Sign In Join 



Honda Civic Coupe / Civic Si 2006+

1033 messages,  Last post on Sep 15, 2009 at 7:27 PM

You are in the Honda Civic Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Honda Civic, Coupe, Hatchback


Messages Page 101 of 104
1
...
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#994 of 1033
Re: Civic SI comfortable on long drives and other questions [themistocles] by punkr77
Sep 29, 2007 (5:45 pm)
Reply

Replying to: themistocles (Aug 05, 2007 2:49 pm)

I'll vouch for the seats in the Si. Very, very comfy.
 
As far as learning to drive on it, I wouldn't sweat it too much, as long as you give yourself a bit to get comfortable before shifting into boy racer mode.
 
Other than a 5 minute drive in an old Porsche 944, I had never driven a manual before I bought my 95 Civic EX manual new. I stalled it a few times on the test drive. I was fairly comfortable with it in a day (though hills took a couple of weeks).
 
My dad had it after me, and relearned how to drive a MT after 25 years in automatics. It still had the original clutch and tranny when he sold it 6 months ago (with 115k on the clock).
 
Running a manual in traffic can be a pain for some. On the up side, the civic has a super light clutch, so it's more of a figurative pain. As long as you don't anticipate eating, talking on the phone, and shaving while you (attempt to) drive, you should be OK> Doing stop and go in my 99 Mustang Cobra for 4 hours (hurrican evacuation) was a LITERAL pain. I could barely walk when I got out of the car.
#995 of 1033
Re: impressive but pointless [kenlw] by eldaino
Oct 10, 2007 (8:24 am)
Reply

Replying to: kenlw (Sep 28, 2007 7:32 am)

ken do you have any real knowledge about the tuning 'scene' because to say that only a garage build for real races is what works is just as bad as the kids who think they are cool with the fart can mufflers.
 
ASIDE from the exquiste power to weight ratio, and stock handling traits, putting a more powerful engine into civic is easy because honda also built the more powerful engine; done properly, there are virtually no issues, and its been proven.
 
And probably the main reason that souping up small honda four cylinders ever got popular is BECAUSE they are legendary for accepting powerful mods WIHOUT any affect to reliabilty. Again, something that has been proven. Do they fail sometimes? Ofcourse, but the reason many are drawn to honda is the fact that the engines are bulletproof to being with.
 
As far as the camry goes, it really has NOTHING going for it, no ounce of handling or a good power to weight ratio. THAT is whats pointless.
 
Mind you, the mods in question that i was reffering to on smaller hondas are not very expensive at all. Certainly not the 30k some sports cars demand. Though you can spend that much and still obliterate them.
#996 of 1033
Re: impressive but pointless [eldaino] by punkr77
Oct 11, 2007 (5:09 pm)
Reply

Replying to: eldaino (Oct 10, 2007 8:24 am)

I always thought dumping money into an economy car to make it something it was never designed for was kind of silly. Taking a $20k car and dumping $10k into it just never made any sense to me when you could buy a $30k car that would be faster more often than not,still keep the new car warranty reliability and drivability. Not to mention that most insurance policies will only pony up what a stock car is worth if it's ever stolen or wrecked.
 
About the only thing sillier in my mind are the people who buy a $1,000 car and spend $8k on wheels and a really loud stereo.
#997 of 1033
Re: impressive but pointless [punkr77] by eldaino
Oct 12, 2007 (6:46 am)
Reply

Replying to: punkr77 (Oct 11, 2007 5:09 pm)

who says the car has to be 20K? My buddies civic cost him a few grand to purchase, and his total out of pocket cost was about 10k and he has enough performance to run with a 50k car.
 
Not to shabby in my opinion. It may not be everyone's 'thing' but everyone spends money, and sometimes a lot, on things that another person wouldn't. On a newer car it makes less sense, but the warranty isn't a real issue if you are the kind of guy who likes to work on your car and are only after performance...in other words a total moot point.
 
I to agree with the buying of a 1k car and adding 8k wheels, but thats not what were talking about.
#998 of 1033
Re: rattletrap [droman] by laynetc
Oct 13, 2007 (3:33 pm)
Reply

Replying to: droman (Mar 09, 2007 8:36 pm)

I just purchased a 2007 Civic SI Coupe. Generally, I like the car, but the are a lot of rattles. The dealer attempts to fix them ,but I am disappointed in buying a new car and having so many rattles to live with. Most of mine come from the right side of the car. Has anyone had the same problem and were you able to get this resolved. Most of the problem seems to come from the right door -- I would like to know if this is something that can be solved. Other than that, I am pretty happy with the car.
#999 of 1033
Re: rattletrap [laynetc] by punkr77
Oct 14, 2007 (9:58 am)
Reply

Replying to: laynetc (Oct 13, 2007 3:33 pm)

The only noises I've encountered with mine are a slight rattle from the sunroof sometimes and some front suspension "popping".
 
The sunroof thing only seems to happen when I've just pulled out of the garage. The alley behind my house is pretty rough and uneven, so I think it's just "settling in" after first being driven after me parking it in the garage and closing it.
 
The popping only happens at very low speeds when I hit a large bump. Usually pulling out of inclined driveways or out of businesses onto a street.
 
I wouldn't think a door rattle would be too hard to fix. Were it me, I'd try a different dealer. If they can't fix it. I'd get in touch with the regional service manager from Honda. Explain the problem, show him paperwork from your multiple visits, and ask for guidance. I would expect Honda would much rather make good on the problem rather than having an unhappy customer whose likely to share their problem with other potential buyers.
 
If that doesn't work, the last resort could be legal action. Perhaps taking it to an indy body shop and suing to recover the money.
#1000 of 1033
Running the Si on regular gas instead of premuium by coupe2
Dec 24, 2007 (7:13 am)
Reply
Does anybody know if you can re program the Si computer to run on mid greade or regular gas?
#1001 of 1033
Re: Running the Si on regular gas instead of premuium [coupe2] by shipo
Dec 24, 2007 (12:04 pm)
Reply

Replying to: coupe2 (Dec 24, 2007 7:13 am)

Most likely not. The Si has an 11.0:1 compression ratio and running anything less than Premium (91 AKI or higher) is a recipe for mechanical disaster. The question I have is, "Why would you want to?"
 
The reality is that even if your engine could safely run lower grades of fuel, your gas mileage will drop so much that the cheaper fuel (per gallon) will end up costing you more (i.e. cost per mile).
 
Best Regards,
Shipo
#1002 of 1033
Re: Running the Si on regular gas instead of premuium [shipo] by unkownuser
Dec 25, 2007 (8:14 am)
Reply

Replying to: shipo (Dec 24, 2007 12:04 pm)

Shipo, do you have real knowledge of your assertion that regular gas would destroy your SI engine ("mechanical disaster") and / or gas consumption would rise so much that it would cost more (which I guess assumes no mechanical disaster), or is this speculation?
 
Most ignition time these days is done with sensor to adjust same to prevent premature detanation. Question is, is this the case with the SI, given Honda's engineering quirkiness? I wonder what the exact words in the owners manual are regarding this.
#1003 of 1033
Re: Running the Si on regular gas instead of premuium [unkownuser] by shipo
Dec 25, 2007 (9:54 am)
Reply

Replying to: unkownuser (Dec 25, 2007 8:14 am)

I'll deal with the reduction in mileage first. Fact: Any engine that is designed to be able to take advantage of Premium fuel WILL get measurably worse mileage when the timing is retarded to allow it to safely burn Regular. Period, full stop, the end.
 
As for the issue of mechanical damage, no, I have no first hand experience of destroying an Si engine (or any other high compression engine that "Requires" Premium fuel for that matter), I simply will not subject my engines to that kind of abuse. That said, I've been turning wrenches for over thirty years and have seen the results of octane skimping any number of times, and it ain't pretty.
 
The fact is that as compression ratio rises, the heat generated from the compression will eventually reach a point where it is too high for any amount of timing retardation to prevent detonation (and engine damage as a result). Is it 10.5:1? How about 11.0:1? Maybe 11.5:1? I don't know for sure where the threshold is (it varies by engine, OAT, humidity, altitude, and a few other variables), however, I do know one thing for sure, the engineers at Honda don't just "Recommend" Premium fuel (which is the language usually reserved for cars that CAN retard the timing far enough to burn Regular), they "Require" it. Given that Honda engineers have a very good reputation with regards to the care and feeding of the engines they design, my bet is that if they say that Premium fuel is "Required", only a fool would tempt fate and run anything less than 91 AKI in their Si.
 
Best Regards,
Shipo

Messages Page 101 of 104
1
...
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement