O.k.

just picked up the 06 coupe/SI brochure, and i have been doing a little paper comparison between the 05 type s and the SI...

here is what i have come up with so far.......

- the SI is only 37 more pounds than the type s
- the wheels are the same size 17 215 tires
- supposidly the gear ratios are the same.... I have not seen a gear chart of the SI
- we know that the type s is 210/201 hp and the SI is 197
- the SI is DBW and the type s is cable

So, why is is that the SI is almost a second of 0-60?

different drivers?
gear ratio?
heavier wheels on the SI?
the 4hp difference?
the DBW?
the extra 37 lbs.?

or are these the reasons it is slower?

any thoughts?

Just thought this would make for good conversation.....

if anyone has any specs that i am missing please feel free to add them to the list....


p.s. the front swaybar on the SI is 28mm (solid)

 

the dbw would be my guess

 

Were they compared AT SIMILAR TIMES on the SAME DAY with LITTLE VARIATIONS in weather factors, by the SAME MAGAZINE, using ONE DRIVER?

If not, then you cannot make a comparison... In case you still don't get it, you must remove as many variables from the equation as possible.


For example, Road & Track recently did a small article on their test procedures and admitted they don't do high rpm launches, nor do they speed shift, or anything else that could harm the drivetrain unlike other publications... They were basically referring to Car & Driver and Motor Trend.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by cmdr430 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
So, why is is that the SI is almost a second of 0-60? </TD></TR></TABLE>

The balance shafts might make it harder for the car to spin up quickly. After removing the balance shafts from an H22A2 used in a race car, we noticed that the motor's spin-up rate seemed to exceed what we'd normally have expected from the couple of HP gained by removing the balance shafts.

If the 0-60 times you're noticing are from magazines, then different testing conditions and drivers could be to blame.

If the 0-60 times you're noticing are from Honda and Acura promotional material, then the material might have been affected by marketing considerations.

 

hondas claiming 6.8......i to have been researching this alot....also they say that the extra shift to third gets in the way of the 0-60, but ONE thing i did notice is that the si has a slower 1/4mile time 15.1 compared to the 14.8-14.9 that the rsx-s does....if u ask me i think the rsx is a tad bit quicker....it has more power and its lighter, but the si is a better car if you ask me, it has better suspension, navigation, smoother motor, and lsd...but there both awesome cars thats why i cant pick between the 2

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CTRjesse &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">hondas claiming 6.8......i to have been researching this alot....also they say that the extra shift to third gets in the way of the 0-60, </TD></TR></TABLE>

Honda has never cared for altering gear ratios to make better quarters or 0-60 runs. There are several cars recently produced that have gear shift requirements in the wrong place to achieve the best magazine results.



Does anybody have zero-100 results for the Type S and Si?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CTRjesse &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">hondas claiming 6.8......i to have been researching this alot....also they say that the extra shift to third gets in the way of the 0-60</TD></TR></TABLE>

i thought the gear ratios were the same w/ the two, then how can this be?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by George Knighton &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If the 0-60 times you're noticing are from magazines, then different testing conditions and drivers could be to blame.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

i agree, but they are all consistantly slower in the magazines...... which i am sure were tested in different conditions.......

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by George Knighton &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">


If the 0-60 times you're noticing are from Honda and Acura promotional material, then the material might have been affected by marketing considerations.</TD></TR></TABLE>

things that make you go hmmmmm.....

 

Just to add, I am 99% sure the first 5 gears of the Type-S and Si are the same with the Si having a TSX (or close to it) 6th gear for lower highway cruising RPM. I cant find exactly where I saw this but I am pretty sure at least the gears in question for 0-60 are the same.

I have also heard some of the mags shifted to 3rd before they reached 60. If the Type-S could reach 60 in second gear then that could make the Si's time a little longer. Again, dont remember where I heard this so I will not claim this to be 100% right.

Feel free to add sources or correct what I said if it is not right.

 

To make the Type-S still slightly better.

 

The thing is the Type-S isnt better.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by triple &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The thing is the Type-S isnt better.</TD></TR></TABLE>

It's subjective. Depends what you consider 'better'.

I can think if a few things, mechanically, that are superior on the Type S.

 

I hope its not the ride quality, becuase the Type-S rides like a tank.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by triple &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I hope its not the ride quality, becuase the Type-S rides like a tank. </TD></TR></TABLE>

i hope you are not expecting anything better out of the new SI..........

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by triple &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I hope its not the ride quality, becuase the Type-S rides like a tank. </TD></TR></TABLE>

How does a tank ride, anyways?

Note the Si is heavier, so if anything it would be more 'tank' like.

 

The suspension, not the fact that its a lil heavier. Lets just say it doesnt ride like a normal Acura would ride.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by triple &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The suspension, not the fact that its a lil heavier. Lets just say it doesnt ride like a normal Acura would ride.</TD></TR></TABLE>

what are you comparing it to? a RL

it rides like a sport tuned suspension compact should.......

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by triple &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The suspension, not the fact that its a lil heavier. Lets just say it doesnt ride like a normal Acura would ride.</TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by cmdr430 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">it rides like a sport tuned suspensioncompact should.......</TD></TR></TABLE>

lol..

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by triple &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I hope its not the ride quality, becuase the Type-S rides like a tank. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Could you take a moment to clarify what you mean by that?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Todd00 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

How does a tank ride, anyways?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well, see, that's my problem. I do know how a tank rides, and I don't understand why we'd say that about either of the cars.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by George Knighton &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Well, see, that's my problem. I do know how a tank rides, and I don't understand why we'd say that about either of the cars.</TD></TR></TABLE>

i am going to guess he means how stiffly it is sprung......

which led me to make this comment

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by cmdr430 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

what are you comparing it to? a RL

it rides like a sport tuned suspension compact should.......</TD></TR></TABLE>

maybe he will chime in and better expain his statement.....

EDIT: or maybe he means how solid it feels..... because it feels more solid than either one of the two type r's i have owned

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by cmdr430 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
or maybe he means how solid it feels..... because it feels more solid than either one of the two type r's i have owned</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well, the DC5 and EP3 are a lot stiffer chassis-wise than anything Honda had ever built before them. Let's hope that's what he meant.

 

Here's the gear ratios compliments of the latest Honda Tuning issue.

K20A3 (02-up RSX)
1st - 3.27
2nd - 1.88
3rd - 1.21
4th - 0.92
5th - 0.74
6th - N/A
Final - 4.39

K20A2 (02-04 RSX-S)
1st - 3.27
2nd - 2.13
3rd - 1.52
4th - 1.15
5th - 0.92
6th - 0.74
Final - 4.39

K20A3 (02-05 Civic Si)
1st - 3.06
2nd - 1.77
3rd - 1.21
4th - 0.92
5th - 0.74
6th - N/A
Final - 4.76

K20Z (05-up RSX-S)
1st - 3.27
2nd - 2.13
3rd - 1.52
4th - 1.15
5th - 0.92
6th - 0.74
Final - 4.76

K20Z3 (06 Civic Si)
1st - 3.27
2nd - 2.13
3rd - 1.52
4th - 1.15
5th - 0.92
6th - 0.66
Final - 4.76

Only the 6th gear changed on the Si, offers a little better mileage at cruising speeds.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Jorsher &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Here's the gear ratios compliments of the latest Honda Tuning issue.

K20Z (05-up RSX-S)
1st - 3.27
2nd - 2.13
3rd - 1.52
4th - 1.15
5th - 0.92
6th - 0.74
Final - 4.76

K20Z3 (06 Civic Si)
1st - 3.27
2nd - 2.13
3rd - 1.52
4th - 1.15
5th - 0.92
6th - 0.66
Final - 4.76

Only the 6th gear changed on the Si, offers a little better mileage at cruising speeds.</TD></TR></TABLE>

interesting......

thanks for the info

 

the gear ratios are a little different, the Si can not hit 60 in second gear so it requires an up shift where as the type -s can hit 60 in second. i have heard about a 6.7 0-60 sprint which isnt too far off from a type s. i cant wait to come up on one on the street and see how quick they are.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by pwpDC5 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the gear ratios are a little different, the Si can not hit 60 in second gear so it requires an up shift where as the type -s can hit 60 in second. i have heard about a 6.7 0-60 sprint which isnt too far off from a type s. i cant wait to come up on one on the street and see how quick they are.</TD></TR></TABLE>



<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Jorsher &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Here's the gear ratios compliments of the latest Honda Tuning issue.

K20Z (05-up RSX-S)
1st - 3.27
2nd - 2.13
3rd - 1.52
4th - 1.15
5th - 0.92
6th - 0.74
Final - 4.76

K20Z3 (06 Civic Si)
1st - 3.27
2nd - 2.13
3rd - 1.52
4th - 1.15
5th - 0.92
6th - 0.66
Final - 4.76

Only the 6th gear changed on the Si, offers a little better mileage at cruising speeds.</TD></TR></TABLE>