2017 Civic Si Instrumented Test Results (0-60, 1/4 Mile) [Car and Driver]

[kritz]

Id really like to see how well it does on a road course, especially in comparison to its competitors. Also very curious what summer tires are used.

Not surprised w the 0-60 but i dont think thats the car's forte.

Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 2.

Sponsored

 

[neteng101]

I think it would have been far more of a financial success had the Si been sold as some sort of performance package that would be available along with an automatic transmission.

If my Sport Touring hatch is any indication, I'm positive there's a market for the Si Touring in the high 20s (close to 30k) with an auto-manual (DCT/etc)... too bad the CVT is close to its limits. The only reason you won't see one is because Honda will try to make yet another ILX - I say give it up with Acura or just make it a truck company, its been so mismanaged in recent years that its beyond saving IMO. The ILX has been an utter sales disaster... under-engined, too much cost cutting, etc... it doesn't even have AWD to compete with the Audi and Lexus.

 

[xbbnx]

These are fair points. I myself did back to back test drives of the 2017 SI and the 2018 WRX on the same curvy back roads course. The WRX actually *felt* much less "punchy" on the throttle, and when taking sudden curves at higher speeds, it clearly had much more roll. I know that objectively, the AWD on the WRX should help to keep the power down better in the curves, and the larger engine should grant it far greater acceleration. But the manner of the power delivery in the WRX was far smoother and felt less exciting to me. Also the transmission on the WRX was nowhere near the quality of the SI's; far more friction in the shifts, and second gear was a huge PITA to shift quickly and smoothly.

Yet even in spite of all of that, I find that the farther in time that I get from my test drives, the more that I objectively see the WRX as the better choice. Just goes to show that there's a large gap between specs on paper and the actual driving experience, and that the complete package of a car is more than just the sum of its parts.

This text made absolutely no sense. You give the Si so much praise over the WRX in handling, transmission, and power delivery, but yet conclude that the WRX was the better choice. Explain?

 

[davemarco]

This text made absolutely no sense. You give the Si so much praise over the WRX in handling, transmission, and power delivery, but yet conclude that the WRX was the better choice. Explain?

On paper, WRX is superior. In real life test drive, SI was much more fun/engaging, with superior handling. The further away in time my test drive gets, the more the paper specs of the WRX pull me back. Goes to show two things:

1) Paper specs aren't everything, but they are an incredibly strong marketing force. This will inevitably impact sales (as another user mentioned)

2) Fun and driveability often have nothing to do with who has the highest power numbers, but this is very difficult to market

 

[xbbnx]

On paper, WRX is superior. In real life test drive, SI was much more fun/engaging, with superior handling. The further away in time my test drive gets, the more the paper specs of the WRX pull me back. Goes to show two things:

1) Paper specs aren't everything, but they are an incredibly strong marketing force. This will inevitably impact sales (as another user mentioned)

2) Fun and driveability often have nothing to do with who has the highest power numbers, but this is very difficult to market

So youre saying the SI is the better car from first hand experience, but the paper specs of the WRX still makes the decision a difficult one? sorry still makes no sense. Its like saying that a magazine gave restaurant A a 5 star rating and gave restaurant B a 3 star rating, but after eating at restaurant B you found out the quality of the food was much better, the servers were much more pleasant, and the price was much more reasonable, but you choose to make restaurant A your go to spot anyways because the magazine said so.

 

[davemarco]

So youre saying the SI is the better car from first hand experience, but the paper specs of the WRX still makes the decision a difficult one? sorry still makes no sense. Its like saying that a magazine gave restaurant A a 5 star rating and gave restaurant B a 3 star rating, but after eating at restaurant B you found out the quality of the food was much better, the servers were much more pleasant, and the price was much more reasonable, but you choose to make restaurant A your go to spot anyways because the magazine said so.

Your metaphor is completely inaccurate. For it to be correct, you would have to be forced to choose to eat at only one of those two restaurants for the next 5-10 years. You would also need to make that decision based only on a small taste test from each and the critic's reviews for both. Even if you preferred the taste test from restaurant B, the more distant in the past that your experience is (i.e.- the longer that you take to decide on one), the more likely you are to be swayed by the marketing of specifications on paper from Restaurant A (in this metaphor: rave reviews of the food quality, diversity of choices, etc.).

It is quite literally marketing 101. I'm not sure that I know how else to explain it to you?

 

[xbbnx]

Your metaphor is completely inaccurate. For it to be correct, you would have to be forced to choose to eat at only one of those two restaurants for the next 5-10 years. You would also need to make that decision based only on a small taste test from each and the critic's reviews for both. Even if you preferred the taste test from restaurant B, the more distant in the past that your experience is (i.e.- the longer that you take to decide on one), the more likely you are to be swayed by the marketing of specifications on paper from Restaurant A (in this metaphor: rave reviews of the food quality, diversity of choices, etc.).

It is quite literally marketing 101. I'm not sure that I know how else to explain it to you?

Marketing really only works to the uneducated consumer or somebody who is easily swayed by popular opinion. If I was shopping for a car and I narrowed it down to two cars after a few test drive runs, the better, more engaging, and more memorable driving experience would win out everytime regardless of "distant in the past your experience is". The only people that will be swayed by paper specs when it comes to car buying, are people who have probably already made the decision that they were going to buy that car without test driving another, like a guy wanting a dodge demon because it makes 700hp! Your paper specs above all ideology isn't true, for most first hand experience will always win out.

 

[Rikdrt1]

These are fair points. I myself did back to back test drives of the 2017 SI and the 2018 WRX on the same curvy back roads course. The WRX actually *felt* much less "punchy" on the throttle, and when taking sudden curves at higher speeds, it clearly had much more roll. I know that objectively, the AWD on the WRX should help to keep the power down better in the curves, and the larger engine should grant it far greater acceleration. But the manner of the power delivery in the WRX was far smoother and felt less exciting to me. Also the transmission on the WRX was nowhere near the quality of the SI's; far more friction in the shifts, and second gear was a huge PITA to shift quickly and smoothly.

Yet even in spite of all of that, I find that the farther in time that I get from my test drives, the more that I objectively see the WRX as the better choice. Just goes to show that there's a large gap between specs on paper and the actual driving experience, and that the complete package of a car is more than just the sum of its parts.

I am having the exact same thoughts and comparing both these cars right now. I haven't driven the Si but I did have a '15 WRX for almost two years... so I find it interesting that u say it felt less punchy. In my case, I plan to drive this much more and keep it longer than the Subie, so the Honda MPG numbers might be the deciding factor.....

 

[NoelPR]

96mph trap speed on FWD?

I should be cautious on doing a roll between a new SI and my 100mph ralliart.

Dig or nothing

 

[RB2490]

These are fair points. I myself did back to back test drives of the 2017 SI and the 2018 WRX on the same curvy back roads course. The WRX actually *felt* much less "punchy" on the throttle, and when taking sudden curves at higher speeds, it clearly had much more roll. I know that objectively, the AWD on the WRX should help to keep the power down better in the curves, and the larger engine should grant it far greater acceleration. But the manner of the power delivery in the WRX was far smoother and felt less exciting to me. Also the transmission on the WRX was nowhere near the quality of the SI's; far more friction in the shifts, and second gear was a huge PITA to shift quickly and smoothly.

Yet even in spite of all of that, I find that the farther in time that I get from my test drives, the more that I objectively see the WRX as the better choice. Just goes to show that there's a large gap between specs on paper and the actual driving experience, and that the complete package of a car is more than just the sum of its parts.

Im honestly surprised you feel that way. I currently own a 2015 WRX, FR-S, and 2017 mini Cooper Countryman S. My WRX lease was up and I was in the market looking for a new car. My Sister has a 1.5T CVT and I was actually surprised at how well it drove and how fun it could be but I needed something with more power because I dont want to be modding the crap out of my car to make it comparable to a WRX. So I decided to try out the Si and Type R. I felt the complete opposite about the Si. The Si felt very tammed and to me lacked any thrill, and felt just like my sisters EX-T. Im suprised that Car and Driver even got to 60 in 6.3 because it felt slower than my FR-S. I will agree that the Si Trasmission almost sold me because the WRX feels like your shifting through a bag a rocks in 1st and 2nd but smooths out after that. The handling also felt great in the Si but I still think the WRX especially the 2018 WRX feels a bit better could be the summer tires tho. I tested the Type R and its a machine I wont lie. I think the WRX will be faster in the straight line by a little but the handling ,transmission ,features and road noise are superior. I didnt get a type r because 1. 2-3 month wait, 2. two dealer ships wanted 7,500 and 12,000 more which is crazy because its a great car but its not that great. I went with a 2018 wrx and subaru upgraded a few things which make the wrx and even better car than the 15-17 years.

 

[kritz]

I am having the exact same thoughts and comparing both these cars right now. I haven't driven the Si but I did have a '15 WRX for almost two years... so I find it interesting that u say it felt less punchy. In my case, I plan to drive this much more and keep it longer than the Subie, so the Honda MPG numbers might be the deciding factor.....

I expected better mileage than the 24 I was getting in my WRX but this is ridiculous

My 2011 Limited with the SPT Cat-back. Si actually feels much more solid despite costing 7K less.

 

[kritz]

Im honestly surprised you feel that way. I currently own a 2015 WRX, FR-S, and 2017 mini Cooper Countryman S. My WRX lease was up and I was in the market looking for a new car. My Sister has a 1.5T CVT and I was actually surprised at how well it drove and how fun it could be but I needed something with more power because I dont want to be modding the crap out of my car to make it comparable to a WRX. So I decided to try out the Si and Type R. I felt the complete opposite about the Si. The Si felt very tammed and to me lacked any thrill, and felt just like my sisters EX-T. Im suprised that Car and Driver even got to 60 in 6.3 because it felt slower than my FR-S. I will agree that the Si Trasmission almost sold me because the WRX feels like your shifting through a bag a rocks in 1st and 2nd but smooths out after that. The handling also felt great in the Si but I still think the WRX especially the 2018 WRX feels a bit better could be the summer tires tho. I tested the Type R and its a machine I wont lie. I think the WRX will be faster in the straight line by a little but the handling ,transmission ,features and road noise are superior. I didnt get a type r because 1. 2-3 month wait, 2. two dealer ships wanted 7,500 and 12,000 more which is crazy because its a great car but its not that great. I went with a 2018 wrx and subaru upgraded a few things which make the wrx and even better car than the 15-17 years.

I put the STI short-throw in mine. Really helped the whole driving experience.

 

[RB2490]

I put the STI short-throw in mine. Really helped the whole driving experience.

just installed it yesterday with a perrin shifter bushing and its night and day difference. It is still not honda smooth but its much better. Just waiting to tune it now.

 

[Slickone]

Unfortunately that's one of the simplest figures for the average person to understand, and its one of the few items you can sort of feel in a test drive. The Si may not be underpowered but the powertrain's lack of a more striking exhaust/engine note and the way the 1.5T just makes power once the turbo spools up plus the lack of jump right off the line due to the 1.5T being a small engine without its turbo spooled up can lead to a perception in test drives that the car lacks sufficient oomph, especially for the Si which is billed as the sporty Civic.

What people don't realize is that loud exhausts get old after a while, and while its harder to effectively use VTEC type power of older Honda engines on the road, your butt dynometer can feel the surge more distinctly from VTEC engagement. The gentler nature of this Si is going to work against it selling more to the fast & furious type tuner crowd... this 10th gen Si appeals even more to an older crowd and grown up demographic.

For $100/month more, the younger buyers will pick up hotter, less practical rides like the WRX... they're not looking at total cost OTD or creature comforts or fuel mileage. The gym I go to always has a small fleet of WRXs and a few BRZs/FRSs, the Si is much less common just like the Focus ST. I've seen more STIs than Si in the past few years there.

Honda seems to have a way of missing out on their target demographics - cars like the Fit and now defunct Element meant to target young buyers ended up selling to older demographics.

For straight line speed, the Accord wins.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-honda-accord-coupe-v-6-manual-test-review

 

[Slickone]

I look at it this way. I rarely accelerate over 60mph and the Si is only reaching 60mph 1/2sec sooner compared to a basic 1.5T civic. 1/2 sec is not something anyone will notice without a stopwatch. But the Si does add style and sporty appeal. That alone is worth the extra $600 over a base EXT. IF you are an average manual driver? You will actually be slower than a base cvt 1.5T civic. Anyone can push a petal down but not everyone can shift like a pro. These guys at Car and Driver are Pros and 1 out of 20 Si drivers would have the skill to accelerate like they do.

I'd pay another $600 if they removed the honeycomb panels.

Sponsored