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 .

 

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.

 

RANDOM BAD ARGUMENT!!!!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Finally someone with actual knowledge and respect of both cars instead of putting down one because you drive the other.

Of course, you pretty much agree'd with a lot of my points just worded differently..But, only difference is i get yelled at for it...People will probably agree with you.

 

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..

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

*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.

 

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.

06 Si > tC
06 Si > s/c tC

Mod for mod Si would also take it.

 

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.

 

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" where do u get off pulling that crap?!? dont even try