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

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

 

+ 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, you might as well buy a Camaro then

 

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.

 

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 ___ 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 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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Obviously conditions will effect the dyno runs, but how exactly am i wrong? 185-190whp for just the s/c is a very good estmate given what is there. Under perfect conditions, the tC with just s/c will dyno right at 190whp. 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.

 

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....

 

No excuse for this statement.

 

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

fusionSi11(TOV)

 

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.

 

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)

 

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. . .

 

Care to elaborate with something to back up your statement?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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....