Actually the first thing I noticed was how you don't understand the difference between subjective and objective judgements. Then I realized how much incoherent dumbassery was evident in the rest of your post and decided to do what I did.

Seriously. Stay in school... or beg them to let you back in.

While you're at it, learn to read:

Thread title: Are Honda cars under powered?(sic)

I would say for most Honda models (for their intended applications), they are not. It appears that the buying populace shares my view.

speakin of power, honda makes pretty good power for their engine sizes..
but i have never heard of any1 saying that power from honda is underrated tho..
anyways, it is just, different car for different people, if you want a beefy car with tons of low end torque, you are probably looking for a tow truck or something along the line, honda is all about reliability and simplicity and that makes every honda product more expensive than its competitors..for example: lawn mower......

I can't agree more. Take for example the mazdaspeed3 car for 30grand:
http://ca.askmen.com/cars/car_vs_car/35_car_vs_car.html

0-60mph in 5.5seconds, now that's top stuff for the price and the car dynamics is decent too! It may not be the best looking car but still beat the looks of Honda cars and beats the hell out of Honda cars in terms of performance.

You drive a mini cooper S, correct?
Lets see: MS3 - 263hp, Civic Si - 197hp, Mini Cooper S - 172hp. Sure the MS3 beats out it's Honda competition but it rapes your Cooper as well. The speed3 is also as fast as, if not faster than the 350z, s2000, c350, bmw 3-series, 645, and a bunch of other cars that cost twice as much, so the thread can be changed to: Are Honda, Mini, Nissan, Mercedes, and BMW cars under powered?

Kungpow dislikes honda cars because he feels they are not worth their value.
(Okay, I'm fine with that because everyone here has freedom of speech.)

No matter what happens in this thread, he is still going to hate honda cars, so why bother making this thread if he's going to hate them no matter what some of us say?

There is only one explanation to all this, and it is because Kungpow is not one of honda's targeted customers.

^ He only likes chicken......

^
maybe..

but i do like chicken. don't you?

Not to mention, the MS3 is powered by a forced-induction based motor while the S is still FI'd, it's supercharged. As for the Civic SI, naturally aspirated. Looks like Kungpow needs to figure out the difference between apples, oranges, and bananas. :rolleyes:

not to mention the MS3 is like 6g more then a Civic Si. It's like comparing the MS3 to an STI, 135i, Evo, or 370z.

I drove the GTI before buying my Si, and it wasnt as much fun. Yes is has torque, but it disappears far before the redline which left me disappointed. It also doesnt have an LSD which I think all semi-powerful FWDs should have. I drove a MS3, and it was quick but wasnt worth the extra money to me. I drove the WRX and it felt like a family car, similar power curve as the GTI and was killed by a 5 speed manual.

Yea, the Si isnt fast. But neither are cars your comparing it to. To me it comes down to fun, and I thought the Si was more fun then the other cars I drove. If I wanted something fast, there are way better (not to mention cheaper) options then a new MS3, GTI or WRX.

The thing I don't like about Honda engines... they have to rev high to make horsepower... and they still lack sufficient torque to climb hills. I live on Burnaby Mountain.. we have big hills. I visit North Van often, even more hills.

Example: going over the Coquihalla, some punk in a Civic passed me on every flat stretch, like a bat outta hell.... but every single hill, I passed him in my stock Crapalier like he was standing still... I didn't change my speed (average 130 km/h, yes I know.. speeding.. who cares..)... but still managed to catch up to him.

It's not like my Cavalier is anything special... but it's got a nice flat torque curve that starts at 120 ft/lbs at 1000 rpm, yet tops out at 150 ft/lbs at 4000 rpm... which means I can drive around the city, shifting normally at 2000 rpm, and having no problems climbing hills, curbs, pedestrians, etc... I don't have to rev it to 6500 rpm to pass people. And low revs means better gas mileage...


And the worst part about a modified Honda... especially those of you with fart cannons... they rev so high to make any power, that I go deaf in my car sitting next to you... argh!

Some people like to think they're F1 race car drivers. Honda does a very good job in helping people achieve that dream of theirs. :p

You're ripping on Civics and you drive a Cavalier?

^ so true, hills = loose for me
I'm ok if i speed up near the bottom and get a good run at it, but if there's someone say driving a corolla in front of me i end up turtling it up the hill.

While one may be N/A and the other may be Turbo, they are still considered to be in the same CLASS ie: Both are the most hopped up version of that manufacturer's compact econobox. Magazine reviews group the Si with MS3, Cobalt SS, GTI, WRX etc...

If the Civic Si had 260 Naturally aspirated horsepower instead of 197, would you still say it's "Apples to oranges"?

It's closer than you think when you consider the options.

Let's do some math here:
(Rounded numbers for simplicity)

Si: 27K
MS3: 32K

Now, an Si comes stock with 17" rims, an MS3 comes with 18's.

For Honda upgrade to 18" rims, add: $1900

An MS3 comes stock with a 6 disc changer. If you want Honda's changer, add: $900.

So just TWO options on the Civic, which are standard on the MS3 bring it to within 3 Grand of the MS3.

Not to mention the MS3 has HID's, Fully automatic climate control, Rain Sensing wipers, Limited Slip Diff, etc.

MS3 has quite a lot of goodies. Even rain sensing wipers O.o

beat me to it.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Not sure if Mazda is a good example here.

Mazda is suppose to be a bit cheaper than Honda. I found all of my Honda has better quality than all of my Mazda. I bought Mazda because of the cheaper price.

This thread is full of fail...

Mini Cooper S as fast as an S2000? Really???...no.

and the guy who thinks the AP1 has more power than the AP2... *face palm. They were measured on two different scales...

I don't really see a problem with the power output of most Honda's...I would like to see them equip their "sporty" cars with better tires in the NA market though, especially the Acura's.

im white, borne and raised right here in BC
i make you immigrants look bad by nature, dont like it? go home


as for the ms3 vs si debate, you dont read about civics motor mounts falling apart with 2000ms on them, Mazda has a service bulletin on the speed

and id like to see 6 years down the road when its trade in time, the SI owner is going to be downright laughing in the face of the ms3 owner.

Nah, you hear about the transmissions grinding themselves to death instead. Oh but Honda has a service bulletin out for the Si, released after ignoring protests by owners for a long time.
http://consumerist.com/384246/protes...ansmission-tsb

the s2000 is outdated now and its not worth 50 grand for it, however it is still a BLAST to drive compared to other cars such as 335s, 135s and z4s. Sure the 335s and 135s have more torque and power, but for dd i find them pretty boring and not as raw as the s2000 in the corners. I also think that the low end power and long revs makes it even better, cause there's nothing like watching the revs slowly climb pass 5k and BOOM the power kicks in and the engine screams to 9k, well there is the r6 with a redline of 17k and power delivery at 10k but that is another story. =D

Hmm.. if you want to do math. Now, I'm lazy and I wont check these, so correct me if I'm wrong but..

Yes, I will say the MS3 is faster then an Si (which does have an LSD btw). But if you dont mind turning on your windshield wipers, adjusting your own HVAC controls, can see without HIDs, dont actually use CDs anymore, and the prefer a more comfortable ride of the 17" wheels (even though the factory all-seasons suck balls) to the heavy overpriced OEM HFP 18" wheels..

2010 Civic Si - $26,880 ($31,950.75 total off Honda site)
with a 48 month finance - $677.94/mth @ 0.9%IR
48 month total = $32,061.12

2010 MS3 - $32,995 ($38,599.45 total off Mazda site)
with a 48 month finace - $869.81/mth @ 3.9%IR
48 month total = $41,750.88

$41,750.88 - $32,061.12 = $9689.76

(I did the math on a 135i and 370z too and theyre just over 10g more in total compared to a MS3)

If I round my numbers thats a $10,000 difference. Thats a lot of scratch for a ricer. Think how many fart cans I can buy!?

But yea, thats if the websites numbers are close to correct.. as I know there are fees for this and that all over the place.

OK for fun I decided to do a GTI (4 door as both the MS3 and Si are 4 doors) with zero options as well.

2009 GTI - $28,975.00 ($30,335.00 total off VW website)
with a 48 month finance - $738.04/mth at 1.9%IR (was closer to 4% when I was looking at one)
48 month total = $35,425.92

$3,364.80 more then an Si.

What's that sound I just heard???

It's my point flying right over your head.

You pay more because you GET more. Whether you want those options or not.

Get it?

Your analogy is like going to a BMW dealer and saying "Can I get my M3 with plastic hub caps and a tape deck? I don't need all that fancy stuff the car normally comes with"

Exactly. Since we're comparing cars the way you compare cars. The 370z is a much better choice then then MS3. Oh wait. The C63 is way better choice then the 350z. No.. You've gotta get the GTR because the C63 doesnt have automatic fart sensing devices.

So dont buy a Si, a GTR is a much better choice. You get what you pay for kids.

:facepalm: