Do you think turbo charging the Si was the right direction for Honda?

[ebatr24]

I've owned a FBO RSX Type S, and a FBO 9th Gen Si. In my opinion, turbo was the right way to go. The older Hondas were much like a Miata, BRZ/FRS in that they were fun to drive in certain situations but not all the time. Most of the time it was when you were going full throttle on some back roads hooning around. They aren't much fun to drive to the store, on the highway commute, etc... Down shifting to pass, beat a light, merge onto a freeway isn't always super fun, my rsx made good power but it had to be loud and a little jarring. The 10th can be quite quick and still be very enjoyable as a daily commuter, I think it takes a little more seat time to drive it at it's fullest but it is very rewarding to do so.

Sponsored

 

[amirza786]

I guess the final answer to the question is yes, turbo charging the Si for the 10th gen was the right thing to do, but I wish they would have went with a 2.0L engine. They could have kept the power where it is or maybe a bit more without sacrificing longevity, stepping on the toes of the Type R, and pricing it to much higher

 

[ebatr24]

I guess the final answer to the question is yes, turbo charging the Si for the 10th gen was the right thing to do, but I wish they would have went with a 2.0L engine. They could have kept the power where it is or maybe a bit more without sacrificing longevity, stepping on the toes of the Type R, and pricing it to much higher

With how the 1.5 has proven to perform why do you believe so strongly that they needed to go 2.0? Let's be realistic it's a 25k msrp car, the car is built as a sportier version of the base civic but is greatly supported by the aftermarket. The 1.5 has proven to be quite strong so far and is making great power. Honda really only skimped on the clutch setup for the car, and not tuning it for a little more horsepower which it could easily handle. Everywhere else it's a huge improvement over past civics, besides the 1.5 in the Si is proving to hold up a little better than the 2.0 in the R.

 

[amirza786]

With how the 1.5 has proven to perform why do you believe so strongly that they needed to go 2.0? Let's be realistic it's a 25k msrp car, the car is built as a sportier version of the base civic but is greatly supported by the aftermarket. The 1.5 has proven to be quite strong so far and is making great power. Honda really only skimped on the clutch setup for the car, and not tuning it for a little more horsepower which it could easily handle. Everywhere else it's a huge improvement over past civics, besides the 1.5 in the Si is proving to hold up a little better than the 2.0 in the R.

That was only a wish...I was just thinking out loud. You know how it is, we always want more. I am happy the way it is, and yes it is built for reliability. I was reading the Honda tested this engine up to 300 hp (at the flywheel) and found that it would hold up, they kept it at the current hp so it would last for 10 years or more

 

[ebatr24]

That was only a wish...I was just thinking out loud. You know how it is, we always want more. I am happy the way it is, and yes it is built for reliability. I was reading the Honda tested this engine up to 300 hp (at the flywheel) and found that it would hold up, they kept it at the current hp so it would last for 10 years or more

I can agree on that, would be nice for a 2.0 as it would definitely make more power with more mods. I hated on the Si when it was announced to offer a 1.5 only. Now I am glad I was totally wrong, I only wish we got a 2.0 so that you could get a little better sound from the exhausts available for the car.

 

[thatlilwhiteone]

I read an article from an interview with one of the Honda Engineers basically saying the reason they tuned the 10th Gen Si with the current HP and torque is due to wanting the engine to last over 10 years and over 100K. They left room open for enthusiasts who wanted to burn the candle at both ends

Does anyone have Any more info on this?
100k target seems low as shit.

 

[amirza786]

Does anyone have Any more info on this?
100k target seems low as shit.

Here is a link to an article related to the interview I was talking about: http://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/11150/honda-explains-why-the-2017-civic-si-has-only-205-hp

Actually the quote is ""Honda likes to build their engines to last hundreds of thousands of miles"

I can't find the origional article I read, but here is another one: http://www.autonews.com/article/20170604/OEM06/170609927/why-honda-put-a-lid-on-civic-sis-power

 

[charleswrivers]

Turbocharging was the right decision IMO. Now when it comes to the motor, doing an L15 was a compromise of cost on a lot of different levels. Cost of using an existing and mature block while going the direction of small displacement and adding DI to bolster those economy numbers for CAFE and be competitive.

They could have given the Si a detuned K20 turbo like what the Accord got, tuned for 87. It would have made the Si more expensive by a bit, probably been ~4 mpg combined hit and may have affected Type R sales, though I doubt the last one. I don't see a detuned K20 ever trickling down to the other trims and we'll see if the Si keeps soldiering on after this generation. I think it will, but the similar engine to the other trims make it less a standout... though I think it still is one.

By the time gen 11 comes out, economy needs to hold it's ground or go up, with power having an incremental rise to stay competitive at a similar price point. The K and L series engines will both be about 20 years old. I think turbo and small displacement is good for staying pure ICE... but I'm not sure what they'll do to ekk out more power/economy beyond tuning or maybe actually giving it a TD03. Perhaps we'll see a new engine, but you'd figure if they were going to implement something new, they'd be talking it up pretty soon. Nissan talked up variable compression and Mazda HCCI long before release.

I think the high revving NA Honda's are dead. I was shocked (though it's an improvement) they used a NA K20, albeit an economy variant, when they axed the R18. Day to day, the turbo L15s feel faster for the average driver than a K20/K24 and *certainly* an R18, though comparing a K20/K24 powered 8th/9th gen Si at the limit is about the same in instrumented tests than a 10th gen Si.

It's a change or die world. 9th gen was a DOA generation because of too little change/advancement from gen 8... and it was panned.

 

[87elco]

Turbocharging was the right decision IMO. Now when it comes to the motor, doing an L15 was a compromise of cost on a lot of different levels. Cost of using an existing and mature block while going the direction of small displacement and adding DI to bolster those economy numbers for CAFE and be competitive.

They could have given the Si a detuned K20 turbo like what the Accord got, tuned for 87. It would have made the Si more expensive by a bit, probably been ~4 mpg combined hit and may have affected Type R sales, though I doubt the last one. I don't see a detuned K20 ever trickling down to the other trims and we'll see if the Si keeps soldiering on after this generation. I think it will, but the similar engine to the other trims make it less a standout... though I think it still is one.

By the time gen 11 comes out, economy needs to hold it's ground or go up, with power having an incremental rise to stay competitive at a similar price point. The K and L series engines will both be about 20 years old. I think turbo and small displacement is good for staying pure ICE... but I'm not sure what they'll do to ekk out more power/economy beyond tuning or maybe actually giving it a TD03. Perhaps we'll see a new engine, but you'd figure if they were going to implement something new, they'd be talking it up pretty soon. Nissan talked up variable compression and Mazda HCCI long before release.

I think the high revving NA Honda's are dead. I was shocked (though it's an improvement) they used a NA K20, albeit an economy variant, when they axed the R18. Day to day, the turbo L15s feel faster for the average driver than a K20/K24 and *certainly* an R18, though comparing a K20/K24 powered 8th/9th gen Si at the limit is about the same in instrumented tests than a 10th gen Si.

It's a change or die world. 9th gen was a DOA generation because of too little change/advancement from gen 8... and it was panned.

Yeah if the lx sedan didn't have the k20 I would've gotten the lx hatch manual with 1.5t or ext manual

 

[BoostedSiCoupe]

I don't think anyone will say going turbo was a bad choice. Keeping it at 200hp, however, was a mistake in most people's minds. I believe 1/4 mile times drop over half a second from just a base map tune. Think Honda could have eeked out 225hp and put a better clutch in without jacking up the price of the car too much.

exactly

 

[SI_honda_2k17]

Yes it was the right decision

More powerful
More usable power
Better fuel economy
More environmental friendly

 

[averagetrackdriver]

besides the 1.5 in the Si is proving to hold up a little better than the 2.0 in the R.

Really? I know that CTR owners have had issues with gear grind and the wiring harness. What other problems have there been? I'm asking b/c I don't honestly haven't heard of any other engine problem. If anything, I've heard more people complaining about the L15B7 than the K20C1.

 

[BoostedSiCoupe]

Really? I know that CTR owners have had issues with gear grind and the wiring harness. What other problems have there been? I'm asking b/c I don't honestly haven't heard of any other engine problem. If anything, I've heard more people complaining about the L15B7 than the K20C1.

i havent read of any engine issues either jut the typical shitty transmission synchro problems.

 

[Fazzster]

Yes.....turbo = usable torque

 

[thatlilwhiteone]

You'll have to turn in your lease before that why does it matter ? Lol

Look @ this kitty cat following me around. He big mad. you have a lx 2.0 non turbo why you here? ahahhahaha

Sponsored