Subaru WRX VS Honda Civic SI Coup

**Dr.Kamiya** · March 7th, 2007 03:01 AM

Truth be told, i'd pick any other hot hatch over Honda's Civic Si. If you guys have been following Evo magazine, they recently compared the new CTR vs other hot hatch rivals, like the Golf GTI, Astra VXR, Seat Leon, Renault Megane F1 and Focus Sport ST.

Link to the mag page. Hot hatch article is NOT available online.
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/20...onths_evo.html

The CTR actually came in 2nd slowest, a full 5 seconds behind the winning Megane F1. If the CTR gets thrashed that badly, just imagine how bad the regular Civic Si will be!

Honda seem to have made a habit of making the CTR slower and slower. The EK9 had a screaming engine, double wishbone suspension and was virtually untouchable in its day. The EP3 gained a new engine, but gave up suspension sophistication in a move to macpherson struts. It's also a lot heaver, which though good for usability doesn't exactly enchance the hot-hatch factor. With the latest CTR, Honda have actually messed with the K20 to make it even peakier (effectively slower), ostensibly to encourage drivers to rev high. Suspension has again taken another downgrade, with a switch to a torsion beam rear! It's little help that the new car is also even heavier than the outgoing EP3.

**IGNITED** · March 7th, 2007 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by redorange

Remove the WRX from that list and put in the up coming SE-R and you'd have a more equal comparison because all will fwd.

Mazdaspeed 3, 2.3L turbo, 263hp/280lb-ft
Civic SI, 2L, 197hp/139lb-ft
VW GTI, 2L turbo, 200hp/207lb-ft
Sentra SE-R V Spec, 2.5L, 200hp/180lb-ft
Chevy Cobalt SS, 2L Supercharged, 205hp/200lb-ft

As you can see the Civic falls far short in terms of torque which is what you need to accelerate. The Mazda AFAIK is close to what the stock internals can take at it's current boost level. The GTI can put out more hp with just a chip and isn't even close what the stock internals can take. Sentra is most likey at it's max as a normally aspirated motor. Cobalt can be bought from the dealer with stage 1 or stage 2 kits to make it put out 270hp with a manufacturer warranty.

Horsepower wise they can come close to a WRX but handling will be another story all together. The limitations of fwd vs awd is what makes the WRX a better vehicle. I drove my nephews Vishnu modded WRX with the 2L boxer which was up to STI territory in horsepower. I still can't believe the speed I was able to take corners in that car, only the EVO we test drove comes close. The acceleration was even more amazing with 2nd gear good for 70mph=112km/h and that was still with the stock turbo. Too bad he sold it for a BMW 3 series.

Heres a comparison made with some of the cars mentioned above.
http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...ars/index.html

I agree with u man! and about the rankings... actually an sti or an evo is still under the "sport compact" ,and u pit it against an Si or an SE-R on stock?... but we must also know that there is another subcategory... w/c belong to those cars w/ turbos and those non-turbos, those exceeding 200hps and those under 200hps.. parang when we play gran tourismo diba there are those cars that belong to the class c, class b, class a (200 - 250hp i think).. and those under class s (supercar). ;)

**niky** · March 8th, 2007 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by redorange

Remove the WRX from that list and put in the up coming SE-R and you'd have a more equal comparison because all will fwd.

Mazdaspeed 3, 2.3L turbo, 263hp/280lb-ft
Civic SI, 2L, 197hp/139lb-ft
VW GTI, 2L turbo, 200hp/207lb-ft
Sentra SE-R V Spec, 2.5L, 200hp/180lb-ft
Chevy Cobalt SS, 2L Supercharged, 205hp/200lb-ft

As you can see the Civic falls far short in terms of torque which is what you need to accelerate. The Mazda AFAIK is close to what the stock internals can take at it's current boost level. The GTI can put out more hp with just a chip and isn't even close what the stock internals can take. Sentra is most likey at it's max as a normally aspirated motor. Cobalt can be bought from the dealer with stage 1 or stage 2 kits to make it put out 270hp with a manufacturer warranty.

Horsepower wise they can come close to a WRX but handling will be another story all together. The limitations of fwd vs awd is what makes the WRX a better vehicle. I drove my nephews Vishnu modded WRX with the 2L boxer which was up to STI territory in horsepower. I still can't believe the speed I was able to take corners in that car, only the EVO we test drove comes close. The acceleration was even more amazing with 2nd gear good for 70mph=112km/h and that was still with the stock turbo. Too bad he sold it for a BMW 3 series.

Heres a comparison made with some of the cars mentioned above.
http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...ars/index.html

RE: Mazda3 motor: There's a Mazda factory upgrade (chip) that can take the same motor to 300hp in the 6. We haven't seen how far it can go, but I'm guessing the aftermarket will have it up to 350-400 hp before the end of the year.

Handling, well, it depends on the situation. There are front-wheel drive vehicles that handle very very well, but they're just not as fast on the race track because of the lack of traction out of corners. Cars like the Focus RS or Lotus Elan are nimbler than the WRX STi, but they'll get spanked on a race-track out due to traction out of corners. The drivetrain's effect on how fast a car can go through a sharp corner isn't that big. What's big is its effect on how the car gets out of the corner.

But that lack of traction really hurts. My friend who has a turbocharged Lynx still grumbles that the turn of speed is still no match for even a regular WRX.