apples and oranges. you couldn’t pay me to take a grand marquis – gas guzzler, outdated design (still looks like a 1992 taxi cab), tranny will def need to be rebuilt before 100,000, extreme depreciation leaves no resale value, american vs. japanese reliability. Do they even make these things anymore? No, right?

Alas, they do. But they’ve managed to make a 224 hp V-8 do the 0-60 in 8.5+. Doesn’t help that the ‘08 version weighs in at nearly 4100 lbs.

So the ‘08 Civic Si outperforms it 0-60, gets better mpg (21/29 vs 15/23), has an integrated nav system, and is a six-speed (the GM is a 4). In fact, the only thing the GM seems to have going for it is that its big.

I just got an 07 Si Sedan and I love it. The DBW lag on the accelerator was a bit hard to get used to but now its not noticeable. The car is great! Handles like a dream, engine is awesome, chassis is much more solid then past civics and the overall fit & finish is fantastic for a $22k car. The K20z3 motor responds really well to mods, cant wait to get that going! FA5 FTW!!

For $20 k I can get a well equipped brand new Grand Marquis with a V-8 that will flat run forever, and the family will never outgrow, but then I would not be stylish or cool when I do that. Since they don’t sell them in Japan or Germany, it must be because North America is inferior.

apples and oranges. you couldn’t pay me to take a grand marquis – gas guzzler, outdated design (still looks like a 1992 taxi cab), tranny will def need to be rebuilt before 100,000, extreme depreciation leaves no resale value, american vs. japanese reliability. Do they even make these things anymore? No, right?

That’s the standard interior… it’s like a spaceship! And the exterior is completely different… triangular sidelights and exaust pipes etc.

I used to have one, but sold it when I moved to Canada, thinking I’d get one over here… the ones over here are pants in comparison! Oh, the dissapointment.

Edmunds Inside Line has quite a different 0-60 time (7.1 seconds): http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=119173/pageId=117802

I think anything in the low 7s range would be believable, given slight differences (e.g. the 7.1s was with summer tires).

Since the sluggish engine is the main complaint lobbied at the Civic Si Sedan, it seems quite irresponsible to base that on erroneous data.

Sure, it takes a certain sort of mentality, say, a vicious and frustrated hatred of connecting rods, to wring the power out of the thing, but it’s there, and it’s fast enough.

Sure, if you’re some kind of irreconcilable Rhine-surfer, you may prefer cars of a more “civilized” nature, or that have more “torque”. Pah, I say! What the hell’s the rev limiter there for if not to inform you that you’ve done your job in creating a horrible racket and attaining a respectable velocity at the same time?

# goldplated_j:

ARGGGGG
200HP does not equal fast zero to 60
can we get an editorial esplaining What Torque does and what HP does.
I’m too lazy.

——-

You probably haven’t driven many compact 200 hp cars.

A 200 hp Civic is, yes, gutless at low rpms. I’ve often felt more comfortable with less highly-strung engines in traffic… booting the throttle from low rpms produces nothing but frustration.

But 8.4 seconds for that lump is laughable. My car weighs about as much and does the dirty in 8.3 seconds, with just 5 ft-lbs more torque and 60 hp less… another small car I’ve recently driven does the dirty with just 110 hp… but about 177 ft lbs of torque.

I, like adrew, having had experience with previous high hp / low torque Civics, can’t quite believe the number. Sure, it’ll take a century and a half to get to 60, if you start out at 1000 rpms in 1st gear… but if you launch it properly, it should do it in 7.6 to 7.8.

Maybe the author granny-launched the car, or maybe counting the half-second it takes for the electronic throttle to respond… either way, the time is not representative of what the car can actually do.

That’s precisely why I’m keeping my 2003 Wolfsburg Jetta. If I wanted to drive a car that looks Japanese, I would have bought a Japanese car.

But then again, I absolutely refuse to be like everybody else
which is why I don’t drive a Japanese car… or any Big 2.5 offering for that matter…

I’ve been very happy with the performance. It is less high-strung than other K-series engines and has good torque down low. It’ll easily spin the inside tire going around a corner at low speed in 2nd gear. The gearing is kind of short: at 80 mph it’s spinning 4000 rpm. But the engine is smooth and you don’t really hear it. The upside is that it has very good pickup in 5th. It’ll easily squirt from 80-100 for a quick pass without downshifting.

I believe Car and Driver did 0-60 in around 7.5 seconds in the EP3, so I find it hard to believe the new model is more than a second slower.

I just drove it on a 1000 mile trip to visit family over the holidays and tested the fuel economy at different speeds. I did a full tank with cruise set at 70, 78 and 84. MPG was 32, 30 and 26.

The EP3 is very civilized on the highway and has a higher-end interior than the other Civics since it’s built on the Euro-Civic platform. I’d recommend getting one if you can find a good deal on one.

200hp was powerful in 1985, not so much today.

autobahner44:
Before the naysayers demonstrate their ignorance on the topic by opening their yappers, I’d invite them to drive the GLI.

I won’t drive a jetta that looks like a toyota, sorry.

Hmm, not really. My 2006 Passat 2.0T returned 33 mpg on my last long trip, driving between 60 and 80 mph on back roads and interstate. It’s called FSI and turbocharging…it’s why German cars are both powerful and efficient.

Not exactly powerful IMO. Passat 2.0T costs as much as a Camry V6 SE. Consider that the latter is on par with Passat V6 in terms of acceleration and beats the Passat in curves. Similar comparison can be applied to many other models. For the same amount of money, you are likely to buy some very underpowered and flimsy product (i.e. breaks down) if you prefer German.