[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  
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.......................
Will the next-gen TLX bring back double wishbones? Or a Plugin Hybrid model?
More.......................
Acura tackles Pikes Peak with 2019 RDX, NSX, and TLX entries
More.......................
Civic --> Re: 2017 Civic Si 360whp One Take
Join Discussion......
Type R --> Re: Such a damn nice car
Join Discussion......
RDX --> Re: New RDX vs NX Infomercial
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: 2018 WC
Join Discussion......
ILX --> Re: 2019 ILX
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: MotoGP - Sachsenring TT (you should watch)
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Trying to decide on color
Join Discussion......
Fuel Cell Technology --> New H70 pumps freezing
Join Discussion......
Amateur Racing & Driving --> Re: Car recommendation for cheap track fun?
Join Discussion......
Accord --> Re: Just got a 2.0 Accord Touring
Join Discussion......
Accord --> Re: Acclaimed 2018 Accords sit on the lot
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Celaya Plant Flooding and Recovery
Join Discussion......
IMA/Hybrids --> '18 HAH vs '17 HAH
Join Discussion......
Fuel Cell Technology --> Re: Marauding Mirais
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: ROAD TRIP... SOB Oregon cops
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: What this likely means...

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - 1 [2]
Author
    
carzak
Profile for carzak
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-20-2011 18:27
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about:

The K24 will also likely have more torque steer by virtue of its 20% gain in peak torque, which for a FWD car is a major kill joy.


"The extra torque is bad because it will likely cause more torque steer."

The problem is that in the same scenarios you speak of, the K20 has enough torque to cause loss of traction and wheel spin in many low speed corners. I.E. an engine with more torque will not be any more useful because once you create wheelspin or reach the limits of adhesion, additional power and torque are 100% useless.


"Any more torque than the K20 has will lead to wheelspin in many low speed corners, so the implication is that no more torque is necessary."

...Then:

anywhere above or below the 3000-5000 range, this K24 isn't offering anywhere near 20% improvements.


"But the K24 isn't really that much more torquey. [especially with the taller gearing]."

I would have RATHER seen a K20 or K22 tuned and improved for the new Si. They could have provided nearly identical torque, and still had the powerband and rev range of the K20.


"And a K-series with nearly identical torque is better (because more torque really is better), and torque steer and wheel spin due to the extra torque are no problem... because it revs 1000 rpm higher."





jero
Profile for jero
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-20-2011 22:03
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply

I'd be willing to bet the sub TSX will be nothing more than the current Si with leather, sound insulation and electronic doo-dads.

Same powertrain, more weight, possibly... possibly... tuned for a few (like, less than 10) more hp.

Honda is completely done with the enthusiast guys... it's not gonna happen.

You've seen the ads touting the Accord (the accord!!) as coming from Honda's racing heritage right? Yea.

carzak
Profile for carzak
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-20-2011 22:57
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Owe, just ignore my post above if you want. I mean, we are pretty much on the same team when it comes down to it. Two flavors of a Honda fan.

It's just that after all the defense and analysis and speculation (with a dose of hubris thrown in)... you still haven't driven it yet.

Isn't it possible for you to like the car anyway? Are you really going to reject the car after looking at a TSX dyno? Or is it possible that the different power delivery will be an enjoyable new experience? Or won't be a deal-breaker, at least? As humans, we don't always make the most rational choice, nor can we make perfect predictions of how we will feel.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 00:49
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
carzak wrote:
Owe, just ignore my post above if you want. I mean, we are pretty much on the same team when it comes down to it. Two flavors of a Honda fan.

It's just that after all the defense and analysis and speculation (with a dose of hubris thrown in)... you still haven't driven it yet.

Isn't it possible for you to like the car anyway? Are you really going to reject the car after looking at a TSX dyno? Or is it possible that the different power delivery will be an enjoyable new experience? Or won't be a deal-breaker, at least? As humans, we don't always make the most rational choice, nor can we make perfect predictions of how we will feel.



I have already explained everything in the post you are attempting yet again to correct (probably several times over through various posts and threads), but you are continually either ignoring or hand choosing.

The basic reality is that if my 139 lb-ft Si torque steers in corners and loses traction, than a new chassis based on the old one with a large increase in torque and the same exact tire will do the same. Traction is based on the tire after all. If 139 lb-ft can overwhelm that setup, then I guarandamntee that 170 lb-ft can, and will. Even if the gearing reduces it to a 10-12% advantage. Barring major front knuckle changes, the issue WILL persist. Even assuming major front knuckle changes, it may likely STILL persist. This is one reason Honda typically eschews overpowered front drivers, because it pollutes the chassis. It might be great for bragging about drag times, but it corrupts the steering. This is also one reason Honda has typically pursued high rev, low torque, small displacement powertrains. It makes it easier to balance the needs of engine output with the realities of getting a FWD car to steer. Due to the inherent limitations of a front McStrut setup, this becomes even more of a concern.

And you are right, I haven't driven it yet. That is exactly what all the anklebiters told me when Jeff, Shawn and I were all agreeing that it would have virtually no power increase. "You don't know because Honda hasn't said. You haven't seen it. You haven't driven it." And lo and behold, Honda pretty much confirms no power increase. It isn't like we are picking random numbers out of thin air and saying "oh gee that looks good, it should support my case." There is a degree of speculation, but once final specs are released, I will be I am really damn close on all of them.

200HP, 7100-7300 RPM redline, marginal weight loss, and gearing slightly taller than TSX. If it is faster, it will a likely be no more than a few 10ths of a second, and most likely, it will gain most of that prior to 30-50MPH.

If Honda makes the gearing taller by only about 3%, they have lost nearly 50% of their torque advantage, which was 22%. Since TSX gearing is already 5-7% taller, another 3-5% will make the actual torque advantage at the wheels very close to 10%.

I have also already addressed your final point REPEATEDLY(noticing a trend here?).

I have not said that I won't try the car, and won't automatically buy it because of the engine. What I have said is that I believe it is going to greatly diminish the mechanical joy of an Si for very little performance benefit to the driver. If it improves in virtually every other way to a large degree, I would still consider it. There ARE some circumstances where the additional midrange would come in handy. But they aren't as drastic or widespread as most assume. It will still be slowest in class, and have the peakiest, most torqueless powerband.

However, based on my 8th gen, and the mechanical specs of this car, I am LESS likely to trade my 09 in on one of these than I would have been otherwise. I did not like the EP3's power delivery, and this is very similar. May not seem like a huge deal, as I am only one customer, but I was pretty much sold as soon as I saw the concept, which I think looks better than the 8th gen. All they had to do was not screw up the powertrain.

I think Honda really pulled the cheap card here by plopping an existing engine into the only "fun" product they had left and calling it good enough. I think they could have done much better. I think they could have provided more performance for less tradeoff, and I am disappointed in them for not trying to do so. I for one would have paid a little extra for said technology. That aside, I LOVE my 09, and since it has 2 years worth of paying off done, would be more inclined to keep it and put a header and tune on it, so I get a large increase in midrange (VTEC change alone is worth 12-15 lb-ft right where the K24 is strongest) and with the header, I would likely see a nearly equal total curve and a better powerband.

absolude
Profile for absolude
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 10:59
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
As an current gen Si owner I tend to favor the K20 but there are some points I'd like to make.

First of all, I thought some magazine got a 6.7 out of the TSX, wouldn't that mean the advantage in 0-60 should be substantial in a lighter car?
For a 1/4mile though, the ability of the K20 to stay in vtec is not going to be a huge advantage? I thought the TSX is falling out of vtec between shifts.

While the Civic will be lighter in other trims I doubt the Si will be any lighter. Things must be beefed up for the larger engine and added torque. And if will gain some weight up front how this will affect handling?

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 11:18
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
absolude wrote:
As an current gen Si owner I tend to favor the K20 but there are some points I'd like to make.

First of all, I thought some magazine got a 6.7 out of the TSX, wouldn't that mean the advantage in 0-60 should be substantial in a lighter car?
For a 1/4mile though, the ability of the K20 to stay in vtec is not going to be a huge advantage? I thought the TSX is falling out of vtec between shifts.

While the Civic will be lighter in other trims I doubt the Si will be any lighter. Things must be beefed up for the larger engine and added torque. And if will gain some weight up front how this will affect handling?



The quickest time I recall seeing for the current TSX was 7.2 seconds with a ~15.4 second 1/4 mile.

Also, this current TSX wouldn't fall largely out of VTEC, and VTEC on this engine is relative. It isn't like the Si's and traditional on/off VTEC at 6000. This engine is intake only, and as you can see from the dyno, it falls off heavily above 5K. Thus, when you shift it at redline, it drops roughly back down to the point where the torque curve is rapidly dropping, more or less. It is still generating more power due to the revs part of the equation however. But once the K20 hits VTEC it has pretty much identical crank HP under the curve, and is actually getting a bit more to the wheels, thanks to its slightly lower gearing. I.E. after 30MPH when the K20 is working in VTEC, this K24 won't have any advantage in a max acceleration scenario. Unless Honda manages to improve that curve (which I doubt).

Car and Driver:

"As in the past, a three-pedal setup is the only option for the Si. While we have no complaints about that, Honda failed to address the Si’s significant power deficit against much of its competition, in particular the 263-hp Mazdaspeed 3 and 265-hp Subaru Impreza WRX. We also hope that the 2.4-liter doesn’t make the new Si too mature; a lot of the thrill of the outgoing model was winding it up to the 8000-rpm redline. Honda says the EPA-estimated highway fuel economy of the new Si will be up to 31 mpg from last year’s 29."

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/11q1/2012_honda_civic_civic_hybrid_civic_si_official_photos_and_info-car_news

absolude
Profile for absolude
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 11:55
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
absolude wrote:
As an current gen Si owner I tend to favor the K20 but there are some points I'd like to make.

First of all, I thought some magazine got a 6.7 out of the TSX, wouldn't that mean the advantage in 0-60 should be substantial in a lighter car?
For a 1/4mile though, the ability of the K20 to stay in vtec is not going to be a huge advantage? I thought the TSX is falling out of vtec between shifts.

While the Civic will be lighter in other trims I doubt the Si will be any lighter. Things must be beefed up for the larger engine and added torque. And if will gain some weight up front how this will affect handling?



The quickest time I recall seeing for the current TSX was 7.2 seconds with a ~15.4 second 1/4 mile.

Also, this current TSX wouldn't fall largely out of VTEC, and VTEC on this engine is relative. It isn't like the Si's and traditional on/off VTEC at 6000. This engine is intake only, and as you can see from the dyno, it falls off heavily above 5K. Thus, when you shift it at redline, it drops roughly back down to the point where the torque curve is rapidly dropping, more or less. It is still generating more power due to the revs part of the equation however. But once the K20 hits VTEC it has pretty much identical crank HP under the curve, and is actually getting a bit more to the wheels, thanks to its slightly lower gearing. I.E. after 30MPH when the K20 is working in VTEC, this K24 won't have any advantage in a max acceleration scenario. Unless Honda manages to improve that curve (which I doubt).

Car and Driver:

"As in the past, a three-pedal setup is the only option for the Si. While we have no complaints about that, Honda failed to address the Si’s significant power deficit against much of its competition, in particular the 263-hp Mazdaspeed 3 and 265-hp Subaru Impreza WRX. We also hope that the 2.4-liter doesn’t make the new Si too mature; a lot of the thrill of the outgoing model was winding it up to the 8000-rpm redline. Honda says the EPA-estimated highway fuel economy of the new Si will be up to 31 mpg from last year’s 29."

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/11q1/2012_honda_civic_civic_hybrid_civic_si_official_photos_and_info-car_news



Thanks for clarifying this.
I found this 2009 road test, the TSX doing an 6.7 0-60. I doubt this is the norm...

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/8c07047732530cb440e406517bd990bc.pdf

The ET is not that great, may be the limitations of the intake only vtec.

CarmB
Profile for CarmB
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 14:00
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
jero wrote:

I'd be willing to bet the sub TSX will be nothing more than the current Si with leather, sound insulation and electronic doo-dads.

Same powertrain, more weight, possibly... possibly... tuned for a few (like, less than 10) more hp.

Honda is completely done with the enthusiast guys... it's not gonna happen.

You've seen the ads touting the Accord (the accord!!) as coming from Honda's racing heritage right? Yea.



What you're describing is the Canadian CSX. For the North American market, though, I would anticipate more distinct sheet metal and a different interior. Mechanically, though, I don't know that there's room for much deviation considering the Si will already come with amounts to the 2.4L out of the TSX. Let's remember that it's a motor that is a variation of the 2.4L found in the Accord.

A rebadged Civic with more content at a premium price? Well I don't know about that. If the sheet metal is different and the interior different and there are suspension differences, etc. is it really a rebadging as is the case with the CSX. I would argue not.

After all, the RSX was Civic-based but I never had any problem telling the difference between the RSX and the Civic. They really are quite distinct products, despite sharing some engineering and being made by the same company.

In the end, if the cues that set the sub-TSX apart, be it visual or performance-related, have no value to you, your decision is a rather easy one. Buy the Civic and save some money. Isn't that how it is when comparing any two cars?

Really, if what you are suggesting is that there should be some spectacular performance difference between a sub-TSX and the Civic Si, if both are sports sedans made by Honda that are only a modest amount apart in price, why would you anticipate a dramatic difference. There is only so much performance that can reasonably be expected at a given price point. It's all in the details and which ones matter to you.

SoichirosHeroes
Profile for SoichirosHeroes
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 15:53
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarmB wrote:
jero wrote:

I'd be willing to bet the sub TSX will be nothing more than the current Si with leather, sound insulation and electronic doo-dads.

Same powertrain, more weight, possibly... possibly... tuned for a few (like, less than 10) more hp.

Honda is completely done with the enthusiast guys... it's not gonna happen.

You've seen the ads touting the Accord (the accord!!) as coming from Honda's racing heritage right? Yea.



What you're describing is the Canadian CSX. For the North American market, though, I would anticipate more distinct sheet metal and a different interior. Mechanically, though, I don't know that there's room for much deviation considering the Si will already come with amounts to the 2.4L out of the TSX. Let's remember that it's a motor that is a variation of the 2.4L found in the Accord.

A rebadged Civic with more content at a premium price? Well I don't know about that. If the sheet metal is different and the interior different and there are suspension differences, etc. is it really a rebadging as is the case with the CSX. I would argue not.

After all, the RSX was Civic-based but I never had any problem telling the difference between the RSX and the Civic. They really are quite distinct products, despite sharing some engineering and being made by the same company.

In the end, if the cues that set the sub-TSX apart, be it visual or performance-related, have no value to you, your decision is a rather easy one. Buy the Civic and save some money. Isn't that how it is when comparing any two cars?

Really, if what you are suggesting is that there should be some spectacular performance difference between a sub-TSX and the Civic Si, if both are sports sedans made by Honda that are only a modest amount apart in price, why would you anticipate a dramatic difference. There is only so much performance that can reasonably be expected at a given price point. It's all in the details and which ones matter to you.



To me the sub-TSX is one of the main areas where Acura could cater to the Honda enthusiast.

This could be a very interesting car:

Best case scenario, in my eyes:

Acura creates it's variant of the Si Sedan:

unique sheetmetal
perhaps 220-240hp out of that 2.4
leather standard
tech package
better warranty
$28-$29K

Sounds like a winner to me!

CarmB
Profile for CarmB
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 19:05
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
SoichirosHeroes wrote:
CarmB wrote:
jero wrote:

I'd be willing to bet the sub TSX will be nothing more than the current Si with leather, sound insulation and electronic doo-dads.

Same powertrain, more weight, possibly... possibly... tuned for a few (like, less than 10) more hp.

Honda is completely done with the enthusiast guys... it's not gonna happen.

You've seen the ads touting the Accord (the accord!!) as coming from Honda's racing heritage right? Yea.



What you're describing is the Canadian CSX. For the North American market, though, I would anticipate more distinct sheet metal and a different interior. Mechanically, though, I don't know that there's room for much deviation considering the Si will already come with amounts to the 2.4L out of the TSX. Let's remember that it's a motor that is a variation of the 2.4L found in the Accord.

A rebadged Civic with more content at a premium price? Well I don't know about that. If the sheet metal is different and the interior different and there are suspension differences, etc. is it really a rebadging as is the case with the CSX. I would argue not.

After all, the RSX was Civic-based but I never had any problem telling the difference between the RSX and the Civic. They really are quite distinct products, despite sharing some engineering and being made by the same company.

In the end, if the cues that set the sub-TSX apart, be it visual or performance-related, have no value to you, your decision is a rather easy one. Buy the Civic and save some money. Isn't that how it is when comparing any two cars?

Really, if what you are suggesting is that there should be some spectacular performance difference between a sub-TSX and the Civic Si, if both are sports sedans made by Honda that are only a modest amount apart in price, why would you anticipate a dramatic difference. There is only so much performance that can reasonably be expected at a given price point. It's all in the details and which ones matter to you.



To me the sub-TSX is one of the main areas where Acura could cater to the Honda enthusiast.

This could be a very interesting car:

Best case scenario, in my eyes:

Acura creates it's variant of the Si Sedan:

unique sheetmetal
perhaps 220-240hp out of that 2.4
leather standard
tech package
better warranty
$28-$29K

Sounds like a winner to me!



The problem with putting more power under the hood is that it can make for a less well-rounded car. Besides, I don't think that there is a need, per se, for more than 200 hp and decent torque in a car as light as the sub-TSX would no doubt be.

We're talking about a car that will not win any one over by outperforming the Civic Si but rather by being a more stylish, refined variant. It's about looking more expensive, feeling more expensive when you sit behind the wheel, simply imparting a greater sense of quality all around.

In order for such an offering to succeed, I see no need for more power when the 2.4L out of the TSX will obviously power this car to 0-60 times well below 7 seconds.

Look at it this way. If Honda doesn't have a problem trying to sell the TSX with that motor, why would Honda feel compelled to upgrade in a car costing thousands less. Let's remember that in the US right now, the Civic Si MSRP is $22,405 while the TSX MSRP is $29,610. The sub-TSX would likely check in between $25,000 and $27,000. In other words, we're talking maybe a $2,500 premium for the Acura. That's not really a lot of money. It wouldn't take a lot of equipment additions to justify that extra cost and when you consider the added status that comes from driving a car with distinctive sheet metal and interior bits with an Acura badge, there would be a market for such a car, even if the 0-60 times and basic driving dynamics were quite similar between the Acura and the somewhat cheaper Civic Si.

Fast is fast and the Civic with the TSX motor will be blazingly fast. Better dynamics all around, too, compared to the bulkier TSX. There were quite a few people who rather liked the first-gen TSX because it was relatively nimble for a sports sedan and I think the sub-TSX would take that formula a step in the right direction. To me, that would represent a car done for the enthusiast though not the enthusiast looking for a rawer experience.

As is the case with such things, though, there is no way of judging this on paper. A car built to appeal to people who love driving has to be driven in order to be properly judged. The proof will be in the reviews that will be coming in a few months because most auto journalists are driving enthusiasts at heart. They're the ones whose opinion matters. They're the ones the sub-TSX should be designed to please. Professional reviews go a long way towards shaping public perception.

The bottom line is that a Civic-sized sedan with the TSX powerplant in it, done right, would be a home run. Such a car could be offered in two variants, the Civic Si, and an Acura, and yet find willing buyers for both products.

SoichirosHeroes
Profile for SoichirosHeroes
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 19:18
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
@CarmB

I think you've rationalized it well - the problem is the marketplace doesn't. It's all about numbers for many - especially cars with sporting intentions.

Horsepower wars have raged forever in that segment.

Cars like MazdaSpeed 3s have 260+ HP in FWD form. V-6 Mustangs/Camaros 300+ HP, etc.

A modest kick up from the Civic Si (20-30 HP) for a Type-S variant will maintain the balance of the chassis and give you a reason to buy the Acura.

JeffX
Profile for JeffX
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-21-2011 20:08
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
absolude wrote:
owequitit wrote:
absolude wrote:
As an current gen Si owner I tend to favor the K20 but there are some points I'd like to make.

First of all, I thought some magazine got a 6.7 out of the TSX, wouldn't that mean the advantage in 0-60 should be substantial in a lighter car?
For a 1/4mile though, the ability of the K20 to stay in vtec is not going to be a huge advantage? I thought the TSX is falling out of vtec between shifts.

While the Civic will be lighter in other trims I doubt the Si will be any lighter. Things must be beefed up for the larger engine and added torque. And if will gain some weight up front how this will affect handling?



The quickest time I recall seeing for the current TSX was 7.2 seconds with a ~15.4 second 1/4 mile.

Also, this current TSX wouldn't fall largely out of VTEC, and VTEC on this engine is relative. It isn't like the Si's and traditional on/off VTEC at 6000. This engine is intake only, and as you can see from the dyno, it falls off heavily above 5K. Thus, when you shift it at redline, it drops roughly back down to the point where the torque curve is rapidly dropping, more or less. It is still generating more power due to the revs part of the equation however. But once the K20 hits VTEC it has pretty much identical crank HP under the curve, and is actually getting a bit more to the wheels, thanks to its slightly lower gearing. I.E. after 30MPH when the K20 is working in VTEC, this K24 won't have any advantage in a max acceleration scenario. Unless Honda manages to improve that curve (which I doubt).

Car and Driver:

"As in the past, a three-pedal setup is the only option for the Si. While we have no complaints about that, Honda failed to address the Si’s significant power deficit against much of its competition, in particular the 263-hp Mazdaspeed 3 and 265-hp Subaru Impreza WRX. We also hope that the 2.4-liter doesn’t make the new Si too mature; a lot of the thrill of the outgoing model was winding it up to the 8000-rpm redline. Honda says the EPA-estimated highway fuel economy of the new Si will be up to 31 mpg from last year’s 29."

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/11q1/2012_honda_civic_civic_hybrid_civic_si_official_photos_and_info-car_news



Thanks for clarifying this.
I found this 2009 road test, the TSX doing an 6.7 0-60. I doubt this is the norm...

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/8c07047732530cb440e406517bd990bc.pdf

The ET is not that great, may be the limitations of the intake only vtec.



I got 0-60 in 7.0 from the 6MT TSX sedan that is represented by this dyno plot (5AT TSX SportWagon got 8.0, for the record). I believe it was Car and Driver that also listed a 6.8 or something like that for the '04 TSX, to which I will say there's no effin way, ESPECIALLY not the '04-'05 versions.


vandme10
Profile for vandme10
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 02:47
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarmB wrote:
Look at it this way. If Honda doesn't have a problem trying to sell the TSX with that motor, why would Honda feel compelled to upgrade in a car costing thousands less. Let's remember that in the US right now, the Civic Si MSRP is $22,405 while the TSX MSRP is $29,610. The sub-TSX would likely check in between $25,000 and $27,000. In other words, we're talking maybe a $2,500 premium for the Acura. That's not really a lot of money. It wouldn't take a lot of equipment additions to justify that extra cost and when you consider the added status that comes from driving a car with distinctive sheet metal and interior bits with an Acura badge, there would be a market for such a car, even if the 0-60 times and basic driving dynamics were quite similar between the Acura and the somewhat cheaper Civic Si.


You've completely nailed this post. I think the two best examples to illustrate your point are the Toyota Camry/Lexus ES and the Volkswagen Golf/Audi A3.

Toyota really had no problem selling the ES when it was their entry level vehicle (replaced by the IS, itself replaced by the CTH), even though it was almost literally a badge-engineered Camry. Yes, I know there are some small obvious differences and I'm being facetious about the simplicity of it all for purposes of illustrating a point. But I still can't believe how many ES' I've seen over the years; I think people are crazy for pay a roughly $6500 premium over the Camry for a VERY similar vehicle, but there lies the apparent genius of Toyota's marketing department: other people DO purchase the ES. I'm not going to say Toyota has sold tons of them; I honestly am not going to look those numbers up to justify such a claim. But I DO see so many of them actually on the roads to know that Toyota's focus to push those vehicles to two different types of customers is working on some level and so far, it does not seem to seriously cannabilize sales of either vehicle.

The Golf/A3 is a different story and Volkswagen has somewhat acknowledged the A3 doesn't sell here like they want it to. VW also acknowledges the A3 only being available as a $27,000 premium hatchback is a major limiting factor in a traditionally hatchback-adverse country such as the United States, thus the next A3 will debut as a sedan. I wondered why it took them so long to prioritize a sedan body for the A3; the platform has been here for years with the Jetta, though admittedly, until the last generation, the Jetta was quite small (as was/is VW whole lineup). The 2.0T sees so much versatile duty in the VW/Audi family, a base model 2.0T A3 sedan made more sense, IMHO, than a Q7 Audi. And Q7 was very successful for Audi.

I don't have nearly as much faith in Honda/Acura these days as I used to, but if done well--and I mean, exceptionally well--a Civic/RSX-esque combination could be very successful. It's been proven just as often as it's been disproven and I think so-long as the vehicle is well-engineered and aesthetically pleasing, the marketing department's job is a much simpler affair.

Grace141
Profile for Grace141
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 08:16
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Okay, I'm ready to see some substantiated proof on the numbers bounced around here for the '12 Si.

1.) What information released by Honda to date states the '12 Si gets the current TSX drivetrain?
2.) Where are the specs and curves for the '12 Si engine as published by Honda?
3.) Who here has driven and tested a '12 Si?
4.) If all of you folks missed the fact that Honda increased the WHP of the '11 Si by 5% to 7% over that of the '06 to '10 Si what makes you think you can make a guess about the '12 Si?

All I see at this point is a decent conversation about the current TSX but that's not what this post was about. I'm sorry but this virtual dyno test is based on a bunch of virtually baseless speculation so there's no need to jump off any bridges just yet.

CarmB
Profile for CarmB
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 08:24
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
SoichirosHeroes wrote:
@CarmB

I think you've rationalized it well - the problem is the marketplace doesn't. It's all about numbers for many - especially cars with sporting intentions.

Horsepower wars have raged forever in that segment.

Cars like MazdaSpeed 3s have 260+ HP in FWD form. V-6 Mustangs/Camaros 300+ HP, etc.

A modest kick up from the Civic Si (20-30 HP) for a Type-S variant will maintain the balance of the chassis and give you a reason to buy the Acura.



The TSX motor is an upgrade in output on the 2.4L found in the base Accord. As it stands, I'm guessing we're talking 0-60 times in the range of about 6 seconds. In other words, no one would take one of these cars out for a spin and come away unhappy with acceleration. I think that it would be especially obvious were one to do back-to-back test drives with the sub-TSX and the TSX, that the sub-TSX has a significant performance edge over the bigger, costlier TSX.

For the sub-TSX to succeed the visual cues matter more than offering better acceleration than the similar Civic Si. The Acura has to look obviously more upscale, inside and out. If the Acura outclasses the Civic Si visually and the TSX in terms of driving dynamics, there's a niche for such a product.

There's also a trade-off that a higher-output motor brings which would cause some to think twice about going there. As cars become more fuel efficient the oil companies will compensate by charging more. As the price of fuel goes up, fuel economy becomes more of a factor, even for those looking for more performance. I have to think that Honda does not want the sub-TSX to be rated as a thirstier vehicle than the TSX, certainly not in base form.

It is possible that at some point Honda might serve up a higher-performance variant of the sub-TSX but I have to believe that the goal in bringing out this car is to recover some of the volume enjoyed when Acura sold Integras/RSXs. As such, it has to be a car that appeals to a rather broad segment of consumers. The fuel economy numbers have to be reasonable, as in at least slightly better than the bulkier TSX's.

I think you are mistaken in expecting the base sub-TSX to be aimed at taking on low-volume, hypertuned machines like the MazdaSpeed 3. Instead, I imagine the new model will offer decent sports sedan dynamics at a cost - purchase and operating - below that of the TSX. The economy is slow and the TSX has gotten bigger to the point where it has grown too large for anyone looking for a nimble, fun-to-drive ride with sedan practicality. The original TSX came closer to filling that niche and the sub-TSX could, potentially, fill it even better.

A fun-to-drive sedan is like the Holy Grail of automobiles. I suspect that combining the 200-hp 2.4L with the Civic platform would produce a fine attempt at delivering what a large segment of consumers long for. If that winning formula was offered in two flavours, that's not overkill.

vandme10
Profile for vandme10
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 13:21
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Grace141 wrote:
1.) What information released by Honda to date states the '12 Si gets the current TSX drivetrain?
4.) ...what makes you think you can make a guess about the '12 Si?



Simple. Logic. And because Honda said so.

Honda wrote:
Civic Si Specifications

* 200 horsepower and 170 lb-ft, 2.4-liter i-VTEC™ 4-cylinder engine
* 6-speed manual transmission
* EPA-estimated Civic Si highway fuel economy: 31 mpg



http://vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=960272

Facts:

1. There are two types of K-series engines:

Those found in performance vehicles such as the RSX-S, 06+ Civic Si and TSX. And then those found in every other car (Yes, I'm oversimplifying to get to the point).
2. Honda's K20Z3--found in the 2011 Civic Si--has stopped production, because
3. Honda's press release announces a 2.4L engine for the 2012 Civic Si, meaning
4. Even if Honda hadn't announced this specification, we would still know its displacement. And we would know primarily because when the 2012 Civic Si goes on sale, Honda will officially stop offering a 2.0L K-series engine in the United States. For the time being, anyway.

5. Of the performance-oriented K24-equipped vehicles, the recently facelifted 5-speed manual transmission 2011 Accord coupe is rated 190hp @ 7000RPM and 162hp @ 4400RPM.

The 6-speed manual transmission 2011 TSX is rated 201hp @ 7000RPM and 172lb-ft @ 4300RPM. The 5-speed automatic transmission is rated, 170lb-ft @ 4300RPM.

Statistically, there is a 50% chance the Civic Si will get a retuned version of the Accord Coupes's powertrain. However, based on these specs, we can logically deduce that the likelihood the 2012 Civic Si's powertrain is NOT shared with the also recently facelifted 2011 TSX is VERY slim, just by comparing the numbers alone.

6. TOV states at the very top of this dyno test all of their sources are confirming the 2012 Civic will get what is essentially the TSX's engine, and based on history

7. The reliability of TOV's sources > random forum skepticism.

Is any of this hard data? No. But then nobody claims it to be. That said, it's difficult to argue against logical speculation. It's not like these claims are being pulled from thin air. They are all grounded in some sort of fact.

Hope this helps a bit.

JeffX
Profile for JeffX
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 15:42
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
vandme10 wrote:
Grace141 wrote:
1.) What information released by Honda to date states the '12 Si gets the current TSX drivetrain?
4.) ...what makes you think you can make a guess about the '12 Si?



Simple. Logic. And because Honda said so.

Honda wrote:
Civic Si Specifications

* 200 horsepower and 170 lb-ft, 2.4-liter i-VTEC™ 4-cylinder engine
* 6-speed manual transmission
* EPA-estimated Civic Si highway fuel economy: 31 mpg



http://vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=960272

Facts:

1. There are two types of K-series engines:

Those found in performance vehicles such as the RSX-S, 06+ Civic Si and TSX. And then those found in every other car (Yes, I'm oversimplifying to get to the point).
2. Honda's K20Z3--found in the 2011 Civic Si--has stopped production, because
3. Honda's press release announces a 2.4L engine for the 2012 Civic Si, meaning
4. Even if Honda hadn't announced this specification, we would still know its displacement. And we would know primarily because when the 2012 Civic Si goes on sale, Honda will officially stop offering a 2.0L K-series engine in the United States. For the time being, anyway.

5. Of the performance-oriented K24-equipped vehicles, the recently facelifted 5-speed manual transmission 2011 Accord coupe is rated 190hp @ 7000RPM and 162hp @ 4400RPM.

The 6-speed manual transmission 2011 TSX is rated 201hp @ 7000RPM and 172lb-ft @ 4300RPM. The 5-speed automatic transmission is rated, 170lb-ft @ 4300RPM.

Statistically, there is a 50% chance the Civic Si will get a retuned version of the Accord Coupes's powertrain. However, based on these specs, we can logically deduce that the likelihood the 2012 Civic Si's powertrain is NOT shared with the also recently facelifted 2011 TSX is VERY slim, just by comparing the numbers alone.

6. TOV states at the very top of this dyno test all of their sources are confirming the 2012 Civic will get what is essentially the TSX's engine, and based on history

7. The reliability of TOV's sources > random forum skepticism.

Is any of this hard data? No. But then nobody claims it to be. That said, it's difficult to argue against logical speculation. It's not like these claims are being pulled from thin air. They are all grounded in some sort of fact.

Hope this helps a bit.



all it takes is a little bit of common sense and perspective. The specs are essentially identical to the listed specs for the '11 TSX. We were told A YEAR AGO that the Si was getting essentially the TSX's K24, complete with the cast-in exhaust manifold and VTEC-less exhaust cam configuration. Then the official specs are released and the specs basically back up EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN TOLD and EVERYTHING WE'VE RELATED HERE for quite a long time. Is there a chance there's something we don't know about? ABSOLUTELY, but with every piece of info we receive, those chances diminish, and I would say that Honda's own press release was pretty solid evidence that our (highly credible) sources were accurate all along.

I have seen some people talking about the '12 Si's K24 possibly getting a higher redline or whatever. I seriously doubt we'll see that - the only way I would believe it to be a possibility would be if the published HP figure were something higher than the TSX's. More revs would very likely mean more power. There would be absolutely no use for added revs if it didn't result in more power (or particularly in this case, "slightly less"). Also, there's virtually zero chance that it will have any higher spec than the TSX (such as exhaust cam VTEC, or

In other words, we don't have 100% certainty about ANYTHING at this point except for the engine's displacement and Honda's CONFIRMED output figures. BUT, I do have an extremely high degree of confidence in the other conclusions we have made, including the notion that the '11 TSX's Dyno Plot is very likely an accurate representation of what we can expect from the '12 Si.




owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2011 20:56
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarmB wrote:
SoichirosHeroes wrote:
@CarmB

I think you've rationalized it well - the problem is the marketplace doesn't. It's all about numbers for many - especially cars with sporting intentions.

Horsepower wars have raged forever in that segment.

Cars like MazdaSpeed 3s have 260+ HP in FWD form. V-6 Mustangs/Camaros 300+ HP, etc.

A modest kick up from the Civic Si (20-30 HP) for a Type-S variant will maintain the balance of the chassis and give you a reason to buy the Acura.



The TSX motor is an upgrade in output on the 2.4L found in the base Accord. As it stands, I'm guessing we're talking 0-60 times in the range of about 6 seconds. In other words, no one would take one of these cars out for a spin and come away unhappy with acceleration. I think that it would be especially obvious were one to do back-to-back test drives with the sub-TSX and the TSX, that the sub-TSX has a significant performance edge over the bigger, costlier TSX.

For the sub-TSX to succeed the visual cues matter more than offering better acceleration than the similar Civic Si. The Acura has to look obviously more upscale, inside and out. If the Acura outclasses the Civic Si visually and the TSX in terms of driving dynamics, there's a niche for such a product.

There's also a trade-off that a higher-output motor brings which would cause some to think twice about going there. As cars become more fuel efficient the oil companies will compensate by charging more. As the price of fuel goes up, fuel economy becomes more of a factor, even for those looking for more performance. I have to think that Honda does not want the sub-TSX to be rated as a thirstier vehicle than the TSX, certainly not in base form.

It is possible that at some point Honda might serve up a higher-performance variant of the sub-TSX but I have to believe that the goal in bringing out this car is to recover some of the volume enjoyed when Acura sold Integras/RSXs. As such, it has to be a car that appeals to a rather broad segment of consumers. The fuel economy numbers have to be reasonable, as in at least slightly better than the bulkier TSX's.

I think you are mistaken in expecting the base sub-TSX to be aimed at taking on low-volume, hypertuned machines like the MazdaSpeed 3. Instead, I imagine the new model will offer decent sports sedan dynamics at a cost - purchase and operating - below that of the TSX. The economy is slow and the TSX has gotten bigger to the point where it has grown too large for anyone looking for a nimble, fun-to-drive ride with sedan practicality. The original TSX came closer to filling that niche and the sub-TSX could, potentially, fill it even better.

A fun-to-drive sedan is like the Holy Grail of automobiles. I suspect that combining the 200-hp 2.4L with the Civic platform would produce a fine attempt at delivering what a large segment of consumers long for. If that winning formula was offered in two flavours, that's not overkill.




Your assumptions of performance are wholly off base. You can expect about a .5 second difference from the TSX, which is nowhere near a 6.5 second 0-60 car. The Accord V6 can BARELY break the 6.0 second mark, and sorry, but there is no way in hell that the K24 is going to do it. The current car is 6.7-7.0 seconds on average. Even if you shave a full .5 seconds off of that, you aren't at 6.0.

I don't quite think you understand that after 30MPH the extra HP of the K24 will be extremely marginal to non-existant. There is NO WAY the K24 Si is going to put .5 seconds on the Si by 30MPH.

You are realisitically looking at something between 6.5 and 7.0 seconds. Plenty fast for most sure, but then again, that would qualify the current car as plenty fast for most. So I say again, why do I have to take a large hit in the fun department for virtually no increase in speed?

As for the rest of the assertions on a sub TSX, I mostly agree. A lazier power delivery and more feature content would be more important. However, that doesn't mean the Si has to be the same thing.

SoichirosHeroes
Profile for SoichirosHeroes
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-23-2011 13:25
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
If the sub-TSX follows the previous RSX/Integra model, there would be two versions (hopefully) ....

A zooted up Civic (luxury/tech oriented) with perhaps a detuned 2.4 (180 hp but torquey?)

and then, perhaps a Type-S variant: this would be the one to perhaps build upon a Si platform and maybe add 20-40hp (a 2.4 with 220-240hp?)

Hard to tell though. Honda/Acura has really tightened it's powertrain variants and the sub-TSX could perhaps just have one powertain combo.

DCR
Profile for DCR
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-23-2011 14:47
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
If Honda adds 2 doors, cost, and an Acura badge to the car that should have been the 2012 Si, I can't wait to see this place.


CarmB
Profile for CarmB
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-23-2011 17:09
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
CarmB wrote:
SoichirosHeroes wrote:
@CarmB

I think you've rationalized it well - the problem is the marketplace doesn't. It's all about numbers for many - especially cars with sporting intentions.

Horsepower wars have raged forever in that segment.

Cars like MazdaSpeed 3s have 260+ HP in FWD form. V-6 Mustangs/Camaros 300+ HP, etc.

A modest kick up from the Civic Si (20-30 HP) for a Type-S variant will maintain the balance of the chassis and give you a reason to buy the Acura.



The TSX motor is an upgrade in output on the 2.4L found in the base Accord. As it stands, I'm guessing we're talking 0-60 times in the range of about 6 seconds. In other words, no one would take one of these cars out for a spin and come away unhappy with acceleration. I think that it would be especially obvious were one to do back-to-back test drives with the sub-TSX and the TSX, that the sub-TSX has a significant performance edge over the bigger, costlier TSX.

For the sub-TSX to succeed the visual cues matter more than offering better acceleration than the similar Civic Si. The Acura has to look obviously more upscale, inside and out. If the Acura outclasses the Civic Si visually and the TSX in terms of driving dynamics, there's a niche for such a product.

There's also a trade-off that a higher-output motor brings which would cause some to think twice about going there. As cars become more fuel efficient the oil companies will compensate by charging more. As the price of fuel goes up, fuel economy becomes more of a factor, even for those looking for more performance. I have to think that Honda does not want the sub-TSX to be rated as a thirstier vehicle than the TSX, certainly not in base form.

It is possible that at some point Honda might serve up a higher-performance variant of the sub-TSX but I have to believe that the goal in bringing out this car is to recover some of the volume enjoyed when Acura sold Integras/RSXs. As such, it has to be a car that appeals to a rather broad segment of consumers. The fuel economy numbers have to be reasonable, as in at least slightly better than the bulkier TSX's.

I think you are mistaken in expecting the base sub-TSX to be aimed at taking on low-volume, hypertuned machines like the MazdaSpeed 3. Instead, I imagine the new model will offer decent sports sedan dynamics at a cost - purchase and operating - below that of the TSX. The economy is slow and the TSX has gotten bigger to the point where it has grown too large for anyone looking for a nimble, fun-to-drive ride with sedan practicality. The original TSX came closer to filling that niche and the sub-TSX could, potentially, fill it even better.

A fun-to-drive sedan is like the Holy Grail of automobiles. I suspect that combining the 200-hp 2.4L with the Civic platform would produce a fine attempt at delivering what a large segment of consumers long for. If that winning formula was offered in two flavours, that's not overkill.




Your assumptions of performance are wholly off base. You can expect about a .5 second difference from the TSX, which is nowhere near a 6.5 second 0-60 car. The Accord V6 can BARELY break the 6.0 second mark, and sorry, but there is no way in hell that the K24 is going to do it. The current car is 6.7-7.0 seconds on average. Even if you shave a full .5 seconds off of that, you aren't at 6.0.

I don't quite think you understand that after 30MPH the extra HP of the K24 will be extremely marginal to non-existant. There is NO WAY the K24 Si is going to put .5 seconds on the Si by 30MPH.

You are realisitically looking at something between 6.5 and 7.0 seconds. Plenty fast for most sure, but then again, that would qualify the current car as plenty fast for most. So I say again, why do I have to take a large hit in the fun department for virtually no increase in speed?

As for the rest of the assertions on a sub TSX, I mostly agree. A lazier power delivery and more feature content would be more important. However, that doesn't mean the Si has to be the same thing.



Of course it's impossible to know precisely how quick a Civic using the 2.4L similar to the TSX would be other than to expect that it will go 0-60 in under 7 seconds. Clearly if this motor can get a much heavier car there in 7 seconds, the Civic/sub-TSX can't help but be faster.

I suspect that in terms of sheer seat-of-the-pants feel, the difference between the TSX and the sub-TSX will be significant and I hope for the better.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-23-2011 19:00
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarmB wrote:
owequitit wrote:
CarmB wrote:
SoichirosHeroes wrote:
@CarmB

I think you've rationalized it well - the problem is the marketplace doesn't. It's all about numbers for many - especially cars with sporting intentions.

Horsepower wars have raged forever in that segment.

Cars like MazdaSpeed 3s have 260+ HP in FWD form. V-6 Mustangs/Camaros 300+ HP, etc.

A modest kick up from the Civic Si (20-30 HP) for a Type-S variant will maintain the balance of the chassis and give you a reason to buy the Acura.



The TSX motor is an upgrade in output on the 2.4L found in the base Accord. As it stands, I'm guessing we're talking 0-60 times in the range of about 6 seconds. In other words, no one would take one of these cars out for a spin and come away unhappy with acceleration. I think that it would be especially obvious were one to do back-to-back test drives with the sub-TSX and the TSX, that the sub-TSX has a significant performance edge over the bigger, costlier TSX.

For the sub-TSX to succeed the visual cues matter more than offering better acceleration than the similar Civic Si. The Acura has to look obviously more upscale, inside and out. If the Acura outclasses the Civic Si visually and the TSX in terms of driving dynamics, there's a niche for such a product.

There's also a trade-off that a higher-output motor brings which would cause some to think twice about going there. As cars become more fuel efficient the oil companies will compensate by charging more. As the price of fuel goes up, fuel economy becomes more of a factor, even for those looking for more performance. I have to think that Honda does not want the sub-TSX to be rated as a thirstier vehicle than the TSX, certainly not in base form.

It is possible that at some point Honda might serve up a higher-performance variant of the sub-TSX but I have to believe that the goal in bringing out this car is to recover some of the volume enjoyed when Acura sold Integras/RSXs. As such, it has to be a car that appeals to a rather broad segment of consumers. The fuel economy numbers have to be reasonable, as in at least slightly better than the bulkier TSX's.

I think you are mistaken in expecting the base sub-TSX to be aimed at taking on low-volume, hypertuned machines like the MazdaSpeed 3. Instead, I imagine the new model will offer decent sports sedan dynamics at a cost - purchase and operating - below that of the TSX. The economy is slow and the TSX has gotten bigger to the point where it has grown too large for anyone looking for a nimble, fun-to-drive ride with sedan practicality. The original TSX came closer to filling that niche and the sub-TSX could, potentially, fill it even better.

A fun-to-drive sedan is like the Holy Grail of automobiles. I suspect that combining the 200-hp 2.4L with the Civic platform would produce a fine attempt at delivering what a large segment of consumers long for. If that winning formula was offered in two flavours, that's not overkill.




Your assumptions of performance are wholly off base. You can expect about a .5 second difference from the TSX, which is nowhere near a 6.5 second 0-60 car. The Accord V6 can BARELY break the 6.0 second mark, and sorry, but there is no way in hell that the K24 is going to do it. The current car is 6.7-7.0 seconds on average. Even if you shave a full .5 seconds off of that, you aren't at 6.0.

I don't quite think you understand that after 30MPH the extra HP of the K24 will be extremely marginal to non-existant. There is NO WAY the K24 Si is going to put .5 seconds on the Si by 30MPH.

You are realisitically looking at something between 6.5 and 7.0 seconds. Plenty fast for most sure, but then again, that would qualify the current car as plenty fast for most. So I say again, why do I have to take a large hit in the fun department for virtually no increase in speed?

As for the rest of the assertions on a sub TSX, I mostly agree. A lazier power delivery and more feature content would be more important. However, that doesn't mean the Si has to be the same thing.



Of course it's impossible to know precisely how quick a Civic using the 2.4L similar to the TSX would be other than to expect that it will go 0-60 in under 7 seconds. Clearly if this motor can get a much heavier car there in 7 seconds, the Civic/sub-TSX can't help but be faster.

I suspect that in terms of sheer seat-of-the-pants feel, the difference between the TSX and the sub-TSX will be significant and I hope for the better.



The problem is that by logic, that 7 seconds isn't really average for that car. I believe Jeff is a good driver, as he fairly consistently extracts times that are below the normal average for those cars. I would go so far as to say that many mag times are probably fairly optimistic (repeated trials by a driver that tests for a living, with corrected conditions), and it seems Jeff fairly regularly beats what they publish. Besides, I am curious what he has extracted from his Si, which might provide some meaningful insight into the relative speeds of the two cars. If he has pulled a 6.5 or so out of the Si, then it is likely this new car may very well end up the same. If the best he has pulled from the Si is a 6.7, then there is merit it will be marginally faster. So you see, it is all relative.

Also something to consider, there are people who have gotten the current Si to 60 in 6.3 seconds, and even if you subtract .5 from Jeff's time, it still isn't going to beat that. There are also those who have gotten the current car through the 1/4 mile in the VERY low 14's (14.0-14.3)completely 100% bone stock. But I think we will both agree that while it HAS happened, it is NOT the norm.

Like I have said all along, based on the very reasonably suspected dyno figures, this car will probably be very marginally faster than the current car, and nearly all of that will come from the launch to 30MPH. I am VERY willing to be pleasantly surprised, but frankly, it is just isn't likely. People keep bantering about "torque, torque, torque." The problem is that based on the FACT that the current car hits VTEC at 30MPH (I think it is TECHNICALLY 28MPH) and stays there from then on, under max acceleration duties, you have to look at the area of the CURRENT Si's curve from 5800-8000, where it is NOT putting out less average HP.

I will concede that in certain conditions below VTEC engagement, the K24 will have an advantage. But I will also concede that almost 100% of that advantage would be non-existent if Honda had put a properly tuned and slightly modifed K20 in the car. Sorry, it is just a fact. It would have allowed all of the torque junkies to get the same level of wheel torque from the car, while allowing a HIGHER redline and ZERO loss of mechancial character. It very likely would have also ended up faster than this new car by virtue of the fact it would have had lower gearing, a longer powerband, and a superior torque curve everywhere outside of 3000-5500. I.E. it would have had more area under the curve. This is based on the FACT that we have already seen factory optimized, warranted, and fully street legal K20's make 159 lb-ft of torque (barely less than the 170 this puts out), while redlining at 8400RPM (with an 8600RPM rev cut), and putting out 25 HP more. The curve pretty much resembles the K20Z3's in this "fantasy" dyno, which pretty much means it is flatter and more accessible. People can keep attacking me all they want, but that isn't going to change the fact that Honda has ALREADY built and produced the engine in question, and I for one, would gladly have paid more money for it.

I also don't buy the "emmissions killed the K20" arguement. First, where there is a will, there is a way. Honda COULD have gotten it make emmissions, it is just a question of how, and how much $$. If people can get a car to meet emmissions with a turbo between the head and the cat, then there is no reason Honda should not be able to. They have not used double wall exhaust manifolds or any other number of technologies that they have used on previous engines to speed cat light off and improve emmissions performance. The engine ultimately isn't burning more fuel at max power than those boosted engines, nor does it have the same limitations of fuel mixture etc, for durability purposes. Honda COULD have made the K20R pass emmissions, they just CHOSE not to. That is probably the biggest reason I am disappointed. The old Honda would have said "we can't do that." Now, we end up with still the most compromised car in class, but it no longer has the joy it once did.

Like I have said, I REALLY like the way this new Si looks, so I will still give it a try. But based on the role the powertrain played in my decision for the '09, this car is now fighting an uphill battle. The K24 just isn't as fun, it won't be meaninfully faster, and it will still be the least torque engine in the segment.




owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-23-2011 20:09
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I thought this might be a beneficial addition to the conversation, so I went back and searched for it.

http://asia.vtec.net/hardcore/HondataFD2R/dyno.jpg

If you convert the numbers, the FD2 Type R put down 151 lb-ft at the wheels compared to the TSX K24's 160 lb-ft. So there is marginally less torque at peak value. However, at 3,000 they are virtually equal, and the K24 is doing a fair bit of additional useful work between 4K and 6K. But by 6K, the K20 is very nearly back to 150 lb-ft, while the K24 has dropped to ~130 lb-ft. From there on out is ALL K20R, with it putting down a peak of 202HP at the wheels, or just about 22HP more than the TSX K24. The best part is that all of that additional top end comes at the expense of little to no loss in the bottom end and midrange (once gearing is included).

Now, some notes on the slow torque decrease with the K20/K20R. It is likely that a large degree of that could have been mitgated with exhaust VTC, dual stage IM's or perhaps both. Nothing otherworldly or super expensive. That gives the K20R a fair HP advantage, and even though the K24 does hold an advantage between 3.5K and 5.5K, the K20R coupled with the Si's gearing would make the additional torque just about wash, as on average it is putting out 5-10 lb-ft more than the K20Z3, which closes that 22% peak gap with the K24 by nearly half.

So ultimately, with the combination of output and gearing, the K20R would have allowed pretty much equal performance as the K24 below VTEC and would have kicked the crap out of the K24 at anything beyond about 5,000RPM. You can also see the advantage the VTEC transition change had on the K20R's output, by smoothing the power delivery and eliminating the hole caused by a late VTEC transition. That would have made the K20 (of either version) feel quite a bit more linear and responsive over that 1,000RPM where it needs it the most, with 12-15 lb-ft gains in that area.

Had Honda actually decided to build a K22, it would have kicked the crap out of BOTH engines, because it's peak torque would have been even more like the K24's, and it would have still had the top end and likely the curve shape of the K20. Mugen has versions of their K22 laying down in excess of 260HP, while their modified K20R's were topping out around 20-30HP less. I think it is safe to assume that Honda would have had no problem meeting AT LEAST 220HP and 165 lb-ft of torque while keeping the shape of the K20's curve AND maintaining an 8K redline. It simply would have been more expensive (again, something I would have been willing to pay for). They practically did that with the F22C, which actually had less technology than the K series.

Tell me that an engine with lower gearing, nearly equal torque and a hugely superior top end wouldn't have been more fun.

*The dynojet used for Wong's Type R was obviously located outside of the US, and may have bad different altitude/atmosphere considerations. However, I think it gives a pretty clear ballpark idea of what the actual difference between the K20R and the K24Z3 are.

Grace141
Profile for Grace141
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-23-2011 21:33
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
vandme10 wrote:
Facts:

1. There are two types of K-series engines:

Those found in performance vehicles such as the RSX-S, 06+ Civic Si and TSX. And then those found in every other car (Yes, I'm oversimplifying to get to the point).
2. Honda's K20Z3--found in the 2011 Civic Si--has stopped production, because
3. Honda's press release announces a 2.4L engine for the 2012 Civic Si, meaning
4. Even if Honda hadn't announced this specification, we would still know its displacement. And we would know primarily because when the 2012 Civic Si goes on sale, Honda will officially stop offering a 2.0L K-series engine in the United States. For the time being, anyway.

5. Of the performance-oriented K24-equipped vehicles, the recently facelifted 5-speed manual transmission 2011 Accord coupe is rated 190hp @ 7000RPM and 162hp @ 4400RPM.

The 6-speed manual transmission 2011 TSX is rated 201hp @ 7000RPM and 172lb-ft @ 4300RPM. The 5-speed automatic transmission is rated, 170lb-ft @ 4300RPM.

Statistically, there is a 50% chance the Civic Si will get a retuned version of the Accord Coupes's powertrain. However, based on these specs, we can logically deduce that the likelihood the 2012 Civic Si's powertrain is NOT shared with the also recently facelifted 2011 TSX is VERY slim, just by comparing the numbers alone.

6. TOV states at the very top of this dyno test all of their sources are confirming the 2012 Civic will get what is essentially the TSX's engine, and based on history

7. The reliability of TOV's sources > random forum skepticism.

Is any of this hard data? No. But then nobody claims it to be. That said, it's difficult to argue against logical speculation. It's not like these claims are being pulled from thin air. They are all grounded in some sort of fact.

Hope this helps a bit.


Respectfully, no, it doesn't really help at all. There are two types of K-series engines with just the CRV and Element alone. Sure, they're on the truck engine side of the K-series family tree but they differ greatly in output. Numbers stated as facts but which are based on assumptions are still simple assumptions. I'd like to see what the actual car can do in real world tests. We have a displacement value and peak TQ and HP numbers, nothing more that I've seen.

There are two arguments here: 1.) A 2.4L Si won't rev as high as a K20 Si, and 2.) The peak numbers released don't represent an improvement upon the current Si. I respect the concern that the new Si probably won't rev to the moon but in terms of power production there are zero facts at the moment to support any claim. One look at the peak power levels being maintained while boosting efficiency a good bit means the TQ and HP curves will probably look very different from those for the current Si. No one can make a guess on how quick the car is or how it will feel at the moment.

What I find interesting from reading many of these comments is folks are just thinking in terms of swapping engines from one Honda car to another. I too have read the swap information from the dozens of resouces online. Sure it's possible to take a given set of existing parts and build new combinations with the goal of specific results. The Honda people who put the '12 Si together have no such limitations however. It's also possible they scrapped the entire K24 engine from the TSX and started over. It's possible the head will be a clean-sheet design. I haven't even read anything from Honda yet that points to the '12 Si using a K-series engine. Yeah, I assume it will.

I'm a pessimist though so I'll just assume they placed a breathed on head from the current TSX on the 2002 CRV K24 block, pistons and rods giving the '12 Si 200 HP from 11 to 1 on premium gas but with a 6500 RPM redline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_K_engine

If you really want to play the bean-counter angle on all of this Honda should have just put the '10 CRV engine in the '09 TSX or the TSX engine in the '08 Accord. Or the TSX engine in all of the K24 cars.



owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: What this likely means... [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-23-2011 22:08
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Grace141 wrote:
vandme10 wrote:
Facts:

1. There are two types of K-series engines:

Those found in performance vehicles such as the RSX-S, 06+ Civic Si and TSX. And then those found in every other car (Yes, I'm oversimplifying to get to the point).
2. Honda's K20Z3--found in the 2011 Civic Si--has stopped production, because
3. Honda's press release announces a 2.4L engine for the 2012 Civic Si, meaning
4. Even if Honda hadn't announced this specification, we would still know its displacement. And we would know primarily because when the 2012 Civic Si goes on sale, Honda will officially stop offering a 2.0L K-series engine in the United States. For the time being, anyway.

5. Of the performance-oriented K24-equipped vehicles, the recently facelifted 5-speed manual transmission 2011 Accord coupe is rated 190hp @ 7000RPM and 162hp @ 4400RPM.

The 6-speed manual transmission 2011 TSX is rated 201hp @ 7000RPM and 172lb-ft @ 4300RPM. The 5-speed automatic transmission is rated, 170lb-ft @ 4300RPM.

Statistically, there is a 50% chance the Civic Si will get a retuned version of the Accord Coupes's powertrain. However, based on these specs, we can logically deduce that the likelihood the 2012 Civic Si's powertrain is NOT shared with the also recently facelifted 2011 TSX is VERY slim, just by comparing the numbers alone.

6. TOV states at the very top of this dyno test all of their sources are confirming the 2012 Civic will get what is essentially the TSX's engine, and based on history

7. The reliability of TOV's sources > random forum skepticism.

Is any of this hard data? No. But then nobody claims it to be. That said, it's difficult to argue against logical speculation. It's not like these claims are being pulled from thin air. They are all grounded in some sort of fact.

Hope this helps a bit.


Respectfully, no, it doesn't really help at all. There are two types of K-series engines with just the CRV and Element alone. Sure, they're on the truck engine side of the K-series family tree but they differ greatly in output. Numbers stated as facts but which are based on assumptions are still simple assumptions. I'd like to see what the actual car can do in real world tests. We have a displacement value and peak TQ and HP numbers, nothing more that I've seen.

There are two arguments here: 1.) A 2.4L Si won't rev as high as a K20 Si, and 2.) The peak numbers released don't represent an improvement upon the current Si. I respect the concern that the new Si probably won't rev to the moon but in terms of power production there are zero facts at the moment to support any claim. One look at the peak power levels being maintained while boosting efficiency a good bit means the TQ and HP curves will probably look very different from those for the current Si. No one can make a guess on how quick the car is or how it will feel at the moment.

What I find interesting from reading many of these comments is folks are just thinking in terms of swapping engines from one Honda car to another. I too have read the swap information from the dozens of resouces online. Sure it's possible to take a given set of existing parts and build new combinations with the goal of specific results. The Honda people who put the '12 Si together have no such limitations however. It's also possible they scrapped the entire K24 engine from the TSX and started over. It's possible the head will be a clean-sheet design. I haven't even read anything from Honda yet that points to the '12 Si using a K-series engine. Yeah, I assume it will.

I'm a pessimist though so I'll just assume they placed a breathed on head from the current TSX on the 2002 CRV K24 block, pistons and rods giving the '12 Si 200 HP from 11 to 1 on premium gas but with a 6500 RPM redline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_K_engine

If you really want to play the bean-counter angle on all of this Honda should have just put the '10 CRV engine in the '09 TSX or the TSX engine in the '08 Accord. Or the TSX engine in all of the K24 cars.





The TSX and Accord engines are identical. The only thing that seems to be seperating them is tuning (as is the case with the Accord LX and EX). They even carry the same K24Z3 designator.

Also, you accuse of oversimplifying, but then do it yourself. Yeah, Honda could have just made the TSX and Accord engine identical, but then how do they convince you pay $6K more for a car that offers no additional power.

You can play the assumption card all you want, but it won't be long now until we do have the facts. Like I have said repeatedly. None of it is 100% sure, but you can pretty much bet the farm that it is very, VERY, accurate.


 
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
30 mobile: 0