Focus st

[AccordWarrior]

The 1.5T would have been a GREAT Fit Si engine. It also would make life in our HR-V much more tolerable. That said, the HR-V is too small, so I might trade it in for something else in the not-to-distant future. We like the CR-V, Santa Fe and Grand Cherokee.

I own a Grand Cherokee, purchased new with Mopar MaxCare.

I will not own another one. It has not impressed me thusfar. It's attractive, comfortable and rides well, but I don't see longevity in its future in terms of the mechanicals. It threw it's first CEL at just over 1,500 miles. The AC is lackluster at best, it's the first vehicle I've owned that's consumed oil, and I can smell a faint coolant smell that the dealer fails to acknowledge exists.

The electronic stop / start system is the devil as it cannot be permanently defeated, only disabled at every start-up. I've found it's laggy enough to be downright dangerous in normal usage.

The transmission isn't terrible, but it isn't great. It's a ZF 8 speed unit that is a "sealed for life" deal at least in the 3.6L models. Thus it means it takes 9 quarts of oil at $30-40 a pop and a filter change involves swapping the trans pan at several hundred dollars. It's easily $600-700 to service it in your driveway and over $1,000 at a dealer.

My wife has wanted one since she was 16 and we were in the position to purchase one. She loves it but shares my skepticism about owning another.

[sonikaccord]

I have actually driven both, and I was actually being facetious specifically because of your criticism of the K20Z3. Not only was the new car less flexible, but it really didn't have more torque anywhere below 3500 (where it finally hit full boost in the 95* temps) and it fell flat on its face at ~5500. So you had a 2000RPM power band under those conditions. Further, my Si had a Flashpro stock tune on it, and in exchange for losing the "VTEC just kicked in YO!" sensation, I gained about 15-20HP over a 2000RPM range, noticeable torque below that, noticeable torque above 8K and a power band that pulled all way to 8600. Best of all, it got rid of the "I am below 70MPH, so I have to go straight to 3rd gear to get any hard acceleration out of it" and instead had 2-3 gears of overlap at any given speed. Due to the increased flexibility, it actually got quite a bit faster than stock.

I disagreed with you because of your completely false accusations that an R18 had a better power band. It may have FELT that way, but it was not factually true, and that was stock vs stock. Driven plenty of those too, and it is actually a fitting metaphor because the L15 reminds me a lot of an R18 with more power and torque. Not terribly lively, not terribly smooth, not terribly musical and not terribly enjoyable. But it gets great MPG for its era, which seems to also be a main criteria of the L15T. Why wouldn't it be? It is an economy car engine. Like I said, great in a CR-V, regular model Civic or even as a base engine in an Accord.

The other major and specific criticism I had of the L15 in the new Si was the fact that they geared it really low for an engine that doesn't have a high redline, so in many cases, you have to be in a taller gear due to the redline, which in turn negates much of the torque advantage it has. For almost a 50% increase in torque with a marginal increase in weight, it really isn't meaningfully faster. Sort of proves the point I made over the years about high strung NA engines with low gearing, versus engines that have more torque but require taller gearing to take advantage of it. This physics stuff works.

This is exactly my feelings put into more eloquent words about the new Si.

Flooring it at 2000 rpm in the new Si gives you absolutely nothing. It is ball-less down there. When it finally picks up, if you are used to older high revving Hondas, you'll slam right into the fuel cut before you know it. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

If that motor was in a Fit Si/Turbo/whatever, I would've picked up two. Coming from even a stock 8th gen Si, it doesn't provoke you to wind it out. It's not edgy. It's a really dry car imo. Very refined(not the engine), very smooth(not the engine again), very meh(just the engine).

[deevergote]

I loved how the L15A in my Fit felt around 4K RPM. I can imagine that the Si feels like that... on crack.

In today’s world of small engines, that seems to be the beef. Porsche went to small turbo 4s to replace some of their 6 cylinder power plants. Nobody was happy about it. The power may be the same, but the delivery is different.
I feel the same way when I think of trading my V8 powered Cadillac for something with a V6 that makes similar power. It just won’t be the same!

[owequitit]

I own a Grand Cherokee, purchased new with Mopar MaxCare.

I will not own another one. It has not impressed me thusfar. It's attractive, comfortable and rides well, but I don't see longevity in its future in terms of the mechanicals. It threw it's first CEL at just over 1,500 miles. The AC is lackluster at best, it's the first vehicle I've owned that's consumed oil, and I can smell a faint coolant smell that the dealer fails to acknowledge exists.

The electronic stop / start system is the devil as it cannot be permanently defeated, only disabled at every start-up. I've found it's laggy enough to be downright dangerous in normal usage.

The transmission isn't terrible, but it isn't great. It's a ZF 8 speed unit that is a "sealed for life" deal at least in the 3.6L models. Thus it means it takes 9 quarts of oil at $30-40 a pop and a filter change involves swapping the trans pan at several hundred dollars. It's easily $600-700 to service it in your driveway and over $1,000 at a dealer.

My wife has wanted one since she was 16 and we were in the position to purchase one. She loves it but shares my skepticism about owning another.

That's good to know. Probably leaning toward the CR-V anyway. Just don't want too much of a payment and I know they are relatively safe. They are having some gasoline in the crankcase issues with the 1.5T though.

Also, marginal A/C just doesn't cut it out here. About my only mechanical complaint about the 2009 Si was that when sitting in traffic idling in the summer, the cabin warmed up to an uncomfortable degree because the A/C just didn't have the capacity to keep up with the heat. The HR-V is marginal in that under certain circumstances, it struggles to keep temps cool a little bit, but nothing like the Si was.

Sad to hear about the Grand Cherokee, but not surprising considering Chrysler and Fiat history.

This is exactly my feelings put into more eloquent words about the new Si.

Flooring it at 2000 rpm in the new Si gives you absolutely nothing. It is ball-less down there. When it finally picks up, if you are used to older high revving Hondas, you'll slam right into the fuel cut before you know it. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

If that motor was in a Fit Si/Turbo/whatever, I would've picked up two. Coming from even a stock 8th gen Si, it doesn't provoke you to wind it out. It's not edgy. It's a really dry car imo. Very refined(not the engine), very smooth(not the engine again), very meh(just the engine).

That was the other thing. It also had relatively short gearing, no doubt chosen by Honda to offset the torque deficit vis a vis the competition, but it just doesn't have the revs to exploit it. So you are trying to keep it in a narrow window between about 3K and 5.5K to actually get meaningful thrust, which is not only a NARROWER window than the all the "DOHC VTEC has to be kept in the powerband" complaining non-sense, but when it comes right down to it, there really wasn't that much thrust available. Consider that even with an extra ~60-70 peak lb-ft available (at a lower RPM) the Civic still doesn't meaningfully outrun a car that debuted over 12 years ago. Maybe it is better in colder climates, but in the heat, it sucks balls. Considering it is hot here for like 8 months out of the year, that matters.

I loved how the L15A in my Fit felt around 4K RPM. I can imagine that the Si feels like that... on crack.

In today’s world of small engines, that seems to be the beef. Porsche went to small turbo 4s to replace some of their 6 cylinder power plants. Nobody was happy about it. The power may be the same, but the delivery is different.
I feel the same way when I think of trading my V8 powered Cadillac for something with a V6 that makes similar power. It just won’t be the same!

It doesn't. My sister has a same gen Fit that you have. The new engine is much lumpier and doesn't even begin to feel like an NA engine.

[gloryaccordy]

I feel like peak 10th gen Civic might be one with the 1.5T + CVT. Keeps you in the power band and will run 13s with a KTuned Stage 2 reflash and nothing else. The Civic has gone to another place.

That said, the Si is not bad. I'd definitely get one over an Elantra Sport; Hyundai/KIA is low key still unreliable as hell. Not to be trusted. But the GTI/Focus ST are still the picks of the segment.

[owequitit]

I feel like peak 10th gen Civic might be one with the 1.5T + CVT. Keeps you in the power band and will run 13s with a KTuned Stage 2 reflash and nothing else. The Civic has gone to another place.

That said, the Si is not bad. I'd definitely get one over an Elantra Sport; Hyundai/KIA is low key still unreliable as hell. Not to be trusted. But the GTI/Focus ST are still the picks of the segment.

With a 2.0T a STOCK Si would be on the verge of 13's. With a "Stage 2" reflash, they are on the verge of shitting out 350-400WHP. Not as much as the Type-R under similar conditions, but a shit ton more than any pump gas 1.5T is going to do. And you get an order of magnitude more torque, and it pulls to 7K, and it likes to rev, and it isn't an under square econo engine, so it is actually smooth and sounds good when being flogged because it isn't ill suited for it.

[gloryaccordy]

With a 2.0T a STOCK Si would be on the verge of 13's. With a "Stage 2" reflash, they are on the verge of shitting out 350-400WHP. Not as much as the Type-R under similar conditions, but a shit ton more than any pump gas 1.5T is going to do. And you get an order of magnitude more torque, and it pulls to 7K, and it likes to rev, and it isn't an under square econo engine, so it is actually smooth and sounds good when being flogged because it isn't ill suited for it.

Depends what you are looking for I guess. 400WHP is not of much use on the street and 400FWHP sounds miserable. I'm a bit surprised someone who drives an N/A FA5 is so power obsessed as well.

The L15's design and character do suck in the context of the Si's history, but I still think the car is worth a look. They can make decent power with bolt ons and a tune, and again they have a mechanical LSD. Very practical, economical and refined as well. Anyone who needs more can get the CTR.

[owequitit]

Depends what you are looking for I guess. 400WHP is not of much use on the street and 400FWHP sounds miserable. I'm a bit surprised someone who drives an N/A FA5 is so power obsessed as well.

The L15's design and character do suck in the context of the Si's history, but I still think the car is worth a look. They can make decent power with bolt ons and a tune, and again they have a mechanical LSD. Very practical, economical and refined as well. Anyone who needs more can get the CTR.

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.

[verothacamaro]

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

[CyborgGT]

Well, since the original search did include RWD for under $20k... a friend today picked up a 2010 Mustang V6 manual for $9500. 50k miles on it. I quite like it... be nice!

As was kindly pointed out, I drive a slow car so I have no appreciation for power, but it felt plenty quick enough for a street car and made a pretty nice noise with its aftermarket exhaust. We haven't taken it into the mountains for a handling test yet, but I remember the magazines had positive things to say about the fifth gen facelift's suspension despite the solid axle. Considering the price and what you get for it, I'd say it's a steal. We'll see how ownership pans out.

[owequitit]

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

Doesn't the Focus ST see a massive benefit from a new intercooler?

P.S. I think more and more cars are going to air to liquid intercoolers for just the reason you mention. They don't necessarily cool to as close t o ambient, but they keep the temperatures more consistent by virtue of the fact that the cooling medium is always a consistent temperature. There doesn't seem to be as many complaints about uneven power delivery with those setups.

[CyborgGT]

I've wondered about those intercoolers. Do they utilize engine coolant? I've heard they can require their own pump and an additional radiator, so does that mean they can (or normally do) operate on their own, independent, coolant system?

[sonikaccord]

Typically they run an isolated cooling circuit from the engine coolant, at least a well thought out setup does. They should be able to extract a bit more heat out of the air than a standard air-to-air.

[AccordWarrior]

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.

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.

[F22Chris]

Doesn't the Focus ST see a massive benefit from a new intercooler?

P.S. I think more and more cars are going to air to liquid intercoolers for just the reason you mention. They don't necessarily cool to as close t o ambient, but they keep the temperatures more consistent by virtue of the fact that the cooling medium is always a consistent temperature. There doesn't seem to be as many complaints about uneven power delivery with those setups.

Yes it does. On the forums some have reported temps 50-70 degrees lower from intercooler swaps. One person had temps under 100 degrees from swapping where the stock reported around 170. This person also got a cheapo eBay setup where they drilled their own port for the temp sensor/custom mounts etc. can’t argue with success.