Well, I don't know about you guys, but I think I've decided on my next car. And it WON'T be a Cobalt...

2006 Honda Civic Si

Sure the Cobalt SS may have 205 HP (possibly underrated) but the Civic will be naturally aspirated leaving so much more potential. It's also confirmed to have LSD. Rumors have it that it will also be light.

And if it uses the K20A/K20A2/K20Z1 engine, there are going to be a TON of aftermarket support right from launch.

So, what do you guys think?

 

Nice looking car BUT..... what do you think its going to cost? If its going to have a 6 speed trany, 4 piston brembos ($1,200 upgrade), cross drilled rotors (don't even get me started on the negative of this), and its got 40's for tires (yes the SS has 45's and I really don't care for that) the car is going to be 25k+ with all this. Yes you are going to have potential for additional hp, but that rating is a 8,000 rpm where as the Cobalt is 205 hp at 5,600 rpm. I think you will see the cobalt aftermarket will explode. Chevy started to get into support for the compact car with the Cav., and I'm willing to bet that they will go all out with the cobalt. We already know that the car is capable of 272 hp with SC only (chevy design, meaning there is even more to be had) just imagine what's possible with all the other aftermarket parts (not to mention turbo). Yeah the Cobalt comes at 205 hp (more like 225-240) stock, but Chevy has been using the Eco-tec for years in racing and drag, what do they know when it comes to performance that we don't know.

Like the car your looking at, but I'll stick with the cobalt. If I saw you on the street, I'd run with you.

 

There's no way that car will cost more than an RSX Type S which has a 6 speed transmission. It'll probably use the same tranny. The production probably will not have the Brembos or the drilled rotors. Chances are the rotors will be smaller, "normal" rotors as well as the rims.

The only major difference I can tell between the 2002-2004 RSX-S and the 2006 Civic Si is that the Civic will have a LSD.

I'd like to run with you too but there's a pretty significant geographical barrier.

 

The Honda 4 bangers running at 200HP @8K rpm is pretty wrung out. I would argue that it will take a major investment to get more power out of that engine (like a turbo or blower of some sort). The LSJ engine in comparison isn't as wrung out since it has forced induction already, so any power upgrades will probably cost a bit less.

Don't get me wrong the fact that Honda gets a 200 HP out of a N/A engine is quite impressive. They make a great car and I actually own one of their Motorcycles (VFR750) and that bike/engine is bullet proof (except the charging system)

 

Well personally I don't really like the new Civic. The back end and side profile are okay, but what is up with that front end? It looks like an Accord grille with airplane wings coming out of each side for fenders. Very odd, plus I doubt that the dark healight tinting will actually make production models.

As the others mentioned, the engine may be N/A, but that doesn't mean that it has more potential than the 2.0 S/C LSJ. Being that the redline is 8,000 RPM, it is probably already pretty maxxed out from the factory. And I'm sure torque will be similar to the RSX, somewhere in the 130-140 range , which is really pathetic when compared to the even the base model Cobalts.

Another thing to consider is that the Cobalt SS S/C is underrated from the factory. Most guys are putting down between 200-210 HP at the wheels. Chances are the new Si will make somewhere in the 170 HP range at the wheels, considering that Honda rarely underrates their engines.

There is also no way that the car will have all those features you mentioned and still be relatively cheap. Either many of those features will not make it to production (LSD?) or the price will be in RSX territory, which I doubt will happen, because that would cannabilize sales for Honda. Also remember that Hondas tend to be priced higher than the competition, and they don't ever have any rebates, so not only will the Cobalt SS S/C be faster, but chances are it will be less expensive as well

 

I'm no turbo expert or anything but there are mods out there to lower your compression and be able handle more air pressure.


It was said that the production Si will have the LSD in that link. However, the rims, calipers, suspension and rotors are another story. I've also heard rumors of the RSX being discontinued after 2006. Apparently it doesn't fit the Acura image. So, they're not really competing with themselves. The 2005 RSX has 210hp so it's slightly better that way but no LSD.

I'm sure the Cobalt SS/SC will be faster. In my opinion it's not going to be a better car though. And I've looked at the dynos. And yeah, the dynos were looking good for the Redline. Definitely looking like the 205hp is underrated (looks more like 205whp from the dynos). Although the interior does look better than what I recall from the Cavalier, I'm not convined it's a better overall car. A lot of Chevys I've seen were pretty much "disposables". Again, this is my own perception of things. And it's what I think of when I hear about the "return customers". How accurate it is is another story.

P.S. My perception of Chevys may have been drastically warped since I met this acquaintence (not friend) of my brother's. He was convinced his STOCK Cavalier was one of the fastest "4 bangers" on the road. He'd brag about it day and night (past tense). The guy knew nothing about cars. He couldn't even recognize what mine was since I debadged my RSX-S. He then wants to know "what's under my hood". (NOTE: the quotes may not sound weird to you but the way he used them was definitely ). I lift my hood and there's a shiny Acura emblem. He goes, "Oh, it's an Acura" like he's not impressed. He then says, "You've only got a 2L engine". I simply say, "It puts out 200hp. Race?" He backs down. He says "Let me check". I tell him, "There are LOTS of 4 cylinder cars that can kill mine." I think that dampened his spirits a bit. I ask him another night when after some bowling night... No cars around, long, wide roads. Perfect opportunity. This time it's "I don't want to get a ticket". And I gave up then. And since then I've still overheard him talk about his car. I heard comments like, "You don't know how I drive!" and other lame one liners.

Another funny thing... He RECENTLY bought the Cav and he saved up so long for it. He should have waited for the Cobalt. He could have saved up a bit more during the wait and gone out and get the SS/SC in a few months. Anyway, enough of my rant...

And yes, I realize not everyone is not like him. I just don't like the guy. He has to 1-up you all the time. He also didn't like that I made more $$$ than him doing easier work. So he interrogates me asking what I do just so it comforts him that his job is "more advanced". It's not. But it is easier. But that's a different story. He's a fat, overweight, computer geek with got compensation issues.
</RANT>

 

well, ill start by saying that if the new civic uses the rsx motor, itll still take a while for aftermarket to get on it. its not going to use the EXACT same motor as the rsx...knowing honda the way i do itll be a differnt engine number based off of the current rsx-s (the 210hp) motor. a "detuned" one. those motors are pretty impressive though. they dyno pretty decently and ive seen hondata tune one with just an intake and get about 200 hp out of it. one thing it will always lack though is torque. itll never match the number that chevy has the cobalt making. and the only real way it will is to strap a turbo to it and even then itll only out torque the cobalt by like between 20 or 40 lbs. spend that same amount of money on a cobalt when the mods become available and uve got a FAST ride. and i wouldnt count on it costing the same as the current Si. with the LSD and that motor, i bet it will push it up into the low 20's, which is right where the rsx sits and would be perfect since the rsx is supposed to be fased out in 06 or 07 unless honda sees the light....

reguardless of the fact...

 

Whats the negative of drilled rotors? After i turbo the LS i plan to get, I want to get some to improve my stopping distance.

 

I had slotted and cross-drilled rotors before, here are the problems with them.

For slotted rotors - you can not "turn" the rotors if they get warped, and if you use the rotors for what they are made for they WILL warp. Slotted rotors are very nice but when you spend $160 every 9 months it gets old after a while.

For cross-drilled it even worse.... same deal in terms or turning them. On top of that, if you get anything less than near 1" thick rotors they are susceptible to hairline cracks under normal use and even worse under heat conditions, eventually they will completely disintegration and really F**K up you body panels. That is why when you look at the cross-drilled on the Z06 they are a little bit more than 1" thick, and the car has break cooling dams designed into the body.

The best thing I can tell you to do for brakes is to deal with heat issues and vapor issues between the rotor and the pad. Get a really good pair of rotors (believe it or not the ones from Chevy are pretty good) and invest in extremely good pads, i.e. green stuff with Kevlar embedded into the pad (they even make a I think its called red stuff and its basically racing pads that dissipate heat really good) the pads will cost $99-$140 for the front rotors.

 

Good info on the brake stuff man, I didn't know...about race brakes though: I've heard from car shows and people that getting race pads for a street car is a terrible idea, because they never heat up to what they are supposed to be at enough on the street, which means your stopping power is actually better stock.

 

The green stuff works great on the street. the red may be a little too much unless you had a heavy car. Another benefit of the green stuff is very little brake dust!

 

I'm thinking it'd be pretty unlikely that it'll be that different. If it's a K-Series engine, heads, cams, blocks, pistons, rods can usually be interchanged. That's what leads me to believe there will be tons of mods. The only problematic one would be the K20A3. Many have essentially made the K20A2 a K20A in this manner. Keep head and block, swap cams, rods and pistons. Viola! (Well, there's the intake manifold and ECU as well). I'm sure even if they choose not to reuse an engine, the parts would still be compatible.

Torque can be increased if you swap the K20 block with a K24 block. You can get a K24 from a CRV, Element, TSX or Accord I believe. Also you'd reduce your compression ratio making it safer to boost. Personally I don't know how far I will/can go with this as it takes $$$.

One thing I don't get about torque... Since HP = Torque * RPM / 5252, would using a gear to reduce the crankshaft's rotation speed increase torque? Wouldn't the HP stay the same? Something to think about. I don't know the answer myself. It just seems too simple that way.

I'm guessing the ships on Star Trek don't have torque. How do they not splat against the walls? I'm going into make-belief land where my car is a space ship... Goodnight!

 

true about interchangablility...but i wasn't speaking on that. i was talking about the motor that comes in the car. thats the main thing that is bad about the 05 rsx's...last i heard, hondata still hadn't cracked the ECU, and itll more than likely be the same way for the new civic...and im not gonna start on ur torque question at the moment as im too tired...lol...but i can say, the star trek thing made me fall out of my chair...

 

the car looks amazing, i really like it, but it comes down to its a civic with RSX power. Everyone knows how well RSX-s does(moderate). All in all the car would be nice to have but for price it wont be worth it.

 

Keep in mind its a 'concept car'

 

HAHAHAH, Star trek.... They don't get stuck to the wals because all laws of physics hold true (constant) in any inertial reference frame. the same reason when you're in an airplane you are not all suck to the back of your seat.

 

When I was reading up on this same issue regarding the BMW M5, vs. say the new Z06 its basically two different ways of making the same power.

The M5 uses a 5.0L V10 (I think its 5.0) thats DOHC and a whole bunch of other gizmoes
The Z06 uses a 7.4L V8 pushrod/OHV engine.

Now you might look at the Z (or SS cobalt in this comparison) and think its low tech or that is somehow less effeciant because its a much bigger engine (or supercharged per say). But when you examine it, its just two different ways of getting power.

BMW/Honda instead of increasing the displacment, tunes the engine to higher RPMS where it can make more power. In this case I think both the Civic and the M5 have a 8K redline. But if you compare Torque numbers the differences come out. Thw M makes some 380 TQ to its 500HP, where in the Z makes some 470-490 Torque with its 500HP. Also to note, the RPM Band, the Z has a redline of 7500, but 90% of its power/Torque is available at 2000-3000RPMs, but the BMWs kicks in at say 5000. I don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head but in general the process is the same.

I personally would go the Chevy way as it gives you more low end useful power, no need to downshift a couple gears to pass someone on the highway, and in this case I think the SS looks better.

 

^^^thats pretty much the same thing i said in the rsx vs cobalt ss thread. heh...just in different words.

 

why someone would pick a car that makes less HP at a higher RPM just bogs my mind..
But ricers do think that stickers and wings help the car..

 

the answer to all your questions is in your name toolemansorry just kidding....i think the cobalt engine has more potential stored up waiting to be let out while honda and other companies stretch the output closer to the limits...

 

you got it right man.. just look at the S2000, iv been on their forums and they say its the hardest car to mod ever.. There only hope is for comptech to make that roots blower..

 

i hear oil changes on that carre like every 2000miles or simething rediculous because the high rpms wear down oil and it needs the rpms to make its horses

 

I love it when they say, yeah my 2.0 makes as much HP as a V8, but yet it gets worse gas milage then a V8.. haha honda didnt get it right..

 

^ ^ ^ i'm not aware of any V8 that gets as good milage as a k-series engine? If you are, enlighten me.

 

I think it looks like crap myself.