Honda Reveals 2017 Civic Si Coupe and Sedan (205 HP / 192 LB-FT)

[NoelPR]

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/fords-next-focus-st-could-produce-275bhp-from-just-15-litres/

If that happens it will outdate so badly the 1.5T that is hard to imagine how bad it will be for Honda.

Sponsored

 

[nick]

Can I get a link to Honda saying anything of the sort regarding the Si?

"Honda claims this is the biggest complete redesign the Civic has ever received. The goal with the 10th generation car is to recapture some of the sporty character the Civic used to be known for, but was lacking in the last generation. The news under the skin is just as dramatic as the car’s new look. The regular Civic will feature two all-new four-cylinder engines, a 2.0-liter and a 1.5-liter turbocharged unit. This is the first time Honda has ever offered a turbocharged engine in North America and claims it will have class leading performance, which means expect power levels to be high."

But seriously unless you've been under a rock Hondas been claiming this since the concept was released in 2015. This is why everyone is so dissapointed. The Si is supposed to be the in the same class as the GTI, ST and WRX. The Type R with the STI, RS, Golf R.
But clearly the Si is a class behind. But hey if you're cool with that then it's all good.

 

[Vtak Groceries]

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/fords-next-focus-st-could-produce-275bhp-from-just-15-litres/

See. Stuff like this I can get excited for. This is called progress.

 

[dmitri]

"The regular Civic will feature two all-new four-cylinder engines, a 2.0-liter and a 1.5-liter turbocharged unit. This is the first time Honda has ever offered a turbocharged engine in North America and claims it will have class leading performance, which means expect power levels to be high."

I highlighted the part you missed. They claimed it for the regular Civic, not the Si - and it was not an empty/baseless claim IMO.
Yes, one could extrapolate that onto the Si, but technically Honda didn't say it like that.

I bet you they know full well the Si is less what people would expect for this generation, in part I'm sure because the regular Civic is much more powerful. (And in part probably because of the CTR.) But... it is what it is. I'm sure they had their reasons, as much as some of us might dislike the outcome.

 

[Design]

Several industry insiders who spoke with the engineers (including HondaPro Jason) were aware that the original power goal was 220+ around 18-24 months ago. And that the only way they were going to get there was by using the 2.0. Somewhere along the way, the project team realized it was either too expensive or too impractical to use the 2.0. And that the performance-to-dollar they were after could not be met.

I'm willing to bet that if you spoke to anyone on that team, their intention was to use the 2.0. But detuning an engine that's intended for the 275-320 HP range, in order to meet their efficiency target, is an expensive task to undertake. And one for which Honda wasn't willing to compromise.

I'm not defending their decision. Just expanding on what influenced the outcome.

 

[nick]

I highlighted the part you missed. They claimed it for the regular Civic, not the Si - and it was not an empty/baseless claim IMO.
Yes, one could extrapolate that onto the Si, but technically Honda didn't say it like that.

I bet you they know full well the Si is less what people would expect for this generation, in part I'm sure because the regular Civic is much more powerful. (And in part probably because of the CTR.) But... it is what it is. I'm sure they had their reasons, as much as some of us might dislike the outcome.

Why would anyone expect less for the Si just because the regular civic got an upgrade? That doesn't even make logical sense. The Si is in the sport compact class. The regular Civic isn't. Maybe Honda should have put an *Si variation excluded, from their class leading statement.

 

[Vtak Groceries]

Several industry insiders who spoke with the engineers (including HondaPro Jason) were aware that the original power goal was 220+ around 18-24 months ago. And that the only way they were going to get there was by using the 2.0. Somewhere along the way, the project team realized it was either too expensive or too impractical to use the 2.0. And that the performance-to-dollar they were after could not be met.

I'm willing to bet that if you spoke to anyone on that team, their intention was to use the 2.0. But detuning an engine that's intended for the 275-320 HP range, in order to meet their efficiency target, is an expensive task to undertake. And one for which Honda wasn't willing to compromise.

I'm not defending their decision. Just expanding on what influenced the outcome.

Honestly I think they should have set a 2.0t engine as the benchmark and built their budget around that. Even if the Civic Si would cost $1,000 or $1500 more than what it will, I think it would be worth it just to have that engine.

 

[chrisliese]

It is targeted at the Mid 30 year old guy that still wants something fast and gets good gas and feels like an expensive car. This is not a 2001ish Si. I was about 19 then and that car fit me, and now I am 37 and the new civic fits my lifestyle. Married with a couple of kids, wife has the odyssey. The SI fell by the wayside when WRX and EVO hit the streets. Type R could hang but not in the USA. Si is just trying to be a WRX, but not as harsh, targeting those previous civic owners, who may have wanted an SI back in the day but only had an EX, who are now grown up. They will sell a lot of these to the 30 somethings. The under 30 mostly can't afford the car, and those that can will stretch for the type r.
That said, the target market does not really want to fight the torque steer you would get with 250hp coming through front wheels, even with an LSD.
Crazy that the Type R is not awd imo.

 

[chrisliese]

Anyone see why the SI Sedan Exhaust system would not fit up, with the rear back plastic piece as well, to a EX-T?

 

[Vtak Groceries]

Did anyone read this regarding the Civic Hatback Sport 180hp.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/civic/2017/2017-honda-civic-hatchback-sport-first-test-review/

All that aside, the extra sheetmetal involved in making a sedan into a hatchback does add weight, but it’s less than 100 pounds. That might help account for the difference in performance, too. We clocked a Civic Sedan with the continuously variable transmission at 6.8 seconds to 60 mph. This Hatchback Sport, despite its more fun six-speed manual and an extra six horsepower and 15 lb-ft of torque, needed 7.5 seconds to do the same. It was a smaller gap at the quarter-mile mark, with the Sedan crossing the finish in 15.3 seconds at 93.0 mph and the Hatchback Sport just behind at 15.5 seconds at 91.5 mph. We tried to get a better result out of the Hatchback Sport, but after about 20 launches, the engine heat soaked badly.

Honda apparently didn’t intended for the Sport moniker to denote quicker acceleration but rather better handling. In that department, the Hatchback Sport pulled 0.88 average g on the skidpad to the Sedan’s 0.84 and lapped the figure eight in 27.1 seconds at 0.63 average g to the Sedan’s 27.4 seconds at 0.64 average g. The Hatchback Sport also stopped 5 feet shorter, in just 115 feet.

The civic hatback sport is slower than the base Civic ex-t. All due to the CVT. Wonder how the Si will do?

 

[dmitri]

Why would anyone expect less for the Si just because the regular civic got an upgrade? That doesn't even make logical sense. The Si is in the sport compact class. The regular Civic isn't. Maybe Honda should have put an *Si variation excluded, from their class leading statement.

I was just commenting on the accuracy of what claims Honda made about what; that's all. I never said anyone should/would expect less from the Si.

 

[Design]

Did anyone read this regarding the Civic Hatback Sport 180hp.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/civic/2017/2017-honda-civic-hatchback-sport-first-test-review/


The civic hatback sport is slower than the base Civic ex-t. All due to the CVT. Wonder how the Si will do?

Based on previous Si results, probably around 6.4-6.5 in the hands of MT or C&D. The Si should have a closer ratio 6MT and better tires to help. And a slightly lighter curb weight over the outgoing Si.

 

[zx2down]

It is targeted at the Mid 30 year old guy that still wants something fast and gets good gas and feels like an expensive car. This is not a 2001ish Si. I was about 19 then and that car fit me, and now I am 37 and the new civic fits my lifestyle. Married with a couple of kids, wife has the odyssey. The SI fell by the wayside when WRX and EVO hit the streets. Type R could hang but not in the USA. Si is just trying to be a WRX, but not as harsh, targeting those previous civic owners, who may have wanted an SI back in the day but only had an EX, who are now grown up. They will sell a lot of these to the 30 somethings. The under 30 mostly can't afford the car, and those that can will stretch for the type r.
That said, the target market does not really want to fight the torque steer you would get with 250hp coming through front wheels, even with an LSD.
Crazy that the Type R is not awd imo.

I'm the opposite, 34yrs old, don't want a family, but want a fun small car that I can have fun in. I've had sport compacts in the 97-05 years, I've had modified V8's and I've had "sensible" family cars. I'm grown up and I want a fun car to toss in corners and zip around in again. I don't want to spend the money on an RS, R or Type R. I'm not interested in any of the current Mustangs or Camaro's that are under 60K. That means Si, GTI, GLI, ST or WRX.

 

[Curtman]

It is targeted at the Mid 30 year old guy that still wants something fast and gets good gas and feels like an expensive car. This is not a 2001ish Si. I was about 19 then and that car fit me, and now I am 37 and the new civic fits my lifestyle. Married with a couple of kids, wife has the odyssey. The SI fell by the wayside when WRX and EVO hit the streets. Type R could hang but not in the USA. Si is just trying to be a WRX, but not as harsh, targeting those previous civic owners, who may have wanted an SI back in the day but only had an EX, who are now grown up. They will sell a lot of these to the 30 somethings. The under 30 mostly can't afford the car, and those that can will stretch for the type r.
That said, the target market does not really want to fight the torque steer you would get with 250hp coming through front wheels, even with an LSD.
Crazy that the Type R is not awd imo.

I completely agree. I am mid 30s and I always wanted an SI. Only ever had an EX. I think it will be fun enough on the street to keep me happy. Even if it's not that much faster than the EX-T I think the suspension tweaks and transmission will make up for it. The Type R is out of my price range and as long as the SI is a couple thousand cheaper than a GTI I will be happy.

 

[Tonezorz]

I completely agree. I am mid 30s and I always wanted an SI. Only ever had an EX. I think it will be fun enough on the street to keep me happy. Even if it's not that much faster than the EX-T I think the suspension tweaks and transmission will make up for it. The Type R is out of my price range and as long as the SI is a couple thousand cheaper than a GTI I will be happy.

Also agree. Late 20's, just had a kid, Type R is a bit much, but SI strikes a nice balance for me. When you drive 20-30 miles each way for a commute, which isn't much, something with decent MPG is appreciated too. The Miata was fun, but the commute became a bit of a chore. Legacy is nice and quiet, but uninspiring at best. Maybe an SI will do the trick.

Edit: I am sad however that they don't seem to have any honda sense features at all, even if it was only blind spot / rear cross traffic it would be nice. Even though Toyota and others are even doing automatic cruise control w/manual transmissions.

Sponsored