Honda Civic Si vs. VW GTI

revka · October 2002

In accordance with our guidelines: It's okay to bash the vehicles (or even ideas) here, but it's not okay to bash individual members for their opinions. Btw, a good way of arguing your point, and staying within our guidelines, would be to state your case... without making reference to another member (using their name) in your message. This will usually keep you out of trouble. Just a suggestion.

Let's please continue this discussion by email, so we don't take this discussion off topic any further. Okay? Also, if you feel I have missed something here that is in violation of our Town Hall rules, please feel free to send me an email. Given our time restraints, we (hosts) occasionally may miss something.

And now back to the subject of the Honda Civic Si vs. VW GTI. Thanks!

Revka
Hatchbacks & Wagons Host

hamproof · October 2002

Edited text are replaced.

To the host: I hope this is satisfactory to you. I've removed all gender references as well as references to whom I'm replying too per your request. I've done more than what you requested of me to do to clean up my post. I was once financially ignorant too thinking that a house is an investment. See, that wasn't so bad? It is a figure of speech.

Someone claims someone would like to give up low end torque for higher end HP (basically a 00 SI over 02 SI). It makes sense if that someone is driving on the highway alot and on high speed and high RPM. But then on another post someone said said someone takes 45mins to drive 20 miles which would mean someone is stuck in bumper to bumper traffic most of someone's time on someone's morning commute to work. In that case, there is no way someone can argue someone would give up low end torque for high end HP. Who would want to rev it to 6000rpm just to get torque?? Basically what I'm saying is someone's daily commute routine does not mirror someone's preferences.

On the other hand, the GTI with the 180HP 1.8T motor or the VR6 engine (now at 207HP??), has abundant torque. It makes driving in a congest area much much more easier. Easier to pass and *merge*. People would look at someone funny if someone revved up someone's car to 6000rpm and go 10ft.

Anyway, if someone thinks a house is an investment someone is ignorant. I suggest someone read this book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". The reason why a house is a liability is because most of us (me included) cannot afford to buy a house outright. So we get a mortgage for 15 or 30 years. Does someone has any idea how much interest someone is paying to the mortgage company?? I'm single and I paid $15k in interest last year! With all the money I'm giving the mortgage company, I could invest in the market (though it would have been risky looking back at whatever money I put in the market the last 3 years). I'm sure someone would bring up the tax break we get from IRS. Sure, in my tax bracket it is a paltry 33%. I'm still out $11k each year due to interest.

It is interesting how someone made reference that I can't afford to own the A4 anymore and have to downgrade and someone said someone could afford to buy a much better car than the A4 for cash.

(Revka - I guess you miss the part where she implied I'm downgrading to an Civic coz' I can't afford the A4 anymore).

Guess what? Someone is not financially savvy here. What it is is basically getting more debt! You build up equity in your house or parents, grandparents, friends, girlfrieds, BOYFRIEND's house, re-finance and the home owner is looking at another 30 years of payment (or 15 if you chose that route) and pay for the car in cash. Does someone realize someone is basically spreading the car payment over 30 years at 6%. Sure it is tax deductible. But the homeowner is still paying more than they are getting back. Here's a nail in the coffin for someone who thinks a house is an investment. If the home owner looses his/her job, can he/she afford to pay for the mortgage? 3 months? 6 months? 1 year?? If that's not possible, someone can't tell me a house is an investment. It is bleeding the home owner's account dry every single day he/she does not have a job. I haven't even talked about the higher electric bill, gas bill, heating bill, water bill, maintenance, upkeep of the house etc. An investment? Hah! Go read the book I suggested.

What I like about the Civic over the Echo. I'm not a fan of Toyota. I prefer Honda over Toyota coz' everything in a Toyota is an option. When you load it up to the level of a similar Honda, you are paying more. I like Audi over BMW. Will take Acura over Lexus. But Lexus over Mercedes. Basically I like brands where value for money is evident. I could get an LX or EX Civic rather than the SI, but I wanted a hatchback. Like I said before, if a VW or any euro car for that matter can be as reliable as a Honda or Toyota, no one will ever want to buy the economy Japanese car anymore. We spend a lot of time sitting inside a car and you cannot tell me the inside of a Civic is attractive compared to the VW. And you cannot tell me the torque on the 1.8T engine or VR6 or any V6/I6 engine is not something we all appreciate when we drive in rush hour. At those times, I wish I've an automatic.

The only time a high rev engine is good for is when you have an open highway and you are not going to find that in any major cities in the world.

Incidently, I heard on Howard Sterns show last week that someone stopped David Letterman driving his Porsche (didn't say what model, but a 911 is probable) wearing DRIVING GLOVES!! Come on. Boy he must be doing at least 25 during NYC downtown rush hour. Vrooom vroooom.

Edited -
I can only wish to make as much someone - $110,000/year.

One word of advice to someone. Put in the max the govt. allows which is $11k/year in 401k and max out your IRA which is another $4k/year. Put some in investments (stock market/bonds) and finally save some in a savings account. Do all these before someone tells me I'm downgrading to an lowly Civic. *chuckles*.

gee35coupe · October 2002

99-00 Si's redline at 8000 rpm. The dyno chart shows that it doesn't take 6000 rpm to get MOST of the torque. They not only have the capability but they beg you to visit the upper reaches of the tach. Any Si owner will tell you that they have no problem running up the revs not only during the commute but heck, just going to the corner store. Since 6000 rpm in a 99-00 Si is about 30 mph, 30mph in 10ft is pretty quick.

It's easy to see why a GTI owner wouldn't want to rev to 6000 rpm. The power is steadily dropping off the higher you go. What's the point? The feeling of power is steadily dropping the higher tach goes.

House not an investment? So the alternative is???? Rent in many areas is more than a house payment and you get NONE of it back and no tax deduction for the interest. In my area a decent 3 bedroom apt rents for over $900. With the present interest rates a very nice three bedroom house can be had for that kind of money. Lose your job and you can't pay rent either. Still outside. At least you may be able to sell your house if you have equity. Or you can have an equity line of credit to pull you through the hard times. I'm sure buying and selling a house every 3 years may be poor financial acumen but if you have a 15 year mortgage and stay for at least 7 years you should get something back opposed to renting which will get you nothing.

Open highway??? Try driving through Texas, whoo hooo 100+ mph all day long. South Carolina Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi are deserted on 59/20. Lots of room to fly on 95 from Fla to Maine. There's lots more times of the day other than rush hour when the highways are not congested. Every ones circumstances aren't the same. Many people in New York don't even have cars...God forbid. But I've driven through there before and did 80 or more up 95. I don't know where David lives but it's entirely possible his commute includes several chances to open his Porche up. He is known to have a lead foot. I'm sure they didn't stop him for doing 25 mph.

firephoenix777 · October 2002

house is an investment only if you can have a positive cash flow after buying the house. equity? you get equity only IF somebody really pays your asking price for your house. equity line to pull you thru the hard time? who's going to lend you money if you don't have a job. open highway in Texas? not everyone lives in Texas. power dropping in GTI at high engine speed? since i don't live in a place with open highway, i rather have a car with faster 0-60 and more usable torque. anything wrong with SI? no. different ppl have different preference.

hamproof · October 2002

On your daily commute to work, say you are on a bumper to bumper traffic most of the time, would you want:

a) Low end torque of a GTi
b) The exact opposite of the GTi - 2002 SI

Seriously, I think this 2 cars are on opposite end of the spectrum. Only thing common bet. them is they are both hatches, priced similarly though the SI is at least $4k cheaper (since it is sold for $16k++ now). But the VW has more *luxury* if you call it that.

Btw, I am tempted to answer your question if a house is an investment or not but I'm not going to. I was reluctant to buy a house when I started working. I finally did after 6 years of working and saving up enough money for a sizeable downpayment. I too thought a house is a good investment. After 2 years of ownership, I won't want to give up my house and move back to an apartment. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying buying a house is not a good idea. But also know what you are getting into. Say if I loose my job, I can maybe live w/ my family and friends. No problem. Loose your job while you are in the first 4 years of house ownership and you can't afford to pay the mortgage, you'll have to file for bankruptcy. That's the difference! Maybe not to drastic but you get my point. Bank reposses the house and chances are it'll be sold for less than what you might think it's worth. You'll still owe the difference bet. what you owe and what the bank can get.

hamproof · October 2002

A lot of people buy houses thinking it is an investment. But we all still do buy houses coz' we like our own living spaces.

But don't sell your GTI short. I drive the A4 1.8T engine everyday to work. Though it has 170HP and about 166 ft.lbs torque, I felt it is faster than a few cars I test drove with a lot more HP. Even on open highway, going at 80MPH, I believe your GTI is revving at 4k RPM (that's what mine is). Going to 90MPH, it is about 4.5K and about 5k when I'm at 95. That's where I draw the line. So, torque at 6000rpm is not an issue to me. But for SI drivers, in 3rd. or 4th. gear, they might be at 6000rpm going at 70mph (I'm guessing here). Going at 80mph, in 5th, they might be at 4k-4.5k (pretty close to the 1.8T). But peak torque is at 6k++. So, they need to downshift to 4th and up shift again. I don't see the need to do that in my car coz' I never need to venture to 6k RPM.

firephoenix777 · October 2002

i currently have the civic ex (need a relatively reliable vehicle). used to have a VW NB (problematic car) with base engine (still miss those low end torque). but i have test driven a GTI 1.8T, and the jetta VR6. don't recall what it was revving at when it hit 80mph. but i think my friend's NB turbo(150hp) is revving at a bit lower than 4k rpm when it hit 80mph.
no matter what it is, i still prefer low end torque. it's not that i dislike honda, they are relatively reliable. it's just i don't like the way they design their cars.

inigoco · October 2002

I am in the mortgage industry so I do have a bit of knowledge in this area and I'll give my two cents. Homes generally increase in value about 6% each year on average. Here where I live, some areas have much higher value increases, around 10-15%. This is a pretty large increase when you are talking about values over $100K. I agree with other posts about how you are paying interest and that kind of washes away the increase in value, but nonetheless you are gaining quite a bit of value overall. Plus, the interest is tax-deductible.

The alternative being that you live in an apartment and you invest the difference(if there is one) however you choose. You may gain more than the average 6% that a home would gain each year, but you are also basically throwing money out the window by paying rent. All that does for you is pay someone else's mortgage. I'd rather pay my own. Plus, on top of all this it's not likely that many people have over $100K sitting around to invest, whereas a mortgage allows an individual to invest that much.

This is where the difference in equity gains per year comes into play. Say you have a $100K home and you pay about $568 per month in you mortgage payment. This is figured as a 30 yr. note with an interest rate of 6.25%. After 5 years at a growth rate of 6%, the home is now worth about $134K. Though you'd pay about $8000 a year in interest on the mortgage, it is tax-deductible so you'd really only be paying a portion of that so you will still gain equity in the long run.

Sure there are other ways to make money faster, but home equity is a less risky way to go about it since home vales are much more stable than stocks have been lately. Not to mention that if you decide to go the other route and rent a place to live and invest the rest, you will end up with less money in the end.

Say for example you pay about $500 a month in rent to your current landlord and you decide to invest the difference in the stock market. The difference between renting and the mortgage on the $100K home mentioned earlier is about $68 a month. This adds up to about $816 a year to your investments. You'd have to have an astronomical rate of return in order to gain the average of $6800 a year which the $100K home would gain in equity. This is all on average again, many areas of the US today have value increases much higher than the 6% I used as an example.

inigoco · October 2002

Yes, it may be true that the powerband of the 1.8T may begin to decrease in the higher revs, that's a factor that virtually all engines have and it's the main reason VTEC exists in the first place. VTEC changes the cam lobes at higher RPM's to increase the airflow through the engine at the higher revs where most other cars begin to lose power. That's not an issue really when you look at the dyno sheets. Even when the 1.8T is losing power at the high end, it is still making more than the VTEC engine do at their peak.

A word about RPM's and speed. I noticed this weekend as I was driving around in the interstate that my '02 GTI 1.8T 5-speed revs just a little over 3000 RPM when going 80 MPH. This compared to a VTEC car which may be reving over 4000 RPM at that speed. Again, if you were to have a roll-on throttle contest with another driver at that speed, the GTI would likely pull away quite easily since the turbo is already spooled up at that speed and its right in the heart of the 1.8T's powerband. The VTEC car, on the other hand, would have a hard time keeping up in the same gear and the time wasted down-shifting would give the 1.8T an even greater advantage.

This is especially important considering that many drivers don't even know what VTEC is much less when it comes into play. Other posters on this thread have even mentioned that they rarely revs their cars over 4000 RPM. This is likely the case for many other drivers as well. That being the case, VTEC is horribly under-used by the large majority of people who have VTEC-equipped cars. At least the powerband of the 1.8T is within the rev range that most people use on a regular basis. Again, the 1.8T has much more usable power than any of the VTEC cars.

geoffdgti · October 2002

hamproof writes:
Seriously, I think this 2 cars are on opposite end of the spectrum. Only thing common bet. them is they are both hatches, priced similarly though the SI is at least $4k cheaper (since it is sold for $16k++ now). But the VW has more *luxury* if you call it that.

The GTI is also a much bigger car. I'm 6'3". I have tons of head room and leg room in a VW. I can barely get into a Civic.

Even on open highway, going at 80MPH, I believe your GTI is revving at 4k RPM (that's what mine is).

Nope. 80 mph = 3500 RPM on my GTI 1.8T. 5th is a very tall gear. Too bad it often feels like I'm churning butter when I shift into 5th. The GTI has a lot of great attributes but a nice crisp gearshift ain't one of 'em.

Besides, a GTI is just an econobox with a more powerful engine. For me, it makes a great commuter car... quite fun to drive, tons of power, cheap to buy (I paid $18.7 for mine as a leftover, ~$1K under invoice), reasonable reliability. If I wanted a fast driver's car, I sure wouldn't be buying a VW or a Honda.

anonymousposts · October 2002

C'mon, all the personal talk is really not called for. This forum is supposed to be about cars so let's just stick to that.

My commute to work has been done with a car with low end torque and it's been done with a car with high end power and for me, even if you disagree with the speed I say I average on my commute, the high end power is more useful. I enjoy revving my engine and feeling the power build. The car I used to own had a low torque peak and after that the car became NO fun to drive. At least in the SI it's fun to drive no matter what RPM you are at. Same for the previous SI and the RSX-S.

Interestingly enough, I checked the price of a 2.0L Golf and found that paid only $500 more for my SI than someone would pay for a 2 dr Golf with 115HP. Call me crazy but to me 45more HP, alloy wheels, and awesome seats are worth the extra $500.

It all comes down to driving preference. I prefer the Honda engines you prefer VW engines. That's all there is to it so we all might as well agree to disagree and get on with this conversation.

hamproof · October 2002

we pay a similar mortgage amount for rent and house. Unfortunately unless you buy a real old house or in a relatively unpopular neighborhood, your payment scenario is just an exercise. In your case, it is definitely more economical to buy a house compared to renting.

However, in most cases, people often buy a little higher than what they would like. I mean in metro Detroit, the only houses you can buy for a $100k is in the heart of Detroit. You are looking at a min. of $250k to get into a 2000 sq. home, maybe 30 years old or so in a good suburb in Detroit. In that case a mortgage of $250k, you are looking at a payment close to $2k/month with summer and winter taxes factored. I paid close to $15k in interest alone last year.

Anyway, houses are known to appreciate close to 6% IF they are brand new houses. But in actuality, it is no where near there. After you factor in the cost of *accessoring* a new home (no deck, no landscaping, no sprinkers, no paint etc), you are looking at maybe 3-4%. Factor in the cost of getting the mortgage, fees and realtor comissions, you are lucky if you break even. People buy a new house for say $200k and sell it for $250k in say 5 years. Looks like a good investment, right? But once you factor in what they have to spend (the items I outlined earlier), interest paid, various fees (mortgage, realtor), higher utilities, they are not getting the $50k net! A deck alone will run you about $8k unless you do it yourself. Landscaping easily $15k. Plus you have to pay 6% commission (in my area) to the realtor when you sell the house.

But if I'm happy to live in a $500/month apartment, I could have taken the $1500/month extra I have an invest the money. Unfortunately, I'm worst at choosing stocks. I would have lost the money anyhow. But a savvy investor would have gotten at least 10% return the last few years. You are seeing the 6% average return on home is because of the good economy. But like I said, not everyone factors in the interest that was paid each year to Uncle Sam. Are you really looking at a net profit when you sell? Nothing goes up forever. Not even house prices. It is another bubble waiting to burst, like what happened in the mid. 80s. Experts have said that the housing market will decline in about 2 years following the stock market *crash*. We'll see if this will hold true this time.

moparbad · October 2002

I seem to have found the House Buying 101 area, can anyone tell me what happened to the Si vs. GTI topic?

revka · October 2002

Let's get back to the subject of this discussion. Don't want to confuse the tourists. Any further off topic posts will be subject to automatic deletion.

To moparbad - Your message slipped in before mine. Thanks! ;-)

Revka

Hatchbacks & Wagons Host

moparbad · October 2002

My Golf TDI has about 190lb ft of torqe and it is available at around 2,000 rpm. I'm pretty sure you would have fun driving my car, it would change your attitude about torque, at least a little bit. Your comparison of Golf 2.0 with Si is assuming that Golf is selling for MSRP. The Golf 2002's were selling for about $1200 under invoice last I checked. Si for $16K to $17K is a fair value. Given the choice between a $16K Si and $20K GTI I would take the Si, but the GTI is still more fun to drive. The Si motor and others like it such as the 1.8 in the Celica are entertaining for a while but it becomes very annoying to have to keep the tach buried in order to have any power. The Si is an interesting car, it just does not seem as desirable as the earlier Si was in 1994 or 1989 IMHO.

hamproof · October 2002

What's the point of comparing what you got the SI for? We all know the 02 SI is not selling well. Thus the massive discount. It is unusual for a Honda. Maybe a Ford or GM we can all understand. So, to be fair, do use the invoice price of each car instead.

2003 GTI with 1.8T 180HP cost $18,307 invoice.
2002 Civic SI w/ side airbags cost $18,049 invoice

All the values include destination. But the GTI has front and back curtain airbags which is not even an option on the SI. No"t to mention factory 16" rims and 20HP more than the SI. All these for about $250 more.

If you are going to argue that you want to compare what your purchase price is with what retail shows for the Golf, that doesn't make too much sense now is it? I'm sure somewhere on this earth, there's someone who could have gotten the Golf for thousands below invoice. So, let's just agree on this one and compare invoice prices, shall we?

So, the only advantage I see the Civic has over the GTI is PEACE OF MIND. You believe, and I believe to, as well as countless American, that in the long run Honda will not give me as much problem as the VW. But let me say this again. If someone tells me driving the GTI or in my case the A4 will be as reliable as the Civic or Accord for say 6 years or 100,000 miles, I'll never buy a Civic or Honda. I'll take the nice interior and solid thud sound I near when I close the door on my A4. Until then, I'm buying a cheapo Civic for my daily commute till I find a job closer to home.

moparbad · October 2002

My Golf TDI is chipped and has more HP and torqe than a stock car should anyone wonder why my torque is much higher than stock.
FYI. -now back to the Si and GTI.

moparbad · October 2002

The 2003 Si has a decent blue color and the awful puke green color is gone. Now if only they will add red. http://www.hondacars.com/models/exterior_colors.asp?ModelName=Civic+Si

gee35coupe · October 2002

2002 Civic Si. Max toque at 126lbft with at least 120lb ft from 2700 rpm to 6000 rpm. With the Civic' short gearing, it's running at 3300 or so at 60. No need to downshift at any normal cruising speed since the engine is always in the power band.

http://www.injen.com/webpages/testing/original_files/rd1575.jpg

Here's the GTI chart...Sure it has more torque but it's also much more peaky. Just as the performance numbers bear out. If the torque line was flatter this would be a killer motor. If this is your cup of tea so be it.

http://www.injen.com/webpages/testing/original_files/rd3015.jpg

We've discussed the S2000. Nowhere near as much torque as the VW. You gonna race one? Go for it.

http://www.injen.com/webpages/testing/original_files/IS1305.jpg

How about the RSX/S? Be careful even though the max torque may not compare with the GTI, it does have HP to keep it ahead according to most sources. Plenty of torque for normal driving in the 2500-6000 rpm range and racing power and HP up top where most Hondaphiles expect it to be.

http://www.injen.com/webpages/testing/original_files/is1475.jpg

As far as prices...Cardirect has base GTI's for $19940 in the 30141 area code and the 03 Si at $17349 with side airbags. Well below invoice. A slightly larger difference than $250. The RSX/S is $23,170 though...Ouch.

The fact that we are discussing it should indicate that someone here has no problem taking thier car into VTEC territory. So in that case lets look at the curves. If the GTI is near it peak at 3500 rpm there's no need to shift at 6000 rpm just as the VW people say. In fact you had better shift at 4500 to 5000 to stay in the peak. But if you are running at 3500 at 80 then anything above that is on the downside of the curve. That explain's how the VTEC equipped Civic is competitive with the GTI in it's 150 hp form. The VTEC Civic can ride the flat torque curve all the way from 2700 rpm to 6000 rpm.

gee35coupe · October 2002

http://www.newdimensions.com/catalog/tdi/page_1.html

200 lbft at 2000 rpm but down below 125 by 4500 rpm. If you like the power down low diesel is the way to go.
But everyone better watch out for this mod.....
Check out the chart down the page....TDI with 280 lbft torque. Wow.

muffin_man · October 2002

Inigoco - Los Angeles, I can never get to bed at a reasonable hour, no matter what time I have to get up in the morning. I just reason that I'm going to be tired no matter what, so I might as well be _really_ tired. The reason that Japan usually doesn't give us the high performance variants is because of California's strict emission laws, not because they are trying to hide them. Turbo cars are particularly bad at that sort of thing.

Rickrover - I don't know why a person would buy an RSX and then run 1/4 miles with it. How unsuitable a car can one possibly have? You couldn't pay me to take my Si to the track, what would be the point? Glad you enjoyed the test drive of the Si.

Hamproof - Sales are only representative of popularity. And I think we can all think of a few popular things that aren't all they are cracked up to be. Additionally, the seats in the Si are the best stock seats I've ever sat in. I don't think it's fair to compare the GTI and Si at MSRP, because that is not what they are available for. I would not have bought an Si if it were full price. However, I still love that Car and Driver liked the Si better than the GTI. Not because it proves the Si is better, it just proves shows that even at MSRP, there are some very credible people that favored the Si. (However, if Motor Trend had written it, I wouldn't pay any attention.)

pda97 - HKS is coming out with a turbo kit that is reported to put 300 hp to the wheels. And I'll go on record saying that I think the Si is priced properly for the amount and the quality of its content. It's just not priced properly for market demand.

hamproof · October 2002

Again, like I said, the SI is an unusual case for Honda. The only time you see Honda cars discounted below invoice if it is a year end clearance or a new model is coming aboard. The SI is being discounted $1300 below invoice. That's why I suggest we compare the invoice price (not MSRP). If VW can't sell the GTI, they'll also discount the 03 models when 04 are coming around. Like Honda is discounting the 02 models since the 03 are here already. I'm sure someone out there can find a leftover 02 GTI for slightly more than what an 02 SI sells for now.

Basically, it is fairer to compare invoice prices. In general terms, I'm happy to buy a car at invoice. Anything below invoice I'm happy. But in the case of a Bimmer, you are happy to pay MSRP.

Gee35coupe - the argument bet. the GTI and SI I guess is more towards 00 SI vs. 02/03 GTI. Maybe you missed reading the earlier posts. Anonymousposts says she prefers the higher RPM HP and torque of the 00 SI over the relatively flat torque curve of the new 02 SI. In anycase, I like the 02 SI more than the 00 SI. Driving an 00 SI was like driving my then 97 EX. I rarely get the tach over 5000rpm.

gee35coupe · October 2002

Cardirect is nationwide. Plug in a zip code and it spits out a price that can be duplicated time after time. No point in guessing and debating when everyone has the same source for information. It's just like using the same magazine for statistics.

For driving to work and around town the 02 Si is a better(read easier) steed.

But if you enjoy D-R-I-V-I-N-G..... The 99-00 with a CAI, free flow exhaust and a intake whoosh from 6000 rpm to 8000 rpm that must be experienced to be believed is some of the most fun on 4 wheels. Sure low end torque is nice and all but some people know what Hondas are meant for. And it ain't puttering around at 3000 rpm. An 00Si in fifth turns 3500 rpm at 60. If you check this curve http://www.comptechusa.com/images/dyno/00civicsi-build.pdf

flat as a board from 3000 up. 0-60 runs prove the gearing give it the grunt to move from the start and has the top end to run near 130 mph. What's not to love? I personally don't like 0-60 runs since they are hard on the drivetrain in any car. Would I buy a GTI? A turbo VW no way. But I also wouldn't want a 02 Si with an "only" 6700 rpm redline.

pda97 · October 2002

300hp at the wheels ? Are you crazy ? Is HKS crazy ? The little buzz bomb is really gonna explode at that output ! Sounds like some serious internal beefing up will be required, in which case, is too much work. Give me something simpler.

rickrover · October 2002

Gee35 - to each his own - I consider the most fun on 4 wheels a GTI turbo with free flow exhaust, ECU upgrade and a few other minor mods for 235 lb ft of torque/ 240ish HP. The GTI's 1.8t easily handles the extra output without any reliability issues. I belong to a local Euro tuner club that has a lot of tuned 1.8t's - some way beyond my level of tune (larger turbo etc) with no reliability issues. The 1.8t can reliably handle 300 HP before you have to start upgrading the internals - it's a very sturdy little engine.

My only issue is traction - personally I wouldn't take a small front wheel drive car above 250 HP without all wheel drive - too much of challenge to get the HP to the ground with the front wheels only.

Magazine 0-60 times really depend on the driver and weather conditions on the day of the test lots of variables - they repeatedly beat on those cars to get the fastest 0-60 times. I doubt anyone here would treat their own cars that way - I don't consider that fun. I like to take my car to the track to see what it will do without abusing the snot out of it, just a nice friendly race in a safe non-street atmosphere.

- it all boils down to personal preference, everyone has their own definition of what's fun.

My next version of fun will more than likely be the Golf R32 - 3.2 liter VR6 with 240 HP stock, all wheel drive - $25k to start - my dealer reports it will be here in less than a year - can't wait.

gee35coupe · October 2002

The power is in the same place in the rev range. After 3500 revs you are still going to feel the power dropping off.

http://www.dynospotracing.com/turbo.htm

The 1.8T engine has it's power at 3500 even with mods. So to put the extra power to better use, the GTI would need a different transmission with taller gearing.

25K is well beyond the scope of what we are talking here as there are WRX's or 350Z's (when they start selling near MSRP) to be had near that price point.

hamproof · October 2002

hamproof · October 2002

than the 00 SI or 02 SI?? Looking at this chart:

http://goapr.com/VW/images/dyno_golf_18t_stage_i.gif

even in stock form, the torque is higher for the GTI 1.8T engine from 2000rpm all the way to 6500rpm compared to the 00/02 SI. So, when you revved your SI all the way to 6500rpm, on the 02 SI, your max torque is the same as the GTI. Sure the torque goes down after 3500rpm, but it is still a lot more than the 02 SI.

muffin_man · October 2002

I don't know any more details, but I'm pretty sure I even saw some discussion about it on the HKS site. It really does sound insane, but I have no interest in driving a FWD car with that kind of power. It would be like riding a freakin bull.

inigoco · October 2002

APR already has a kit for putting out nearly 300 HP using 93 octane gas and over 300 HP if you use 100 octane in the 1.8T engines. There are no internal modifications necessary, it's mainly just a new turbo, manifold, exhaust, and an ECU upgrade. Pretty much everything else remains stock. Cars with this kit run in the mid 12s in the 1/4 mile at over 110 mph and they are very reliable. Pricing for this kit is just under $4000. Seems a little high, but I'd be willing to bet a similar system for the Si from HKS which would give similar output would likely be at least as expensive if not more so. Check it out at http://www.goapr.com/VW/products/stage3_trans.html

gee35coupe · October 2002

But the feel would be that the engine is losing power as the engine revs. I'd take the flatter, if slowly building power of the Si.

The Si's gearing makes up for the lower numbers. I would still take my chances with a modded GTI looking at the power curve and knowing that to stay in the limited sweet part of the rev range would take more effort than just keeping the revs up.

But really all this is moot. You love the GTI. Anon and others love the Si. The numbers are close enough to where it's academic to even still discuss this. If people can drive a Civic DX or a base Golf then we both can agree that both the GTI or the SI are like a ribeye compared to a chopped steak.

rickrover · October 2002

You make it sound like you hit a brick wall at 3,500 RPM in the GTI. Try driving one instead of reading about it. If you actually drive a GTI you'll see it pulls strongly up to redline. Maybe the torque peaks at 3500 but you have no real sense of it when driving it, there is no sensation of the torque falling off, it pulls really hard right up to redline.

I've done the 93 octane APR chip upgrade, Eurosport exhaust, K&N air filter in the factory air box(already cold air intake from the factory) Neuspeed turbo air intake (increases flow into the turbo 70%) and downpipe (ditto on the flow out) to my 02 1.8t GTI. These few simple mods give me a claimed 240 HP and at least 235 lb ft of torque - maybe at 3,500 RPM peak but all I know is this thing hauls butt and I regularly take it to redline and it pulls very strongly all the way there. I blew the absolute doors off an RSX-S with an aftermarket exhaust - I have no idea what other mods it had - the guy wouldn't talk to me :-) All I know is this is the best $1k I've ever spent - talk about bang for the buck.

Try driving some of this stuff instead of being an armchair test drive critic reading magazine test drive stats. I test drove an 02 SI last week - I can't say I felt any burst of power in the upper rev range of the SI. It pulled very evenly and smoothly to redline - The GTI (even stock) definately has more punch in the lower rev range but still pulls hard right up to redline - just my real world observation.

gotenks243 · October 2002

"Here's the GTI chart...Sure it has more torque but it's also much more peaky. Just as the performance numbers bear out. If the torque line was flatter this would be a killer motor. If this is your cup of tea so be it.

http://www.injen.com/webpages/testing/original_files/rd3015.jpg"

Obviously you didn't notice that the dyno you give is of modified GTIs. Aftermarket ECUs can really change the torque curve sometimes. I'm pretty sure the stock curve is much more flat than this one.

Mike

anonymousposts · October 2002

You can't compare a modded car to another car with unknown mods and say you blew it's doors off as if the RSX-S is inferior. For all we know the RSX-S was stock outside of the exhaust possibly because he values his warranty or maybe he just bought it. Stock vs. stock though the RSX-S doesn't really have much to worry about with a GTI.

To me, buying a new car and then doing the kind of mods you have on your car doesn't make sense. You are paying new car prices for a car then turning it into an unwarranted used car. You wanna talk about low resale now ... you would have to find a special buyer for that car because it's now an unknown. Your best bet it to buy a used car outside of warranty so you really have nothing to lose. For the price of a new GTI you can get a 300ZX, Supra, Vette, etc. Those cars start out of the box where your GTI is now.

For racing, I would rather have a 99-00 SI. For my daily commute I prefer the 02 SI. It's still Honda-smooth and Honda-efficient. I average 30MPG and get power no matter where I am in the rev range. For going fast around curves and sound effects the 00 SI can't be beat though.

geoffdgti · October 2002

APR already has a kit for putting out nearly 300 HP using 93 octane gas and over 300 HP if you use 100 octane in the 1.8T engines. There are no internal modifications necessary, it's mainly just a new turbo, manifold, exhaust, and an ECU upgrade. Pretty much everything else remains stock

You forgot to mention that you should probably replace some other critical parts of the drivetrain before you actually try to use all that horsepower. At a minimum, you'd need a better clutch since the stock one would have a half-life measured in minutes. You'd also need to do a lot of work to the suspension to try to keep the tires from smoking in all gears. Did I mention tires and wheels? Brakes? By the time all is said and done, you'd just about save money by buying an M3.

hamproof · October 2002

Come on - pull your head out of a coconut for gods sake. Where can you find those cars for $20k?? Are we talking about twin turbos 300ZX and Supras?? Which C gen. are you talking about for the vette?? C-1??

rickrover · October 2002

I didn't say the RSX was inferior to my GTI - I'm not comparing my GTI to anything. Just made a statement that I blew an RSX's doors off with my modified GTI and I have no idea what the RSX had outside of an exhaust. I've spent $1k on the engine and another $1k on the suspension - Bilstien shocks, Neuspeed Racing springs, 25mm rear sway bar and front upper strut bar - this thing is GLUED to the road.

As for warranty - my warranty is fully intact, most VW dealers are mod friendly including mine. The only things that are out of VW warranty on my car are the parts I've replaced. Most all the aftermarket parts I've installed have a better warranty - as long as I own the car.

I bought the GTI with the express purpose of modifying it - it's cheap and easy to get very significant performance gains from a 1.8t GTI.

There are lots of other used cars I could have had for the price of my GTI - so what? you can say that about any new car - what's your point? As for depreciation - New cars depreciate - get over it - I have. I trade my "sports car" every 2 or 3 years and keep my "cruiser" (currently X5) for a long time - the X replaced a 9 year old Range Rover.
I wanted a hot hatch, something with tons of performance potential with 3 doors - that's what I got.

I'm a huge fan of VW's and BMW's - I was on the waiting list for an E46 M3 a year ago. After a lot of analyzing my needs I decided get an X5 and the GTI instead of the M3. I like to AutoX, take my "sports car" to the track and generally abuse the hell out of it. I didn't think I'd have as much fun with the M3 because I'd be so paranoid of damaging it in some way. No problemo with my trusty GTI, I drive the holy crap out of it. It takes it all without a wimper, it is built like a tank.

I already have my sights set on it's replacement - the Golf R32 due out in the U.S. next summer - 240 HP 3.2 liter VR6, 6 speed, ALL WHEEL DRIVE starting at $25k - cannot wait - heading to my dealer tomorrow to put a deposit down on one. I'm planning on taking the R32 to 300 HP - to take full advantage of that All Wheel Drive
:-) http://www.city-net.com/~bcasey/R32_Front_2_Back.swf

and the German R32 website:

http://www.vw-online.de/golf/popup_r32_flash.htm

seguy · October 2002

to drop after 3500 rpm, but due to the increase in rpms, HP continues to climb up til 5500 rpm. That's when the stock turbo in the 1.8T loses its' efficiency. Simple formula I'm sure many have seen before: HP=(torque*rpms)/5252

As you can see by the dyno comparing the chip to stock, There is a 30hp increase throughout the powerband, not just near the top.

gee35coupe · October 2002

You are right it is flatter but still drops off in upper reaches. Torque and HP.
http://www.splitsec.com/products/1.8TBCS.htm

It's funny. My last 1991 300ZX Twin Turbo cost $6000 and ran like a top. My neighbor bought it from me and drives it every day.

A Supra Twin Turbo can be had on Autotrader online for that 20K exactly as an asking price. They're kinda rare though cause they didn't sell that many.

1995 to 1996 Vettes are in low to mid 15K range 300hp there stock and 340 lbft of torque down low. That's a C-4 in case anyone asks. It's so funny I chuckle too.

So lets see here the GTI is $19,000 or so on Carsdirect.com plus another 2K in mods that's 21,000. Hmm compared to a $17,100 (Carsdirect)Si. Hmmm. Yeah I see now. Wait...No I don't.

It's you'r risk on the warranty. Most manufacturers frown on engine modification like that. It's up to you.

http://www.generationiv.com/main/faq/

Mods kill resale value especially in brand new cars. Most people get rid of cars in a few years so spending $2-3K on mods on a new car is like using money as tissue paper.

But when you get rid of that GTI, sounds like someone is gonna get a great deal. It's just that I know where I can get another 300ZX TT with 140K for $2500. A/C doesn't work but the motor purrs like a kitten and it looks great for a 1990. Heck if I'm not gonna have a warranty and want to go fast I might as well go all the way. Or maybe a 3000GT VR-4. Those are gettin kinda cheap now. I laugh so much just thinking about it.

hamproof · October 2002

If you are so bent on comparing the prices of what the 02 SI could be had now, I'm not going to debate it with you. I'll wait till the 03 SI comes out and I'm pretty sure by then carsdirect will have it listed at a higher price than the closeout prices they have now. At that time, I want to see what you got to say about the 03 SI advantages are over the GTI and if the 03 SI is still a good value. As it is now, the 03 GTI has 180HP and 173ft.lb torque. That's 20HP and 41ft.lb more than the SI. Even w/ carsdirect.com prices, don't you think $1900 is worth it to get the additional HP and torque. Not to mention the standard 16" rims, front/side curtain airbags, traction control, nicer interior (better material). Even floormats are standard! B2B warranty is 4 years/50k compared to 3/36 for the SI. The SI doesn't even have roadside assistance.

Now, tell me all these features I listed (probably some I didn't) aren't worth $1900 for an 03 GTI over and 02 SI. Say the 03 SI prices are available on carsdirect.com in a few days, I bet you'll see a much lower differences.

At least I'm admitting I'm not a fan of the VW despite all these advantages coz' to be my first criteria is a car that is dependable and so far I have more faith in a Honda over a VW. Thus my decision to get an 02 SI to replace my 01 A4.

rickrover · October 2002

what part of "my warranty is still fully intact" don't you understand? Here is a quote from the link you posted:

Will my warranty be voided if I add a performance chip?

most dealers now realize the potential of these aftermarket chips and are willing to "overlook" the chipping procedure. It is virtually impossible to detect a chipped vehicle without a) Driving the car, b) Reading boost from a Vag-Machine or c) Opening the ECU itself.

My APR chip has a stock mode that I can switch to whenever I want using the cruise control button. The APR chip has many modes 93 octane chipped, stock, race gas and valet - all switchable by the cruise button. Not that I have ever switched to stock mode when I take my GTI into the dealer - they don't care if it's chipped or not. Many of the techs and service writers at this dealer have highly modified VW's - My warranty is fully intact.

I happen to think my GTI is a screaming bargain. where else can I get this kind of performance in a new car for $21k? I've never had a problem selling one of my modified cars at a good price.. I take exceptional care of my cars, they may be modified but the interiors and exteriors are better than new - perfect condition. I use nothing but Zymol products, PS21, Hide Food, etc., I maintain the mechanicals to a much higher standard than factory recomendations - my GTI has all Redline fluids in it and Mobile 1 oil. I keep all my maintenace records. I've never had a problem getting top dollar when I sell my modified cars. I have all my original parts which I sell with the car so the buyer can easily switch back to a stock car if they want. I always get top dollar when I sell them.

Depreciation isn't an issue with me - Belonging to local VW tuner club, SCCA and tracking my GTI is a hobby I really enjoy - worth every penny I stick into it - I spend a whole lot less than a lot of people I know through SCCA.

gee35coupe · October 2002

Your last few sentences made my post. The Honda reputation for reliability is more valuable than any advantage the VW has. Who needs roadside in a Honda? Even Car and Driver's VW broke down and needed assistance more than once. One magazine had an Audi that needed a new transmission to the tune of $10,000. You pay extra for this? The "advantages" of the VW aren't worth it to me....And you. 20HP are no good when your car is on the lift at the dealer.

VW the manufacturer can void the warranty. If your dealership chooses to give warranty service anyway it's their prerogative but if the manufacturer finds out your car is modded your VIN will be denied. Blow the turbo or any other major component in the engine and get back to me.

I mean if I were going to buy a car to modify and spend $21,000 I'd start with a very fast car in the first place. And you'd bet it would be at least RWD. Heck first run 4wd 1.8T Audi's are even cheap now. 1998 Loaded for $15,000. Chip it and your done right?

With all the 02 Si's around it'll be a while before we have worry about the 03's.

Don't get me wrong I've driven several VW's. They DRIVE awesome. but the price you pay for upkeep just isn't worth it in the long run.

hamproof · October 2002

for more than 3 years. Heck, the longest car I drove was 3.5 years from the day I bought it new. Not everyone is a fan of keeping the same car for long period of time coz' the manuf. keep coming up with newer and seemingly better cars.

However, my reason for changing this time is purely because of my long commute to work. I need a beater to drive to work that will be reliable for as long as I wish to keep the car. The SI now w/ the massive discounting is very attactive to me. At $19k it is not. At $17k it is not. But at $16k + dest + taxes, it is very attractive to me.

If I plan to change cars every 3 years, I would buy a German car. During the period of 3 years (or 4 in my case but with my mileage, I'm getting 3 years only) of B2B warranty, I don't have to worry about it. Sure it is in the shop sometimes, but for the inconvenience of a few days out of 365 days, I am willing to put up with it.

gee35coupe · October 2002

Gimme a Lexus or a Honda. Chances of me getting a "problem child" are much less.

I'm not even getting a Gee35 Coupe til the second model year to give em time to work out the bugs.

gotenks243 · October 2002

For what it's worth, when Consumer Reports road-tested the '02 Si, their reliability prediction based on recent model-year Civics was "Average" (blank circle). This is the same reliability rating they mention for the GTI in the space where they talk about alternative used cars. The very next issue, they raised GM's full-size SUVs to the "Recommended" list since the reliability had improved to that very same "Average."

In the consumer's mind, percieved mythical "Honda reliability" is definitely important. But that doesn't mean in reality cars from other companies without that reliability reputation are necessarily any less reliable.

Food for thought.

Mike

inigoco · October 2002

Any mods you make to a vehicle will only void the warranty of the vehicle if it can be proven that the modified part actually caused failure. This is why the 1.8T makes a great engine to do mods with. All of the modifications are easily reversible and the engine internals are never even touched. If all you decide to do is add a chip, exhaust, cold-air intake, turbo inlet and downpipe. You'd spend about $1700 and get a gain of nearly 80 HP over stock to put you at around 250-260. These mods can all be undone and replaced with the stock parts if necessary quite easily. It makes it even easier if you buy a spare ECU and have the chip put into that so that all you need to do is plug and play rather than have the ECU sent in to replace the original chip.

Now as for the impression of what extra mods would need to be done in order to make a 1.8T with the APR Stage III mods steetable. Most of the cars I know of with that setup have minor mods in addition to the main upgrade from APR. Most just have a beefier clutch, plus they usually add a Limited-slip diff. These add up to about $1500. These are affordable mods when you consider the price of the kit in the first place. In addition to those, most of the cars already have suspension mods which are also very affordable. Anew set of stiffer springs with some new braces and roll bars would run about $1000. But the point id moot since an Si with a system putting out similar would have to have these same mods so I'm not sure what is being compared here.

anonymousposts · October 2002

and I'll say it again. If all we cared about was HP we would be driving Mustang GT's and Z28's. Obviously to everyone in here there is more to a car than that. To me here are the most important things I look for in a car and how I narrow them down.

1. Fun-to-drive (GTI & SI)
2. Smooth, quick engine (GTI & SI)
3. Smooth transmission (advantage SI IMO)
4. Reliability (SI)
5. Safety (GTI & SI)

So as you can see I do see why someone would want a GTI. Heck, I used to want one but I've heard and seen so many horror stories about VW's that I just couldn't take the plunge when the SI offers most of the same features at a lower price.

rickrover · October 2002

I like a lot of people that are into performance cars wouldn't even remotely consider a Vette, Camaro, Firebird, Mustang or 300ZX new or used - it makes my skin crawl just typing the names of those things. I like a tight, fast little hatchback to blast around in. My only minor issue with my GTI is the front wheel drive limits the amount of power I'll modify the engine to. The Golf R32 will change all that - the all wheel drive R32 is exactly what I consider the perfect sports car.

I've had extremely good experiences with the 4 VW's I've owned. I replaced a modified 2000 1.8t Passat with the 02 GTI - that Passat never had a problem and neither has the GTI. I'm expecting my window regulators to fail someday - I'll have them replaced with the new design ones at the next service if they don't fail sooner. The 1.8t engine is about as bullet proof as they come, way over-engineered all the people I know that have them - some with significant modifications - never have anything go wrong with them. It's goofy things like window regulators that cause GTI's to be rated average in reliability - not engine failures.

Like a lot of car makers VW's used to have spotty reliability, but towards the mid to late 90's all that changed - they are increadably reliable cars now. Even the older supposedly less reliable VW's always run - they may have glitches in the secondary components but that engine always starts and runs for at least a couple hundred thousand miles. I know a lot of people that own VW's some with lots of miles on them and they couldn't be happier with them.

VW is building a fanatical following in the U.S., their market demographic is the envy of just about every other car manufacturer outside of BMW. VW isn't the largest European brand in the U.S. for nothing. It will be facinating to see how their march up market plays out - the $60k+ W12 VW Phaeton outsold the Mercedes S class in it's first month on the market in Europe. Will it sell in the U.S.??? who knows. VW has a lot if interesting stuff coming over here in the next few years.

seguy · October 2002

on comments regarding VW.
It's definitely on the upside when it comes to reliability and design.

Honda, on the other hand, I'm afraid is sliding. But in Hondas' defense, that's the only place they could go after some great years of build and reliability. I think the build quality is still there. But it's makes me leary when I here of lots of transmission failures in there 1999-2001 model oddy, accord V6, and a few others. At least they're a good enough company to extend the warranty on the tranny to 7yr/100K miles.

gee35coupe · October 2002

I think they are just selling more and more cars. I mean they sell 800,000 of them combined a year for at least the past 5 years.....Even the fanatics on Edmunds have very few complaints when you look at the real numbers. And these are nearly all to real people and not fleets of rental cars like the Ford and Toyota.
Lots of tranny failures? Not on Edmunds since the first run of them back in 2001. Honda fixed it then and they're fixin' em now. With all the fanatics and stories on Edmunds there are less than 200 posts when you enter the keywords Honda and transmission on Edmunds. There were I'm sure over 3/4 million V6 Accords and Ody's in the 3 year run. "Lots" is a strong word.

Honda Civic Si vs. VW GTI

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles