Re: Honda Civic Si HFP vs Subaru BRZ
(Score: 1, Normal)
CivicB18 wrote: So people are jumping up and down because an Si with an HFP kit and summer tires beat a stock all season tired BRZ by a tenth of a second?!?!? Wow!
Just look at how the cars move on the track, the Civic looks a bit sloppy as it has a tremendous amount of body roll while the BRZ stay pretty flat through all transitions. Of course the Civic would be a better daily driver but the BRZ is way more connected, more tactile and more of an engaging drive. I'll take the BRZ hands down.
Hopefully for the Si, the early MMC will give it a more neutral and flatter handling capabilities while raising tactile performance. It's a shame that Honda used to rule the sports compact car segment and clearly just gave that crown away as the competition hands the Si its ass.
Honda, we know you can do better as the former Si was a better all around performer and the former Civic Type R sedan was pretty monumental as it could whip up on sports cars costing thousands more. I'm certainly not asking for something as aggressive as a Type R but the Si moniker certainly deserves more that what it's currently attached to. As the only "performance" car offering from Honda currently the Si is an embarassmentat best.
There's a reason for that, the civic Type-R is an 8th gen. You can't compare any 9th gen civic to any 8th gen civic in any area other than interior technology and come out winning, let alone the toned down "Si" to a fully blown "Type R
. It has been established in several other threads that the Si shows excessive body roll in high performance driving. The fact that it still beat the BRZ with all that body roll is impressive.
man the hate on the 9th gen is harddd. i love the 8th gen Si and had a choice between the 2 but chose the 2.4 because it suited me better.
how can you not compare any 9thgen to any 8thgen??? heres some facts:
-2.4 vs 2.0 - both good engines, 2.4 revs lower and has "fake" vtec but accelerates faster stock vs stock and sounds just as good imo. has plenty of passing power without the need to downshift. also id like to point out that ever since i got my intake i do hear a crossover at 5k, although not as pronounced as the k20.
-transmissions - the 9thgen has no issues in the first year.
-design - purely subjective. i get plenty of looks in my fb6.
-interior materials - 8thgen wins. they dropped the ball with the interior fabrics.
-technology - 9th clearly wins.
-brakes/tires - same old honda equipment. decent brakes, stock michelins are horrendous for performance.
-suspension - the 9th is more tuned towards comfort but the handling is by no means bad.
i hate to argue online but i just can't sit back and watch you guys destroy the 9thgen Si. it is a very similar car to the 8th gen, just newer and a little evolved. lets not forget that the price did not increase.
I'm sure there are a lot of good reasons to like the 9th gen Si. I think the "Si" badge is distracting, without it folks would be able to see more clearly that it's a great car.
I didn't say that you can't "compare" the 9th to the 8th gen civics, I said that you can't "You can't compare any 9th gen civic to any 8th gen civic in any area other than interior technology and come out winning", which I think you unconsciously proved my point with your post.
Transmission, correct me if I'm wrong, but the 9th gen si's tranny is a carry-over from the 8th gen (or other vehicle with the same 3rd gear issue in mid 2000's). That's an unfair advantage you're giving there to the 9th lol.
I really like how the 9th gen si looks, but I still get thumbs up and stares in my now rare fiji blue 8th gen (moreso in bright sunny cali days).
I truly truly don't mean to argue, not my intention. I see lots of good things in the 9th gen as a car, but I personally do not think it should have replaced what an Si brings to enthusiasts.