2014 Honda Civic SI priced at $22,790

If only they could peel 500 pounds off the curb weight.

J.

Engine Type In-Line 4-Cylinder Engine Block/Cylinder Head Aluminum-Alloy Displacement (cc) 2354 Horsepower @ rpm (SAE net) 205 @ 7000 Torque (lb-ft @ rpm, SAE net) 174 @ 4400 Redline (rpm) 7000 Bore and Stroke (mm) 87 x 99 Compression Ratio 11.0 : 1 Valve Train 16-Valve DOHC i-VTEC® Stainless Steel Exhaust Manifold Standard Multi-Point Fuel Injection Standard Drive-by-Wire Throttle System Standard CARB Emissions Rating[1] ULEV-2 Direct Ignition System with Immobilizer Standard

Wheelbase (in) 103.2 Length (in) 178.8 Height (in) 55.0 Width (in) 69.0 Track (in, front/rear) 59.2 / 59.9 Curb Weight (lbs) 3002 Weight Distribution (%, front/rear) 61 / 39

It would be "sportier" if they returned to making engines like the venerable B16 in the 99-00 Civic Si. 205HP from 2.4 liters @ 7000 rpm doesn't look so impressive compared to the B16A2's 160HP from 1.6 liters @ 7600 rpm. But the real difference in the two engines' characters is in the torque specs:

Honda's bread and butter in sporty cars used to be lightweight, smaller- displacement engines that shone at high revs. There's not nearly as much now to distinguish the powerplant engineering in Si-badged cars from that of their competitors.

Yeah, but look at those numbers, 174 vs 111. Also I'll bet the gross weight of the 99-00 was at least 300 pounds less.

To answer my own question, on reflection, I would guess that reducing the stroke, even if bore was increased to compensate on displacement, would result in engines that get worse mileage and pollute more.

And unless you put in about double the horsepower/pound of current Si's the greater responsiveness of a squared-spec engine probably doesn't really matter much, anyway. Yeah, they worried about those things on 1960's "sports cars" that could barely do 0-60 in ten seconds, but they just didn't have the engineering back then to know better. I thought I noticed recently that some high-end BMW and Porsche engines are about square-spec, but they just don't care about their mileage numbers like Honda does.

J.

JRStern wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Roll the crash regulations back to where they were in 1995, and you'll get that.

Yeah I know, and I hate the higher beltlines.

Saw an old BMW Alpina era coupe the other day (1968), amazed at how low it all is, how much glass there is.

Maybe it's better to be safe, I dunno, I suppose if I crashed my 2010 Accord into my old 1971 Fiat, there wouldn't be much Fiat left.

J.

JRStern wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Of course. But what's missing from the current regulatory environment is any sense of proportion.

In order to deal with the microscopically-tiny chance that you may be involved in a collision severe enough to cause death by sufficiently deforming the passenger compartment, regulators are sacrificing the visibility you need every second you're on the road.

It's worth noting that, prior to the 1997 regulatory changes, emphasis was specifically on /improving/ visibility in order to avoid a collision in the first place; that meant the larger windows and lower beltlines you've noticed. Now, visibility is unimportant. I've seen studies that show increases in car/pedestrian collisions involving vehicles with the new, fat pillars. Pedestrians don't tend to fare well when hit by cars.

I agree. I tried sitting in the new ILX, and there's no real visibility forward or back. In my Accord I can't see the front or rear bumpers, and I still haven't figured out just what's what in that backup camera. Look at the (lack of) rear window visibility on most cars, most especially the goofy Cadillac designs, nothing that ugly and pointlessly horizontal since about the 1975 Mustang.

Mostly, lowering the window about two inches means someone of my height can more easily rest my left arm on it.

Maybe I should just chuck it all and buy a Boxster that somehow is still allowed on the highway. Or (heaven forfend) a motorcycle.

I'm curious, actually, what *exactly* is the requirement that raises the beltline, if you happen to have it handy. Thanks.

J.

Almost exactly 300 pounds less, off the top of my head. 99-00 is around

As for torque, it isn't the be-all and end-all, although I understand why Honda has gone for more displacement and more torque. Those characteristics appeal to a broader cross-section of customers than a peaky engine whose figurative neck you have to wring to extract a decent amount of power from. VTEC was a creative solution, allowing docile econobox manners when puttering around town while preserving the rush of power when called for at the top end.

Oversquare engines (bore greater than stroke) tend to develop peak torque at higher revs, whereas undersquare engines tend to develop peak torque at low revs.

B16A2 bore x stroke = 81mm x 77.4mm K24Z7 bore x stroke = 87mm x 99mm (K24Z7 is the engine in the current Si)

As far as mileage, I've had two 99-00 Sis, and they consistently averaged between 25-26 mpg in daily driving (mostly city driving with a mixture of stop-and-go commuting and hitting the upper reaches of the rev range).

The mileage numbers for B16-engined cars would certainly not be acceptable to Honda today, but there are obviously different priorities and regulatory constraints now that weren't really factors in the late

I rented a new Taurus a while back, and while it was basically a fine car, I absolutely could not abide the lack of visibility. It felt like I was sitting in a tank looking out narrow gunnery slits all the way around.

High beltlines suck.

I should add, besides going the Boxster route one can go the SUV route, drive an MDX or Murano or F150 where you look DOWN at everything.

J.

JRStern wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

In theory. In practice, it's not quite like that.

We just bought a new RAV4. You sure do sit high up, BUT... The pillars are tree-trunks, and the rear has less visibility than a '41 Ford. To compensate for the lousy rear-visibility, the door mirrors are really large.

So. Now you combine the big mirrors, high cowl, and thick pillars. What you end up with is a giant blind spot at the right-front of the car, which makes turning right at busy intersections a heart-in-the-throat experience. You find yourself doing a bounce-bob-weave in your seat trying to make certain that a short pedestrian didn't suddenly walk into your blind spot while you were watching traffic in the other direction.

And then there's the rear view. The camera is a MUST. It is extremely difficult to back into a parking spot without using the camera.

A couple of years ago I had a lady in a Murano back into my Integra in a parking lot. The Integra sits low, and was impossible to see out the rear of her (non-camera) Murano. Nice dent in my driver door. Her bumper was worse.

Somebody needs to stop these damned bureaucrats.

Dave Garrett wrote in news:MPG.2d91458e35add64698a324@208.90.168.18:

You need to use 1996 as the cutoff year. The new crash regs kicked in for '97, which is when weights started escalating. Carryover unibodies got add- on bracing that was meant to tide the automakers over until the next resesign. The regs have only gotten tougher since.

Actually, weight started being added once Honda went to airbags from the mouse-belts (early-mid '90s). Bags require lots of beefed-up structure to handle the forces of the explosions.

And then there's the infamous IIHS crash-test "star" ratings. They're urealistically strict, but automakers want that "five star" rating for marketing purposes. This just adds to the "Sherman tank" poor visibility and porky weight.

No "supposing" about it. 59 Bel Air vs 09 Malibu:

Figuratively speaking, of course.

Ouch.

They killed a 59 Bel Air for this??!!

The 59 still has the nicer rear window.

OK, don't start with rollover tests ....

J.