06 SI... thought it had a little more under the hood...
20-Aug-2006, 09:04 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: mississauga
Posts: 1,607
06 SI... thought it had a little more under the hood...
i was looking at some specs of 1/4 mile times and etc and came across one from the new SI... with 197hp, i would of expected much more... these guys are gonna get raped by any kid with en ef and a b16...
i don't know how accurate it is, but it seems to be a worthy source... they have a lot of the same info for other cars:
Horsepower : 197 hp @ 7800 rpm
Torque : 139 lb-ft @ 6200 rpm
Redline : 8000 rpm
Top speed : 145 mph(estimated)
0-60 mph : 7.2 sec.
0-¼ mile : 15.6 sec @ 93.0 mph
60-0 braking distance : 125 ft(estimated)
200 ft skidpad : 0.85 g(estimated)
Curb Weight : 2877 lbs
Overall length : 174.8 in.
Wheelbase : 104.3 in.
Overall Width : 68.9 in.
Height : 53.5 in.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^thats it?
i don't know how accurate it is, but it seems to be a worthy source... they have a lot of the same info for other cars:
Horsepower : 197 hp @ 7800 rpm
Torque : 139 lb-ft @ 6200 rpm
Redline : 8000 rpm
Top speed : 145 mph(estimated)
0-60 mph : 7.2 sec.
0-¼ mile : 15.6 sec @ 93.0 mph
60-0 braking distance : 125 ft(estimated)
200 ft skidpad : 0.85 g(estimated)
Curb Weight : 2877 lbs
Overall length : 174.8 in.
Wheelbase : 104.3 in.
Overall Width : 68.9 in.
Height : 53.5 in.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^thats it?
20-Aug-2006, 01:16 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 875
a couple guys from 8thcivic.com ran low 14's with a stock si
20-Aug-2006, 01:25 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Moon
Posts: 8,921
Re: 06 SI... thought it had a little more under the hood...
Originally posted by mikepasini
i was looking at some specs of 1/4 mile times and etc and came across one from the new SI... with 197hp, i would of expected much more... these guys are gonna get raped by any kid with en ef and a b16...
i don't know how accurate it is, but it seems to be a worthy source... they have a lot of the same info for other cars:
Horsepower : 197 hp @ 7800 rpm
Torque : 139 lb-ft @ 6200 rpm
Redline : 8000 rpm
Top speed : 145 mph(estimated)
0-60 mph : 7.2 sec.
0-¼ mile : 15.6 sec @ 93.0 mph
60-0 braking distance : 125 ft(estimated)
200 ft skidpad : 0.85 g(estimated)
Curb Weight : 2877 lbs
Overall length : 174.8 in.
Wheelbase : 104.3 in.
Overall Width : 68.9 in.
Height : 53.5 in.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^thats it?
i was looking at some specs of 1/4 mile times and etc and came across one from the new SI... with 197hp, i would of expected much more... these guys are gonna get raped by any kid with en ef and a b16...
i don't know how accurate it is, but it seems to be a worthy source... they have a lot of the same info for other cars:
Horsepower : 197 hp @ 7800 rpm
Torque : 139 lb-ft @ 6200 rpm
Redline : 8000 rpm
Top speed : 145 mph(estimated)
0-60 mph : 7.2 sec.
0-¼ mile : 15.6 sec @ 93.0 mph
60-0 braking distance : 125 ft(estimated)
200 ft skidpad : 0.85 g(estimated)
Curb Weight : 2877 lbs
Overall length : 174.8 in.
Wheelbase : 104.3 in.
Overall Width : 68.9 in.
Height : 53.5 in.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^thats it?
20-Aug-2006, 01:34 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Markham
Posts: 185
Re: Re: 06 SI... thought it had a little more under the hood...
Originally posted by Team Rukus
i believe 197 is the new horse power rating after they changed the way they calculate hp. someone correct me if i am wrong.
i believe 197 is the new horse power rating after they changed the way they calculate hp. someone correct me if i am wrong.
20-Aug-2006, 01:35 PM
#5
-- site donator --
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,647
Under the old rating system, the RSX Type S made something like 210hp with basically the same motor.
I'm perfectly happy with my Si and I could care less about some kid with his 20 year old POS EF with a B16.
It will be as reliable as any other Honda, its fun to drive and good on gas and cheap to insure. It is the fastest car I've ever owned and gets many more looks then some old Hatch.
I'm perfectly happy with my Si and I could care less about some kid with his 20 year old POS EF with a B16.
It will be as reliable as any other Honda, its fun to drive and good on gas and cheap to insure. It is the fastest car I've ever owned and gets many more looks then some old Hatch.
20-Aug-2006, 02:00 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: mississauga
Posts: 1,098
Originally posted by DumbasSi
.
I'm perfectly happy with my Si and I could care less about some kid with his 20 year old POS EF with a B16.
.... It is the fastest car I've ever owned and gets many more looks then some old Hatch.
.
I'm perfectly happy with my Si and I could care less about some kid with his 20 year old POS EF with a B16.
.... It is the fastest car I've ever owned and gets many more looks then some old Hatch.
20-Aug-2006, 02:11 PM
#7
-- site donator --
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,647
Ok, you got me. Your's is pretty nice.
20-Aug-2006, 02:38 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 2,641
Originally posted by DumbasSi
I'm perfectly happy with my Si and I could care less about some kid with his 20 year old POS EF with a B16.
It will be as reliable as any other Honda, its fun to drive and good on gas and cheap to insure. It is the fastest car I've ever owned and gets many more looks then some old Hatch.
I'm perfectly happy with my Si and I could care less about some kid with his 20 year old POS EF with a B16.
It will be as reliable as any other Honda, its fun to drive and good on gas and cheap to insure. It is the fastest car I've ever owned and gets many more looks then some old Hatch.
he he heHalf the people here drive EF's
If I could afford it, I would def get a new civic
20-Aug-2006, 02:44 PM
#9
-- site donator --
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,647
My point is that the person looking at a new Civic is not the same person looking for an old one. Apples to oranges.
20-Aug-2006, 03:08 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sauga da 905
Posts: 353
the 06 SI makes the same power as a JDM RSX(TEG)TYPE-R....btw mikepasini, how much power did ur car make stock...
20-Aug-2006, 04:36 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: sumwhere in b-town
Posts: 382
yup i'm happy with my 197hp (est) NA. **** if i had all the bolt ons that a cobalt or an SRT had I would have no problem whipping them. I didnt buy the car its speed i bought it for the looks and quality. It's not a race car but it is the best HP that honda has come out for their civics. and we do run between low and high fourteens.
20-Aug-2006, 06:28 PM
#12
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: mississauga
Posts: 1,607
Originally posted by project.mu
the 06 SI makes the same power as a JDM RSX(TEG)TYPE-R....btw mikepasini, how much power did ur car make stock...
the 06 SI makes the same power as a JDM RSX(TEG)TYPE-R....btw mikepasini, how much power did ur car make stock...
i wasn't bashing at all guys... just curious because i expected more than i found with the numbers from that site. low-mid 14s is more what i expected it to run... i have faith again...
and yeah, my hatch ran 106hp stock... probably like 70whp... hahaha, i had to swap for more power... and soon boost... i would be happy with those numbers if i bought the si...
i wonder if bolt-ons would be as responsive as they are with the rsx???
20-Aug-2006, 06:42 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,330
They are just as responsive, people are reporting actual 10-15 whp gains from simple air intake mods.
the thing should be able to hit 14s pretty e3asy
the thing should be able to hit 14s pretty e3asy
20-Aug-2006, 06:52 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Streetsville/ Hamilton
Posts: 2,877
Re: Re: Re: 06 SI... thought it had a little more under the hood...
Originally posted by WyseGuy
yah i believe 197 is the SAE rating or something. realistically it has along the lines of 210hp.
yah i believe 197 is the SAE rating or something. realistically it has along the lines of 210hp.
Consequently because of this the SAE certification tends to underrate engines (in my opinion) and thus engines perform much higher than one would expect.
20-Aug-2006, 07:27 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North York, Toronto-Downtown, London
Posts: 2,316
its all about the fact, the 06 si has tons of potential with a few simple upgrades.... you'll be surprise...
running low 14s being a stock car is pretty amazing... i'm sure with full i/h/e and some good tuning... you'll break it... haha
those k-series are sooooo damn good for N/A
running low 14s being a stock car is pretty amazing... i'm sure with full i/h/e and some good tuning... you'll break it... haha
those k-series are sooooo damn good for N/A
20-Aug-2006, 08:00 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 23,881
low 14's???? high 14's maybe
20-Aug-2006, 09:47 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: sumwhere in b-town
Posts: 382
ok there were a few runs with low 14's but most i've seen are mid's and then high's. ppl that ran the 15's admited it to being their 1st time on the track
20-Aug-2006, 10:00 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 23,881
how low of a 14?
a civic running 14.2 or something off the lot is mind boggling
a civic running 14.2 or something off the lot is mind boggling
20-Aug-2006, 10:04 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: South West Scarborough
Posts: 146
there is really only one thing to look at if you think its slow: weight. Kinda odd how the RSX-S is about the same weight... 800lbs more than my eg hatch. you need all the torque you can get, but its still gonna be faster than most stock 4cyl cars. Compare to the Corolla XRS which is 200lbs lighter, has 1.8L engine and probably 0.5 sec slower in the 0-60... Too bad Toyota de-tuned it from 180hp to 164
DJM:>
DJM:>
20-Aug-2006, 10:46 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: North York
Posts: 1,148
People in this thread are posting a range of numbers as low as low 14's as high as mid 16's.
Considering that Motor Trend said 14.9 and Road & Track said 15.0, (both of which are pretty reputable because they use good drivers and accurate equipment for their tests) I would think it is high 14s-low 15s.
Hard to say exactly because there are so many factors.
Considering that Motor Trend said 14.9 and Road & Track said 15.0, (both of which are pretty reputable because they use good drivers and accurate equipment for their tests) I would think it is high 14s-low 15s.
Hard to say exactly because there are so many factors.
