2016 Civic Si rumored to have around 200HP

[cae]

Everyone assumes that a 2.0T in the Si would create a conundrum for Honda, as if Honda can only separate the two cars by engine type.
Again I will remind y'all of the WRX and STi. For years both used a 2.5T but both are very different cars.
Why does everyone assume that the Si and CTR can't both use a 2.0T? You think Honda couldn't create obvious differences between the two cars? Back in the 90's Honda had the Integra GS, GS-R, and Type-R. And no they were not separated by a simple tune!

It's not that I don't think they could both use a 2.0T, in fact I think that would be the best option. If they could give us the current Si experience with a 2.0T, I think it'd be quite the bargain. Perhaps I'm seeing the Type R in the wrong light in comparing it to the Focus RS and Golf R. The gaps between the Focus ST & RS or the GTI & Golf R just seem so much wider than Si & Type R because of major drivetrain differences, even though their prices are similar. Maybe it'll be more like the difference between a Cooper S & JCW, though I think the value of either is pretty weak considering the competition.

I agree that the 1.5T has no place in a performance model in the segment, it'd be like Ford deciding to use the Fiesta ST's engine in the Focus. They could make their desired power numbers with it, though there wouldn't be as much left to tinker with. That's where my worries come from.

Sponsored

 

[takemorepills]

I think people tend to really fixate on the whole comparing the CTR to Golf R and Focus RS, or the Si to the GTI, Focus ST, Fiesta ST, etc.
That's fine and all, but there are a lot of potential owners who are not going to go on just performance stats alone. People like certain things about certain cars.

I like the performance of the ST and RS, but Fords just plain suck. Alien face front ends and alien head dashboards. But hey, that's just me and my opinion. Then there's the whole Ford stigma. Argue about it all you want, a Ford is a Ford. Always has been, always will. I personally don't like them.

The Golf's are super nice. Love the looks and performance. I really appreciate the restrained style of the Golf's. But yet again, VW is just VW, and reliability and quality issues persist. I heard they are getting better....we'll see. I wish they would because I really like the GTI and R.

The 6th, 7th and 8th Gen Civics in my opinion have been let-downs. The Civic peaked at the 5th gen, and looks like GenX is gonna possibly eclipse the 5th gen, so I am very excited to see what Honda has to offer. To me, I could care less if an EB Mustang can beat a Si in a drag race, or that the RS has 45 more HP than the CTR. Couldn't care less. That is a battle that someone will always lose. I just want a Honda that embodies what Honda used to do so well, and these days that means more horsepower than ever before, but in typical Honda fashion they usually never bring the most to the table. Not an issue for me or likely for a bunch of other people. Certainly some people who own a hot Ford because of it's power stats will still look longingly at a Si or CTR, knowing that MAYBE their Ford can or can not beat the Honda in some kind of statistical race, but the style and value of the Civic will still appeal to them.

 

[Design]

Looking at the specs of the 1.5T, I'm even more convinced that Honda will either stick with the NA 2.4 or go with the detuned 2.0T. The turbo on the 1.5 is fairly maxed at 16.5 PSI. They "could" do a larger turbo and breathing hardware; but they'd lose precious low end torque and throttle response in the process.

It also appears that handling, ride quality and refinement are where they need to be for this generation. Will be paying very close attention over the next few months.

 

[mvance30]

I think people tend to really fixate on the whole comparing the CTR to Golf R and Focus RS, or the Si to the GTI, Focus ST, Fiesta ST, etc.
That's fine and all, but there are a lot of potential owners who are not going to go on just performance stats alone. People like certain things about certain cars.

I like the performance of the ST and RS, but Fords just plain suck. Alien face front ends and alien head dashboards. But hey, that's just me and my opinion. Then there's the whole Ford stigma. Argue about it all you want, a Ford is a Ford. Always has been, always will. I personally don't like them.

The Golf's are super nice. Love the looks and performance. I really appreciate the restrained style of the Golf's. But yet again, VW is just VW, and reliability and quality issues persist. I heard they are getting better....we'll see. I wish they would because I really like the GTI and R.

The 6th, 7th and 8th Gen Civics in my opinion have been let-downs. The Civic peaked at the 5th gen, and looks like GenX is gonna possibly eclipse the 5th gen, so I am very excited to see what Honda has to offer. To me, I could care less if an EB Mustang can beat a Si in a drag race, or that the RS has 45 more HP than the CTR. Couldn't care less. That is a battle that someone will always lose. I just want a Honda that embodies what Honda used to do so well, and these days that means more horsepower than ever before, but in typical Honda fashion they usually never bring the most to the table. Not an issue for me or likely for a bunch of other people. Certainly some people who own a hot Ford because of it's power stats will still look longingly at a Si or CTR, knowing that MAYBE their Ford can or can not beat the Honda in some kind of statistical race, but the style and value of the Civic will still appeal to them.

that's an opinion based post though. IMO I think the CTR looks like crap. Way too boy racer fast and furious going on with it. But of course that's just an opinion. I don't think theres much style and value argument comparing the CTR or SI against a lot of other vehicles. You can get more "car" from other vehicles for the same price as both of them so the value aspect really isn't there. As far as style neither the current SI, the civic x or the CTR really have a universal appeal. They all have a decent mix of reviews. I see ST's on the road once and awhile on my way to work and can't help but to like how they look more than my SI. I still rather have my SI but looks wise, they win IMO. (the interiors are shitty though)

 

[Tuttle]

Looking at the specs of the 1.5T, I'm even more convinced that Honda will either stick with the NA 2.4 or go with the detuned 2.0T. The turbo on the 1.5 is fairly maxed at 16.5 PSI. They "could" do a larger turbo and breathing hardware; but they'd lose precious low end torque and throttle response in the process.

It also appears that handling, ride quality and refinement are where they need to be for this generation. Will be paying very close attention over the next few months.

I think it's all but a lock for the 2.0T in the Si. It's too easy and tempting to go forced induction these the manufacturers these days. Easy to develop power, easy to meet MPG targets, easy to keep engine size smaller (and lighter), etc...

What I'd personally love to see happen though is a high revving 2.4 NA for the Si while the CTR stays with its 2.0T turbo. That way the cars can have their own characters and be differentiated more... rather than the Si just being a detuned CTR. The Si can be the NA high-revver while the CTR can be the turbo monster (though it really should be the other way around since track cars like the CTR should have NA engine IMO).

 

[HondaGeek]

I think it's all but a lock for the 2.0T in the Si. It's too easy and tempting to go forced induction these the manufacturers these days. Easy to develop power, easy to meet MPG targets, easy to keep engine size smaller (and lighter), etc...

What I'd personally love to see happen though is a high revving 2.4 NA for the Si while the CTR stays with its 2.0T turbo. That way the cars can have their own characters and be differentiated more... rather than the Si just being a detuned CTR. The Si can be the NA high-revver while the CTR can be the turbo monster (though it really should be the other way around since track cars like the CTR should have NA engine IMO).

I also would prefer an NA 4 cylinder with an increase back to 8,000 rpms. Yet with how the world of emissions and fuel efficiency is going, I would put my chips on a turbo Si. I still feel that we may just get a 1.5T with slightly more power than the current model. You never know, though. Honda may actually decide to put the 2.0T and give the Si 250HP, which is the minimum it would need not only to compete with the Focus ST, but the real big FWD car that will be the Mazdaspeed3.

 

[Design]

Looking at the torque and PSI numbers, I can all but guarantee the 1.5 is out (unless they go with a bigger turbo and breathing hardware as mentioned above). Even then, it's probably cheaper to do the 2.0T and make small tweaks to the IM, IC, and exhaust.

Honda's push for refinement, features and driving experience would put the Si more in between the Focus ST and GTI. 220-240 would be the sweet spot.

 

[AmericanTypeR]

.

 

[froidpython]

I really hope they stick with the 2.4L N/A engine in the 2016 Si. I don't want a turbo.

 

[benjaminh]

I really hope they stick with the 2.4L N/A engine in the 2016 Si. I don't want a turbo.

Why not?

 

[takemorepills]

Just like civics of old, i can see it sharing the 1.5T of the EX, only this time I think they will separate it with a power bump to 210ish. The early 90s Si's shared motors with the EX models, the only difference was appearance and suspension differences. The Del Sol Si had a unique transmission tho to separate it as well, which I doubt they would use the same 6 speed from the LX so that would also be a similar comparison.

On a brighter note, the 2.0 they use in the LX is still a very viable option. It has both DI and VTEC as well as VTC. As we know with the old Si 2.0 they could reach 205hp. This new motor is capable of higher compression and is more tech advanced compared to the last 2.0 so I'm sure they can modify the base models new 2.0 to meet or exceed the old 2.0 motor while keeping it NA and going back to a high revving screamer. That would be a nice contrast to the LX/EX(NA/Turbo) and the Si/TypeR(NA/Turbo) so both the lower and upper civic models are linear, resulting in an even increase in power/fun as you upgrade to the next tier.

Also, The above could also be said of the TypeR 2.0, just remove the turbo and add high comp pistons and re-tune.

Just IMHO

The 1.5T is an economy motor aimed at global sales. Many countries impose steeper taxes above 1.5L. This was the main reason Ford went from 1.6T to 1.5T in the Fusion, specifically because of the Chinese market. It's the main reason the global Civic sports the 1.5T.

The 1.5T has no place in the Si. At nearly 17 pounds of boost it doesn't make much power, so there's not enough power to be had for the Si.

 

[froidpython]

Why not?

Because I want to keep it for 20 years or so. A turbo car will not be as reliable. More parts means it will probably not be as reliable. Turbo, intercooler and so forth.

 

[Tuttle]

I really hope they stick with the 2.4L N/A engine in the 2016 Si. I don't want a turbo.

Same. These turbo engines redline at only like 7000 rpm or lower. They'd really get enthusiasts' attention if they went with an NA motor that redlines at 8000 rpm or higher.

On a brighter note, the 2.0 they use in the LX is still a very viable option. It has both DI and VTEC as well as VTC. As we know with the old Si 2.0 they could reach 205hp. This new motor is capable of higher compression and is more tech advanced compared to the last 2.0 so I'm sure they can modify the base models new 2.0 to meet or exceed the old 2.0 motor while keeping it NA and going back to a high revving screamer. That would be a nice contrast to the LX/EX(NA/Turbo) and the Si/TypeR(NA/Turbo) so both the lower and upper civic models are linear, resulting in an even increase in power/fun as you upgrade to the next tier.

If they went with the 2.0 from the LX they better find some way to add a thousand or more rpm to the redline, it redlines at only 6700 rpm, way too low for the Si.

 

[takemorepills]

Honda could provide a relatively high revving Si turbo. Let me go into internet boy-racer mode:

These new DI motors run higher CR than PFI motors and can run relatively high CR when boosted, which would allow a 2.0 to have reasonable off-boost drive-ability. To have a high revving turbo you just select a larger higher flowing turbo that hits higher in the revs.

This setup, with LSD would suit the Si well. The motor would be tame during normal driving but hit hard when revved, and the late boost and LSD might keep traction manageable.

This might not seem ideal as broad power is a desirability of modern turbo and might seem to have lag, but most modern turbo motors don't pull as well above 6k. Still, it'd be fast and would maintain the typical high revving nature of the Si.

Another problem would be emissions. High revving motors are difficult to qualify for modern emissions.

I do agree with the NA sentiment. I wouldn't mind a carryover K24 from the gen 9, I just hope Honda wouldn't revise the K to make it difficult to modify. Right now it's an awesome motor.

 

[HondaGeek]

Just give me the 2.2 liter, 260HP engine from the Mugen RR and call it day. Seriously, though, while I prefer a Honda NA engine, the future is going to be turbo.

Sponsored