CB7Tuner Forums

Go Back   CB7Tuner Forums > 4th Gen-eral > Off Topic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-07-2018, 03:50 AM   #81
owequitit
CB7tuner Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,640
owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful
Send a message via AIM to owequitit
Quote:
Originally Posted by verothacamaro View Post
All engines heat soak, but only turbochargers contain heat as a method of energy scavenging. This increases the heat in both the oil and coolant systems just to keep the turbo cool. Add in a heatsoaked intercooler, and your engine is going to have a much harder time dissipating the excess heat.

I don't actually complain too much, but it's no fun having to guess how much power you'll get from your car in a 90 degree day.

Repeatable performance is a lot of fun, too.
I'm pretty sure that you would see a pretty big benefit from an intercooler upgrade. Not only would it make temps largely more consistent, but Shawn Church has said they make a pretty huge difference on the ST specifically, which doesn't really perform to what its numbers say it should consistently (due to excess heat soak).
owequitit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 09:00 AM   #82
AccordWarrior
Guy Smiley
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,789
AccordWarrior is very helpful AccordWarrior is very helpful AccordWarrior is very helpful
Quote:
Originally Posted by owequitit View Post

3) The Civic has not gained really any measurable straight line performance in over 10 years. In the same amount of time, the Accord has improved by over 1 full second 0-60, by around 2 seconds 0-100 and around 10MPH in the 1/4 mile (not to mention the second + average ET). The GTI went from being nearly identical to the Si, to being nearly identical to the Accord. The regular WRX improved a similar amount. The Si simply has not kept pace power wise with its nominal competition. If fact, it only has about 8HP more than the Si that was built 12 years ago, and only beats it by about .3 seconds in the 1/4 mile, despite having about 70 extra lb-ft. Sadly, it is also more lumpy in power delivery.
Please cite your sources about the Accord. Here's mine.

2006 Accord V6 6MT Coupe Road Test

0-60 5.9s
0-100 15.2 s
1/4 mi 14.5s @ 98 MPH

2006 Accord V6 MT Sedan Comparo Test
0-60 5.9s

2006 Accord V6 Automatic Sedan
0-60 6.6s
1/4 mi 15.1s @ 95 MPH

2016 Accord V6 Automatic Sedan

0-60 5.8s
0-100 14.6 s
1/4 mi 14.4s @ 99 MPH

2016 Accord V6 6MT Coupe

0-60 5.8s
0-100 13.7 s
1/4 mi 14.2s @ 102 MPH

2018 Accord 2.0T Automatic Sedan

0-60 5.5s
0-100 13.6 s
1/4 mi 14.1s @ 102 MPH

2018 Accord 2.0T 6MT Sedan

0-60 6.1s
0-100 15.3 s
1/4 mi 14.7s @ 98 MPH

So best case here the 2018 Accord is 0.4 seconds faster to 60. It's 1.6 seconds faster to 100, 7 MPH trap and 0.4 seconds ET.

I used Car and Driver versus themselves as they tend to get the most consistent numbers out of each model they test although their numbers seem to better other sources.

2006 Civic Si

0-60 6.7 s
1/4 mi 15.1 @ 95 MPH (not listed in online article but I still own a physical copy of the road test and would be happy to provide scans of

2018 Civic Si

0-60 6.3s
1/4 mi 14.8 @ 96 MPH

So the Civic has gained 0.4 seconds to 60, which is the same as the Accord. Quarter mile times have improved by 0.3 seconds, which is 0.1 seconds less than the Accord.

Last edited by AccordWarrior; 07-07-2018 at 10:09 AM.
AccordWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 02:24 PM   #83
F22Chris
CB7tuner Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,144
F22Chris is very helpful F22Chris is very helpful
Sooo.... if I get a Focus ST, upgrade the intercooler. Got it.
__________________
F22Chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 03:05 PM   #84
sonikaccord
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: In Traffic
Posts: 4,150
sonikaccord seems to have made some friends!
Quote:
Originally Posted by F22Chris View Post
Sooo.... if I get a Focus ST, upgrade the intercooler. Got it.
Pretty much. Water-to-air.

Have you found a decent one yet? I'd like to know your thoughts on it!
__________________
sonikaccord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 05:08 PM   #85
owequitit
CB7tuner Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,640
owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful
Send a message via AIM to owequitit
First, let's discuss what I actually said...


Quote:
Originally Posted by owequitit View Post
LOL. This must be what this new "Fake News" trend looks like.

1) I stated EXACTLY why I didn't like the new car. I was VERY specific and CLEAR. I did not distort your statements, you started to distort mine.

2) I NEVER told ANYBODY not to go test drive it. I said I test drove it in 95* Texas heat and it had less power than my 2009 under the same conditions. But hey, don't take my word for it, go drive it in Texas heat...

3) The Civic has not gained really any measurable straight line performance in over 10 years. In the same amount of time, the Accord has improved by over 1 full second 0-60, by around 2 seconds 0-100 and around 10MPH in the 1/4 mile (not to mention the second + average ET). The GTI went from being nearly identical to the Si, to being nearly identical to the Accord. The regular WRX improved a similar amount. The Si simply has not kept pace power wise with its nominal competition. If fact, it only has about 8HP more than the Si that was built 12 years ago, and only beats it by about .3 seconds in the 1/4 mile, despite having about 70 extra lb-ft. Sadly, it is also more lumpy in power delivery.

In 2006, the Si would have beaten any automatic Accord around (including the Accord V6) and would have stomped any 4 banger in that category. Today, it is marginally faster than the base model engine cars and well slower than the higher power ones. The Si has not kept pace with the segment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AccordWarrior View Post
Please cite your sources about the Accord. Here's mine.

2006 Accord V6 6MT Coupe Road Test

0-60 5.9s
0-100 15.2 s
1/4 mi 14.5s @ 98 MPH

2006 Accord V6 MT Sedan Comparo Test
0-60 5.9s

2006 Accord V6 Automatic Sedan
0-60 6.6s
1/4 mi 15.1s @ 95 MPH

2016 Accord V6 Automatic Sedan

0-60 5.8s
0-100 14.6 s
1/4 mi 14.4s @ 99 MPH

2016 Accord V6 6MT Coupe

0-60 5.8s
0-100 13.7 s
1/4 mi 14.2s @ 102 MPH

2018 Accord 2.0T Automatic Sedan

0-60 5.5s
0-100 13.6 s
1/4 mi 14.1s @ 102 MPH

2018 Accord 2.0T 6MT Sedan

0-60 6.1s
0-100 15.3 s
1/4 mi 14.7s @ 98 MPH

So best case here the 2018 Accord is 0.4 seconds faster to 60. It's 1.6 seconds faster to 100, 7 MPH trap and 0.4 seconds ET.

I used Car and Driver versus themselves as they tend to get the most consistent numbers out of each model they test although their numbers seem to better other sources.

2006 Civic Si

0-60 6.7 s
1/4 mi 15.1 @ 95 MPH (not listed in online article but I still own a physical copy of the road test and would be happy to provide scans of

2018 Civic Si

0-60 6.3s
1/4 mi 14.8 @ 96 MPH

So the Civic has gained 0.4 seconds to 60, which is the same as the Accord. Quarter mile times have improved by 0.3 seconds, which is 0.1 seconds less than the Accord.
For the second part, you have already quoted many of my sources, but let me correct them for you.

1) I excluded manual transmission Accords, specifically the V6 because it had a much better power to weight ratio.

However, let's start by looking at the Civic in 2006,2009, 2012 and then 2017:

2006 Civic Si vs 2006 GTI:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...omparison-test

0-60: 6.7s
1/4 mile in 15.1@95MPH
5-60: 7.5s
30-50: 11.3s
50-70: 11.5s

Times were pretty much fully competitive with the GTI. GTI was faster to 60, Si was faster to 100 and 120MPH.

5-60 and 30-50 and 50-70 are more telling of engine flexibility because they aren't based on a full on launch, and in the case of 30-50/50-70, they are top gear (bottom end test). This point is made because it becomes crucial later when we compare a "much torquier" turbo engine.

*The GTI was substantially faster, but it was also a DSG, which means it was allowed to downshift.*

2009 Civic Si:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ivic-si-page-4

0-60: 6.7s
1/4: 15.1@94
5-60: 7.7s
30-50: 11.6s
50-70: 11.0s

2012 Civic Si Coupe:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ed-test-review

0-60: 6.3s
1/4: 15.0@94
5-60: 7.2s
30-50: 10.4s
50-70: 9.9

2012 Si Sedan:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ed-test-review

0-60: 6.1s
1/4: 14.7@97
5-60: 6.4s
30-50: 8.8s
50-70: 8.4s

2014 Si sedan:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...an-test-review

0-60: 6.5s
1/4: 15.1@94
5-60: 6.8s
30-50: 9.2s
50-70: 8.8s

2017 Si Sedan (summer tires):

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...omparison-test

0-60: 6.4s
1/4: 14.9@96
5-60: 7.4s
30-50: 9.9s
50-70: 8.4s

2017 Civic Si sedan (all season tires):

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...an-test-review

0-60: 6.7s
1/4: 15.0s@95
5-60: 7.7s
30-50: 13.3s
50-70: 8.9s

Looks pretty clearly like the new car falls into the margin of error compared to the previous two generations as far as I can tell. Interestingly, the new "torquey" turbocharged car was actually INFERIOR to the "torqueless" K20Z3 powered car in 2 out of 3 of the metrics that demonstrate engine flexibility... At best, it tied the lowest value from 5-60, was slower than all in 30-50 and did much better in 50-70 (when it was most likely spooled).

This is EXACTLY consistent with what I saw on my test drive, which was no doubt exacerbated by the high temperatures. The L15T didn't really hit full boost until just over 3K and ran out of steam around 5.5K, which is also fairly well wheel dyno verified for these engines. Below full boost, it is a 1.5L engine... Further, it seems a lot of people mistakenly apply experience with the B18C/H22 to be applicable to the K20Z3, which is NOT accurate. Even with the stock tune, the K20Z3 was actually very notably more flexible than the H22 in low speeds and actually produced similar torque at a lower RPM value. When coupled with the tighter gearing, it wasn't nearly as flat footed as 1st gen VTEC cars were. That said, these results are exactly consistent with what you would expect to see. The smallest least torquey engine is slower at low RPMs than the bigger 2.4L and is slower than the 1.5T once it hits full boost. But outside of that, it also shows that the K20Z3 made up a lot of a ground against both engines in the top end where it had a significant breathing advantage and could use its lower gearing to its advantage. The boosted engine does well in a more limited set of circumstances (when it is able to achieve full boost) but does NOT produce measurably more total power or acceleration overall. Hence, the 1.5T has not really moved the Si forward in terms of total performance since 2006.

Interestingly, the skid pad grip and braking distances of all all-season tired cars was pretty much identical with a few foot variance in distance and only about .01G difference in total grip. I will outright agree that the new car FEELS better with less body roll and more immediate response, but they are similar in terms of total performance.

Now, there is a data set there for a DSG equipped GTI in the first test linked vs a 2015 model with the Sport package:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ic-test-review

The newer car was nearly a full second faster and trapped around 4-5MPH faster. It doesn't seem like much, but that is a pretty noticeable improvement in acceleration and is about 2/3 of the way between my Si and my Accord Coupe. Further, the GTI meaningfully improved every acceleration measure vs the old car in the first test.
owequitit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 05:36 PM   #86
AccordWarrior
Guy Smiley
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,789
AccordWarrior is very helpful AccordWarrior is very helpful AccordWarrior is very helpful
Quote:
Originally Posted by owequitit View Post
1) I excluded manual transmission Accords, specifically the V6 because it had a much better power to weight ratio.
You need to do a much better job at making your broad brush statements then.

This is your original statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by owequitit
In the same amount of time, the Accord has improved by over 1 full second 0-60, by around 2 seconds 0-100 and around 10MPH in the 1/4 mile (not to mention the second + average ET).
Nowhere do you specifically exclude certain models to make that comparison accurate. Considering we were talking about straight line speed through the bulk of this discuss it's logical to use the fastest combinations of both models to make the comparison.

Sure, if you exclude the fastest variant of the 2006 Accord and compare it to the fastest variant of the 2018 Accord you can make that difference happen, but you did not explicitly state that in your original statement.

It's easy to make your facts and figures work when you aren't specific.
AccordWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 08:18 PM   #87
F22Chris
CB7tuner Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,144
F22Chris is very helpful F22Chris is very helpful
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonikaccord View Post
Pretty much. Water-to-air.

Have you found a decent one yet? I'd like to know your thoughts on it!
Iím still looking. I canít find one that I want to drop the coin on yet. Ideally I would want a grey ST2. I figure patience is a virtue and I will not compromise budget. I contacted Dodge about the Grey one they had in Morrow, but they sold it already, and keep calling me trying to sell me a Fiat xD. Talk about a POS car... They called me today actually trying to sell me some automatic Jetta. I told them definitely not, and they proceeded to get super butthurt.
__________________
F22Chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 11:22 PM   #88
owequitit
CB7tuner Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,640
owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful
Send a message via AIM to owequitit
Now, for the Accord claims:

2003 Accord:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-v-6-road-test

I only included this one for reference on the effectiveness of the 2006 Accord changes, as it was an MMC, but performance was pretty notably expanded from that MMC.

0-60: 7.0s
1/4: 15.5@92
5-60: 7.2s
30-50: 4.0s
50-70: 4.1s

*30-70 tests don't apply due to AT

2006 Accord Sedan:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-ex-v-6-page-1

0-60: 6.6s
1/4: 15.1@95
5-60: 7.1s
30-50: 3.5s
50-70: 4.9s

* 30-70 tests do not apply due to AT

Just about identical to the previously posted Civic Si results. I can also vouch for three things. 1) the 2006 was indeed slightly faster than the 2003-2004 as we owned both concurrently. 2) the 50-70 time was indeed slower because there was a fairly significant gearing hole between 2nd and 3rd, right in the the majority of this speed range. 3) Due to gearing, the Accord started to fall behind the Si at higher speeds.

2011 Accord Sedan:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-second-page-3

0-60: 6.6s
1/4: 15.2@95
5-60: 6.8s
30-50: 4.0s
50-70: 4.9s

* 30-70 tests do not apply due to AT

I can also say that our 2009 from this generation was almost identical in performance to the 2004 Accord EX-L V6 we owned, and seemed to be a bit slower than the 2006 Accord, but there is no recorded data for that, just driving them together and accelerating through traffic, etc.

2013 Accord Sedan:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-6-test-review

0-60: 5.6s
1/4: 14.1@100MPH
5-60: 5.9s
30-50: 3.3s
50-70: 4.1s

* 30-70 tests do not apply due to AT

2016 Accord Sedan:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...an-test-review

0-60: 5.8s
1/4: 14.4s@99
5-60: 6.0s
30-50: 3.3s
50-70: 4.2s

*30-70 tests do not apply due to AT

I kept the 30-70 data just to make the thread consistent.

Now, the reason I made the statement, is that when the 2006 Si debuted, it was not only equal to most of the cars in its class, more or less, but it was also equal to AT Honda Accords. As you can see from the data provided, the Si was very close to the overall performance of automatic Accords from the era. I specifically excluded MT models from the era because they were significantly faster and had no sedan version after 2007, whereas the Si did. They have also seen fairly large total performance increases, though not on the order of the AT models.

The Accords have seen anything from a little over half a second in improvement with a ~5-7MPH increase on the MT models to nearly 10MPH on the AT models. They ARE significantly faster than they were in circa 2006 when the FG/FA Si debuted. I can personally vouch for that as well.

That said, in the same time the Accord had gained nearly a full second in nearly every large acceleration measure, the Si has remained more or less stagnant. Since the Si's primary historical competitor (GTI) has seen similar gains to the Accord, that causes problems for the Si from a marketing standpoint. To make it worse, not only is NOT really faster than the old "torque-less" Si's, but it is actually SLOWER in some measures and it loses a lot of power band, a lot of flexibility and an almost unbelievable amount of character. It is less of an "oh screaming NA is the only way to go" argument than it is an argument that Honda should have, and could have, easily done better. The fact that the 2.0T is right there for the picking makes it even worse.

What would the 2.0T have done?

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...al-test-review

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-manual-review

Based on the performance of the Accord 2.0T 6MT and 1.5T 6MT, some pretty close estimates can be made:

2.0T
0-60: 6.1s
1/4: 14.7s@98
5-60: 7.0s
30-50: 10.8s
50-70: 7.6s

1.5T
0-60: 7.2s
1/4: 15.5s@92
5-60: 8.2s
30-50: 14.0s
50-70: 10.7s

As is, the Si weighs exactly 2904lbs. The Accord Sport weighs an additional 250lbs at 3154. The 2.0T gains an additional 120lbs, but not all of that is engine and transmission as the 2.0T Sport adds some notable features such as power seats, a bigger stereo, moonroof and some additional equipment. The engine probably adds around 60-70lbs of that as a close estimate. Call it 80.

If you adjust the Sport 1.5T's performance for the 250lb weight difference, you actually get pretty close to the Civic Si's performance, especially when you consider that gearing is identical and the LSD would improve traction. I did not calculate the difference in gearing due to tire diameter, so that could be a slight factor. Interestingly, the Accord's 1.5T also features exhaust VTEC, so it actually outputs slightly more power on equivalent gas, which most likely accounts for the rest of the difference since the Si was tested on 91 octane and the Accord Sport on 87 octane. I have zero interest in the Accord Sport 1.5T, so I haven't driven one, but apparently it has a more linear power band than the Si. I have driven the 1.5T in the regular Civic, the Si and the CR-V.

With that in mind, if we consider either adjusting the Accord's performance for the Si's weight and fuel, or adjusting for the difference between Accord 2.0T Sport and 1.5T neglecting fuel difference, you get a pretty accurate picture of what a 2.0T Si would look like performance wise.

The numbers would be roughly:

0-60: 5.7-6.0s
1/4: 14.0-14.3@100-102
5-60: 6.4s
30-50: 8.5s
50-70: 7-7.5s

In my OPINION that would put the Si right on par with the GTI and simply restore its position relative to the market. It wouldn't make it some insane proposition and it might actually put it slightly ahead of the GTI, while protecting space with the Type-R:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-r-test-review

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...e-specs-page-4

The Type-R would still have a fairly large real world accelerative advantage, especially at higher speeds; far more skidpad grip, more features, bigger brakes, superior stopping distance, etc.

And more importantly than the speed (I'm not sure where it ever got invented that all I care about is speed, because if that were the case, I sure as hell wouldn't be a Honda enthusiast) is character. Wanting par performance doesn't seem unreasonable to me frankly, but that wasn't my emphasis. My emphasis was the more linear power delivery, higher revability, smoother running, more eager nature and less rev-hang associated with the 2.0T. It is simply a sportier and more appropriate engine because it wasn't designed primarily for fuel economy and cost. Ironically, it is actually based on the K20 architecture. The K20T revs better, sounds better, pulls better, etc. I also made my statement specifically because you started mentioning "tuning" as a way to solve basic issues. Except that you can also tune the 2.0T and get a lot more. To top it off, the ~$600 for a Hondata Flashpro puts you nearly half way toward the price difference of the 2.0T (exactly $2000 in the Accord).

I was pretty clear about my specific complaints and believe me, I went into it with a fairly open mind. I am a huge fan of the 2.0T. I am a huge fan of the 1.5T in a not "sporty" application where MPG or cost is more of a driver.

I loved the Si minus the powertrain issues, and if it weren't for the 1.5T, I would probably have one sitting in my driveway right now.

Consider the reality that 12 years ago when the FG/FA debuted, Honda didn't make an SUV that was even close, and yet, even the Pilot has not only kept pace, but could actually potentially win a drag race...

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...wrap-up-review

As for some comments about both engines:

1.5L

Quote:
Originally Posted by Car and Driver
"It’s been a long time since an Si used the same engine as the regular Civic. Well, most of it, anyway. Honda has reshaped the Si’s pistons for better cooling and a slightly lower compression ratio, 10.3:1, down from 10.6 in the regular Civic. A larger, high-flow turbo steps up boost to 20.3 psi, an increase of 3.8. These changes net 205 horsepower and 192 pound-*feet of torque, 31 more horsepower and 25 more pound-feet than the 1.5 can muster in a non-Si coupe or sedan. But those increases slip to 25 and 15, respectively, compared with the hatchback-only Civic Sport. Against the outgoing Civic Si, it’s a gain of zero horsepower. Still, the 5700-rpm power peak arrives 1300-rpm earlier than in the old Si, and the torque crests 2300 rpm sooner, at 2100.
While output lags considerably behind its competitors—the Ford Focus ST enjoys an additional 47 horsepower and 78 pound-feet—the Civic’s comparatively svelte 2879 pounds allow it to keep pace in a straight line. Its zero-to-60 time of 6.3 seconds is just 0.2 second behind the best run we’ve coaxed from an ST, and the Si narrows that gap to a single tenth through the quarter-mile, at 14.8 seconds. Volkswagen’s GTI is right on top of the Ford and Honda, while the launch advantage of its all-wheel-drive system puts the Subaru WRX way out ahead.

Its minute displacement means that Honda’s turbocharged motor has one thing in common with the screamers that forged the Si’s reputation: a dearth of torque at low rpm. Give it a couple of seconds to build boost and it’ll recover, but you do not want to skip gears in the 2017 Si any more than you would in an older one. And even once the pinwheel wakes up, this generation’s trade of the old high-rpm rip for anonymous turbo-four moan isn’t one we’d have voted for. Know what else has a boosted 1.5-liter? The Chevrolet Malibu. The two don’t sound as different as you might wish."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Car and Driver
"What the little 1.5-liter engine lacks in character it more than makes up for with midrange punch and efficiency."
2.0L

Quote:
Originally Posted by Car and Driver
The Civic Type R bloodline is deeply felt in the Accord’s new engine. Equipped with Honda’s i-VTEC variable valve lift, the 2.0-liter delivers a rev happiness and linear thrust missing from the 1.5. It rewards you for running right up to the 6800-rpm redline. A hint of turbo lag is unmistakable, but it’s a mere split second before the rush hits. In the Type R, the engine makes no attempt to fit in with polite society. Honda has wisely buried the engine’s more prurient tendencies for family-sedan use. At full throttle, the engine emits only 78 decibels, compared with the Type R’s 91 decibels of Vin Diesel–inspired dialogue.

Last edited by owequitit; 07-07-2018 at 11:43 PM.
owequitit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 11:34 PM   #89
owequitit
CB7tuner Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,640
owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful
Send a message via AIM to owequitit
Quote:
Originally Posted by AccordWarrior View Post
You need to do a much better job at making your broad brush statements then.

This is your original statement.
This was actually my original statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by owequitit
3) The Civic has not gained really any measurable straight line performance in over 10 years. In the same amount of time, the Accord has improved by over 1 full second 0-60, by around 2 seconds 0-100 and around 10MPH in the 1/4 mile (not to mention the second + average ET). The GTI went from being nearly identical to the Si, to being nearly identical to the Accord. The regular WRX improved a similar amount. The Si simply has not kept pace power wise with its nominal competition. If fact, it only has about 8HP more than the Si that was built 12 years ago, and only beats it by about .3 seconds in the 1/4 mile, despite having about 70 extra lb-ft. Sadly, it is also more lumpy in power delivery.

In 2006, the Si would have beaten any automatic Accord around (including the Accord V6) and would have stomped any 4 banger in that category. Today, it is marginally faster than the base model engine cars and well slower than the higher power ones. The Si has not kept pace with the segment.
Looks pretty covered to me.

I guess it is also possible to make your figures work when you neglect the stuff that doesn't suit your agenda. That is called taking things out of context.

You can try to make the argument that my statement wasn't clear, but I can equally make the argument that the overall meaning of my total statement was actually very clear.

P.S. In many cases, those improvements also include the MT models, and here is an example:

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-v-6-road-test

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...al-test-review

Notice the 2013 is nearly 2 seconds faster to 100MPH than the 2006? In some cases, the difference with the sedans is closer to 3 seconds.

Isn't the definition of "fake news" these days taking something someone says out of context and then trying to present it in a way it wasn't said?

I disagreed with you (still do). That isn't the same as "cramming my opinion down your throat." Contrary to popular lore these days, my opinion is not required to agree with yours to be valid. That said, I am done. As it stands, I would seriously consider the Focus ST over a new Si. The price would certainly be better, it is a really good looking car and I haven't met anybody yet who didn't love theirs. I hope the OP finds the one he wants.

Last edited by owequitit; 07-07-2018 at 11:46 PM.
owequitit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 11:38 PM   #90
owequitit
CB7tuner Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,640
owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful
Send a message via AIM to owequitit
Quote:
Originally Posted by F22Chris View Post
I’m still looking. I can’t find one that I want to drop the coin on yet. Ideally I would want a grey ST2. I figure patience is a virtue and I will not compromise budget. I contacted Dodge about the Grey one they had in Morrow, but they sold it already, and keep calling me trying to sell me a Fiat xD. Talk about a POS car... They called me today actually trying to sell me some automatic Jetta. I told them definitely not, and they proceeded to get super butthurt.
Haha, an Abarth 500 is basically the same as a Focus ST, right?

I am sure you will find one, but I would think you would need a fairly large search radius since they are relatively uncommon cars. How far are you from the nearest metro area?

*Nevermind if you are in Atlanta*
owequitit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2018, 12:14 AM   #91
gloryaccordy
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The doomship!
Posts: 8,468
gloryaccordy seems to have made some friends!
Holy fuck, it's the weekend man.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by lordoja View Post
im with you on that one bro! aint nothing beat free food and drinks any day of the week, even if its at a funeral
gloryaccordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2018, 07:39 AM   #92
AccordWarrior
Guy Smiley
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,789
AccordWarrior is very helpful AccordWarrior is very helpful AccordWarrior is very helpful
Quote:
Originally Posted by owequitit View Post

You can try to make the argument that my statement wasn't clear, but I can equally make the argument that the overall meaning of my total statement was actually very clear.

Isn't the definition of "fake news" these days taking something someone says out of context and then trying to present it in a way it wasn't said?
Scott, you clearly stated the Accord gained 1 second to 60 and 1 second in the quarter without qualifying models or sources as your initial argumentative point. This isn’t me taking your statement out of context, this is literally your statement. If you said Accord automatics are one second faster, absolutely right. Manual to manual they aren't, fastest model in 2006-2008 to fastest in 2018 they aren’t either. What part of taking your statement out of context am I missing here? Had you said automatic Accord has gained those numbers, fully on board but the fact is the final manual EX V6 sedan available prior to the new style puts up numbers that are right in line with the current model.

You can fire the fake news line all you want and underline other parts of your statement but literally your opening line as stated is factually incorrect. You use that as your base statement of why the new Si hasn’t improved. Later you compare the Si to the automatic and yes that is all valid, I’m not arguing that point at all.

Last edited by AccordWarrior; 07-08-2018 at 11:28 AM.
AccordWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2018, 04:34 PM   #93
HenRoc
Black Thunder
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,618
HenRoc seems to have made some friends! HenRoc seems to have made some friends!
Send a message via AIM to HenRoc
Ouch. Must suck having that ladder kicked from under you.
__________________
Henry R
Koni/Neuspeed
1992 Accord LX R.I.P
1993 Accord EX OG since 'o3


'You see we human beings are not born with prejudices, always they are made for us,
made by someone who wants something' -1943 US War Department video
HenRoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2018, 11:33 PM   #94
owequitit
CB7tuner Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,640
owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful
Send a message via AIM to owequitit
Quote:
Originally Posted by AccordWarrior View Post
Scott, you clearly stated the Accord gained 1 second to 60 and 1 second in the quarter without qualifying models or sources as your initial argumentative point. This isnít me taking your statement out of context, this is literally your statement. If you said Accord automatics are one second faster, absolutely right. Manual to manual they aren't, fastest model in 2006-2008 to fastest in 2018 they arenít either. What part of taking your statement out of context am I missing here? Had you said automatic Accord has gained those numbers, fully on board but the fact is the final manual EX V6 sedan available prior to the new style puts up numbers that are right in line with the current model.

You can fire the fake news line all you want and underline other parts of your statement but literally your opening line as stated is factually incorrect. You use that as your base statement of why the new Si hasnít improved. Later you compare the Si to the automatic and yes that is all valid, Iím not arguing that point at all.
Context includes more than my initial statement. I VERY specifically qualified my position in further detail in the very next paragraph, which was still part of the overall idea. The application of English language was spot on. There was nothing factually incorrect in my statement. It was a broad statement covering several things and then the things were broken out and qualified immediately after.

You missed it. Not the same thing.

And I am going to throw out the Fake News line, especially after you specifically attacked me for trying to "cram my opinion down your throat" when I literally did not such thing. Your position on it is clearly biased.
owequitit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2018, 11:34 PM   #95
owequitit
CB7tuner Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,640
owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful
Send a message via AIM to owequitit
Quote:
Originally Posted by gloryaccordy View Post
Holy fuck, it's the weekend man.
Let's assume for a second that the entire world doesn't operate on a M-F clock...
owequitit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2018, 11:35 PM   #96
owequitit
CB7tuner Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,640
owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful owequitit is very helpful
Send a message via AIM to owequitit
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenRoc View Post
Ouch. Must suck having that ladder kicked from under you.
Hey look! A peanut gallery.

He didn't kick anything out from under me. He failed to read my entire statement.

He missed the spot where I clarified what I was saying.
owequitit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2018, 01:49 PM   #97
gloryaccordy
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The doomship!
Posts: 8,468
gloryaccordy seems to have made some friends!
Nobody cares anymore. Here's a video about a high HP L15B7. Sounds pretty good to me, seems to run pretty well too.

__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by lordoja View Post
im with you on that one bro! aint nothing beat free food and drinks any day of the week, even if its at a funeral
gloryaccordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2018, 02:07 PM   #98
gloryaccordy
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The doomship!
Posts: 8,468
gloryaccordy seems to have made some friends!
And here are some dynos.... big turbo L15 vs bolt on stock turbo L15:





And the stock FK8:



On the street a bolt on L15 seems to have a decent powerband to me. And while the L15B7 isn't a crooner it's not like the K20C is much better. Again it would have been great if the Si got a cheapo K20C but it's hardly the end of the world.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by lordoja View Post
im with you on that one bro! aint nothing beat free food and drinks any day of the week, even if its at a funeral
gloryaccordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2018, 05:35 PM   #99
sonikaccord
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: In Traffic
Posts: 4,150
sonikaccord seems to have made some friends!
Just for thoroughness:
K20a with bolt-ons:


F22a6 with bolt-ons:


Stock and Tuned Focus ST:


Honestly, that bolt-on L15 doesn't look too far from the F series powerband, just way more torque and way earlier. They are both mid-range, 3-5krpm engines. After I added the Focus dyno plots, they all appear to be mid-range heavy. Of course the K20A is all top end.

I did a quick search for a stock 10th gen Si dyno plot, but my Google-Fu started sucking. Meh. It confirmed what my butt felt. Nothing at the bottom, trailed off at the top, keep the tach at 12 o'clock for max fun.

Damn that Focus can put out some power. Some of these bolt-on plus tune dyno's are crazy. Swap the turbo and 400whp is waiting at the doorstep.
__________________
sonikaccord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2018, 06:26 PM   #100
AccordWarrior
Guy Smiley
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,789
AccordWarrior is very helpful AccordWarrior is very helpful AccordWarrior is very helpful
Quote:
Originally Posted by owequitit
And I am going to throw out the Fake News line, especially after you specifically attacked me for trying to "cram my opinion down your throat" when I literally did not such thing. Your position on it is clearly biased.
That’s totally your MO here. Anytime there is a differing viewpoint to yours it’s walls of text, the need to have the last word, the condescending attitude. You’ve done it to me, to Yaw, to Deev. You have in your own signature how to ignore you. Someone disagrees you don’t let it go, it’s walls of text until the other person stops responding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by owequitit View Post
Hey look! A peanut gallery.

He didn't kick anything out from under me. He failed to read my entire statement.

He missed the spot where I clarified what I was saying.
Whatever let’s you sleep at night dude.

Last edited by AccordWarrior; 07-09-2018 at 09:20 PM.
AccordWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.