1999 Civic Si vs 2012 Civic Si
06-15-2011, 08:40 AM
#31
Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k' timestamp='1308073884' post='20681650
[quote name='JonBoy' timestamp='1307994978' post='20678133']
I'll be the first to admit I'm still in love with the slow, outdated S2000 and would gladly buy another if the right opportunity presented itself, despite the fact that an MS3 would kill it at the track or a Mustang GT would leave it for dead in just about any performance contest...
I'll be the first to admit I'm still in love with the slow, outdated S2000 and would gladly buy another if the right opportunity presented itself, despite the fact that an MS3 would kill it at the track or a Mustang GT would leave it for dead in just about any performance contest...
The older models are flat out more fun. I own a '92 Integra GS-R which is very similar to the EM1 Si (double wishbone suspension, B17A (near identical to the B16A) and light weight). Stock 0-60 was 6.7 seconds and 15.4 quarter mile so color me not impressed with the new Si. Oh and still gets up to 33 mpg on the highway.
Also, the old models wouldn't even be "legal" today with their lower levels of safety equipment, poorer crash resistance and the like. I don't disagree that they can be more fun but they're also significantly outdated in some serious ways.
[/quote]
So you think it's fair to heap praise on the new model b/c it is able to achieve equal performance and gas mileage to an older model despite the increased weight of safety equipment? Over the span of 20 years if that's all Honda can do I'd say that's pretty sad.
06-15-2011, 08:57 AM
#32
Heaping praise? 
I think you'd be hard pressed to say I'm doing that.
It's all MOST manufacturers can really say. New cars are heavier, more powerful, and safer and yet they've generally improved straight line performance and fuel efficiency by a moderate amount. It's a pretty big challenge to change weight by 15% and also improve fuel efficiency by the same amount, while adding in new features and technology while DROPPING (based on inflation) the price.
Additionally, your 33 mpg rating from 1999 is not the same as a 33 mpg rating from 2011.
I think you'd be hard pressed to say I'm doing that.It's all MOST manufacturers can really say. New cars are heavier, more powerful, and safer and yet they've generally improved straight line performance and fuel efficiency by a moderate amount. It's a pretty big challenge to change weight by 15% and also improve fuel efficiency by the same amount, while adding in new features and technology while DROPPING (based on inflation) the price.
Additionally, your 33 mpg rating from 1999 is not the same as a 33 mpg rating from 2011.
06-15-2011, 09:05 AM
#33
Heaping praise? I think you'd be hard pressed to say I'm doing that.
It's all MOST manufacturers can really say. New cars are heavier, more powerful, and safer and yet they've generally improved straight line performance and fuel efficiency by a moderate amount. It's a pretty big challenge to change weight by 15% and also improve fuel efficiency by the same amount, while adding in new features and technology while DROPPING (based on inflation) the price.
Additionally, your 33 mpg rating from 1999 is not the same as a 33 mpg rating from 2011.
I think you'd be hard pressed to say I'm doing that.It's all MOST manufacturers can really say. New cars are heavier, more powerful, and safer and yet they've generally improved straight line performance and fuel efficiency by a moderate amount. It's a pretty big challenge to change weight by 15% and also improve fuel efficiency by the same amount, while adding in new features and technology while DROPPING (based on inflation) the price.
Additionally, your 33 mpg rating from 1999 is not the same as a 33 mpg rating from 2011.
But I will say that my GS-R is not "rated" at 33mpg highway. That's what I have attested to with my own eyes
I think the EPA hwy rating was actually around 29mpg. Doesn't sound great for a 1.7L engine, but with a 4.4 final drive not much you can do about it. Out of curiousity I'll iook it up when I go home, as I've kept every issue of Car and Driver since 1990 hahaha 
06-15-2011, 09:15 AM
#34
Every issue? Holy cow!
06-15-2011, 09:21 AM
#35
Yup. Also have over 10 years of Automobile and Motor Trend, and every issue of Road & Track from the mid 90s to present. They're all on a bookshelf, maybe I'll take a pic 
06-15-2011, 08:33 PM
#37
Originally Posted by ElTianti' timestamp='1308086924' post='20682535
[quote name='JonBoy' timestamp='1308077268' post='20681929']
[quote name='WolfpackS2k' timestamp='1308073884' post='20681650']
[quote name='JonBoy' timestamp='1307994978' post='20678133']
I'll be the first to admit I'm still in love with the slow, outdated S2000 and would gladly buy another if the right opportunity presented itself, despite the fact that an MS3 would kill it at the track or a Mustang GT would leave it for dead in just about any performance contest...
[quote name='WolfpackS2k' timestamp='1308073884' post='20681650']
[quote name='JonBoy' timestamp='1307994978' post='20678133']
I'll be the first to admit I'm still in love with the slow, outdated S2000 and would gladly buy another if the right opportunity presented itself, despite the fact that an MS3 would kill it at the track or a Mustang GT would leave it for dead in just about any performance contest...
The older models are flat out more fun. I own a '92 Integra GS-R which is very similar to the EM1 Si (double wishbone suspension, B17A (near identical to the B16A) and light weight). Stock 0-60 was 6.7 seconds and 15.4 quarter mile so color me not impressed with the new Si. Oh and still gets up to 33 mpg on the highway.
Also, the old models wouldn't even be "legal" today with their lower levels of safety equipment, poorer crash resistance and the like. I don't disagree that they can be more fun but they're also significantly outdated in some serious ways.
[/quote]
Send me $50!
The S2000 CR is more than a second faster around VIR than either iteration of the MS3
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...to_2011_page_8
[/quote]
I said S2000, not S2000 CR and those times were not done on the same day, either. The same list shows a 335i being 3s faster than the lighter, more tossable 135i with equal power levels.....on different days.
[/quote]
just pay him the cash bro..times are times you shouldnt have said anything to begin with when you didnt know for sure...
06-15-2011, 08:52 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JonBoy' timestamp='1308157057' post='20685307
Heaping praise? I think you'd be hard pressed to say I'm doing that.
It's all MOST manufacturers can really say. New cars are heavier, more powerful, and safer and yet they've generally improved straight line performance and fuel efficiency by a moderate amount. It's a pretty big challenge to change weight by 15% and also improve fuel efficiency by the same amount, while adding in new features and technology while DROPPING (based on inflation) the price.
Additionally, your 33 mpg rating from 1999 is not the same as a 33 mpg rating from 2011.
I think you'd be hard pressed to say I'm doing that.It's all MOST manufacturers can really say. New cars are heavier, more powerful, and safer and yet they've generally improved straight line performance and fuel efficiency by a moderate amount. It's a pretty big challenge to change weight by 15% and also improve fuel efficiency by the same amount, while adding in new features and technology while DROPPING (based on inflation) the price.
Additionally, your 33 mpg rating from 1999 is not the same as a 33 mpg rating from 2011.
But I will say that my GS-R is not "rated" at 33mpg highway. That's what I have attested to with my own eyes
I think the EPA hwy rating was actually around 29mpg. Doesn't sound great for a 1.7L engine, but with a 4.4 final drive not much you can do about it. Out of curiousity I'll iook it up when I go home, as I've kept every issue of Car and Driver since 1990 hahaha forget this thread. you've got EVERY issue since 1990?! DUDE!
06-16-2011, 03:01 PM
#39
As promised here are some photos of my collection:
First pic is the whole collection
2nd is just Car and Driver
3rd is C&D's preview of the S2000
Last is Road & Track's cover when the S2000 first came out.
There's a lot of knowledge and stats in these magazines so if anyone ever wants me to look something up (for whatever reason) just lemme know
First pic is the whole collection
2nd is just Car and Driver
3rd is C&D's preview of the S2000
Last is Road & Track's cover when the S2000 first came out.
There's a lot of knowledge and stats in these magazines so if anyone ever wants me to look something up (for whatever reason) just lemme know
