IL Track Tested: 2012 Honda Civic Si Coupe

Ouch, and all those numbers on the Exalto PE2s...those are really good tires, especially as far as OEM tires go in this segment, and are definitely worth a little over its rivals...which does not bode well for how this car would perform on equal footing with others.

why is Insideline NOT testing 50to70mph or 45to60mph times? These are more interesting and simulate real driving situations rather than 0-60mph using brake torquing and rpms in red zone driving....

In essence this car is nothing more than the old Si, but with better fuel economy, better styling, and more content... Not too much of a performance gain.

Its a bit like the old ep3 formula: putting a bigger acura engine into the civic, which was losing formula for them. Now they tried it again, probably losing it again

Did anyone else notice that this car had a better slalom & skidpad result with the T/C on? wth?

I don't understand you Honda. Why are you afraid to give it more power? We all know you are capable of adding torque and power at the same time. Isn't that the whole point of VTEC? At least give us a 20hp increase.

Eesh, I get that this has more power and such, but this car seems to have lost its unique factor that it always had going for it. I know it wasn't the prettiest car, but I miss the uniqueness of the 2003 hatch Civic Si. I remember being 15 and just coveting that car.

Isn't it time to atleast try to catch up to the competition. Honda has an excellent engine in the RDX, but refuses to use it for any other model. With 2.3 liters, 240hp and 260 lb/ft of torque, that would be a vehicle worthy of an SI badge.

Ugly with no meaningful improvement in acceleration and "Holy Body Roll, Batman!" The handling appears to be worse than the 8th Gen sedan even. Yawn.

BTW, Honda didn't "just expand the bore and stroke." They used the current TSX's engine with cast-in exhaust manifold and no VTEC for the exhaust cam, which itself was a retrograde move from the first gen TSX motor. Adding a header is the single best thing you can do for a K-series engine and Honda killed that possibility.

BTW, Honda didn't "just expand the bore and stroke." They used the current TSX's engine with cast-in exhaust manifold and no VTEC for the exhaust cam, which itself was a retrograde move from the first gen TSX motor. Adding a header is the single best thing you can do for a K-series engine and Honda killed that possibility.

This is just a lazy move on Honda's part.

I can think of two other I4 engines off the top of my head that are just as powerful, but more torquey than the 2.4 in the SI.

There's the 2.5 in the Nissan Sentra Spec V that makes 200 hp and 180 lb-ft. And there's the 2.4 in the Hyundai Sonata that makes 200 hp and 186 lb-ft.

Honda is indeed falling behind the times when it comes to performance in their SI. The old 2.0 was barely acceptable back in 2006 when it debuted, but it's 2011 now, and 200 hp just won't cut it anymore. The whole point of having a NA engine, I thought personally, was to have a high-revving engine. Now that that's missing from the equation, I'm not really sure what the SI has going for it.

i saw the side profile pic and i could only think of one thing. ZDX. really honda? did you really give the SI the profile of a ZDX? the 4th ugliest vehicle on the road besides panamera, X6, and your own accord crosstour!

unless honda is investing 80 cents out of every development dollar into the new NSX i will have to say that you officiall,... officially suck.

i saw the side profile pic and i could only think of one thing. ZDX. really honda? did you really give the SI the profile of a ZDX? the 4th ugliest vehicle on the road besides panamera, X6, and your own accord crosstour!

unless honda is investing 80 cents out of every development dollar into the new NSX i will have to say that you officiall,... officially suck.

gotfitted,

umm...... no it didn't.

I'm curious to see how these numbers compare against the last generation of the Prelude.

Looks a lot worse, accelerates about the same but with less character, handles about the same but with hella body roll. And we are stuck with this product as Honda's leading (only?) performance car for the next...6 years or so?

Honda, you are doing GREAT.

-Rod

These numbers are not impressive at all. Mayb better tires(wider too) would produce better numbers but if these r the same tires from 06-09 then they are horrible( i had an 09) and they had 0 grip and were noisy on highway. This car needs 225-235 HP, 225 wide tires, and a better suspension because it looks lifted and as the author said it wiggles in the back during braking

Disappointing straight line performance comparatively speaking. The 2009 Civic Si sedan test had the best numbers of the prior three so it's the one I am referring to. In addition, by 2009 Edmunds arrived at the same test procedures/stats they use today (so 2006 is too hard to compare).

It's like the extra torque does nothing. If you're going to take away the revs (read: fun) and add torque to make up for it, the straight line performance should at least improve. For the car's power/torque @ rpm to weight, transmission, curb weight (lighter than most competitors), etc., I'd have expected about 0.5 sec quicker to 60 and maybe 0.3 sec faster through the 1/4-mi. than the numbers posted.

Well, VTEC might have lost its luster. But it doesn't matter, because Honda seems far more enamored with it's new acronym toy: i-MID. "Our cars are no longer about mechanical engineering substance. But they work great with your iPod!"

IL asks if the new Honda Civic Si worthy of its badge?

Um not in the last 10 years has ANY Honda been worthy of its badge!

Sorry to say. But this new Civic Si if probably one of the best entry level sport sedans. It comes in a great package, and used 2008 Civic Si's are going for $18,000 with 50,000 miles. Thats just $3000 off the original sticker price. Can't break-um can't beat-um little cars.

So it puts up better numbers than the long term gti...

No one seemed to complain then

The test results show that it got better skidpad and slalom numbers w/ T/C on (as gotfitted pointed out), but the comment section says it was slower in the slalom w/ T/C on. S'up?

And I hope that second picture shows the car under hard braking b/c that rear fender gap is enormous.

Pschang1: yeah I don't understand that either. Edmunds freshly posted articles seem to be filled with errors. Either the they transposed them (meaning the traction control is ultra imposing) or they are just strange. Braking seems good.

Fairly hideous, slower, a less exciting motor, and an even uglier dash. But at least they held the line on price! I don't understand why people are mystified. Hondas will never have class leading horsepower. They are an "all-arounder" company. Some companies sink their dough into the engine compartment, Honda sinks it into powertrain smoothness and interiors.

In this price range the SI performance is the one customer are waiting for.
200 hp, 2800 lbs 2.0 liters deliver this performance be a Honda, Porshe, Ferrari and
even Hyundai and Kia. Are the Elantra, Focus or Cruze doing 0-60 at 6.5 seconds
1/4 miles at 14.5 ?. Why Honda have to ?.

So aside from 0-60 it performs worse than the Focus Titanium. The skidpad performance is mediocre. The styling is beyond tame. Considering its weight it should be much faster. It will sell primarily because it so cheap and has no direct competition. If you want to spend only $24k its basically the only game in town.

Pretty much the same numbers as the last one tested (2006)

I like the look of the last one better
But this should get a couple MPG better

Personally, I'd head over to Honda Certified, if I had to have one
BD

c@arlos20

The Si doesn't market against those cars.

Compare it to the MS3, the GTi, the upcoming Focus ST. Those cars are what this is going up against.

This is a relatively inexpensive coupe, so we need to keep that in mind. There are three things that kill it for me:
1. 3000 RPM at 70 mph. With a six speed manual, that should be no more than 2500.
2. All black interior-- a dealbreaker for me, unless the car is absolutely wonderful, something that this car isn't.
3. Cheesy interior with all hard plastics, like some cheap Kia. Oh, wait, Kia interiors aren't cheesy or hard plasticky anymore are they?

Why have an engine that produces about the same performance? SI buyers really want that high-revving "high". with the i-VTEC adding some extra adrenalin. I wonder if it is any better than the new Scion TC. I do know one thing-- the Scion is more than $4,000 cheaper. Yes, the TC has an all-black interior, but for $18,995 I could possibly put up with that coal-bin interior. Actually, with the panoramic sunroof in the TC, the interior might not be as dark as I fear.)

This new Si coupe looks positively dorky from almost every angle. I think the 4-door is much more palatable. I too share the sentiment of others here who wonder why the turbo engine from the RDX was not used in this model. Obviously, the biggest drawing card here is a base price that will undercut the competition by a couple of thousand dollars. I hope the IL staff adopt one soon, perhaps as a replacement for their long term GTI.

Car and Driver's recent test of the Scion tc with a manual got very similar acceleration and handling figures.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/11q2/2011_scion_tc_manual-short_take_road_test

While I'm quite certain there is less fun-to-drive factor in the Scion, its still a little disturbing given that its only 19k and the Civic is more like 23k or 24k.

I also think the Mini Cooper with a manual and sports suspension is a legit competitor. It goes 0-60 in 7.7 seconds, but outhandles the Civic.

what people forget is they are in the business of making money. fun cars /= money. sad fact. clearly to produce this car, they had to find a cheaper engine. people keep expecting Honda to step up again, but old Honda is dead. (literally and figuratively)

Yep, that's hard braking. Also, On/Off were transposed in the results section. Fastest times were BY FAR with TC OFF.
-mm

As with most recent Hondas its pretty much what they offered in the last generation model. No improvement in materials, transmission, features, performance or technology just revised styling.

120 feet braking? terrible.
Why does honda/acura continue to suck at braking???

Honda is perfectly capable of doing much better than this current. They are starting to fall pretty far behind the competition, but the Civic Si has a fanatical fan base that will be unable to see that.

For the same price as this current Si you can get a Hyundai Genesis coupe with a turbo charged 2.0 engine that makes more power, gets better fuel economy, is RWD, and has a 10 year powertrain warranty. Just a thought…

@kosmo69: word. We see it time and time again. It's their dirty little secret.

Wow...I never expected I would be one of the only people to be happy with this car! LOL

Ok, first of all....the looks. I HATED the last gen coupe. It looked like a Saturn. I liked the sedan but not the coupe. Now, the coupe looks more sporty, like the Accord coupe, not like a Saturn. So I'd consider this coupe. I liked the prior sedan, and the new sedan looks about the same, just refreshed...so everyone knows its the new car. Either one looks good to me. Interior is modern, not the same cookie-cutter interior. I like it for that reason. Ed124c...that Scion Tc interior is hideous compared to the Si's.

On to the performance...hmm. First of all, this car is priced lower than the speed3/WRX/GTI, etc. So it isn't expected to be quite in that bracket. But actually, at 6.6 seconds to 60, its in the GTI ballpark, as well as the Sentra SE-R. Not bad! It is more DRIVEABLE in gear than the old car. So you don't have to drop down 2 gears to get power to pass like the OLD CAR. I have an Accord with this 2.4 at 166HP and its torquey in most situations, this can only be much better. But it doesn't rev to 8000? WAH! It will still rev...up to 7100 if I recall. I appreciate the fact that I don't have to rev the bejesus out of my car to get usable power.

Good, solid job by Honda. The performance is good, the milage is even better than before, and the coupe looks much nicer. I may buy one!

The SI looks solid, but the Mazda 3 is still the better buy. I am waiting to see what the Focus ST will be priced at, and test drive both before I make any real observations.

"Ok, first of all....the looks. I HATED the last gen coupe. It looked like a Saturn"

Funny you say that, because the first thing I thought of when seeing this coupe was SATURN ION. The extremely high rear end did it for me.

I don't like the stance. Too high. Maybe it's just the pronounced body roll in the picture.

This new car puts up literally the same numbers as a Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec-V that's been out for 2 years. Congrats Honda!

http://www.edmunds.com/nissan/sentra/2011/road-test.html

I cant believe anyone is touting the mileage of this car, its weak considering the size and weight. 31mpg? Most midsize cars do better than that. This is a 2800lb car that barely eclipses the Mustang V6 in mileage while offering 105 less hp. With some modern technology this car would be averaging at least 24/34. The GTI is heavier and has far more torque and yet gets the same mileage. The mileage of the last gen model was borderline embarrasing so they had to improve it somehow. The Accord has 190hp and gets 23/34 with 400 more lbs of curb weight.

The engine choice well that's something I am not going to complain too much about. It's changed but it's basically the same performance over all.

Performance is certainly very similar to the GTI. So I guess for the numbers you are getting something similar for less money and potentially more reliable.

However. Given the situation of things the improvement in handling is a bit disappointing. But it's not like they made it worse.

If you were to take a more reasonable perspective it's a mild refresh of the old car which isn't horrible.

The problem in the civic si's situation is that at the estimated MSRP of $24,655 vs the MSRP of $23,945 for the Mazdaspeed 3 keeping it the same might not cut it anymore.

Some numbers:

0-60: Si 6.9 Speed 3 6.4
60-0: Si 120 feet Speed 3 113 feet
Slalom: Si 67.3 mph Speed 3 72.4 mph (people that's M3, Porsche territory)
Skid Pad: Si .86 Speed 3 .89

So, given that you are likely to be spending the same amount for the civic si vs the speed 3. What exactly is the selling point of the Si? Fuel economy? Reliability? I guess some people will say those things but for the sort of person who would typically buy these sort of cars are those really the top priority? And while for sure the fuel economy of the Mazdaspeed 3 is worse, I am not so sure the reliability is that bad compared to the Civic.

One would think the new SI would have kept the main elements that defined the SI badge yet Honda diluted most of those elements while making the car appeal more to the masses. The 99-2000 and the last generation SI while not overly powerful where super fun cars that had certain characteristics that were unique to their segments. Unfortunately, the only improvements made to the new Civics were better ride quality, increased comfort, refinement and chassis composure at the limit.

The 2.4 engine while good just doesn't provide much additional thrust nor does it have the fun factor level the previous 2.0 had. One poster recommended the 2.3 turbo from the RDX but that's not the appropriate engine for an SI as Honda performance applications have always put chassis dynamics above big power. Honda has never offered an overpowered performance variant as it's not a part of their performance strategies. The logical engine choice would have been the 225hp/153tq 2.0l that was found in the Japanese Civic Type R. It may look pesky on paper but the available and much more accessible power under the curve was significantly greater vs the "regular" 2.0 found in the last generation SI as the i-VTEC was tuned properly!

In essence my take on the new Civic is that the bean counters were more involved in the process. Even worse is that Honda promised years ago (regarding the 01-05 Civics) the bean counters would never again be the main influence in terms of materials, performance targets, drivetrain options and overall performance. Unfortunately 2 generations later that promise was broken.

I'm not sure what's going on behind the walls of Honda but I don't like it.

This is a dissapointing car for Honda - they pumped out the same mileage/performance/etc. in a car that costs $24k 10 years ago - it was called the RSX Type-S, and leather was standard.

I have a 2006 Civic SI with 105k miles on it now and while it's been an amazing car, and something that has actually taken me years to appreciate just how phenomenal of an automobile it is, I still would want more upfront value than this new car offers.

And since Acura has gone off the reservation, I'm going to be spending my money outside the honda family in the months and years to come.

+1 banhugh

and the rolling 5-60 mph times -- this is more indicative of the "if-I-just-floored-it" numbers.

And with this car, Honda's abandonment of the enthusiast and its morphing into a clone of Toyota (from 5 years ago) appears to be about complete. Real shame. I and my family have owned Hondas since the mid-80s (last bought a new one in 2008), but I don't see much chance of any of us buying another one in the next couple model cycles, barring a huge change from the company (or a desperate need for a Hybrid).

@hondacura: Assuming the 2.4 in the SI is just a tweaked Accord engine, yes, I agree the beancounters had a lot to do with this new SI. Also assuming that the 153tq engine you refer to has never been designed to US emissions specs, which would probably cost millions to do, that is the reason we get a slightly tweaked Accord engine with lower fuel economy. Strange.

@chrissa222: I am assuming you have seen the interior of the new SI. I have not. But I have sat in a new 2012 Civic, and the new 2011 Scion TC.

The Civic LX interior is just awful, with hard plastics and bland, bland, bland. Now, this Civic I sat in had a grayish/mustardish interior color. Extrapolating this to the SI and its black, black, black interior, for me it would probably look even worse than the interior of the Civic LX.

I thought the interior of the TC was almost something that I, a person who can't stand black interiors, might be able to put up with at the $18,995 price point. But at the $23,000+ price level of the SI-- no way.

@banhugh: how do you torque brake a manual?

Geez Honda. The Prelude was making those numbers with a 2.4i like 15 years ago. Where is the progress. Sigh..

The new civic si is way too vanilla for me. I love my 8th civic because I am able to rev to 8k rpm. I def will not be buying another civic unless in has 230+ hp and around 200 tq and possibly turbo charged. This just isn't a big enough of a step from the 8th generation civic si as far as looks and performance go. The headlights are nearly identical. If anything they should have sent civics over that look more along the lines of a jdm 8th civic type r. The 9th gen civic is a step down from that in my opinion.

Would much rather have a new mazda speed 3 or that new focus st or even a cobalt ss.

If I didn't know any better and did not have a 8th civic si sedan before this came out, then I would think 9th generation civic is a pretty good car. Honda has lost my business.

The all new 2012 Honda Civic Si: Ready to bring the fight to the 200hp, 180lb-ft 2007 Sentra SE-R Spec V.

1487, the SI has much closer gear ratios compared to the Accord or Mustang which greatly alters fuel efficiency. However, quite a few last generation SI owners have reported 34 to 36mpg hwy. Keep in mind that's REAL WORLD MILEAGE not EPA ESTIMATES! With that said the 2.4 should get even better REAL WORLD mileage.

hondacura4 says:
09:40 AM, 05/ 4/11
"1487, the SI has much closer gear ratios compared to the Accord or Mustang which greatly alters fuel efficiency. However, quite a few last generation SI owners have reported 34 to 36mpg hwy. Keep in mind that's REAL WORLD MILEAGE not EPA ESTIMATES! With that said the 2.4 should get even better REAL WORLD mileage."

So internet anecdotes with numerous variables instead of identically performed laboratory tests? ;)

Actually, my buddy who had a manual transmission 2005 TSX averaged close to 30mpg with a commute heavily slanted towards Chicagoland highway travel, so I could see low-to-mid 30mpg fuel economy being possible in the lighter weight Si, particularly while cruising at the speed limit.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt, in saying that this car must have a "great personality".

Because, . . . well, . . . you know. It truly has a "face" that only its Honda mother could love!!!

The roofline, side profile, and rear deck appear to be well matched, but, the front end design looks very blunt, blocky, and squared off from a front view. It almost looks like two separate cars merged into one, . . . and it doesn't quite pull it off. Also, just exactly, how large do those pedestal mounted mirror head pods have to be??? NOT NICE!!! This larger inception of the Civic Si appears to be set up very soft, perhaps for "comfort", because there appears to be an ample amount of body roll for this type of vehicle. From other pictures, the interior styling doesn't seem to compare well to other current, modern offerings, especially in the dash panel area. . . it appears to be dis-proportionate, with peculiar lines, and under classed for this type of an offering. Overall, this car seems to need some healthy "tweaking", to say the least. A few too many low points, for me at least.

I wish you the best of luck with this Honda, . . . you may need it ! ! !

Think less Modded accord engine. Think more transplanted TSX engine.

Im not impressed with this at all. I expected more from Honda. Going up in displacement for a marginal gain in power.... I seem to recall this being the story when Honda/Acura went from 3.5L v6 to 3.7l v6.

Anyhow, i think that at least there is space for a return to the RSX in the Acura Lineup now. Especially with all these manufactures bringing out smaller sporty cars....

1487: not making excuses, but all the cars you just mentioned have a tall sixth gear for mileage. if they wanted the si to get 34mpg like the accord, they could have, but acceleration would be more accord like. and the only GTI that exceed the mileage of the si is the dsg version, which, read, isnt a cost effective or the most care-free piece of machinery on the planet. i'm going to pull a 1487 and ask why you arent givent he mazdaspeed 3 the same type of grief for the terrible mileage it gets.

what kind of acceleration does the v-6 auto mustang provide?

gotak: have you seen what kind of mileage the mazdaspeed3 gets? its engine note isnt very inspiring imo.

and i dunno if this makes me less of an enthusiast, but just because i want a reliable, cheap to own sport compact doesnt make me strange. if i'm paying for a car every month, i dont care what type of sporting intentions it has, reliability and cost to own still matter to me.

thats the whole reason honda's got popular to modify to being with: the ability to add lots of power, but maintain reliability.

:Yawn: Who's gonna buy this? This car is so vanilla, it doesn't do anything particularly well. Took away the K20 (crown jewel of the car) and put the slightly hopped up Accord motor in it. Have to shift to FOURTH at 72mph because the gearing is so short. Handling feedback isn't highly positive. Sounds like another Honda with a neutered sole.

I just checked some details on Road and Track, and the Impreza with AWD will again have a "Sport" version that will be priced under 20K. The new boxer engine will not produce 200 HP, but will have more torque and produce better performance numbers then this Civic. MPH will be only slighty less then the advertised 36 MPH, but still better then the SI's 31, so again Honda falls short to another brand. Mustang, Camaro, Genesis 2.0 Turbo, all sell for the SI's price point and performance is flat out better. The tuner days of the Eclipse and the old VTEC Civic's are over, and the next gen Focus, Mazda3Speed, and others have surpised Honda's bargain rocket.

The minor adjustments Honda made to the TL and TSX gave me any reason to say that those current Honda models are worth my money.

@eldaino2 I know what milage the Mazdaspeed 3 gets. I have a 2010 one, in Canada where the gas is more expensive. And honestly the milage isn't bad at all. It's very good in reality for a 263 hp engine. If you want better fuel economy with any engine producing this sort of power you need to drive very sedately no matter which car you choose.

My personal experience with the fuel economy is that you get more than the EPA numbers. My city drives averages about 23 mpg. On the highway I can get close to 30 depending on weather etc. I also have friends with the last generation civic si and they get only slightly better fuel economy. If you actually drive a Civic Si as people who buys it wants to drive it you are not going to get the advertised fuel economy numbers. So in the end does it makes sense to design a car more for fuel economy than for a bit more go in the market the Si's suppose to aim for?

Also, look at the Hyundai turbo 2.0 GDI. Advertised 22/34mpg while edmunds observes worse of 18.8 to best of 21mpg. Quite different in reality right? It's likely the lofty mileage of the Si will prove to be what's sometimes possible rather than what's everyday.

As for engine note. It's more muted inside the car and it's not extremely loud. I don't have an issue with it. It suits me that it doesn't sound too loud or attention getting. Also, when you are driving it with your foot planted you aren't paying attention to the engine noise anyhow. You'll need to be paying attention to where you are going and sometimes fighting the wheel a bit from the torque:D.

I don't think being an enthusiast is about ignoring fuel economy and reliability. However, driving my car with fair amount of boost usage on on ramps and for highway passing, plus mostly city driving during weekdays I still observe decent fuel economy. I also have not been (cross fingers) given any reliability problems so far save for a puncture. In the end a car with more horsepower will likely cost you more to run. It's just part of the game.

All the ricer boys hate this new car because that can't waste all their money in upgrades trying to make this slow car a little bit faster.

^^^ says the guy with the automatic mustang gt

@chrisa222

This guy seems to be a Honda employee. Ive heard manufacturers are planting employees on discussion boards these days to counter criticism. It makes sense, but dude, chrisa222--you gotta work on being believable.

@joefrompa

+1000. You own a previous-gen Civic Si, have a lot of respect for the car, and are as offended by the new Si as everyone else. If that's not an indictment of Honda's current philosophy, I don't know what is.

-Rod

"i'm going to pull a 1487 and ask why you arent givent he mazdaspeed 3 the same type of grief for the terrible mileage it gets."

I will state the obvious here: The Ms3 gets poor mileage for a compcat BUT offers far more power than the more efficient (and less practical) civic. I have not endorsed the mileage of the MS3 in any way and it's lacking in that department as well. Unlike the Civic its already 2-3 years old and it has 263hp. The Civic is smaller, lighter, newer and less powerful.

A V6 mustang does 0-60 in about 5.4secs which is faster than this car will ever be. I'm aware of tall 6th gears, but when an engine has torque it doesn't need super tight gearing to maintain respectable acceleration.

In today's market of affordable coupes this power/mileage/performance combination is lackluster to say the least. The 2012 Camaro LS will get 30mpg on the highway with 323hp for under $25k. If this car can't outperform the competition it should at least be more efficient.

Most of you are very impressive. You effectively take it from all angles. That is a great help to me and I'm sure many others, that are not as informed as you.

One question: There is no mention of the Kia Forte Koup, as an advisory to the Civic SI.

Am I mistaken? Is it not in the same as the other competition (GTI, 3SPeed, Spec V, tC, etc.)?

Your thoughts.

@autoboy16 - the current Accord EX 4cyl and the TSX 4cyl are pretty much the same (hence the 10 hp difference). Both engines lack VTEC on the exhaust cam (intake only) and have integrated exhaust manifolds (no headers) and close coupled catalysts. The TSX is just tuned to run on 91 octane instead of 87 and has a 6spd gearbox with tighter gearing for better acceleration.

AFAICT, there are now no more Honda vehicles using the iconic (and quite effective) DOHC VTEC head setup anymore. All the V6's are SOHC and the B-series, F-series (S2000) and K-series DOHC VTEC setups are no more. That should give enthusiasts and Honda fans serious pause. Never thought I'd see the day when Honda was going backwards on engine tech while the competition moved forward (for example, virtually ever small displacement 4cyl these days is offering variable cam phasing on intake and exhaust, with Honda, you only get it on the intake).

This car is so high off the ground it looks like Honda was anticipating some off road work. That probably explains the not so stellar numbers and the squiggly back end under braking. It looks like a chinese knock off of a civic instead of the actual civic.

Fail Honda.

Did you guys watch the Detroit Auto Show where an old, fat CEO from Honda gave a presentation about the 2012 civic, and then Fall-Out Boy came on stage and said something about trying to appeal to "the kids"? My God, I thought I was watching Wayne's World again!!

I think Honda decided to shit their pants when they started to draw hard lines between what kind of trims/engines/features that would define Acura and Honda as two separate lines of cars.
Neither of which gets it right anymore, because both lines get compromised in the process. A side note: I think Hyundai will succeed, because they aren't fracturing their brand into two where you can get classier, refined features in one and average quality in the other.

Case in point where i think Honda Nailed it right: 2002 Acura RSX type-S.
Put a 2002 Acura RSX type-S next to the 2012 civic SI, both cost $24K. Like JoefromPA said - With RSX You get Leather standard, auto climate control, superior sound damping, premium audio, VERY nice fit and finish. With Acura, you get premium sporty sheet metal too. With the Civic SI, you get a lame "one design fits all" sheet metal and cheap plastic crap interior.
RSX felt both sporty and upscale. Civic Si feels cheap "Boy-Racer" by comparison.

^^a 24K interior today will be noticeably cheaper than a 24K one from 10 yrs ago-- no matter what make you're talking about. And the RSX-S stereo was hardly "premium". And I'd gladly trade the leather and climate control for an LSD and summer tires.

I'm amused that it's only .8 faster in the 1/4 than the Odyssey.

^^"And I'd gladly trade the leather and climate control for an LSD and summer tires."

I would too if it actually added performance (over the RSX-S or 8th gen civic), but it apparently it does not.

And after seeing these lame performance #'s, I'd much rather have an adrenaline-rushing K20A2 which has tons of aftermarket support/tuning capabilities.

I think ppl's best bet for a civic si - get nice used one, I/H/E, ECU reflash, and you're easily making 230 HP.

I almost never comment anymore.

But.

I own a 2009 civic si coupe (with over 53K miles). I love my car and I was hopeful but not optimistic about what the next si would be like. This news has effectively removed Honda from consideration for my next vehicle purchase. Focus ST. The honor is yours to lose. Don't disappoint me and I will gladly buy American. I really miss having a hatch.

Honda, congratulations on becoming a huge disappointment.

"I would too if it actually added performance (over the RSX-S or 8th gen civic), but it apparently it does not."

People like to make up their own rules. It's like with the RX-8. Everyone hates the gas mileage. But they say "well I'd put up with it if it just had more power." Well if it had 280 horse then it would get 13 mpg. Everyone OK with that? It is what it is.

I wasn't convinced at first, but this if they can hold the price to where the old Si was, this represents some good value.

You're not going to be chasing down GTI's, WRX's or MS3's, but you will not be paying the extra $$ either.

I have resigned myself to the fact that Honda is okay with having their flagship compact be a notch below those "competitors" in performance, but to hold the line on price. Fair trade.

If you want more, you'll have to go elsewhere and pay more.

No surprises here. Same HP same numbers. The news is that the car is very significantly more refined, and comfortable while still offering the same amount of performance. Given its much higher torque its also much more satisfying to drive in city situations. If people were expecting more performance they were liable to be disappointed, the fact is that significantly morepower in a FWD light car as this makes for a very unrefined and useless car as can be easily demonstrated by other turbocharged pocket rockets (mazda 3 and others). COmparing an Si to a rwd car is ridiculous, It is what it is a very fun to drive good performnig econobox that is inexpensive, comfortable, thrifty. NO other small compact even comes close to offering a more satisfying, complete package, period. Good luck waiting for the focus if it provides significantly more power than the Si you can also expect another torque steer monster unless it comes with lauch control, which I highly doubt.

I have to admit I'm liking the new Civic Si considering I'm pretty disappointed with the new Civic in general. The outgoing model was cool other than the rather ugly alloy wheels and cheap looking while VTEC lettering on the side of the car. This version looks much cleaner and I like the more liftback coupe-like back end.....so overall, not bad.

The RSX offered those things for 24k 10 years ago - the Civic has an LSD, which is to it's credit, but summer tires cost a little extra (or did?) and are readily available anyway when the all-seasons wear out at 25k miles.

The point is this: If you can buy a 5 year old car for 1/2 the price and get the same value, then you aren't making progress. And I can buy a dead-reliable 5 year old honda civic SI, get the same value, and pay less than half the price as the new model. So where's the value?

2010 Volkswagen GTI or 2012 Honda Civic Si
http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/05/2010-volkswagen-gti-or-2012-honda-civic-si.html

Have those of you begging for the 2.3 L turbo from the RDX ever driven one? That engine is *TERRIBLE* -- wildly peaky, laggy, and bad mileage. It has a completely different character from the GTI or MS3 turbo engines. It's binary power delivery is totally inappropriate for a vehicle whose owners expect to, you know, turn corners while modulating throttle input -- unlike the RDX -- mot to mention it would add more weight to the front and further increase understeer. There's a very good reason it's Honda's only turbo motor and why it's been restricted to Acura's least popular vehicle (outside the RL). It sucks. The VW 2.0T is superior in every way (I bought a 2.0T powered Passat wagon instead of an RDX based in no small part based on its superior power band and efficiency, not to mention chassis dynamics). Can anyone else whose ever driven the RDX weigh in here and help put these uninformed requests for the 2.3 turbo to bed?

Also, I look at this as further evidence that (a) CAFE seems to forcing the big players (Honda, Toyota, Ford, GM) to focus on fuel economy above all; (b) sadly, Honda seems to have plateaued in terms of engineering prowess and product design.

As a still very happy owner of a '97 Honda Civic EX, I can't see myself setting foot on a Honda or Acura lot to check out anything they have available. Kinda sad. Of course, the flip side is that there are much better options out there when it's time to upgrade. ;)

It's pretty interesting how some people keep saying that honda's got it right because 1) value 2) 200 hp is just about right and that other cars with more that are FWD are useless.

Those are great SENTIMENTS but hardly reflect the reality. The Si is about the same price as both the GTI and the MS3 give or take couple k which considering the price of the car is not that big of a difference. Secondly FWD cars with more power is perfectly capable and I'll refer you to SEAT León race cars which won the 2008 drivers and manufacturer title in the WTCC against RWD racers.

I think that Honda build cars like this new Civic Si the way they do because people are willing to pull the wool over their own eyes. Because of past excellence they think the means this car will continue to be great. That is like the French building their Maginot Line looking at what warfare was before only to find it was completely useless against tanks and aircrafts.

I disagree mmartel. The K23 in the RDX is hampered by the crappy 5spd auto tranny and its wide gearing. Compared to the GTI, the RDX, even after the additional losses of the auto tranny and AWD, actually puts down more power than the underrated 2.0T in the GTI (which you would expect given the ratings). And while it won't spool up as low as the GTI, it is fully capable of producing peak boost by 2200-2500 rpm, which puts it somewhere between the GTI engine and something like the 4B11 in the Mitsubishi EvoX. The economy suffers because of the same transmission, the high curb weight, poor aero and efficiency sapping AWD. We've done some tuning and with an exhaust and reflash the K23 will put well over 300 lbs-ft of torque to the wheels, so it's got potential, but it isn't a Honda style motor.

All that said, I do agree that it isn't the right engine for an Si. It has no problem lighting up the front tires in a 4000 lbs FWD RDX and would be ridiculously hard to control in the Civic without serious torque management (ala the MS3).

What a piece of crap.

"What a piece of crap."

Succinct and to the point.

check the numbers C&D posted for a manual tC...

this needed to be much better than it is. Honda could have easily found another 50 hp in that engine. those bastards.

No way I would buy this thing if I was in the market for a hot hatch, the GTI would be #1 on my list, and honestly for about 1 grand more you get more horsepower and a boatload more torque. Plus it doesn't look like a saturn's ugly step-sister. I shed a tear every time I see what Honda comes out w/ every year, to think what they used to be.... it break my heart.

I guess I'll have to join the consensus here. While this may be a competent enough sports/hatch, and represents on-net a slight improvement over its predecessor, it's still a bit of a yawner that isn't necessarily the best of its genre. And if this is as sporty an offering as Honda is going to continue to put forth across its model line-up (including Acura), its just a crying shame. They won'r be getting any business from me any time soon.

1487: the si comes as a sedan too. Not as useful as a hatch, but still useful compared to the rwd coupes you mentioned. The vast majority of buyers interested in a fwd sport compact usually don't cross shop mustangs and camaros, regardless of how close in price they are.

An automatic v6 mustang gets to sixty in less than six seconds?

Gotak
Kind of a weird statement, first you say you get better than advertised, but assume drivers of this si (and the sonata, which we aren't even discussing) will get worse than advertised because drivers of these cars like to bury the throttle? Hmmmm...

I like the mazdaspeed, but imo, its engine and the eventual upkeep are the dealbreakers. If they offered a more fuel efficient 2.0, they could still have a car that looked decent and whose handling was top notch. Depending on the mindset, id still take an si or gti, esp the gti, over any of em. Just my opinion. Enjoy your speed 3 sir.

I stand by my comments...I like this car. The reason why I would pick it over the MS3 is simple..the gearbox/clutch. My Honda gearbox is awesome. It is nicer than my 5MT in my 99 Miata. It is easy to shift quickly and smoothly.

I had a HORRIFIC experience in my '02 Stratus R/T Coupe (same thing as Eclipse GT) and its pathetic excuse for a manual transmission and clutch. Even after years of driving it, I could not get it to shift smoothly with any regularity. One day it would be ok, next day, impossible. I may not be the best manual driver out there but that transmission sucked. So If I get a sporty car, I want a manual, and I want one that I wont hate and regret purchasing. Everything that I have read about the MS3 and its shifter/clutch has been poor to mediocre. It takes a little while to get used to driving a manual perfectly, and I feel that buying an MS3 isn't worth the risk. A test drive in any manual car won't go smoothly, because you don't know the vehicle. I am confident in a Honda that the gearbox/clutch will be great. I am not confident about the MS3. If I got a GTI I would get the DSG, probably.

It is a shame you cant test a car for more than a half hour, to see if it is what you really want. And you can't rent a manual transmission anywhere, that I know of.

@church123: Since you have direct first hand tuning knowledge of the engine, I'll defer to you on the powerband. In that case, I'd have to guess that the poor driving experience I'm referring to (lag and on/off feel) might have to do with drive-by-wire throttle, transmission, and lag characteristics of the turbo they selected.

Bottom line was that, in my opinion, the ability to modulate the power delivery in the car was terribly compromised compared to other contemporary turbocharged engines like the VW/Audi 2.0T. It was bad for daily driving, and it would be worse for performance driving. Perhaps these issues could be sorted out, but if all they did was drop the same powertrain into the Civic Si, it seems we both agree it would be a disaster.

BTW anyone that buys a GTi over this car for its performance is an idiot, the Performance is identical. Utility-wise the civic si sedan has the same or more utility. FInally VW has one of the worst reliability records in the industry, Honda has the best. German engineerig give me a freaking break, the biggest feat of engineering is that something works, if its in the shop every 2 mnths, thats not engineering, its simply crap!

Anyone not impressed by the accelerator switch from the bottom-hinged to the top-swinging?

http://www.netcarshow.com/honda/2012-civic_si_coupe/800x600/wallpaper_19.htm

This is why the previous K20 was and is superior to the K24 that's now offered in the Si.

- The K20 was a true DOHC I-VTEC engine with valve timing/lift on both intake and exhaust cams.

- Its high revving characteristics were unique to the class and really was the defining characteristic of the Si badge.

- The ability to use simple bolt ins and tuning to really let this engine do what it should have done from the factory.

This guy from 8thCivic.com made 247hp/178tq AT THE WHEELS on a dyna pack @ Church Automotive (Church123's tuning garage) with his last generation Civic Si using simple bolt ons and probably Hondata's awesome tuning software. On a regular dyno that would be around 235hp/170tq. Quite impressive given the short list of simple mods. I'm sure Shawn aka Church123 could further elaborate on this particular car.

Modification list:
- 2008 Acura TSX camshafts
- AEM V2 cold air intake
- BPI velocity stacks
- Invidia Q300 catback exhaust
- Skunk2 race header
- 2008 TSX throttle body
- Acura RDX 410cc injectors
- Port matched RBC Intake manifold
- Hondata's intake manifold gasket
- P2R throttle body spacer
- P2R throttle body gasket
- Hondata FlashPro tuning software

Quite impressive for a normally aspirated 2.0L with simple bolt ons and good tuning! Unfortunately with the new Si this simple level of tuning won't be allowed due to the 2.4's lack of true VTEC and integrated exhaust manifold. Honda, are you stupid?

I bet that cost a lot of money.
Why, just to make the car a little faster. it still will not be a really FAST car. Will this ricer Civic pass emissions? You know it doesn't have any warranty.

I don't get ricers and their Civic Si.

It's really not the complicated. The EPA ratings are always not going to represent reality. I drive my car smoothly and short shift so I get better then EPA. It has plenty of torque from it's turbo for me to do most of my driving between 2k and 3k rpm or less if I am really trying to make the average L/100 drop. While if you take the civic you are looking at better than before torque but if you want the car to do anything interesting you have to rev it up. So it's likely you'll get lower fuel economy. I have a friend who has the last generation Si who gets basically the same fuel economy as I do. There's nothing strange about that.

Anyhow the thing I wanted to say was you can get a car thinking about the fuel economy number. It's just that what they tell you don't always works out. Depending on the driver and condition you can be better or worse. And since all of the cars in this class have a fuel thirsty side to them it's easy fuel economy to go out the door.

"This guy from 8thCivic.com made 247hp/178tq AT THE WHEELS on a dyna pack @ Church Automotive "

That's awesome. At the wheels, that means probably 285 HP at the CRANK! And it's N/A, no boost lag, much more reliable then turbo.

"I bet that cost a lot of money."
No, I bet it did not. That's the point of learning how to work on automobiles, learning where to find parts because it's fun and NOT EXPENSIVE. And I bet this guy knew a thing or two, and was able to source parts cheap and make his build work.

"Will this ricer Civic pass emissions?"
As long as he's running all necessary OBD2 emissions related equipment and it's tuned right: a Catalytic Converter, and both o2 sensors, should be no problem.

"I don't get ricers and their Civic Si."

I don't get what a "ricer" is. What is that?

May I suggest a performance Fit to embody what the Civic Si used to be? Maybe a Fit Type S.

+1. Definitely. Honda Fit with K20A2.

Please, Honda?

Withsays, obviously you know little to nothing about the potential of the K20 as you made it clearly evident in your ignorant post. Given that car gained roughly 50+hp/40tq peak AT THE WHEELS with minor bolt on upgrades/tuning not to mention higher gains below the curve the curve how would that car be "just a little faster"? Common sense would tell anyone that there would be significant gains in acceleration and make the power much more accessible.

You need to check your definition of "ricer" as that term has to do with the type of "modifications" implemented. Stickers, big wings, ground effects, under carriage lights would fit undr the ricer name as they do nothing to amplify the performance of the vehicle in question. With that said, the Civic Si above that I mentioned is far from rice.

" Utility-wise the civic si sedan has the same or more utility."

If you mean that the SI sedan has the same ore more utility than the GTI 2-door, it's a fair argument.

If you are saying the SI sedan equal or better utility than the GTI 4-door, then I'm not buying. I have yet to see a sedan have better utility than a hatch with an equal number of side doors.

So...has no one even thought to bring up the fact that the 2006-2011 Civic Si had a ridiculous amount of issues with its 2nd and 3rd gears? As a former owner of a Fiji Blue 2006 Civic Si coupe, I can tell you that while I absolutely LOVED that car (screw the power complaints, the handling and enjoyment I got out of driving were well worth it, and it saw up to 39 mpg highway once).

More to the point, I've noticed more than a few people talking about the tranny. While the transmission in the Si last generation was great - short throws, accurate - it was only so when it worked. In the winter, the car bucked like a bronco due to the Drive-by-Wire until the engine warmed up, and the grinding, rejection, kicking out, and sitting in limbo, then decided whether to go in gear or not I experienced with that car was about as frustrating as it was trying to get it fixed.

And when they finally did fix it, it popped out on me again three blocks down the road from the dealership. I know how to drive a stick - don't insult my intelligence.

I had a lot of problems with my 06 Si and my replacement '10 EX-L sedan (two different cars, I know). But I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the next Civic is nowhere near my radar, even if I didn't have mounds of issues with both cars.

Also, can we talk about the fact that the Mazda3 is the ONLY car that offers premium amenities and trim levels with a stick shift anymore on non-performance cars? I'm in the market (already selling the '10 Civic - I'm over Honda. Two strikes you're out for me, cars are too much of an investment to be burned a third time), and I am just dying to find a car that's Minnesota winter able and a stick shift with decent trim level options.

The regular Civic will still sell by the boat load. If the Camry's taught us anytihng, it's that you very much can ride your wave of superiority when you're now currently making a shitty product. I've seen all the trim levels (Si excluded and coupe) at the dealership and it is in almost every way, a step down especially in looks and materials. It looks plain, generic, outdated, and bored. This would be passable if we still lived in a world of just Civic and Corolla.

But with the Focus and the Elantra and the Cruze - looks and quality of materials matter. I hope Honda gets burned on this. Badly.

"If you are saying the SI sedan equal or better utility than the GTI 4-door, then I'm not buying. I have yet to see a sedan have better utility than a hatch with an equal number of side doors. "

Not sitting in the VW dealer service dept. frequently = much greater utility.

"If you are saying the SI sedan equal or better utility than the GTI 4-door, then I'm not buying. I have yet to see a sedan have better utility than a hatch with an equal number of side doors. "

Not sitting in the VW dealer service dept. frequently = much greater utility.

The GTI 4 door has 3 more cubic feet of cargo space It has less interior room. Even worse it uses one of the most unreliable of all the already unreliable VW stable, the 2L turbocharged that has always been utter crap in Audis. Keep the shop on speed dial!!!!

The interior materials craftmanship of the GTI and the exterior styling are world's apart from the Civic SI (and by that I mean incomparably better). The MS3 is a lot more fun to drive and has world class handling. The Hyundai Genesis coupe is also a lot better looking.

Not sure how many people here have driven the current body Honda Civic, but it has one of the worst designed A-pillars. It abstracts the driver's view every time you need to turn left. Horrible design. Honda also has uncommunicative steering and average or mediocre breaking feel. The bottom line is Honda has completely relegated itself to people who penny-pinch for fuel economy and find it a major inconvenience to "fix" minor issues like burned out lightbulbs. But for those of us who actually enjoy the fun of driving our cars more than just using them as appliances to get from point A to B, Honda has been dead for at least 10 years.

The way I look at it, life is way too short to worry about the price of gas for something you use every day and which hopefully puts a smile on your face. Honda & Toyota = automotive appliances, not automobiles!

as an 8thgen owner i am disappointed first of all last gen tsx motors can safely rev to 7,600 in jdm form so they could have at least kept the redline somewhat up there and i believe these motors are better. if they are gonna pull a drive train from an acura why not the RDX turbo 4? more power same fuel economy and awd, now that would compete in the sub compact division. i am happy with my 8th gen but my first and last honda idk why they do not wanna have sport persona anymore.

Honda has been passed up by the new Focus and Cruze.

Besides, Honda cant make a transmission go 10k miles without a rebuild like my 2010 Odyssey. So why on earth would I consider another crappy Honda?

I like the looks of my '08 Civic Si sedan better... hell I even liked the looks of my '02 Civic Si better (the rolling doorstop).

Honda just seems to be cruising on past gained reputation, too bad. If they continue on this path this may be my last Civic Si.

And yes, with 2 kids in daycare + 2 child car seats in the back seat + a long work commute (43 mi one way), I am a penny pincher and the Civic Si seemed like the best mix of fun, cost efficiency and real-world practicality ($18K for a mildly sporty, mint cond, used car w/premuim stereo + nav and 12K mi). For $18K I will get at least 8 yrs of fun and reliable, low cost/maintenance motoring.

The Si needs an automatic version. Maybe a dual clutch transmission will be perfect.

The Si needs an automatic version. Maybe a dual clutch transmission will be perfect.

"The Si needs an automatic version. Maybe a dual clutch transmission will be perfect."

It certainly seems like it appeals to the kind of buyer who doesn't know how to drive a standard transmission, like meterosexuals and sorority girls.

How hard is it for a company to make a lightweight frame again like days past? People argue that heavier cars are safer in crashes. But what kind of crash are we talking about?

I'm sick of hearing arguments "I'd rather be in my 2012 civic in a crash then in a 1992 civic in a crash" Crash with what? An SUV? How about a crash with a Dump Truck, or a Semi? No matter how big and heavy your vehicle is, you will be flattened like a pancake if you fuck with one of those.

What is the minimum design criteria for crash safety and how is it determined? How have cars grown enormously fat over the past 20 years? These new civics are pushing 3000 lbs, while the ones from the 90's were close to 2000 lbs.

Not only did the light weight require less power to move (and therefore much better fuel economy), but the cars were so much more fun to drive and tossable. How can you toss a sports-injected Civic when you have two 500 lb passengers plus a driver?

More weight = Fail

best car in its segment