|
|
|
|
 |
vandme10
 |
|
According to Acura.com, the 2011 TSX weighs approx. 3400lb (MT).
According to Honda.com, the 2011 Civic Si coupe weighs 2895lb (the sedan weighs 2954, a 59lb difference).
The 2012 Civic Si's MAY have a slightly lower curb weight than the 2011 model. The 2012 Civic Si's MAY have a slightly higher curb weight. Regardless, of what it is, at this point, based on Honda's own press releases and announcements regarding their efforts to focus on power-to-weight ratio (hell, even Ford acknowledges this), we can surmise the 2012 Civic Si--coupe and sedan--should theoretically weigh less than the 2011/2012 TSX. And regardless of what the 2012 Civic Si eventually dyno's with, so long as the dyno charts are similar to the TSX's, +/- for any atmospheric and user compensation, it should theoretically pull stronger than the 2011/2012 TSX because it's saddled with less weight. Here's hoping Honda kept the Civic's weight under 3000lbs, meaning the K24Z3 won't have to put up with a 400-505lb ballast (!).
Which means the 2012 Civic shouldn't have much problem getting out of its own way. Seems to be a much bigger picture here than what some folks are making it out to be because they may be losing the frenetic redline. Either way, the 2012 model should be a more well-rounded vehicle than that which it replaces.
|
owequitit
|
|
vandme10 wrote:
According to Acura.com, the 2011 TSX weighs approx. 3400lb (MT).
According to Honda.com, the 2011 Civic Si coupe weighs 2895lb (the sedan weighs 2954, a 59lb difference).
The 2012 Civic Si's MAY have a slightly lower curb weight than the 2011 model. The 2012 Civic Si's MAY have a slightly higher curb weight. Regardless, of what it is, at this point, based on Honda's own press releases and announcements regarding their efforts to focus on power-to-weight ratio (hell, even Ford acknowledges this), we can surmise the 2012 Civic Si--coupe and sedan--should theoretically weigh less than the 2011/2012 TSX. And regardless of what the 2012 Civic Si eventually dyno's with, so long as the dyno charts are similar to the TSX's, +/- for any atmospheric and user compensation, it should theoretically pull stronger than the 2011/2012 TSX because it's saddled with less weight. Here's hoping Honda kept the Civic's weight under 3000lbs, meaning the K24Z3 won't have to put up with a 400-505lb ballast (!).
Which means the 2012 Civic shouldn't have much problem getting out of its own way. Seems to be a much bigger picture here than what some folks are making it out to be because they may be losing the frenetic redline. Either way, the 2012 model should be a more well-rounded vehicle than that which it replaces.
|
The problem is that if you reduce the TSX weight to Si levels, you are looking at about the same performance you currently have with the K20.
You are assuming that we have not considered weight, and that would make you...wrong.
The new Si is unlikely to lose more than 100lbs from the current car, which is already at the bottom of class in terms of curb weight. They may have lost incremental weight with smaller dimensions (I think it is close to the same size), and would have gained the rest with an increased use of high strength steel. I will be pleased if it lost 50-100lbs, since that is a trend in the right direction, but it won't make a huge gain in performance relative to the current car. The commonly used rule of thumb for weight reduction is that 100lbs will give you about .1 second in the quarter mile, all else constant. Add in a tenth or two for that time in 1st gear below about 35MPH (where the K20 hits VTEC and essentially levels the playing field, where it remains from then on), and you are looking at a car that IS incrementally faster, but loses quite a bit of character.
The redline rush will be gone, the screaming NA engine note will be greatly diminished, the K24 is not as rev happy, smooth or tractable above 5K, and the gearing will likely mitigate some of the advantage. Yeah, it will be more flexible, and you might have to downshift less, but frankly, that is one of the things I LIKE about the K20. With such a sweet gearbox combo and a screaming Soprano of an engine, it is PLEASURE to work the car.
P.S. The current car gets out of its own way just fine too.
|
garoto628
|
|
vandme10 wrote:
According to Acura.com, the 2011 TSX weighs approx. 3400lb (MT).
According to Honda.com, the 2011 Civic Si coupe weighs 2895lb (the sedan weighs 2954, a 59lb difference).
The 2012 Civic Si's MAY have a slightly lower curb weight than the 2011 model. The 2012 Civic Si's MAY have a slightly higher curb weight. Regardless, of what it is, at this point, based on Honda's own press releases and announcements regarding their efforts to focus on power-to-weight ratio (hell, even Ford acknowledges this), we can surmise the 2012 Civic Si--coupe and sedan--should theoretically weigh less than the 2011/2012 TSX. And regardless of what the 2012 Civic Si eventually dyno's with, so long as the dyno charts are similar to the TSX's, +/- for any atmospheric and user compensation, it should theoretically pull stronger than the 2011/2012 TSX because it's saddled with less weight. Here's hoping Honda kept the Civic's weight under 3000lbs, meaning the K24Z3 won't have to put up with a 400-505lb ballast (!).
Which means the 2012 Civic shouldn't have much problem getting out of its own way. Seems to be a much bigger picture here than what some folks are making it out to be because they may be losing the frenetic redline. Either way, the 2012 model should be a more well-rounded vehicle than that which it replaces.
|
That is the problem, we don't want it to be a more well-rounded vehicle. That's why we have the base models, that's why there are accords. Honda is a brand, and people pick and choose their cars as they see fit. Us enthusiasts, no longer have an option. The Si is supposed to be an engine, tranny, suspension, and the drivers seat; anything else does not matter much.
|
SoichirosHeroes
|
|
More likely it's to leave room for the Integra/RSX successor.
It reminds me of the Si Hatch from the early 2000s that was underpowered (160 hp). Much of it was not to steal the thunder of RSX Type-S.
The last generation of Si had no Acura to worry about stepping on it's toes.
My guess is Honda is just stratifying the product line again to make room for the RSX successor. That's the car I suspect will appeal to TOVers.
|
garoto628
|
|
|
I hope that's true, but it's usually accompanied by a larger pricetag. $19,990 is what I paid for my Si. But I'd prefer a high price over not having a high revving engine.
|
notyper
|
|
Yeah, but the problem with that SoichirosHeroes is that if you look back to the 1999-2000 Si, it had the GS-R to compete with (100 lbs heavier, 10 hp more) but it was still one of the more popular Si's, and the Integra was selling well too despite being near the end of its model run.
SC
|
99dohccivicc
|
|
|
I think this means Honda is attempting to achieve higher CAFE ratings. Anyone notice fuel economy got bumped up a bit? High revving little engines burn a lot of gas, so this is just an attempt to keep up with government mandates. I don't think the company cares one bit about performance anymore. This is a lot like what Kia did, by creating a sportier more powerful Forte with their 2.4l engine. I'd be very surprised if Acura came out with an RSX successor, but I don't see that happening. They axed the RSX because it didn't fit well with a luxury lineup.
|
SoichirosHeroes
|
|
notyper wrote:
Yeah, but the problem with that SoichirosHeroes is that if you look back to the 1999-2000 Si, it had the GS-R to compete with (100 lbs heavier, 10 hp more) but it was still one of the more popular Si's, and the Integra was selling well too despite being near the end of its model run.
SC
|
I was kind of hoping no one would point that out :)
I am hopeful though that this sub-TSX could be the car. Obviously this new Si has left plenty of room for improvement. I'm just hopeful that's the strategy. I'm one of the believers that feel the spirit of the people that gave us some of the legendary Honda/Acuras have some pull - maybe the sub-TSX is their chance to express it.
I'm thinking the base sub-TSX comes with the 2.4 (maybe detuned to 180hp?) and say $24K nicely loaded (like most Acuras come) for the people that want the gussied up Civic.
Then a Type-S variant in the 240-260hp version for say $28-$30K. People more knowledgeable than me know the current pricing of Civics and TSXs, so they may be to better guess where Honda will slot the sub-TSX pricing and feature wise.
|
vandme10
|
|
owequitit wrote:
The problem is that if you reduce the TSX weight to Si levels, you are looking at about the same performance you currently have with the K20..
|
That's kinda the point. When has Honda ever made monumental strides in the level of performance model-over-model? The ONLY time that's ever happened was 05 Si to 06 Si. Honda's always made incremental changes.
You are aware 400-500lb of weight is a substantial margin, yes? Because I wasn't aware anyone outside Honda-i.e. you and garoto-whatever--had actually driven a 2012 Si.
owequitit wrote:
You are assuming that we have not considered weight, and that would make you...wrong...
|
Did I? I see no visible evidence to support your claim. What I actually said, versus what you misintepreted, was:
vandme10 wrote:
the 2012 model should be a more well-rounded vehicle than that which it replaces. |
owequitit wrote:
The new Si is unlikely to lose more than 100lbs from the current car, which is already at the bottom of class in terms of curb weight. |
Let's deal with real numbers, not conjecture. Here are the actual manufacturer claims in ascending order:
2011 Toyota Corolla S: 2800lb
2011 Honda Civic Si Coupe: 2895
2011 Volkswagen GTI 2-door: 3,034 lbs (*European-spec Unloaded Weight from VW's site)
2011 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V: 3,067
2011 Chevy Cruze: 3,102lb
2011 Mazdaspeed3: 3,248 (Edmunds)
2011 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T: 3389
The exception to the Civic's class is the 2011 Focus (which is not the 2012 Focus, for which there is little technical information yet). The 2011 Focus weighs less than 2600lbs and I purposefully left it out because it is an obvious outlier.
So, if the Civic Si coupe is 181 lbs lighter than the class average (rounded to the nearest whole number) and the Civic Si sedan is 131 lbs lighter than the class average (also to the nearest whole number), how did you discern the 2011 Civic is already at the "bottom of its class in terms of curb weight"?
owequitit wrote:
They may have lost incremental weight with smaller dimensions (I think it is close to the same size), and would have gained the rest with an increased use of high strength steel. I will be pleased if it lost 50-100lbs, since that is a trend in the right direction, but it won't make a huge gain in performance relative to the current car. |
I never said anything about huge gains relative to the current car:
vandme10 wrote:
The 2012 Civic Si's MAY have a slightly lower curb weight than the 2011 model. The 2012 Civic Si's MAY have a slightly higher curb weight. We can surmise the 2012 Civic Si--coupe and sedan--should theoretically weigh less than the 2011/2012 TSX. And regardless of what the 2012 Civic Si eventually dyno's with, it should theoretically pull stronger than the 2011/2012 TSX because it's saddled with less weight. |
owequitit wrote:
The commonly used rule of thumb for weight reduction is that 100lbs will give you about .1 second in the quarter mile, all else constant. |
The "commonly used rule of thumb" go-to is becoming all-too-commonly used as a rule of thumb. Still, the 400-500lb difference between the 2011 Si and the 2011 TSX (since the 2012 Si weight isn't available) is a substantial 400-500lb. All things being equal between the two vehicles besides weight, both 0-60mph times are averaged at 6.7 seconds. Based on your use of the "rule of the thumb", we can deduce at least a .2 reduction from the current 0-60 time, generously correcting for any weight-gain between 8th and 9th generation Civics.
This isn't particularly as significant as the increase in low and mid-range torque, which is useful for city driving and road course enthusiasts. Not having to constantly keep the car on boil should make the actual piloting around a course easier. Working for the power is rewarding, but it won't matter IF the extra .4 liters of displacement provide a faster lap time. I have not said with absolute certainty it will. I simply stated the car should be more well-rounded and accessible in general.
owequitit wrote:
Add in a tenth or two for that time in 1st gear below about 35MPH (where the K20 hits VTEC and essentially levels the playing field, where it remains from then on), and you are looking at a car that IS incrementally faster, but loses quite a bit of character. |
I see roughly nine or tend Civic Si coupes and sedans on my daily commute. Of those nine or ten, I see zero gunning the engine to the limiter in an exercise of "character".
owequitit wrote:
The redline rush will be gone, the screaming NA engine note will be greatly diminishedthe K24 is not as rev happy |
Jeff wrote:
I don't think I'd go as far as to say it would be BORING. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Si will still be a lot of fun to drive. I was surprised by how good this K24Z3 engine felt in the TSX. Despite the fact that NOTHING has changed in terms of power output, this engine just seems to rev much more quickly and willingly than any past TSX 6MT I've driven, and it helped keep the car feeling reasonably quick. The torque surge between 3000-6000 rpms gets the car zipping aling nicely when you need it, and in a 400-500lb lighter Civic Si, it should really put you back in your seat. It doesn't sound bad but it's nothing like a K20Z3 or F20C at full song.
|
owequitit wrote:
[it won't be] smooth or tractable above 5K
|
Where few daily drivers actually spend time. I have seen very few stock K24s making massive amounts of power beyond 7000RPM. When the exact same power is accessible at a lower RPM, why would it need to rev higher?
owequitit wrote:
and the gearing will likely mitigate some of the advantage. |
Speculation based on the TSX's gearing. I've yet to see any gearing and final drive ratio information for the 2012 Si.
owequitit wrote:
Yeah, it will be more flexible, and you might have to downshift less, but frankly, that is one of the things I LIKE about the K20. With such a sweet gearbox combo and a screaming Soprano of an engine, it is PLEASURE to work the car. |
I'm not understanding the problem. A number of people swap K24s into older chassis. A number of people swap K24 blocks onto K20A heads into older and newer chassis. Has Honda does something new? It seems to me they've done what Honda enthusiasts have done for decades with D15s to B16/B18/B20/F22/H22/K20/K24 swaps.
Emissions killed the K20Z3. Direct Injection has been proven to work with high-rpm motors, but there are reliability arguments regarding the technology itself. That being said, Lexus has an LFA available. If that's too rare a-find, Ferrari has a 458 Italia available. If that's too costly, Audi has an R8 available. If that's none of these are suitable alternatives, start sending hate-mail to the EPA, CAFE and all other international governing agencies. The high revving engines have been discontinued in Japan and Europe as well. Or one could move to Australia...
owequitit wrote:
P.S. The current car gets out of its own way just fine too.
|
I don't mind people being passionate for that which they argue for. However, I'm an adult. I graduated high school a long time ago. I'm not interested in snarky little attitudes. The next time, I won't be so cognizant of trying not to stoop down to such a level. Not a threat, but in the interest of full-disclosure...
...I highly advise not taking it there. Ever. Thanks.
|
deandorsey
|
|
...I highly advise not taking it there. Ever. Thanks.
|
|
JIRZLEE
|
|
To a lot of people the lower redline and more typical characteristics of the larger engine takes away from what they liked so much about the Si to begin with.
Why would anyone need to rev higher if the power is accessible at lower revs? They don't need to - they want to because it is more fun.
Vandme10, you don't have to agree with this, but do you understand it?
|
TonyEX
|
|
notyper wrote:
Yeah, but the problem with that SoichirosHeroes is that if you look back to the 1999-2000 Si, it had the GS-R to compete with (100 lbs heavier, 10 hp more) but it was still one of the more popular Si's, and the Integra was selling well too despite being near the end of its model run.
SC
|
I think we're starting to see the old "Integra keeps the Civic down" syndrome coming back again...
http://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=961296&news_item_id=960272
The Civic with the LSD was not offered until the Integra/RSX got axed. Then we got the Civic Si that we all wanted.
Now, with an Integra/RSX type of car coming back, we see that the Civic will not get the "best available" powertrain. It can't because then it will compete against the Acura.
Now, back in '99. The Civic Si had a screamer B16C while the GSR "soldiered on" with the better B18C and the ITR had the B18C5 with LSD,
But, by then, the RSX-S was being readied with the K20 motor.
So, yeah, the Civic was finally given its baby B16C engine, but only because the RSX-S was gonna get the FAR better K20 motor.
So long as the Integra/RSX lives, the Civic only gets the spoils. So, if AHM is offering the '12 Si with K24/MT6/LSD it only tells us that the NA "Si crown" is going back to where it has been since '86...
The '12 RSX-S.
The King is dead.
Long live the King.
|
owequitit
|
|
vandme10 wrote:
That's kinda the point. When has Honda ever made monumental strides in the level of performance model-over-model? The ONLY time that's ever happened was 05 Si to 06 Si. Honda's always made incremental changes.
You are aware 400-500lb of weight is a substantial margin, yes? Because I wasn't aware anyone outside Honda-i.e. you and garoto-whatever--had actually driven a 2012 Si. |
How is that the point? I thought the point of including 20% more engine was substantially more performance?
The current TSX with 200HP seems to average about .4-.5 seconds slower, and about the same margin 0-60. Take away the 400-500lbs of weight, and you have a car that is about the same speed as the current car. What is the point of a 20% larger engine if it doesn't generate meaningfully greater peak accelleration?
Nice try with saying the "rule of thumb" is overused, but the problem is that it is used because it works. I.E. the laws of physics don't change. The Si will gain about a .4-.5 second advantage over the TSX due to weight loss. That makes it as fast as it is now. I don't have to drive it to know about how the numbers work out.
Also, you are incorrect. The 1988-1991 Si made a pretty substantial improvement over the 1985-1987 Si, in a minor .1L displacement bump, it added about 20-25% more power. Then for 1992, it also gained a bit of performance, with a more advanced version of the same D16 providing another 20HP bump, which was nearly 20%. The car gained about a 100lbs, but the power increase offset that, and it WAS faster. The next Si, which was the 1999-2000 didn't gain much in the torque department (almost identical displacement), but it did gain just under 40 more HP and substantially more powerband. It was also heavier, but faster by a measurable and meaningful margin. The EP3 Si featured identical power, and substantially more torque (nearly identical amounts to this "gain") and IIRC was even about the same weight. It was not faster. The FG Si, again added a small amount of displacement, a small amount of torque and a large HP bump. It gained weight. It was also very measureably faster, taking nearly a full second off of the EP3's times.
There have only been 2 generations of Si that haven't provided significantly more power or performance. The EP3, and now, this one. Both have shrunk the powerband in favor of a ~20% torque increase. This car might be incrementally faster than the FG, but I don't think traditional Si enthusiasts (of which I am one, and have been for years) are going to accept it. I have said repeatedly I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. Ultimately, you can attack me all you want, but just like my statements about the 200Hp engine, I believe you are going to find a similar weight, with less character and nearly identical performance. That isn't progress. Sorry, it just isn't.
| Did I? I see no visible evidence to support your claim. What I actually said, versus what you misintepreted, was: |
It was quite clear in your statement, where you felt the need to correct us on weight. The problem is that I am dealing with Si vs Si, and accounted for the TSX's weight difference in doing so, which I already discussed above. The only relevant part of the weight discussion is the new Si versus the current Si, which I have also made an educated guess at. Believe me, I would be eccstatic if there were more than a 50-100lb weight loss, but I just don't see it happening. In fact, I am pleasantly pleased with ANY weight loss, because weight has been creeping out of control for some time now. However, the marginal weight loss that is likely to occur will not have major acceleration benefits, although it will certainly help the other dynamic aspects such as turn in, handling, etc.
vandme10 wrote:
the 2012 model should be a more well-rounded vehicle than that which it replaces. |
That depends on how you define "more well rounded." I don't consider an Accord engine to be more fun than a K20Z3. Sorry it just isn't. I consider the engine to be an integral part of an Si, and based on curve alone, the K20 still seems more well rounded to me, as relative to its size it is stronger in both top AND bottom end, and has a more linear powerband. The K24 will also likely have more torque steer by virtue of its 20% gain in peak torque, which for a FWD car is a major kill joy. This is one reason I have ALWAYS preferred relatively small peaky engines in my FWD cars, because torque steer sucks. Finally, as is clearly evidenced by the dyno, the engine itself is NOT more flexibe, only retaining a major advantage through the midrange. It is less than stellarly stronger in the bottom end, and it is equal to weaker in the top end. It won't have the wonderful DOHC VTEC sound or feel, and it will most likely have taller gearing. As I have said repeatedly, the defining characteristic of EVERY Si (except the EP3) back to the beginning of time, was its top end NA power. Every Si so equipped was successful. The more Honda strayed from that formula, the more the sales suffered. The whole point to the Si (which is already among the slowest in class) was the unquestionable racy feel of the engine and powertrain, coupled with a balanced chassis, and unique character that was still reliable and efficient. While the chassis on the new car will probably be quite good, the Si as a package needs to excel on its unique virtues because a chassis alone is no longer good enough to justify the car. Especially not without the defining Si character. But like I have said, that is just my opinion as a long time Si fan. I could be wrong, but I don't think I will be. And I don't think I will be, because this car appeals to me less than certain other cars on the market and the current Si.
Let's deal with real numbers, not conjecture. Here are the actual manufacturer claims in ascending order:
2011 Toyota Corolla S: 2800lb
2011 Honda Civic Si Coupe: 2895
2011 Volkswagen GTI 2-door: 3,034 lbs (*European-spec Unloaded Weight from VW's site)
2011 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V: 3,067
2011 Chevy Cruze: 3,102lb
2011 Mazdaspeed3: 3,248 (Edmunds)
2011 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T: 3389
The exception to the Civic's class is the 2011 Focus (which is not the 2012 Focus, for which there is little technical information yet). The 2011 Focus weighs less than 2600lbs and I purposefully left it out because it is an obvious outlier.
So, if the Civic Si coupe is 181 lbs lighter than the class average (rounded to the nearest whole number) and the Civic Si sedan is 131 lbs lighter than the class average (also to the nearest whole number), how did you discern the 2011 Civic is already at the "bottom of its class in terms of curb weight"? |
This proves my point about the Si being at the bottom (lightest) of the class... I think that was a misunderstanding about what constituted "bottom." In this case, I meant bottom as in lowest, which is a good thing.
vandme10 wrote:
The 2012 Civic Si's MAY have a slightly lower curb weight than the 2011 model. The 2012 Civic Si's MAY have a slightly higher curb weight. We can surmise the 2012 Civic Si--coupe and sedan--should theoretically weigh less than the 2011/2012 TSX. And regardless of what the 2012 Civic Si eventually dyno's with, it should theoretically pull stronger than the 2011/2012 TSX because it's saddled with less weight. |
I am sure it will. Which will make it about identical to the current car.
Most likely, the gearing will increase from the TSX, since they have certain OEM considerations such as not shifting 3 times to get to 60MPH, which may be dumb, but is what it is. So, it is conceivable that incremental changes in gearing could offset incremental improvements in weight. We don't know for sure, but we do know it will be very close to the current car.
| The "commonly used rule of thumb" go-to is becoming all-too-commonly used as a rule of thumb. Still, the 400-500lb difference between the 2011 Si and the 2011 TSX (since the 2012 Si weight isn't available) is a substantial 400-500lb. All things being equal between the two vehicles besides weight, both 0-60mph times are averaged at 6.7 seconds. Based on your use of the "rule of the thumb", we can deduce at least a .2 reduction from the current 0-60 time, generously correcting for any weight-gain between 8th and 9th generation Civics. |
It is commonly used because it works. Even when it is inconvenient to the discussion. Take the TSX's performance, correct for the weight, and VOILA you have the new Si with performance about equal to the current Si. It might not be what you want to see, but it is what it is. I wish it would have more performance, but it is unlikely.
| This isn't particularly as significant as the increase in low and mid-range torque, which is useful for city driving and road course enthusiasts. Not having to constantly keep the car on boil should make the actual piloting around a course easier. Working for the power is rewarding, but it won't matter IF the extra .4 liters of displacement provide a faster lap time. I have not said with absolute certainty it will. I simply stated the car should be more well-rounded and accessible in general. |
More accessible, until you need the revs, or are operating above the VTEC threshold of the current car. Then you have nothing. Also, I am going to bring reality back into this (funny how it keeps getting dropped out). The additional midrange is nice beyond the point that the K20 is no longer able to produce more torque. The problem is that in the same scenarios you speak of, the K20 has enough torque to cause loss of traction and wheel spin in many low speed corners. I.E. an engine with more torque will not be any more useful because once you create wheelspin or reach the limits of adhesion, additional power and torque are 100% useless. Yeah, you might be able to lug it a bit more out of certain corners, but then again, gearing, etc comes into play. My guess is that even on a tight course, most of the advantage of the new Si will come from weight and those situations where the K20 would not be in VTEC. I don't expect it will create some insurmountable lap time advantage.
Also, like the other 15 people who have been intent on trying to attack me through 20 different threads, you are making the false assumption that I don't want any additional power. The REALITY, and something which I have stated repeatedly, and apparently will yet again, is that I would have RATHER seen a K20 or K22 tuned and improved for the new Si. They could have provided nearly identical torque, and still had the powerband and rev range of the K20. Take the K20 curve in this thread (even with the crappy VTEC crossover) and move it up to the 150-160lb range (which has already been done in production engines running on pump gas), but keep the shape, and you end up with a better engine, with a longer powerband, and more total area under the curve. Over the 1000-1500 or so RPM the K24 would have an advantage, it would be less than ~10 lb-ft and it would be more than overshadowed by the more advanced engine everywhere below 3000 and above about 4500-5000.
One of the large complaints here that doesn't seem to be sinking in, is that the K24 in this car is SEVERLY compromised from a performance standpoint. Period. Anywhere above or below the 3000-5000 range, this K24 isn't offering anywhere near 20% improvements. Also, if Honda had actually programmed the K20 the right way through the midrange, there would have been significant torque increases from about 4K-6K, because the VTEC crossover would not have been delayed so you could FEEL it. If both the VTEC tuning and the technology to make the K20 output even 150 lb-ft would have been implemented, it would be a far different story. I would have been perfectly happy with a K24, if Honda hadn't used the extra displacement as a way to overcome all of the other handicap built into the engine. I would have been disappointed with the rev range, but would have been happier with the flatter curve over a much broader RPM range.
Sorry, but Honda cheaped out on this powertrain, and I am NOT willing to give them a pass for it. You can attack me all you want. The reality is that this powertrain is severely stunted from what it could have been if they were willing to actually try and be serious about the ONLY enthusiast product they have left. More torque and accessible powerbands are great, as long as they don't diminish the core reasons people like the Si. They have not accomplished this, and they COULD have accomplished this with little effort. THAT is my issue with this new engine.
I will just address your emmissions falacy right here. We have already looked at the standard for the foreseeable future, and the K20Z3 clears minimum emmissions hurdles with ease. It could clear any conceivable requirements with little modification, such as double wall exhaust manifolds, some mild retuning etc. It wouldn't have achieved the tippy toppy CARB emmissions tier, but then again, at some point, I don't care either. The K20 is already a super clean engine (LEV Tier 2 Bin 5), and with mild changes could have been cleaner, cleared any reasonable standard, and been more fun to drive.
| I see roughly nine or tend Civic Si coupes and sedans on my daily commute. Of those nine or ten, I see zero gunning the engine to the limiter in an exercise of "character". |
I own one currently and drive it everyday. You can also read many of the comments from current Si owners on this board. We all drive them to 8K frequently. However, we usually do it when nobody is around, so just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Also, what is the point of having 170 lb-ft if you aren't even using 139? Which supports my point again. The K24 has an advantage only after the point which the K20Z3 is tapped out, and only then until the K20Z3 hits VTEC. So if I am not requiring the services of 139 lb-ft to make my car go, then 170 doesn't do me any good either. After VTEC, this K24 and the older versions of the K20Z3 are equal, and thus, the K24 has no major advantage.
Finally, just because we don't take our car from 0-8K at every redlight, doesn't mean that we don't enjoy or desire the ability to do it. It also doesn't mean we don't do it, and it also doesn't mean that we don't want to be able to continue to do so. I have driven K24's. The sound of a K20 at full song is better. Period. It is smoother, and it RELISHES 8K whereas the K24 merely tolerates 7K, relatively speaking. There is just nothing quite like taking a K20, or a DOHC VTEC B series, or a DOHC VTEC H series on a 2nd gear mountain run singing in VTEC the whole way over. Sorry, but I have owned Hondas for over 20 years and have experienced nearly every variation of engine they make. I am well aware of their relative characters.
If I wanted torque, there are a lot better places to get it, especially in this category of car.
The other fallacy I am going to address, is this apparent and completely non-sensical misconception that I have to redline an Si all the time to keep up with traffic. I am at high altitude, in the desert, in hilly terrain with people who love V8's and trucks. Very rarely do I need anything resembling full throttle or more than 3500RPM to keep up with traffic. I am usually short shifting south of 3K, and seldom need more than 50% throttle in any situation to keep up. I am usually in 5th gear by 30-35MPH and 6th by 40-45MPH. I even skip shift to get there, either with 1-3-5 or 1-4-6. I will usually only have to downshift on large hills to keep up if traffic starts moving. It is convenient for people to conjure up this image of every Si owner gnashing their teeth and sweating bullets while redlining every gear to get to 50MPH, but it is just totally false.
I will agree with the on/off nature about the K20Z3, but that is also an advantage (it is totally normal below VTEC), and moving the VTEC changeover to the best point for power production would solve that. However, I will not agree that it is equivalent to a 1.5 liter 70HP engine below that point either, as many would like to pretend. It will pull easily and better than my H22 at any speed below 6K RPM. That engine was rated at 156 lb-ft stock (it is not quite stock anymore) and it is in a car with similar weight.
Also, you will notice that at any speed below 3K, where I normally drive, the K24 in the new car is likely to be offering 10 lb-ft or less worth of additional torque (likely less as it would likely be spinning slower in any gear other than 6th).
Jeff wrote:
I don't think I'd go as far as to say it would be BORING. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Si will still be a lot of fun to drive. I was surprised by how good this K24Z3 engine felt in the TSX. Despite the fact that NOTHING has changed in terms of power output, this engine just seems to rev much more quickly and willingly than any past TSX 6MT I've driven, and it helped keep the car feeling reasonably quick. The torque surge between 3000-6000 rpms gets the car zipping aling nicely when you need it, and in a 400-500lb lighter Civic Si, it should really put you back in your seat. It doesn't sound bad but it's nothing like a K20Z3 or F20C at full song.
|
Not sure why you included this in here, he pretty much supported what I was saying...
He has also said he would take a K20R every day of the week and twice on Sunday compared to a K24, so I am not sure what your point is.
He is also a current Si owner, and eschewed the new TSX for the Si, largely because of its powertrain. He seems to be more pleased with the 2011 TSX engine, but I don't know that he would replace his Si with it.
| Where few daily drivers actually spend time. I have seen very few stock K24s making massive amounts of power beyond 7000RPM. When the exact same power is accessible at a lower RPM, why would it need to rev higher? |
How many intake VTEC only, close coupled cat K24's have you seen making massive power? That is what I thought. You are quickly tipping your hand on engine knowledge, as this engine has little in common with virtually EVERY swapped K24 making serious amounts of power. Between the limited exhaust side and other tuning requirements, this engine is NOT equivalent to older DOHC i-VTEC K24's such as those featured in the 1st gen TSX. You will also notice that most people who use CRV or Accord K24's for donors usually ditch the head right away. That was also an intake VTEC only engine, but it wasn't crippled by the close coupled cat. They at least still had real exhaust manifolds. This head is worse.
Finally, I will go back to my last point, which you have yet to address. If I am not using 139 lb-ft, am I going to be using 170 in the same situation? Also, consider this. If I am in a situation where max revs are required in the K20, then I will be in a situation where max revs will also be required in a K24. Period. This car's swell of torque isn't going to make up for its relativel lack of torque or HP compared to anything else in class. If I need 200HP to go in that situation, then BOTH engines are going to be wrapping out because that is the only way either engine makes 200HP.
| Speculation based on the TSX's gearing. I've yet to see any gearing and final drive ratio information for the 2012 Si. |
I would go read the discussion on the gearing in the other topic about the K24 in the Si. There was a pretty in depth discussion on the matter by both Jeff and Shawn. It should show the pretty logical reasons you can expect gearing changes in this car.
The TSX gearing with Si tires and wheels (which are confirmed to be the same size based on the pics of the car) would require a 2-3 shift before 60MPH. Since OEM's don't like to do that because it costs precious 0-60 time in magazine comparos, you can just about be assured that gearing will be taller than the TSX, at least at some points in the powerband. Keep in mind that the TSX uses 225-45 tires while the Si is 215-45, which affects overall gearing. That also considers that the TSX's 6th gear is SHORTER than the Si's and in the interest of MPG, it would benefit Honda to lengthen the top gearing, especially since you won't need as much torque multiplication to move a lighter car.
Then again, this is the same logic applied by those that didn't want to hear that the K24 wouldn't be rated any higher than the Si, so I suppose it will be another round of disappointment.
| I'm not understanding the problem. A number of people swap K24s into older chassis. A number of people swap K24 blocks onto K20A heads into older and newer chassis. Has Honda does something new? It seems to me they've done what Honda enthusiasts have done for decades with D15s to B16/B18/B20/F22/H22/K20/K24 swaps. |
You don't understand the problem, because you don't know as much about these engines as you think you do. I am not trying to be offensive there, but it is apparent reality based on the information you are trying to provide as evidence.
This engine does NOT have the same head as those K24 swaps. Honda has crippled potential output of this head. That is just the way it is. Now, that is not to say that people won't swap it out, but here are few things to consider:
First, for every person that has swapped in a K24, there are probably at least 10 or 12 more who didn't. Also, consider that many of the people who take the K24 and then rev the piss out of it aren't going to get anywhere near the durability they think they are. With the K24's stroke, the highest it can be revved and maintain near OEM durability targets is around 7500RPM. Many of the really high powered K24's are being revved to 8K+.
Outside of that, the reality is that most people don't want to pay $24K for a car, and then do a bunch of modification work to it in order to get the desired output. I will agree that many people install bolt-ons, but beyond bolt-ons and a tune, most aren't going to touch it. Here is an area where this engine seems even more compromised. The K20 will very likely gain much more power from the same bolt-ons relative to what this K24 will due to the poor head design. It is ALL in the head. That goes a long way toward mitigating any advantage this K24 has.
Second, the K20 can easily make enough power to overwhelm the chassis, and beyond that point it is mostly bragging rights anyway. What fun is a car that can't steer or handle, because it can't keep the power on the ground? It is the same thing that kept me from buying an MS3 (that and its total lack of top end).
| Emissions killed the K20Z3. Direct Injection has been proven to work with high-rpm motors, but there are reliability arguments regarding the technology itself. That being said, Lexus has an LFA available. If that's too rare a-find, Ferrari has a 458 Italia available. If that's too costly, Audi has an R8 available. If that's none of these are suitable alternatives, start sending hate-mail to the EPA, CAFE and all other international governing agencies. The high revving engines have been discontinued in Japan and Europe as well. Or one could move to Australia... |
Not sure what you are getting at here...
Are you trying to say that if I want high revs, I should have to step from a $23K Si to a $250K Ferrari? Nonsense. And woe is Honda then, because if I can't get high revs, the only other option is torque, and they trail everyone else there too. I have long bought Honda IN SPITE of the torque because of the high revving nature. If I can't get either, what are the odds I will want this Si? And that is a fundamental component of the arguement that none of you guys want to admit.
High revving engines might be getting farther and fewer between, but I would have rather have had boost and legitimate increases in power and torque than this crap.
What is your point about DI? It has in fact proven to be extremely marginal in ANY naturally aspirated situation, so I am not sure what your point is here. It has nothing to do with the current Si, or the future Si, or any other Si for that matter.
owequitit wrote:
I don't mind people being passionate for that which they argue for. However, I'm an adult. I graduated high school a long time ago. I'm not interested in snarky little attitudes. The next time, I won't be so cognizant of trying not to stoop down to such a level. Not a threat, but in the interest of full-disclosure...
...I highly advise not taking it there. Ever. Thanks. |
This is probably the funniest part of your post. You are going to write a personal response laced with condescending response, and then are going to accuse me of being snarky. Nice.
Nothing I said was snarky. I made a factual statement about the current Si being plenty fast enough, and in fact, considering it is probably all but identical to this future car, this seems like an attempt to make an ad hominem attack, because you don't like the fact that it will likely not be faster. Obviously, there has to be some speculation in my assumptions about the new car, but then again, they are just as prevalent in yours. However, even though I am sure I am not 100% accurate, I KNOW based on much experience that I am pretty close.
I am also an adult, and have been out of school a long time. I have also grown up around cars and engines my entire life, and spend much of my freetime working on them, learning about them, and understanding them. I am not an internet mechanic that has never turned a wrench. I have modified Hondas, swapped Hondas, raced Hondas, and owned Hondas. I have experienced nearly every Honda I didn't have a chance to own, wrench or race. I was not born yesterday, and I am not some 16 year old kid. I have not approached this conversation as such, and I have been out of high school for well over a decade myself and have some college experience of my own, so I am not sure what your point is exactly.
It is actually mildly offensive you would suggest such a thing. We will just agree to disagree, but as a long time Si owner and enthusiast, I am fairly certain this car will be less appealing to Si drivers overall. I feel this way because I am one, and am less excited about this car than I could have been. The Si is and always was about the same relative character. Of course, that is also supported by several orders of magnitude more of the current Si owners on this site, than the ones in favor of this engine.
To be honest, I was actually VERY excited about this car, because I LOVE the way the concept looked. I even like the production photos (ride height notwithstanding), but am just incredibly disappointed in the powertrain. The Honda I knew would not have taken the easy way out, especially not on a car so important to their enthusiast fan base. I personally would have rather paid extra for a better engine combo, and I feel that is a valid point, considering I bought the current Si and was ready to seriously consider trading it in on this one. I no longer have that desire. I am still going to give it a try, but I am pretty sure I know exactly what to expect, again based on previous Honda experience.
|
giltibo
|
|
Do not forget that THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE OF THE FINAL PRODUCTION Si THAT EXISTS (Uppercase for emphasis only). Those that roam the Ohio / Ontario roads are pre-pre-production units. The first units will be built only sometime in April. (The first Coupes are supposed to come offline mid-April). So the very final fine tuning is most likely not done yet. So I, for one, will wait and see and test-drive for myself before expressing an opinion one way or the other. And this is a comparison of a TSX and a Civic Si... YMMV...
|
| N/A |
|
|
This message is below your viewing threshold, you may view the message by clicking on the link:
View Message
|
owequitit
|
|
TonyE wrote:
notyper wrote:
Yeah, but the problem with that SoichirosHeroes is that if you look back to the 1999-2000 Si, it had the GS-R to compete with (100 lbs heavier, 10 hp more) but it was still one of the more popular Si's, and the Integra was selling well too despite being near the end of its model run.
SC
|
I think we're starting to see the old "Integra keeps the Civic down" syndrome coming back again...
http://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=961296&news_item_id=960272
The Civic with the LSD was not offered until the Integra/RSX got axed. Then we got the Civic Si that we all wanted.
Now, with an Integra/RSX type of car coming back, we see that the Civic will not get the "best available" powertrain. It can't because then it will compete against the Acura.
Now, back in '99. The Civic Si had a screamer B16C while the GSR "soldiered on" with the better B18C and the ITR had the B18C5 with LSD,
But, by then, the RSX-S was being readied with the K20 motor.
So, yeah, the Civic was finally given its baby B16C engine, but only because the RSX-S was gonna get the FAR better K20 motor.
So long as the Integra/RSX lives, the Civic only gets the spoils. So, if AHM is offering the '12 Si with K24/MT6/LSD it only tells us that the NA "Si crown" is going back to where it has been since '86...
The '12 RSX-S.
The King is dead.
Long live the King.
|
This is a pretty likely scenario IMO, although it should be noted that the Si and the facelifted RSX-S actually coexisted for 2 model years (2006-2007).
Also, given the specs of the Si, and the realities of the K24 so installed, I don't see any RSX providing greatly more thrust unless it is boosted. That is not necessarily a bad thing, IMO, but if Acura is going to boost the RSX, then they shouldn't need to hold the Si back either, because it is unlikely to provide anywhere near as much thrust. That to me seems fishy. What I hope we don't end up with is a 200HP Si, and a 205HP RSX thingy.
You also get into the age old debate of Acura handicapping Honda, because otherwise the products would be too similar. With the advancement of the competition, I really just can't see that as a good thing, as I think it is responsible for a lot of Honda's lack of advancement in certain areas over the last 10 years or so. The reality is that Honda needs to be clearly differentiated from Acura in order for both to succeed, and the only way to do that with a Civic based car IMO, is boost and SH-AWD.
I am not totally opposed to the RSX coming back though, because for the extra money, it would likely provide more luxury and more conventional interior features.
|
owequitit
|
|
giltibo wrote:
Do not forget that THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE OF THE FINAL PRODUCTION Si THAT EXISTS (Uppercase for emphasis only). Those that roam the Ohio / Ontario roads are pre-pre-production units. The first units will be built only sometime in April. (The first Coupes are supposed to come offline mid-April). So the very final fine tuning is most likely not done yet. So I, for one, will wait and see and test-drive for myself before expressing an opinion one way or the other. And this is a comparison of a TSX and a Civic Si... YMMV...
|
The car is only about a month from entering production (cars are supposed to be on lots sometime in early to mid April). that means that the car is pretty much 100% finalized, and the rest of the time is going to be spent prepping the factories for prodution, which IIRC, take a couple of weeks. The contracts with suppliers are done, the arrangements are made, and the tooling is in process.
The car isn't going to suddenly change in any meaningful way at this point. You are getting a 200HP K24 from the TSX, with figures almost identical to the ones posted here. What we don't know for certain are exact dyno results (how much do you want to bet that it is almost identical to the posted results?), and gearing. We know tire size, wheel size, etc.
I understand if you want to hold on until the last second, but we pretty much know what we are going to get.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
The worst thing about all of this is, I have a feeling that they are going to add an automatic transmission to the Si at some point?
I mean, think about it: With the K24, the car was clearly meant to be a more "well rounded" Si, which to me sounds like Honda's trying to broaden its market appeal. What could appeal more to the mass market than an automatic?
|
ezshift5
|
|
Automatics broaden appeal (which enables $$$).
That being said, can we speculate for a moment?
Would it be a fair statement (given a 500 pound weight differential) that the 2012 Civic Si 6M (using the same TSX 2.4 liter) would turn better 0-60/QM times?
C/D has the TSX 6M at 7 flat/15.3(IIRC); the 2012 Si should be awfully close (close - not faster) than my beloved (but getting long in the tooth) Accord 6M coupe. And that ain't bad at all.......................
|
z-zero
|
|
^^^ "Not even using the 138lb-ft"????? Really? You mean the Si is pushed by the wings of angels? How about you drop 39lb-ft from 2.0 and raise the redline to 10,000rpm.
Why is that Honda fanatics don't understand what torque is and what it does?
|
CarmB
|
|
While I do understand the desire for an exciting driving experience, it would be foolish to push a car up beyond the 6,000 RPM range with anything close to regularity.
The truth is that with the vast majority of driving, something close to 4,000 RPM is bound to be where even an enthusiastic driver is going to reach for his or her shifter. In that range, the bigger engine will absolutely blow away the current Si motor.
We're talking about a combination that on paper promises 0-60 times well below 7 seconds.
What will be of interest, though, is whether or not Honda will offer a four-door Si in this market. I suspect the answer could be no because that machine would be too close to the anticipated sub-TSX. I'm guessing we'll see an Si coupe combined with the mechanically similar sub-TSX sports sedan offered via Acura.
If this happens, look for that model to absolutely blow away the TSX in terms of driving dynamics. Something to look forward to.
|
JIRZLEE
|
|
CarmB wrote:
While I do understand the desire for an exciting driving experience, it would be foolish to push a car up beyond the 6,000 RPM range with anything close to regularity.
The truth is that with the vast majority of driving, something close to 4,000 RPM is bound to be where even an enthusiastic driver is going to reach for his or her shifter. In that range, the bigger engine will absolutely blow away the current Si motor.
We're talking about a combination that on paper promises 0-60 times well below 7 seconds.
What will be of interest, though, is whether or not Honda will offer a four-door Si in this market. I suspect the answer could be no because that machine would be too close to the anticipated sub-TSX. I'm guessing we'll see an Si coupe combined with the mechanically similar sub-TSX sports sedan offered via Acura.
If this happens, look for that model to absolutely blow away the TSX in terms of driving dynamics. Something to look forward to.
|
It is not foolish to push an engine beyond 6000rpm regularly.
Shifting at 4000rpm is not enthusiastic driving in an 8th gen Si
Honda is continuing to make the 4 door Si.
|
Honda-D
|
|
I wonder what the Elantra Coupe will be like when it's released later this year.
But in the end, Si is still the only game in town in term of low end. cheap coupes. We already know Forte and possibly anything from the Koreans are no threat mechanically (although they all make the Civic looks like built in stone ages).
Civic was never in the league of Genesis/Mustang/Camaro. Or Toyota FT-86 and its Subaru counterpart for that matter. So really, as long as Honda price it right, they can do no wrong here.
|
owequitit
|
|
ezshift5 wrote:
Automatics broaden appeal (which enables $$$).
That being said, can we speculate for a moment?
Would it be a fair statement (given a 500 pound weight differential) that the 2012 Civic Si 6M (using the same TSX 2.4 liter) would turn better 0-60/QM times?
C/D has the TSX 6M at 7 flat/15.3(IIRC); the 2012 Si should be awfully close (close - not faster) than my beloved (but getting long in the tooth) Accord 6M coupe. And that ain't bad at all.......................
|
The average for the TSX is about .5 seconds slower than the average for the current Si. Correcting for weight, they will be about the same. If the Si loses a little weight, it will incrementally faster. Depending on gearing, the K24 will likely gain a few 10ths off the line, but as soon as the K20 hits VTEC, they are nearly identical.
Of course, we have seen times as fast as 6.3 and 14.8 for the Si, so conceivably, using your logic, it could actually end up slower...
Personally, based on all of the data, I think it will be nearly identical to the current car.
|
CarmB
|
|
JIRZLEE wrote:
CarmB wrote:
While I do understand the desire for an exciting driving experience, it would be foolish to push a car up beyond the 6,000 RPM range with anything close to regularity.
The truth is that with the vast majority of driving, something close to 4,000 RPM is bound to be where even an enthusiastic driver is going to reach for his or her shifter. In that range, the bigger engine will absolutely blow away the current Si motor.
We're talking about a combination that on paper promises 0-60 times well below 7 seconds.
What will be of interest, though, is whether or not Honda will offer a four-door Si in this market. I suspect the answer could be no because that machine would be too close to the anticipated sub-TSX. I'm guessing we'll see an Si coupe combined with the mechanically similar sub-TSX sports sedan offered via Acura.
If this happens, look for that model to absolutely blow away the TSX in terms of driving dynamics. Something to look forward to.
|
It is not foolish to push an engine beyond 6000rpm regularly.
Shifting at 4000rpm is not enthusiastic driving in an 8th gen Si
Honda is continuing to make the 4 door Si.
|
I didn't say that shifting at 4,000 RPM qualifies as enthusiastic driving. I am saying that even someone who likes to drive with a little gusto is likely going to be shifting by 4,000 RPM a lot more often than in excess of 6,000 RPM. Even up to 6,000 RPM, the power produced by the bigger motor will be significantly more.
In real-world driving conditions, the Civic with the larger engine would produce far brisker acceleration. Compared to the TSX, it would lead to a faster car with better all-around dynamics. You might lose the excitement factor of reving up the 2.0L but that doesn't mean the overall driving experience would be dissatisfying. The gains in overall driving enjoyment that would result from the weight reduction of going down from an Accord-based car to a Civic should not be underestimated. A sports sedan that can clock in with sub-7-second 0-60 times is no small thing.
|
owequitit
|
|
z-zero wrote:
^^^ "Not even using the 138lb-ft"????? Really? You mean the Si is pushed by the wings of angels? How about you drop 39lb-ft from 2.0 and raise the redline to 10,000rpm.
Why is that Honda fanatics don't understand what torque is and what it does?
|
I love how everyone that has their internet view of the world challenged has to resort to flinging personal insults to discredit those they don't agree with rather than being able to actually counter an intelligent point.
Let me dumb it down for you, so that maybe you can respond without name calling:
1) If I am not at full throttle, at the torque peak in the Si, I am NOT producing 139 lb-ft of torque. Period.
If I am not at full throttle for that matter, I am not producing 139 lb-ft of torque.
This is really simple. If I am not flooring my car to accelerate in the real world, then I am not using 139 lb-ft. That means that a lighter car would need LESS torque to accelerate at the same rate, and thus even with a K24 is not accelerating with max torque.
2) Since I am usually shifting between 2500 and 3000 RPM in my weak ass little "torqueless" K20 in normal driving, a quick look at the dyno chart would reveal that the K24 is not only NOT producing anywhere near 170 lb-ft at that level, but that if I am NOT floored with the K20, I won't be tapping the K24's torque out either.
3) What I have said _REPEATEDLY_ was that if I am in a contest of maximum acceleration, then the K24 WILL have an advantage up to 35MPH where the K20 hits VTEC and then stays until you let up. A simple check of the dyno chart would show that once VTEC hits, the K20 and K24 are both putting out the same average HP, which means that they accelerate equally given constant weight. Sorry, just the way it is.
4) What that means is that if I launch both cars equally, the K24's advantage will exist until the K20 hits VTEC. From there on out, they are equal, which means the only real advantage the K24 has is up to that point. Whatever lead it builds then is likely the only lead it will hang onto as acceleration continues. Expect about .2-.3 seconds to 60.
5) Outside of part throttle, or full on acceleration, everything is a shade of gray. It depends on what RPM's you run your car at, and what throttle settings you use. However, if it is unneccesary for me to tap out a 139 lb-ft K20, it is unlikely for me to have to tap out a much larger engine under the same conditions. That means that the only times the K24's additional torque is going to be of a huge benefit are those situations where I would be below VTEC and at full throttle in the K20, which do occur, but not all the time as people like you LOVE to insinuate they do. It is really convenient to pretend that any K24 Si driver is going to be pulling car lengths and car lengths on the K20 because they are real men with real torque, but it just isn't true.
Also, once gearing is thrown into the mix, it will be easier to say exactly how it will be because that greatly affects thrust at the wheels, and the K20's gearing is likely to be measureably lower. Quite conceivably, your 22% torque advantage at the crank could turn into 7-10% at the wheels, which is a lot less impressive to say the least.
P.S. If you want a more in depth explanation of what torque is and what it does (it is actually HP that is important), I would be happy to explain it to you. But don't make the false and naive assumption that because I don't agree with you, and don't go around spewing internet B.S. about torque that I don't understand what I am talking about.
And I will repeat myself yet again, because apparently reading comprehension in this country really is as bad as they say it is.
I AM NOT AGAINST ADDITIONAL TORQUE. I AM AGAINST THE FACT THAT HONDA NEUTERED THE OUTPUT AND CHARACTER OF THE SI WHILE KILLING THE SHAPE OF THE K20'S POWER CURVE WHICH IS SUPERIOR TO THIS K24'S. PERIOD. I DO NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT A COMPANY FOUNDED ON ENGINE TECHNOLOGY HAD TO USE A 20% INCREASE IN DISPLACMENT TO OFFSET THE SHORTCOMINGS OF AN INFERIOR ENGINE MODEL TO GET THE SAME PERFORMANCE OUT OF SAID ENGINE. THERE WERE SEVERAL EASY WAYS TO GET ALMOST EQUAL TORQUE A LOT MORE AREA UNDER THE CURVE THAN THIS NONSENSE. They would have also allowed them to keep lower gearing, a broader torque curve, similar peak torque numbers AND the character of the Si, which would have made us ALL happy.
Why is that the people who really don't understand torque always accuse Honda fanatics of not understanding it?
|
owequitit
|
|
CarmB wrote:
While I do understand the desire for an exciting driving experience, it would be foolish to push a car up beyond the 6,000 RPM range with anything close to regularity.
The truth is that with the vast majority of driving, something close to 4,000 RPM is bound to be where even an enthusiastic driver is going to reach for his or her shifter. In that range, the bigger engine will absolutely blow away the current Si motor.
We're talking about a combination that on paper promises 0-60 times well below 7 seconds.
What will be of interest, though, is whether or not Honda will offer a four-door Si in this market. I suspect the answer could be no because that machine would be too close to the anticipated sub-TSX. I'm guessing we'll see an Si coupe combined with the mechanically similar sub-TSX sports sedan offered via Acura.
If this happens, look for that model to absolutely blow away the TSX in terms of driving dynamics. Something to look forward to.
|
There is absolutely nothing foolish about it. Not only will the K20 relish it, but it will still do it for several hundred thousand miles, because it is designed for it. I know 1st gen DHOC VTEC engines that have have literally gone 150K+ before they started burning oil even though they were literally raped from stoplight to stoplight, every day, day in and day out. A friend and I did an engine replacement on that 99-00 Si for the kid who owned it. He still drives it like that, unforutnately. I also know reams of GS-R's and Preludes that are driving around with tons of VTEC usage and no issues. Finally, there are scores of tracked Hondas with tons of racetrack miles on them that are still holding up just fine.
The truth is that in the vast majority of driving, with the broad flexibility of the K20's torque curve and low gearing, very seldom do I even need to take it above 3K, and even less seldom do I have to floor it. That means that under the same conditions, in a lighter car, I would need even less power/torque, so I am not really using the K24 anyway. It is simply a 20% larger waste of engine, that ultimately needs fuel. Also, gearing may likely reduce your huge advantage by half.
The current Si is already capable of 0-60 times well below 7 seconds, and frankly, the K24 is only going to improve it incrementally. This apparent belief in some major advantage just isn't going to happen.
The K24 will provide additional flexibility in certain instances, but it isn't going to be this amazing god send of performance like people apparently expect. But, don't believe me, just wait till it comes out and is barely faster under 90-95% of all conditions.
|
carzak
|
|
You really don't have to repeat yourself. I mean, posting here is completely voluntary.
But the reason you have to repeat yourself is because you can't make a concise point to save your life, and it's often a challenge to dig through all of your tangents and inconsistencies and speculation to find one.
|
JIRZLEE
|
|
carzak wrote:
You really don't have to repeat yourself. I mean, posting here is completely voluntary.
But the reason you have to repeat yourself is because you can't make a concise point to save your life, and it's often a challenge to dig through all of your tangents and inconsistencies and speculation to find one.
|
I disagree, I understand his points perfectly fine. Maybe you should read it over a couple times and look up any words you don't understand in the dictionary. See if that helps.
|
owequitit
|
|
carzak wrote:
You really don't have to repeat yourself. I mean, posting here is completely voluntary.
But the reason you have to repeat yourself is because you can't make a concise point to save your life, and it's often a challenge to dig through all of your tangents and inconsistencies and speculation to find one.
|
I can make a concise point just fine. The problem isn't my inability to make a concise point. It is the fact that I end up making 300 posts because guys like you attack everything that isn't covered, so as to protect your opinion. It got to the point where rather than making a concise point and having to defend it for an additional 300 posts, item by item, it was easier to just put it all out.
Reading is also voluntary, as is responding. If you don't want to read it, don't. If you don't want to respond to it, don't. Seems pretty simple to me.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
