Talk:Honda Civic Si

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brands  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Mixing up the generation numbers[edit]

I'm guessing this is because of sites like 8thcivic.com, but people keep bungling the generation numbers, and it's getting pretty frustrating. For example, the 8th-generation Civic has the 6th generation Si. There's no such thing as an 8th-generation Si. Please stop changing the numbers, because they're wrong. Sugaki (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

2006-Present: Performance[edit]

[1] There is no stock honda with a 0-60 of 6 seconds. Did you even see the torque and hp ratings of the new si? Lets try more 7.2 seconds tested by edmunds and 6.7 claimed by honda.--Nytemunkey 16:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

0-60 times vary i personally have hit 0-60 in 6.5 seconds stock and 6.3 with intake and exhaust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackk20 (talkcontribs) 20:55, 29 March 2007
7+ seconds seems okay for a street start, but most magazines definitely list in the mid 6's for 0-60. 6.6 is the most common figure i believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.52.119 (talkcontribs) 00:09, 10 April 2007
i own a 2008 honda civic si, and im new to shifting, so i cant say what the exact time is (besides how would i drive a stick and hold a stopwatch), but it CANNOT hit 60 in under 7 seconds no matter who is driving the car.. i would say with a highly experienced shifter, it would be in the 7-7.5 range, which is what 90% of magazines and such say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.80.93 (talkcontribs) 21:55, 12 January 2008


Your personal views and experience are not pertinent to test data from magazines. Nor is Motor Trend the only one that hit a sub 7 second 0-60 time.--Sugaki 07:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


"The new car comes with a 2.0 liter i-VTEC engine that produces 700 hp (520 kW) and 139 ft·lbf (188 N·m) of torque, while also including a 6-speed manual transmission (an automatic option is unavailable) with a helical limited slip differential." I really really think that's a mistake, 700hp in a 2.0 liter engine is like a Honda F1 engine. Someone please correct that statement, i don't think it's right. --MakE shout! 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"The 2007 model changes for the Civic Si ... a deck lid spoiler" The 2006 Si has a deck lid spoiler. Perhaps they changed the design, but it's not a new feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.169.77 (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Consistency[edit]

If the article is going to list 0-60 times for some si civics, then it should list the 0-60 time for all generations of si civics. And 0-60 in 6.3 seconds for a factory honda si or not seems to be stretching the truth. Also, the gauges are black/red, not red/white.--Nytemunkey 20:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

also, it was black numbering on a red background for 06, this time around it's red numbering on a black background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErichPryde (talkcontribs) 20:04, 14 November 2006

The 0-60 time of 6.3 seconds was recorded in Motor Trend. Your disagreement of the stated figure alone isn't adequate without validation. There's a possible negative bias towards the Si by stating a figure "[stretches] the truth a lot" even in spite of the claim coming from a reputable automotive source.--Sugaki 15:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


the pic of the 99-00 Si(the black pic) isnt actually an Si. Also the Canadian models of that year got ABS and heated mirrors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.28.142 (talkcontribs) 08:10, 5 March 2007

Lead image[edit]

I am not clear why the most recent model should not be the lead image. Almost every other page has the most recent model at the top. Why is the 1999 model more representative? --Daniel J. Leivick 23:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


No image for 5th gen Si?[edit]

All models have pictures except the best model! The 92-95 doesnt have one. Please, someone upload one. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felliph3 (talkcontribs) 15:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll upload one shortly. I actually used to own one. --Reezy (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

whats the hold up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.198.84 (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1999-2000 professionalism[edit]

The fastes 99-00 si in the world is owned by Max Ferreira go's 0-60 in 2 sec!! also the Creater of civic !!

This is down right disgraceful. Not only is the spelling TERRIBLE, but (warning: spelling alert) "creater of civic !!"? For that matter, NO Civic can go from naught to 60 in under 3, not even the RWD converted monster that uses the engine/transmission from an NSX. Someone delete this, or I will.

--Bohemian Funk (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is just a little vandalism, no need to bring it up on the talk page unless there is an ongoing issue with a user. Just revert it. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

image selection[edit]

I will admit a little bias here as it is my image that is in question, but it is consensus at WP:CAR that the highest quality image available should be used in the lead info box (regardless of model year or specification). I don't think there is much comparison (in terms of technical quality) between the old image of the red coupe and the image I added of the grey sedan and feel the current image selection should remain. --Leivick (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I can quote automobile image #5

The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other... Regardless of the ages of the vehicle shown, pick a clear, high-quality image according to the image quality guidelines... Such an image is always to be preferred over a lower-quality image, such as one that shows photoflash glare or a distracting background.

The image of the red coupe is much lower quality, it is smaller and significantly blurred as well as being pretty grainy not to mention the tilted horizon. The idea that Si coupes are more representative is also flawed, the most common type of Si over the years is certainly the hatchback, but that is besides the point (I'm not really sure if coupes are more common than sedans anyway). The best quality image should illustrate the article and currently the image I uploaded is the best by all objective terms. I can't understand why someone would want a low quality image in the info box--Leivick (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


In response, I quote the image quality guidelines:

5. ...Regardless of the ages of the vehicle shown, pick a clear, high-quality image according to the image quality guidelines; one that clearly shows a vehicle relevant to the article without photoflash glare or other photographic faults, against a simple and contrasting background.

And another quote:

Crop out distracting elements like parking lots, objects, or other cars.

Note it says "simple and contrasting background," which your image doesn't seem to conform to due to the backdrop. Yes it looks much nicer than the original coupe image, but the buildings are distracting, and distribute the attention to the background. So while the resolution is higher, there's too much of an emphasis on the landscape of the picture; it should be more closely cropped. Look at the example images and you'll notice that they're all closely cropped. To that end, the red coupe picture is better (although it has its downsides of being more blurry and cluttered). Your image is better aesthetically, but the thrust should be the car itself and not the surrounding landscape.
Since there's now at least one coupe picture I'm not opposed to the main picture being a sedan, but it could be cropped much closer, especially height-wise. --Sugaki (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually I really don't feel the buildings distract (the license on the image allows anyone to alter it as long as it is still attributed so you are welcome to crop it). Compared to the red coupe image there is much less going on. Take a close look at the other images on the page. Almost all of them including the red coupe have other vehicles in them often directly behind the subject. The red coupe has handle bars from a motorcycle poking out of the hood and a stop sign coming out of the trunk. All pictures have to have something in the background and given the difference in texture between the car and the buildings I don't think it is all that confusing. --Leivick (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and cropped it as you suggested. --Leivick (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I like the revision. I've replaced the image with one with less background obstructions for the Si coupe as well.--Sugaki (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Can the image for the eighth generation be used as the lead picture? It is very similar as far as picture quality and following the guidlines. Also it is an image of the newest edition, whereas the current lead picture is of the 2009 civic Si, you can tell by the rims most obviously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.247.240 (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

1st 2nd 3rd gen missing?[edit]

Where did the 1st 2nd and 3rd gen go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.33.112 (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Curb weight?[edit]

When viewing this page, it would be really great to have curb weight (numbers from the factory) shown for the various years or "generations" of this car. I can see some of this in the Edit page, but only one mention of curb weight in the main article. I'm a novice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.121.121 (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added some for the 6thgen Si, and some other model years.Sugaki (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Split and merge[edit]

I see no reason for the Civic Si (a mere equipment level) to receive a standalone article. This content should (in my eyes) be split and merged into the appropriate Civic generation sections. I started a conversation here, please feel free to join in. I am also nominating the Honda Civic Type R for a merger together with this, and welcome all input from interested editors.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)