Motortrend tested the 2020 civic SI

[Aero2001]

I thought the gearing change was all about second gear? Second is awkward at times in my 2019 ... I spend a lot of time tooling around town in that gear and it's a bit tall ... meaning when I slow down enough the engine chatters a bit ... You can't go to first ( since you get locked out ) so I would only guess that the 2020 is way more forgiving the novice.

Interesting. My old 2001 Saab 9-5 Aero was exactly like this. We live in the city, so I spend lots of time in second gear, and the Saab's tall second was really annoying. My Acura's gearing is so short that I'm often chugging around in third.

Sponsored

 

[FC3L15B7]

Not significantly faster... not worthed the milleage hit.

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/civic/2020/2020-honda-civic-si-sedan-first-test-review/

It has a higher trap speed, so clearly it was hauling ass over 60 mph. I'd be willing to bet the 0-60 time being 0.2 higher is caused by traction limiting factors like track and tire temperature. It's nearly impossible to test the exact same speed in real world conditions.

 

[FC3L15B7]

I doubt most people could tell much difference in the geqring change with it being such a minor change. No complaints with my fuel economy though - been averaging about 35mpg since I got it. The reviewer is over exaggerating the rev hang though IMO. Yeah it's there but it's not that difficult to adapt to. I personally don't mind it but like he says, get a tune if it bothers you that much.

The rev hang is a PITA, but you can thank government agencies for that. The only reason there's a rev hang is to reduce NOx emissions. No one in their right mind would leave the throttle body open like that off throttle for a tiny bit of emissions if someone else wasn't pushing them for cleaner cars. It's too bad they're not banning meat consumption, because livestock is what is killing the planet, not cars and trucks.

 

[maggs_10thgen]

C&D has always used a 1 ft rollout in their 0-60 times. That's good for somewhere in the ballpark of .3 or .4 seconds depending. That's the difference I believe. They actually used 3-mph to approximate the rollout until just recently, so they weren't starting the clock until 3 mph when they got that 6.3. https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a30085446/acceleration-testing-procedure-change-rollout/

MotorTrend last tested the Si at 6.7 IIRC, so this is pretty much the same for them.

I just watched a road test and they hit 6.5 in the 0 to 60 from a dig with a 2017. One of the guys here posts a video of hitting 14.5 bone stock with a 17-19. There's no way of knowing for sure if it's stock. Seems legit though. I just think we need more tests from other sources to make a determination. The 2020 having a .2 slower 0-60 and the same 1/4 mile doesn't mean much from only one source. They all vary. Conditions vary ect. I bet with a good driver the 2020 would edge out by a C hair.

 

[charleswrivers]

If the '20 is putting effectively 6% greater torque to the wheels, and not doing no more shifts than a 17-19... then if all things are equal (which they pretty much never will exactly be) then the 20 ought to be marginally faster. The fact that it's too close to call on an instrumented test across 2 different cars tested apart in different environments isn't that surprising.

My bet was going to be for the same 0-60... same 1/4 mile or a tenth or two quicker w/a slightly higher trap... except maybe on a really hot day where the tires are nice and soft and engine's IAT are up there. I think the '20 would edge out as better across the board. Still... you'd have to run cars side by side on the same day on the same rubber using the same fuel to come close... and there's inevitable still the difference in wear/break-in and any other tiny manufacturing differences. Instrumented test on different cars done years apart to determine minor differences is fun to look at... but they seem about as useful to me as comparing 2 different cars getting dyno's performed at 2 different locations.

Would love to see a same-day, bone-stock, same-tired side-by-side.

 

[gtman]

In all honesty, and especially due to so many variables, how useful is that 0-60 number anyway? The few members who have driven the older Si and the refresh say the refresh feels marginally faster and that's good. The only "negative" of the final drive change is slightly reduced mpgs.

I personally think it's time to throw out that 0-60 time as a valuable real world number. I mean, my stock 1.5T base turbo was basically as fast to 60 as an Si. But the reality is most of that had to do with the Si's second shift and the CVT's efficiency. In real world driving, in most situations, the Si would certainly feel faster and more engaging.

 

[repeet]

In all honesty, and especially due to so many variables, how useful is that 0-60 number anyway? The few members who have driven the older Si and the refresh say the refresh feels marginally faster and that's good. The only "negative" of the final drive change is slightly reduced mpgs.

I personally think it's time to throw out that 0-60 time as a valuable real world number. I mean, my stock 1.5T base turbo was basically as fast to 60 as an Si. But the reality is most of that had to do with the Si's second shift and the CVT's efficiency. In real world driving, in most situations, the Si would certainly feel faster and more engaging.

But that's the point. In the marketplace, 0-60 is a "rule of thumb" of how "quick" different cars would "feel". Some cars, through some engineering trickery, "feel" quicker than their 0-60 times would indicate. And other "feel" slower.

Thankfully Honda seems to have been able to work the "magic" of making the 10th gen Civic "feel" quicker than some of the numbers would indicate. Which is another reason it is such a great value. That and its mileage and all.

 

[maggs_10thgen]

My guess is the newer final drive gives it a very slight edge in the straights and improves daily driving. Less lugging and easier to be in the right gears during driving.

 

[charleswrivers]

I tend to err on the side of 0-60s being the most useful metric in how quick a car is. The highest speed limit on my daily drive to work is 45 mph. The top of 3rd tops out at around the highest allowed speed on the interstate in the US, 85 MPH... and in the states I drive in, it's 70-75. Since I don't speed (no more than 10 over anyways)... while 1/4 mile times are cool to look at, I'm not going WOT and pulling well into 4th gear. That's just not me.

That being said, I totally acknowledge that we're on a traction-compromised FWD platform... and is telling in the fact that through 3 generations of Civic Sis w/3 different engines, our 0-60s have been pretty well locked in at a mid-6... give it take a little. The CTRs give a (platform) amazing 5-flat... and that's still unimpressive at it's price point if you're just talking 0-60s. It's a full second off of some cars.

It's all in what you're after... and every car is a compromise. I think, given the Si has class-leading fuel economy but was always a bang-for-the-buck car... the gamble to sacrifice a little economy for perceived acceleration, even if the numbers don't show it in this interest was a good one. The reviews of the '20s make it out to be an improved car. As good as gen 8 was when it came out in '06... it was starting to get panned a bit towards the end of it's run. CivicX is definitely in the last 1/2 of it's life and is still a pretty competitive option, going into it's 5th year. In this day and age w/the rapid drive-aid tech advances and all the noise of advances in ICE to make them more efficient... I still think the Civic as a platform and the Si as a trim is still towards the top of the heap. I wouldn't ever entertain trading out of my 1/2 paid off '18 with 22k miles for a '20... but I acknowledge that the '20, with some of it's tech, some forums reviews saying it's built a little tighter (my interior rattles embarrassingly bad... though I could likely take care of it myself, but I've yet to do so), and it's little performance tweaks, it aiming to be a better car in the last half of it's production cycle... and I think achieved it for about the same price point.

 

[maggs_10thgen]

I tend to err on the side of 0-60s being the most useful metric in how quick a car is. The highest speed limit on my daily drive to work is 45 mph. The top of 3rd tops out at around the highest allowed speed on the interstate in the US, 85 MPH... and in the states I drive in, it's 70-75. Since I don't speed (no more than 10 over anyways)... while 1/4 mile times are cool to look at, I'm not going WOT and pulling well into 4th gear. That's just not me.

That being said, I totally acknowledge that we're on a traction-compromised FWD platform... and is telling in the fact that through 3 generations of Civic Sis w/3 different engines, our 0-60s have been pretty well locked in at a mid-6... give it take a little. The CTRs give a (platform) amazing 5-flat... and that's still unimpressive at it's price point if you're just talking 0-60s. It's a full second off of some cars.

It's all in what you're after... and every car is a compromise. I think, given the Si has class-leading fuel economy but was always a bang-for-the-buck car... the gamble to sacrifice a little economy for perceived acceleration, even if the numbers don't show it in this interest was a good one. The reviews of the '20s make it out to be an improved car. As good as gen 8 was when it came out in '06... it was starting to get panned a bit towards the end of it's run. CivicX is definitely in the last 1/2 of it's life and is still a pretty competitive option, going into it's 5th year. In this day and age w/the rapid drive-aid tech advances and all the noise of advances in ICE to make them more efficient... I still think the Civic as a platform and the Si as a trim is still towards the top of the heap. I wouldn't ever entertain trading out of my 1/2 paid off '18 with 22k miles for a '20... but I acknowledge that the '20, with some of it's tech, some forums reviews saying it's built a little tighter (my interior rattles embarrassingly bad... though I could likely take care of it myself, but I've yet to do so), and it's little performance tweaks, it aiming to be a better car in the last half of it's production cycle... and I think achieved it for about the same price point.

Improvement was achieved in the refresh. Lets look at it

1. Headlights
2. Rims
3. Vents
4. Safety tech
5. Sound tech
6. Final drive
7. Seats & dash trim

Did I forget anything? It was subtle but significant.

 

[charleswrivers]

Improvement was achieved in the refresh. Lets look at it

1. Headlights
2. Rims
3. Vents
4. Safety tech
5. Sound tech
6. Final drive
7. Seats & dash trim

Did I forget anything? It was subtle but significant.

Oh it's a lot. I like the rims. I run Hikari LEDs which I think beat the halogens but I'm sure aren't as good as an OEM setup that's LED. I'm neutral on the vents. The safety tech, to me, always has some value. The sound, so far as adding engine noise to the cabin I'm neutral on again... but it sounds like it isn't a bad thing. 6% more torque all the time available for 2 less MPGs? I mean... I'm tuned and run 93 octane over 87 octane that I could run... and 93 probably costs 1/4 again more. Would I accept a ~5% drop in economy for more power? Sure. Seats and dash trim... neutral on it again. I kind of like that chime as a audible cue for a shift indicator as well.

It's what it should be... a step to include some tech that had been previously reserved for the higher trims while trying to sharpen it's teeth slightly for the least amount of R&D or parts-stream $$$ as possible... and tried to address the vents which has received some negative press... and the lack of a compelling engine note with the loss of the K in the Si. It was an honest effort that checked a lot of boxes to me that they listened to their customer base... saw the competitions playing field and did their best to keep the CivicX Si competitive in it's twilight production years.

 

[gtman]

Oh it's a lot. I like the rims.

Charles, I always thought you disliked black rims?

In terms of my thinking that 0-60 tends to be a poor way to gauge real world performance, here's some interesting reads:

https://www.autoblog.com/2016/09/02/zero-0-60-mph-performance-is-overrated

https://www.thrillist.com/cars/nation/car-mph-acceleration-speed-meaningless

 

[PowerPerLiter]

In all honesty, and especially due to so many variables, how useful is that 0-60 number anyway? The few members who have driven the older Si and the refresh say the refresh feels marginally faster and that's good. The only "negative" of the final drive change is slightly reduced mpgs.

I personally think it's time to throw out that 0-60 time as a valuable real world number. I mean, my stock 1.5T turbo was basically as fast to 60 as an Si. But the reality is most of that had to do with the Si's second shift and the CVT's efficiency. In real world driving, in most situations, the Si would certainly feel faster.

Your so accurate here. I will tell you this car feels like it makes more than it actually does but any manual would likely get chewed up by a tuned cvt at the random stop lights.

In fact I'm sure they would. Or you'd have to really be on your a- game driving the manual.

To add to that my mom bought a 2018 si coupe the week after I did.... when I first flashed my 18 with the +6 base map I couldn't leave her behind in a race until 4th gear. Maybe a slight pull but nothing that different for the felt increase in power. My custom tune later ended up much different but that just gives an example in the real world of what an expectedly "dramatic" power/setup difference between the 2 in reality wasn't lol.

If the '20 is putting effectively 6% greater torque to the wheels, and not doing no more shifts than a 17-19... then if all things are equal (which they pretty much never will exactly be) then the 20 ought to be marginally faster. The fact that it's too close to call on an instrumented test across 2 different cars tested apart in different environments isn't that surprising.

My bet was going to be for the same 0-60... same 1/4 mile or a tenth or two quicker w/a slightly higher trap... except maybe on a really hot day where the tires are nice and soft and engine's IAT are up there. I think the '20 would edge out as better across the board. Still... you'd have to run cars side by side on the same day on the same rubber using the same fuel to come close... and there's inevitable still the difference in wear/break-in and any other tiny manufacturing differences. Instrumented test on different cars done years apart to determine minor differences is fun to look at... but they seem about as useful to me as comparing 2 different cars getting dyno's performed at 2 different locations.

Would love to see a same-day, bone-stock, same-tired side-by-side.

Absolutely

Agreed.

 

[gtman]

Improvement was achieved in the refresh. Lets look at it

1. Headlights
2. Rims
3. Vents
4. Safety tech
5. Sound tech
6. Final drive
7. Seats & dash trim

Did I forget anything? It was subtle but significant.

I think it's a top notch update in that they mostly kept the look the same and concentrated on functional improvements.

This is subjective, but the only miss (IMO) are those body colored vent "inserts". They add another element that I don't think the car needed. But I'm sure some people love 'em.

 

[maggs_10thgen]

Oh it's a lot. I like the rims. I run Hikari LEDs which I think beat the halogens but I'm sure aren't as good as an OEM setup that's LED. I'm neutral on the vents. The safety tech, to me, always has some value. The sound, so far as adding engine noise to the cabin I'm neutral on again... but it sounds like it isn't a bad thing. 6% more torque all the time available for 2 less MPGs? I mean... I'm tuned and run 93 octane over 87 octane that I could run... and 93 probably costs 1/4 again more. Would I accept a ~5% drop in economy for more power? Sure. Seats and dash trim... neutral on it again. I kind of like that chime as a audible cue for a shift indicator as well.

It's what it should be... a step to include some tech that had been previously reserved for the higher trims while trying to sharpen it's teeth slightly for the least amount of R&D or parts-stream $$$ as possible... and tried to address the vents which has received some negative press... and the lack of a compelling engine note with the loss of the K in the Si. It was an honest effort that checked a lot of boxes to me that they listened to their customer base... saw the competitions playing field and did their best to keep the CivicX Si competitive in it's twilight production years.

The OEM LED headlights dress up the front end. I could care less which one lights up the road better I'd take the 2 mpg hit. I don't think they got the gearing perfected in the 17-19.
On the end of production.. We know it will be in production 20-21. There are rumors this gen might even extend to 7 years. Plus the Si might not be out in the 1st year of the 11thgen Civic. So the refresh is the Si of the present and next 2-3-4 years.

Sponsored