The silly high cost as well as terrible fuel mileage is exactly why the Civic Si is not an econobox. I would need to save up all my pennies and soda cans to buy me one of those!
The silly high cost as well as terrible fuel mileage is exactly why the Civic Si is not an econobox. I would need to save up all my pennies and soda cans to buy me one of those!
vshah
Lifer
- Sep 20, 2003
- 19,003
- 24
- 81
The silly high cost as well as terrible fuel mileage is exactly why the Civic Si is not an econobox. I would need to save up all my pennies and soda cans to buy me one of those!
i frequently get 35mpg on a highway tank. pretty good imho.
exar333
Diamond Member
- Feb 7, 2004
- 8,518
- 8
- 91
The engine is nothing special; you can get a Hyundai with better engine options.
If a Geo Metro's engine was 0.5L and made 75hp, would that be a 'sports car' too because of the 'insane' hp/l and 'high-revving' engine?
The Si handles well, but the engine is a dog without wringing the crap out of it. It is an econobox with a better-than-average compact motor. Nothing more, nothing less.
The car is over-priced to start with, and anyone who pays closer to 30k for an Si is out of their mind.
Honda's V6 Accord has twice as much torque, 70HP more, and still manages to get 30mpg highway. The Accord is also a bigger car, heavier, and plows a lot more air, but it still manages to get the same mileage. Pretty much every other V6 midsize sedan tells the same story - more power, more torque, heavier, less aerodynamic, but gets the same gas mileage. It's also worth noting that a V6 Accord takes regular gasoline while the Civic Si takes premium which costs about 10% more where I live. Normalizing for cost of fuel, the Si actually consumes more money than a V6 while giving worse performance. wtf?
For most other cars, performance and fuel consumption go hand in hand. If you get the turbocharged Subaru Impreza WRX, it has a lot more power and torque than the regular Impreza, but it also burns more gas. That makes sense. Honda managed to make a car that burns more gas but has less power.
It might have worked a lot better if they just took a regular 1.8L Civic engine and put a turbocharger on it. It would still take premium gas, but the torque would make the car a lot nicer to drive. Not everyone wants to spin the engine at 6k rpm when going up a hill on the highway, but with a turbo you just stomp the gas and let the turbo spin up
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
Honda's V6 Accord has twice as much torque, 70HP more, and still manages to get 30mpg highway. The Accord is also a bigger car, heavier, and plows a lot more air, but it still manages to get the same mileage. Pretty much every other V6 midsize sedan tells the same story - more power, more torque, heavier, less aerodynamic, but gets the same gas mileage. It's also worth noting that a V6 Accord takes regular gasoline while the Civic Si takes premium which costs about 10% more where I live. Normalizing for cost of fuel, the Si actually consumes more money than a V6 while giving worse performance. wtf?
For most other cars, performance and fuel consumption go hand in hand. If you get the turbocharged Subaru Impreza WRX, it has a lot more power and torque than the regular Impreza, but it also burns more gas. That makes sense. Honda managed to make a car that burns more gas but has less power.
It might have worked a lot better if they just took a regular 1.8L Civic engine and put a turbocharger on it. It would still take premium gas, but the torque would make the car a lot nicer to drive. Not everyone wants to spin the engine at 6k rpm when going up a hill on the highway, but with a turbo you just stomp the gas and let the turbo spin up
Couldn't you have just admitted you were wrong when you said the mileage was terrible, instead of typing all that junk?
Now you want them to go to the expense and trouble of making a Turbo Civic...
Maybe they should re-engineer the Civic's engine to run on half it's cylinders like the Accord V6 does when cruising?
The fanboyism on this site is rampant. When one company does something, it's bad. When another company does the exact same thing, it's acceptable.
Chrysler has been blasted for this garbage numerous times. When their I4 burns as much gas as a V6 without delivering V6 performance, people say Chrysler sucks. When Chrysler makes a V6 that burns as much fuel as a V8 but has none of the power associated with a V8, it's because Chrysler sucks. When Honda does the exact same thing, it's not a big deal. Even though their 200HP engine burns as much gas as a 270HP engine and requires more expensive fuel to do it, that's totally acceptable and is not considered a blunder of engineering. When Mazda does the same thing by making a Miata that burns as much gas as a corvette or an ambulance or school bus but still only has a shitty naturally aspirated I4 engine, that too is acceptable. Honda and Mazda can do no wrong.
yottabit
Golden Member
- Jun 5, 2008
- 1,671
- 874
- 146
The fanboyism on this site is rampant. When one company does something, it's bad. When another company does the exact same thing, it's acceptable.
Chrysler has been blasted for this garbage numerous times. When their I4 burns as much gas as a V6 without delivering V6 performance, people say Chrysler sucks. When Chrysler makes a V6 that burns as much fuel as a V8 but has none of the power associated with a V8, it's because Chrysler sucks. When Honda does the exact same thing, it's not a big deal. Even though their 200HP engine burns as much gas as a 270HP engine and requires more expensive fuel to do it, that's totally acceptable and is not considered a blunder of engineering. When Mazda does the same thing by making a Miata that burns as much gas as a corvette or an ambulance or school bus but still only has a shitty naturally aspirated I4 engine, that too is acceptable. Honda and Mazda can do no wrong.
I think it's different once you throw out the "performance" moniker the Si has. The Si is marketed more of a sporty car than an economy car, and it shows from the way it was designed. And you don't see the same K20 motor in any economy applications.
Part of the poor gas mileage likely has to do with the short 6th gear the Si has too. I personally don't think it's bad at all that it gets worse mileage for being a high-revving performance I4. Plus I'm pretty sure if you look at the performance of a car as a whole the Si is going to overtake anything with a honda V6 (aside from an NSX), at least if you consider handling too
The whole idea isn't that you have to throw 25k at them to make it fast, whats beautiful is that you can pick one up for around 20 grand and throw a couple extra grand at it to get some great performance. The motors respond great to bolt on's and boost and the suspension is really pretty good. And I don't consider myself a Honda fanboy at all, in fact I've never owned one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spOWC2SeVFc
It's not the cheapest way to go fast, but it's a nice alternative to WRX, Mustang, etc if that's not your thing. I think this would be a fun sleeper for anyone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSAqDeSE4EI&feature=fvwrel
Last edited:
I was just focusing on the powertrain. The Si has a lot of great parts that make it fun to drive but the engine seems to consume too much fuel for what it delivers. While burning the same amount of fuel, an Accord V6 has more power, more torque, faster 0-60, and faster quarter mile times.
I've also ranted about sport bikes having the same problem. A bike with 150HP or so will somehow get mileage that is only slightly better than a Toyota Corolla even though the bike weighs 1/5 as much. It's like it's throwing unburned gas out the exhaust just for the lulz or something.
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
The Accord V6 is rated 20/24/30
The Civic Si 2.4L is rated 22/25/31
Driven normally around town, the Si will use less fuel than the Accord V6.
Cruising in high gear, the Si will burn less fuel than the Accord V6.
With both driven aggressively, the Si will also burn less fuel. Probably a lot less.
Overall, the Accord V6 will burn more fuel.
If driven to keep up with an Si driver who's making an effort, the Accord V6 will burn lots more fuel.
Even with the old 2.0L Si, the comparison still favors the Si overall.
Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, or why you can't understand the concept of the Si.
It's like asking why the 5.0 in the Mustang gets better mileage than the 5.0 in the F-150, even though the Mustang has way more power...
412hp/390tq versus 360hp/380tq
It means you don't have a clue.
yhelothar
Lifer
- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,409
- 39
- 91
Yeah pretty much. The cost to engineer such an engine would make the geo metro not an econobox, and it'd probably be pretty quick being incredibly light weight for the power it makes.
Last edited:
TakeNoPrisoners
Platinum Member
- Jun 3, 2011
- 2,599
- 1
- 81
You will get more HP gain from buying a type r sticker. On cars that burn rice it adds a good 30 HP.
Uh no it's the other way around. I'm asking why the Ford F150 with 400 pounds of torque gets the same gas mileage as a Ford Taurus. The F150 is a hell of a lot heavier, the engine is much stronger, and the F150 plows air like they just didn't give a shit how aerodynamic it was.
Of course that's not true in Ford's case. Ford knows what they're doing, so their aerodynamic car with less power gets better gas mileage. Honda has no idea what they are doing, so their tiny car has all of the gas guzzling but none of the power.
How much gas do you think it would consume if they put the Si engine in the Accord, which is quite a bit heavier? My god, it would drink more gas than an H1 Hummer driving up a steep hill. Most inefficient engine ever designed by a human.
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
It would get better mileage in the Accord of course, why would you think otherwise? The Accord is tuned and geared to be a grocery getter. The Si is tuned to be a runner.
The F150 is tuned and geared to pull loads, the Mustang is tuned to go fast.
BTW, the Si and the Accord EX do have basically the same K24 4 cylinder.
It gets 23/27/33 with a 5 speed manual. Basically the same mileage as the Si, when you account for gearing differences.
According to the EPA, the V6 Accord is 1mpg worse than the Civic Si, and that's including the fact that the Si weighs 2900 pounds while the Accord is a whopping 3600 pounds. You're telling me that I can add an extra 700 pounds of weight to the Si and it will still get better mileage than the Accord? I guess that's always possible, but I would need to see it to believe it.
it's a grocery getter and mommy mobile that can still beat the Si in a quarter mile drag race
I just think there's something wrong with that car. It's 700 pounds lighter, it's slower, can't carry as much stuff, can't tow anything, it has less power, less torque, made by the same company, but the gas mileage is not improved at all. wtf happened?
Imagine Toyota took the Corolla and sized it down to something that looks like a Smart Fortwo. They manage to trim it down to only 2000 pounds, they reduced the engine from 132HP to maybe 100HP, and they give it 6 gears instead of 5. This new car has a bit of zip to it, but it's still not as fast as the Corolla they started with. Now imagine this smaller, lighter, slower car got exactly the same gas mileage as the Corolla. Now imagine it required premium instead of regular. Would people cock their heads to the side and wonder why it burns just as much gas even though it's worse in every measurable category?
According to the EPA, the V6 Accord is 1mpg worse than the Civic Si, and that's including the fact that the Si weighs 2900 pounds while the Accord is a whopping 3600 pounds. You're telling me that I can add an extra 700 pounds of weight to the Si and it will still get better mileage than the Accord? I guess that's always possible, but I would need to see it to believe it.
it's a grocery getter and mommy mobile that can still beat the Si in a quarter mile drag race
I just think there's something wrong with that car. It's 700 pounds lighter, it's slower, can't carry as much stuff, can't tow anything, it has less power, less torque, made by the same company, but the gas mileage is not improved at all. wtf happened?
Imagine Toyota took the Corolla and sized it down to something that looks like a Smart Fortwo. They manage to trim it down to only 2000 pounds, they reduced the engine from 132HP to maybe 100HP, and they give it 6 gears instead of 5. This new car has a bit of zip to it, but it's still not as fast as the Corolla they started with. Now imagine this smaller, lighter, slower car got exactly the same gas mileage as the Corolla. Now imagine it required premium instead of regular. Would people cock their heads to the side and wonder why it burns just as much gas even though it's worse in every measurable category?
I know it may be more productive to hit myself with a hammer, but here goes...
Comparing 2012 Civic Si and 2011 Accord from Honda's website:
2012 Si: 31mpg EPA highway, 0.647 top gear ratio, 215/45/17 tire, 2900lb curb weight, 201hp/170lb-ft tq
2011 Accord: 30mpg EPA highway, 0.537 top gear ratio, 225/50/17 tire,3600lb curb weight, 270hp/254lb-ft tq
The Accord gets similar fuel economy probably because it has taller tires and lower gearing, both of which allow the engine to spin more slowly during cruising with reduces losses from water/oil pumps, valve train, bearing friction losses, transmission losses, etc. Also, the accord comes with all-season tires which I think would have lower rolling resistance when compared to the summer performance tires that the Civic Si comes with.
As for straight-line performance, the Accord has a favorable power/weight ratio. 13.3lb/hp in the accord vs 14.4lb/hp in the Civic Si. The gap is even wider when one considers torque/weight. I bet having a torque converter helps the Accord accelerate well even with taller gear ratios.
If this explanation doesn't satisfy you, at least accept the similar fuel economies as a fact of life and move on.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
Sort of OT, but the appeal of the Si seems diluted when one considers the WRX and Speed3. Or GTI if that's your cup of tea. Fuel economy may tip in favor of the Si, but something tells me people wanting sporty cars don't place that at the top of the list usually.
Oh well, good to have choices in the segment. Focus ST will be here soon, that'll be a nice touch. Seems that the current DCT in the non-Turbo Focus leaves a lot to be desired in terms of sport/response. A third pedal will do wonders
Oh well, good to have choices in the segment. Focus ST will be here soon, that'll be a nice touch. Seems that the current DCT in the non-Turbo Focus leaves a lot to be desired in terms of sport/response. A third pedal will do wonders
The WRX is a lot more expensive.
I'm also pretty sure that's why people get the Si instead of getting a car with a V6. The Si might suck but it's a lot cheaper.
Canadian prices are retarded so I'll just write percentages. Civic Si is the compared car.
WRX (lowest model) is 25% more expensive than Civic Si.
Accord V6 (lowest model) is 15% more expensive.
Speed3 is also 15% more expensive.
Out of all of those cars, the Civic Si is the cheapest by thousands of dollars.
Also, Honda's Canadian website is HORRIBLE. Look at this shit
http://honda.ca/civic_sedan_si#/civic_sedan_si/specs
So the car doesn't work properly unless I use premium but you still think I should put regular in it. That's a great idea :thumbsup:
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
WRX Invoice starts at $24,079
Si Invoice starts at $22,405
???? ~$1,600? I know there are more options you can put on the WRX vs. the Si, but it's not an epic difference. Are you sure you're not thinking of the STI? Because that sucker is pretty darned expensive indeed, much like the Evo.
Or are prices just retarded in Canada, lol?
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
To add :
Speed3 starts at $23,700
GTI starts at $23,695
305hp V6 Mustang starts at $22,310
All of these are US prices and don't include TT&L, but also do not take into account incentives/rebates/etc. Bottom line is that the Si isn't a great bargain in the US at least.
Speed3 starts at $23,700
GTI starts at $23,695
305hp V6 Mustang starts at $22,310
All of these are US prices and don't include TT&L, but also do not take into account incentives/rebates/etc. Bottom line is that the Si isn't a great bargain in the US at least.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter