Talk:Honda Civic Si

Mixing up the generation numbers

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

[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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 5 March 2007

Lead image

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?

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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?

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?

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

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honda Civic Si. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080519221055/http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/sport_compacts/2008_honda_civic_mugen_si_sedan_short_take_road_test to http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/sport_compacts/2008_honda_civic_mugen_si_sedan_short_take_road_test

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 - Present (tagged due to incompetence)

So it appears that a car forum community (civicx.com) was interested in contributing to the 8th gen (2017-Present) section of the Si page.

However it seems that a couple of wiki contributors did not believe the information, format and overall presentation were appropriate for the page.

I've been doing my best to follow the guidelines listed under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles but it appears the section was flagged.

Not quite sure what to do to improve the section, but I do believe all of the facts concerning the vehicle are pertinent to the wiki page.

I understand the argument against having the section look like a sales brochure or advertisement. I'd love to continue working on the section to improve it and make it more valuable.

If I were you I would start by looking through the reference list at the bottom of the section and placing inline citations, this is a good first step as it will help cleanup the page and make it more in keeping with wikipedia policy, have a look at Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Inline citation. The sources linked now are pretty good, you should also look to add some more and considering the number of press release links you should try and add some secondary sources, e.g car mags and websites (avoid blogs, youtube and forums). Good luck. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the information is relevant. Some have suggested these get moved to respective Civic pages, which might make sense long term. But until it's been properly represented in the various areas, it should remain here. Overall the section looks good to me. <Anonymous>

Add it to Honda Civic (tenth generation). This article is against the project guidelines, as the Si is but one trim level of many for the Civic. What's next, Honda Civic EX?. Having a standalone article for this equipment level makes for an unnecessary division of information.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why a trim level can't have its own dedicated, detailed article. Plenty of other pages for special variants of vehicles already exist and they contain lots of detail. For instance, most Audi S and RS models, as well as 911 GT models have separate articles which are detail packed, as do the Civic Type R and multiple Mustang articles. I would argue that the difference between an Audi A4 and S4 is pretty much the same as the difference between a standard Civic and a Civic Si, and since the S4 has its own distinct page, why shouldn't the Civic Si? TKOIII (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all, it is nowhere near as distinct as the S4 (and I personally would not have separate articles for the S4 either, but there is a better case there). For one thing, the S4 has its own name whereas Si is just one additional spec level of many. It's not even the sportiest Civic, since the SiR and the Type R are both much more special. The Si model trim nearly entirely follows the development of the Civic, into the same generations and with the same facelifts, leading to tons and tons of duplicate and sometimes contradictory information. You will also notice that this page is a cruft magnet, with people adding long lists of paintcodes and other nonsense which falls outside of the WP scope.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Those are fair points, however, let me offer this as a rebuttal. First, I believe the SiR and Si should share an article as they are quite similar anyway. Second, the Audi S4 is not the sportiest version of the A4 either, the RS4 is, and that has its own article. Point being, you can have multiple separate articles for a car with multiple high performance variants. Third, the fact that the page is a cruft magnet doesn't invalidate it. I've seen people repeatedly put nonsense into articles but that doesn't mean those articles should be deleted. And fourth, many high performance variants of cars follow the same generations and facelifts as their lower tier brethren.

Sure, but none of these are reasons to have a standalone. Especially not if the SiR is included - how would this even be titled? And still, "Audi S4" is a different name, whereas Si (and other equipment levels) are simply add-ons. The main issue is all the duplication, as well as leaving the Honda Civic articles incomplete - why should a reader have to read two articles to find out about the sixth generation Civic? It's easy to miss that a whole chunk of content is elsewhere, whereas the organization by generation makes it immediately clear what there is to be read on the topic. Also, for both the seventh and eighth generation European Civics, the Si was even less special - available on the same engines as most other Civics, down to a 1.4 liter with 83hp.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

What I don't understand is, what is the point of having dedicated pages of yes, trim levels, if not to expand upon how that trim level differs from the rest. Should the main civic article contain information for all trim levels, and how they differ from one another? And what makes one version of a vehicle more "special" than another? Is this not a subjective measurement. Sure, we can all agree the CTR is more special than the Si. We can all agree the RS4 is more special than the S4. Do we reserve separate articles for only the "most special" versions of vehicles? I am struggling with this - doesn't it make the most sense to have the main civic page a catch-all overview for all civics, and then have branches off from there to describe what makes each year, trim, etc. different? Shouldn't each section have as much (non-duplicated) information as possible? And doesn't it make sense to have the bulk of the information for a particular year/trim to be on the page and section dedicated to that year/trim? Are we really going to not add facts to a wiki page because a specific trim of that vehicle isn't special enough? That seems utterly ridiculous to me. You keep mentioning within the guidelines of the autos project. Please point out where it says trims of vehicles don't get their own pages/sections, and if they do it must be as sparse and bare of facts as possible.Inertiadrifto86 (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)inertiadrifto86

Adding it to the page for the particular Civic variant has the advantage that readers researching that generation of Civic can find all the information about it in one place. As to why Wikipedia has multiple pages for what could be one page, this comes down to size and readability, while you could jam all the Civic articles on the the Civic page it would create a massive unwieldy page that would be a challenge to read. If the sections on the respective Civic pages that were lacking get expanded this page would would act as a directory to allow those looking for information on the Si specifically to find a basic overview of its history and if they want to learn further about a specific generation they can click on the main article link and be taken directly to the Si section of that generations page. Toasted Meter (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay I've contributed to the main Civic article, adding in details on the 10th gen civic si. While I'm still confused, as the Wiki project lists the following as a "good article" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Cobalt_SS) yet I am not quite sure why the SS qualifies enough to have such an in depth, detailed page while the Civic Si is forced to include the majority of the information pertaining to it on the main page. Another question - is there a location where I can find these rules concerning where to put details on pages, or are these guidelines generally agreed on by the community in talk forums? (Inertiadrifto86 (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC))

I think we may have misunderstood each other, I was asking for the content to be placed on the page for the specific Civic generation (Honda Civic (tenth generation) in this case). Toasted Meter (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Toasted Meter's logic makes sense here, while Mr. Chopper's logic seems highly inconsistent/erratic. For now, the best course of action seems to keep this page flagged until the content can be moved to the respective generation's pages. I would think a week is more than sufficient. And would follow the flow of other platforms in this niche, including the GTI that shares a similar legacy to the Si. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk7)

This content simply does not belong on this page, copy it to the correct articles. Trying to use this page as a place to store it is not the correct way of doing things, you seem ambitious and the Si sections of many Civic pages are very lacking, doing this properly will mean that this info can be found, because if you keep going about things by adding it back to the wrong page it will be reverted. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Also do try and remember that this is not a matter of life and death, this information not being on Wikipedia until it is added to the respective articles is not a big deal, and should motivate you to place it on the correct pages. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I did add all of the relevant material to the individual Civic articles before removing it from this page, leaving off long lists of specs and equipment codes and color names (see WP:CRUFT). As for the Cobalt SS, I assume that a few strong fans managed to pack the voting - not too hard to accomplish, but this doesn't make it right. As for what makes a car distinct enough for its own article, it is always up for argument. To me, it is a matter of how much of the engineering and development history is unique to a certain model. The fewer common parts makes a better case for a standalone article, as it also means less overlap in content. To me it is clear that the Si is mainly a Civic, whereas the Type R is different enough that perhaps its history is best told through a standalone. In the end, my goal is to make the organization of the data as clear and legible as possible, allowing as many readers as possible to read about the Civic (and all its variants) and not to unwittingly miss any of the content that editors have worked (for free!) to compile.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at it, only the tenth generation artical's Si section is particularly lacking, all the rest seem fine. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)