2007 Si - Autocross impressions
10-06-2009, 03:52 PM
#26
Road House
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Home of Champions. The Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,818
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
read much?
do you honestly think that the potential buyers looking at the si, also look at those base models that you mentioned? really? i'm willing to bet that most people don't; people who consider the si also consider cars such as the ms3, wrx, etc. the cars you mentioned are more in the r18 civic's class, not the si's.
do you honestly think that the potential buyers looking at the si, also look at those base models that you mentioned? really? i'm willing to bet that most people don't; people who consider the si also consider cars such as the ms3, wrx, etc. the cars you mentioned are more in the r18 civic's class, not the si's.
And my point is that the Civic Si really does not belong in the same group as those cars.
Basically what you are arguing is that "class" should be determined by a, "This consumer also looked at these cars", kind of system.
I, on the other hand, am arguing that a car's "class" should be determined by the technical aspects of that vehicle; and other vehicles with comparable specs should be in that same class. To put vehicles with vastly varying specs into the same class is pointless, IMO.
A question...would you put the Accord 6-6 in the same class as a Mustang V6?
10-06-2009, 04:10 PM
#27
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
Exactly.
And my point is that the Civic Si really does not belong in the same group as those cars.
Basically what you are arguing is that "class" should be determined by a, "This consumer also looked at these cars", kind of system.
I, on the other hand, am arguing that a car's "class" should be determined by the technical aspects of that vehicle; and other vehicles with comparable specs should be in that same class. To put vehicles with vastly varying specs into the same class is pointless, IMO.
A question...would you put the Accord 6-6 in the same class as a Mustang V6?
And my point is that the Civic Si really does not belong in the same group as those cars.
Basically what you are arguing is that "class" should be determined by a, "This consumer also looked at these cars", kind of system.
I, on the other hand, am arguing that a car's "class" should be determined by the technical aspects of that vehicle; and other vehicles with comparable specs should be in that same class. To put vehicles with vastly varying specs into the same class is pointless, IMO.
A question...would you put the Accord 6-6 in the same class as a Mustang V6?
10-06-2009, 04:22 PM
#28
Road House
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Home of Champions. The Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,818
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
for some reason i have a hard time imagining that somebody who's considering an accord 6-6 would also be considering a mustang v6. say what you want, but the si IS similar enough to cars like the ms3 and wrx to be competing with them. it also happens to be the slowest of the group.
The MS3 is a turbocharged wagon/ saloon-hatch. The Si is a NA Sedan/Coupe.
The Mustang V6 is a NA Coupe. The Accord 6-6 Coupe is a NA Coupe.
The WRX has an engine that is 0.5L larger, it is turbocharged, and it also has AWD. (That is 3 strikes)
The Si is a 2.0L NA FWD. The WRX is a 2.5L FI AWD.
The Mustang V6 has an engine that is 0.5L larger than the Accord, and it is RWD. (That is only 2 strikes)
The Accord is a 3.5L NA FWD. The Mustang is a 4.0L NA RWD.
Why is the WRX and Si more comparable than the Mustang V6 and Accord V6? I'm just not seeing it.
At this point I direct you back to my earlier post.
What I should have said was..."You cannot use price range as a means of determining a car's class". There are cars in much different classes that happen to be in the same price range, and therefore should not be compared to the same standard.
And you take the FI systems off of these cars and what do you have?
The Mazda 3 is a 2.3L, 156hp vehicle. It has a larger engine, weighs 200lbs more, and has much less power. The 2.0L version has even less power.
The Impreza is a 2.5L, 170hp vehicle. It has a much larger engine, weighs 300lbs more, and has arguably 10hp or so less. It does have a solid torque standing, and AWD however.
The Cobalt is a 2.2L, 155hp engine. Again, larger engine, less power. It only weights roughly the same as a Civic Si. And it is much uglier, I should mention.
The Civic Si, already having a smaller engine than all of these cars, is then compared to the FI version of these engines? How does that make any sense? (Granted, in some of the examples, such as the Cobalt, the FI version has a slightly smaller displacement than the NA version. However, in each case, the engine size is at least 2.0L)
To say that that Si is the "slowest car in its class", is simply wrong. If anything, it is, "too quick to be in the class it should be in".
And you take the FI systems off of these cars and what do you have?
The Mazda 3 is a 2.3L, 156hp vehicle. It has a larger engine, weighs 200lbs more, and has much less power. The 2.0L version has even less power.
The Impreza is a 2.5L, 170hp vehicle. It has a much larger engine, weighs 300lbs more, and has arguably 10hp or so less. It does have a solid torque standing, and AWD however.
The Cobalt is a 2.2L, 155hp engine. Again, larger engine, less power. It only weights roughly the same as a Civic Si. And it is much uglier, I should mention.
The Civic Si, already having a smaller engine than all of these cars, is then compared to the FI version of these engines? How does that make any sense? (Granted, in some of the examples, such as the Cobalt, the FI version has a slightly smaller displacement than the NA version. However, in each case, the engine size is at least 2.0L)
To say that that Si is the "slowest car in its class", is simply wrong. If anything, it is, "too quick to be in the class it should be in".
Last edited by FijiBlueFG2; 10-06-2009 at 06:08 PM.
10-06-2009, 05:22 PM
#29
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Haachhooo its allergy season
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
Regardless of what you think people do buys cars based on color and preference. Bottom line it's a civic.. Economy "sports car" .. Get over it. The main reason I got an Si is because of the color, trans, and because I didn't want a slowwwwwer r18. I'm not saying my car is fast but there are other reasons people buy Si's
P.S. Change your corny quotes your most likely still on your parents insurance jackass.
P.S. Change your corny quotes your most likely still on your parents insurance jackass.
10-06-2009, 05:57 PM
#30
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Jersey
Posts: 2,740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
Regardless of what you think people do buys cars based on color and preference. Bottom line it's a civic.. Economy "sports car" .. Get over it. The main reason I got an Si is because of the color, trans, and because I didn't want a slowwwwwer r18. I'm not saying my car is fast but there are other reasons people buy Si's
P.S. Change your corny quotes your most likely still on your parents insurance jackass.
P.S. Change your corny quotes your most likely still on your parents insurance jackass.
What color is your Si? The R18 has plenty of "pep" to merge into traffic. Give your car to someone who appreciates it for what it is.
10-06-2009, 06:10 PM
#31
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
Again, exactly my point. The problem with basing a car's class off of it's price range. The Mustang V6 and Accord 6-6 are in the same price range, yet not many would consider them similar. So why do we think the MS3 or WRX are similar to the Si?
The MS3 is a turbocharged wagon/ saloon-hatch. The Si is a NA Sedan/Coupe.
The Mustang V6 is a NA Coupe. The Accord 6-6 Coupe is a NA Coupe.
The WRX has an engine that is 0.5L larger, it is turbocharged, and it also has AWD. (That is 3 strikes)
The Si is a 2.0L NA FWD. The WRX is a 2.5L FI AWD.
The Mustang V6 has an engine that is 0.5L larger than the Accord, and it is RWD. (That is only 2 strikes)
The Accord is a 3.5L NA FWD. The Mustang is a 4.0L NA RWD.
Why is the WRX and Si more comparable than the Mustang V6 and Accord V6? I'm just not seeing it.
At this point I direct you back to my earlier post.
The MS3 is a turbocharged wagon/ saloon-hatch. The Si is a NA Sedan/Coupe.
The Mustang V6 is a NA Coupe. The Accord 6-6 Coupe is a NA Coupe.
The WRX has an engine that is 0.5L larger, it is turbocharged, and it also has AWD. (That is 3 strikes)
The Si is a 2.0L NA FWD. The WRX is a 2.5L FI AWD.
The Mustang V6 has an engine that is 0.5L larger than the Accord, and it is RWD. (That is only 2 strikes)
The Accord is a 3.5L NA FWD. The Mustang is a 4.0L NA RWD.
Why is the WRX and Si more comparable than the Mustang V6 and Accord V6? I'm just not seeing it.
At this point I direct you back to my earlier post.
. it has zero competition, and when someone considers buying an si then it's the si or nothing. there just aren't any cars similar to it. btw, your ability to look up car specs is pretty awesome; not sure why you bothered in the first place, but i'm glad you know how to use google
.
10-06-2009, 06:16 PM
#32
Road House
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Home of Champions. The Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,818
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
ok, you're right; the si is so awesome that's its in a class of its own . it has zero competition, and when someone considers buying an si then it's the si or nothing. there just aren't any cars similar to it.
btw, your ability to look up car specs is pretty awesome; not sure why you bothered in the first place, but i'm glad you know how to use google.
. it has zero competition, and when someone considers buying an si then it's the si or nothing. there just aren't any cars similar to it. btw, your ability to look up car specs is pretty awesome; not sure why you bothered in the first place, but i'm glad you know how to use google
.The Si SHOULD be in class with the Corolla S, Cobalt, Impreza, and Mazda 3. Those cars are very similar to it. They actually all have larger engines than the Si, so the Si SHOULD be at a disadvantage.
10-06-2009, 06:42 PM
#33
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northwest, IN, USA
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
Damn guys, all I wanted to do was talk about my experience of autocrossing my Si. I could care less about how you classify an Si or any other car. My point was the potential of the Si.
It is most certainly not the fasted car on the road nor is it anywhere near the slowest. I love my Si and I love my Old Si and that's what matters to me. The rest of the hate in this thread can go elsewhere.
It is most certainly not the fasted car on the road nor is it anywhere near the slowest. I love my Si and I love my Old Si and that's what matters to me. The rest of the hate in this thread can go elsewhere.
10-06-2009, 06:47 PM
#34
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: pasadena, md, USA
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
for some reason i have a hard time imagining that somebody who's considering an accord 6-6 would also be considering a mustang v6. say what you want, but the si IS similar enough to cars like the ms3 and wrx to be competing with them. it also happens to be the slowest of the group.
10-06-2009, 10:02 PM
#35
Honda-Tech Member
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
Damn guys, all I wanted to do was talk about my experience of autocrossing my Si. I could care less about how you classify an Si or any other car. My point was the potential of the Si.
It is most certainly not the fasted car on the road nor is it anywhere near the slowest. I love my Si and I love my Old Si and that's what matters to me. The rest of the hate in this thread can go elsewhere.
It is most certainly not the fasted car on the road nor is it anywhere near the slowest. I love my Si and I love my Old Si and that's what matters to me. The rest of the hate in this thread can go elsewhere.
10-07-2009, 04:52 AM
#36
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northwest, IN, USA
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
I'm not sure if this is the reason, but if you haven't noticed, the Si (and I would imagine the rest of the civic fleet) has A LOT of caster. Recalling my S14 240SX, with macpherson struts, it had very light and crisp handling. I swore that if it has more negative caster, that the wheels would lay flat when turning.
One thing that should be noted, since BMW ends up being a handling benchmark by most car publications, that they use macpherson struts as well.
What I find interesting is that no one talks about how fast the steering is in the Si. My only gripe is that because it is an electric assisted rack, there is no Power Steering fluid to act as a damper to firm up the response. It is a little too light and over assisted....which made it awesome for autocrossing! I think I could have navigated the sloloms with one finger!
The nimbleness that you describe may be the result of the fast steering.
10-07-2009, 06:17 AM
#38
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northwest, IN, USA
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
Whoops! Sorry about that. I did read it...but forgot about it after reading the rest of the posts.
I actually prefer ABS for racing. My '94 Si is ABS equipped. It's nice to just pile on the brakes especially if you end up in a panic on the course, and avoid flat spotted tires. There's an entire argument about ABS vs non-ABS for racing but the guys that I race with that do not have ABS keep loosing to me
Now comparing the ABS on my '07 Si vs my '94 Si...the cycling rate is SIGNIFICANTLY faster on the newer civic...
I actually prefer ABS for racing. My '94 Si is ABS equipped. It's nice to just pile on the brakes especially if you end up in a panic on the course, and avoid flat spotted tires. There's an entire argument about ABS vs non-ABS for racing but the guys that I race with that do not have ABS keep loosing to me
Now comparing the ABS on my '07 Si vs my '94 Si...the cycling rate is SIGNIFICANTLY faster on the newer civic...
10-07-2009, 09:41 AM
#40
Honda-Tech Member
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
Finally, a response that is more appropriate to the original post!
I'm not sure if this is the reason, but if you haven't noticed, the Si (and I would imagine the rest of the civic fleet) has A LOT of caster. Recalling my S14 240SX, with macpherson struts, it had very light and crisp handling. I swore that if it has more negative caster, that the wheels would lay flat when turning.
One thing that should be noted, since BMW ends up being a handling benchmark by most car publications, that they use macpherson struts as well.
What I find interesting is that no one talks about how fast the steering is in the Si. My only gripe is that because it is an electric assisted rack, there is no Power Steering fluid to act as a damper to firm up the response. It is a little too light and over assisted....which made it awesome for autocrossing! I think I could have navigated the sloloms with one finger!
The nimbleness that you describe may be the result of the fast steering.
I'm not sure if this is the reason, but if you haven't noticed, the Si (and I would imagine the rest of the civic fleet) has A LOT of caster. Recalling my S14 240SX, with macpherson struts, it had very light and crisp handling. I swore that if it has more negative caster, that the wheels would lay flat when turning.
One thing that should be noted, since BMW ends up being a handling benchmark by most car publications, that they use macpherson struts as well.
What I find interesting is that no one talks about how fast the steering is in the Si. My only gripe is that because it is an electric assisted rack, there is no Power Steering fluid to act as a damper to firm up the response. It is a little too light and over assisted....which made it awesome for autocrossing! I think I could have navigated the sloloms with one finger!
The nimbleness that you describe may be the result of the fast steering.
well i was actually referring to how it feels like it wants to steer with the rear when u go around fast turns and take tight corners. but the steering is awesome though haha i hit this one bowl turn thats rated at 35mph on my way to work and i do an easy 65-70 and im barely turning the wheel. in my benz i have to turn it about 40 degrees as in the si its somewhere around the 20-25 degree mark.
10-07-2009, 09:47 AM
#41
Road House
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Home of Champions. The Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,818
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
haha you're welcome man.
well i was actually referring to how it feels like it wants to steer with the rear when u go around fast turns and take tight corners. but the steering is awesome though haha i hit this one bowl turn thats rated at 35mph on my way to work and i do an easy 65-70 and im barely turning the wheel. in my benz i have to turn it about 40 degrees as in the si its somewhere around the 20-25 degree mark.
well i was actually referring to how it feels like it wants to steer with the rear when u go around fast turns and take tight corners. but the steering is awesome though haha i hit this one bowl turn thats rated at 35mph on my way to work and i do an easy 65-70 and im barely turning the wheel. in my benz i have to turn it about 40 degrees as in the si its somewhere around the 20-25 degree mark.
I was watching this guy do a 3-pt turn in a Ford Ranger the other day.
He had to turn the wheel completely around about 6-7 times to get the wheels to turn the whole way. This was WITH power steering. It must be awful on the highway.
10-07-2009, 09:50 AM
#42
Honda-Tech Member
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
hahaha well thats what happens when you have a steering wheel sized identically to that of a school bus.
10-07-2009, 02:57 PM
#43
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Jersey
Posts: 2,740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
Power steering is really only useful when you aren't moving or moving very slowly. The Si would probably handle just as well while moving at speed if it had manual steering but the same box ratio.
My ex-ex girlfriend's Suzuki Swift had manual steering. It was awful when you were trying to parralel park or make a 90 degree turn from a stop, but it actually handled amazingly when moving. Yes it was a tiny car, but the same guys for pretty much any vehicle. I've driven pickups where the power steering pump went bad. I'd pretty much break my wrists turning the steering wheel at a stop, but they handle just as well as normal while moving.
My ex-ex girlfriend's Suzuki Swift had manual steering. It was awful when you were trying to parralel park or make a 90 degree turn from a stop, but it actually handled amazingly when moving. Yes it was a tiny car, but the same guys for pretty much any vehicle. I've driven pickups where the power steering pump went bad. I'd pretty much break my wrists turning the steering wheel at a stop, but they handle just as well as normal while moving.
10-08-2009, 06:33 AM
#44
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northwest, IN, USA
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
Power steering is really only useful when you aren't moving or moving very slowly. The Si would probably handle just as well while moving at speed if it had manual steering but the same box ratio.
My ex-ex girlfriend's Suzuki Swift had manual steering. It was awful when you were trying to parralel park or make a 90 degree turn from a stop, but it actually handled amazingly when moving. Yes it was a tiny car, but the same guys for pretty much any vehicle. I've driven pickups where the power steering pump went bad. I'd pretty much break my wrists turning the steering wheel at a stop, but they handle just as well as normal while moving.
My ex-ex girlfriend's Suzuki Swift had manual steering. It was awful when you were trying to parralel park or make a 90 degree turn from a stop, but it actually handled amazingly when moving. Yes it was a tiny car, but the same guys for pretty much any vehicle. I've driven pickups where the power steering pump went bad. I'd pretty much break my wrists turning the steering wheel at a stop, but they handle just as well as normal while moving.
10-08-2009, 03:13 PM
#46
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Jersey
Posts: 2,740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2007 Si - Autocross impressions
I have never heard of it, but judging by the fact he quoted me...it might mean that the power steering is really only "on" when you need it (aka turning the wheels at a stop). It doesn't draw power when you are moving, thus freeing up some extra power.
This was just a guess so try not to laugh too hard if I am completely wrong lmao.
This was just a guess so try not to laugh too hard if I am completely wrong lmao.
10-08-2009, 03:23 PM
#47
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-08-2009, 04:48 PM
#49
Honda-Tech Member
