[home][rumors and news][model release matrix][dealer network][desktop calendar][exhaust notes][tov forums][links][search][sponsors][garage][login]

Tire Rack Upgrade Garage
 Search for a Dealer:
 Canadian Flag US Flag
 Honda Acura
 ZIP  
2019 Acura MDX Arrives with Luxury and Performance Upgrades Plus First A-Spec Variant
More.......................
SPIED IN EUROPE! Civic Type R refresh
More.......................
American Honda Sets New June Sales Records on Strength of Light Trucks
More.......................
Honda reveals refreshed 2019 HR-V and Pilot
More.......................
Acura TLX GT wins class and places 3rd overall at 2018 Pikes Peak International Hill Climb
More.......................
Spied on the Street! 2019 Pilot and Pilot PHEV mule
More.......................
All-New 2019 Honda Insight Brings Style, Sophistication and 55 mpg City Rating
More.......................
It's Official: Honda to supply Red Bull Racing in Formula One from 2019
More.......................
Type R --> Re: DC-R
Join Discussion......
ILX --> Re: 2019 ILX
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: F1 - 2018 German Grand Prix
Join Discussion......
RDX --> Re: 2019 RDX SH-AWD Acceleration numbers
Join Discussion......
RDX --> Re: 2019 RDX SH-AWD "commuter" loop mileage run
Join Discussion......
RDX --> Re: 3rd Generation Acura RDX Reviews
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: Indycar Rear-view Mirror: Dixon Deftly Extends Indycar Lead at Toronto
Join Discussion......
RDX --> Re: I'm in a 2019 RDX Advance this week. Any specific questions while I have it?
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Trying to decide on color
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: I just realized
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: 2020 GM/Honda Lithium battery and module.
Join Discussion......
Fuel Cell Technology --> Re: No H2 in Toyota Vampire Land
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Re: Munro says Model 3 has >30% gross margin
Join Discussion......
Insight --> Re: My next car?
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: Zak Brown: 2018 McLaren ‘weaker than last year’s car’
Join Discussion......
First Drive: 2019 Honda Insight
Read Article....................
2019 Honda Insight PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Acura RDX
Read Article....................
2019 Acura RDX Features & Specifications
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery - 2019 Acura RDX Advance
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery - 2019 Acura RDX A-Spec
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
  TOV News > Virtual Dyno Comparo: 2011 Honda Civic Si vs 2012 Honda Civic Si > > Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord.

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - [1] 2
Author
    
Karl O.
Profile for Karl O.
I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-18-2011 19:48
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply




I'm not attacking or criticizing, but I'm always trying to push towards objectivity. So I'll play devil's advocate here. I'm no expert, but I know a little about some things.

1. We don't have the actual K24 in the new Civic Si, so I appreciate the fun of a "virtual" dyno comparison and I appreciate that it is labeled as such.

2. Chassis dynos are chassis dynos. They are particularly useful in tuning a specific car at a specific time. Once you get outside of that, well, you're sort of moving towards speculation. No car ever beat another car in a straight line or a race course on a chassis dyno. But they're about eleventy-billion percent better than an ass dyno, and are a great option for those of us that can't afford billion-dollar engineering labs.

(a) Shawn's dyno has forever been accused of being a "cheater dyno" with abnormally high numbers for AP2 S2000s. I have no idea why, and frankly I have never really found that those critics have proven themselves to be more knowledgeable than he is, so whatever. Also, I've never really understood what his motivation for fudging his numbers would be. Winning the bounty of the internets, I guess. So I'm gonna pay damned close attention to whatever he says.

(b) Dynojets, Mustangs, every dyno is different. Give me two cars on the same dyno on the same day with the same operator and then we'll have comparative results. Again, Honda hasn't dropped a '12 Civic Si at Jeff's house so that's out of the question.

(c) Gearing is an issue. Mostly, dyno runs are done in 3rd or 4th gear. The TSX is geared to pleasantly move around 3300 pounds of sedan, the Si is not. So I'm not sure you can assume that a 2011 TSX powertrain will make the same numbers as a 2012 Si powertrain. They're not the same. Then there are friction losses, which can vary not only from two different transmission designs, but from car to car. The only way to get around that is to pull the engines out of the cars, which we've established that we're not going to do. Well, I'm not paying for it.

3. There have been lots of K24 variants. Anywhere from 160 to 201 hp. Generally tuned for particular cars. It's a flexible design.

4. Shawn has proved there is a bunch of power left on the table in the K24.

5. Honda is not stupid.

6. I don't agree with a lot of Honda's designs, or some of their marketing strategies, or the fact that I'm driving around in a 10 year old roadster because Honda never got around to making something better. But Honda took the last Si very seriously and I don't know why we'd suddenly think they decided to mail it in.

7. I like the K24 in my TSX. And I had the original K20 in my '02 RSX-S. It had a little power, and then it fell off, and then just when it started going again you nailed the goddamned rev limiter. And then Hondata fixed it (I'm told) with a re-flash. Hmm. So I don't know why Honda won't tune the K24 to make it revvy for the new Si. Because you can hate the interior design or the styling, but you can't name ONE powertrain in a Honda product that sucks. IMA fuel economy is underwhelming, but that's a function of its design. It doesn't suck, though.

Or, maybe the ants will kill us all and the new Si will really, really suck.

The days of cheapo high-revving engines are done, folks. Emissions are killing 'em. It's over. You wanna rev, buy a crotch rocket or save your money for a Lambo or a Ferrari. Everything else is gonna have more displacement or a turbo.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-18-2011 21:43
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Karl O. wrote:




I'm not attacking or criticizing, but I'm always trying to push towards objectivity. So I'll play devil's advocate here. I'm no expert, but I know a little about some things.

1. We don't have the actual K24 in the new Civic Si, so I appreciate the fun of a "virtual" dyno comparison and I appreciate that it is labeled as such.

2. Chassis dynos are chassis dynos. They are particularly useful in tuning a specific car at a specific time. Once you get outside of that, well, you're sort of moving towards speculation. No car ever beat another car in a straight line or a race course on a chassis dyno. But they're about eleventy-billion percent better than an ass dyno, and are a great option for those of us that can't afford billion-dollar engineering labs.

(a) Shawn's dyno has forever been accused of being a "cheater dyno" with abnormally high numbers for AP2 S2000s. I have no idea why, and frankly I have never really found that those critics have proven themselves to be more knowledgeable than he is, so whatever. Also, I've never really understood what his motivation for fudging his numbers would be. Winning the bounty of the internets, I guess. So I'm gonna pay damned close attention to whatever he says.

(b) Dynojets, Mustangs, every dyno is different. Give me two cars on the same dyno on the same day with the same operator and then we'll have comparative results. Again, Honda hasn't dropped a '12 Civic Si at Jeff's house so that's out of the question.

(c) Gearing is an issue. Mostly, dyno runs are done in 3rd or 4th gear. The TSX is geared to pleasantly move around 3300 pounds of sedan, the Si is not. So I'm not sure you can assume that a 2011 TSX powertrain will make the same numbers as a 2012 Si powertrain. They're not the same. Then there are friction losses, which can vary not only from two different transmission designs, but from car to car. The only way to get around that is to pull the engines out of the cars, which we've established that we're not going to do. Well, I'm not paying for it.

3. There have been lots of K24 variants. Anywhere from 160 to 201 hp. Generally tuned for particular cars. It's a flexible design.

4. Shawn has proved there is a bunch of power left on the table in the K24.

5. Honda is not stupid.

6. I don't agree with a lot of Honda's designs, or some of their marketing strategies, or the fact that I'm driving around in a 10 year old roadster because Honda never got around to making something better. But Honda took the last Si very seriously and I don't know why we'd suddenly think they decided to mail it in.

7. I like the K24 in my TSX. And I had the original K20 in my '02 RSX-S. It had a little power, and then it fell off, and then just when it started going again you nailed the goddamned rev limiter. And then Hondata fixed it (I'm told) with a re-flash. Hmm. So I don't know why Honda won't tune the K24 to make it revvy for the new Si. Because you can hate the interior design or the styling, but you can't name ONE powertrain in a Honda product that sucks. IMA fuel economy is underwhelming, but that's a function of its design. It doesn't suck, though.

Or, maybe the ants will kill us all and the new Si will really, really suck.

The days of cheapo high-revving engines are done, folks. Emissions are killing 'em. It's over. You wanna rev, buy a crotch rocket or save your money for a Lambo or a Ferrari. Everything else is gonna have more displacement or a turbo.



You are essentially trying to turn ants into an ant hill.

We have all agreed that final specs are unknown, but we also know certain things about this powerplant, that people want to keep dismissing. That dillusional last little bit of hope I suppose.

Shawn has done a lot to discuss how much headroom is NOT contained in this version of the K24 with its lack of exhaust VTEC and its close coupled cat. Also, with a 20% increase in displacement, I shouldn't HAVE to resort to the aftermarket to unlock what should be there in the first place. It pisses me off that I would have spend $700 to retune my K20 Si to get what should have been a proper VTEC crossover from the factory.

Yes, most cars dyno in 3rd or 4th gear (the closest ratio to 1:1 is actually most desireable), and yes gearing is a factor. However, it is unlikely that Honda is going to put equal or lower gearing on a car that has 14% less redline and a much larger swell of torque in the midrange. The whole advantage of that swell is to be able to gear it so that it is more MPG friendly, more highway friendly, etc. People complain about having to "shift the Si all the time." Imagine having equal gearing with a 15% lower redline... You would be shifting even more, and it would require 3 shifts to get to 60MPH.

Finally, you are pretty grossly exaggerating the disadvantages of a dyno. The reality is that we do know how to account and correct for non-standard atmospheric conditions. Yes, they are not 100% accurate, but they are close enough to be far from rendered invalid. As with any data comparison, a careful accounting of corrections, adjustments, and errors must be made. But with most modern dynos, computers and knowledgable operators, it is not hard to get a very accurate comparison that is certainly valid. FYI, those billion dollar engineering labs rely on a lot of dyno data, as to most high dollar race teams etc. The only major variable that isn't usually accounted for, to the best of my knowledge, is humidity. So while you cant draw a 100% conclusion with comparative dynos (not even on the same dyno on the same day), you can get a pretty fair idea of reality. People always like to fall back on "dynos" aren't the same when it benefits them, but in many cases, they are just spewing non-sense. I trust Shawn's judgement in comparing such things, as he is aware of the variables, and is forthright with them when he does use them. It isn't like he tries to hide anything. Also, Shawn's dyno being generous is an easy copout, but logically, it still holds mustard. Even if his dyno IS generous, this car still dyno'd measurably higher than the rest of the cars on the same dyno, which means that it is stronger, regardless of dyno error. Finally, I have seen many, many dynos that put the 06-10 Si right in the 180-185WHP range when 100% bone stock. I believe Shawn and Jeff's dynos (Dynolab) both pretty closely reflect those numbers. Of course Jeff also measured measurably better results on the same dyno as his personal Si.

Honda took the EF Si seriously, and then bunted on the EG Si. They took the EM Si seriously, and then bunted on the EP3 Si. They took the FG2 Si seriously, and appear to have bunted here too. I am not expecting anywhere near the thrill that the best selling Si's have had. I suppose someone could draw Honda a roadmap, but the fact that certain distinct Si characteristics have resulted in distinctly better sales is NOT coincidental.

I have no problem with the additonal torque. The problem is that this car is STILL the slowest in class (it just doesn't have the power, torque or gearing to overcome that), and now it does not have the unique defining character that makes Si's desireable, and has made those Si's with that character best sellers. Of course, that is my opinion, but considering I am a hardcore Si nut have have been for almost 25 years, I don't think I am that far off base.

Of course, everyone seems to have the ability to be "objective" but they never seem to give credit to others for the same. Everyone who doesn't agree with them is "biased" or a "fanboy." Objectively speaking, once the K20 hits VTEC, the K24's advantage is lost. Yes, that is based on the premise that the K24 isn't severely under-rated, but I think that you will find that to be accurate.

garoto
Profile for garoto
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-18-2011 22:23
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
Karl O. wrote:




I'm not attacking or criticizing, but I'm always trying to push towards objectivity. So I'll play devil's advocate here. I'm no expert, but I know a little about some things.

1. We don't have the actual K24 in the new Civic Si, so I appreciate the fun of a "virtual" dyno comparison and I appreciate that it is labeled as such.

2. Chassis dynos are chassis dynos. They are particularly useful in tuning a specific car at a specific time. Once you get outside of that, well, you're sort of moving towards speculation. No car ever beat another car in a straight line or a race course on a chassis dyno. But they're about eleventy-billion percent better than an ass dyno, and are a great option for those of us that can't afford billion-dollar engineering labs.

(a) Shawn's dyno has forever been accused of being a "cheater dyno" with abnormally high numbers for AP2 S2000s. I have no idea why, and frankly I have never really found that those critics have proven themselves to be more knowledgeable than he is, so whatever. Also, I've never really understood what his motivation for fudging his numbers would be. Winning the bounty of the internets, I guess. So I'm gonna pay damned close attention to whatever he says.

(b) Dynojets, Mustangs, every dyno is different. Give me two cars on the same dyno on the same day with the same operator and then we'll have comparative results. Again, Honda hasn't dropped a '12 Civic Si at Jeff's house so that's out of the question.

(c) Gearing is an issue. Mostly, dyno runs are done in 3rd or 4th gear. The TSX is geared to pleasantly move around 3300 pounds of sedan, the Si is not. So I'm not sure you can assume that a 2011 TSX powertrain will make the same numbers as a 2012 Si powertrain. They're not the same. Then there are friction losses, which can vary not only from two different transmission designs, but from car to car. The only way to get around that is to pull the engines out of the cars, which we've established that we're not going to do. Well, I'm not paying for it.

3. There have been lots of K24 variants. Anywhere from 160 to 201 hp. Generally tuned for particular cars. It's a flexible design.

4. Shawn has proved there is a bunch of power left on the table in the K24.

5. Honda is not stupid.

6. I don't agree with a lot of Honda's designs, or some of their marketing strategies, or the fact that I'm driving around in a 10 year old roadster because Honda never got around to making something better. But Honda took the last Si very seriously and I don't know why we'd suddenly think they decided to mail it in.

7. I like the K24 in my TSX. And I had the original K20 in my '02 RSX-S. It had a little power, and then it fell off, and then just when it started going again you nailed the goddamned rev limiter. And then Hondata fixed it (I'm told) with a re-flash. Hmm. So I don't know why Honda won't tune the K24 to make it revvy for the new Si. Because you can hate the interior design or the styling, but you can't name ONE powertrain in a Honda product that sucks. IMA fuel economy is underwhelming, but that's a function of its design. It doesn't suck, though.

Or, maybe the ants will kill us all and the new Si will really, really suck.

The days of cheapo high-revving engines are done, folks. Emissions are killing 'em. It's over. You wanna rev, buy a crotch rocket or save your money for a Lambo or a Ferrari. Everything else is gonna have more displacement or a turbo.



You are essentially trying to turn ants into an ant hill.

We have all agreed that final specs are unknown, but we also know certain things about this powerplant, that people want to keep dismissing. That dillusional last little bit of hope I suppose.

Shawn has done a lot to discuss how much headroom is NOT contained in this version of the K24 with its lack of exhaust VTEC and its close coupled cat. Also, with a 20% increase in displacement, I shouldn't HAVE to resort to the aftermarket to unlock what should be there in the first place. It pisses me off that I would have spend $700 to retune my K20 Si to get what should have been a proper VTEC crossover from the factory.

Yes, most cars dyno in 3rd or 4th gear (the closest ratio to 1:1 is actually most desireable), and yes gearing is a factor. However, it is unlikely that Honda is going to put equal or lower gearing on a car that has 14% less redline and a much larger swell of torque in the midrange. The whole advantage of that swell is to be able to gear it so that it is more MPG friendly, more highway friendly, etc. People complain about having to "shift the Si all the time." Imagine having equal gearing with a 15% lower redline... You would be shifting even more, and it would require 3 shifts to get to 60MPH.

Finally, you are pretty grossly exaggerating the disadvantages of a dyno. The reality is that we do know how to account and correct for non-standard atmospheric conditions. Yes, they are not 100% accurate, but they are close enough to be far from rendered invalid. As with any data comparison, a careful accounting of corrections, adjustments, and errors must be made. But with most modern dynos, computers and knowledgable operators, it is not hard to get a very accurate comparison that is certainly valid. FYI, those billion dollar engineering labs rely on a lot of dyno data, as to most high dollar race teams etc. The only major variable that isn't usually accounted for, to the best of my knowledge, is humidity. So while you cant draw a 100% conclusion with comparative dynos (not even on the same dyno on the same day), you can get a pretty fair idea of reality. People always like to fall back on "dynos" aren't the same when it benefits them, but in many cases, they are just spewing non-sense. I trust Shawn's judgement in comparing such things, as he is aware of the variables, and is forthright with them when he does use them. It isn't like he tries to hide anything. Also, Shawn's dyno being generous is an easy copout, but logically, it still holds mustard. Even if his dyno IS generous, this car still dyno'd measurably higher than the rest of the cars on the same dyno, which means that it is stronger, regardless of dyno error. Finally, I have seen many, many dynos that put the 06-10 Si right in the 180-185WHP range when 100% bone stock. I believe Shawn and Jeff's dynos (Dynolab) both pretty closely reflect those numbers. Of course Jeff also measured measurably better results on the same dyno as his personal Si.

Honda took the EF Si seriously, and then bunted on the EG Si. They took the EM Si seriously, and then bunted on the EP3 Si. They took the FG2 Si seriously, and appear to have bunted here too. I am not expecting anywhere near the thrill that the best selling Si's have had. I suppose someone could draw Honda a roadmap, but the fact that certain distinct Si characteristics have resulted in distinctly better sales is NOT coincidental.

I have no problem with the additonal torque. The problem is that this car is STILL the slowest in class (it just doesn't have the power, torque or gearing to overcome that), and now it does not have the unique defining character that makes Si's desireable, and has made those Si's with that character best sellers. Of course, that is my opinion, but considering I am a hardcore Si nut have have been for almost 25 years, I don't think I am that far off base.

Of course, everyone seems to have the ability to be "objective" but they never seem to give credit to others for the same. Everyone who doesn't agree with them is "biased" or a "fanboy." Objectively speaking, once the K20 hits VTEC, the K24's advantage is lost. Yes, that is based on the premise that the K24 isn't severely under-rated, but I think that you will find that to be accurate.



The 9th Si will be a great Honda Vehicle, but it shouldn't take place of the Si. It should just be a different trim, either an EX or something else. Si buyers want certain characteristics off that car. Now, unless, honda is opening up a slot to bring in a Type R. In fact, now that I think of it, it only makes sense. I doubt honda has ran out of K20's or the ability to produce K20's. Usually honda engines and trannys are assembled in Japan anyway. Hmm, I feel elightened, Is honda really opening up a slot to add a civic type R? The coupe certainly has the styling to boot! (not so much the sedan). Crossing my fingers, holding my breath.

Karl O.
Profile for Karl O.
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-19-2011 09:18
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:

You are essentially trying to turn ants into an ant hill.


I'm not trying to do anything. Frankly, I don't plan on ever owning another Honda Civic. I owned Civics, they herded me towards to better Hondas and Acuras, they did their job.

We have all agreed that final specs are unknown, but we also know certain things about this powerplant, that people want to keep dismissing. That dillusional last little bit of hope I suppose.


Dude, it's a car. Nobody died. Calm down. Your penis size is not directly related to whatever you think your failed expectations for this car are.

Shawn has done a lot to discuss how much headroom is NOT contained in this version of the K24 with its lack of exhaust VTEC and its close coupled cat. Also, with a 20% increase in displacement, I shouldn't HAVE to resort to the aftermarket to unlock what should be there in the first place. It pisses me off that I would have spend $700 to retune my K20 Si to get what should have been a proper VTEC crossover from the factory.


You're already angry about something that may or may not have happened yet. Maybe we should just trot out the dyno plot from a 2004 Element and sit around and pout because that's what the new Si dyno plot is gonna look like. Settle down, Beavis.

Yes, most cars dyno in 3rd or 4th gear (the closest ratio to 1:1 is actually most desireable), and yes gearing is a factor. However, it is unlikely that Honda is going to put equal or lower gearing on a car that has 14% less redline and a much larger swell of torque in the midrange. The whole advantage of that swell is to be able to gear it so that it is more MPG friendly, more highway friendly, etc. People complain about having to "shift the Si all the time." Imagine having equal gearing with a 15% lower redline... You would be shifting even more, and it would require 3 shifts to get to 60MPH.


Who cares how many shifts it takes to get to 60 mph, you're magazine racing. Don't preach to me, I have an S2000 that is much more peaky than anything with a K20 ever was or could be, and I also have a TSX.

One thing matters: area under the curve. Peak power ratings are for idiots. For shits and giggles, I tuned my old '94 Civic EX (and the D16Z6 wasn't THAT tuneable) for peak HP once- it looked great on a dyno but you couldn't pull away from a stoplight at anything less than 3k rpm without stalling. Yippee. But those peak numbers looked soooooo good.

Repeat after me: area under the curve.

Finally, you are pretty grossly exaggerating the disadvantages of a dyno. The reality is that we do know how to account and correct for non-standard atmospheric conditions. Yes, they are not 100% accurate, but they are close enough to be far from rendered invalid. As with any data comparison, a careful accounting of corrections, adjustments, and errors must be made. But with most modern dynos, computers and knowledgable operators, it is not hard to get a very accurate comparison that is certainly valid. FYI, those billion dollar engineering labs rely on a lot of dyno data, as to most high dollar race teams etc. The only major variable that isn't usually accounted for, to the best of my knowledge, is humidity. So while you cant draw a 100% conclusion with comparative dynos (not even on the same dyno on the same day), you can get a pretty fair idea of reality. People always like to fall back on "dynos" aren't the same when it benefits them, but in many cases, they are just spewing non-sense. I trust Shawn's judgement in comparing such things, as he is aware of the variables, and is forthright with them when he does use them. It isn't like he tries to hide anything. Also, Shawn's dyno being generous is an easy copout, but logically, it still holds mustard. Even if his dyno IS generous, this car still dyno'd measurably higher than the rest of the cars on the same dyno, which means that it is stronger, regardless of dyno error. Finally, I have seen many, many dynos that put the 06-10 Si right in the 180-185WHP range when 100% bone stock. I believe Shawn and Jeff's dynos (Dynolab) both pretty closely reflect those numbers. Of course Jeff also measured measurably better results on the same dyno as his personal Si.


I don't really see a point here, you're mouth is moving but nothing tangible is coming out. I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about. Seriously, dude. Read what you wrote and tell me it's anything but pointless conjecture. I have no idea how to respond to this.

Honda took the EF Si seriously, and then bunted on the EG Si. They took the EM Si seriously, and then bunted on the EP3 Si. They took the FG2 Si seriously, and appear to have bunted here too. I am not expecting anywhere near the thrill that the best selling Si's have had. I suppose someone could draw Honda a roadmap, but the fact that certain distinct Si characteristics have resulted in distinctly better sales is NOT coincidental.


Anecdotes do not make truth. The last Civic Si was the best FWD car Honda ever bothered to sell here. I don't know why you'd assume Honda would not try to improve that car. Unless you've just got your panties in a bunch and want to bitch about something.

I have no problem with the additonal torque. The problem is that this car is STILL the slowest in class (it just doesn't have the power, torque or gearing to overcome that), and now it does not have the unique defining character that makes Si's desireable, and has made those Si's with that character best sellers. Of course, that is my opinion, but considering I am a hardcore Si nut have have been for almost 25 years, I don't think I am that far off base.


The Civic Si has never been the fastest car in its class. The cheapest to buy, the cheapest to maintain, one of the most fun to drive, perhaps. But never the fastest. A Mazdaspeed 3 will rub any Civic Si's dick in the dirt, for not much more money. Choosing between a K20 and a K24 sure as hell ain't gonna change that. Hell, a MS3 might hump my S2000 in a straight line. But I'm not running to the Mazda dealer to trade cars.

Of course, everyone seems to have the ability to be "objective" but they never seem to give credit to others for the same. Everyone who doesn't agree with them is "biased" or a "fanboy." Objectively speaking, once the K20 hits VTEC, the K24's advantage is lost. Yes, that is based on the premise that the K24 isn't severely under-rated, but I think that you will find that to be accurate.


Again, I don't see a real point here. If Shawn can switch a few parts and do a little tuning and see a reliable 270 whp from a K24, there's no reason to assume Honda won't make the K24 make better numbers than the K20.

This is the reason I stopped surfing car internet forums. Levity is a losing battle.

Let me help you: look to the essence of things to understand them. The Civic Si was never about any particular number or numbers. It's never going to be the car that's the fastest down the drag strip. The essence of the Civic Si is about the driving experience. There's no reason Honda can't preserve that with the K24.



owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-19-2011 19:51
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I'm not trying to do anything. Frankly, I don't plan on ever owning another Honda Civic. I owned Civics, they herded me towards to better Hondas and Acuras, they did their job.


You were attempting to preach objectivity, but weren't practicing it.

Objectivity says that based on what we know about the TSX engine, and what sources have told us, this dyno is VERY close to what the Si will produce. You can dismiss it all you want, but you are looking at a very close resemblance of the next Si power curve. When you see the final results, you will probably realize that we are actually being a lot more objective than you give us credit for. There is a difference between being unhappy about something and failing to see things objectively. The objective logic is why we are unhappy.

Dude, it's a car. Nobody died. Calm down. Your penis size is not directly related to whatever you think your failed expectations for this car are.


If I was insecure in my penis size, I wouldn't desire to be driving the most derided sport compact on the market. My penis size is just fine, and I am perfectly comfortable with it. It is tragic that you had to try and make this into a fallic attack though, as if attacking my penis size would make me retreat in shame.

I never said anybody died. But what is dying is Honda's credibility among their core enthusiasts. It is bad enough that I have started to question my loyalty to their mainstream products based on certain quality and construction issues. It is even worse, when I have to start questioning my willingness to support their enthusiast products which I would have previously weighted well above everything else in the category.

And I am passionate about cars. I am passionate about my love of Honda's products, my experience with them, and my appreciation for their pursuit of the technological high ground. Which is precisely why I am unhappy. I am not going to appologize for being a Honda enthusiast, nor am I going to appologize for being disappointed with their retreat from everything that made them great. They have allowed their leads in technological advancement, design and construction, quality, content, and usefullnes all to erode.

You're already angry about something that may or may not have happened yet. Maybe we should just trot out the dyno plot from a 2004 Element and sit around and pout because that's what the new Si dyno plot is gonna look like. Settle down, Beavis.


Actually, if you go back and read my post, I stated I was unhappy with having to pay $700 on my current car if I want a proper VTEC crossover. Honda should have provided that from the factory as far as I am concerned.

As for the K24, it relates, because I shouldn't have to do a head swap on my brand new Si, to get some meaningful increase in performance, or to have the headroom to get decent increases from the engine. The whole point of my statement was to illustrate that the new Si engine is compromised from a performance standpoint. Much more than the current engine. I have owned Honda's for a long time, and have always been willing to resort to bolt ons to correct the conservative nature of Honda's setups. However, head swapping crosses the line on a new car. As such, I am either forced to buy an Si and put up with inferior output, or I can buy something else that does respond to bolt-ons, or I can keep my current car that responds to bolt ons.

Who cares how many shifts it takes to get to 60 mph, you're magazine racing. Don't preach to me, I have an S2000 that is much more peaky than anything with a K20 ever was or could be, and I also have a TSX.

One thing matters: area under the curve. Peak power ratings are for idiots. For shits and giggles, I tuned my old '94 Civic EX (and the D16Z6 wasn't THAT tuneable) for peak HP once- it looked great on a dyno but you couldn't pull away from a stoplight at anything less than 3k rpm without stalling. Yippee. But those peak numbers looked soooooo good.

Repeat after me: area under the curve.


Don't do much reading around here do you?

1) I don't care about shifting 3 times to 60 MPH. However, Honda does because it hurts their performance in 0-60 comparison tests in magaizines. It is a compromise OEM's have been making for years in deferrence to the most oft shopped performance spec on the face of the planet. It is unlikely that Honda is going to gear the car to redline in 2nd before 60MPH, which means they are probably going to raise the gearing from the TSX as a result of tire sidewall. Sad but true.

2) If you don't understand Honda not wanting to redline it in 2nd above 60 mph, then you haven't been following the complaints about the Si, one of the largest of which is having to row the gears like mad to get the car to go. The entire justification for more torque with equal peak power and lower redline, is that you can take advantage of the engine's lazier power delivery, and thus don't have to ring it out and row the gears as much. It sort of defeats the purpose is if they don't mitigate having to row the gears as much wouldn't you say?

3) I have made statements repeatedly about area under the curve. But, more specifically, it is area under the curve where you are working. Since in most performance situations, you are doing your work in VTEC with the K20, you have lost all advantage of area under the curve, because the two are are almost identical.

Besides, your premise about the D16 is flawed anyway. The K20 is producing 90% of its torque from 2k, to nearly 8K. It isn't like I had to kill the bottom end in order to get equivalent top end performance. In fact, the K24 had a peakier power delivery than the K20 does. Substantially outside of 30% of the range, it is doing a greatly diminished amount of extra work.

Also, one of the wonderful things about the K series (at least the ones with GOOD heads) is its ability to make a broad powerband. Things like VTC, DOHC i-VTEC, better ports etc, all make your comparison to the D series pretty irrelevant. The D series had significantly less technology with which to blur any compromises between peak power and low end flexibility. It is just as laughable as the people who assume the K series delivers a curve comprable to a B series, H series, or F20/F22C. Besides, I have not asked Honda to make a top end peaky engine at the expense of bottom end response. I have asked them to improve the ENTIRE powerband, which is not only realistic, but fairly easy.

As a good example of this, not only does the K20R improve both torque and power output substantially from the K20Z3, but it actually also improves the curve from the bottom to the top of the rev range.

Sorry, but it is a little bit more complex than just saying "area under the curve." It has to be the area under the curve, where the engine is working.

I really don't see a point here, you're mouth is moving but nothing tangible is coming out. I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about. Seriously, dude. Read what you wrote and tell me it's anything but pointless conjecture. I have no idea how to respond to this.


You don't understand or don't want to acknowledge what I said, but lots of tangible stuff is coming out.

Dynos are a whole lot more relevant that you were giving them credit for. Period.

OEMs rely on them a lot more than you were giving them credit for, and they are more comparable than you were giving them credit for. Period. No, they are not 100%, but then again, neither is anything else. However, as with anything, if you account for the error, and make reasonable comparison assumptions, then you CAN get a valid and useful data.

Anecdotes do not make truth. The last Civic Si was the best FWD car Honda ever bothered to sell here. I don't know why you'd assume Honda would not try to improve that car. Unless you've just got your panties in a bunch and want to bitch about something.


That is the problem. This car doesn't improve on the current one, at least not in terms of acceleration. There is no substantially greater performance. It will be incremental at best. Mark my words. Honda needed more if they wanted to continue to be taken seriously. They could have gotten more, had they not deferred to cost cutting and ease of installation.

Also, you may want to go back and study your Si history. There have been two cars that didn't provide significant overall increases in performance. The EP3 and this. The EP3 had a horrendous reception and didn't sell. I suspect, based on my long time experience with Si's and Si owners, this car will be similar. Call it anectdotal, or call it speculation. I dont' really care. The car is pretty disappointing among most current owners. Those who are all for it, apprently have no idea that it is not going to provide meaningfully more performance. They seem to be like you in assuming that because it is a K24 it has all of the performance aspects of all previous DOHC i-VTEC K24's.

The thing that really should be considered is the number of potential Si owners who skipped the current car because it didn't provide enough of an improvement over the RSX-S.

The Civic Si has never been the fastest car in its class. The cheapest to buy, the cheapest to maintain, one of the most fun to drive, perhaps. But never the fastest. A Mazdaspeed 3 will rub any Civic Si's dick in the dirt, for not much more money. Choosing between a K20 and a K24 sure as hell ain't gonna change that. Hell, a MS3 might hump my S2000 in a straight line. But I'm not running to the Mazda dealer to trade cars.


You sure seem to have a big dick fetish...but I digress. I am well aware of what cars will drag an Si's dick through the dirt.

Thank you for supporting my point.

What the Si DID always provide was a stratospheric redline, with a high winding, top end biased naturally aspirated engine. It wasn't the fastest, but it sure has hell did have the most unique character. Even back in the day of the lowly D series engines, the redline was still typically 20-30% higher than most anything else's.

That is now very much mitigated while not having any seriously tangible performance improvement, which has been my whole point, all along. I never bought an Si because it was the fastest. I did however buy it (and like ALL sporty Hondas for that matter) because they had esoteric redlines, hugely free flowing heads, and provided an experience that couldn't be had for anywhere near the price range unless you bought a crotch rocket. I like screaming NA engines. Always have, always will. But now, not only do I not get that (sorry, but the K24 in the current TSX is not a screaming NA engine, good as it may be), but I still get the slowest car. So what is the point for those who have traditionally actually purchased Si's (of which you are self admittedly not a supporter).

Again, I don't see a real point here. If Shawn can switch a few parts and do a little tuning and see a reliable 270 whp from a K24, there's no reason to assume Honda won't make the K24 make better numbers than the K20.

This is the reason I stopped surfing car internet forums. Levity is a losing battle.


The point is that you preach objectivity, but then dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your position. That is precisely why I do still surf car forums, so that people who think they know what they are talking about don't overshadow those who do. I don't want incorrect positions based on incorrect assumptions to overshadow Honda's perception of what people want.

Shawn was able to get large amounts of horsepower out of an engine that was nothing like this one. It had VTEC on both cams, and a free flowing exhaust tract. What restriction was there, could be remedied by changing manifolds and camshafts. The problem with this engine, is that you can't change manifolds without changing the head, because they are the same part. Not only is flow SEVERELY compromised by the attempt to shove an entire exhaust manifold into the head, but you no longer have the ability to vastly improve the exhaust cam without compromise. Top that off with the fact that you can no longer control exhaust runner length and diameter to tailor the powerband the way you want it, and it becomes a whole different ballgame. He has said himself that he expects any relative gains to be about half of those on previous K24's. That means that you have to do twice the work to get to 270HP, which in turn means it would probably be easier to get the current K20 to that level, considering it needs a few bolt-ons and cams, while the new K24 will probably need more than that.

It is easy to attempt talk down to me because you feel that you are so informed about engines, while you are concurrently assuming that one K24 must be equal to any other K24, when the reality is that the truth is far, far different. Like any specific discipline, it is easy to ASSUME you know as much as the pros, but in reality you don't know shit. Based on your comments here, I will leave it at that. I am not even a pro, and I can see that this engine has pretty much removed most of the previous TSX's headroom.

Let me help you: look to the essence of things to understand them. The Civic Si was never about any particular number or numbers. It's never going to be the car that's the fastest down the drag strip. The essence of the Civic Si is about the driving experience. There's no reason Honda can't preserve that with the K24.


I own an Si remember? I know exactly what if offers and why it offers it. I also know exactly why I bought it. I have loved and lusted after every Si since they came out. The problem, as a CURRENT Si owner, is that this car takes one of the largest desireable features of the current car (the one you said was the best Si Honda has produced), and removes it. As such, the other competitors in the segment rise to a more equal level of consideration, because while they also don't offer the NA powerband, they DO offer a lot more performance, and have also become quite well rounded. I will be perfectly honest in saying that the GTI is now almost an equal consideration to this upcoming Si. Not only is it faster and more flexible, but it redlines nearly as high, has more cargo flexibility, likely a nicer interior (I know its nicer looks wise), and is probably more refined. It also has a ton of bolt on headroom. The biggest downside is unknown long term reliability. Those were all things I was willing to weight a little lower in the equation because of the 8K RPM redline and flat torque curve of the Si. Can't do that now.

The chassis will probably still be balanced, and it will probably still be reliable, it simply won't be as thrilling. And considering reliability in much of the rest of the segment is on the rise, and many of them are more balanced chassis wise (WRX, GTI, MINI, MS3) the new Si is going to have to have some pretty significant improvements over the rest of the board to even come close to maintaining its desireability for many Si enthusiasts (it isn't like I am the only one that is unhappy here).

FAL
Profile for FAL
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-20-2011 11:44
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Why not just buy a Sentra SE-R Spec V? It is a low-revving 2.5L with 200hp and 180 ft-lbs. of torque routed through a six-speed with an LSD. It really killed the 8th gen Si, didn't it?
NickDC5
Profile for NickDC5
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 08:48
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
First of all, love the Simpsons reference. :)

Second of all, I too welcome our new 2.4 liter overlords... I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

And third of all, this is the only move that Honda should make. The Civic Si's K20 was from an older era of cars with a weaker competition for power. Now with Mazda Mazdaspeed3s, WRXs, GTIs, Lancers, and a slew of factory turbocharged vehicles from all over the world, this was the next logical step. The high-revving K20 was from 2001. That's a decade ago. Time to move on.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 09:16
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NickDC5 wrote:
First of all, love the Simpsons reference. :)

Second of all, I too welcome our new 2.4 liter overlords... I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

And third of all, this is the only move that Honda should make. The Civic Si's K20 was from an older era of cars with a weaker competition for power. Now with Mazda Mazdaspeed3s, WRXs, GTIs, Lancers, and a slew of factory turbocharged vehicles from all over the world, this was the next logical step. The high-revving K20 was from 2001. That's a decade ago. Time to move on.



They haven't moved on.

You get the same output from 20% more engine, with less headroom. Same speed as the old car, slightly more torque in a specific part of the powerband. Nothing more nothing less. For that matter, the K24 is also from 2001 and also belongs in another era of engines.

330R
Profile for 330R
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 12:17
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Mazdaspeed3: 263 hp @5500 rpm, 280 lb-ft @3000 rpm, 12.22 lbs per hp
.............. WRX: 265 hp @6000 rpm, 244 lb-ft @4000 rpm, 12.11 lbs per hp
................ GTI: 200 hp @5100 rpm, 207 lb-ft @1800 rpm, 15.17 lbs per hp
Lancer Ralliart: 237 hp @6000 rpm, 253 lb-ft @2500 rpm, 14.61 lbs per hp

2011 Si: 197 hp @7800rpm, 139 lb-ft @6100 rpm, 14.70 lbs per hp

2011 Si w/2011 TSX K24Z3 engine: 201 hp @7000 rpm, 172 lb-ft @4300 rpm, 14.40 lbs per hp

2011 Si w/2010 Civic Type-R K20 engine: 222 hp @8400 rpm, 159 lb-ft @6100rpm, 13.04 lbs per hp

That's spec racing, I know, and dyno plots would give a clearer understanding of where the power is and the characteristics of each engine. But the Si w/ the K24, 200hp, and a redline that Honda deems acceptable for a mass-produced car w/ a warranty, isn't going to make much headway against the cars listed above. Of course this is from purely a power (grunt grrrr grrr) point of view. :)

If the intention was to make the Si more civilized, the GTI is still nicer and quieter inside (than a 2011 Si). It also has that romantic amber ambient CEL illumination, standard. It's also already making 207 torks from 1800 rpm, to 5000 rpm.

I don't think the intention was the make the Si more civilized, though. I think it was a decision based on cost and packaged with a little green bow with ULEV-2 on the tag. Happy Birthday!








DCR
Profile for DCR
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 14:35
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
330R wrote:
I don't think the intention was the make the Si more civilized, though. I think it was a decision based on cost and packaged with a little green bow with ULEV-2 on the tag. Happy Birthday!


Yes, the focus on the MPG rating is way, way too sharp this time around. Honda has, in my opinion, done it the lazy way. It had to be a conscious decision to drop the K24 in knowing full well what that meant. The problem is though, that on a balance sheet, this makes perfect sense. However, running a business is not only about the bottom line. Street smarts is also a huge part of it, and Honda has lost touch with that part of it for sure.

Now I know why the CR-Z soldiered on as a weak hybrid no matter how loud the initial screams were when the engine specs were announced. "Wait and drive it" was all I heard, and well, I did, and my assumptions were largely correct. As with this 2.4L, the "wait and drive it" crowd is back, but we are dealing with EXISTING engine tech, and given the current Honda, it is pretty safe to assume they haven't done anything put change motor mounts. I drive a 2010 Si...when I jump in a 2012 and drive it how I have been driving since my 2006 Si, what is going to happen? Who is Honda making this Si for? Not the current owner or enthusiast? I don't get the lack of street sense here, and I certainly don't think this was the only way they could have gone.

Take existing tech and shave weight, fantastic. They've hit the magic 40 mpg, from what looks like stripper models in some cases, but not by new engine tech like some other manufacturers. Some say they don't need to innovate, as the existing tech is fine, but stagnation is what this appears to be, and it disturbs me. They could have spent the entire Crosstour budget on new engine tech, and I am willing to bet they'd have some impressive fruit for their labor.


NickDC5
Profile for NickDC5
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 21:19
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
NickDC5 wrote:
First of all, love the Simpsons reference. :)

Second of all, I too welcome our new 2.4 liter overlords... I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

And third of all, this is the only move that Honda should make. The Civic Si's K20 was from an older era of cars with a weaker competition for power. Now with Mazda Mazdaspeed3s, WRXs, GTIs, Lancers, and a slew of factory turbocharged vehicles from all over the world, this was the next logical step. The high-revving K20 was from 2001. That's a decade ago. Time to move on.



They haven't moved on.

You get the same output from 20% more engine, with less headroom. Same speed as the old car, slightly more torque in a specific part of the powerband. Nothing more nothing less. For that matter, the K24 is also from 2001 and also belongs in another era of engines.



Don't know if you've ever owned a K20-powered car for years and years, but it sort of sucks after a while.

ginaprincess
Profile for ginaprincess
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 22:08
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NickDC5 wrote:
And third of all, this is the only move that Honda should make. The Civic Si's K20 was from an older era of cars with a weaker competition for power. Now with Mazda Mazdaspeed3s, WRXs, GTIs, Lancers, and a slew of factory turbocharged vehicles from all over the world, this was the next logical step. The high-revving K20 was from 2001. That's a decade ago. Time to move on.


Time to move on to what? To a car that will perform the same as the previous gen? Time to move on to what? To a car that will still underperform compared to the competition? Time to move on to what? To a NORMAL car that will perform like the Accord, the TSX, the TL, and 99% of other cars on the road?
Again, time to move on to what???????

laughable.......

Ah, I must be jealous, like your beloved friend Bluefz claimed a while back, DOUBLE LAUGH on that one too.. Since I cannot buy EVER a 9th gen, I must be REALLY jealous, that's why I talk down the 9th gen. TRIPLE lol on that one.......

ginaprincess
Profile for ginaprincess
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 22:12
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NickDC5 wrote:
Don't know if you've ever owned a K20-powered car for years and years, but it sort of sucks after a while.



What is also sucks is driving a TSX K24 and the drive is the same boring 3k to 4k rpm. Becaise that engine does NOT love to rev high, PERIOD!
It's time you guys wake up and smell the coffee.
But do not worry, the time to test the 9th is coming, and we will find out who is right.

A77
Profile for A77
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 22:21
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
nobody would be complaining about this new Si if they just labelled this thing an EXL or GT even and added an auto version too with flappy paddles. and then provided something equally manic later on, or in an Acura frock.
330R
Profile for 330R
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 22:33
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
A77 wrote:
nobody would be complaining about this new Si if they just labelled this thing an EXL or GT even and added an auto version too with flappy paddles. and then provided something equally manic later on, or in an Acura frock.


I agree with this mostly, except for the later on part. The last thing the people who most anticipate the car will tolerate is waiting one or more model years for what should be available straight away. I'm aware that some sales people or associates may offer the idea that holding something back for later can help boost sales, but I've never bought into the idea. It's liable to lead to people giving up waiting and doing something else, especially when there's little to no indication something better is coming, until next to the very last minute.

sadlerau
Profile for sadlerau
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 23:36
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
The best answer you can give Honda is vote with your wallets. Go by something else, until Honda builds the car that you want. :(
owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 23:55
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NickDC5 wrote:
owequitit wrote:
NickDC5 wrote:
First of all, love the Simpsons reference. :)

Second of all, I too welcome our new 2.4 liter overlords... I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

And third of all, this is the only move that Honda should make. The Civic Si's K20 was from an older era of cars with a weaker competition for power. Now with Mazda Mazdaspeed3s, WRXs, GTIs, Lancers, and a slew of factory turbocharged vehicles from all over the world, this was the next logical step. The high-revving K20 was from 2001. That's a decade ago. Time to move on.



They haven't moved on.

You get the same output from 20% more engine, with less headroom. Same speed as the old car, slightly more torque in a specific part of the powerband. Nothing more nothing less. For that matter, the K24 is also from 2001 and also belongs in another era of engines.



Don't know if you've ever owned a K20-powered car for years and years, but it sort of sucks after a while.



Yep. And I have owned Gen 1 DOHC VTEC engines too. The only thing the K20 needs to not be tiring is that stupid hole in the powerband caused by the delay to VTEC transition to go away. Of course, that is a matter of rearranging a few electrons, but alas, they refuse. Same complaint I have about the H22.

lexusgs
Profile for lexusgs
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 01:39
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
I'm not trying to do anything. Frankly, I don't plan on ever owning another Honda Civic. I owned Civics, they herded me towards to better Hondas and Acuras, they did their job.


You were attempting to preach objectivity, but weren't practicing it.

Objectivity says that based on what we know about the TSX engine, and what sources have told us, this dyno is VERY close to what the Si will produce. You can dismiss it all you want, but you are looking at a very close resemblance of the next Si power curve. When you see the final results, you will probably realize that we are actually being a lot more objective than you give us credit for. There is a difference between being unhappy about something and failing to see things objectively. The objective logic is why we are unhappy.

Dude, it's a car. Nobody died. Calm down. Your penis size is not directly related to whatever you think your failed expectations for this car are.


If I was insecure in my penis size, I wouldn't desire to be driving the most derided sport compact on the market. My penis size is just fine, and I am perfectly comfortable with it. It is tragic that you had to try and make this into a fallic attack though, as if attacking my penis size would make me retreat in shame.

I never said anybody died. But what is dying is Honda's credibility among their core enthusiasts. It is bad enough that I have started to question my loyalty to their mainstream products based on certain quality and construction issues. It is even worse, when I have to start questioning my willingness to support their enthusiast products which I would have previously weighted well above everything else in the category.

And I am passionate about cars. I am passionate about my love of Honda's products, my experience with them, and my appreciation for their pursuit of the technological high ground. Which is precisely why I am unhappy. I am not going to appologize for being a Honda enthusiast, nor am I going to appologize for being disappointed with their retreat from everything that made them great. They have allowed their leads in technological advancement, design and construction, quality, content, and usefullnes all to erode.

You're already angry about something that may or may not have happened yet. Maybe we should just trot out the dyno plot from a 2004 Element and sit around and pout because that's what the new Si dyno plot is gonna look like. Settle down, Beavis.


Actually, if you go back and read my post, I stated I was unhappy with having to pay $700 on my current car if I want a proper VTEC crossover. Honda should have provided that from the factory as far as I am concerned.

As for the K24, it relates, because I shouldn't have to do a head swap on my brand new Si, to get some meaningful increase in performance, or to have the headroom to get decent increases from the engine. The whole point of my statement was to illustrate that the new Si engine is compromised from a performance standpoint. Much more than the current engine. I have owned Honda's for a long time, and have always been willing to resort to bolt ons to correct the conservative nature of Honda's setups. However, head swapping crosses the line on a new car. As such, I am either forced to buy an Si and put up with inferior output, or I can buy something else that does respond to bolt-ons, or I can keep my current car that responds to bolt ons.

Who cares how many shifts it takes to get to 60 mph, you're magazine racing. Don't preach to me, I have an S2000 that is much more peaky than anything with a K20 ever was or could be, and I also have a TSX.

One thing matters: area under the curve. Peak power ratings are for idiots. For shits and giggles, I tuned my old '94 Civic EX (and the D16Z6 wasn't THAT tuneable) for peak HP once- it looked great on a dyno but you couldn't pull away from a stoplight at anything less than 3k rpm without stalling. Yippee. But those peak numbers looked soooooo good.

Repeat after me: area under the curve.


Don't do much reading around here do you?

1) I don't care about shifting 3 times to 60 MPH. However, Honda does because it hurts their performance in 0-60 comparison tests in magaizines. It is a compromise OEM's have been making for years in deferrence to the most oft shopped performance spec on the face of the planet. It is unlikely that Honda is going to gear the car to redline in 2nd before 60MPH, which means they are probably going to raise the gearing from the TSX as a result of tire sidewall. Sad but true.

2) If you don't understand Honda not wanting to redline it in 2nd above 60 mph, then you haven't been following the complaints about the Si, one of the largest of which is having to row the gears like mad to get the car to go. The entire justification for more torque with equal peak power and lower redline, is that you can take advantage of the engine's lazier power delivery, and thus don't have to ring it out and row the gears as much. It sort of defeats the purpose is if they don't mitigate having to row the gears as much wouldn't you say?

3) I have made statements repeatedly about area under the curve. But, more specifically, it is area under the curve where you are working. Since in most performance situations, you are doing your work in VTEC with the K20, you have lost all advantage of area under the curve, because the two are are almost identical.

Besides, your premise about the D16 is flawed anyway. The K20 is producing 90% of its torque from 2k, to nearly 8K. It isn't like I had to kill the bottom end in order to get equivalent top end performance. In fact, the K24 had a peakier power delivery than the K20 does. Substantially outside of 30% of the range, it is doing a greatly diminished amount of extra work.

Also, one of the wonderful things about the K series (at least the ones with GOOD heads) is its ability to make a broad powerband. Things like VTC, DOHC i-VTEC, better ports etc, all make your comparison to the D series pretty irrelevant. The D series had significantly less technology with which to blur any compromises between peak power and low end flexibility. It is just as laughable as the people who assume the K series delivers a curve comprable to a B series, H series, or F20/F22C. Besides, I have not asked Honda to make a top end peaky engine at the expense of bottom end response. I have asked them to improve the ENTIRE powerband, which is not only realistic, but fairly easy.

As a good example of this, not only does the K20R improve both torque and power output substantially from the K20Z3, but it actually also improves the curve from the bottom to the top of the rev range.

Sorry, but it is a little bit more complex than just saying "area under the curve." It has to be the area under the curve, where the engine is working.

I really don't see a point here, you're mouth is moving but nothing tangible is coming out. I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about. Seriously, dude. Read what you wrote and tell me it's anything but pointless conjecture. I have no idea how to respond to this.


You don't understand or don't want to acknowledge what I said, but lots of tangible stuff is coming out.

Dynos are a whole lot more relevant that you were giving them credit for. Period.

OEMs rely on them a lot more than you were giving them credit for, and they are more comparable than you were giving them credit for. Period. No, they are not 100%, but then again, neither is anything else. However, as with anything, if you account for the error, and make reasonable comparison assumptions, then you CAN get a valid and useful data.

Anecdotes do not make truth. The last Civic Si was the best FWD car Honda ever bothered to sell here. I don't know why you'd assume Honda would not try to improve that car. Unless you've just got your panties in a bunch and want to bitch about something.


That is the problem. This car doesn't improve on the current one, at least not in terms of acceleration. There is no substantially greater performance. It will be incremental at best. Mark my words. Honda needed more if they wanted to continue to be taken seriously. They could have gotten more, had they not deferred to cost cutting and ease of installation.

Also, you may want to go back and study your Si history. There have been two cars that didn't provide significant overall increases in performance. The EP3 and this. The EP3 had a horrendous reception and didn't sell. I suspect, based on my long time experience with Si's and Si owners, this car will be similar. Call it anectdotal, or call it speculation. I dont' really care. The car is pretty disappointing among most current owners. Those who are all for it, apprently have no idea that it is not going to provide meaningfully more performance. They seem to be like you in assuming that because it is a K24 it has all of the performance aspects of all previous DOHC i-VTEC K24's.

The thing that really should be considered is the number of potential Si owners who skipped the current car because it didn't provide enough of an improvement over the RSX-S.

The Civic Si has never been the fastest car in its class. The cheapest to buy, the cheapest to maintain, one of the most fun to drive, perhaps. But never the fastest. A Mazdaspeed 3 will rub any Civic Si's dick in the dirt, for not much more money. Choosing between a K20 and a K24 sure as hell ain't gonna change that. Hell, a MS3 might hump my S2000 in a straight line. But I'm not running to the Mazda dealer to trade cars.


You sure seem to have a big dick fetish...but I digress. I am well aware of what cars will drag an Si's dick through the dirt.

Thank you for supporting my point.

What the Si DID always provide was a stratospheric redline, with a high winding, top end biased naturally aspirated engine. It wasn't the fastest, but it sure has hell did have the most unique character. Even back in the day of the lowly D series engines, the redline was still typically 20-30% higher than most anything else's.

That is now very much mitigated while not having any seriously tangible performance improvement, which has been my whole point, all along. I never bought an Si because it was the fastest. I did however buy it (and like ALL sporty Hondas for that matter) because they had esoteric redlines, hugely free flowing heads, and provided an experience that couldn't be had for anywhere near the price range unless you bought a crotch rocket. I like screaming NA engines. Always have, always will. But now, not only do I not get that (sorry, but the K24 in the current TSX is not a screaming NA engine, good as it may be), but I still get the slowest car. So what is the point for those who have traditionally actually purchased Si's (of which you are self admittedly not a supporter).

Again, I don't see a real point here. If Shawn can switch a few parts and do a little tuning and see a reliable 270 whp from a K24, there's no reason to assume Honda won't make the K24 make better numbers than the K20.

This is the reason I stopped surfing car internet forums. Levity is a losing battle.


The point is that you preach objectivity, but then dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your position. That is precisely why I do still surf car forums, so that people who think they know what they are talking about don't overshadow those who do. I don't want incorrect positions based on incorrect assumptions to overshadow Honda's perception of what people want.

Shawn was able to get large amounts of horsepower out of an engine that was nothing like this one. It had VTEC on both cams, and a free flowing exhaust tract. What restriction was there, could be remedied by changing manifolds and camshafts. The problem with this engine, is that you can't change manifolds without changing the head, because they are the same part. Not only is flow SEVERELY compromised by the attempt to shove an entire exhaust manifold into the head, but you no longer have the ability to vastly improve the exhaust cam without compromise. Top that off with the fact that you can no longer control exhaust runner length and diameter to tailor the powerband the way you want it, and it becomes a whole different ballgame. He has said himself that he expects any relative gains to be about half of those on previous K24's. That means that you have to do twice the work to get to 270HP, which in turn means it would probably be easier to get the current K20 to that level, considering it needs a few bolt-ons and cams, while the new K24 will probably need more than that.

It is easy to attempt talk down to me because you feel that you are so informed about engines, while you are concurrently assuming that one K24 must be equal to any other K24, when the reality is that the truth is far, far different. Like any specific discipline, it is easy to ASSUME you know as much as the pros, but in reality you don't know shit. Based on your comments here, I will leave it at that. I am not even a pro, and I can see that this engine has pretty much removed most of the previous TSX's headroom.

Let me help you: look to the essence of things to understand them. The Civic Si was never about any particular number or numbers. It's never going to be the car that's the fastest down the drag strip. The essence of the Civic Si is about the driving experience. There's no reason Honda can't preserve that with the K24.


I own an Si remember? I know exactly what if offers and why it offers it. I also know exactly why I bought it. I have loved and lusted after every Si since they came out. The problem, as a CURRENT Si owner, is that this car takes one of the largest desireable features of the current car (the one you said was the best Si Honda has produced), and removes it. As such, the other competitors in the segment rise to a more equal level of consideration, because while they also don't offer the NA powerband, they DO offer a lot more performance, and have also become quite well rounded. I will be perfectly honest in saying that the GTI is now almost an equal consideration to this upcoming Si. Not only is it faster and more flexible, but it redlines nearly as high, has more cargo flexibility, likely a nicer interior (I know its nicer looks wise), and is probably more refined. It also has a ton of bolt on headroom. The biggest downside is unknown long term reliability. Those were all things I was willing to weight a little lower in the equation because of the 8K RPM redline and flat torque curve of the Si. Can't do that now.

The chassis will probably still be balanced, and it will probably still be reliable, it simply won't be as thrilling. And considering reliability in much of the rest of the segment is on the rise, and many of them are more balanced chassis wise (WRX, GTI, MINI, MS3) the new Si is going to have to have some pretty significant improvements over the rest of the board to even come close to maintaining its desireability for many Si enthusiasts (it isn't like I am the only one that is unhappy here).



After reading another one of your ridiculously long winded posts where little if any points are actually cohesively made I do at least see you are not happy with this new Civic Si and its powerplant and Honda again taking the easy, cheaper way of what they implement in their newer vehicles. Maybe after this disappointment you will start to understand other peoples frustration with Honda-Acura and not continue to waste so much time with your incredibly long winded posts trying to defend Honda Acura and criticize people who do complain just for the sake of arguing.

Can you now see why many feel Acura needs more unique technology, offerings, and features like their own rwd platform and a few models on it, at least a v8 option, a legitimate flagship sedan, and preferably a halo sports car. If Acura had these unique things Honda's would not have to hold back on their models since Acura would have a unique enough lineup. Instead with Acura's sharing so much engine, transmission, and chassis wise with Honda's they are always going to run into this problem until something changes. That is the reason many like me complain about what Honda does with Acura and why you writing a novel about why we are wrong about that and defending them or coming up with pointless excuses why Acura should not build a 100K halo sports car or all the reasons higher priced sports cars are not good ideas or how the NSX was not that successful does you no good if you were looking forward to more effort in powerplants for newer Honda's.

You can only hope Acura gets the Si that you wanted since the Honda had to be held back but knowing Honda's track record I doubt this sub TSX will have anything more then just 5 or 10 more hp then the civic if not the same hp out of the same engine or some IMA hybrid that is going to be even worse.

If people at Honda do read this site and its complaints/disappointments about its decisions over the years then hopefully they get the message enthusiasts are not very happy, you writing novels attacking complaints and trying to say they are wrong simply to argue some kind of point that is never really made can give Honda the impression that there is a debate whether enthusiasts are happy with them instead of it being pretty universal most are not.

We hope the complaints about Honda and Acura will be viewed and sink in and Honda would realize taking the easy route and throwing the more difficult to tune less revy 2.4 from the TSX is not going to be acceptable to Si fans and they wanted something they put more effort into and more performance oriented and tunable.

TurkMan71
Profile for TurkMan71
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 02:39
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Definition of crazy= doing the same thing and expecting different results...a trait I see in myself, ToV, it's members, and Honda.

We is ALL crazy!!

mfman67
Profile for mfman67
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 03:43
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
It still amazes me how quickly the CAR is getting written off based only on what we can safely assume of the ENGINE.

I understand the traditional engine character of the Si will probably be jeopardized but that doesn't mean it's not going to have potential to be a better car, Si even. Not to say that it automatically will be either but I think everyone should experience the whole car and it's overall package before deciding.
IMO, just based on the stats, it's a change but not better or worse. If you have enjoyed HONDA enthusiast based models and OTHER similar models with FI as well, you will find it's a pretty general compromise that every enthusiast, no matter the base or preference, should be OK with.

No, it's not everyone's first choice or preference but it's a fair trade and is now pretty balanced, there's decent torque and good high rpm rev range. Usually cars in this class have one but not the other.

Either way the car has never really been a monster performer in it's class and a K20 would not have changed that either so it will be the rest of the car that decides if it's a hit or miss with me.

And then we also have to admit we saw this coming years ago. Yes, I think they could have stretched the K20 for one more gen cycle but by MMC it would have shown it's redundancy and a K24 would have been a lock for the following generation anyway, so they might as well start working with it now.




NickDC5
Profile for NickDC5
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 07:40
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
ginaprincess wrote:
NickDC5 wrote:
Don't know if you've ever owned a K20-powered car for years and years, but it sort of sucks after a while.



What is also sucks is driving a TSX K24 and the drive is the same boring 3k to 4k rpm. Becaise that engine does NOT love to rev high, PERIOD!
It's time you guys wake up and smell the coffee.
But do not worry, the time to test the 9th is coming, and we will find out who is right.




Give me a moment to think of a single car making less power or torque than the Civic Si but still labeled as a sporty/performance vehicle. Hmm... Might need more than a moment.


The high-revving K20 would be nice in a car that weighs 2400 pounds. But Honda does not make a vehicle that weighs 2400 pounds.

Just because you want your engine to be more annoying to you and everyone around you that doesn't mean it's better than the competition at anything related to performance. I know it's just a Civic, but still, let the car have some balls for once.

DCR
Profile for DCR
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 10:32
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NickDC5 wrote:
Just because you want your engine to be more annoying to you and everyone around you that doesn't mean it's better than the competition at anything related to performance. I know it's just a Civic, but still, let the car have some balls for once.


Moving the power around isn't going to give this car "balls".

jbkingjr
Profile for jbkingjr
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 10:32
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NickDC5 wrote:
ginaprincess wrote:
NickDC5 wrote:
Don't know if you've ever owned a K20-powered car for years and years, but it sort of sucks after a while.



What is also sucks is driving a TSX K24 and the drive is the same boring 3k to 4k rpm. Becaise that engine does NOT love to rev high, PERIOD!
It's time you guys wake up and smell the coffee.
But do not worry, the time to test the 9th is coming, and we will find out who is right.




Give me a moment to think of a single car making less power or torque than the Civic Si but still labeled as a sporty/performance vehicle. Hmm... Might need more than a moment.


The high-revving K20 would be nice in a car that weighs 2400 pounds. But Honda does not make a vehicle that weighs 2400 pounds.

Just because you want your engine to be more annoying to you and everyone around you that doesn't mean it's better than the competition at anything related to performance. I know it's just a Civic, but still, let the car have some balls for once.


Balls? Adding 30ft-lbs and 3hp (and likely taller gearing to offset) is giving "balls" to the car? Losing the unique character that made it desireable despite being the slowest car in its class is giving "balls" to the car? Is making said changes and STILL having the slowest car in the class what you call "giving balls" to the car?

If torque or outright speed was what you wanted, you could've gone elsewhere. How are 8K RPM fans supposed to buy an M3 on Civic Si money?

NickDC5
Profile for NickDC5
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 16:55
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
jbkingjr wrote:
NickDC5 wrote:
ginaprincess wrote:
NickDC5 wrote:
Don't know if you've ever owned a K20-powered car for years and years, but it sort of sucks after a while.



What is also sucks is driving a TSX K24 and the drive is the same boring 3k to 4k rpm. Becaise that engine does NOT love to rev high, PERIOD!
It's time you guys wake up and smell the coffee.
But do not worry, the time to test the 9th is coming, and we will find out who is right.




Give me a moment to think of a single car making less power or torque than the Civic Si but still labeled as a sporty/performance vehicle. Hmm... Might need more than a moment.


The high-revving K20 would be nice in a car that weighs 2400 pounds. But Honda does not make a vehicle that weighs 2400 pounds.

Just because you want your engine to be more annoying to you and everyone around you that doesn't mean it's better than the competition at anything related to performance. I know it's just a Civic, but still, let the car have some balls for once.


Balls? Adding 30ft-lbs and 3hp (and likely taller gearing to offset) is giving "balls" to the car? Losing the unique character that made it desireable despite being the slowest car in its class is giving "balls" to the car? Is making said changes and STILL having the slowest car in the class what you call "giving balls" to the car?

If torque or outright speed was what you wanted, you could've gone elsewhere. How are 8K RPM fans supposed to buy an M3 on Civic Si money?



I actually just sold my RSX over the weekend to move on to an M3.

And having more torque through your rev range means more power through your rev range - that's how horsepower works, torque over time... It's gutless under 5k. Utterly and totally gutless. A Fit would be side-by-side until the VTEC engagement point. Ever had a passenger in a K20-powered automobile? There goes about 3 seconds off your quarter mile time. This is an improvement, but, of course, everyone cries about it for irrational and made up reasons like "character" or "personality."

Honda kills its V8 RL and super car - great decision
Honda gives an extra 25% of displacement to the Civic Si - BAD DECISION




Peak horsepower is NOT the only measure of how good an engine is. If you think that an extra 25% displacement increase won't improve this car, then go drive a 1989 Civic Si, since it's clearly the pinnacle of engineering.

JeffX
Profile for JeffX
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 17:39
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NickDC5 wrote:
jbkingjr wrote:
NickDC5 wrote:
ginaprincess wrote:
NickDC5 wrote:
Don't know if you've ever owned a K20-powered car for years and years, but it sort of sucks after a while.



What is also sucks is driving a TSX K24 and the drive is the same boring 3k to 4k rpm. Becaise that engine does NOT love to rev high, PERIOD!
It's time you guys wake up and smell the coffee.
But do not worry, the time to test the 9th is coming, and we will find out who is right.




Give me a moment to think of a single car making less power or torque than the Civic Si but still labeled as a sporty/performance vehicle. Hmm... Might need more than a moment.


The high-revving K20 would be nice in a car that weighs 2400 pounds. But Honda does not make a vehicle that weighs 2400 pounds.

Just because you want your engine to be more annoying to you and everyone around you that doesn't mean it's better than the competition at anything related to performance. I know it's just a Civic, but still, let the car have some balls for once.


Balls? Adding 30ft-lbs and 3hp (and likely taller gearing to offset) is giving "balls" to the car? Losing the unique character that made it desireable despite being the slowest car in its class is giving "balls" to the car? Is making said changes and STILL having the slowest car in the class what you call "giving balls" to the car?

If torque or outright speed was what you wanted, you could've gone elsewhere. How are 8K RPM fans supposed to buy an M3 on Civic Si money?



I actually just sold my RSX over the weekend to move on to an M3.

And having more torque through your rev range means more power through your rev range - that's how horsepower works, torque over time... It's gutless under 5k. Utterly and totally gutless. A Fit would be side-by-side until the VTEC engagement point. Ever had a passenger in a K20-powered automobile? There goes about 3 seconds off your quarter mile time. This is an improvement, but, of course, everyone cries about it for irrational and made up reasons like "character" or "personality."

Honda kills its V8 RL and super car - great decision
Honda gives an extra 25% of displacement to the Civic Si - BAD DECISION




Peak horsepower is NOT the only measure of how good an engine is. If you think that an extra 25% displacement increase won't improve this car, then go drive a 1989 Civic Si, since it's clearly the pinnacle of engineering.



what year was your DC5? If it was anything older than '05 then I know what you're talking about, but it has little to do with the discussion going on here. In stock form, the K20A2 was a huge underachiever. I really didn't care for that engine at all. It was REALLY flat below 6000 rpms and sounded uninspiring at any rpm. If you had an '05 or '06 then I suspect you had a major issue with your engine. The K20Z1 and K20Z3 are both significantly better than the K20A2, in about every way imaginable. So, if you're grousing about the K20A2, cool. But I'm sorry, your comments are largely invalid in this discussion.

NickDC5
Profile for NickDC5
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 19:01
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
2002. It made 198 whp when I sold it. http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?t=757130

I bought it bone stock, and did enjoy it for years. I've driven a bone stock 2006 RSX Type-S and 2010 Civic Si. I've been around the K20A2/K20Zxs quite a bit, and honestly I find it ridiculous to bemoan the switch from K20 to K24. Nearly every single n/a RSX switches to the K24 block as do most supercharged guys. I know why.

NickDC5
Profile for NickDC5
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 19:13
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Also the earliest K20A2s had the most durable valve springs, which makes them quite desirable. The ECU on the 05-06 is much more difficult to tune, and had problems with bolt-on modifications.

The major differences in power are attributed most to the intake manifold and exhaust tubing, which I expect you to know. It's not like the K20A2 is a K20A3 with VTEC, which it feels like you're implying.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 21:05
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NickDC5 wrote:
jbkingjr wrote:
NickDC5 wrote:
ginaprincess wrote:
NickDC5 wrote:
Don't know if you've ever owned a K20-powered car for years and years, but it sort of sucks after a while.



What is also sucks is driving a TSX K24 and the drive is the same boring 3k to 4k rpm. Becaise that engine does NOT love to rev high, PERIOD!
It's time you guys wake up and smell the coffee.
But do not worry, the time to test the 9th is coming, and we will find out who is right.




Give me a moment to think of a single car making less power or torque than the Civic Si but still labeled as a sporty/performance vehicle. Hmm... Might need more than a moment.


The high-revving K20 would be nice in a car that weighs 2400 pounds. But Honda does not make a vehicle that weighs 2400 pounds.

Just because you want your engine to be more annoying to you and everyone around you that doesn't mean it's better than the competition at anything related to performance. I know it's just a Civic, but still, let the car have some balls for once.


Balls? Adding 30ft-lbs and 3hp (and likely taller gearing to offset) is giving "balls" to the car? Losing the unique character that made it desireable despite being the slowest car in its class is giving "balls" to the car? Is making said changes and STILL having the slowest car in the class what you call "giving balls" to the car?

If torque or outright speed was what you wanted, you could've gone elsewhere. How are 8K RPM fans supposed to buy an M3 on Civic Si money?



I actually just sold my RSX over the weekend to move on to an M3.

And having more torque through your rev range means more power through your rev range - that's how horsepower works, torque over time... It's gutless under 5k. Utterly and totally gutless. A Fit would be side-by-side until the VTEC engagement point. Ever had a passenger in a K20-powered automobile? There goes about 3 seconds off your quarter mile time. This is an improvement, but, of course, everyone cries about it for irrational and made up reasons like "character" or "personality."

Honda kills its V8 RL and super car - great decision
Honda gives an extra 25% of displacement to the Civic Si - BAD DECISION




Peak horsepower is NOT the only measure of how good an engine is. If you think that an extra 25% displacement increase won't improve this car, then go drive a 1989 Civic Si, since it's clearly the pinnacle of engineering.




Good for you. It doesn't matter.

You act as though none of us have ever owned an Si or anything else for that matter. Too bad you are wholly incorrect. Besides, you can attempt to criticize the Si all you want, it is nowhere near as bad as you say, even if you have brainwashed yourself into believing it.

In this car, I get an engine that is much bigger, low revving, less fun and is no faster to boot. So not only do I still have a slow shitty car that can't get out of its own way, but now it is less thrilling. At least with the current car I get a whole lot of top end personality that was fun as crap while going slow.

Discount personality all you want, if you weren't interested in it, you wouldn't have purchased an M3. You would have gotten some old musclecar with a low revving lump of an OHV boat anchor to make obscene amounts of power and torque without needing more than 5K. Relatively speaking, your M3 is also a torqueless wonder shitbox. There hasn't been an M3 made yet that wasn't top end heavy and ultimately had a more expensive powerband resembling most of the good K series bands with long flat torque curves (minus Honda's retarded tune). There is a lot more to "personality" than just straight line speed, and it just might be different for everyone. Not everyone likes a chick with a big butt. Different strokes for different folks.

The problem with the new Si is that ultimately, it no longer offers anything unique to the marketplace, and thus is rendered pretty much irrelevant. You seem to assume that because you didn't like the K20, that most of the rest of us couldn't POSSIBLY have bought the K20 IN SPITE of its lack of torque. But most of us did just that. So, I end up with the slowest car in class, with no balls, and no Honda character. F that. I have driven K24's. I know how they are. Not impressed. Unless Honda pulls major stuff out of their sleeve, this is not likely to change my mind. I am not going to hold my breath for that moment.

Your attempted parallel of the RL and this Si is hilarious, since most of us who weren't excited about the V8 RL would have preferred a boosted V6 or something with 20% less displacement that did the same job... Ironic that we are actually CONSISTENT in our logic, no?

The further Honda tracks line toward "me-too" by providing "average Americans" what they want, the more their market position slips. Ironic? I think not.


owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 21:05
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
lexusgs wrote:
owequitit wrote:
I'm not trying to do anything. Frankly, I don't plan on ever owning another Honda Civic. I owned Civics, they herded me towards to better Hondas and Acuras, they did their job.


You were attempting to preach objectivity, but weren't practicing it.

Objectivity says that based on what we know about the TSX engine, and what sources have told us, this dyno is VERY close to what the Si will produce. You can dismiss it all you want, but you are looking at a very close resemblance of the next Si power curve. When you see the final results, you will probably realize that we are actually being a lot more objective than you give us credit for. There is a difference between being unhappy about something and failing to see things objectively. The objective logic is why we are unhappy.

Dude, it's a car. Nobody died. Calm down. Your penis size is not directly related to whatever you think your failed expectations for this car are.


If I was insecure in my penis size, I wouldn't desire to be driving the most derided sport compact on the market. My penis size is just fine, and I am perfectly comfortable with it. It is tragic that you had to try and make this into a fallic attack though, as if attacking my penis size would make me retreat in shame.

I never said anybody died. But what is dying is Honda's credibility among their core enthusiasts. It is bad enough that I have started to question my loyalty to their mainstream products based on certain quality and construction issues. It is even worse, when I have to start questioning my willingness to support their enthusiast products which I would have previously weighted well above everything else in the category.

And I am passionate about cars. I am passionate about my love of Honda's products, my experience with them, and my appreciation for their pursuit of the technological high ground. Which is precisely why I am unhappy. I am not going to appologize for being a Honda enthusiast, nor am I going to appologize for being disappointed with their retreat from everything that made them great. They have allowed their leads in technological advancement, design and construction, quality, content, and usefullnes all to erode.

You're already angry about something that may or may not have happened yet. Maybe we should just trot out the dyno plot from a 2004 Element and sit around and pout because that's what the new Si dyno plot is gonna look like. Settle down, Beavis.


Actually, if you go back and read my post, I stated I was unhappy with having to pay $700 on my current car if I want a proper VTEC crossover. Honda should have provided that from the factory as far as I am concerned.

As for the K24, it relates, because I shouldn't have to do a head swap on my brand new Si, to get some meaningful increase in performance, or to have the headroom to get decent increases from the engine. The whole point of my statement was to illustrate that the new Si engine is compromised from a performance standpoint. Much more than the current engine. I have owned Honda's for a long time, and have always been willing to resort to bolt ons to correct the conservative nature of Honda's setups. However, head swapping crosses the line on a new car. As such, I am either forced to buy an Si and put up with inferior output, or I can buy something else that does respond to bolt-ons, or I can keep my current car that responds to bolt ons.

Who cares how many shifts it takes to get to 60 mph, you're magazine racing. Don't preach to me, I have an S2000 that is much more peaky than anything with a K20 ever was or could be, and I also have a TSX.

One thing matters: area under the curve. Peak power ratings are for idiots. For shits and giggles, I tuned my old '94 Civic EX (and the D16Z6 wasn't THAT tuneable) for peak HP once- it looked great on a dyno but you couldn't pull away from a stoplight at anything less than 3k rpm without stalling. Yippee. But those peak numbers looked soooooo good.

Repeat after me: area under the curve.


Don't do much reading around here do you?

1) I don't care about shifting 3 times to 60 MPH. However, Honda does because it hurts their performance in 0-60 comparison tests in magaizines. It is a compromise OEM's have been making for years in deferrence to the most oft shopped performance spec on the face of the planet. It is unlikely that Honda is going to gear the car to redline in 2nd before 60MPH, which means they are probably going to raise the gearing from the TSX as a result of tire sidewall. Sad but true.

2) If you don't understand Honda not wanting to redline it in 2nd above 60 mph, then you haven't been following the complaints about the Si, one of the largest of which is having to row the gears like mad to get the car to go. The entire justification for more torque with equal peak power and lower redline, is that you can take advantage of the engine's lazier power delivery, and thus don't have to ring it out and row the gears as much. It sort of defeats the purpose is if they don't mitigate having to row the gears as much wouldn't you say?

3) I have made statements repeatedly about area under the curve. But, more specifically, it is area under the curve where you are working. Since in most performance situations, you are doing your work in VTEC with the K20, you have lost all advantage of area under the curve, because the two are are almost identical.

Besides, your premise about the D16 is flawed anyway. The K20 is producing 90% of its torque from 2k, to nearly 8K. It isn't like I had to kill the bottom end in order to get equivalent top end performance. In fact, the K24 had a peakier power delivery than the K20 does. Substantially outside of 30% of the range, it is doing a greatly diminished amount of extra work.

Also, one of the wonderful things about the K series (at least the ones with GOOD heads) is its ability to make a broad powerband. Things like VTC, DOHC i-VTEC, better ports etc, all make your comparison to the D series pretty irrelevant. The D series had significantly less technology with which to blur any compromises between peak power and low end flexibility. It is just as laughable as the people who assume the K series delivers a curve comprable to a B series, H series, or F20/F22C. Besides, I have not asked Honda to make a top end peaky engine at the expense of bottom end response. I have asked them to improve the ENTIRE powerband, which is not only realistic, but fairly easy.

As a good example of this, not only does the K20R improve both torque and power output substantially from the K20Z3, but it actually also improves the curve from the bottom to the top of the rev range.

Sorry, but it is a little bit more complex than just saying "area under the curve." It has to be the area under the curve, where the engine is working.

I really don't see a point here, you're mouth is moving but nothing tangible is coming out. I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about. Seriously, dude. Read what you wrote and tell me it's anything but pointless conjecture. I have no idea how to respond to this.


You don't understand or don't want to acknowledge what I said, but lots of tangible stuff is coming out.

Dynos are a whole lot more relevant that you were giving them credit for. Period.

OEMs rely on them a lot more than you were giving them credit for, and they are more comparable than you were giving them credit for. Period. No, they are not 100%, but then again, neither is anything else. However, as with anything, if you account for the error, and make reasonable comparison assumptions, then you CAN get a valid and useful data.

Anecdotes do not make truth. The last Civic Si was the best FWD car Honda ever bothered to sell here. I don't know why you'd assume Honda would not try to improve that car. Unless you've just got your panties in a bunch and want to bitch about something.


That is the problem. This car doesn't improve on the current one, at least not in terms of acceleration. There is no substantially greater performance. It will be incremental at best. Mark my words. Honda needed more if they wanted to continue to be taken seriously. They could have gotten more, had they not deferred to cost cutting and ease of installation.

Also, you may want to go back and study your Si history. There have been two cars that didn't provide significant overall increases in performance. The EP3 and this. The EP3 had a horrendous reception and didn't sell. I suspect, based on my long time experience with Si's and Si owners, this car will be similar. Call it anectdotal, or call it speculation. I dont' really care. The car is pretty disappointing among most current owners. Those who are all for it, apprently have no idea that it is not going to provide meaningfully more performance. They seem to be like you in assuming that because it is a K24 it has all of the performance aspects of all previous DOHC i-VTEC K24's.

The thing that really should be considered is the number of potential Si owners who skipped the current car because it didn't provide enough of an improvement over the RSX-S.

The Civic Si has never been the fastest car in its class. The cheapest to buy, the cheapest to maintain, one of the most fun to drive, perhaps. But never the fastest. A Mazdaspeed 3 will rub any Civic Si's dick in the dirt, for not much more money. Choosing between a K20 and a K24 sure as hell ain't gonna change that. Hell, a MS3 might hump my S2000 in a straight line. But I'm not running to the Mazda dealer to trade cars.


You sure seem to have a big dick fetish...but I digress. I am well aware of what cars will drag an Si's dick through the dirt.

Thank you for supporting my point.

What the Si DID always provide was a stratospheric redline, with a high winding, top end biased naturally aspirated engine. It wasn't the fastest, but it sure has hell did have the most unique character. Even back in the day of the lowly D series engines, the redline was still typically 20-30% higher than most anything else's.

That is now very much mitigated while not having any seriously tangible performance improvement, which has been my whole point, all along. I never bought an Si because it was the fastest. I did however buy it (and like ALL sporty Hondas for that matter) because they had esoteric redlines, hugely free flowing heads, and provided an experience that couldn't be had for anywhere near the price range unless you bought a crotch rocket. I like screaming NA engines. Always have, always will. But now, not only do I not get that (sorry, but the K24 in the current TSX is not a screaming NA engine, good as it may be), but I still get the slowest car. So what is the point for those who have traditionally actually purchased Si's (of which you are self admittedly not a supporter).

Again, I don't see a real point here. If Shawn can switch a few parts and do a little tuning and see a reliable 270 whp from a K24, there's no reason to assume Honda won't make the K24 make better numbers than the K20.

This is the reason I stopped surfing car internet forums. Levity is a losing battle.


The point is that you preach objectivity, but then dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your position. That is precisely why I do still surf car forums, so that people who think they know what they are talking about don't overshadow those who do. I don't want incorrect positions based on incorrect assumptions to overshadow Honda's perception of what people want.

Shawn was able to get large amounts of horsepower out of an engine that was nothing like this one. It had VTEC on both cams, and a free flowing exhaust tract. What restriction was there, could be remedied by changing manifolds and camshafts. The problem with this engine, is that you can't change manifolds without changing the head, because they are the same part. Not only is flow SEVERELY compromised by the attempt to shove an entire exhaust manifold into the head, but you no longer have the ability to vastly improve the exhaust cam without compromise. Top that off with the fact that you can no longer control exhaust runner length and diameter to tailor the powerband the way you want it, and it becomes a whole different ballgame. He has said himself that he expects any relative gains to be about half of those on previous K24's. That means that you have to do twice the work to get to 270HP, which in turn means it would probably be easier to get the current K20 to that level, considering it needs a few bolt-ons and cams, while the new K24 will probably need more than that.

It is easy to attempt talk down to me because you feel that you are so informed about engines, while you are concurrently assuming that one K24 must be equal to any other K24, when the reality is that the truth is far, far different. Like any specific discipline, it is easy to ASSUME you know as much as the pros, but in reality you don't know shit. Based on your comments here, I will leave it at that. I am not even a pro, and I can see that this engine has pretty much removed most of the previous TSX's headroom.

Let me help you: look to the essence of things to understand them. The Civic Si was never about any particular number or numbers. It's never going to be the car that's the fastest down the drag strip. The essence of the Civic Si is about the driving experience. There's no reason Honda can't preserve that with the K24.


I own an Si remember? I know exactly what if offers and why it offers it. I also know exactly why I bought it. I have loved and lusted after every Si since they came out. The problem, as a CURRENT Si owner, is that this car takes one of the largest desireable features of the current car (the one you said was the best Si Honda has produced), and removes it. As such, the other competitors in the segment rise to a more equal level of consideration, because while they also don't offer the NA powerband, they DO offer a lot more performance, and have also become quite well rounded. I will be perfectly honest in saying that the GTI is now almost an equal consideration to this upcoming Si. Not only is it faster and more flexible, but it redlines nearly as high, has more cargo flexibility, likely a nicer interior (I know its nicer looks wise), and is probably more refined. It also has a ton of bolt on headroom. The biggest downside is unknown long term reliability. Those were all things I was willing to weight a little lower in the equation because of the 8K RPM redline and flat torque curve of the Si. Can't do that now.

The chassis will probably still be balanced, and it will probably still be reliable, it simply won't be as thrilling. And considering reliability in much of the rest of the segment is on the rise, and many of them are more balanced chassis wise (WRX, GTI, MINI, MS3) the new Si is going to have to have some pretty significant improvements over the rest of the board to even come close to maintaining its desireability for many Si enthusiasts (it isn't like I am the only one that is unhappy here).



After reading another one of your ridiculously long winded posts where little if any points are actually cohesively made I do at least see you are not happy with this new Civic Si and its powerplant and Honda again taking the easy, cheaper way of what they implement in their newer vehicles. Maybe after this disappointment you will start to understand other peoples frustration with Honda-Acura and not continue to waste so much time with your incredibly long winded posts trying to defend Honda Acura and criticize people who do complain just for the sake of arguing.

Can you now see why many feel Acura needs more unique technology, offerings, and features like their own rwd platform and a few models on it, at least a v8 option, a legitimate flagship sedan, and preferably a halo sports car. If Acura had these unique things Honda's would not have to hold back on their models since Acura would have a unique enough lineup. Instead with Acura's sharing so much engine, transmission, and chassis wise with Honda's they are always going to run into this problem until something changes. That is the reason many like me complain about what Honda does with Acura and why you writing a novel about why we are wrong about that and defending them or coming up with pointless excuses why Acura should not build a 100K halo sports car or all the reasons higher priced sports cars are not good ideas or how the NSX was not that successful does you no good if you were looking forward to more effort in powerplants for newer Honda's.

You can only hope Acura gets the Si that you wanted since the Honda had to be held back but knowing Honda's track record I doubt this sub TSX will have anything more then just 5 or 10 more hp then the civic if not the same hp out of the same engine or some IMA hybrid that is going to be even worse.

If people at Honda do read this site and its complaints/disappointments about its decisions over the years then hopefully they get the message enthusiasts are not very happy, you writing novels attacking complaints and trying to say they are wrong simply to argue some kind of point that is never really made can give Honda the impression that there is a debate whether enthusiasts are happy with them instead of it being pretty universal most are not.

We hope the complaints about Honda and Acura will be viewed and sink in and Honda would realize taking the easy route and throwing the more difficult to tune less revy 2.4 from the TSX is not going to be acceptable to Si fans and they wanted something they put more effort into and more performance oriented and tunable.



Never got passed the first sentence, because it is quite clear that you are just trying to be your usual turdly, trolling self.

Sorry, better luck next time.

JeffX
Profile for JeffX
Re: I, for one, welcome our new 2.4L overlord. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 21:06
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NickDC5 wrote:
Also the earliest K20A2s had the most durable valve springs, which makes them quite desirable. The ECU on the 05-06 is much more difficult to tune, and had problems with bolt-on modifications.

The major differences in power are attributed most to the intake manifold and exhaust tubing, which I expect you to know. It's not like the K20A2 is a K20A3 with VTEC, which it feels like you're implying.



I don't know about tuning the '05-'06 RSX ECU but I know Hondata has Flashpro for the K20Z3 and the Flashpro makes it extremely easy to tune. And we ARE talking about Civic Sis here.

My point was that the K20A2 in stock form was a big time underachiever, so you have a right to be less than thrilled with THAT K20. The K24s that you speak of were the ones that were actually "tuner-friendly", with VTEC on both intake AND exhaust, as well as a regular exhaust manifold. I owned one of those, and modded it (in my TSX). I would NEVER trade my K20Z3 for it. For the TSX, I thought the K20 wasn't enough (I drove the Accord Euro R, and it was way more fun than my TSX but I could see why it would never fly in the U.S.) but a K22 would have been the perfect compromise. The K24 is too agricultural for a sports application. If I wanted a fucking tractor engine there are plenty of Scion tCs and Sentra SE-Rs out there.


 
Thread Page - [1] 2
Contact TOV | Submit Your Article | Submit Your Link | Advertise | TOV Shop | Events | Our Sponsors | TOV Archives
Copyright © 2018 Velocitech Inc. All information contained herein remains the property of Velocitech Inc.
The Temple of VTEC is not affiliated with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TOV Policies and Guidelines - Credits - Privacy Policy
29 mobile: 0