings of the new Corvette compared to the Si. I know, not really a good match-up, but I'm disappointed in the Si's highway rating of 30. It seems that Honda does so well with some of its vehicles, and then stumbles on others:

Corvette: 400HP 6.0L Highway: 28 mpg
Si: 160HP 2.0L Highway: 30 mpg

It's remarkable how an engine with three times the dispalcement gets almost the same economy.

billmchale

The 'vette gets such good highway mileage for a simple reason; at 60 mph in 6th gear the car is not doing much more than idling. In contrast most 4 bangers are running around 3000 RPM or so.

nippononly

they did that short gearing in the SI so that you wouldn't necessarily have to shift down at highway speeds in order to accelerate.

It seems to be fairly easy to get high highway mileage these days...look at all the full-size cars that similarly loaf along at 1200 rpm on the highway and get 30 mpg.

Thing is, most people don't spend their lives on the highway, and for all those "regular" drives that Corvette and all those Buicks and Fords are getting 21, 22 mpg. Or less. The Civic is getting 27. Or more. (I would get more).

Big-engined cars are big-power at any speed, all the time. That means that when you don't need the power (stuck in traffic, driving through downtown) you still have it, and the gas consumption with it. The thing I like I like about Honda's 4-cylinders is that you get the high fuel efficiency in town, but if you rev them hard (which is fun in its own right) you get the power.

mauto

Yes, revving the Si engine is fun, but blowing them away in a 'Vette, running its engine at, say, 1300 rpm is probably funner.

I think my comment was geared (joke intended) towards the lack of a 6th gear in the Si, which would probably get it into the mid 30s mpg.

Still, the Corvette also doesn't need to downshift at highway speeds either. It just shows that you can get good highway fuel economy using an old tech pushrod engine with massive amounts of torque.

kauai215

You wrote:
"I could care less if my car had air bags. They do more damage than safety."

Lot of truth to that. Those things worry me, too. A lot of people have suffered serious burns from the heated gasses exiting the bag at deployment. It makes me feel I should wear my driving gloves at all times; they're fireproof, but I don't think they're steam-proof. Hmmm...

You wrote:
"If you want real safety get a 4 point racing harness."

Yeah, I know. I've thought the same thing.

Although, you might want to research what happens to you, especially your spine, if you don't have an anti-submarine fifth strap. You might want to make that a 5-point system.

And to make that harness work best, you might want a proper racing seat with slots for each belt.

And then there's the niggle of the roof collapsing on your head in a rollover, since you're locked into that upright position by the harness. So you really need a rollbar and maybe a rollcage.

And you may not be able to reach everything in the cockpit when you're properly restrained by a racing harness... The typical driver is unlikely to accept being unable to reach his radio, now is he? I'd accept it, but I'm strange, like you, too, maybe? ;-)

And if you can breath freely, the harness is too loose. When you struggle to breath and your voice rises an octave or two... the tension is just about right! ;-)

And given all that, I've still seen Paul Tracy bounce his head off his steering wheel in an Indy car crash.

Lordy, what's a person to do?

All the same, "Blue," it's nice meeting a young man who has his head screwed on straight when it comes to safety.

kauai215

You wrote:
"I think my comment was geared (joke intended) towards the lack of a 6th gear in the Si, which would probably get it into the mid 30s mpg."

Exactly. I've been complaining bitterly about that lack of a "cruising" gear for decades.

Our '99 Si was running 3900 rpm at 70 mph. Our '02 Si is about 3500.

Poor fuel economy and TOO MUCH COMMOTION!

My '88 Mustang GT was running about 1600 rpm at 60 mph in 5th. It had an enormously steep 5th gear, useless for anything but cruising, and even then one needed to downshift on a meaningful grade, and it had 300 lb/ft of torque. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'Vette pilot had to change down from 6th to get a move on. I'd guess that 6th is a "CAFE" gear, and just like 5th on our Mustang GT... useless for anything but cruising. But that's GOOD! It quiets things down and gives a major boost in the fuel economy just where it's needed.

Why aren't the manufacturers listening to you? :-)

blueiedgod

And then there's the niggle of the roof collapsing on your head in a rollover, since you're locked into that upright position by the harness. So you really need a rollbar and maybe a rollcage.

Si already comes with a built-in roll cage. Peel off the A pillar covers and you will see a pipe running inside of it to the roof rails.

And you may not be able to reach everything in the cockpit when you're properly restrained by a racing harness... The typical driver is unlikely to accept being unable to reach his radio, now is he? I'd accept it, but I'm strange, like you, too, maybe? ;-)

No problem here, I have installed a radio with a steering wheel remote control. Besides, I like to listen to my engine purr and growl over any radio or CD.

All the same, "Blue," it's nice meeting a young man who has his head screwed on straight when it comes to safety.

Who are you calling young, lol. I am going to be 30 next year. I feel like I have out grown my Si, I am ready for TSX.

kauai215

You wrote:
“Who are you calling young, lol. I am going to be 30 next year.”

Goodness! That old, huh? Come talk to me in ten years. Come to think of it, I may have passed along to the Next World by then. (I’m old. ;-) I’ll tell you what, if that’s the case, I’ll phone you from there . . . collect. :-)

“It is good to be young and go very fast.” - from the film “Grand Prix”

gee35coupe

I love my SI.

nippononly

driving the last Vette got 15-17 mpg in their driving. Under the same conditions, the Civic SI returned 25 or so. That is a significant difference to me. Not to mention I don't have to put up with a skip-shift "feature" in the Civic that prevents me from going to second gear unless I have it floored. Talk about tricks to get a better EPA rating. To me there is no point in having six gears unless you are able to use all of them whenever you want to.

It has always been the nature of the SI to be a revver, which is perhaps why Honda didn't put in a sixth gear. I still think it is more likely because they didn't want to have the car cruising at such low revs that going up a grade or passing requires a downshift. They know that many drivers are lazy enough that they would rather not have to do this.

gee35coupe

I'd rather have the vette. I'm just not mature enough for one. I have a hard time staying legal in my SI.

I can't drive anything with any more power and keep my driver's license.

anonymousposts

guess that means no TL for you there Gee.

kauai215

You wrote:
"I'd rather have the vette. I'm just not mature enough for one."

It's a problem. ;-)

Power and torque are addictive -- more is better.

This reminds me of something Mark Donohue related in his autobiography. Back in the heyday of the CanAm race series, Mark was driving the dominating Penske/Porsche 917. Mark, an engineer by training, was at the Porsche works in Germany working with the engineers there on developing the new 917.

At some point while test driving, Mark was saying that he wanted more power. The Porsche engineers were astonished, since they’d provided far and away the most powerful Porsche racecar ever. “How much power do you WANT?!” they arrogantly demanded.

Mark replied, “Enough to spin my wheels all the way down the longest straight.”

The Porsche engineers were dumbstruck.

Isn’t that wonderful?! I loved it then, and still do.

Word was that this beast was producing in the neighborhood of 1200 hp. That’s a lot of power for a road racing car, and unheard of at that time.

It didn’t sound like much, though (literally) -- it just sort of whistled and whooshed away down the road at alarming velocity. It was a turbo, something new, and was all but silent next to the thundering, ground-shaking V8s of the McLarens and others.

Mark’s death a few years later was a terrible loss. He was one of America’s greats. Who knows what he might have achieved had he lived?

You wrote:
"I have a hard time staying legal in my SI."

Don't we ALL? :-)

mauto

You said about the 'Vette "there is no point in having six gears unless you are able to use all of them whenever you want to." Are you saying that Honda doesn't think that Si drivers know how to downshift from 6th to 5th on an incline and therefore left the 6th gear off? Why do so many people cut Honda so much slack for an obvious omission? I want that choice, just like you said about choosing your own gear in the 'Vette. The "Vette makes you skip gears but Honda just plain leaves a gear off.

anonymousposts

It's not an obvious omission. Sure, a 6th gear would be nice. However, the Si has always been a revver and most people looking at the Si know this. If you want a 6-speed go with the RSX or some other car. It doesn't matter whether it has 5 gears or 6 the SI is a hoot to drive and has one of the best manual transmissions I have ever driven.

blueiedgod

It does not matter whether you have or don't have the 6th gear. The RSX has 6th gear, but, both the Si and RSX Type S rev at almost the same RPM at 60 mph. Honda could have given us 6th gear and taken it back in the final drive.

nippononly

the RSX' fifth gear and the RSX-S' sixth gear are the same. The type-S just stuffs in an extra gear between first and top gear. I believe the SI has a shorter top gear though - it revs higher at any given speed in fifth than either the RSX in fifth or the RSX-S in sixth. Again, it is a revver. Always has been.

mauto: no offense, but your point there is a little weak. In the SI, you can pick any of the gears it has any time you want it, whereas in the Vette you can't pick second unless you are drag-racing or stuck in traffic. Lots of the sporty cars in the SI's price range have "only" five gears. I don't find i to be an "omission" not to have a sixth, but of course you can't please all the people all the time. With something like this, there are always going to be two camps.

Is the lack of auto climate control in the $50K Corvette an "omission" when cars half the price have it?

muffin_man

For a couple bucks, you can bypass the skip shift and not worry about it. Much more complicated to add the 6th gear to the Si. Does it need it? Not really. Can the Corvette out accelerate the Si in 4th? Sure. What difference does it make either way?

mauto

"In the SI, you can pick any of the gears it has any time you want it"

That's a bit like early Fords: You can have any color you like as long as it's black. I'm not complaining about gears 1 thru 4, they're fine. It's the totally inadequate 5th (and 6th) gear short ratio that's the problem.

Regardless of whether 5th and 6th are the same ratio on the Si and RSX, it's still too low. It's the only reason that the Si makes for a lousy long distance cruiser. High RPM drone from the engine, and as a result, low highway MPG. The Accord V6 gets the same highway MPG with 80 more HP. Never mind the 'Vette's skip-shift trans, at cruising speeds it's getting almost the same MPG as a Si. Regardless of how that's done, it's pretty amazing.

gee35coupe

Don't buy it. I agree it's disconcerting to see 4000 rpm at 75 but I also had a FX-16 GT-S and the previous SI. They all were revvers. No big deal.

As far as the drone, just turn the stereo up.

And the mpg is right there with everyone else that it competes with. Not to mention the short gearing allows it to run right up to redline in 5th gear at 130 mph. Not bad for a car that I paid $16k for new with 1.9% interest.

carlisimo

Honda won't give it a 6th gear. Five gears is the standard for not-quite-top-of-the-line cars, just as in the RSX, so if you want six you have to get a Type R. But then, Honda doesn't want us to buy Type R's because they might cut into RSX-S sales. But basically, it's not in the Si's mission to have 6 gears. It's only second best.

I'd like to hear Si owners address magazine reviews' complaints about the car. Especially if you've driven some of the competitors. Thanks.

anonymousposts

Even though the Si revs at 4000 RPM at 80, due to the balance shafts it is still very smooth and you would only know it was revving that high if you look at the tach. Compare that to a Protege we had which revved at 4000 and just became more buzzy as you tried to go faster. Anything above 4500 RPM just produced more noise with no noticable increase in speed or power.

As a commuter the SI can't be beat. Excellent seats, shifter, and an engine that is happy shifting at 2500 RPM and 7000 RPM. If you don't like high revs on the highway then the SI is probably not for you. As long as it's smooth I don't mind.

The only thing I can remember the SI being criticized for is handling. Our Si does not have that problem with 17" wheels, high performance tires, and a sway bar. Flat as a board going around corners.

nippononly

as I recall the only thing car mags really dumped on the SI for was that it was undertired. They have rectified that a little for the '04, with 16" rims now standard, although the tires could still stand to be a little bigger as far as I am concerned. But so many people would go after market for rims and tires on the earlier Civics, you can't blame Honda for figuring people would continue to do that. It allowed them to save a little money on the rims and tires, so it could put the savings into those great seats.

All in all, it is a great compliment to the SI that the car that leaps to mind for peoples' comparisons is the Corvette, which costs more than twice the price. Certainly they won't find many competitors in the SI's own price range, $18-19K, that have six speeds.

mauto

If Honda thought that Si owners would install bigger alloys than the embarrassingly small 15" rims, they should have supplied the Si with cheap steel rims and "spent" the extra cash on lowering the sticker price.

As far as no 6th gear. Previous post is correct. Honda does not want to make the Si too good for fear of draining RSX sales. There is simply no other excuse for it. It should have a taller 6th gear and if it had that, those of you who like to keep the engine "revved" at 4000 rpm at 80 mph, simply don't change up to 6th. That's what I call real choice.