Honda should have made an Si hatch

[saz468]

Since we're getting nostalgic, these were the cars I drove back in the day (in order of ownership).

Those were my favorite year barracudas
I’ve always like cars with a lot of glass.
Ok I’ll admit I did like the AMC pacer

Sponsored

 

[gtman]

Those were my favorite year barracudas
I’ve always like cars with a lot of glass.
Ok I’ll admit I did like the AMC pacer

I like cars with a lot of glass too. The Pacer? Not so much. But if you look at the cars I buy, they all generally have really good outward visibility. Which is why I never could pull the trigger on the '17 Civic hatch even though I loved the look. The rear outward view just felt claustrophobic to me.

 

[amirza786]

Since we're getting nostalgic, these were the cars I drove back in the day (in order of ownership).

All beauties except the Firebird...sorry! Here's my list from 1984 to 1995

 

[amirza786]

They have no incentive because the existing lineup already includes the 1.5L. What I'm saying is that their cost of building various 1.5L iterations as compared to various 2.0L iterations is probably negligible, and they could have simply chosen to use the 2.0L in various states of tune just as it currently exists within their lineup. The fact that they sell a more desirable crate engine at a higher price does not necessarily indicate any financial restriction in initial product design choices. Those choices were made to satisfy emissions restrictions, not production costs. Comparing the retail replacement price is only an accurate estimate of how much Honda believes they can get people to pay for one vs the other. Although, it looks like a Type R crate engine can be acquired for 6.5K, so I suppose I shouldn't complain if you are saying that they are now selling the 1.5L for $500. Send me that link, I'll buy two! Track days are about to get a lot more interesting if you can blow a motor for no more than the cost of a set of cheap tires.

Actually I read an article quoting Honda engineers citing cost as being one the big factors of why they chose the particular engine they did (to the consumer). Please don't ask me to find it

 

[vieux georges]

I agree, I've read that too.
Everything has been calculated to obtain the lowest
possible cost.

 

[amirza786]

I agree, I've read that too.
Everything has been calculated to obtain the lowest
possible cost.

Honda gave a couple of reason on why they chose the 1.5LT engine and did not increase the HP of the new engine from the previous gen:

The engineers said "you can tune more power into it, but all of that takes away from the durability of the engine," Rob Keough, senior product planner on the Civic, told Automotive News at Honda's proving grounds. "Honda likes to build their engines to last hundreds of thousands of miles, so they're working toward that target."

And

Honda was also keen to keep the Civic Si affordable, and that's where the $24,775 comes in. It's the base price including destination for the coupe or sedan and includes such standard goodies as a sunroof, sport mode with adaptive suspension and a limited-slip differential.

Using the larger 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder that's in the Civic Type R would have radically shifted what the Si was. Even tuned down from the Type R's 306 hp, such an Si would have cost closer to $30,000 — too rich for Honda's blood.

https://www.autonews.com/article/20170604/OEM06/170609927/why-honda-put-a-lid-on-civic-si-s-power

 

[vieux georges]

Honda didn't just save on the mechanics, they cut back
on just everything.
The interior fabric is of poor quality, especially on the console
and armrests. In summer, the skin of our elbows leaves dead
skin cells that whitten the tissue.
The plastic strip on the dash that's supposed imitate carbon fiber !
On the models 2013 to 2015, it was real carbon fiber, I thought
it was beautiful.
The rubber mudguards were standard at the front, they put them
optional, significant savings !
The bulb in the fog lamps are 35 W halogen bulbs, I found this
so ridiculous that I changed them first. I replaced them with 80 W LEDs.
We also could talk about tires, the spare tire in the U.S.cars and
many others things.
I have always thought and I still think that Honda has sacrificed
the Si to favour the CTR.
AS I am an SI freak, I still bought an SI and I spent a lot of money
to put it to my taste and I don't regret it.

 

[amirza786]

Honda didn't just save on the mechanics, they cut back
on just everything.
The interior fabric is of poor quality, especially on the console
and armrests. In summer, the skin of our elbows leaves dead
skin cells that whitten the tissue.
The plastic strip on the dash that's supposed imitate carbon fiber !
On the models 2013 to 2015, it was real carbon fiber, I thought
it was beautiful.
The rubber mudguards were standard at the front, they put them
optional, significant savings !
The bulb in the fog lamps are 35 W halogen bulbs, I found this
so ridiculous that I changed them first. I replaced them with 80 W LEDs.
We also could talk about tires, the spare tire in the U.S.cars and
many others things.
I have always thought and I still think that Honda has sacrificed
the Si to favour the CTR.
AS I am an SI freak, I still bought an SI and I spent a lot of money
to put it to my taste and I don't regret it.

I have to totally agree with you. If you sit in a Toyota Corolla XSE or Hatch XSE, (or even the SE), there was a lot of thought put into the fit and finish and materials used. I drove in a 2018 model that had 20K on it, and it not only did not have rattles, but was much better isolated from the road than the Civic was. It's also pretty much the same price point as the Si. Yes it has less power than the Si and is not turbo charged, but we are talking quality of materials and build specifically here. The Si was a great car, but the fit and finish just wasn't there as it should have been

 

[rive]

Honda gave a couple of reason on why they chose the 1.5LT engine and did not increase the HP of the new engine from the previous gen:

The engineers said "you can tune more power into it, but all of that takes away from the durability of the engine," Rob Keough, senior product planner on the Civic, told Automotive News at Honda's proving grounds. "Honda likes to build their engines to last hundreds of thousands of miles, so they're working toward that target."

And

Honda was also keen to keep the Civic Si affordable, and that's where the $24,775 comes in. It's the base price including destination for the coupe or sedan and includes such standard goodies as a sunroof, sport mode with adaptive suspension and a limited-slip differential.

Using the larger 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder that's in the Civic Type R would have radically shifted what the Si was. Even tuned down from the Type R's 306 hp, such an Si would have cost closer to $30,000 — too rich for Honda's blood.

https://www.autonews.com/article/20170604/OEM06/170609927/why-honda-put-a-lid-on-civic-si-s-power

The first part of this I have to take as their marketing branch making excuses, because it isn't as though Honda, famed for building reliable engines, opted to build an unreliable 2.0L to put into the CTR, Accord, and RDX. Now the second part about pinching every possible penny? I can believe that.

I could be wrong and maybe it really does cost 6k them more to produce a 2.0L vs a 1.5L. And if so, I'm sorry for muddying the waters here with my doubts. But I just have such a hard time understanding how the 1.5L could possibly be affordable in any way if they had to cheap out so much on the rest of the car in order to make even that engine fit within the budget. As you said, a basic Corolla is years ahead of the current Si. And I love my Si, I drive it for the fun factor over refinement and that was my choice when I purchased it. But I sometimes look around the car and have to wonder "where did all the money go? Does Honda just build the world's most expensive LSD?"

 

[Design]

What engineers really wanted was a different powertrain to fill the 200-250 HP void. It's a bit of a black hole at the moment. And I haven't yet heard how they plan to address it. Previous Si's (particularly the 6th and 8th gens) benefited from having a dedicated powerplant in their development plan from the get-go. This time around, I suspect R&D was focused on getting the 1.5T out the door in time.

CN: The 2.0T is too inefficient in its configuration to be downrated without considerable rework/cost. The 1.5T too small/efficient in its design to be uprated without sacrificing the 260-300K endurance target.

 

[Drake]

What engineers really wanted was a different powertrain to fill the 200-250 HP void. It's a bit of a black hole at the moment. And I haven't yet heard how they plan to address it. Previous Si's (particularly the 6th and 8th gens) benefited from having a dedicated powerplant in their development plan from the get-go. This time around, I suspect R&D was focused on getting the 1.5T out the door in time.

CN: The 2.0T is too inefficient in its configuration to be downrated without considerable rework/cost. The 1.5T too small/efficient in its design to be uprated without sacrificing the 260-300K endurance target.

Seems like the 10th gen Si received a lot fewer dedicated components/design aspects in general compared to previous generations

 

[amirza786]

The first part of this I have to take as their marketing branch making excuses, because it isn't as though Honda, famed for building reliable engines, opted to build an unreliable 2.0L to put into the CTR, Accord, and RDX. Now the second part about pinching every possible penny? I can believe that.

I could be wrong and maybe it really does cost 6k them more to produce a 2.0L vs a 1.5L. And if so, I'm sorry for muddying the waters here with my doubts. But I just have such a hard time understanding how the 1.5L could possibly be affordable in any way if they had to cheap out so much on the rest of the car in order to make even that engine fit within the budget. As you said, a basic Corolla is years ahead of the current Si. And I love my Si, I drive it for the fun factor over refinement and that was my choice when I purchased it. But I sometimes look around the car and have to wonder "where did all the money go? Does Honda just build the world's most expensive LSD?"

Some of it is about penny pinching, but you have to understand that automakers are constrained by emissions and fuel efficiency standards (and safety standards). They have hard numbers that they have to meet, so something has to be sacrificed. The Civic Si had to meet this criteria, and it had to appeal to the enthusiasts segment. To break down what I am saying, for every car that does not meet the CAFE standards, (CTR would be one), it would have to be offset by 2 or 3 cars models that do. In the case of the Civic Si, it will always be the entry level sporty affordable model, and you will never see the HP go up by much generation to generation. Case in point, since it's introduction in 1984, it has only gone up by 114 HP in 26 years. Also unless there is some radical change in government standards, you will also never see another high revving K series like engine again.

The difference with the Corolla and the Si is, only the XRS was what you would call an enthusiast car. The Corolla Hatch is meant to be fun, but it's not meant to be in the same level as the Si, and has a different demographic altogether. Just like the Si, the Corolla engine will pretty much stay the same and HP increases will only be incremental (currently they are at 169 HP)

 

[amirza786]

What engineers really wanted was a different powertrain to fill the 200-250 HP void. It's a bit of a black hole at the moment. And I haven't yet heard how they plan to address it. Previous Si's (particularly the 6th and 8th gens) benefited from having a dedicated powerplant in their development plan from the get-go. This time around, I suspect R&D was focused on getting the 1.5T out the door in time.

CN: The 2.0T is too inefficient in its configuration to be downrated without considerable rework/cost. The 1.5T too small/efficient in its design to be uprated without sacrificing the 260-300K endurance target.

On your point about the 2.0T, that is totally correct. It's not an efficient engine, and to get the current MPG of the 1.5T out of it, you would have follow the path of Toyota, they have pretty much left the 2.0L as a NA engine in the Corolla. People are constantly complaining about 205 HP, imagine if the Si came with 169 HP like the Corolla! For a Corolla driver that is fine and enough, but for this community, sometimes 250 whp is not enough. Personally I think Honda did the right thing with the Si, the only complaint I had was the fit and finish...they should have concentrated a bit more on that

 

[Shankmeyster]

Would have been nice to get 220hp at least to make the difference a bit bigger between the top base 1.5 and the Si 1.5. I also wish they had just put the Si rods in all of the 1.5's so that they would all be easier to mod on stock internals since that's a hallmark of Civic owners since the 80's/90's.

 

[amirza786]

Would have been nice to get 220hp at least to make the difference a bit bigger between the top base 1.5 and the Si 1.5. I also wish they had just put the Si rods in all of the 1.5's so that they would all be easier to mod on stock internals since that's a hallmark of Civic owners since the 80's/90's.

As stated above ^ Honda felt that the power they tuned into the current Si is the most stable option, and would give the engine it's most longevity. With the Si being it's entry level vehicle into Honda's performance line, they wanted it to be that first step before the CTR, and not to step on the CTR. Honestly cost aside, if you made it close to CTR power, why would you buy a CTR? Plus, from seeing posts on age demographics, the average age of an Si owner is under 30. If I were Honda, I would not want to give an entry level performance car with 300 HP to a 17 year old who would end up plowing into a tree or pole, which probably happens anyway LOL.

On your second point, they wanted to distinguish the Si from lower level Civic's. So they gave it more power, more boost, a 6 speed manual, LSD and adjustable dampers

Sponsored