Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Focus st

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by AccordWarrior View Post
    The absolution you deal in...because you think it sucks is the end all be all and any opinion other than yours (because that’s all it is, an opinion) is wrong.

    I completely disagree with your viewpoint and now expect another wall of text about how I’m wrong because respecting a different viewpoint is impossible.
    Then go buy one. I'll pass because I hated it for several very specific reasons. Yours is also an opinion and therefore it is absolutely no more valid than mine, nor have I said otherwise.
    The OFFICIAL how to add me to your ignore list thread!

    Comment


      #77
      Originally posted by verothacamaro View Post
      I can say without a shadow of a doubt that a turbocharged car in any climate where temperatures aren't below 70F sucks. The inconsistencies in performance eliminate whatever advantage the engine has against a naturally aspirated counterpart.

      Perhaps at altitude the turbocharger continues to have a positive impact, but I'm in the DMV region where temperatures average 90F all summer and unless you're running ethanol, the heatsoak robs all power and I end up having to run a low boost setting so I'm not creating excessive knock conditions.

      After I get the CRV, I'm hoping for either an FG/FA Si or an AP1/2 S2000 - I'll gladly take the hit in torque if I can have repeatable performance in any temperature range.

      Man...getting old either makes me fickle, wise, or simply accepting of simpler times lol
      Maybe if you are looking for huge boost all the time. My stock Optima SX has got me where I need to go at a decent clip through this NC summer

      FWIW NA engines can heat soak too; I distinctly remember my Z feeling like it had another 50 HP once the weather cooled off. Heat robs everything of power.


      Originally posted by lordoja
      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

      Comment


        #78
        Originally posted by owequitit View Post
        The point wasn't miserable or desirability.

        The point was that for the same money in mods, the 2.0T will BLOW the 1.5T out of the water. So talking about how easy it is to mod the 1.5T simply doesn't compare to what the 2.0T will do under the same circumstances. You are trying to stretch the argument to a point that wasn't made. Stock for stock, it would have been substantially faster with the 2.0T, especially if your goal is drivability and ease of use. The fact that it actually sounds good, likes to rev and is smooth is just icing on the cake.

        Also, lol at trying to make a dig at an FA5 owner. First, I loved the car for its CHARACTER more than anything. The character that the new one doesn't have. Second, they weren't nearly as slow as you wish it was. Especially with the reflash. HUGE difference in drivability and enjoyability and it wasn't nearly the torqueless wonder you wish it was when it was stock. As for desirability, the Type-R puts about 300WHP to the ground with no torque steer in normal conditions. The Si might be worse with the same power level, but probably not a monster still. Even my Accord doesn't really have any torque steer, it just has a lot of wheel spin when I get on it, most of which would be solved by an LSD (which both Civics have).

        As for my point, my point is that even with an extra 70 lb-ft and nearly identical weight, the new car is only a few ticks faster than my "nutless" Si that hit the market 12 years ago.

        As for putting a stage 2 tune on a CVT, good luck with that. Honda's CVT's are notoriously lacking headroom for such things.

        P.S. I tried the Si. It sucked. The engine was rough, it didn't sound good, it didn't have a lot of torque, it wasn't fast and it didn't really like to be grabbed by the scruff of the neck and wrung out like every Si before. The chassis was great. It was in need of a decent Sporty car engine.
        I don't think anyone has said the 1.5T could match the 2.0T with mods. I think the question is, for someone happy with close to stockish power, do those differences matter? Not everyone needs 400WHP- including you. So what's the relevance?

        Now if the 1.5T's character just sucks, stock or modded, that's another issue. In any case, other people still like the car as a whole package. I don't think anyone should be discouraged to at least drive it for themselves because YOU don't like it... but this campaign you've launched against it seems to serve that end.


        Originally posted by lordoja
        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

        Comment


          #79
          Originally posted by gloryaccordy View Post
          Maybe if you are looking for huge boost all the time. My stock Optima SX has got me where I need to go at a decent clip through this NC summer

          FWIW NA engines can heat soak too; I distinctly remember my Z feeling like it had another 50 HP once the weather cooled off. Heat robs everything of power.
          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.
          14 Ford Focus ST - stock(ish) - E30 Tune + Green Filter =

          Comment


            #80
            Originally posted by gloryaccordy View Post
            I don't think anyone has said the 1.5T could match the 2.0T with mods. I think the question is, for someone happy with close to stockish power, do those differences matter? Not everyone needs 400WHP- including you. So what's the relevance?

            Now if the 1.5T's character just sucks, stock or modded, that's another issue. In any case, other people still like the car as a whole package. I don't think anyone should be discouraged to at least drive it for themselves because YOU don't like it... but this campaign you've launched against it seems to serve that end.
            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.

            This is why you can now lease one for $209 a month as of June.

            Further, the entire premise of your argument is a strawman. Saying the Civic SHOULD (and could) have kept pace with its competition is NOT the same as saying that it needs some idiotic power level going through the front wheels. The Type R is not an idiotic level and it has MORE.

            The bottom line is that in my OPINION if Honda had put a detuned 2.0T in there, the Si would NOT be leasing for pennies and we wouldn't have people trying to defend its low power output.

            4) I was also clear that other than the shitty seat fabric and powertrain, the rest of the car was fantastic.

            I never said don't test drive it.
            Last edited by owequitit; 07-07-2018, 04:15 AM.
            The OFFICIAL how to add me to your ignore list thread!

            Comment


              #81
              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).
              The OFFICIAL how to add me to your ignore list thread!

              Comment


                #82
                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, 10:09 AM.

                Comment


                  #83
                  Sooo.... if I get a Focus ST, upgrade the intercooler. Got it.

                  Comment


                    #84
                    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!

                    YouTube Clicky!!

                    Comment


                      #85
                      First, let's discuss what I actually said...


                      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.
                      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.
                      The OFFICIAL how to add me to your ignore list thread!

                      Comment


                        #86
                        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.

                        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.

                        Comment


                          #87
                          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!
                          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.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            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

                            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."
                            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

                            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, 11:43 PM.
                            The OFFICIAL how to add me to your ignore list thread!

                            Comment


                              #89
                              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:

                              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, 11:46 PM.
                              The OFFICIAL how to add me to your ignore list thread!

                              Comment


                                #90
                                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*
                                The OFFICIAL how to add me to your ignore list thread!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X