2013 Civic SI Coupe Review

[Coogles]

When I bought my GTI in October 2010 I really didn't seriously consider the Si, despite loving the '96 Accord I was using as a daily driver at the time. The K20 was just gutless off idle and the interior was really low-rent, especially in comparison to the GTI. The Speed3 and WRX put up much better fights, but the GTI still wound up in my garage. After having a 15 year old Accord with 180k miles that still ran like a champ getting another Honda was definitely a possibility, but I just couldn't get myself to pull the trigger on the 2011 Si.

I do find myself looking at the '13s occasionally, although I have yet to drive one. It seems silly to ditch a car that hasn't given me any trouble in the name of reliability, but I still think about it every once in awhile. With 28 payments left I could cut about $150/mo off my payment, but I'd be back to a 5 year loan.

Eh, I love this car. Until it gives me reason to doubt its ability to go 10 years without any major repairs I should keep it. A carbon cleaning at year 5 years / 40k miles and the other basics will hopefully get me there.

 

[adolan21]

I've already gotten quotes for about 2k under msrp on a fully loaded Focus ST....

TrueCar in my area has $2790 under msrp for a fully loaded ST, that's a great price. ST2 has can be had for under $25K in my area I think I may have to put the ST on my list if the discounts are that good.

 

[Gunkata]

TrueCar in my area has $2790 under msrp for a fully loaded ST, that's a great price. ST2 has can be had for under $25K in my area I think I may have to put the ST on my list if the discounts are that good.

 

[colslaw87]

To the OP's post, my friend has an 8th gen Civic Si Sedan. He bought the Si early in mid 2000's when the Si hit it's mass market popularity. He chose the Si over the GTI only based on initial price and future price of maintenance.

I'm so much happier in my GTI, but having a solid N/A motor has its benefits to. My only gripe is its lack of OOMPH, just as others have said. On normal street driving, the GTI is a lot of fun because you get low end torque that's actually usable. The Si needs an 8,000rpm spanking to feel its available power. Pretty useless on the street. Having driven his Si, I'm so glad I went with the GTI.

 

[adolan21]

To the OP's post, my friend has an 8th gen Civic Si Sedan. He bought the Si early in mid 2000's when the Si hit it's mass market popularity. He chose the Si over the GTI only based on initial price and future price of maintenance.

I'm so much happier in my GTI, but having a solid N/A motor has its benefits to. My only gripe is its lack of OOMPH, just as others have said. On normal street driving, the GTI is a lot of fun because you get low end torque that's actually usable. The Si needs an 8,000rpm spanking to feel its available power. Pretty useless on the street. Having driven his Si, I'm so glad I went with the GTI.

The 2012+ Si got a different motor with more torque available and available lower in the rev range so it isn't a problem anymore.

 

[colslaw87]

The 2012+ Si got a different motor with more torque available and available lower in the rev range so it isn't a problem anymore.

Yup, read about that.

 

[maxtdi]

The 2012+ Si got a different motor with more torque available and available lower in the rev range so it isn't a problem anymore.

According to most it is a problem that the car doesn't rev like a raped ape anymore while making little power... :laugh:

 

[johnnyveelish]

According to most it is a problem that the car doesn't rev like a raped ape anymore while making little power... :laugh:

You and your torque monster TDI

 

[SixSpeeder]

No kidding. It should pretty much be on ALL performance vehicles, regardless of destination. Why NOT have it perform to the best of its abilities.

But....I see the other side.

That's the type of thinking that almost got me killed multiple times in the snow with my 350z with summer tires and a quaife LSD. Almost slip-n-slided right under a semi :yikes:

 

[SayaGTI]

That's the type of thinking that almost got me killed multiple times in the snow with my 350z with summer tires and a quaife LSD. Almost slip-n-slided right under a semi :yikes:

Lol that's why I have two sets of wheels and tires for my Z.

 

[SixSpeeder]

ST is a much more powerful car...

According to the latest issue of Car and Driver, the new GTI is faster than the ST 0-60 and in the 1/4 mile. Compared to last years model, they claim the difference in speed is mostly because of the tires (summer vs last years all-season only.)

 

[D Griff]

You and your torque monster TDI

Yeah that torque monster that takes at least three seconds longer to 60 than an Si :laugh:

Honda's high revving, NA power is a good recipe for still being somewhat quick without roasting tires all the time.

 

[BlownFa5]

I've never been a fan of the 9th gen Si since the day it was announced. It's a "performance" trim of a vehicle that was designed with everything but performance in mind.

The only reason the 9th has a K24 is because Honda was too lazy/cheap to develop a performance engine that could meet economy/emissions requirements. So they grabbed an engine with similar power to the K20 from the shelf, threw it in there, and that's that.

Beside the K24Z7 being a long-stroke 4-banger (which has always been the basic template for building an economy engine), it contains other design features/compromises that purposely inhibit its performance, most notably the integrated exhaust manifold.

The K20Z3 isn't a purpose-built racing engine by any means. Afterall, it's a Honda K-series, which at its core is an engine family that was designed to perform a multitude of roles. But it's a fine engine in any form. However, while it may not be a racing engine, the K20Z3 is a pretty close copy thereof. Not bad, considering its roots.

In the K24Z7, on the other hand, the specific goal was economy. The 9th gen Si is the only car in which it serves as the "performance" option, and to me, that illustrates an attitude of sheer laziness and contempt on Honda's part, from engineering to marketing. If there had been a 2nd-gen S2000, and it came with a detuned version of the Accord V6, S2000 owners would be up in arms (in fact, many of them were, when Honda bumped the displacement to 2200cc).

Parts-bin performance that barely outperforms its predecessor, which at the time was still slow compared to the competition. The worst part is how they market it like a breakfast cereal ("Now with 30% more torque!"). As if no one would notice that they just stuck a slightly hopped-up Accord 4-cylinder in it, and called it a day. Sorry, but as a car enthusiast, it's an insult.

Big deal, it has 170ft/lbs of torque. Last I checked that still wasn't a lot. If torque was something I was looking for, I wouldn't be buying a N/A 4 banger to begin with.

Now is the 9th Gen Si a flat out terrible car? No. Is it an improvement at all over the 8th gen? Imo, yes and no. For a reliable dd to blandly get from point A to point B with marginally more performance, sure it is an improvement.

 

[johnnyveelish]

^ Yup! While the F22c marginally performed better stock, the F20c was better for tuning iirc. Did not matter to me one bit but the hardcore were up in arms because they felt the AP2's lose some rawness.

 

[grambles423]

1) the 9th generation platform is not conducive to a performance variant, but more so an economy utility. This was obvious when we release the 2012. Still we are cutting the bleeding and already looking ahead. Short model generation and definitely better things to come

2) to say that we were lazy, is ignorant. You didn't know out business strategy at the time. No one does. Key development was at an eclipse of a abysmal economy that tanked when funding was needed the most. Needless to say we dealt with the cards we were given and pressed onward. It wasn't the best I assure you.

3) People need to understand that exclusivity costs money. For a small lean company, that never bodes well to offer an exclusive platform with exclusive engines. Hence why it was cut. With a little more flexibility, you'll definitely see a lot more communizing of platforms with modular pieces. We've been doing it since 2005 and we'll continue to do it, but better optimized.

4) at this point, anything that Honda offers will constantly be criticized. Everything. Even though every model released in 2013 has been better on all accounts and will continue to get better. 2014 will be the same and the better things to come in 2015 and 2016 will only be shadowed by enthusiasts criticizing our work because we wont build a 2002 S2000 or a 97 ITR. It's the nature of the game.

5) Honda will reward those who wait and who are loyal. The MDX is better in every way. The SI is better than its ILX counterpart thus some changes are imminent. Technology is constantly evolving in our cars. The changes are there and the expectations are met, but what else do people need?

Oh ....... A performance model worthy of upstaging? Enter NSX. That's not good enough? Well......damnit.