Si vs Si

[charleswrivers]

Mine did have a pretty regular bout of 3rd gear pop out and was very notchy initially.

I am not a fluid snob at all. I tend to buy whatever oil is the cheapest for all of my cars. I did find, to my relief, that Amsoil's light MTF that's made for Honda's cured it and made the notchiness pretty much disappear. I frequented the RSX forums at the time and it was one of a few that were recommended and I tried a couple of the others before I used it w/o success until then.

Once I had that sorted, it really was a great car. My feelings on it certainly wouldnt be as good had I never tried that. I'll be trying the Amsoil MTF in this car right off the bat. My 9th gen had gotten a bit notchy at the time of it's trade... and it was only about 3 years old.

Between my limited experience with 3 MT Honda's and by current AT Odyssey... and having read up a lot of the current and past Odyssey's and, in general that J-series engine/transmission combo... Honda seems to simply make an inferior fluid to the aftermarket both it's MTF and ATF... and transmissions haven't been their strong suit.

I'm looking on with interest to see if their 10 speed is worth a damn over time. The 9 speed they threw in Acuras got a lot of bad preas... the 6 has been so-so and the older 5 speeds seemed to be pretty poor... at least trying to move those big things.

Sponsored

 

[absolude]

Mine did have a pretty regular bout of 3rd gear pop out and was very notchy initially.

I am not a fluid snob at all. I tend to buy whatever oil is the cheapest for all of my cars. I did find, to my relief, that Amsoil's light MTF that's made for Honda's cured it and made the notchiness pretty much disappear. I frequented the RSX forums at the time and it was one of a few that were recommended and I tried a couple of the others before I used it w/o success until then.

This relates to the MTF dilemma that I'll never probably solve. After I got the 3rd gear fix it worked flawlessly.
At about 60K Km. I installed the KW supercharger and replaced the Honda MTF with Amsoil, especially because I kept hearing great things about it.
The new formula Honda MTF was so thin I thought Amsoil will protect better.
Well, after 40K Km my tranny crapped out, more precise the main shaft.
Did some more research an among all good things about Amsoil MTF I read a couple of complains of bearing being destroyed in similar cars.
So I'll never know what want wrong. Hard to blame it on the KW kit because is not known to cause tranny damage and I didn't track or abuse the car.
Somehow, when I see how low viscosity the Honda MTF is I still think to go back to Amsoil.

 

[charleswrivers]

This relates to the MTF dilemma that I'll never probably solve. After I got the 3rd gear fix it worked flawlessly.
At about 60K Km. I installed the KW supercharger and replaced the Honda MTF with Amsoil, especially because I kept hearing great things about it.
The new formula Honda MTF was so thin I thought Amsoil will protect better.
Well, after 40K Km my tranny crapped out, more precise the main shaft.
Did some more research an among all good things about Amsoil MTF I read a couple of complains of bearing being destroyed in similar cars.
So I'll never know what want wrong. Hard to blame it on the KW kit because is not known to cause tranny damage and I didn't track or abuse the car.
Somehow, when I see how low viscosity the Honda MTF is I still think to go back to Amsoil.

The Honda MTF was 30w as I recall. Amsoils is advertised as 5w-30. In my MTF journey, I tried some syncromesh MTFs that there more of the traditional thick gear lubes. They drastically improved feel once warm... but were damn near impossible to shift in the cold NY state winters and didn't cure the 3rd gear pop-out... though it was improved.

I don't have a lot of first hand car experience outside of the Hondas I've had and handful of old Z's... but I've always thought it was peculiar how thin the MTF Honda uses is. From the trucks/tractors I messed with as a kid... using something that thin was totally foreign to me.

That RSX of yours must have been quite a ride.

 

[absolude]

The Honda MTF was 30w as I recall. Amsoils is advertised as 5w-30. In my MTF journey, I tried some syncromesh MTFs that there more of the traditional thick gear lubes. They drastically improved feel once warm... but were damn near impossible to shift in the cold NY state winters and didn't cure the 3rd gear pop-out... though it was improved.

I don't have a lot of first hand car experience outside of the Hondas I've had and handful of old Z's... but I've always thought it was peculiar how thin the MTF Honda uses is. From the trucks/tractors I messed with as a kid... using something that thin was totally foreign to me.

That RSX of yours must have been quite a ride.

For shift feel the Amsoil was absolutely perfect. Could not notice a change when 10 under freezing.
The fact Honda is using the same MTF in these new higher torque engines gives me some confidence. Anyways the tranny doesn't feel like new after getting it fixed.
It's not an RSX, the Acura CSX type S was a glorified 2006-2011 Civic Si sold in Canada only.
Still have it. 340hp at the wheels. Can't wait to put the summers on.

 

[BoostedSiCoupe]

I tried all the different manual trans fluids in an attempt to fix my rsx and Si gear grinds, but they either didnt make much of a difference, or they only temporarily made shifting feel better.

I tried amsoil, redline, new oem honda fluid, etc.

None of them actually fixed anything, ultimately.

I will say that the amsoil 75w90 mtf did horrible under 40 degree weather.

 

[SI_honda_2k17]

10th gen Si vs 9th gen Si. Mods listed in the beginning of the video(They are both relatively stock). I knew the 10th gen Si was faster but I was shocked how much faster it really is (shows Honda understated the 10th gen Si's numbers), it destroys the 9th gen by about a school bus length.

Thank you, i was looking forward to see the result of the two generations side by side. Having own both (plus an RSX type S) , I was expected to see the tenth gen of SI beung the fastest and that confirm my assumption.
Both in straight line and on the track, the 10th gen is te most powerful SI

 

[FC1Dawn]

The 9ths only make around 165-170 whp from their 205 at the flywheel.

We're still 205 at the flywheel... though we're dynoing near 200 whp still. Take the extra power... a little less weight and a slug of torque in the low/midrange to help get it moving and it does well.

The K24 doesn't response as well to light mods... and was hurting to crack 200 whp. A downpipe and tune would get you around there... and there's something beautiful about a high revving NA 4 banger... but the K27Z7 has lost most of the magic... and revs...and exhaust Vtec of the K20A2s. An 8th gen can stay NA and still make some good power, even with a massive torque deficit in the low/midrange. Burn $7k and slap a turbo on a 9th gen and you'd have a faster car likely than any stock turbo 10th gen... but on a chassis that feel far more dated than its 3-6 year age would let on.

I was so done with my 9th gen and never really loved it like the earlier RSX type-S, I wasn't sad in the least to trade it for the 10th gen.

I see you posting everywhere on this forum and I just want to say I appreciate your thoughts and information. Very interesting!

 

[charleswrivers]

I tried all the different manual trans fluids in an attempt to fix my rsx and Si gear grinds, but they either didnt make much of a difference, or they only temporarily made shifting feel better.

I tried amsoil, redline, new oem honda fluid, etc.

None of them actually fixed anything, ultimately.

I will say that the amsoil 75w90 mtf did horrible under 40 degree weather.

Yeah... I tried it and had a few -15F mornings.

It... well... it didn't work out well. I had to let the car idle while and then sneak it into first and let it be in 1st for a bit. That stuff didn't stay in the car but for a matter of weeks.

I see you posting everywhere on this forum and I just want to say I appreciate your thoughts and information. Very interesting!

Ha! Thanks. I mostly just like to hear myself talk. There is a lot of good information here. I hope I can impart some wisdom... some of it hard earned, to make things easy on someone or to keep someone from making a mistake... especially ones that hurts their wallet.

My old man and I talked cars a lot and he passed a couple years back. My wife likes to (and does) drive the hell out if the Civic... but she doesn't talk about cars really. Most everyone in the office where I'm working for my shore duty has a lot of common interests... but *none* of them are car guys (it's tragic)... so I have to visit questionable websites like this to get my fix.

 

[zroger73]

According to Car and Driver's instrumented testing of a 9th-gen Civic Si to a 10th-gen Civic Si...

C/D TEST RESULTS: (9th gen Si sedan)
Zero to 60 mph: 6.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 17.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.8 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 9.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 8.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.1 sec @ 94 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 174 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 g
FUEL ECONOMY:
C/D observed: 27 mpg
SOUND LEVEL:
WOT: 77
70 MPH: 69
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-honda-civic-si-sedan-test-review

C/D TEST RESULTS: (10th gen Si sedan)
Zero to 60 mph: 6.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.6 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 13.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 8.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.0 sec @ 95 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 176 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY:
Observed: 28 mpg
SOUND LEVEL:
WOT: 83
70 MPH: 71
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-honda-civic-si-sedan-test-review

In terms of stock performance, the reality is that the 10th-gen is actually worse from 0-60, 5-60, top-gear acceleration, braking, and quietness than the 9th-gen. The only areas where the 10th-gen wins are almost too close to call.

 

[Design]

Some of this is simply due to aging. A k24 in the hands of an average owner loses around 5-10% each 100K. It would have been interesting to see a recent dyno or compression readout on the 9th Gen.

 

[xbbnx]

According to Car and Driver's instrumented testing of a 9th-gen Civic Si to a 10th-gen Civic Si...

C/D TEST RESULTS: (9th gen Si sedan)
Zero to 60 mph: 6.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 17.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.8 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 9.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 8.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.1 sec @ 94 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 174 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 g
FUEL ECONOMY:
C/D observed: 27 mpg
SOUND LEVEL:
WOT: 77
70 MPH: 69
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-honda-civic-si-sedan-test-review

C/D TEST RESULTS: (10th gen Si sedan)
Zero to 60 mph: 6.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.6 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 13.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 8.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.0 sec @ 95 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 176 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY:
Observed: 28 mpg
SOUND LEVEL:
WOT: 83
70 MPH: 71
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-honda-civic-si-sedan-test-review

In terms of stock performance, the reality is that the 10th-gen is actually worse from 0-60, 5-60, top-gear acceleration, braking, and quietness than the 9th-gen. The only areas where the 10th-gen wins are almost too close to call.

Interesting observation, particularly with the braking numbers and how close the skip pad numbers are. I have owned both gens and the feeling I got when driving both cars was that the 10th gen was superior in every single way and that it wasnt even close, but the numbers here dont back that up, in fact it shows the opposite. Somethings gotta give here, it doesnt make sense.

 

[RODSCIVIC]

Why is the road holding that much worse than the Coupe? Wow.

 

[WOPSiWOT]

Why is the road holding that much worse than the Coupe? Wow.

The Coupe C&D tested had summer tires, the sedan had all-seasons. Would be worth looking back to see how the 9th Gen was equipped for their tests. If it had the summer rubber then you'd have to compare to C&D instrumented tests on the coupe, which were measurably different. Good point. 10th may actually be better by the numbers when tires are accounted for, but it still isn't dramatically different.

 

[RODSCIVIC]

The Coupe C&D tested had summer tires, the sedan had all-seasons. Would be worth looking back to see how the 9th Gen was equipped for their tests. If it had the summer rubber then you'd have to compare to C&D instrumented tests on the coupe, which were measurably different. Good point. 10th may actually be better by the numbers when tires are accounted for, but it still isn't dramatically different.

Looks like both of them had All-Seasons...

 

[Design]

The summer tire variant shows some improvement in some metrics; others not so much. "Price as tested" shows they had the higher trim option with navigation & summer tires:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-honda-civic-si-sedan-instrumented-test-review

Roadholding improved to .88 G's. Probably because the Continental All-Seasons on the 2014 Sedan were quite good (I run a version of them on the MS3). However, it's still a bit skewed since the smaller/lighter 2012 wheels should yield better acceleration at the expense of lateral performance.

Sponsored