Civic Si: of Rear Seats and Torque

spargo- Yes, the Mazdaspeed3's engine is somewhat peaky, but isn't that true for all turbo engines unless they have sequnetial twin-turbos? When the turbo isn't spinning fast enough to provide significant boost, the engine is going to be producing far less power than it makes with full boost. Mazda could have used a better turbo and tuning to get a flatter curve, but it would have driven the cost of the car higher. Most importantly, Mazda tuned it for more than ample midrange power, which is what you want for a handling machine.
 
The big difference between the Si and MS3 is the sheer difference in the total amount of power. At 2,000 rpm (well before the MS3's boost comes on), the MS3 is producing more torque than the Si does at its peak! At the MS3's peak, it is producing more than double the torque of the Si. Sure, it's peaky compared to itself, but you don't have to ring it out to redline to get torque from it.

I smell a shootout coming. Battle of the performance compact hatchbacks. Maybe throw in the VW GTI (as mentioned above).

jstandfer I agree all turbos are going to have some form of lag, but a glance at a dyno from a gti and you can see the engineers did a tremendous job getting rid of it. To get that much torque out of an engine in this segment you need to fi. A cobalt ss though I supose could work as well, although i've never see their dyno.
 
As far as the ms3 goes yes it puts out more torque, but its far from flat, and to be honest I like the feel of a flat torque curve better. Its just seems more fun to me. The hp race gets a little old, I don't really care who can beat who, give the ms3 all the trophies, I'll still take the si home because it gives me a rush. Now I should bite my tounge having not test driven the ms3, but i don't really care. My point is on real roads the feeling matters more.
 
I will also note that comparison of an e46 m3 dyno and an si dyno reveal very similar lines. The power numbers are different, but a little manipulation and you can see some serious similarities. the m3 is another vehicle that is inarguably a riot to drive.
 
-Spargo
 
PS glad to hear about the seats, I noticed the other day the vw beetle has great rear seat access and i couldn't remember how the si let the passengers in, but its good to hear its a simple easy quick motion.
 
I do have to ask though, when getting out from the back without assistance, is it as easy?
 
-Spargo

using a dyno chart to compare to another vehicle does not mean anything unless that vehicle also has a chart from the exact same dyno, taken during the same time frame.
No 2 dynos are alike..

desmo thats true but only to a small extent, the variations aren't that far off to be honest. The curve is going to be incredibly similar, the power numbers might just come off a very small bit skewed. Besides the www.automobilemag.com dyno charts are most likely from the same dyno.
 
-Spargo

The MS3 has good peak torque number of 240 t the wheels but at 6000 its only makes 138lb ft. I think this motor has tremendous potential but it sufferes from bad turbo choice and tuning from Mazda.
 
Spargo, you are right about the M3 /Si, they give the same type of performance but just different in its total output, which is to be expected since the M3 is more than double the price of an Si. But these type of high winding engines, no matter what displacement seem to have very flat tourque curves. The Ferrari 360 and 430 are perfect exapmples. These engines arent stump pullers like say a Viper or Corvette and they arent supposed to be. I love that rush of power at about 5 to 6 grand and it just pulls harder and harder the more the revs build. And that soundtrack!
 
Everyone please look at the Hondata dyno.....well Illl just post it here again. Bolt ons and the Hondata ECU reflash give the Si a tremendous bump in midrange hp and TORQUE. And remeber this is ONLY a normally aspirated 2.0 liter! And if you look at the top of the HP graph you see that it made 217 PEAK WHEEL HP! Amazing! A stock Acura NSX dynoes in the mid 240's!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following dyno chart is for an 06 Civic Si with AEM CAI intake and Hondata Heatshield gasket. The only change from the green to the yellow dyno run was a change from the stock ECU program to the Hondata reflash.
 
-4500 rpm VTEC point
-Rev limiter raised to 8600 rpm.
-15-25 Hp gain midrange
-15-29 ft lb torque gain midrange

I made a mistake on my post......it should read..
 
The following dyno chart is for an 06 Civic Si with a DC Sports header, Injen intake and Hondata Heatshield gasket. The only change from the green to the blue dyno run was a change from the stock ECU program to the Hondata reflash.
 
:

That's classic, someone shows a dyno from a modded car. good grief. Mod a MS3 turbo with an ecu reflash and there's no telling where that torque will end. Given that the 2.0T from VW can get 250hp/300tq from a chip, it's safe to assume near 300hp/320tq from a 2.3 modded?

Actually I showed the Si's dyno plot to show that these motors do make good torque, actually more than most 2 liter normally apsirated engines, and to show that the MS3s engine isnt as powerful everywhere in the rev range as it should be, even the Vee Dub made more usuable torque in most places under the curve where it counts most. Im not doing this as a comparison, Im showing you that the K20 is more than capable in naturally aspirated/lightly modified form to run with a stock, boosted, larger displacement MS3. As I recall, some of you doubted my claims.
 
 I dont think simple bolt ons and an ECU reflash are serious modifications. I think its fair since the Mazda CLEARY has ALL the advantages from the get-go.
 
It kinda bugs me in magazine comparisons that they complain of the "lack of torque" of the Si compared to its equal larger displacement AND boosted competition (WRX, Scion TC Supercharged, MS3, Cobalt SS Supercharged, Saturn ION Redline, VW GTi). I would hope they would be "torquier" since just about every car in this segement has sprouted some sort of forced induction. But not Honda thank God!
 
MazdaSpeed will offer an ECU upgrade which gives the MS3 some bigger gonads. Hopefully the MazdaSpeed ECU reflash will smooth out the torque curve and be able to hold its power untill redline. By the way Im a big fan of the MS3 and have been since I heard its specs. But like Spargo, Id have to side with the Si because of its "soul"! It just begs you to beat on it.

"...the Vee Dub made more useable torque in most places under the curve where it counts most."
 
The MS3 produces more torque than the GTI from about 2,600-5,700 rpm. I should restate that: The MS3 produces SIGNIFICANTLY more torque over that 3,100 rpm spread. Sure, the GTI produces more torque under 2,600 rpm. Does it count there? Sure, if you constantly keep the tach needle under that engine speed. If you do that, speed and power is not a concern for you anyways (may I introduce you to a nice Buick). For the speed freaks out there, you're probably revving the engine up higher than that before dropping the clutch during quick take-offs anyways. The big advantage would be in a rolling start, in first gear only, for about the whole half-second it takes to get above that rpm. Higher than 5,700 rpm, both engines are falling off, the MS3 quicker than the GTI. With the tuning of these engines, the drivers of both cars are going to be shifting very soon after. So, in the actual useable rpm range, the MS3 has a very major advantage.
 
It's so hard to compare the GTI and MS3 to the Si. The GTI and MS3's engines are still considered to be sleeping while they're producing the Si's peak torque. And the Si's torque curve actually decreases from 3,000 to 5,800 rpm, where it really counts. The Si's torque curve is amazingly flat, if not a little backwards. But does it really matter when it's producing nearly half of the MS3's torque in the rpm range that these cars are likely to spend most of their time in?
 
Flat torque curves are nice, but they really need to be compared among engines with similar power. Sure, the MS3's torque curve isn't flat, but does it really matter with such a drastic difference in power? The Si's saving grace is its lighter weight. Add a few passengers to it, and that flat torque curve isn't going to be very impressive, at all.

Yes, yes it does matter, because the 99.9999% of the time that all these cars will live their lives on the road, getting to 60 that little bit faster just means letting off the juice sooner. And all the bragging rights in the world don't mean much when you get pulled over. THE HORSEPOWER RACE IS OVER! Flex nuts all you want, I'm still going to drive the si home because its more fun because of the way it puts its power down. It does it in just the same way the m3 does, or other greats. The m3 has less power than an audi s4 when they both came out, and the s4 had the nutflexing power of turbo boost, but people still chose the m3, and it ended up being the better car, not just because it was lighter, but because it feels so good to drive.
 
Really this whole numbers game is super childish, out on a road when you're not drag racing your buddies and you're on your way to work, or just on a late night drive the feel will be more importaint more of the time than some data sheet.
 
To wit I will reply to your statement about an ecu reflash for the ms3, mazdaspeed has some clever designers and if they could have kept the power going up high, they would have, but they ran into the same problem tons of other turbo cars have, anemia up high. The same is true for other turbo greats, look at an evo, or an sti, they can take an m3 from a dig, but in a highway race they run out of steam, even modified.
 
Now I like the ms3 I've said that before, and I'm sure it'll be a riot for whoever owns it, but fact stays the si will have a certain feel that I personally will always choose first.
 
-Spargo

You must be talking about a comparison of the '99 M3 to the '00 S4. In this case, a flat torque curve does matter. As I stated earlier, "Flat torque curves are nice, but they really need to be compared among engines with similar power." These two cars produced peak numbers within 10% of each other (M3: 240 hp/236 ft-lbs; S4: 250 hp/258 ft-lbs). This is where a flat torque curve matters. The S4 produces a little bit more power in a limited rpm range, while the M3 produces a little less power in a very broad rpm range. In this case, the flatter torque curve prevails.
 
But, that can't be applied to the MS3 and Si. It would be different if the Si produced 80 or 90% of the power than the MS3 does.
 
I agree that it comes down to personal preference. I don't spend much time below 2,500 rpm or higher than 6,000 rpm. For me, the MS3 is producing its power in the rpm range that I spend most of my time in. Besides, can you imagine what the MS3 would be like if it was producing 90% plus of its peak torque right off idle? With just front-wheel drive, you would be constantly activating the traction control, even when driving conservatively!

Spargo, you're not making sense. The S4 - as in the biturbo one of 2000 only made 250 hp/258 tq: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2000/audi/s4/1646/specs.html
 
The M3 of the 2001 eclipsed that easily. In every way the M3 eclipsed the S4 until the 2004 V8 model. The V8 S4 had more power but it was still nose heavy and couldn't handle as well as an M3. Audis RS4 is the first S4-type model to best the M3...the M3 built on the e46 chassis of 1998 sporting an engine from 2001.
 
It seems you're saying this is equivalent to the Civic Si and Mazdaspeed3. No. The Mazdasepeed3 out of the box offers driving dynamics in terms of handling, etc on level with the Si. Where the Mazdaspeed3 passes the Si - every straight away.
 
It's pretty simple. Imagine a track that's got very few straights and 20 turns. If both cars can take 20 turns at the same speed but 1 car accelerates out of the corners faster and hits a terminal velocity 10-15 mph higher on the long straights, how far ahead will that car be at the end of a lap?
 
On some tracks you may only have one or two straights that are long - say over 600 feet. The Mazdaspeed3 will carry the same speed as the Si through the corners. Once they hit those straights the Si will get flat out dusted. As every review has expressed, on the track the Si gets devoured by a Mazdaspeed3 (same cornering, twice the torque, 80 more hp).

As I said before, I love the MS3 but there is just something about the Si that draws me too it. Slower or not it will probably remain the hottest sport compact for a few years. Its one of those rare cars where each system comes together as one and gives you a driving experience thats not expected. Honda has been providing this kind of performance for years in its performance oriented cars.
 
The Mazda might be fast and handle well but the engine tuning (for me) would ruin the whole experience. Ive recently driven a friends MazdaSpeed 6 and it just ran out of steam. My 03 Acura CL-S 6 speed coupe is faster anywere from 40 and above (Speed6 has better traction due to AWD), it doesnt run out of breath, makes glorious noises, and I get MUCH better gas milage also!
 
In the end Im still impressed with how the Civics smaller, NATURALLY ASPIRATED engine reacts to modifications so well. Over 215 wheel horse power and150+ pound feet of torque (at the wheels) from a NATURALLY ASPIRATED 2.0 liter is rediculous with these simple mods. Am I not the only one impressed here?

Well, no. Once you throw emissions, economy, and long-term reliability out the window, you'll be amazed at how much power you get out of an engine. And since I'm a big fan of rotary engines (which are capable of so much power and rpm, from tiny displacements), these numbers don't do much for me.

n the end Im still impressed with how the Civics smaller, NATURALLY ASPIRATED engine reacts to modifications so well.
 
So it's NA. So? NA is inefficient. I'd expect eventually all engines will be turbo and supercharged like VW's twincharger design: more torque, more efficiency, more HP from smaller engines.
 
BMW finally did away with their inane "NA" only in America route (they've used turbos in european diesels for years) and the results are extremely impressive: unmodded 335is are churning out 330 hp/330 tq (check the dynos...BMW is underrating the car with their claims of 300/300). What does that net them? Smaller engine than the 3.5s of the competition, more full torque spread over 1400-5500 rpm. Vishnu - a modder - has already squeezed 400/400 out of that engine with some simple piggybacking of an extra ECU that can be removed.
 
Audi/VW's 2.0T is renowned for it's 200+ tq across the rev range. It's flat, it pushes you back in your seat and it gets their cars to scoot. modders have pushed the engines to 250 hp/300 tq with just a $500 reflash.
 
Mazda's Mazdaspeed3 will undoubtedly get a chip/reflash as the engine is used in the CX and Mazdaspeed6.
 
Come on, even Acura/Honda has discovered turbos. The RD-X's engine is getting kudos. That thing will find its way into the underpowered TSX and probably an Si eventually.
 
Over 215 wheel horse power and150+ pound feet of torque (at the wheels) from a NATURALLY ASPIRATED 2.0 liter is rediculous with these simple mods. Am I not the only one impressed here?
 
It's wholly unimpressive as the original S2000 made more HP and not much less torque back in the 90s. Seriously. NA is ideally on the way out. The There's no sense in boring out engines or creating motorcycle engines for cars constantly when creative use of heat and exhaust can press the envelope further. and give you more of what's good - torque, efficiency, HP. The diesels of europe and japanese rally cars have helped push turbo technology to levels unheard of since the turbo's inception. Longevity, cooling, reliability are all synonymous with turbos now. The NA engine, ideally, is breathing the last of its un-assisted air.

How is a naturally aspirated engine such as the Si's 197hp K20 "inefficient"? Please explain! Honda has made turbo engines since the early to mid 80's (Japanese Honda Legend and Honda City) so the RDX isnt the first Honda to have a turbo. Honda actually consideried the NATURALLY ASPIRATED 3.5 V6 from the 255hp MDX but weight and size issues made them change to the lighter boosted 4, (keep in mind that these 2 engines made simlular torque and hp numbers but varied in displacement by over liter unlike the Si and MS3/GTi). Christina Ra knows her stuff!
 
Its absolutely ironic to think that Honda or any manufacturer would abandon naturally aspirated engines. I dont know of any car company onthis earth who just makes turbocharged engines. Im a fan of both N/A and turbo engines but Im sorry thats just not going to happen. I do agree with you on some of your points about diesels and the like helping push turbo technology to where it is now, and thas great! I really dont care if its fast or slow, turbocharged, supercharged, or whatever. If the driving plesure is there Im there!
 
About the rotary, these motor are known for reliablity, good emmisions, and economy, unmodified even? I think not! I dont think a header, exhaust, CAI, and ECU tuning would ruin or decrease the Civics reliability......at all. If that was the case nobody would modifiy their car!
 
Im not here or posting to say that turbos are bad ( I almost bought a Evolution MR last year), what Im trying to get across is that I probably wont like the driving exeperience of the MS3 refering to its.......odd tuning. If you take a closer look at the MS3 in the dyno video you can hear the motor gasping for breath well before each shit, it actually struggles, while the Civic says " awww, do I have to shift now"? It just so eager....the revs dont phase the motor. As Ive stated in a previous post, I hope the MazdaSpeed ECU upgrade will change that gasping issue making the drive experience more enjoyable.
 
Happy motoring!

I meant a B6 Audi S4 and an E46 BMW M3 but turns out i was off my mark and thats not a turbo engine, it does however have more power than the m3, but looses out due to weight and well not being a bmw, but thats neither here nor their.
 
I'm not trying to say the si is faster, its not. Period. And although testing I've seen so far shows the si would actually be faster in the corners and is a bit more grounded (according to slolam tests) (all by fractional margins). I'm sure that the ms3 would probably trounce it stock vs stock on a track.
 
My point is though that people don't really go on tracks all that often. Sure these things will make it out to autoXs all over the country, and track days, and hopefully not, althouth most likely, illegal street races. BUT its only part of the story, most of these cars will be daily drivers and the feel of the car matters most there!
 
Go to the track and beat me I don't care, I'll beat somone else and someone else will beat you.
 
I just like the si better, simple as that.
 
-Spargo

How is a naturally aspirated engine such as the Si's 197hp K20 "inefficient"?
 
A turbocharger is an exhaust gas-driven compressor used to increase the power output of an internal-combustion engine by compressing air that is entering the engine thus increasing the amount of available oxygen.
 
NA engines do not take this step, thus given the size and weight, an NA engine of 2.0 liters, is not nearly as efficient at power delivery as a 2.0 turbo.
 
so the RDX isnt the first Honda to have a turbo.
 
First in the USA. I don't think JDM cars are worth discussing. Nissan made its highly overrated Skyline GT-R forever in Japan...doesn't really mean much in the USA.
 
Honda actually consideried the NATURALLY ASPIRATED 3.5 V6 from the 255hp MDX but weight and size issues made them change to the lighter boosted 4, (keep in mind that these 2 engines made simlular torque and hp numbers.
 
Take a look at the fuel efficiency on the MDX's 3.5 v. the RDX:
17/22 v 19/23. Not a huge jump but enough that you'll feel it at the pump less often.
  
Im sorry thats just not going to happen. I do agree with you on some of your points about diesels and the like helping push turbo technology to where it is now, and thas great! I really dont care if its fast or slow, turbocharged, supercharged, or whatever. If the driving plesure is there Im there!
 
There's not much driving pleasure to be derrived from an engine that barely has any torque, imho. The Si's was amusing for 10 minutes. 15 minutes into the drive I realized the car flat out sucks for city traffic and on a track it would be a nightmare as it simply doesn't have the pull (FWD failing but that's another post) of a turbo engine.
  
while the Civic says " awww, do I have to shift now"? It just so eager....the revs dont phase the motor.
 
That's because it has no torque. The engine's smooth as silk - like the cruddy NA inline 6s in BMWs - but it doesn't make nearly enough torque to give the car a kick-in-the-pants feel.
 
To each his own, I guess. I love turbo cars and really miss the feel of a good torquey turbo engine giving an engine far more power than it would ever produce in an NA environment. If BMW loved me they'd offer the 1 series with the turbo here. Or Mazda would release the darn Kabura concept car and slap the turbo 2.3 in it.

Sure a turbocharged engine of simular displacement will have more torque than a normally aspirated version. But what youre not considering is the added weight, complexity, and the turbocharging system as a whole. 200hp is 200hp, therefore the Civic is more efficient in making power (comparing the Civic to the VW since its the same displacement) and the boosted engine is better at making torque. I love torque too but I like that midrange rush of power better accompanied by that banshee wail!
 
Usually (damn Honda and its throttle mapping-DBW) a high output normaly aspirated engine is going to be more responsive, has an intake sound the turbo cant match and still have some oomph up top. Turbo engines have good torque once the boost comes on, mostly mid range which is good but they loose boost and run lean on the top, which cuts power (signifiantly) as in the Ms3's case. So in the end although I do like the MS3, the engine tuning hurts its experience for me. The Civic has much more "personality"!
 
BMW inline 6's cruddy? Some of the best 6's on the planet turbo or not. The Lexus 3.5 V6 is stout too and also very underated, dyno proven like the 335 of course.

I'm on my second 330i - yes, inline 6s from BMW are cruddy. They have no torque and feel very much like a Honda engine - smooth as silk but not making much power.
 
As for linearity of turbos, you're talking about old school designs, I think. There's nothing peaky about the 2.0T of VW/Audi or the 3.0TT in the 335.
 
I like that both those engines pull without fuss. There's not a sudden boost-on feel. there's not a lack of power and then suddenly a rush of adrenaline (most honda VTECs and BMW's 3.0 in the ZHP for instance). They just pull strongly.
 
Given the choice between 200 hp/200 tf (from 1800 on) or 198 hp and 136 tq (125 or so from 2500 rpm on) - it's an easy choice. The 2.0T just feels like a fantastic engine (better than the 3.0 in my e90 330i). The Si's engine was fun to flog and have it run up to 8k but it's so lacking in punch that i'd go bonkers always beating the hell out of the engine just to get the car moving (don't get me started on the civic's skateboardy-suspension).

How much torque do you expect from a normally aspirated 2 or 3 liter engine? 140ish from a 2 liter is about average (which the Si is actually making more) and Ive never heard anyone say that BMW's famous inline 6 isnt torquey. It seems like you may need a Dodge Ram Cummins diesel or a Mercedes S600 to suit your torque addiction, I already have a 2002 S2000 and a Integra GSR powered 95 Civic sedan for my rev addiction.
 
Its obvious we both have different opinions on driving excitement, you like a stump puller, I prefer the bansee wail and that rush that never seems to end. I dont like that constant dead (but strong) pull of say the VW. Its good but it doesnt excite, where as the Si motor gets my blood pumping. My take is the more revs the harder it should pull.
 
I dont have a problem with most turbocharged cars (as I said in a previous post I nearly bought a Evolution MR last year) its just that the MS3 (tuning wise) doesnt do it for me. Sure its fast, handles well, and looks great, but the power should not just drop off like that 1500rpm before the redline. Im sure any car enthusiast would agree that would ruin the driving.experience for them. If Mazda can get rid of that rediculous power loss above 5500 then it would definately change my mind.

To be honest here this all seems to be coming down to preference.
 
Boost Junkey vs NA Addict
 
To argue the 3 series engines as lackluster is a bit foolhearty, to be truthful the 3 wins out in almost every comparo its ever been in, check some magazines you'll find it almost always comes out on top, and the 6 cyl engines they've come out with are world renouned. But here we have you blueguy, as an example of a person with an alternate preference.
 
I still think all of these cars have more than enough power for US roads to be an absolute joy, and quick up to speed in really any condition. Clever advertising has fed into the macho vein in every man, we believe 500hp is every day and we must fight to obtain it rather than just having fun with an admirable 200hp.
 
My preference? Obviously you can read through my comments and its the NA honda. I like the throttle response of NA, and in general I like almost everything about the si. Like any car there are details I'd change, but the feel and the looks win it for me.
 
-Spargo