I was faced with a similar choice 5 years ago, so I will give you my thoughts:
I was looking at a slightly used Civic Si coupe (2007 back in early 2009), a 2006 RSX-S (post MMC with lots of good changes) and a brand new 2009 Civic Si sedan. I chose the new 2009 Sedan because it was only a bit more than the slightly used RSX and Si Coupe, so the payment was basically the same for a car with 1.6 miles on it.
That said, I love it. Here is why I would choose it again if I had it to do over.
1) The RSX is rated at 210HP vs the Si's 197, but I am pretty sure that was just to keep the Honda from looking better on paper. The K20Z3 in the Si has a a better intake manifold, and some other minor changes. What I can say is that my 2009 was unquestionably more flexible through the powerband (read more torque all over) and had better top end pull. That was in a car that is heavier than the RSX I was shopping. Many dyno accounts put the Si's engine nearly identical or slightly higher in total power compared to the RSX-S. Keep in mind too that the RSX I looked at was after the MMC, so it had the more powerful engine in it. The RSX only had about 30K miles on it, and it was a CPO Honda car, so I doubt it had any large history of abuse.
In addition to being stronger, the K20Z3 is also a lot smoother. It could be mostly due to the balance shafts, but it also WANTS to pull harder in the top end. The RSX seemed to start gasping a bit above 7500, whereas at the 8200RPM fuel cutoff, the Si wants about another 500-1000RPM. That is also supported on a dyno chart where the Si's engine pulls better in the top end. Chalk it up to the better intake manifold, exhaust tuning, and ECU tuning.
The other thing I liked better about the Si was the acoustic tuning. In stock form, it really screams. It has just enough exhaust note to let you know it isn't a "normal" Civic in normal driving, but when you open it up, it is one of the best sounding stock 4 bangers on the planet.
The shifter in the Si is noticably more positive than the RSX. Throws are shorter, the pattern is tighter, and the actual engagement is a lot better.
2) I didn't think the RSX was crappy, but I though the Si was a little better. The seats especially are better, and IMO, the 2006-2008 seats are even a little better than the 2009+. They are comfortable and supportive, without being confining. My dad and I drove 5,000+ miles in mine over the summer (36 hours one way, only stopping for food and gas) and neither of us had ANY issues at the end of the line. They were simply superb.
That said, the RSX had some pretty nasty interior rattles at 30K and so far, at 72K my Si is pretty drum tight. The chassis still feels stiffer, and most of my rattles are related to junk in my cubby bins rattling around.
The paint quality on the later SI's seems better, and I think they look better overall. I am a huge fan of the RSX too though.
3) As for chassis setup, again, the Si was the better car. It handles a lot more neutrally, but still manages to ride better and be quieter. If I had one complaint about the stock Si suspension, it would be that it has just a touch more body roll than I would like, but once it sets, it is extremely neutral for a FWD car. You can put a Progress rear sway bar on it for about $100, and there is little else than needs changed.
The Si is not as prone to weird steering in corners or over bumps as the RSX was by virtue of the superior front strut design. The Si is incredibly easy to wring higher levels of handling out of compared to the RSX, especially if you lower it at all.
Yes, the LSD is THAT big of a deal. It makes the difference between having to control your corner entry speed and being able to actually ADD power in the corner to tighten the line. Not quite like RWD, but it makes the car much faster in the corners, much more predictable, and much more neutral than the RSX would be when you need to get on the power. Most of my friends can't believe how neutral and easy to corner it is, and that includes many of my Bimmer friends. It also tremendously improves cold weather traction in such cases that it becomes necessary.
4) Size wise, the sedan is similar in interior space to the CB. The trunk is not as deep, but it is taller, and frankly I find it as usable as the CB7 in most situations. The car is taller and wider than the CB, but it is also about 6" shorter in sedan form. Again, most of my friends are impressed with how much space it has for its exterior size. The visibility in the RSX wasn't bad, and it was certainly better than the Si coupe's, but I think the Si sedan is better than both. The car is just about the right size for city driving, where it isn't so huge it is hard to maneuver around tight places like downtown LA.
5) If the Civic has one major weakness vs the RSX it would be the steering. The RSX still used hydraulic steering, whereas the Si uses electric. The Si's steering is VERY quick, and VERY accurate, but you can't tell what is going on at the road at all. The RSX had better feedback.
Some issues you should be aware of with the Civic:
They have a TSB on the transmission for either a 2nd or 3rd gear grind. There was either a fluid issue, or the syncros were a little weak. They seem to have ironed that out in the later years, and mine is mostly problem free except on cold mornings where 2nd complains a little bit before the transmission warms up. To be fair, it has done that since pretty much new, and it hasn't gotten any worse. Make sure you know what the warranty status is on that, if any.
The early Si's also had an issue with their rear control arms having a lot of camber. There is a new part number which Honda will put on if there is excessive tire wear. The problem is that they aren't really adjustable, so other than adjusting it with the play in the bushings, there isn't much they can do other than change them.
I have heard reports of early Si's having premature strut failures up front, so make sure you check that out.
Some K series issues that are known:
The timing chain tensioners have been known to fail early. I think the part is like $70 and they are easy to change, so I am going to just replace mine on a schedule. Other than some minor stuff like that, the K series is pretty much bullet proof, and I have had literally ZERO issues with mine. It still runs and idles like the day I bought it.
I average around 28-30MPG in mixed driving (mostly city), but I am at a higher altitude. If you keep the revs low and don't accelerate like an idiot 30MPG is a pretty attainable real world number. I track my MPG and my average for the last 12 months is 29.71 MPG over 14,000 miles. I also am not afraid to have fun with it pretty often.
There is a "rev hang" which is a delay when you let off the gas, which is apparently to protect the cat from damage. It can be removed with Flashpro, which is almost a must have on this car.
The other issue I have with it is the clutch delay valve. It is a little valve on the CMC that delays the rate the clutch engages, probably to protect the clutch. However, I believe it contributes to the syncro issues because the timing is just slightly off under certain conditions. You can put a CMC from a 99-00 Civic Si, and it bolts right in without the valve. Many people report positive results from that change.
One thing I would like to address in relation to the K20 as well is the "lack of torque." It actually has plenty of torque, but it is a naturally aspirated 2.0, so of course it doesn't have the torque or power delivery of a turbo car, or big huge engine. That said, I have no issues getting around in traffic or keeping up with traffic. It is plenty capable of doing that without VTECing all over the place like the internet would have you believe. I hardly ever hit VTEC in normal driving, and trust me, the driver where I live are super big assholes. Also, the engine is extremely flexible, so that offsets some of the weakness, and the low gearing helps too. Also, with a few very minor modifications it is easy to get quite a bit of extra power out of it.
As for your price, you should be able to find a 2006-2008 in decent condition for your budget. A top grade one, or one 2009 and newer might be out of reach. Mine still books at about $15K.
I was looking at a slightly used Civic Si coupe (2007 back in early 2009), a 2006 RSX-S (post MMC with lots of good changes) and a brand new 2009 Civic Si sedan. I chose the new 2009 Sedan because it was only a bit more than the slightly used RSX and Si Coupe, so the payment was basically the same for a car with 1.6 miles on it.
That said, I love it. Here is why I would choose it again if I had it to do over.
1) The RSX is rated at 210HP vs the Si's 197, but I am pretty sure that was just to keep the Honda from looking better on paper. The K20Z3 in the Si has a a better intake manifold, and some other minor changes. What I can say is that my 2009 was unquestionably more flexible through the powerband (read more torque all over) and had better top end pull. That was in a car that is heavier than the RSX I was shopping. Many dyno accounts put the Si's engine nearly identical or slightly higher in total power compared to the RSX-S. Keep in mind too that the RSX I looked at was after the MMC, so it had the more powerful engine in it. The RSX only had about 30K miles on it, and it was a CPO Honda car, so I doubt it had any large history of abuse.
In addition to being stronger, the K20Z3 is also a lot smoother. It could be mostly due to the balance shafts, but it also WANTS to pull harder in the top end. The RSX seemed to start gasping a bit above 7500, whereas at the 8200RPM fuel cutoff, the Si wants about another 500-1000RPM. That is also supported on a dyno chart where the Si's engine pulls better in the top end. Chalk it up to the better intake manifold, exhaust tuning, and ECU tuning.
The other thing I liked better about the Si was the acoustic tuning. In stock form, it really screams. It has just enough exhaust note to let you know it isn't a "normal" Civic in normal driving, but when you open it up, it is one of the best sounding stock 4 bangers on the planet.
The shifter in the Si is noticably more positive than the RSX. Throws are shorter, the pattern is tighter, and the actual engagement is a lot better.
2) I didn't think the RSX was crappy, but I though the Si was a little better. The seats especially are better, and IMO, the 2006-2008 seats are even a little better than the 2009+. They are comfortable and supportive, without being confining. My dad and I drove 5,000+ miles in mine over the summer (36 hours one way, only stopping for food and gas) and neither of us had ANY issues at the end of the line. They were simply superb.
That said, the RSX had some pretty nasty interior rattles at 30K and so far, at 72K my Si is pretty drum tight. The chassis still feels stiffer, and most of my rattles are related to junk in my cubby bins rattling around.
The paint quality on the later SI's seems better, and I think they look better overall. I am a huge fan of the RSX too though.
3) As for chassis setup, again, the Si was the better car. It handles a lot more neutrally, but still manages to ride better and be quieter. If I had one complaint about the stock Si suspension, it would be that it has just a touch more body roll than I would like, but once it sets, it is extremely neutral for a FWD car. You can put a Progress rear sway bar on it for about $100, and there is little else than needs changed.
The Si is not as prone to weird steering in corners or over bumps as the RSX was by virtue of the superior front strut design. The Si is incredibly easy to wring higher levels of handling out of compared to the RSX, especially if you lower it at all.
Yes, the LSD is THAT big of a deal. It makes the difference between having to control your corner entry speed and being able to actually ADD power in the corner to tighten the line. Not quite like RWD, but it makes the car much faster in the corners, much more predictable, and much more neutral than the RSX would be when you need to get on the power. Most of my friends can't believe how neutral and easy to corner it is, and that includes many of my Bimmer friends. It also tremendously improves cold weather traction in such cases that it becomes necessary.
4) Size wise, the sedan is similar in interior space to the CB. The trunk is not as deep, but it is taller, and frankly I find it as usable as the CB7 in most situations. The car is taller and wider than the CB, but it is also about 6" shorter in sedan form. Again, most of my friends are impressed with how much space it has for its exterior size. The visibility in the RSX wasn't bad, and it was certainly better than the Si coupe's, but I think the Si sedan is better than both. The car is just about the right size for city driving, where it isn't so huge it is hard to maneuver around tight places like downtown LA.
5) If the Civic has one major weakness vs the RSX it would be the steering. The RSX still used hydraulic steering, whereas the Si uses electric. The Si's steering is VERY quick, and VERY accurate, but you can't tell what is going on at the road at all. The RSX had better feedback.
Some issues you should be aware of with the Civic:
They have a TSB on the transmission for either a 2nd or 3rd gear grind. There was either a fluid issue, or the syncros were a little weak. They seem to have ironed that out in the later years, and mine is mostly problem free except on cold mornings where 2nd complains a little bit before the transmission warms up. To be fair, it has done that since pretty much new, and it hasn't gotten any worse. Make sure you know what the warranty status is on that, if any.
The early Si's also had an issue with their rear control arms having a lot of camber. There is a new part number which Honda will put on if there is excessive tire wear. The problem is that they aren't really adjustable, so other than adjusting it with the play in the bushings, there isn't much they can do other than change them.
I have heard reports of early Si's having premature strut failures up front, so make sure you check that out.
Some K series issues that are known:
The timing chain tensioners have been known to fail early. I think the part is like $70 and they are easy to change, so I am going to just replace mine on a schedule. Other than some minor stuff like that, the K series is pretty much bullet proof, and I have had literally ZERO issues with mine. It still runs and idles like the day I bought it.
I average around 28-30MPG in mixed driving (mostly city), but I am at a higher altitude. If you keep the revs low and don't accelerate like an idiot 30MPG is a pretty attainable real world number. I track my MPG and my average for the last 12 months is 29.71 MPG over 14,000 miles. I also am not afraid to have fun with it pretty often.
There is a "rev hang" which is a delay when you let off the gas, which is apparently to protect the cat from damage. It can be removed with Flashpro, which is almost a must have on this car.
The other issue I have with it is the clutch delay valve. It is a little valve on the CMC that delays the rate the clutch engages, probably to protect the clutch. However, I believe it contributes to the syncro issues because the timing is just slightly off under certain conditions. You can put a CMC from a 99-00 Civic Si, and it bolts right in without the valve. Many people report positive results from that change.
One thing I would like to address in relation to the K20 as well is the "lack of torque." It actually has plenty of torque, but it is a naturally aspirated 2.0, so of course it doesn't have the torque or power delivery of a turbo car, or big huge engine. That said, I have no issues getting around in traffic or keeping up with traffic. It is plenty capable of doing that without VTECing all over the place like the internet would have you believe. I hardly ever hit VTEC in normal driving, and trust me, the driver where I live are super big assholes. Also, the engine is extremely flexible, so that offsets some of the weakness, and the low gearing helps too. Also, with a few very minor modifications it is easy to get quite a bit of extra power out of it.
As for your price, you should be able to find a 2006-2008 in decent condition for your budget. A top grade one, or one 2009 and newer might be out of reach. Mine still books at about $15K.
i've heard nothing but good things about all civic Si models that came after the ep3 though.
Comment