Speed mag comparo " SC tc vs Civic Si " [Archive]

Charade_Detomasso

01-07-2006, 07:31 AM

ok the Si handles better, but the tC SHOULD accelerate much faster than the Si.

I guess I could see why the Si should win

6 speed, Better handeling, lightweight, 8k RPM.

Maybe its not as fast in the straight line, but it doesnt lose so much that its a deciding factor.

I dont care, the tC is much more drivable and respected on the road.

...the civic weights pretty much the same as the tC... so "light weight" would not be one of its advantages

i didnt say that it was an advantage, i was just saying that it is lightweight. i think we can all agree that the Si is a lightweight vehicle.

I would consider a lotus elise lightweight, a toyota MR-S lightweight, civic type r, integra type r (JDM DC2) Celica SSII (JDM GTS) all lightweight.... Anything over 2800lbs is no longer 'lightweight' to me unless it comes stock with at astarting point of 250hp.. case in point, Honda S2000.

I think anybody who called the tC a 'porker' when it launched, is a hypocrite for calling the new si 'lightweight' *n.b. this particular comment was not directed at you*

TheQuietThings

01-07-2006, 07:57 AM

ok the Si handles better, but the tC SHOULD accelerate much faster than the Si.

I guess I could see why the Si should win

6 speed, Better handeling, lightweight, 8k RPM.

Maybe its not as fast in the straight line, but it doesnt lose so much that its a deciding factor.

I dont care, the tC is much more drivable and respected on the road.

...the civic weights pretty much the same as the tC... so "light weight" would not be one of its advantages

to my understanding, i thought the rule of thumb was anything under 3000lbs. is leightweight.

i didnt say that it was an advantage, i was just saying that it is lightweight. i think we can all agree that the Si is a lightweight vehicle.

I would consider a lotus elise lightweight, a toyota MR-S lightweight, civic type r, integra type r (JDM DC2) Celica SSII (JDM GTS) all lightweight.... Anything over 2800lbs is no longer 'lightweight' to me unless it comes stock with at astarting point of 250hp.. case in point, Honda S2000.

I think anybody who called the tC a 'porker' when it launched, is a hypocrite for calling the new si 'lightweight' *n.b. this particular comment was not directed at you*

to my understanding, i thought the general rule of thumb was that any car under 3000lbs. is lightweight.

06SuperWhite_SoCal_tC

01-07-2006, 10:15 AM

From what i hear Honda has their hands in a fair bit of Media. Which could have them enough pull in the industry to Scew things in their Favor. SC tC > 06 Si :bow:

hadji

01-07-2006, 11:44 AM

It was a biased comparison, for it to be fair the tC should have had all TRD parts on it instead of all the cosmetic parts. I think they should have used a tC with the Turbonetics kit on it, not fair for the Si, but I don't own a Si! :eyebrow:

racecaryaya

01-07-2006, 02:00 PM

"Lightweight" is relative anymore, especially with all of the US safety criteria that has to be met. Most every car now is heavier than it previous generation. However: At 2200lbs a Lotus Exige is undoubtedley a "lightweight," I would dare to call it an "ultra-lightweight" by todays standards. At 2900lbs I would consider the Si and tC light-middleweights. Those are base weights—adding the ground effects, wing and 18" wheels all add significant weight (probably 300-400lbs) putting either car out of any lightweight catagory. It actually borders on the "heavy-as-a-pig" category which many people are classifying the '06 Jetta GLI (3300lbs).

IMHO.

marinoTC

01-07-2006, 05:00 PM

IMO i think the tC is waaaay better than the Si. my bet is in the next year there will be twice as many Si's on the road than tC's. just bc it's a honda and it is the ultimate "ricer" mobile.

HAHAHA

01-07-2006, 05:19 PM

The tc is a cheaper made car with so many issues, the Si is more sporty and well made.

HAHAHA

01-07-2006, 05:19 PM

The tc is a cheaper made car with so many issues, the Si is more sporty and well made.

uberscionofglendale

01-07-2006, 05:58 PM

looked up the curb weights...28 pound difference. i don't think 2900 pounds is lightweight...personally (si 2877, tC in manual is 2905). i think what's sad, is that if you look just at our forums alone, it's easy to see that the ricer crowd has already attached itself to the tC. i'm sure the new Si will take some of them back though. man i love seeing a cleany done tC. clean being the key word :P

emiller

01-07-2006, 06:03 PM

The tc is a cheaper made car with so many issues, the Si is more sporty and well made.

It hasnt even been out for long yet. You dont know how it will hold up yet. My tC has no issues either.

Erok

01-07-2006, 06:07 PM

From what i hear Honda has their hands in a fair bit of Media. Which could have them enough pull in the industry to Scew things in their Favor. SC tC > 06 Si :bow:

You've got to be kidding me.

lyrictenor1

01-07-2006, 06:10 PM

HAHAHA wrote:
The tc is a cheaper made car with so many issues, the Si is more sporty and well made.

I smell a troll....

TheQuietThings

01-07-2006, 06:13 PM

i smell pancakes!!!

killerxromances

01-07-2006, 06:17 PM

The only main difference with Honda vs. Toyota is the fact Honda puts more performance thought into all their cars vs. Toyota as far as general overall class specs.

As for the s/c tC vs. Si.. Its not impossible for the Si to beat the s/c tc, gearing plays a huge role as well as about another 100 small things.

Bottom line is, the Si overall performs better than the tC regardless of what you guys may think. Most of you haven't even test driven a 06' Si, so most of the interior remarks you guys have are not really valid.

I've personally test driven a 06' Si, its pretty fast stock. Faster than a s/c tC, debateable. But not imposslbe. All whp on the Si is top end, so once it gets in high rpm and stays there (also help with vtec), its a pretty mean car. Obviously s/c tC will beat off the line. But who knows, until someone shows a video of several runs with the two i don't believe you guys are going to believe it.

Honda and Toyota both have reliable cars, you guys put down Honda like its some mid 90's Kia.

TheQuietThings

01-07-2006, 06:21 PM

As for the s/c tC vs. Si.. Its not impossible for the Si to beat the s/c tc, gearing plays a huge role as well as about another 100 small things.

Bottom line is, the Si overall performs better than the tC regardless of what you guys may think. Most of you haven't even test driven a 06' Si, so most of the interior remarks you guys have are not really valid.

at least someone else can think with a clearly and intelligently.

kungpaosamuraiii

01-07-2006, 07:05 PM

Yes, but when whp on car A matches bhp on car B added to that gearing is pretty similar (I doubt the Si would have even more aggressive gearing than the tC but it's possible with such relatively low torque in the early rpm band the Si could make better use of more aggressive gearing than the tC - aka, burnout city) and weight being pretty similar, car A should win in a speed competition.

What could have been a big factor is the spinning tires that I mentioned.

In anycase, in an overall comparison, I have no doubt the Si would beat the tC. The only thing an SC does is add power; it doesn't make the car handle better, it doesn't make the car apply power to the ground better (worse in fact) it doesn't even make the car look better (from the outside of course.. underhood aesthetics don't count!)

killerxromances

01-07-2006, 07:11 PM

scrap

01-07-2006, 07:53 PM

killerxromances

01-07-2006, 08:47 PM

They should have gotten the TC with the entire TRD package springs, shocks, sways, shifter, clutch and supercharger. Instead they put fogs and a ground kit on it not performace stuff. With the entire TRD package the TC will win but thats just my thoughts.

I seriously doubt even with the complete "trd package" the tC would win everything, even if it did, you've spent around $22,000+ after everything.

killerxromances

01-07-2006, 08:49 PM

^ ^

Not only that, but as i've said since day one, comparing a modified car to a stock car is ridiculously stupid when you compare performance to performance.

scrap

01-07-2006, 10:08 PM

killerxromances

01-07-2006, 10:38 PM

We are not comparing a modified car against a stock car the SI is the performance edtion of the civic line up, it comes with performance parts. LSD, 8000g redline,I-VTEC, and performace suspension. The TC with the TRD package is the TC's performance ed. I think you get alot more car with the TC for the price. We really don't know until they race. I drive a TC so I will give my car the edge. Also If you compare a stock TC to the EX model they are in the same price range and the TC beats that .

Technically speaking, you are correct. However, we are not talking about trim levels of the civic. We are talking about the Si comparing to tC. The Si is stock if you do nothing to it from the factory, regardless of its trim level. TRD tC is not stock for the fact it didn't come like that from factory. Also, with the s/c, regardless of the trd name its not stock. 2az does not come boosted therefore you can't say a trd s/c installed on a tC is stock either.

Trim level doesn't effect wether a car is stock or not. I think you tCers for whatever reason just can't accept the fact the Si is a better performing car from the factory. Any car can be modified to beat any other car, you could dump $15k into the tC and out perform an STI, for example. It doesn't prove the tC is a better car than the STi, it just proves with $15k it can be faster. Same concept, just a different car and price range.

Someone buys an Si and doesn't do anything else to it, that Si is stock.

KevinxB

01-07-2006, 10:49 PM

Celt

01-07-2006, 11:28 PM

I have driven the Si yesterday and like it a lot. but, I prefer the tC styling.

That said, the honda dashboard is an unusual lay out but feels better quality than the tC. It feels (and is) considerably faster than my NA tC.The back end just isnt winning me over. Its a very good car BUT It just isnt who I am.

It appears that Scion have hit a real niche in the market with the tC.Most honda guys dream of having a NSX or other big boy ricer. Where as I think that most tC guys have a bit more a Euro outlook to car styling.I know on this website alone the amount of people who attack any post mentioning spinners or Mach 3 razor style spoilers.

Put VW badges on the tC and its a modern day Corrado!(an awsome car, my friend had a VR6 in red) I even traded my black jetta for the tC.

What do you think???
Is the tC the most EURO coupe to come out of Japan?

killerxromances

01-07-2006, 11:33 PM

Lets face it, its big business, tempted by too much money and other external pressures for their agenda to be geared toward the American consumer.

Care to explain that astute observation? How does favoring one Japanese car over another give the magazine an "agenda geared toward the American consumer?" If anything, Honda is the underdog compared to Toyota, who as I'm sure you've read, is now poised to challenge GM as the world's biggest automaker.

If there were any truth in that American consumer agenda thing you said, this comparison would be between the Si and something like the Cobalt SS and they would have praised the Chevy while shooting down the Honda.

Actually, i wouldn't say honda is the underdog at all. The Scion tC still has much to prove as far as competing with other japanesse vehicles. If anything, the 06' Si has the upper hand in the sense of aftermarket availability. The k20z isn't anything new. I do see a point when it comes to styling, the 06 Si has pretty much a complete bumper to bumper make over. In that sense, the tC has the upperhand. While performance wise, i'd say the Si has the upper hand by far, because truth is the Si performs way over the tC stock for stock. tC with s/c, Si will still overall perform better. It could be just as fast if not a little faster thanks to gearing and top end, but overall. Hands down.

People that bring up "Si is not a stock Civic" to me, personally is just trying to find a way out to justify boosting a 2az in the mix. No offense to those that support this arguement, but stock for stock performance you cannot do that. As i've stated already, trim levels has nothing to do with a car being stock or not.

However, magizines have nothing to gain by putting down the Scion tC. Infact, many mags have already praised the tC on many levels. So i wouldn't use that either, with their drivers obviously the Si won hands down. So you guys can just deal with. :P

By the way, i'm not hating on the tC at all, but the Si overall performs better and you guys just need to live with that fact.

KevinxB

01-07-2006, 11:41 PM

killerxromances

01-07-2006, 11:47 PM

I'm not talking about comparing the tC and the Si when I say one is the underdog. I'm talking about the manufacturers as companies and in that regard, while Honda may have more credibility in the sport compact segment, they lag behind Toyota in overall profitability and total market share. My question for the original poster was how exactly is it that these companies are to blame for unbiased or skewed automotive journalism.

I can answer for the original poster, they can't be blammed. Because they make nothing out of it for totally putting down the tC when before the Si they were supporting the tC completely. (as about 90% of all magizines that covered the tC)

Honda lags behind, but they haven't been ahead of Toyota all that much as far as overall profit. But, some people (not saying you do) think that because of this Honda makes, builds, and designs horrible cars which infact they don't.

kungpaosamuraiii

01-08-2006, 05:01 AM

So the Si has more agressive gearing than the tC; that's amazing. If only the chassis on the Si were lighter and featured four double wishbones instead of front macphersons and didn't look like a mini accord (or at the very least, looked somewhat different) then I'd be all over it.

But oh well, I'm more for the tC's styling.

Anyways, I see the point of the market bias influence. These magazines aren't being published and marketed at the general population - if so, the point of the Cobalt SS praised over the Si would be completely valid. This magazine is marketed towards the tuner crowd which is predominantly a Honda thing.

Killerxromances should know, the B18 has some AMAZING potential. I never thought a 1.8 liter engine could make anything useful but there are quite a bit of 10 and 11 second Integras whereas there aren't any 11 second tCs (this is obviously due to the short amount of time the 2AZ has been marketed towards 'tuners'.)

Whoa, sorry for the weird tangent, anyways, because of the potential of the Honda engines and the relatively inexpensive lightweight chassis (00 and back), they've been popular with tuner crowds for quite some time (I'd say we're sitting on the peak of Honda performance from the B18.. it'll probably take about five or so more years for the K20 to be hitting the same power in the same quantities as the B18.) This fact, coupled with the relatively expensive Toyota technology (about 20k for VTEC vs around 24k for VVTL-i) and the somewhat lack of flexibility of Toyota engines (hey! let's swap a 2ZZ-GE head onto our 2AZs! oh blast.. nevermind.. I'll just pop this K20Z head onto this K24A3 block with a K20A2 transmission) as well as the also expensive performance stuff from other companies (who wants to turn a 40k rotary into a beater? Although.. I don't know see why there aren't as many 240SXs.. oh well) created a huge market of Honda folks and to an extent alienated low budget serious tuners (like a guy with 30k can get a super fast Integra rather than a pretty fast Celica GTS.)

Sorry for all the parentheticals.. I'll summarize.

Basically, because of the flexibility and relative low cost of Honda cars and engines, the tuner market became predominantly Honda so these speed magazines' main target audience mostly own Hondas.

scrap

01-08-2006, 03:39 PM

Charade_Detomasso

01-08-2006, 09:54 PM

TheQuietThings

01-08-2006, 10:52 PM

killerxromances

01-09-2006, 12:48 AM

1) Toyota engines are quite swapable, as long as they are in the same family (ZZ series excluded)....Its just that you guys dont get the engines that are worth swapping parts with. And it is also pretty straight forward to swap whole engines into chassis, as toyota pretty much shoves every engine they have across its lines
2) I dont think these guys are ticked off because the Si can 'outperform' the tC. Its pretty much obvious that the Si can beat the tC off the factory line, that does not make it the better VALUE. Maybe they just miss the attention cause every body now is trying to make the Si look like its the best thing since sliced bread.
3) mr Honda fanboy 'killeromances' an Si will not beat a s/c tC with Full trd parts. Get real, the Si might have better gear ratios, but it still lacks torque, is just as heavy and pushes 197hp at the flywheel vs te tC's 193hp to the wheels. Maybe on the highway when the tC runs out of gears, but not on a strip, nor an auto X course or a race track for that matter.
4) And a tC in a magaine comparo optioned out with 'look good' parts that bring it up to such a high price vs a more expensive sporty car is pure and utter BS.

:rofl: I have news for you, torque doesn't win races. The combination of torque and hp does with the correct/proper gearing to use full advantage of that tq and whp. Si will win autox/road course like it or not.

As for Scrap: Any car is a "blank canvas" when you talk about the tuner world, the only difference between Scion and any other compact car is the fact Toyota is using the "Blank Canvas" theory and marketing it. Nothing has changed, just because its Scion's marketing doesn't mean other cars can't be just as mod-able if not more so.

R2D2

01-09-2006, 05:49 PM

4) And a tC in a magazine comparo optioned out with 'look good' parts that bring it up to such a high price vs a more expensive sporty car is pure and utter BS.

killerxromances

01-09-2006, 06:00 PM

4) And a tC in a magazine comparo optioned out with 'look good' parts that bring it up to such a high price vs a more expensive sporty car is pure and utter BS.

:rofl: The biggest chunk of that money was the supercharger, not the "look good" parts. The supercharger w/ dealer install alone would bring the tC up to around $21,500.

R2D2

01-09-2006, 06:14 PM

I haven't actually read the article (nor do I care to read a biased article), but from what it sounds like money (spent on the tC) could've been better spent on performance instead of lighting (mods that wouldn't help performance).

The true test is TRD tC vs. Si :come:

TimmyT

01-09-2006, 06:23 PM

^^^^ Fanboi (the guy b4 r2 :P)

You are right about torque and HP mating.

If you look at the torque and HP numbers of the s/c tC compared to the weight, and then do the same for the SI why in the world would you even think the SI would be quicker?

The SI does have aggresive gearing. BUT they are not so aggresivly geared that would put the tC at any kind of acceleration disadvantage.

Powerband is another VERY important part. When does the civic SI hit its impressive 197 bhp? And before it hits its powerband (the low end) what are its numbers?

Not only does a SC tC put down more torque AND more HP but it does it sooner. And most of the people who own the tC are more upset with the mis representation of the tC to favor another car.

Charade_Detomasso

01-09-2006, 06:28 PM

killerxromances

01-09-2006, 06:29 PM

^^^^ Fanboi

You are right about torque and HP mating.

If you look at the torque and HP numbers of the tC compared to the weight, and then do the same for the SI why in the world would you even think the SI would be quicker?

The SI does have aggresive gearing. BUT they are not so aggresivly geared that would put the tC at any kind of acceleration disadvantage.

Apparently its enough due to the fact their testing showed a boosted tC ties with a stock Si. I've personally driven a 06' Si, have you? 90% of everyone bashing the Si hasn't even test driven it. Everyone just puts down honda anyway for no reason. Pointless.

R2D2: How many times do i need to say that a modified tC against a stock Si is ridiculous. Comparing performance of two cars, both should have similar mods or both be stock. (stock has nothing to do with trim levels before you bring that back up) With that said, similar mods, Si wins. Both stock, Si wins. Apparently with 1/4, a somewhat mildly boosted tC (trd) ties with the Si. What does that prove? You spend $21,500 (roughly) and you come out with a evenly matched 1/4 time? :rofl: You guys just need to accept the fact, the Si is a better performance compact for the money. Period. It has a better foundation from the factory.

killerxromances

01-09-2006, 06:33 PM

For the record guys. You are talking about how the s/c brings so much more whp to the table compared the the Si.

tC with just the s/c dynos around 190whp.
Si stock dynos around 176whp.

This is only a 14whp difference. Given the fact the Si is slightly lighter, with more aggressive gearing from the factory with better suspension/tire combo's to better make use of the power, its now impossible and actually is pretty likely they would pretty much tie with 1/4 runs. Given both drivers are virtually the same with knowledge and experience.

R2D2

01-09-2006, 07:25 PM

TimmyT

01-09-2006, 07:50 PM

I test drove the SI and from that i am confident in saying that YES the SI is aggresivly geared, and NO its not so aggresive that puts the tC in any sort of gearing disadvantage.

I personally have not had the opportunity to drive a S/C tC though. But going off of Real world dynos and weight/power ratios. I can also confidently say the Civic SI would in no way out perform a tC in 0-60, 60', 1/8, or 1/4 mile.

killerxromances

01-09-2006, 08:29 PM

[quote=TimmyT]R2D2: How many times do i need to say that a modified tC against a stock Si is ridiculous. Comparing performance of two cars, both should have similar mods or both be stock. (stock has nothing to do with trim levels before you bring that back up) With that said, similar mods, Si wins. Both stock, Si wins. Apparently with 1/4, a somewhat mildly boosted tC (trd) ties with the Si. What does that prove? You spend $21,500 (roughly) and you come out with a evenly matched 1/4 time? :rofl: You guys just need to accept the fact, the Si is a better performance compact for the money. Period. It has a better foundation from the factory.
killerxromances <-- How many times do i need to say that a Si against a tC is ridiculous. Comparing performance of two cars, both should have similar mods or both be stock ^, therefore if any comparison is made is should be EX VS. tC :ttth: . You just don't get what we're saying about the TRD mods (their factory, they maintain warranty, and they'd be similar in overall pricing to the Si, in addition it is a fair comparison being that the Si is basically a "modded" version of the EX). Even if a FAIR test were to be conducted (unlike how ur favorite mag did it), TRD from what we're trying to say isn't lighting and shiftknobs, its suspension.
Coming from a fool that says "...he races his xB against tCs and wins all the time..." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Reality and the things you (killerxromances) say are totally different.

1. When have i ever said i race tCs all the time and beat them? I've said i've beat a few in autox, totally different environment than 1/4.
2. I agree, Si and tC shouldn't be compared due to the fact the Si is a solid win. However, i'm not one of these guys that can't accept the fact the Si performs overall better than, the tC now am. Nor am i the one that starts tc vs si threads. However, while they are there i will contribute due to my knowledge of both toyota and honda.

And yet again i have to remind you that comparing performance of the Si to tC, you don't need to bring up your "its a modded ex" crap. People obviously have something towards the Si because tC owners apparently want to win the battle for the most part. Not to mention Si is not a modded ex, its a trim level of the civic that happens to be the performance civic. So, with that said give the "but its a modded ex" thing to rest.

R2D2

01-09-2006, 08:59 PM

killerxromances

01-09-2006, 10:16 PM

Pointlessness talking to killerxromances :ttth:
Si = modded EX. Just the same as a stcok Si beating a stock tC. Just like a TRD tC beating an stock Si. Just like a stock tC beating a stock EX.
If your gonna to mod an EX (aka Si) and compare it to a tC its only fair to mod the tC to equal the price of the modded EX (aka Si). Until you can see it in reality, its pointless trying to debate anything with an irrational person.

You have got to be the most ignorant person i have ever talked to. Si does not equal a modded EX. It doesn't share anything with the Si except a few interior features and body shell. Si is a completely different car in that respect. You need to let go of trim levels, because trim levels is not the factor in this. Specifically this thread is referring to the Si and tC. Not Ex and tC.

Until you can prove your statements of a TRD tC beating hands down an Si, your information remains your opinion. I would also like to point out, just because of the Si's trim level, that doesn't give you the right to modify your tC just to "equal" what the Si has to offer. That is the most ridiculous arguement point i have ever heard of in my life.
If you want to debate the TRD tC vs. modified Si (to keep performance mods the same, which is the only way to test truthfully performance vs. performance) start your own thread about it.

Modifying the tC and keeping the Si stock is a stupid arguement point, theres no logic behind it. You can modify any car with the right money and will power to out power and perform any other car. It proves nothing. Even if someone did a TRD tC vs a i/h/e, springs, shocks, strut, and sway Si and Si won, you would find something to disprove the testing because you can't admit defeat.

Just like you are finding ways around the s/c tC vs Si testing this particular magizine did. Its sad. Both are great cars, but the Si is a better performing car. Your pride prevents you from admiting it. :loser:

I might also add, your "no point in talking to ____ because they disagree with me" thing is pretty childish.

jakedudeta

01-09-2006, 10:55 PM

I saw a comparo b/w a modded ford focus and a stock corvett, and the focus won. The only catch was the fact that the focus had about 100k in mods ect, which kind of flows with the argument that $ for $ is the only real comparison here.

Ive said it before and I will say it again, its not that tuff to outperform a Tc, its not a race car. For me its a practical ride that looks cool. The Si is going to be more of a performer. It runs on 91 octane and will cost you an arm and a leg to ensure. If you have the cash go with it, if not, you are not going to find a better car for your $ than the Tc, period.

We could make ourselves blue in the face with Tc vs. WRX, Srt4, Eclipse, Si, ect posts. Turth of the matter is this, they are all faster than the Tc, but they cost more, run on 91 and cost more to ensure, ect.

Also, if you are a bigger guy, the Tc is hands down for you.

But for all out performance, the Tc is at the bottom of the sport compact for raw speed and handling. Its a Tc as in Touring Coupe, not a drag car.

I will say for 20k you get alot of car with the Si, but like any car it has its downsides and upsides.

Cheers

killerxromances

01-09-2006, 11:09 PM

jakedudeta

01-10-2006, 12:04 AM

R2D2

01-10-2006, 12:29 AM

$40-$50 more per month for insurance and an additional $20-$30 for 91 octane gas and you are going to be paying quite a bit more for ownership of the Si. Also, you are going to have every damn kid on the block pulling up next to you revving their motor wanting to race.

I am 6'5'' and about 3 bills, so as I said if you are a big guy the Tc is the only sport compact for you. Thoughts?

Truth be told if you are looking for a race ready car and the Si is in your budget, go for it. If not then the Tc, or one of the other cool cars in the Scion lineup is your car.

My insurance agent advised me not to look into an Si or any other FI car until I was 25, because it would pretty much send him and his family to Hawaii on my dime.

Keep truckin!

First off, I doubt the Si is in any sense "race ready"... Second try fitting 6'5" 300 lbs. into an Si and than tell us its dramatically faster than the tC and I just might believe u.. :eyebrow:

killerxromances

01-10-2006, 12:32 AM

Charade_Detomasso

01-10-2006, 04:16 AM

^^^^ what jakedudeta said

And the fanboy is soooooo full of it

kungpaosamuraiii

01-10-2006, 05:28 AM

Which fan boy?

killerxromances is probably one of the most openminded guys on the internet that I know of.

If you look at all of his statements objectively, you'll notice that none of them are explicitly wrong.

Comparing a modded tC to a stock Si is somewhat wrong like the comparison of the 100k+ Focus against the stock vette. I like comparing dollar to dollar (in which case, the tC wins. A turbo tC is about the price of a bolt-on Si.) killerxromances doesn't like dollar to dollar but stock for stock and I can see why. Stock for stock, the Si wins hands down. He also says it's dump comparing the Si to the tC as both are in different classes.

So I don't see how he's the fan boy? Don't forget there are tC fan boys too.

racecaryaya

01-10-2006, 01:30 PM

jakedudeta

01-10-2006, 04:55 PM

Dollar for dollar is the only way to go. Its like this: "Dude, my 80,000 dollar viper totally rocked your 17,000 dollar compact" Viper-stock, compact-stock. Truth be told (in my opinion) is that the amount of cash that is racing is the test. Take my original corvette vs. modded ford focus. If you throw a big turbo, nitrous, and a suspension upgrade on your moms 87 toyota trecel that thing is going to move, so in my opinion its the amount of cash that you have sunk into your car that counts.

To compair a stock 17,000 car with a stock 20,000 car leaves a 3,000 void, which is unfair in my opinion.

Janizary

01-10-2006, 07:03 PM

Turth of the matter is this, they are all faster than the Tc, but they cost more, run on 91 and cost more to ensure, ect.

Might be a cross-section of age/location and per insurance company. For my '06 Si with the same coverage at my old tC, coverage was only $22 more per 6 months. However, I have quite a few years over 25, though Vegas is the third worst place to insure a car.

I have heard some outrageous quotes from folks in other forums though. It seems many insurance companies are classifying the Si as a 'sport car' regardless of it actual performance.

jakedudeta

01-10-2006, 09:07 PM

My insurance agent who is a friend of the family told me that the Tc escapes the sports car rates, but the Si does not. He had this to say. "If you get the Si it will send me on a nice vacation" He was joking but one can expect about 20-30 more per month, or about an additional 300/6 months. Not to mention the 91 octane gas.

Truth be told, the Si is a more expensive car to own and operate.

Also, when/if the hi-preformance parts go out they will be more to replace as well.

But, its a faster car, that in my opinion is race-ready.

killerxromances

01-10-2006, 10:52 PM

killerxromances, I don't think you are getting the point R2D2 is trying to get across: By the nature of what Scion is trying to do there is no "stock" tC equivilant to the Si. Scion does not produce "performance" variations of the tC because they let the owner customize the mods. The Si basically starts out life as an EX, but all the engine/performance mods are determined and installed by the factory.

Maybe an Audi RS4 vs. a BMW 330xi is another similar pairing. The RS4 comes "stock" (it started as a base A4) from the factory screaming with high-performance, but there are no options from the factory to make the 330xi perform equally. Sure you can mod the Bimmer, but then it's not "stock vs stock."

I get what R2D2 is saying, but as i stated before, i didn't start these "tC vs. Si" threads. However, it is a popular comparison for whatever reason. With that said, people know when comparing the two that the tC doesn't have trim levels. The Si shouldn't be downplayed just because of its rank on the performance scale of Civics. Everyone could easily compare the tC to a different Civic but they don't. I'm simply comparing the two cars the threads are about, not getting complex and saying because the Si is the performance civic, we should dump $5,000 into the tC just to even everything out. Its pretty ridiculous. We are not talking about price vs. price and what you could do to the tC to equal a Si, we are strictly talking about performance aspect.

kungpaosamuraiii; yes i have the label "fan boy". Probably because i'm not going with the tC and making up excuses as to why the tC would lost/would loose to the Si with overall performance. Apparently they don't like that, but oh well. Not my problem. And thanks for the kind words, at least someone out there actually reads my posts clearly and doesn't misread into the things i say.

cmndrjamesbond

01-11-2006, 01:18 AM

killerxromances

01-11-2006, 01:31 AM

killerxromances, please stick to the xB boards. I'm sorry you chose to buy a car that resembles a toaster, but the constant jealousy you exhibit by trolling our forums has gotten annonying. If you're going to make bold claims about your car's handling, back it up with a video like you promised. Furthermore, dollar v. dollar is the only comparison between cars. Before buying the tC, the options I was considering were the SS Supercharged, SRT-4, WRX, WRX STi, Evo, RSX Type S, Legacy GT, and a tC (supercharged). Based on the fact I dislike the appearance of most sedans, that pretty much limited it to the SS, tC, and RSX. When I looked at performance for the dollar, the tC is the clear winner, as for less money, you can buy and supercharge a tC to put out the same amount of power (more actually) than the other two. If I were in the same position today, I wouldn't touch an Si, because it is butt ugly. Even ignoring this fact, 16.2k+3k+installation is less than 19.9k.
Telling us that a supercharged tC should not be compared to an Si is like telling a Stage 3 Mopar SRT-4 owner that he can't compare his car to an Evo RS, since "it isn't stock." STFU and go back to box land.

I love people like you. Just because i own a certain car, does not mean i'm ignorant with knowledge of other cars. How am i jealous, and how do you even come to that conclusion? Because i post on the tC threads? I have a news flash for you, i post on all the threads. Xb, Xa, tC, i also still post on honda/acura forums from when i owned the gs-r. Funny how everyone says honda/acura owners are always stuck up and cold hearted when it comes to their threads, but they show me more respect than majority of the tC owners do here. Maybe if i owned a tC you would shut up about it. (i also might point out, if i wanted a tC i would have bought one. Being that i didn't, don't think so highly of yourself)

And as i've said numerous times, i'll back up my cars handling when someone provides me a cam. That, or whenever i can get the one i want.

By your bold claims of ignorance, your :blah: doesn't really amount too much as far as knowledge. Comparing the performance of two cars doesn't mean matching prices. Matching prices is something you could do for overall best bang for the buck, not straight performance talk. Again as i once stated above, i have discovered most of the tC owners on this forum seems to make up excuses as for what the Si has to offer and what the tC lags. It appears its just too hard for you guys to admit the Si is a better performing car than the tC. Si was built surrounding performance, tC wasn't.

Edit: Your claims of the Si being "butt ugly" as a fact is false. Its your opinion, not a fact. I'm glad you dislike the Si so much, it doesn't bother me at all. But facts are facts, Si is a better performing car than the tC. With, i might also add, a better platform for performance than the tC. tC as i've said numerous times, its a nice car. But its not a performance compact from the factory and still has a while to go with aftermarket before it claims defeat over a K20. If it ever does.

kungpaosamuraiii

01-11-2006, 01:55 AM

killerxromances

01-11-2006, 02:02 AM

Charade_Detomasso

01-11-2006, 02:38 AM

U guys in the US get so shafted when it comes to available engines and the like

any way my $0.02... I will always compare performance vs dollar why? Because of the old saying....'speed is expensive, how fast can you afford to spend?'

cmndrjamesbond

01-11-2006, 03:03 AM

killerxromances

01-11-2006, 03:07 AM

killerxromances, let me put this a little more clearly. Nobody on this thread respects your opinion in the least. Try and use your time to do something productive rather than continuing to talk out of your butt.

It appears kungpaosamuraiii respects my opinions. I bet if i agreed with you and majority of those posting that the tC was better you would have nothing to say about my opinions nor about me not driving a tC, now would you?

Basstrack17

01-11-2006, 03:30 AM

I hate to sound like an old fart; but some things just never change. 20+ years ago, as a Camaro owner i wouldn't think twice about ripping my buds' Challenger or Mach 1; but at the end of the day we still respected each other's cars and what we put into them. It should matter more to what an individual does to his/her car to modify it, rather then what the factory put into it. Our old cars all were in the 300 hp +/- area from the factory, but that didn't mean my 70 1/2 Camaro was the same as my future bro-in law's 69 Roadrunner. And we didn't worry about what a mag said about one or the other. We stuck with our marque, and remained faithful to Chevy/Ford/Dodge, which is fine.
Now it's similar: Honda vs Toy vs VW.....
My wife has over the years had a CRX, an Integra, a turbo Mitsu, 2 Civic coupes, a CRV, and finally a Civic 4dr ( soccer mom period ). She was tired of the sedan; and just had her fill of Hondas for awhile. Her list to look at included an Eclipse, a Cobalt SS, Saturn redline, RSX, among others. The TC wasn't on her list as early on the ped spoiler was not available, and she wanted that look. But once it was, and she drove the car, & she ordered hers same day. The sc didn't come in for her for a few months; so that wasn't even a main factor ( but has been a blast so far ). What she/we were trying to get was the most car for the money that she liked. And we have been both more then happy with what this car gives us. Yes there are other cars in this bracket that will outperform it; & i'll tip my hat to them. The SI will please some people, the TC others. The TC did it for us.
I guess my point is don't put too much into what a mag says-- they will put a 275hp Rav4 against a 175hp Equinox and proudly show off the quicker times of the Toy; or you'll see someone compare the new SRT Jeep to a loaded Explorer cuz they're in the same $ range.... think one is faster then the other? Let the cars speak for themselves on the road, and whatever the car is if it's done well--a thumbs up is always appreciated. Sorry for the ramblin' here.

Janizary

01-11-2006, 05:22 AM

I agree with Basstrack17. The hate in here is a bit thick from some folks. Having owned both of the vehicles in question (sans the S/C as it was still long off when I owned the tC), I would be very curious to see how the S/C changed the dynamics of my old tC (already had the TRD springs/struts, and 17" Gramlights). It certainly would have added to the 'fun factor'!!

racecaryaya

01-11-2006, 12:49 PM

killerxromances, let me put this a little more clearly. Nobody on this thread respects your opinion in the least.

Hey 007, please don't speeak for me. Killer is stating his opinion, and just because he doesn't think the tC is a all that and a bag of chips—which, as a tC owner, I will readily admit it's good but it will not out handle an Si, especially without a fair amount of extra $ and mods. If you disagree with him make intelligent posts site facts and debate him, rather than resorting to troll-like name calling and finger pointing.

Try and use your time to do something productive rather than continuing to talk out of your butt.
Do you know what irony is? Cause you nailed it here.

killerxromances

01-11-2006, 03:09 PM

^ Thanks.

I think the tC is a great car, but this is comparing performance of two cars and possibly comparing the potential of both tC and Si. While the tC is a nice car, Si does have more overall potential regardless of the displacement the 2az has. Although it is a bigger motor (2az), it has no where near the full potential of a K20 does in the respect theres not enough aftermarket to push the 2az yet. Even if one day there was, its still very questionable. The design of honda motors is just incredible and what they can produce is even more insane...Especially whp per liter.

Charade_Detomasso

01-11-2006, 03:54 PM

killerxromances

01-11-2006, 04:31 PM

Well, I would esaily side with you in saying that the performance of the Si is better, but I could never agree that the K20 and the Si have more potential. Maybe your life would be easier with the aftermarket support of the K20 and its variants, but as far as I see, that just helps the unimaginative people who arent willing to put their own work and research into their cars. The 2AZ is a good engine and the only reason it doesnt spin to 9000rpm and has a CR of 11.0:1, is becasue toyota designed it to go into a wide variety of vehicles, not just sport oriented ones.
Honda does design great motors, they are one of the best designers of N/A engines right up there with BMW (IMHO), but please dont descredit Toyota cause they are just as good. The output for the JDM TRD Celica is equal to that of the JDM Integra R and that from a smaller displacement engine. And when you look at Hondas whp/l it certainly doesnt look as good as as their bhp/l figure.
The only credit I could ever think of giving Honda over Toyota, is that they usually put a great gear box (as in better ratios suited to the engines power band) in their cars..and thats it. Period.

Even with creativity going in with putting their own work into the car, I still believe the K20 over-rules the 2az. Especially when you talked jdm, not too many motors can be reliable and out perform the K20a platform.

I'm not trying to discredit Toyota motors, however 90% of the motors Toyota produces (today, not talking about the past. and i'm also referring to usdm cars/trucks) is geared and built upon economy, not performance. Honda, has perfected the economy issues as Toyota has, but they have also combined economy with performance. Something Toyota lacks now without the celica gts, mr2 and a few other great performing cars. Honda motors like it or not, is a better performing platform vs. Toyota. I'm not saying Toyota engines don't have potential, even the 1nz motors have potential once ecu and a few other things are mastered. Now back to tC and Si, tC is a great car. The motor is also a great motor to build up, i'm not saying it isn't nor have i said it was. However, compared to the K20z there really isn't much of a contest. Especially when you look at overall performance of the car and how it was designed, the 06' Si is something the tC isn't and will never be as far as overall performance. (not just the motor)

R2D2

01-11-2006, 05:53 PM

^ Never say never..

jakedudeta

01-11-2006, 07:14 PM

Yall need to find a woman or something and quit griping over the Si. Its more performance, but it costs more. Done deal.

Peace.

ByBScIoNtC

01-11-2006, 08:57 PM

killerxromances

01-11-2006, 09:04 PM

ok i read this damn article and truthfully as one who loves the tC and wanted the S/C the car......it ____ed me off.......the fact that the price and all that was different i could care less.......the fact that a S/C'ed tC is runnin a horribly ____ poor 15.1 in the 1/4 mile wich is equal to the stock Si Civic........no it dont work for me......i think tC's r faster then that and i think by lot more i wouldnt say that it runs a 15.1 its vry not likely....my opinion,......civics r overated and the tC better be better lol

So that wasn't a bais post. The 06' Si is not over-rated, its worth evey penny. Infact, imo, all Si's weren't over-rated. Most Honda's aren't over-rated, the reason why you hear so many good things from them is their potential and such common, "easy" motor swaps. They are pretty famous for their whp per liter.

The s/c is only putting out (with no other mods) around 185whp. The 06' Si puts out stock around 175-180whp. With the gearing, weight and other differences it makes sense that they would have pretty much equal times. And with both cars using stock/factory suspension/tires, Si handles better.

Charade_Detomasso

01-11-2006, 09:25 PM

Over-Rated..in every sense of the word

R2D2

01-11-2006, 09:43 PM

Poorly conducted test parameters. End of subject

cmndrjamesbond

01-11-2006, 09:55 PM

On the topic of underrated cars, that Scion xB is a sweet handling vehicle. Road and Track's road test of it produced a whopping .71gs of lateral acceleration, and a slalom speed of 57.9 mph. With numbers like those, it slightly edges out a Dodge Caravan. I'm sure this car will take the auto-x world by storm.

killerxromances

01-11-2006, 09:59 PM

Poorly conducted test parameters. End of subject

You have an answer for everything don't you? Too bad your answers show no actual knowledge to back them up.

Sc tC: 185-190whp (just the s/c)
06' Si: 175-180whp.

We are only talking about 5-10whp difference in which the Si makes up with the better/more aggressive gearing and not to mention, geared to use all whp effectivly. Also, the 50-100lbs difference within the tC and Si plays a role as well when you talk about such little difference in whp numbers.

Bottom line, for the tC to pull the same 1/4 times as Si, tC needs the s/c to match a stock 06' Si.

People talk about how the 06' Si is so over-rated, personally i think the trd s/c is over-rated. Main reason half the people buy the s/c is because they are scared of warranties. Much better set ups imo than what trd has to offer for the 2az.

R2D2

01-11-2006, 10:11 PM

cmndrjamesbond

01-11-2006, 10:12 PM

You keep mentioning this more agressive gearing on the Si, but in actuality, its not at all. The Si has a top speed of 36 in first, and 55 in second. Compare this to the tC, with a top speed of 31 in first, and 53 in second. It seems to me that the tC has slightly more agressive gearing.

aoshi12345

01-11-2006, 10:26 PM

There are some ignorant asses in here. tC > Si if you dont agree get the ____ outta here.

killerxromances

01-11-2006, 11:03 PM

There are some ignorant asses in here. tC > Si if you dont agree get the flip outta here.

Ironically that was a ignorant responce. If you can't respect other peoples opinions than you don't belong on scionlife, or any other car forum for that matter.

cmn; while the tC seems like it has shorter gearing, the Si also revs higher. Take this into effect, and the gearing is slightly more aggressive. If the tC redlined at 8,000rpm, its top speed in 1st would probably be around 42 or so. If the Si's top speed was identical to the tC's, it would be an extremely close ratio.

R2D2; those 18's don't weight that much more than the 17's. Give it up, quit making up excuses. I've been saying this on this thread for a while, everyone keeps avoiding the truth by just making up excuses as to why the tC was tied with the Si.

killerxromances

01-11-2006, 11:11 PM

I might also add the fact that the tC did tie with 1/4 times with the Si, instead of looking at this negativly you should look at it in a positive way. The Si is a true sports compact, the tC really isn't. I mean, yes its a sports compact but totally on the other end of the spectrum than the Si.

Every tC owner i talk to and know personally, can accept the fact the Si is a better performing car than the tC. Why is it so hard for you guys to accept it? You guys talk about how the Si is crap because its a honda. Honda and Toyota both are very similar, i've said this before. The only difference is, Honda puts more thought into performance with their motors per class than Toyota does. Toyota is a little more conservative compared to Honda. Theres nothing wrong with that, but its fact.

You guys need to realize the tC's place in the compact world, its not on top of the food chain. It's funny how everyone compares the tC to all these sport compacts, and when they aren't as good as the other compact they find excuses and get all bent out of shape because of it. It's a nice car, but it still has a ton of room to grow as far as aftermarket and performance goes.

R2D2

01-11-2006, 11:11 PM

Truth is something you can't admit 2.
I can say yes, the Si probably has better handling than the tC, but if you can't tell the difference between 17s and 18s you shouldn't even speak :ttth: .

killerxromances

01-11-2006, 11:15 PM

Truth is something you can't admit 2.
I can say yes, the Si probably has better handling than the tC, but if you can't tell the difference between 17s and 18s you shouldn't even speak :ttth: .

Um, when did i say i couldn't tell a difference between 17's and 18's? Only thing i said is the 18's aren't that much more heavier than the 17's. The way you said it sounded like we were comparing weight of rotas vs. 19'' solid chrome. :rofl:

And if i'm not mistaken, the Si's rims were also upgraded to alloy's. I could be wrong, but either way it really doesn't matter that much.

They both tied in 1/4, they tested it and they showed the numbers. Dyno numbers are also very similar between the two (tc with just s/c) as well. Not that hard to figure out.

R2D2

01-11-2006, 11:28 PM

Obviously you've got no idea killerxromances.
Physics 101...Highly recommended to the unknowledgeable.
Run your tests with both cars on 17s in a fair arena, otherwise :ttth: .

racecaryaya

01-11-2006, 11:28 PM

Ya'all are acting like little girls.

Both are good cars. Each one has its pluses and minuses. Neither one is the be-all-end-all of sportcompacts.

R2D2 is right that the test tC shouldn't have had the "pretty bits, " but more than likely the car was part of the press fleet and possibley one of the few that still exsist so options where probably determined long ago.

The 18" wheels (f they are the same as the ones on my RS1) are a good bit heavier than the 17" alloys—probably 5-7lbs per corner—and that's huge when 0-60 times seem to be so important. I'm sure the bigger footprint helped in the slalom/skidpad.

I prefer the styling of the tC, but would gladly have the performance of the Si. If you can't even acknowledge that the Si is a well developed sportcompact has has great lineage, then you need to get out and drive—really drive—some Hondas and Acuras.

jakedudeta

01-11-2006, 11:28 PM

RANDOM BAD ARGUMENT!!!!

killerxromances

01-11-2006, 11:35 PM

Obviously you've got no idea killerxromances.
Physics 101...Highly recommended to the unknowledgeable.
Run your tests with both cars on 17s in a fair arena, otherwise :ttth: .

Obviously they are heavier, but i don't think they are that heavy. If i'm wrong about the weight of the 18's, then i apologize for that. But it still makes no difference, Si won on this artical fair and square.. In my opinion, tC had the upper hand with the s/c and still didn't "win".

racecar: you haven't said anything none of us haven't said for the past four pages. I've been saying since the start both were great cars, but no one listens to that part of my posts. Just the parts of me being a "fan boy".

And the only thing i'm doing now and have been doing is responding to those commenting on my posts.

Although, it is pretty pointless debating with people that are stubbern and ignorant towards knowledge of the Si.

Charade_Detomasso

01-12-2006, 12:09 AM

killerxromances

01-12-2006, 12:19 AM

No, bigger wheels not only change weight, they change the effective gearing of the car, bigger wheels, higher top speed, smaller wheels, beter acceleration (that is , provided the over all diameter, including tyres is larger).

KR- the Si is overrated, the tC is overhyped. Both are good for what they are, and neither deserving of the criticism nor the overwhelming praise given by fanboys with glazed over eyes.

Yes, i know about bigger rims and smaller tires effecting acceleration. However, accleration isn't effected as much with 18's compared to 17's providing weight is similar, and overall height is same as stock given size tires and so forth. From what i've seen, the 17's are fairly heavy that scion provides compared to aftermarket 17's, and the 18's are about average which leads me to believe there isn't much weight difference between the two. As i stated before, if i'm wrong then i apologize to those that feel the need to pick and choose every sentence that comes out of my mouth.

Neither car is over-rated or overhyped. The owners of these cars may over-rate both, and from what i've seen out of the people on this thread..a lot of tC owners tend to over-rate the tC's abilities comparing to other cars..not just the Si. The tC is a nice compact car, but by no means is it tuned for performace straight off the lot. The Si is more tuned for performance especially with the k20z1, slightly more aggressive gearing compared to previous models and a six speed tranny with sport tuned suspension as a standard. Not to mention LSD and a few other things that hints to the fact the Si is made to be a true sports compact vs. the tC. However, it appears most of the tC owners posting on this thread thinks the tC should completely smoke the Si in every sense and if it doesn't, then excuses fly.

Just because i say the Si is a better performance car than the tC is, does not mean i'm a "fan boy" or hating the tC. What it means is i'm taking facts of both cars, knowledge of both cars and pointing out the facts. Everyone else just see's the Honda badging and automatically assumes the tC should beat it nevermind anything else. Sure, its understanding being everyone here drives Scions for the most part. But give it a rest already. Si is a better performing car than the tC, period. Mod for mod, Si is still going to out perform the tC in just about every situation thrown out. The tC has its high points just as the Si has its high points. Performance is the Si's high point. Comfort is the tC's high point. They are both great for the money.

Basstrack17

01-12-2006, 12:23 AM

killerxromances

01-12-2006, 12:30 AM

Basstrack17

01-12-2006, 01:15 AM

and at least someone got my post.. as i appear to be an "elder" here, i was afraid i was just ramblin' and they'd take me back to the home, leaving me to drool in the corner.
My daughter's good friend is of the F&F tuner crowd, into the early-generation Honda hatch's , with updated motor transplants, turbo's, etc... we both know his car could run the snot out of our TC, but he has no problem giving the TC props, even some compliments, regardless of what the badge on the front says. That's what I can appreciate--stand up for what you believe in, but let the others say their piece as well.
Someone out there will take their SI to the next level, drop a turbo and maybe squirt it; and I know there are TC's out there doing the same thing already. Time to talk then is at the track, car to car.
Just be thankful there's not any VW lovers posting here.....
oops, hope I didn't start anything..

cmndrjamesbond

01-12-2006, 05:59 AM

killerxromances

01-12-2006, 05:54 PM

killerxromances, I'm going to assume that you're not an engineering major based on your ignorance relating to the drivetrain of the Si. The only thing that is constant throughout the powertrain is going to be the horsepower. Torque is proportional to power/rotational speed. As such, the only important factor when considering the aggressiveness of a drivetrain is the redline speed for each gear. This is the reason that the S2000 (extreme example) accelerates as you would expect any 240 hp, 2800lb car to be able to. Scaling the Si engine to the same relative rpms as a supercharged tC will illustrate how it doesn't make as much power as early on. Lastly, I'm sure that even you would accept the fact that a gain of 50 whp resulting in only a .2 sec difference for 0-60 seems slightly odd. We're talking a 35% gain in power resulting in a 3% improvement in acceleration. Think about that.
If any of this goes over your head, I'm sure you can find someone to translate all of this to a level you can comprehend.

No, i'm not an engineering major however this isn't over my head.

In some cases, depending upon what mods, power band, and how drivetrain reacts 0-60 times with certain mods and increase in power will not be as effected as one would think. By general logic, yes your points are completely acceptable. However, what is a tCs stock 0-60 and what is a tC with just the s/c, 0-60?

Some how i believe your .2 seconds shaving is off. A stock tC will run high 15's to low 16s, a s/c tC (with just the s/c) will run anywhere from 15.0 to 15.3 seconds depending upon driver. I have seen s/c tCs hit 14's but that was also with other mods other than s/c, we are just talking about the s/c. So with that said, with the s/c you are shaving off an entire second off of 1/4 in some cases with 185whp. 185whp is roughly 45whp increase over stock with a manual tranny. Given the fact the tC does not have LSD, how it pulls through each gear, gear ratios, so on so forth that is pretty much correct that a s/c tC would run low 15's... Again, with just a s/c.

I'm going to assume, cmndrjamesbond that you are not looking at the entire picture. You are pin pointing certain things and trying to make the testing this particular magizine did false.

R2D2

01-12-2006, 05:59 PM

:ttth:

TimmyT

01-12-2006, 06:03 PM

killerxromances

01-12-2006, 06:11 PM

Except the s/c tc runs greater than 185 whp. I think 0-60 on a stock tc was like 7.6 seconds (Been a while since I payed attention to the stock times), and a 1/4 mile time of 15.6-15.7. With the s/c tC making almost 200 whp w/o any other mods. a 15.1 is just silly. Just look at the numbers. put your bias aside and you'll see the numbers just don't add up.

Maybe you are right and a lot of it has to do with the drive train. Maybe the clutch slipped all the way through 2nd gear. Maybe the tC gearing is just bleh (By the way the SI and tC have almost identical gears and shift points). Maybe the LSD in the Civic makes up for having almost 30 less HP at the wheels and about 60 ft/lb of torque.

Actually the tC w/ s/c does have 185whp. The dyno runs i know you are referring to, those tCs also had exhaust and a few other things working with the s/c to produce around 195whp. However, actual numbers with just the s/c is around 185whp. Not close to 200whp.

The Si does not have close to 30whp less than the s/c tC, it has about 10whp less. 197hp crank, and roughly 175-180whp stock. A s/c tC dyno's around 185-190whp with just the s/c. Not that much of a difference.

Charade_Detomasso

01-12-2006, 06:13 PM

killerxromances

01-12-2006, 06:16 PM

duston831

01-12-2006, 07:19 PM

killerxromances

01-12-2006, 08:09 PM

bottom line

stock 06 si > stock tc but also cost more

now trd sc (supercharger and suspension) > stock si

the mags may say 15.1 1/4 mile, but I've also seen 14.7 from someone on here. Obviously, you cant just base the times on what a mag says.

And the people that run 14's with the s/c also have other mods. :blah:

06 Si > tC
06 Si > s/c tC

Mod for mod Si would also take it.

TimmyT

01-12-2006, 08:14 PM

You can't make that claim.
1. Both cars don't have many aftermarket parts.
2. You don't have any information to support the claim that a 06 Si is faster than a s/c tC. You can claim this mag says it all. but there are also numbers that show a NA tc does 0-60 a tenth to .2 slower than a Si.

Charade_Detomasso

01-12-2006, 08:17 PM

killerxromances

01-12-2006, 10:10 PM

as I said in an earlier post; i was a Chevy boy; didn't care for the Fords. But on one evening, when piloting my friend's Pinto Wgn with a 351 ( on a closed course...hehe ); we ran a Chevy Monza with a 350. By the time i slapped the AT to 2nd, I was already well ahead of him, and the race was basically over. Being a Chevy guy, I thought his pro-street Monza was quite the car, but on that night the Ford just hooked up. The Monza started off with a v-motor to begin with; then had aftermarket parts galore. The Pinto took quite a bit of work to shoehorn that motor in there, using parts from several other Ford body styles to help with the transplant. Both cars were well in the mid 300's for hp; the Pinto regular clipped hi 11's to low 12's in the 1/4, and the Monza was similarly capable.
My point was this ( and if it doesn't make any sense, at least I was able to relive a fun night from the past ): 2 cars, with similar performance numbers, put together in different ways. Both had positives & negatives; and both owners felt strongly about their rides. And when all was said & done, we were able to hang and talk about each other's car without all the verbal war going on.
Now we love our TC with it's sc, have no interest in the Honda. But that doesn't take away from what the si can do either. Maybe the ideal mag article would have been "hot factory 4's" or maybe " hot factory rides under 25k" which could have thrown several more cars in the fray, and let the drivers figure it out on the track. These are 2 different cars, i'd compare the TC with it's sc as more of an affordable performance coupe ( think little lexus ), and the SI more of a driver's sports car with a usable back seat.
Again, probably not making any sense here; must be the old age.

:bow: *BEST.POST.IN.THREAD*

don't worry, you make perfect sense

Which towards the bottom he summed up everything i've been saying all along, like i said earlier. He gets praised for it, i get yelled at and called a fan boy for it. :rofl:

:blah: ummmm, no.....You wish you were saying this..all youve been doing is trying to make the Si look like the best sport compact ever built, and the K20 is a motor to end all motors, then when you get yelled at, you come up with "oh both are great cars, just built for different things" :no: where do u get off pulling that crap?!? dont even try :ttth:

If you actually read my post you would notice that i never said the K20 is to end of all motors, what i said was i believe the K20 is a better platform to build up compared to the 2az. Further more, i have said numerous times both cars are great cars and both cars do have great potential. The only thing i'm saying different is the fact the Si is a better performing car than the tC overall...Also i've said numerous times. You and others pick certain parts of my posts to comment on, rarely does anyone comment on my entire posts. :blah:

I would also point out the guy that you are agreeing with said that the Si is more of a true sports compact than the tC. With his words, "These are 2 different cars, i'd compare the TC with it's sc as more of an affordable performance coupe ( think little lexus ), and the SI more of a driver's sports car with a usable back seat." Which used in different words, sums up everything i have been saying. However, you guys see me say "Si is a better performing car with a better platform than the tC" and automatically think i hate the tC, i envy the tC, and i'm a "fan boy". :loser: Don't tell me i wish i was saying this because i have been saying the same thing since my first post. Only thing different with what he said and i said is the words used.

killerxromances

01-12-2006, 10:21 PM

Here, i'll even quote myself using part of one of my posts.. Just as an example.

Just because i say the Si is a better performance car than the tC is, does not mean i'm a "fan boy" or hating the tC. What it means is i'm taking facts of both cars, knowledge of both cars and pointing out the facts. Everyone else just see's the Honda badging and automatically assumes the tC should beat it nevermind anything else. Sure, its understanding being everyone here drives Scions for the most part. But give it a rest already. Si is a better performing car than the tC, period. Mod for mod, Si is still going to out perform the tC in just about every situation thrown out. The tC has its high points just as the Si has its high points. Performance is the Si's high point. Comfort is the tC's high point. They are both great for the money.

Notice i said:
The tC has its high points just as teh Si has its high points. Performance is the Si's high point, comfort is the tC's high point. They are both great cars for the money.

Also will point out the fact i said: Everyone else just see's the Honda badging and automatically assumes the tC should beat it nevermind anything else. Sure, its understanding being everyone here drives a Scion for the most part. and.. Just because i say the Si is a better performing car than the tC is, doesn't mean i'm a "fan boy" or hating the tC.

This is just one post of many where i have pointed out how everyone else is reacting, and point out both cars are great.

R2D2

01-12-2006, 10:45 PM

:blah: :ttth:

cmndrjamesbond

01-12-2006, 11:34 PM

Road and Track's Numbers for a tC are 0-60 in 7.4, 1/4 mile in 15.6
s/c tC, tested by them, 0-60 in 7.2, 1/4 mile is 15.1

killerxromances

01-12-2006, 11:38 PM

Road and Track's Numbers for a tC are 0-60 in 7.4, 1/4 mile in 15.6
s/c tC, tested by them, 0-60 in 7.2, 1/4 mile is 15.1

They must have had a really good driver to pull 15.6 1/4 stock. Average 1/4 so i've seen is around 15.8-16.2sec. Of course, depending upon driver and everything obviously.

Charade_Detomasso

01-13-2006, 12:11 AM

killerxromances

01-13-2006, 12:16 AM

My point was this ( and if it doesn't make any sense, at least I was able to relive a fun night from the past ): 2 cars, with similar performance numbers, put together in different ways. Both had positives & negatives; and both owners felt strongly about their rides. And when all was said & done, we were able to hang and talk about each other's car without all the verbal war going on

Thats why I commented it was the best post in the thread. Now I have nothing further to say to you with regards to this topic and respectfully request that you say nothing more to me in this thread. I'm not your Dad, I advise you go look for him to give you some attention. :loser:

:rofl: After i show you i've been giving both cars respect you have nothing else to say but insult me and tell me to go visit my father? No, you are not my dad. Unless my dad had me at age three it would be impossible. Which, at age three is pretty impossible to begin with.

People like you give everyone else on this forum a bad name. I've shown both cars respect the entire time, and all i have gotten in return is crap. Good times.

R2D2

01-13-2006, 12:47 AM

I've shown both cars respect the entire time, and all i have gotten in return is crap. Good times. :no: :nope: :ttth:

killerxromances

01-13-2006, 12:51 AM

I've shown both cars respect the entire time, and all i have gotten in return is crap. Good times. :no: :nope: :ttth:

Okay R2D2, quote an entire post (not just a sentence) of mine that openly put down, i mean flat out put down the tC. Find a post of mine where i say the tC is horrible and has no performance potential at all. Show me.

R2D2

01-13-2006, 12:58 AM

:eyebrow: :yawn: :ttth:

killerxromances

01-13-2006, 01:01 AM

R2D2

01-13-2006, 01:02 AM

killerxromances

01-13-2006, 01:04 AM

:eyebrow: :yawn: :ttth:

Exactly, you can't do it because i never did. Everyone was too busy focusing on the fact i was saying the k20z1 is a better performance platform than the 2az and calling me a fan boy. :blah: :ttth:

You are :blah: R2D2, you can't even show me or anyone else where i openly, falt out put the tC down. So until you prove that i openly hate the tC and i'm bais, :ttth: .

R2D2

01-13-2006, 01:07 AM

:blah: :no: :ttth:

Basstrack17

01-13-2006, 02:29 AM

I'll keep this post hopefully shorter then my others. Both sides of this have shown their points; and apparently the middle is nowhere to be found. If an SI pulls up to a TC, then hammer down and see what happens from there. Mags can give a reader some nice insight into a car, yet they still have their own opinions... no different then killerx or the rest of the posters here. And those opinions will come thru in the writing. The test results were very similar, yet the mag had a major slant towards one of the cars. That happens all the time. When a mag tested STI vs Evo, they picked the mitsu overall; yet the STi took most performance numbers. GTO & Mustang GT can have comparable numbers, but which one gets all the press?
Maybe the SI vs TC wasn't a good comparison; i'd actually rather have seen an Ion redline, Cobalt SS, TC w/ sc, and maybe even a Mini with sc... so we could have seen some decent numbers for factory blown "affordables". And if the sc for our car is basically a dealer installed option, then no reason it can't be included in a test. If i'm not mistaken ( you can correct me if i'm wrong here ), but the first group of mini's that could get a blower had to have it dealer installed as well. And Ford over the years has enabled buyers of Mustangs to get performance packages that could still be covered by the warranty ( I guess my definition of a factory piece ), such as SVO or Saleen components. And if Honda offers parts from Mugen or whomever thru their dealerships, then so be it.
Well, so much for a short post. All i'd suggest is let the opinions fly, as everyone's entitled; but keep it about the cars--not personal. And though any knowledge i've gained over the years was based in the muscle car era where limitations rarely existed; I've also sold imports ( Mitsu, the german siblings, etc ) that showed how competitive it has gotten where displacement is set, and it's up to an engineer to make it go faster then the competition. Enjoy these great cars that are being built now--they can be as fast or even faster then cars from the 60's/70's, yet start each morning, can be driven in snow, and get better then twice the fuel economy.
alright, i'm done rambling, you guys are all probably sleeping by now.

cmndrjamesbond

01-13-2006, 05:07 AM

killerxromances

01-13-2006, 05:28 PM

You drive an xB. Go brag about your amazing autocross performance to someone else, because you have no credibility here on any topic. I have to admit, however, that if I ever need lessons on how to pull poop out of my butt, I'll come to you.

Some of you keep bringing that up, but i've stopped talking about me autoxing pages back.. If i even talked about it on here. (don't remember) I won't have any credibility for some of you until i post videos, and i've already talked about this so moving on.

Yes, i drive an xb. And you are using that against me because you don't like what i say? :rofl: As i've said before, just because i drive a certain car doesn't mean my knowledge stops there. Just because you drive a tC must mean you know nothing about any other car. :blah:

tC_killa

01-13-2006, 11:49 PM

killerxromances

01-13-2006, 11:56 PM

man..this scionlife site gets nasty...i just wanted to praise killerxromances and basstrack for havin an open mind about this subject...looks to me like this site is filled with a buncha tC owners in denial that an Si can outperform a tC. Its no denying that the tC is a great car when it comes to modifying it with your taste...but it doesnt compare anything with the Si when it comes to performance. having the oppportunity to test drive both cars, i picked the Si because of its performance, potential with aftermarkets, and its handling capability. Its a very comfortable car also. For those who are bashing on the Si, i bet more than 80% of you have NOT test driven the Si so you have no right to bash on it. I believe that your only bashing on it because of its badge without the experience of driving it.

R2D2...you have GOT to be the most stubborn person on earth...i wish i can meet you on a red light or on a track so i can shut your mouth when u see the back of my Si...

for basstrack...youre right when u say to respect each others cars...everyone has their own likes and dislikes to a car and thats why mostly everyone here chose the tC/scion and i chose the Si...so at least respect that and everyones opinion.

Well said. :clap: Although you drive an Si, if you are interested in any of the models of Scion you are always welcome to hang around. Theres a few people on the forums with acura's and honda's.

It's good to see at least three (including myself) that actually view the entire picture. You are correct, 80% of people bashing the Si probably has not test driven the Si and bash it just because of the honda name without knowing anything else about it...or honda in general for that matter. Which is what i said i think on the last page or page before.

Thanks for the kind words towards me, and again, if you are interested at all within Scion don't be a stranger.

TimmyT

01-14-2006, 12:07 AM

dawheat

01-14-2006, 12:17 AM

You drive an xB. Go brag about your amazing autocross performance to someone else, because you have no credibility here on any topic. I have to admit, however, that if I ever need lessons on how to pull poop out of my butt, I'll come to you.

As someone following this thread with a good degree of enjoyment, I find this comment amusing. From the POV of an S2000 driver who has had fun against Evos and Stis at road courses across California, we all drive relatively low powered, FWD people haulers. A tC driver showing disdain to an xB driver is :clap:

<--- used tC as my daily driver/long-___ commute beater

dawheat

01-14-2006, 12:22 AM

Sorry to say. The LSD is nice, but doesn't make up for having a 60+ ft/lb deficit in torque and almost 30 whp.

Then they throw in "The civic is lighter!".... yah by like 25 lbs......

+ sportier shocks, springs, sway bars, LSD, tires, possibly brakes (is the Si the 3rd Honda with decent brakes?) + improved gearing

Only a guess, but I'd think a stock Si would be noticeably faster than a tC with only a SC around any auto-x or road course - with about the same price point.

For those who say very few people take their cars to the track and that's not the way to judge performance, :loser: you might as well buy a Camaro then

killerxromances

01-14-2006, 12:26 AM

Sheesh Don't you guys understand? No one here is saying a Si can not out perform a tC. What we are saying is an Si can not out perform the supercharged tC.
The majority of us are upset on how they mis represented the supercharged tC and the price of the tC in general by thier totally lop sided comparison of the 2 vehicles.

Then captain fuktard comes in: "Blah blah blah, yah the civic si has a k series in it blah blah blah, and even out performs a s/c tC."

And he adds some way off numbers to downplay the s/c tC while he is at it.
Namely the lil blurp about a s/c tC with no mods puts down 185 whp. Wich i haven't seen any dynos to prove that. and all of the dynos (including bone stock tc with the supercharger) all @ 190+ whp on the dynos.

Basic math with the power to weight ratios, and knowledge of the gearing of both cars totally puts the supercharged tC in favor over the 2 vehicles.

Sorry to say. The LSD is nice, but doesn't make up for having a 60+ ft/lb deficit in torque and almost 30 whp.

Then they throw in "The civic is lighter!".... yah by like 25 lbs......

Theres a tC owner i know with s/c, s-pipe/cat back, and a few other things putting down 206whp. Theres another i've talked to, with just a cat back w/ supercharger that put down 192whp. A few others, with other mods put down mid 190's. A bone stock tC will run 185whp.

And again, there is not a 30whp difference between a s/c tC and the Si. You are speaking of something you apparently don't know about. The 06' Si puts out 175-180whp. Not 155-160whp.
I know what you are talking about, and what this thread was started for. S/c tC, i've been saying this with ever post. The Si does infact, overall, out-perform a tC with a s/c. Apparently, the S/c tC puts the tC right with the Si in 1/4 times. No, that doesn't mean the Si is faster with 1/4 times, you are correct. But that doesn't mean the tC smoked the Si either.

TimmyT

01-14-2006, 12:31 AM

Basstrack17

01-14-2006, 12:33 AM

i promise no more long winded posts from the elderly section here. Thanks for any props sent my way; and to any who disagree: no hard feelings.
As for what this post started about: one mag article. Let's wait and see what a few other mags get for test results, even if not head to head. Heck, there's people on this site hitting near 15 flat with n/a TC's, so even taking into account the extra wheelspin so prominent with the sc; both the SI & TC should be running quicker then that ( especially with track time & equipment a mag is used to ). The best way to solve this? On the pavement ( fine--I mean track ). Come this summer, there should be enough SI's on the road, same goes for us blown TC's, that someone sometime will find themselves waiting for a green light...........
you all enjoy the weekend...

killerxromances

01-14-2006, 12:39 AM

vankuen

01-14-2006, 01:42 AM

Having test driven both cars...I came away basically looking at it this way:

The tc has the better pricing, and the same basic standard features.
The Si has better fit and finish and overall styling.

As far as performance wise, standard vehicle to standard vehicle...there really is no comparison. The Si's 197 to the TC's 160hp. The Si's tremendously better brakes and suspension over the TC. Even the stereo was ten times better IMO than the TC.

You can't compare a modded car with an unmodded car--it just isn't a fair comparison...but then...that's the only way this TC would even come close to being a comparable vehicle is after buying all the aftermarket parts. Toyota basically dug through their factory trash can and picked out a bunch of parts...put it together...and then grabbed a bunch of other parts and made them available as "aftermarket" mods. These SC's have been available for years...and are applicable to many more models than just this TC.

Obviously from this reply...I bought the first SI that showed up in my city. But keep in mind guys...this is all subjective. Opinions vary.

vankuen

01-14-2006, 01:49 AM

Geez man. Read the dang thread!

We are Specifically talking about an Article in Speed magazine. THEY didn't test the cars in an auto x or slalom. They did straight line.
AND the SI doesn't have an advantage in gearing over the dang tC ROFL. the TC is geared like it is supposed to have a 6th gear. Both Cars have to shift into 3rd b4 reaching 60.

Go test drive both cars and you will definitly see that one doesn't have any noticable difference in gearing than the other.

And the TC has really good brakes. ABS + EBD 4 wheel disc brakes.....
As for the suspension issues. There are already numerous applications to improve the TC suspension. Some of wich you can buy from the factory.

As for the lame butt camaro comment. Have you been in a Camaro SS? I don't know if you know this, but the have traction control (Slows em down a bit straight line) but they handle corners pretty well. These are the camaros of the 60's on to the early 90s. Not to mention the fact they don't even produce F body Camaros anymore. 03 was the last year.

I've personally driven both cars, i've already said this about three pages back. No, we are not talking about autox and road course. Your point being?

As i have said numerous times, i'll do it again:
S/c tC (with only s/c) - 185-190whp
stock Si - 175-180whp

Si is geared slightly more aggressive compared the the tC. Yes, tC does have more tq however Si makes up with that with gearing, lsd, and a few other things. With the tC pushing just 5-10whp more than the stock Si, every pound counts.

With all of this said, equal drivers, a s/c tC is just as fast as a stock Si as far as 1/4 goes. Period.

Bass: Yes, n/a tC's are hitting low 15's. However, we are also talking about just a s/c. Not combining these mods with the s/c. Personally, i think both tC s/c and stock Si would be around 14.9-15.0 with better drivers than this mag provided. However, 15.1 isn't horrible for the trd s/c. As i have said before, i personally feel trd s/c is over-rated..Majorly.

You're wrong too...the SI puts out a claimed 197hp from Honda....and I've seen dyno's from various machines that showed numbers anywhere from 180 to 210. It depends on the conditions during the testing, the individual car, and of course the measuring device. So if we keep things simple, it's a stock 160 vs a stock 197. Not much else to talk about there.

killerxromances

01-14-2006, 02:32 AM

Basstrack17

01-14-2006, 03:27 AM

well, we didn't buy or build our car to run at the track; it's a daily driver that will get 15-20k miles each year, many in heavy traffic. And though it's neat to be able to talk about "x" times in the 1/4, or 0-60 for that matter; it's all about the feel you get when running the car hard. For us, this set up does it. For others, obviously not. Is the TC better then the SI? For us, it is. For killerx & others, it's not. Doesn't really matter. Everyone's passionate about their rides; and for good reason. These cars aren't cheap; it will cost to put a smile on your face, whether it comes at 8000 rpm, or thru the woosh of a blower. Whether it's stock ( insert your definition of stock here____ ) or modded, toys aren't cheap anymore. I've owned cars that ran 13-14 sec times; have driven ( per earlier story ) one in the hi 11's; and have been in a 10 sec car so I do understand what performance can mean, and of all the different ways to get there ( i don't care what anyone says: a 500+hp big block will put the fear in ya when the tires bite ).
This is a Scion site, so i'm not surprised most posts are jumping on the Honda. I would bet that if the TC won out in that article ( err printed opinion ) that the Honda sites would have been in an uproar. Are the 2 cars the same? nope. And I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the sc is not a dealer add on anymore; especially in the marketing competition that is sure to follow between Toy & Honda. There are plenty of cars in this 'class', but i'm sure these 2 will be most compared. Was I a bit miffed when i read the article, and saw the pricing on the TC they tested--sure. If the plan was to compare a couple of 200+/- hp cars, Speed mag could have done so and kept both cars on a similar playing field so strictly stats could tell their story. But that's not how it happened.
Like I said last time: all you have to do is beat the other guy... then you have the bragging rights... gotta go, it's lights out at the old folks home now....

ever12

01-14-2006, 03:50 AM

Those are base weights—adding the ground effects, wing and 18" wheels all add significant weight (probably 300-400lbs) putting either car out of any lightweight catagory.

http://tinypic.com/k4xwz6.gif No excuse for this statement.

tC_killa

01-14-2006, 06:14 AM

wats up VANKUEN...welcome to scionlife :loser: ...i see you on TOV all the time :rofl: i only joined this site to put in my opinion on here :rofl: ...buts its all about the TOV love :silly: .

fusionSi11(TOV)

cmndrjamesbond

01-14-2006, 06:46 AM

How is it you figure the Si gets 180 whp. Thats less of a drivetrain loss (17hp) than the tC (roughly 21hp). You're talking less than a 10% drivetrain loss. Sorry, but this isn't the case.

Janizary

01-14-2006, 06:53 AM

Just like under ideal conditions, the Si would dyno right around 180whp. I do not see how i'm wrong. Before the SAE rating took into effect, the new Si was going push out 201hp, but with the new ratings it dropped to 197hp.

You have not proven me wrong, infact, you haven't really made any sense.

Killer, I think vankuen is referring to the varied results that have rolled out for the Si. ToV's test Si had some rather high dyno results, however, it has been stipulated that the dyno they used has given high numbers overall. The few dynos that I have seen in the last few weeks on 'real' street sold Si's have been in the 175-180 range, WHP, more along the lines of expectations. (2 or three dyno sheets, though I think it might only be two)

kungpaosamuraiii

01-14-2006, 08:20 AM

I think a Sentra owner needs to come here and give some opinions.

Of course, it'd be easy simply to look at what's going on. It's easy to see the good points in cars that are inferior.

tc_killa, vankuen, I have to say, objectively I hope, that many tC owners are of the same Civic breed from the mid to late 90's, what I deem to be the height of ricerism. I've found xB and xA owners to be much more openminded. Most of them know that their cars are not race engineered cars. tC owners, for the most part, somehow got it into their heads that the tC was made to be the end all sports compact coupe.

This is a generalization, of course.

What everyone NEEDS to understand is that the tC and the Si are not meant to compete. For instance, would anyone consider the SRT4 a competitor for the tC? I'm sure all of you see why the SRT4 and the tC are in entirely different classes. In this way, the Neon and the tC are in direct competition and the Si and the SRT4 are in direct competition. If only there existed a TRD trim for the tC, it too would be in direct competiton. Again, the tC is not meant to compete with the Si.

basstrack, I think your opinion is always welcome. No offense or anything, I think you're pretty wise ;)

dawheat - You're hilarious. Seriously, that's a great way to put things into perspective, talking about tracking an S2k! How little I feel debating about two cars short of 200 bhp with four seats and functional trunks.. and believing either are possible of being auto x competitors! Of course they can be with modding but that doesn't make the chassis any more built with speed in mind.

If I am to change the image of tC owners, I must first change myself. Hondas are friends, not food. . .

racecaryaya

01-14-2006, 03:19 PM

vankuen

01-14-2006, 04:00 PM

I'm not saying anything about TC owners, or Civic owners....as there are "ricers" in both parties that take things a bit out of reality in regards to the capability or even purpose of their vehicles.

I started thinking about my SI because I simply couldn't drive the EX with it's 140hp. Now I completely I love the car...it revs great...and it's got an adaquate amount of HP for city driving and then some. But it's NOT a sportscar by any means. The same thing can be said of the TC as well, but even moreso. One car was made to appeal to those that wanted a little more HP in a familiar chassis and namesake, the other was created to appeal to a younger generation of modifiers/tuners.

What I think is funny about this whole thing is:

1. That this comparison even occurred with any serious thought
2. That they would compare a vehicle that HAD to be fitted with an SC to even come close to the standard HP of the other
3. That people here are completely incorrect about the HP numbers; and basing their arguments on false or circumstancial data.

To me--they both offer the same basic ammenities on the interior though...just with different styling, fit and finish. Engine and performance wise they are worlds apart. that's all there really is to it. No offense to anyone on here. Keep in mind I was looking at the TC as well prior to buying my SI. It is a good car for the price.

SilverRSXJezus

01-14-2006, 05:30 PM

killerxromances

01-14-2006, 06:37 PM

How is it you figure the Si gets 180 whp. Thats less of a drivetrain loss (17hp) than the tC (roughly 21hp). You're talking less than a 10% drivetrain loss. Sorry, but this isn't the case.

You do realize that you cannot take the manufacturer's rating for gospel.

Do you think the SRT-4 really gets 230 bhp? So you're saying that it dynos around 230-240 whp, oh wait, that's negative percentage drivetrain loss! But we all know that there's no such thing like that, it's just that the claims are underrated.

Mainly goes to cmn; k20z1 puts out 197hp on the Si. 175-180whp would be giving it a 22hp-17hp drivetrain loss. Which is more than enough loss for the motor and drivetrain we are talking about here. Just like stock the 2az puts out right around 133-140whp for manuals. I've seen lower than 133, but i'm going with an average.

Basstrack17

01-15-2006, 12:53 AM

though it may not have been fair for the mag to compare these 2, there will be plenty of shoppers who will be doing just that. Speaking for my wife, she had everything from an Eclipse to a Cobalt SS to RSx, etc on her list ( note the absence of 4 doors ); all in the 200 +/- or better hp range. Yes it took adding the sc to get the TC into that group, and again ( i'm speaking just for us ) it still proved to be the best value for performance, styling, and dollars. I'm sure there are many consumers, not just the so called tuner crowd, who are comparing any of these vehicles that will end up being very close stat wise. So for those "shoppers", any mag comparison is helpful to get performance data that many of them just can't duplicate on the street ( whether due to location, skill, or even unwillingness to actually drive a car hard ). Armed with test results, no matter what they may be, enables consumers to be able to concentrate more on the cars overall and not just stoplight performance ( as an ex car salesman, this happened plenty ).
A side note to a previous quote of mine, where I labeled the SI as more of a driver's sports car: I do know it's not truly a sports car per say, but if one wished to hit the curvy roads, ripping thru the gears keeping the motor in it's power band ( cheap way to get s2000 type enjoyment ) then i thought the SI was more suited to that style of driving. Keeping the motor in the 6-8k range can be a blast; just not suited for everyone or everywhere.
One last note: for the younger crowd here on this site: enjoy the car wars currently going on with the manufacturers--my day had the big 3 tossing all kinds of cubic inches to beat the other guy, and we were all faithful to our marque of choice. Then the 80's came, where a stock v8 had little stones ( we'll call them pebbles here ), and if a 4-popper hit below 9 sec 0-60, it was a pocket rocket. The 90's brought out turbos and better performance ( 1st gen Eclipse, Se-r's, better integras, etc ) that tought us a 4 cyl can go fast... and also taught us a bit about torque steer & turbo lag, but at least gave hope. Now you have cars that are running in some cases what cars from the 60's/70's were doing, yet far more safer & reliable.
Again: ENJOY these times... for any car enthusiast ( regardless of fav model ) this time can put a lot of fun in your hands....

DrR

01-15-2006, 02:12 AM

Hello. I'm sorry to barge in this heated discussion, but there are things you guys are not taking into account. And please don't tell me that you all know this, because how can you talk about who's quickest in drag racing without EVEN mentionig Trap Speed. You can't take ET as the truth of all things. This explanation is assuming that neither car is wearing slicks, but their stock tires.

1/4 mile racing is a measure of how well and how quick one can cover a certain amount of space(In this case 1320 ') vs time. That being said you have to understand that the most important aspect of drag racing is the 60' mark. Because so many cars are so different in their power delivery the technique, and not necessarily the Power will dictate how low your ET will be. For example Honda's being low in Torque, you have to launch them, i.e. spin your tires until you hook up in the VTEC powerband. At first the car is moving slowly, but is like a rubber band effect. When the tires bite with traction you start moving quickly. A car like the S/C Tc can't be launched that way of course, or you'll be at the start forever. You use the Torque as your advantage, and you want full traction of the line and let your Torque move the car toward your 60' line. Now after this everything else is academic. You'll change gears until the end of the run.

And this is the kicker. If you mess up bad your 60' time a slower car can post a better ET, BUT the TRAP SPEEDS are much more consistent. A poorly driven 2000 Mustang Cobra was posting 13.99 @101.3 mph as best ET of the day. The owner, my brother, let me drive it on the same night and I posted a best of 13.64 @ 103.5 mph. Notice how not only my ET was better but also my mph. While he wasting time at the line I hooked up much better launching at idle, thus better a better 60', and i was probably changing gears at the correct powerband points, thus the better mph.

In Honda's the more your spin your tires the mph increases. But if you spin too much then ET decreases as your mph increases. For example, In my 99Si(H/I/E, Type R cams and stock clutch with GSR pressure plate) my highest Trap speed was 94.1 mph on a 15.5 run. My 60' time was like a 2.5. On my best run my mph was a 92.25 on a 14.85 run, with a 2.1 60' time. But now bear in mind. Every time I hit 14's my mph is always on the 92 mph range.

Ok, sorry for all this ranting, but here is the big point. In the Si vs S/C Tc comparo both cars posted almost identical trap speed. Without the 60 ' time we don't have the whole story, BUT any experience Drag Racer will interpret this and will tell you that these 2 cars are dead even in the 1/4 mile.

Lastly, one more point why the Trap speed is important. Did you just noticed how I'm 2 mph slower but quicker in ET than these 2 cars? In real life(like a race longer than a 1/4 mile) that would translate into me ahead at the 1/4 mile line and very shortly after that, these 2 cars(06 Si and S/C Tc) will put me back at my place because I will be seeing their tailights. They are moving faster than me so they will catch up and pass me. Another example is the R&T comparo between the 06 Miata and the 06 Solstice. They both did 15.3 or so in the ET. So you can say wow, they are only .2 off the Si and S/C Tc, BUT look at their mph. they posted around 89 mph while the Si and S/C Tc posted 94 mph. So what does that mean? The Miata and Solstice will be at 100 mph at about 21 sec, meanwhile The Si and S/C Tc will be there at around 16.8 sec. So who do you think is moving much faster? Please don't use this explanation with 4wd. A car like a WRX will post a low ET with a not so hot mph because IT HOOKS right there and then. Their trap speeds are about the same as the 06 Si and the S/C Tc.

So if you see somebody on a S/C Tc doing 14's you can be assure than that the Si can do the same time. And the reverse is true too. TRAP SPEEDS don't lie. ET does.

Sincerely;
DrR
PS sorry 4 long post.

Basstrack17

01-15-2006, 04:49 AM

good post.
And as right as you are; many times it's the seconds that are advertised or talked about, so that's what get's people's attention at first during comparisons. And for anyone running a car on those special "closed courses" out in the country; hell it could be a quarter mile, could even be more( depending on the road/ i mean track ) and in real time racing sometimes the quickest guy does not end up winning at the end. Anyone who ever ran a car with 4.11 or lower axle ratios knows what i'm talking about there....
And for anyone running a modded engine, without much time/design/money spent on strenghtening the drivetrain itself ( meaning trans, etc ): a bit of wheel spin is not always a bad thing. Unless that car is bulletproof from the get go, when the clutch dumps something needs to give. Much better to spin a tire, then an axle ( i'm sure that goes without saying here, but thought i'd toss it out anyways ).

Billyshift

01-15-2006, 12:08 PM

Ok um... this might just ____ off some ppl but i could care less. For 1 thing my girlfriend has owned a Scion TC since the day it hit the showroom floor @ the Toyota dealer here in Florence S.C. @ the time i had a Black 2000 Civic Si (that i still own) it had 3 mods @ the time (Mugen 4 into1 header/Greddy cat-back exhaust/AEM CAI). My GF has been raceing imports since her 1st car (a 94 Acura Integra LS) that blew due to prolonged nitrous use lol... Anyways we decided as soon as she had access to a CAI header & exhaust we would line them up @ the strip. I would not race her until then cuz i dont believe in raceing a stock car vs. a modded car (I think its unfair). Well the day came that she had the proper mods. Hell she even put them on! Thats right a cool chick thats into cars! <3 my girl lol. Back to the point shall we. We raced a total of 4 times with the same results each time. My Si won by around 2 car lengths each time... keep in mind both these cars have around 144 hp to the wheels stock. And the engine in the TC is just a Celica engine with less hp. Dissheartened my G/F told me to drive the TC and she would drive the civic. The results where the exact same. So we decided to Turbo my Civic and Supercharge her TC. I would tune the Civic to the same hp range as her TC and we would see the outcome. After some time i was able to work the kinks out of my car and tuned it to 2 hp below her TC (around 223 hp @ 5 psi) and we headed to the track again. I had made the prediction that the TC would beat me due to the imediate power gain from the Supercharger and the fact i would have to deal with boost lag till around 3500 rpm. Well i was wrong very wrong infact... The TC did infact pull me off the line but once i hit boost it was as if I just rocketed past the TC. I felt bad for my G/F she had her hopes so high for the Supercharger... So did I really. but sadly it didnt seem to make the TC "ridiculously fast" as so many ppl claimed. And after i took the B16a2 back out of my Si had the block sleeved and new pistons/rod crank ect installed and upped the boost to 26 psi it wasnt even a contest anymore... Well time has past and I just picked up my new 06 Si on 1/5/06 and to say the least ITS FAST AS A MOFO STOCK!!!!1 The acceleration is insain for a stock n/a 4 banger. The cornering is out of this world due to the LSD. And the sound system is the best ive heard from any of the cars we have had. So far I modded a cpl things on it like I took a RSX ram-air intake and modded it to fit the Si i also ran a Custom Mandrel bent pipeing exaust (no crush bends thank you ^_~) No header yet cuz I hear that the RSX header wont fit due to the tight engine bay space. So we decided to take the new Si & the TC out for a few little test. 1st test was the cornering test (keep in mind her TC has aftermarket suspension). It was no contest the Si destroyed the TC in cornering with both her and me testing it. We both race in SCCA so dont try saying we cant corner properly >.> Seemed like with the Supercharger the TC was overpowering in the turns loseing alot of time from loseing grip (much like my last Si after I turbocharged it). Next test was the Drag test. A very good friend of mine is part owner's of the Dragstrip in Darlington S.C. which is a good thing considering it was closed for the winter. So he let us in for a few runs down the strip. Well much to my surprise the 06 Si actually held its own with 2 wins and 3 loses each win/loss was only by 2-3 tenths of a second nothing big. So there you have it.... You can either keep argueing which is stupid or... You can accept the facts. The Si is plainly a better buy than the TC in so many ways.

1: TCs go for around 16,000 The Si I got for 20,000
to make a TC be able to outrun or keep up with a 06 Si you HAVE to have a Supercharger so that makes your 16,000 doller TC more like 19,000

2: The Si can out corner the TC any day of the week & to make the TC be able to corner near as good as the Si does stock your gonna have to update the suspension so now that 16,000 doller price tag sits around 20-21,000 and thats not even touching the sound system...

So in the end I wouldnt even put the TC in the same class as the 06 Si its more in the class as the last gen Si or the 99-00 Si but the new Si has blown it away. Sad but true... Oh and about the comment about the Scion TC being "More respected on the road" thats the biggest pile of BS ive ever heard... For 1 my friend the Si has been around 4 times as long as the TC and will still be here long after its disscontinued....
That being said the TC will have to be around a heck of a long time (alot longer than the several years its ben available) to be more respected than the Si. For 2 have you forgotten what car it was that even started the import tuneing BOOM out of the westcoast? Thats right it was the civic! The TC wasnt even on the drawing board yet... So plz think before you speak. Not doing so only makes you look stupid... :doh:

Basstrack17

01-15-2006, 01:00 PM

interesting post; and you make your test points well. Keep in mind though, unless i'm mistaken here, your 00 civic that was first compared is about 300 pounds lighter then the TC. Figuring mods will weigh the same when added to each car ( sc & turbo plumbing, suspension on each, wheels, etc ) having the same hp in a car several hundred pounds lighter will give you the edge. Same thinking as in the muscle car era--add hp, drop pounds, and away you go. But that just gets you the win. If your 00 & her TC weigh the same, then the results are more important here.
Any of my posts have tried to stick up for the opinions ( or at least the right to speak them ) presented by both sides, whether i agreed or not. And all this started with one mag test; much more will be decided on the pavement. If the Honda beats you, then acknowledge it and move on. And if the TC wins, those Honda boys should do the same.
And i'm not pushing running on the street; any wisdom I may have picked up over the years was learned from the many stumbles & falls along the way ( and someone upstairs really watching over me ). The night I ran the v8 Pinto over the monza ( & a camaro as well--running 3 wide on a main drag is really stupid now ) we pulled over afterwards to talk to the guys, show off the car, etc. Well, friend forgot to put the hood pins back in when he closed the hood on his car. A couple blocks down we pulled next to a big block mopar, thinking now we have a real race. Thankfully we noticed the officer pulling up on the side street, so we just putted away. Going by the main crowd ( cruising was legal in the old days ), up flies the hood. Going 25, the only damage done was cracking the hood scoop, and some major embarrasment. But if that came up at triple digits, it would have become a 3 foot square frisbee flying thru the air. And that could have been disaster ( like I said, someone was watching over me/us ). Point being--keep it safe. Best to do this on the track; and if you can't, please keep it away from bystanders......
And back to billyshift: the best thing i take away from your post is not the results or the opinions; but that your girl is also into cars and can handle her own--that's what I find cool in there.

Billyshift

01-15-2006, 01:10 PM

Haha much love man. I 2 agree that street raceing isnt so much a good idea ive had alot of friends get hurt pretty bad. In what seemed a "fun race gone bad" any and all testing we do is done off street away from anyone that could potentially get hurt. I totally agree with you> I just wish there where more ppl like us. That cared about safety. As far as the TC I have alot of respect for the car. In the time that it has been out it has gained a strong following and quite a good bit of aftermarket parts. I like the styleing of it also my G/F is still considering a kit or not she has a nice set of wider 18" rims to give her more grip with the charger. It was needed lol. All in all I was mainly trying to say that the Si is a great preformer and that just because someone is baised they shouldnt put up an opinion that isnt true just to make them feal better about there car. Oh and my G/F appriciated the props :D

Basstrack17

01-15-2006, 01:14 PM

oh, and to be honest, neither the TC w/ the sc or the new SI is amazingly fast. Both are strong performers out of the box ( regardless of what anyone feels is stock ), but both run maybe hi 14's to low 15's. That can be a fun car, but fast is an older Honda hatch with a motor transplant and nos, a Camaro with a v8 pumping 400hp, or even some of the tc's elsewhere on this site running turbo and nearing 300hp. Those types of cars are fast. I'm thinking if many here wanted to go as fast as possible when buying a new car, it mainly depended on the size of the budget. You can take an SI or TC well into the low/mid 20's after add-ons at the dealer ( ie accessories, dealer mark ups, etc )--that's getting you close to other cars that will run these off thr road ( stang gt, srt-4, etc ). Point is these 2 cars in discussion both are nice runners from the start, giving you different platforms to work with. But neither are race cars... yet...

Billyshift

01-15-2006, 01:25 PM

Very true, not to mention its going to be a VERY long time before either of these engine platforms reach the size that the aftermarket has grown to for the B-series. Thats the main problem with the Scion TC there just isnt a huge lineup of aftermarket parts yet. Well same can be said for the K-series there are alot of parts but not much in the way of variaty...

Basstrack17

01-15-2006, 01:28 PM

geez, i open up my Sunday paper; and the cover of the auto page is .......the new Si.
Boy, you Honda lovers are a persistant bunch!!! First you buy off the Speed mag writer, then the local papers??? WOW..... what's next???
You know, these sites should be kept light hearted; they are just cars after all.
Besides me telling all to enjoy these car times with all the offerings from the manu's; this internet really can be a huge help in researching a car for mods. Hell, all we had was maybe Hot Rod mag, hitting a car show, and some trial & error on your own. No one had any idea on what another car could run, until you met up with it at a light. Now all you need is a few clicks and there you go.
You all have a great day, and remember if you pull up next to an SI, don't even ackowledge them, they are not worthy.....

ok, just kidding. just relax. Time for me to line up for my meds again....

Billyshift

01-15-2006, 01:32 PM

lmfao great stuff. It was like that when the TC 1st came out also. TC this TC that. My gurl was eatting it up of course lol. Now if only I can get greddy to find a way to fit a turbo in that rabbit hole they call an engine bay on the new Si O.o

smittyfolifetc

01-15-2006, 01:53 PM

I have driven the si and it’s a real nice car I like the interior but I don't like the material of the seats. All in all I still love my Tc and won't be trading it in for a civic. But if I wasn't over seas and it was out I probably would have gotten it only because all my friends have Acura and Hondas and they all are quick na cars and we know more about Hondas then Toyota engines.

mr_valentine

01-15-2006, 05:45 PM

"I'm personally glad they ruled the way they did. The less popular my car is with the 15 year old crowd who are anxiously awaiting the release of Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (Thats the actual name, I could not make that up)................"

i acutally looked it up. lol. seems interesting. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463985/

Basstrack17

01-15-2006, 05:56 PM

Yeah, it's kinda nice owning a car that is not a "dime a dozen".

i thought that earlier post about F&F3 was a joke ( sorry ); somethings just need to be left alone. I enjoy good car movies, but in F&F1, when the 10 sec charger takes what seems eternity to run his last race to the rr tracks..... oh well.
I almost forgot how many times Jason came back in his movies......

I can see the headlines now:
coming soon: " F&F4, revenge of the soccer moms." Introducing the new Dodge Evo-van, powered by Mitsu, while still seating 7.....

killerxromances

01-15-2006, 06:44 PM

So this thread has gone from hating my posts to people actually agreeing with me.. Interesting.

Yes, neither car is amazingly fast but i don't think anyone on here believes either/or is amazingly fast. It's all about potential, and what you get straight off the lot imo. I could go on, but the latest posts some of the points others have made were the points i have been making on this thread.

Both are great cars for the money, Si is just a better performance potential platform than the tC is. Not to say tC doesn't have potential, but yeah.

Charade_Detomasso

01-15-2006, 11:02 PM

Attention Wh@re ^^^^^^

ijoke, i joke, i kid i kid :)

lol

Basstrack17

01-15-2006, 11:36 PM

I'd say my time on this thread has neared it's end, as there's not much else to say. I've tried to stick up for a few of you who are on the SI side of things ( regardless if I agreed with your takes on the info or not--your opinions should be welcome ), & tried to point out why I/we in my home are on the TC side of the fence. I've also rambled on ( & on& on & on ) some times about stories that may or may not have had a bearing on this thread; but hell it's always fun to reminisce about the olden days.
I'll look forward to jumping in on the next one; thanks for listening to my posts.

Beantowntc

01-16-2006, 12:00 AM

Billyshift, You make some very interesting points but the celica and tc dont share the same engine at all, and the tc supercharger is centrifigul so there isn't instant boost like a roots type charger......

Makes me wonder....

Billyshift

01-16-2006, 06:25 AM

Hmmm in any case a supercharger builds boost much faster than a turbo. A roots style charger replaces the existing intake manifold while a centrifugil charger keeps it. No matter it still is more torque driven than hp driven like turbo's and in my opinion Vtec engines react well to turbochargeing because of the long powerband we have. And yes the TC engine is the same exact engine platform as the Celica just not as fast nor refined.

Charade_Detomasso

01-16-2006, 08:06 AM

a celica has a 2ZZ, the tC a 2AZ, both very different engines

psyshack

01-16-2006, 05:17 PM

First,, let me say hello. Looks like this is a fine board! I picked up a link to this from another board,, yeah know those Honda peeps. :P

I dont own a Si or a tC. I own a Accord and Civic. Ive driven Si and tC. Straight up stock the Si just whoops the crap out of tC. Put a blower on tC and you have a very fun and drivable car indeed.

When I launched into this last car buying spree, Toyota and Honda where it. Nothing else need be looked at. Both camps have great cars! It came down to dealers. I wanted a family sedan and a coupe. I really liked Camry and tC. The Toyota dealers where the very worst dealers I'd ever delt with in my life. Close behind was Hondas racket tiers. I had given up and was having nightmares over ending up at a Ford dealer. :doh: Then a friend turned me on to a wonderful honda dealer. Bought a Accord. Sorry Camry. The rest is history.

I really liked the tC. A great car with a good price point. And reminded me of Accord Coupe. The dual sunroofs. where alittle GMish for me. Left a uneasy feeling... Like,, look up here,,, no,, dont look over there. Kinda thing. All and all a very refined car.

All said and done I ended up with a Civic EX Sedan, 5MT, Navi. Im sure I would be as happy or happier if I'd bought a tC or Si. But MSRP on Si and the god awful adders dealers are putting tC like paint protectant, pin strips and other useless goodies that push the price up. Was a no go.

The comparison should have been tC and EX Coupe. There given the critira used in the Si , tC comparison would have been tC straight up. I think its bruteish engine would have carried it. Not to slame the engine in my Civic. It does ok for 140hp and is a pleasure to drive. Its pure honda and enjoys being above 4k rpm.

I wish the Toyota dealers would have wanted to sell cars as much as my Honda dealership wanted to. There could have been two Yotas in the driveway right now.

Ive enjoyed this thread and the passion desplayed in it.
Good luck
psy

Beantowntc

01-16-2006, 06:39 PM

Janizary

01-16-2006, 07:07 PM

The Toyota dealers where the very worst dealers I'd ever delt with in my life. Close behind was Hondas racket tiers.

Sorry to hear about your bad experience with the Toyota folks. When I purchased my tC the Scion salesfolks that I dealt with were some of the best I have had. Of course, since there was no real negotiation, that may have had something to do with it, though they were still very helpful and communicative while I was waiting for my tC to arrive.

The funny thing is the Honda dealer where I got my Si has some rather bad posts on dealerratings website, however, the internet sale manager I dealth with was the 2nd best sales person I have dealt with in all my car-buying experience. (Best was a GMC salesman, who was so straight up I don't know how he could sell cars, heh)

Basstrack17

01-17-2006, 12:54 AM

sometimes it's not even the salesperson's fault; the management at some dealers will just keep pushing for that buck, regardless of the customer's satisfaction. Back when I sold, I can remember one mgr that told me to keep going back even for an extra $25 ( this was on a loaded Pathfinder, which was making us good money plus getting the customer the price he wanted to pay ). I eventually had to tell him to either do it himself & chase the customer over to the competition; or back off and accept a good deal.
With all the pricing & info on the web these days; a salesperson should be mostly a consultant--helping you with a decision that you may have already made. Our TC saleperson was/is great to work with; most of our other sales people we've bought from have been as well... if not, then screw them-- you can find another dealer easy enough who will work with you.
And for you younger posters here: unfortunately your group can be pre-judged pretty quickly, and I think some may not take you as a serious consumer ( same in any biz ). That is not right; but it does happen.

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 01:00 AM

i'm just wondering (previous page) when this thread became 2zz vs. 2az. lol

Whoever things the 2zz is a platform of the 2az couldn't be more so wrong. They may share one or two things that are similar, but totally different motor period. Thats like saying the 1nz and 1zz are the same.

Oh, and lets keep to the si and tC. if you want to debate tC vs. celica gt or gt-s take it up on another thread, or start your own.

Management and salespeople are hit or miss. You either get the best service you've ever had prior to, or you get extremely poor service. Scion and Toyota is no exception. Any dealership, any car manufacture, has no bearing on service.

You can even go to a Ferrari dealership and get poor service. Of course, poor service for that kind of dealership is like best service for us. But you have to remember, someone walks in ready to spend $100,000 on a car should be treated extremely well. Not that they are better than someone that spends $15,000 on a new car, but price ranges do tend to declare what kind of service one should expect. I know if i was in the market for an exotic, or just pure expensive sports car, i would want to be treated well.

cmndrjamesbond

01-17-2006, 04:13 PM

Hey, I'm gonna start a tC vs. xB performance thread. killerx, you want to man up and get that video you've been talking about?

cmndrjamesbond

01-17-2006, 04:13 PM

Hey, I'm gonna start a tC vs. xB performance thread. killerx, you want to man up and get that video you've been talking about?

killerxromances

01-17-2006, 07:06 PM

Hey, I'm gonna start a tC vs. xB performance thread. killerx, you want to man up and get that video you've been talking about?

I don't have a video, its off season, so i won't one until i start up again this year. So give it a rest. I mention it one time in a tC thread and it blows up for no reason. Maybe start acting your age? :blah:

dawheat

01-18-2006, 01:33 AM

dawheat - You're hilarious. Seriously, that's a great way to put things into perspective, talking about tracking an S2k! How little I feel debating about two cars short of 200 bhp with four seats and functional trunks.. and believing either are possible of being auto x competitors! Of course they can be with modding but that doesn't make the chassis any more built with speed in mind.

If I am to change the image of tC owners, I must first change myself. Hondas are friends, not food. . .

To clarify and hopefully clear my name :)- how I got onto auto-x/tracking, I was responding to one scion owner ragging on another for having an xB and making some comment about auto-x ability. My point simply is that neither the xB, tC, or even an Si is truly a "performance vehicle" and to show disdain to one IMO is ridiculous.

At most, these cars veer into "sporty" coupe territory.

killerxromances

01-18-2006, 01:37 AM

Charade_Detomasso

01-18-2006, 02:41 AM

http://www.carpages.co.uk/seat/seat_images/seat_leon_cupra_side.jpg

Cupra R > than every other 'sporty' car mentioned in this thread

aznbread

03-17-2006, 12:16 AM

man, honda dealership just called me today b/c they just got in a blue si... but i already got my bsp in late feb. to do it all over again i might want the si more. i'm concerned about the interior integrity of the tC and the paint job. plus the si can handle a lot better with a high revving engine. si is no doubt a better performer in everyway i think. but the tc is more for daily commute i think. the rear room is a lot more spacious and low end torque helps during city driving. if it wasn't for the rattle/sqeaks and the cheap paint job on the tC, i'd be thrilled to keep my tC, but in reality those problems are a huge concern to me and makes me doubt my purchase a bit. and that's not good of a feeling to doubt my brand new cars.....

Scion-ce

03-17-2006, 12:24 AM

http://www.carpages.co.uk/seat/seat_images/seat_leon_cupra_side.jpg

Cupra R > than every other 'sporty' car mentioned in this thread
Whats your point?

sensay

03-17-2006, 03:54 AM

killerxromances

03-17-2006, 05:01 AM

The tc is a cheaper made car with so many issues, the Si is more sporty and well made.

actually the tc is not a cheaper made car. Its made of good parts from other good cars like lexus' and such. By taking some parts out of other cars toyota was able to create a well made car at a low price. All because they didnt have to design all new parts.

CYAA

Actually, the design was some what inspired by lexus, toyota, and a few other companies. However very few actual parts, if any are shared with the tC and lexus. The biggest known share is the motor with camry's and now the tC. All Scion cars are made to look espensive yet deliver a cheap price tag. Quality was suffered on all three models, the tC is only about $1,200 more than the xb so don't go assuming that means toyota put more care into the tC than they did other models..they didn't. Compared to the Si, the tC is made cheaper and theres a reason for that. In terms of performance, i've said it thousands of times, Si is much more performance-ground base than the tC will ever be from the factory. Its a 3,000lbs car with driver, fair handling to say the most. It's not that fast, not completely slow either. Its a nice coupe with a sport feel, the Si is hands down a true sports compact. Made to perform, the tC is not.

All Scion's have good parts on them, but that doesn't mean they aren't cheap cars. Theres worse out there, but by no means is it lexus quality as you seem to believe.

moots13181

03-17-2006, 05:10 AM

And ain't that the truth.

First off, I think everyone needs to remember that the tC was not made to fight the Si. The tC was made to practically kill the Civic EX. The price range of the Civic EX and the tC are almost comparable (actually the tC prices out base a little closer to the LX.)

Adding the supercharger is nice but (I hate to say this but) it's still a Camry engine. The 2AZ is still made for fuel economy over performance. The "performance" of the tC comes from the fact that the 2AZ was made for a much heavier car than the tC. The performance from the Si comes from the fact that the Si's engine and transmission were both made to run fast.

This isn't to put down the tC - it's just to put the tC back in its place.

I still think that the tC is a better value overall. I also think that, despite its fuel economy roots, the 2AZ has a LOT of potential (and I'm really clinging to the rumor of a 2AZ-GE for a GE head) with turbocharging and the like. But all this doesn't change that, stock for stock, the Si and the tC aren't made to compete.

I do disagree with killerxromances with one thing though - a TRD SC tC is totally comparable to an Si. Since the tC comes monospec, the closest thing to a factory trim level is the TRD SC. It's not quite the same but considering Scion's approach to marketing, the TRD tC comes pretty close.. it just needs to have the springs and wheels and struts and sways too. It comes pretty close.

Even so with the S/c equals trim level of Si. It still doesn't say all that much being tests are out, $3,500 into a tC with the s/c just equals the Si on 1/4 times, and doesn't improve handling (obviously) so the Si still is overall best performer. People also don't take into account that a S/c alone will only dyno the tC around 185whp. These dyno's that have been made to date consist of other mods working with the s/c to produce in the range of 190-200whp.

However, K20 is still the better, or ideal platform to begin a build up. Even if top speed isn't your thing, (is not mine) Si is still the better performing car. There are k20a2's, k20z3's, k20z1's and other K series motors putting out 250-270whp n/a. Of course, theres tons more aftermarket for all honda motors vs. the 2az but that does say a lot. (i used all K series motors being the Si now has a K-series)

Scion doesn't have "trim levels." The options are individually priced so that you don't have to settle for things you don't want just to get what you do. TRD parts included. Anything that comes with a factory warranty and bought from a dealer imo the same as stock, especially when there are no trim levels... that's just how Scion does it. So comparing as Si to a base tC is not fair.... I understand where you're coming from though but just think you're being a little simplistic.
I have gone to the Honda dealership myself and checked out the Si, and was very impressed. I have not driven it, but would love to sometime this summer. I'd like to get my wife an '06 LX sedan 'cause she hates minivans and like automatics (and the trunk is easier to use than the Si).
My tC has been awesome and I've been very impressed with it as well... the squeaks and rattles??? It's roof is completely glass people! It's gonna squeak when it gets cold. The only annoying sound my car used to have, came from the fold-up "oh Sh*t" handles which happened to be one of the reasons I really liked the car. Luckily the noises have ceased maybe just 'cause i've worn the car in a bit or 'cause i've just gotten used to them (but i don't think so). I do wish it had a 6 speed though but only to add another gear on top of the 5th for lower revs on the highway. I really like the extra room in the engine bay (for a turbo... although i'm impressed my remote mounted systems as well and may get an STS system installed after my warranty ends).
Also.... the tC engine is low compression, in anticipation for boost. This really hurts NA power and economy. If you installed higher compression pistons to make it a bit more similar to a stock civic then that would be fair as well... but you'd prolly cry *wolf because changing out pistons isn't quite like changing to a different air filter.

So basically there's no fair comparison between the two than to make the tC a full-on TRD equipped car including the supercharger and ECU reflash... to compete with a base Si.

TimmyT

03-17-2006, 09:21 PM

sensay

03-17-2006, 10:02 PM

look the way i see it is the tC is a 16.5k peice of machinery, the SI is a 20k peice of machienry. It would be completely wrong and unfair to compare the two. The SI is like 20% more almost. It would be like comparing an SI to a 350z, just not right. SOO the way to make the 16.5k peice of macheinery EQUAL to the 20k one would be by adding 3.5K worth of extra machienery (cant count install) so lets say tC plus zpi stage 0 is cheaper than the SI and yet destroys the SI. THUS the tC is better.

killerxromances

03-18-2006, 03:09 AM

Geez who brought this thread back?

The SI is as much of a piece crap as a scion tC is LOL. And for all of you who think the tC is cheap because of the squeaks and rattles etc. Go check out the 8thgen civic boards and you'll see they are having the same issues.

The SI is no more sports orientated than a tC is.

Here comes Honda fan bois "But its faster than a stock tC! So blah blah blah"

Pfft. ROFL its still a 15 second car. And proffessional drivers get constant 15.1-15.2 So don't argue the fact.

And lets see how many 500 hp Civic Si's there are in the first year of thier life compared to the tC and we'll see wich one is more "Sports orientated"

Honda fanbois make me laugh and baby jesus cry.

The Si is a sports companct, the tC isn't. I laugh at the people like you that claim and beg difference.

When you want to talk about numbers, theres already one 280whp (forgot the company who makes it..it was covered in some magizine)..yeah, its not your beloved 500whp number however the Si hasn't even been out five months and such.

Also, numbers isn't everything. Its overall performance, handling, everything that make the Si a sports compact and the tC not. Get over yourself and stop being bais because it got old pages ago.

Also, to the person who brought up trim levels. My god your late, this is already been discussed and blah blah blah. Never said the tC came in trim levels, never implied it should. That particular comment was focused on the debate of 1/4 time performance, a s/c tC equals a stock Si.

sensay

03-18-2006, 05:39 AM

look killerx we have argued in the past and ill just have to take care of you again and put u in ur place.

a few pages ago you were whining like a lil girl sayin U CANT COMPARE A MODED CAR TO A STOCK ONE NOOO, ANYONE CAN PUT TONS OF MONEY INTO A SLOW CAR AND MAKE IT FAST!! Thants not what any of us are saying at all. Yeah wut u say is true, but since the SI is a signifcant chunk more $$, the only way to make the 2 compareable would be maching that price. Only way u can do that would be by purchasing a few goodies.

The SI costs like 3.5 k more. That means we would be allowed to spend 3.5k of anything we want to make it even, fair, and equal.

You keep saying that the si is faster than a S/C tC in acceleration cuz the magazine says so. Soory buddy but thats just not the case. They really blew it on their drag run. Chances are they just went at it once. Look at the time slips of all the other SL members and sure they vary but i see almost all of the stock S/C tC's run in the upper 14's.

The SI is not that fast, its oodles slower than an rsx type-s and pretty close to a stock tC

You also kept arguring that even though the SI reaches its power way way after the tC, and even though it has way less torque than the tC, that it doesnt matter because its lighter.

YEAH 22 POUNDS LIGHTER.
THATS LIKE EXACTLY THE WEIGHT OF A 1/4 TANK OF GASS IN OUR CARS! THE GUY CAN BE AT A FULL TANK AND WE COULD BE AT 3/4 TANK AND WE WOULD BE EVEN IN WEIGHT. i weigh in at around 145, so im fairly light, chances are the guy i race in the SI might be a lil more. Lets say instead of 3/4 tank i race at 1/4 tank (wich is what i always race at) and the guy weighs in at an average of 160. i would be actually be 60 pounds LIGHTER THAN THE SI!

I have not spent that 3.5k in parts on my car but i can feel how far my car has come from stock, and ill chalange one of those SI's anyday of the week. Track or drag.

SEEEEEYUHHHHHHHH

sensay

03-18-2006, 06:02 AM

killerxromances

03-18-2006, 06:12 AM

^
Actually, i make my judgement on the Si being faster given what i've seen on the net. No actual side by side comparisons. But actual real life times, not judged by any magizines.

Yes, i do believe mod vs. mod, or stock vs. stock when it comes to cars comparing such as this. Si vs. vette, yeah i'd say modded Si vs. stock corvette would be fair given the fact the gap is such a significant difference.

Overall performance is not based on drag alone, its everything. Si wins, and not many can accept that. I'll even throw in the s/c to make up the price, which does by itself. Which does nothing to overall performance, just increases 1/4 mile time. Which based on what i've seen as an average s/c tC time, and based on what i've seen on the Si. A S/c tC is dead even with a stock Si. Like it or not, thats up to you. I'm not being bais here, i don't own either.

Also, when are people going to learn torque does not win races? If you truly believe this, check out real life cars and see whos faster and whos not. Actually talk to professionals, torque doesn't win races. Torque is far from the deciding factor. With two cars, so close with times in terms of drag. 22lbs can make a difference. Sure, i agree, its not much but it does make a difference.

Also, autocross or road courses. I've personally seen tC's in autocross, i've personally beaten tC's in autocross. Yeah, they aren't horrible. But handling is definitely a huge weak point in the tC. The Si, when i test drove one a few months ago, it felt very solid and very firm around the corners. I couldn't really go all out, it is a test drive afterall. So i really can't say how well it does stock, but given what i've seen from modified tC's and what i've experienced actually driving one. Also spring rates, weight dist., and a few other deciding factors. I would say the Si definitely would out corner a tC. Especially if it handles anything like previous years.

You aren't putting me in my place, you have said nothing new which forces me to bring up things i've already said. Best thing to do? Agree to disagree.

Stock tC's with s/c do not run 14's. I've seen i/h/e, s/c, stage 2 clutch, good tires, run 14.8 with a very skilled driver. But stock, and average driver? No.

rhythmnsmoke

03-18-2006, 07:27 PM

killerxromances

03-18-2006, 07:35 PM

trikkonceptz

03-18-2006, 07:52 PM

We've (meaning friends and I) have raced the new Si with the tC, since we have mutual friends with both, and we are not impressed by the Si, the tC we used had an intake and exhaust, brands not the factor and the tC got beat every time with different drivers. BY HOW MUCH ?, 1 car at most 1-1/2 cars. Primarily because the Si has a but load of catalytic converters that truly restrict the Honda. So in the end we are not impressed by the Honda and the torque of the tC really scared the Si until honda revs passed 6K.

Our unprofessional opinion, tC is the better buy ... it's not just another Civic.

Nick06tC

03-18-2006, 08:37 PM

retrodrive

03-18-2006, 08:43 PM

I was staying out of this but there is so much honda fanboi action (including our dear local troll) going on this thread, its not even funny. And that guy with his GF running him in a TC...thats just special...lol. Bad way to represent for Honda community. At least make it believable.

In the end, these types of cars are bought with only thing in mind; value. That is the only way to look at it because if you have 17k, you can buy a TC or a EX; with 20k you can either buy SI or supercharged TC (yes, you can pick it up from dealership with it installed even though there is no trim level assigned to it). You don't compare two different priced cars to each other period. There will soon be enough dyno sheets, real 1/4 mile runs and other material for us to find out which car is faster (my $ is on supercharged TC).

Let's summarize the BS article as well. They messed up the 1/4 mile run, spent $ on heavier wheels, lights, lip kit and then knocked the TC on how expensive it was after that. If you do not see the bias in this you are ignorant to what is going on in magazine publishing industry.

In the end, I'd like to mention that I drove the SI yesterday and after all the hype it turned out to just be an ok car. There is no way I'd buy it over TC for sure. Some things I liked and some were hedious.

killerxromances

03-18-2006, 11:33 PM

Hey rythmn, i've given the tC lots of credit and you know it. I don't play down the tC, i just speak truth.

Also, i remember someone saying about top speed. I think someone mentioned the tC would have a higher top speed? I don't know if someone said that or not, i don't remember but theres a video on streefire of a stock Si doing 145mph? I don't remember exactly, but it was some where around there.

Also, everyone talks about overall performance, yet almost everyone stays within 1/4 times. Overall performance doesn't mean straight line 0-60, 0-80, 0-100. It means everything. ANd yes rythmn, you will loose if he is any decent at driving a manual and knows where to shift on the k20z3 yet.

The only problem with comparing anything other than quarter mile time is the subjectivity of it all. Even quarter mile time varies by driver, but handling varies ALOT more. Put a good driver in a yugo and he will turn good times. Put a bad driver in a Viper and he will turn HORRIBLE times.

I think the problem with reading what you (killer) have to say about the tC (in every thread) is the fact that you dont have one. You just regurjitate what you read on the net. What you could be saying COULD be totally true, but the simple fact that you dont drive a tC makes it less credible. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but pride of ownership makes it annoying to read your posts. It would be along the lines of me going into the xB area and constantly talking the xB down with no experience other than what I have read.
You might have more experience with the tC than I know, but its really just aggrivating to see you go back and forth with other people. And it goes from thread to thread to thread. Half the times I dont post what I want to post just for the simple fact that some guy with an xB THINKS he knows how slow my car is. You might be right, it might be slow, but I dont want to hear it from an xB owner.
With all respect I am not typing this to start an argument, and I make no word of if you are right or wrong; it just needed to be said.

I respect what you are saying, and to an extent i do agree with you completely. However, my knowledge of the tC exceed's the internet. I have quite a few friends that drive the tC, and i have helped a few with installing parts and such. Yes, you are correct i personally have no experience with ownership and for that i can't help. I perfer light weights, and the tC honestly isn't my cup of tea. But i do respect the car for what it truly has to offer. I have owned a honda before (integra) so people assume i'm being bais on the subject. Which, in fact i see more bais comments with tC owners then any thing else..At least, its more noticable.

Because i have no personal ownership experience, you are correct. However, i do have more experience with the tC aside from just reading what others say, watching videos and so forth. Now, with this said i have never said the tC is a completely slow car with no potential. However, comparing to a car (Si) thats a true sports compact with more performance offerings than the tC to me is pretty lame. Anytime honda is brought up, it gets shut down. Because i have owned a honda and have more experience with hondas than most tC owners that shut it down, i feel i have something to bring to the table. Especially when i know the tC fairly well and common sense carries the rest.

I'm sorry if you find my posts annoying, however just because i don't actually own a car, does not mean i don't know what it can or can't do, potential and so on. Sure, there are things i don't know about the tC. But i know enough to carry weight behind what i say.

Thanks for at least keeping your comments respectable. You could have gone about it another way. :clap:

io333

03-19-2006, 01:34 AM

What do you think???
Is the tC the most EURO coupe to come out of Japan?

Exactly.

I've just started slogging my way through this HUGE thread. I'm still on page 2 of 8 or something, but THIS is why I bought the tC.

It's the car that BMW should have built, but can't seem too.

It's also the car that Mercedes already built (the 230SC coupe), but better quality than the Mercedes (really, the 230SC was a piece of junk).

It just happened to be made in Toyota City Japan. Whatever. It feels almost, but not quite like a 325. I'm hoping that when I get around to adding a strut bar, it'll feel a bit closer. Of course the 325 has stability control and marvelous on-center feel... and RWD, but then the tC doesn't cost $33,000 either.

Gh0stR1der

03-19-2006, 02:06 AM

[...]

In the end, these types of cars are bought with only thing in mind; value. That is the only way to look at it because if you have 17k, you can buy a TC or a EX; with 20k you can either buy SI or supercharged TC (yes, you can pick it up from dealership with it installed even though there is no trim level assigned to it). You don't compare two different priced cars to each other period. There will soon be enough dyno sheets, real 1/4 mile runs and other material for us to find out which car is faster (my $ is on supercharged TC).

Let's summarize the BS article as well. They messed up the 1/4 mile run, spent $ on heavier wheels, lights, lip kit and then knocked the TC on how expensive it was after that. If you do not see the bias in this you are ignorant to what is going on in magazine publishing industry.

In the end, I'd like to mention that I drove the SI yesterday and after all the hype it turned out to just be an ok car. There is no way I'd buy it over TC for sure. Some things I liked and some were hedious.

My thoughts xactly.. and with that they should close this thread..

It's clear that the mindset should be on the fact that you should have a pre-set "budget".. (let's say 21k, for a rough estimate).. and you buy your stock Si and your stock tC.. then put them up to par.. without straying off the "budget".. THEN compare.. that is the only way that the comparo would be "fair"..

And to add a bit.. I test drove the Si.. and I wans't all that impressed.. like retrodrive
said.. there are things to like.. and some to dislike.. but there's no way that I'd buy it over the tC.. and trust me.. I've been testdrivin' a LOT of cars.. and more than just once each.. cuz I really wan't to make a good choice.. and there are a few good options there..

In these past months I've driven:

RSX (Type S and Base)
Mitsu Eclipse (V6 and 4banger)
Mini Cooper S :love:
Scion tC
Honda Civic Si
PT Cruiser Turbo
VW Beetle (Turbo S)

and I can honestly say.. the best "Bang 4 Buck" is the tC.. feels great.. handles pretty nice.. and has enough "oomph" for my liking..

some of it's adversaries are rather good.. but fall short on other aspects.. be it price (determinating factor), handling, styling, etc.. SO, with that said.. there's no doubt that for the price.. the tC is the way to go..

io333

03-19-2006, 02:11 AM

Also, unlike most of you all, I come from 25 years of driving european cars. Europe has just overpriced and underqualityed themselves out of my life right now. Hense, this time I went Toyota instead of BMW/VW/SAAB/Whatever

Basstrack17

03-19-2006, 02:28 AM

^^^ I can agree. Having sold the German marques in the early 90's, I actually thought some of those were better then what's out now ( personal opinion ). I've posted before on this thread--everyone has their thoughts & ideas, and many times respect & even common sense gets tossed out the window. And as I posted much earlier: at least in the old days of Ford vs Chevy, we may have slammed the other guys ride, but at the end of the day, win or lose, we shook hands and acknowledged the other ( probably emptied a few beers as well ).
Last point: neither of these 2 cars are race cars. They are well performing 4 cyl coupes, both with their own + & -'s. Many of their owners are getting serious hp numbers and track results, but again these are not race cars. Can you call a TC with the sc stock? Who really cares? It's a factory mod, really no different then the old days ( again grey hairs unite ) when performance parts were put in the trunk of a car at time of sale. Or how about certain dealers/regions having their own special models/versions ( Yenko anyone??? ). Don't think anyone takes those cars seriously??? I would expect to give Honda the same thumbs up if they offered a FI set up for their car as a dealer option. If it comes from the factory, then it is factory.
These are just cars, nothing is worth jamming someone about a 10th here, a couple hp there, or who has better g's......
my .02, agree or disagree; i'll still sleep well tonight... out.

06scionsc

03-19-2006, 03:38 AM

rhythmnsmoke

03-19-2006, 04:10 AM

ANd yes rythmn, you will loose if he is any decent at driving a manual and knows where to shift on the k20z3 yet.

In the short game IE. 0-60, he better be a helluva driver to beat me. I don't think he will win 0-60 due to my low end. After 60, I think he will catch me and pass me up. That's how I see it playing out. Not to mention, it would be the FIRST and ONLY Si that the tC would have lost too. :P

However, comparing to a car (Si) thats a true sports compact with more performance offerings than the tC to me is pretty lame.

I would have to disagree that it's a TRUE sports compact. There are a few other cars that I would consider to be a TRUE sports compact, but the Si is not one. A "Sportier" Civic is what I classify it as. JMO.

Anytime honda is brought up, it gets shut down. Because i have owned a honda and have more experience with hondas than most tC owners that shut it down, i feel i have something to bring to the table. Especially when i know the tC fairly well and common sense carries the rest.

I'm sorry if you find my posts annoying, however just because i don't actually own a car, does not mean i don't know what it can or can't do, potential and so on. Sure, there are things i don't know about the tC. But i know enough to carry weight behind what i say.

Would be very hard to Prove or Dis-Prove that. So, I'll just leave that for the birds. The weight behind what I say in this NEVER ENDING ALWAYS SEEMS TO REAR IT'S UGLY HEAD TOPIC is from actually SMOKING Hondas on the street. Teggy's with I/H/E, Civics (Si) with I/H/E, B16 swapps with I/H/E....All smoked with a Stock tC (and stock crappy tires). So, I know what the 2az can do if driven like it suppose to be.

io333

03-19-2006, 05:43 AM

Many of their owners are getting serious hp numbers and track results, but again these are not race cars.

Well, you, like me, are old enough to remember what most cars were like in the 70's and 80's: worse than puke, with only a very few exceptions: SAAB SPG, Porsche 911 and 928, a few of the MB... and the Ferarri 3x8, and the Supra. I have mixed feelings about the

Compared to 98+% of what people actually drove in the 70's and 80's, a supercharged tC *IS* a race car.

Basstrack17

03-19-2006, 01:20 PM

^^^io333: point taken. I'll also acknowledge that in some cases these TC's, SI's, Eclipses, etc perform just as well ( 1/4 time anyways ) as some of the "muscle cars" or true sports cars of that older era.
And by no means would i ever cut someone who puts in hard work and lots of dough to make these cars stronger-- it's just i've been "lucky" enough to spend time in and behind the wheels of some serious stuff in the past. So for me, running around in my wife's blown TC puts a smile on the face, but it doesn't give me any ideas of tearing down the track in 12 seconds.
But on the flip side, what people are doing with these 4 poppers is very impressive, when for my group anyways pure cubic inches many times won the battles. So no insults meant to anyone modding these, i maybe just perceive these little cars different then others.

sensay

03-20-2006, 12:24 AM

I realize this is a little late in the discussion, however I am a honda certified technician and have been working at a honda dealer for years. Anyone who honestly thinks an si is better than a tc should get their head examined. The si has terrible handling for a factory "performance" car. Also take into consideration that should you want to ever work on the car you had better think again. Unless you have access to a lift and alot of time on your hands very few engine mods will ever happen. Honda engineered all the new civics with more interior space and a tiny engine bay. Example to remove the valve cover you must remove the wipers and cowl and it still takes some finessing. I like my tc just fine almost 6k less and alot more fun to drive than an si. I say take the extra money saved by buying a tc and go get forced induction. Then when the lsd comes out add that and you will smoke any si even with moderate mods.

SUCK ON THAT KILLERX

the old SI's had double wishbone suspension front and back the new ones have them just in the back and MacPherson struts in the front. Holy crap the tC has the same thing. The weight dist of the new SI is is 61 front 39 rear. Holy Crap the tC has the same thing again!
Must be all that race tech the wizards at Honda put into into it to give it the same handling components as the tC but cost more.

Hey wait!
the money must be spent on that 200hp engine right? yeah good for a 0-60 of 7.2 a whole .2 sec faster than the tC at 7.4 YEAH REAL RACE CAR GUYS. wut were we thinking trying to compete with THAT monster right?? right?????

suck it killerx, suck it

06scionsc

03-20-2006, 01:23 AM

My personal favorite thing about the new si is not only the "sweet" shift light but the fact that their short throw factory shifter has a longer throw than any of the old factory shifters in civic's and integra's. Also I really like the awesome resonating chamber they added. You know to hear the vtec better. I think it was good for about 30 more hp.

Typhoon

03-20-2006, 01:43 AM

hm there seems to be a lot of debate here but just cant help to open my big mouth on this. Guys we are arguing about neglegible numbers here, a.1 sec differnce in a quarter mile? slighlty better handling in auto x? is it really worth all this? as for weather which car is better I say its up to the opinion. But if you are going to classify an si in the sports compact category then you have no right to say a sc tc isnt why? well simply because of what I stated .1 quarter mile difference and slightly better handling isnt a crappy economy car vs a sports car monster. You wouldnt say an m6 is such a performance monster over a porshe because the m6 gets a slightly better quarter mile.

BTW the porshe will get a slightly better time at auto x then an m6. And that as well wouldnt classify an m6 as a simple luxary car over the proshe.

06scionsc

03-20-2006, 02:51 AM

I don't know about anyone else but I am not arguing. I am just stating what i know first hand from having driven both cars. I am giving my opinion and it is of course just that, my opinion. Anyone who likes and favors the si can have it. i'll take my tc.

kungpaosamuraiii

03-20-2006, 03:22 AM

the old SI's had double wishbone suspension front and back the new ones have them just in the back and MacPherson struts in the front. Holy crap the tC has the same thing. The weight dist of the new SI is is 61 front 39 rear. Holy Crap the tC has the same thing again!
Must be all that race tech the wizards at Honda put into into it to give it the same handling components as the tC but cost more.

Hey wait!
the money must be spent on that 200hp engine right? yeah good for a 0-60 of 7.2 a whole .2 sec faster than the tC at 7.4 YEAH REAL RACE CAR GUYS. wut were we thinking trying to compete with THAT monster right?? right?????

suck it killerx, suck it

Before you say all that again, you should realize that not all double wishbone rear/MacPherson front strut suspensions are equal. A Camry has the same setup and yet no one here will argue that a tC will outhandle a Camry any day. The tC does not have as aggressive a suspension tune as the Civic does. For that reason, it'll handle a little better.

The unpleasant weight distributions that both cars share is, well, unpleasant... but equal!

The extra money for that 200 bhp engine also pays for the VTEC mechanism. We got VVT-i but the Si also has that extra race cam lobe. This gives the Si's engine an edge when talking about performance. For instance, turbo VTEC can go really fast. It'll cost a little more to get faster on turbo VTEC but supercharged VTEC should work just fine. If FI isn't your thang, the K20Z3 will take to bolt ons a lot more nicely than the 2AZ-FE does (watch out for the 2AZ-GE though, if that thing comes true those Si's better have something more than I/H/E) and it'll be far easier to continue with the natural aspiration thing on a VTEC engine.

Face it, the 2AZ is a great engine with plenty of potential but it is engineered through and through for longevity and fuel economy. Forged rods, ceramic coated pistons, and ductile cast iron sleeves? They're for reliability more than anything else. But before you claim that I'm some Honda fan boy, know that longevity on a stock engine usually means durability for performance. Plus, the economy focused low end torque ratings just means better daily driveabilty.

Charade_Detomasso

03-20-2006, 03:48 AM

why is this thread still alive?

taquito

03-20-2006, 06:18 AM

who cares i already smoked 2 new si civics one hatch and one 06 si its worthless. LOCKED!

GammaTNT

03-20-2006, 10:36 AM

I would like to know why specifically is wasn't even close.

I hope speed isn't a factor.
it mention in the begining of the article. tC's supercharged 2.4L engine against si's NA 2.0 engine. People would expect the tc would beat the si by a big margine. The result wasn't close to what they expected.
We love our tc. but we got to give credit to Honda for squeezing 197 hp out of that K20 engine.

rhythmnsmoke

03-20-2006, 01:55 PM

kungpaosamuraiii

03-20-2006, 02:51 PM

it mention in the begining of the article. tC's supercharged 2.4L engine against si's NA 2.0 engine. People would expect the tc would beat the si by a big margine. The result wasn't close to what they expected.
We love our tc. but we got to give credit to Honda for squeezing 197 hp out of that K20 engine.

Heh, this was a while ago...

Anyways, yea, we gotta give Honda props for their high power/liter ratio but all the same, a supercharged 2AZ = or > than K20Z3 in power. With proper driving they should at least meet each other. I think the limiting factor here is the tires.

killerxromances

03-20-2006, 06:13 PM

TimmyT

03-20-2006, 06:38 PM

killerxromances

03-20-2006, 07:56 PM

Taq. You don't count! :P was it 8 psi your running at? :P

Anywho. the Civic Si is a nice car for 20k (closer to 21 but eh) if you can get it at MSRP.
But its heavy.
Even though it weighs the same as a tC it has less interior room (Go figure, probably went to the suspension for all those roof top landings)

If you ever looked at the engine bay (like the honda technician stated)
There is NO room for anything. And honda doesn't support the aftermarket as much as they used to. Especially compared to scion. So expect more parts faster.

Theres already a ton of parts either already out or coming out for the z3 and suspension. Theres not as much room compared to other honda's, and older civics but theres still enough room to play with. The Xb doesn't have that much room with the 1nz yet theres a guy on here with a b16 (i believe) swap. Look at the yaris, no room in the yaris either really but theres one guy that i know of with a 2zz swap. Things can be done, size of the bay isn't everything its how you work with what you have that counts.

TimmyT

03-20-2006, 08:11 PM

Killer. I don't know if you've looked in a civic SI engine bay. But the XB has room in Spades compared to the Civic SI LOL

And as for the parts comment. I didn't say parts weren't comming out (I believe Honda already has a Optional suspension kit you can purchase)

But Honda does not support aftermarket as much as they used to. This is a fact. With that they aren't spending as much money into building the aftermarket for thier cars compared to scion.

So Like I said before "expect MORE parts FASTER" from Scion.

There will still be parts for the civic SI. Just don't expect them to be released as fast or as plentiful

rhythmnsmoke

03-20-2006, 08:18 PM