So happy i bought an k20 instead of an r18

[StatuatoryGrapes]

Originally Posted by ryker

You can pick and choose numbers just like I can. From your own sources it's less than .5 second in the 1/4.

Soccer mom looks in the mirror and views the Si weaving in traffic. She decides to not let the pass and cut her off. So she let's the minivan open up and now you've been blocked by a minivan.

But I agree the Si with the k20z3 is a better sports car and it's amazing when modded. So are most sport compacts.

The r18 is good in its class. The si is a different class. R18 is lighter, cheaper to insure, uses low octane, way better mpg, no trans problems, has better balance. Stock suspension on the ex is crap. Simply add HFP and sway bars it becomes "fun" handling on the street. Sure on a track the Si LSD with HFP would be better.

After 53k miles the money saved on gas has paid for HFP and eibach sway bars.

Actually it is over .5 seconds faster in the quarter, which is more than a couple cars difference. Never had any problems merging or getting in front of people that did not want me to pass them.

I will agree that each car serves their own niche however

[ryker]

Originally Posted by I Vtec, do you?

I wouldn't say "way better gas". I used to get around 29-30 mpg in my LX. I get 27-29 MPG in my turbo'd SI. Even good mileage in my LX was like 32. And premium isn't required, just recommended.

Also, trans issues? There was a 3rd gear issue, all fixed. Not sure what you're referring to

85% of the Si owners report less than 30mpg.
50% of the Si owners report less than 26mpg.

8th Generation Honda Civic Forum - View Poll Results


R18 60% above 31mpg

8th Generation Honda Civic Forum - View Poll Results


After 50k miles my average is 32-33 mostly spirited driving. If the weather is good and I follow proper speeds the r18 gets 37+mpg.


Both cars owned for 50,000 miles. Low octane 3.30 and high octane 3.60. R18 at its lower average of 33mpg. Si at the higher end of its average Of 27mpg
The r18 will burn 1515 gallons at about $5000 in fuel cost.
The Si will burn about 340 more gallons and cost an extra $1600in fuel.

Not a big cost of you just look at per month cost. For many the extra "fun" would be worth 1600.00 per 50k miles.

[PrecisionX]

wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[chatttownstunna]

Originally Posted by PrecisionX

wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[SiSedan08]

I don't understand why people are getting bent out of shape....seriously. I've owned an r18 and I currently on an Si. r18 owners be happy with the fact you have a solid car. It's a good daily commuter, good mpg's, that is fun to drive (for what it is). My r18 was a nice car, the mpg's weren't as high as some owners have reported but I respect the car for what it is. I upgraded from my r18 because I wanted something more fun to drive and something that was more sporty in nature while still being able to get me from point A to point B.

I would never sit there and say that my Si is better than the r18 in terms of mpg's and just being a commuter car. Then again I would never say that my r18 is a better car than the Si in any performance related aspect, fun factor, or soul for that matter. They are two different cares that should never be compared...they only share a similar shell and that is it.

R18 owners stop coming up with reason's on how you can make your car as fun as an Si. I believe you could, but at what costs? I'm not trying to be an arse about it but I would never say I could make my r18 as fun to drive as my Si.

As far as me not having passing power...even when I was stock I had no issues merging and getting out in front of people. Also those who say 22K for a civic si is a bad deal? Not really. If you paid 22K for a standard Si then you don't know how to haggle. I paid 21,750 for my Si with nav and summer tires...what is comparable for me? A 26K gti (equipped the same), for the difference in price I can boost my car. No the Si is not a fast car but it has enough thrill stock to get your heart beating and with minor bolt ons (i/h/e+fp) you can have a car that will run pretty strong.

At the end of the day we are all civic owners, so we should be on the same team. Think we all need a

[I Vtec, do you?]

Originally Posted by ryker

85% of the Si owners report less than 30mpg.
50% of the Si owners report less than 26mpg.

8th Generation Honda Civic Forum - View Poll Results


R18 60% above 31mpg

8th Generation Honda Civic Forum - View Poll Results


After 50k miles my average is 32-33 mostly spirited driving. If the weather is good and I follow proper speeds the r18 gets 37+mpg.


Both cars owned for 50,000 miles. Low octane 3.30 and high octane 3.60. R18 at its lower average of 33mpg. Si at the higher end of its average Of 27mpg
The r18 will burn 1515 gallons at about $5000 in fuel cost.
The Si will burn about 340 more gallons and cost an extra $1600in fuel.

Not a big cost of you just look at per month cost. For many the extra "fun" would be worth 1600.00 per 50k miles.

Eh, I'm not going to just trust what people put up in a poll. Not only can anyone lie (and I bet some people do because for whatever reason, they feel better about saying they got 35 mpg instead of 31), but you're comparing two different audiences for the most part. SI owners, on average, are going to drive their cars harder than an R18 owner.

Not to mention, $1600 over 50k miles? 1600 / 4 years = $400 a year, or $1.10 a day. I'll take that 'premium' with over 400 whp

[HeelsandEers]

If those numbers are in fact accurate, I have spent $800 more in my lifetime on gas than I would have driving an r18 LOL

$160 a year.

Worth it? I'd say so.

[Johnold]

The way Gas prices are looking, I would stay with your 8thgen period! Whether it be an Si or R18.

I feel sorry for those that have turbo'd cars right now cause i'm sure the bad MPG's aren't good for the wallet.

[LuVHonda]

Originally Posted by lucasbutts

I drove a 2010 Si and a 2010 DX and bought the DX.... why pay almost 30k for an Si, seems a bit ridiculous you can buy a barely, BARELY used STI for that price which is clearly a better overall car... If performance is what you want and your an Si owner harping on the r18 owners because its so much better performance wise, you look like a jackass.

Lol if you were quoted near 30k for a 2010 SI they were trying to bend you over. Got my SI for 23,500 otd 7 miles on it. I know also there are people in here who got better deals.

[I Vtec, do you?]

Originally Posted by Johnold

The way Gas prices are looking, I would stay with your 8thgen period! Whether it be an Si or R18.

I feel sorry for those that have turbo'd cars right now cause i'm sure the bad MPG's aren't good for the wallet.

Haven't even noticed a difference in gas mileage since turbo'ing my car

[Berndonfat]

Originally Posted by I Vtec, do you?

Haven't even noticed a difference in gas mileage since turbo'ing my car

yeah seriously i get the same gas mileage in my gti that i got in the si

[Sugar Shane]

R18 engine was designed for durability and fuel economy. K20 was designed to produce 100hp/liter and rev to 8000+ RPM. If you were to make a V8 using 2 of them, you'd have an engine that's very similar to what's in a BMW M3.

Now, compare that engine to the 3 liter 6 in the E90 328i (not the turbo version), and imagine this same conversation on a 3-series forum. Only in that case, BMW designed their base engine with performance in mind as well, yet it still makes for a completely stupid argument, because there is no comparison in the way the two engines perform, even when you ignore the huge disparity in power output.

Where was I going with this? Oh yes, that's right: debating the merits of the standard/economy version of a car to the performance version makes no sense, because they were both designed by the same people to occupy different market segments. If BMW wanted the 328i to be comparable to the M3, they would just make it an M3 and sell it for twice the money, and if Honda wanted the Civic DX/LX/EX to perform like the Si, they'd just stop making the lower models and build more Si's.

The differences between the BMWs are greater than the differences between the 2 Civics are, of course, much greater, which is why the price gap between an EX and an Si isn't on the same scale. If Honda had decided to make the Si worth twice as much as a regular Civic, I'm positive that this thread would not exist. Luckily for us, Honda compromises, and we have access to a fun car that doesn't require the sale of spare body parts to own.

TL;DR summary: Comparing the base and performance versions of a car is dumb. If the two were meant to compete with one another, the manufacturer would only make one of them. And if your auntie had a d!ck, she'd be your uncle.

[HeelsandEers]

Originally Posted by Sugar Shane

TL;DR summary: Comparing the base and performance versions of a car is dumb. If the two were meant to compete with one another, the manufacturer would only make one of them. And if your auntie had a d!ck, she'd be your uncle.

tl;dr

[muxon]

R18 owner here.

Here's a consideration: when I was looking for my next car, my goals were good gas mileage, manual transmission, and I wanted to spend about $10k used. I preferred a sporty/attractive car, but it wasn't the only thing. I had already owned a 2000 Celica GT-S 6 speed for 9 years, so I am familiar with a high revving, nice handling car. I had also done basic mods (intake, exhaust, clutch, flywheel, short shifter) and purchased rims and stuff. Now that I'm almost 30, and seeing my Celica and all the money I put into it become practically worthless in its well-used state, I was ready to focus more on practicality and reliability.

I was all set on a 2007 Toyota Yaris when I found my 2006 Civic. Comparing them, the Yaris is rated at 40MPG highway, and the Civic 38. Both were about the same price. I don't think the Yaris looks bad (especially with some subtle exterior mods: http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/f...7/IMG_2741.jpg), but the Civic definitely looks better and has a far nicer interior (the Yaris doesn't even have a tach ffs). And for nearly the same fuel economy, I get 140HP instead of 105 in the Yaris.

This is not to say the SI isn't a better car, but let's not pretend there's no reason anyone would want something else.

[Leonard1818]

Contrary to the last poster, for me, it kinda depends what you're coming from. I doubt I'd be able to go from a modded celica GT-S to an R18 civic. For me, all of my cars have had to be a tad better if not the same power-wise but better handling. I'd be hard-pressed to get rid of my Si for ANYTHING right now... moreso to get rid of it for something less fun to drive.

[evillllsinz]

I was on the verge of getting an r18 or a fit, but I'm glad I got the Si even though the mileage isnt as great... It's fun to drive, but still quiet and tame when I need it to be.

[Sugar Shane]

Originally Posted by muxon

This is not to say the SI isn't a better car, but let's not pretend there's no reason anyone would want something else.

Let's also not pretend that the R18 powered Civics offer comparable performance to the Si (as some other posters have tried to do) when they clearly weren't meant to.

If my purchasing criteria were the same as yours, I'd probably drive an EX coupe, and be perfectly happy with it. However, since my priorities were different, (and not nearly as sensible as yours, I might add) I'm on my 2nd Si coupe, and I couldn't be happier.

[muxon]

Originally Posted by Leonard1818

Contrary to the last poster, for me, it kinda depends what you're coming from. I doubt I'd be able to go from a modded celica GT-S to an R18 civic. For me, all of my cars have had to be a tad better if not the same power-wise but better handling. I'd be hard-pressed to get rid of my Si for ANYTHING right now... moreso to get rid of it for something less fun to drive.

I found it incredibly difficult to find a car that appealed to me more than my Celica, which is why I owned it for 9 years and put 208,000 miles on it. It looked great, had amazing handling, put out respectable horsepower, and was ridiculously fun to drive. It also had leather interior, a nice factory sound system, projector headlights, and could still hit 36MPG if I drove like a grandma.

I still don't know what would have been an upgrade in all categories. There almost had to be a compromise (in appearance, power, or fuel economy). I also had less to budget this time around, since I bought the Celica when I was 19 and had ****loads of money laying around, and no real living expenses.

I do kinda feel like I gave up on my (once) dream car, and it's been hard to get attached to my Civic as a result. I do still have the Celica, but it needs some engine & transmission work that I don't have time or money to get done. I'd love to do a Monkeywrench Racing 2ZZ 2.0L stroker kit in it and take it up to 13.5:1 compression.

Damn, I should have gotten an SI.

[Strate L O S S]

you would have loved it^

[HeelsandEers]

There's still time.