How good is the Civic Si in snow?

alfred wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Before I consider any and all Hondas for my next car, I have to know about
> snow traction. I live in New England and that is a fact of life. I
> understand that you can get the Civic Si with the standard M&S tires
> instead of the summer only. I know the car has 6spd MT and ABS/EBD/VSA and
> traction control, but I am a little concerned by the fact that the car is
> lower and has lower profile tires. Someone I know has a Hyundai Tiburon
> with the 17" rims and they said its not good in snow, so I was wondering
> if this is also true for the Si?
>
> I had a 2002 Civic Ex with Auto, and it was okay, not great, but with snow
> tires added later on it was decent. Has anyone used the 2006-2007 Civic Si
> in the snow?

I live in Buffalo, and have the 06 Si (no traction control) using the
all-season tires. It was OK, but can be a bit tough to get started
moving...

This winter I will be using a set of good snow tires, which should make it
work just fine.

On May 6, 6:26 pm, "alfred" > wrote:

> So as long as I use at least 87 octane i wouldnt hurt the engine just the
> performance? I'm just curious. I guess its not a big deal really. It amounts
> to $3.00 more per tankful than getting regular. So thats $45.00 instead of
> $42.00 per tank where I live at this point.

I would not consistently run anything except what Honda recommends. My
Audi uses premium and I will sometimes throw a tank of mid-grade in it
(2 premium to one mid-grade) and it's fine. My wife mistakenly filled
it with regular and it was terrible - performance and gas mileage both
dropped. If you really want to run regular, perhaps you should
consider a less-stressed version of the Civic. I mean, why would you
buy yhe higher-performance version if you're not going to put the gas
it requires in it??

Dan D
'07 Ody EX
Central NJ USA

Dano58 wrote:

> On May 6, 6:26 pm, "alfred" > wrote:
>
>> So as long as I use at least 87 octane i wouldnt hurt the engine just the
>> performance? I'm just curious. I guess its not a big deal really. It
>> amounts to $3.00 more per tankful than getting regular. So thats $45.00
>> instead of $42.00 per tank where I live at this point.
>
> I would not consistently run anything except what Honda recommends. My
> Audi uses premium and I will sometimes throw a tank of mid-grade in it
> (2 premium to one mid-grade) and it's fine. My wife mistakenly filled
> it with regular and it was terrible - performance and gas mileage both
> dropped. If you really want to run regular, perhaps you should
> consider a less-stressed version of the Civic. I mean, why would you
> buy yhe higher-performance version if you're not going to put the gas
> it requires in it??

No ****. Not to mention that (at least on mine) the gauge shows E after
about 11 Gallons, so the differential per fill-up is under $3. It doesn't
seem worth it to cheap out for a lousy 3 bucks...

notbob Wrote:
> On 2007-05-05, alfred > wrote:
>
> > Before I consider any and all Hondas for my next car, I have to know
> about
> > snow traction.
>
> It was some years ago, but there was a news announcement about how
> front-wheel drive cars compared with 4WD vehicles when driving snow
> covered streets. Some university had done an extensive comparison.
> Basically, it said 4WD trucks and cars have no real advantage over
> front-wheel drive vehicles in the snow. So, as far as capability, a
> Honda Si should do just fine.
>
> As for tires, I recommend Michelin. I had MX4's on my Si and they
> were the best tires I ever rode on. But, I never experienced snow
> until I recently when I went through 2 snow storms across 4 states in
> a
> Toyota pickup with Michelin LTX M/S tires. I never lost traction for
> one second with those tires. Snow, snow on ice, bare ice,
> whatever.... I would have never believed it if I hadn't experienced
> it myself. Even braking on bare ice would not break the traction of
> those tires. Un-bee-leeeeve-able! Well, LTX is a truck tire, but
> Michelin makes a sport snow tire, the Pilot XGT H4 and if they say it
> has "excellent" snow traction, I believe them. Check it out for
> yourself:
>
> http://michelinman.com/overview/pilot_xgt_h4/98.html
>
> nb

I would agree that an AWD/4WD car or truck would not stop better in the
snow than a FWD car, but the 4wd/awd would certainly get better traction
in snow during any acceleration even very slow acceleration.


--
BlackGT2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BlackGT2000's Profile: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...?userid=336868
View this thread: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...d.php?t=701220

http://www.automotiveforums.com

On May 4, 11:54 pm, "alfred" > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Before I consider any and all Hondas for my next car, I have to know about
> snow traction. I live in New England and that is a fact of life. I
> understand that you can get the Civic Si with the standard M&S tires instead
> of the summer only. I know the car has 6spd MT and ABS/EBD/VSA and traction
> control, but I am a little concerned by the fact that the car is lower and
> has lower profile tires. Someone I know has a Hyundai Tiburon with the 17"
> rims and they said its not good in snow, so I was wondering if this is also
> true for the Si?
>
> I had a 2002 Civic Ex with Auto, and it was okay, not great, but with snow
> tires added later on it was decent. Has anyone used the 2006-2007 Civic Si
> in the snow?
>
> Thanks,
> Al

It has limited slip, doesn't it?
I have a 92 Civic. with original trans and original all season tires,
it sucked bad in snow (in CT). Sith snow tires, marginal improvement.
With Japanese junkyard limited slip trans and snow tires, i
(literally!) drive circles around the stuck SUVs in the parking lot.
Ground clearance vs depth of snow is an issue, but in the semi-
civilized land of CT, at least for the last few years, it's only been
a mild issue, like once a winter (not including when the car is walled
in 3 feet of snow by the plows when parked on the street).

On May 6, 6:26 pm, "alfred" > wrote:
> > just a 2.0 4 cyl??? it puts out 100hp per liter!!! a crown vic takes 4.6
> > liters to get the same 200 hp. now, given the math, which motor is more
> > likely to need the high octane gas???
>
> Well I agree thats a lot of HP, its almost like the equivalent of a 520 HP
> if it were a V8, so were talking Lamborghini category for HP output in a
> sense.
>
>
>
> > high compression requires high octane to prevent detonation.
>
> My point is that the accord has 9.7:1 and the civic has 10.5:1 which is
> pretty close and they don't require premium. Where I live Premium gas is
> usually .22 cents more than regular unleaded and usually the gas ranges are
> 87, 89, and 93 octane.
>
> So as long as I use at least 87 octane i wouldnt hurt the engine just the
> performance? I'm just curious. I guess its not a big deal really. It amounts
> to $3.00 more per tankful than getting regular. So thats $45.00 instead of
> $42.00 per tank where I live at this point.
>
> Thanks,
> Al

Once you start getting over 10:1, 10.1:1 you're definitely entering
premium gas territory, depending on efficiency of engine cooling,
combustion chamber design, etc. 10.5:1 is actually pretty impressive
compression for a street car nowadays.

> It has limited slip, doesn't it?
> I have a 92 Civic. with original trans and original all season tires,
> it sucked bad in snow (in CT). Sith snow tires, marginal improvement.
> With Japanese junkyard limited slip trans and snow tires, i
> (literally!) drive circles around the stuck SUVs in the parking lot.
> Ground clearance vs depth of snow is an issue, but in the semi-
> civilized land of CT, at least for the last few years, it's only been
> a mild issue, like once a winter (not including when the car is walled
> in 3 feet of snow by the plows when parked on the street).
>


Thanks for all your repsonses everyone. I agree that saving 3.00 for a tank
and loosing performance would be silly. I was just curious. I know the 07
Si's have traction control and limited slip and ABS/EBD/VSA so I am sure it
will be fine. I just never drove a car with the lower profile 215/45VR 17's
before and I just wanted to make sure that wouldnt cause a problem.

Also I never drove a manual trans in the snow. I had a 1981 VW Scirocco and
a 1990 Miata and both had 5 speed manuals, but never drove either in the
snow. I was wondering if driving a manual trans in the snow is any
different?

Thanks,
Al

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:33:00 GMT, "alfred" > wrote:

>
>> It has limited slip, doesn't it?
>> I have a 92 Civic. with original trans and original all season tires,
>> it sucked bad in snow (in CT). Sith snow tires, marginal improvement.
>> With Japanese junkyard limited slip trans and snow tires, i
>> (literally!) drive circles around the stuck SUVs in the parking lot.
>> Ground clearance vs depth of snow is an issue, but in the semi-
>> civilized land of CT, at least for the last few years, it's only been
>> a mild issue, like once a winter (not including when the car is walled
>> in 3 feet of snow by the plows when parked on the street).
>>
>
>
>Thanks for all your repsonses everyone. I agree that saving 3.00 for a tank
>and loosing performance would be silly. I was just curious. I know the 07
>Si's have traction control and limited slip and ABS/EBD/VSA so I am sure it
>will be fine. I just never drove a car with the lower profile 215/45VR 17's
>before and I just wanted to make sure that wouldnt cause a problem.

If you are expecting serious snow, you will probably want to buy
smaller wheels and snow tires with higher profile and narrower tread
(i.e. a -1 conversion or even -2 if the stock setup is extreme.) Not
only will they be much better in the snow, but then you can go with
dedicated summer tires instead of compromising with all-season tires.

>Also I never drove a manual trans in the snow. I had a 1981 VW Scirocco and
>a 1990 Miata and both had 5 speed manuals, but never drove either in the
>snow. I was wondering if driving a manual trans in the snow is any
>different?

It is easier because you have more control. You can easily start in a
higher gear, slip the clutch, shift earlier and more gently as needed
for conditions. Of course this depends on the skill of the driver.









>
>Thanks,
>Al
>

"alfred" > wrote in
news:w4N0i.11450$s7.10688@trndny05:

>
>> It has limited slip, doesn't it?
>> I have a 92 Civic. with original trans and original all season tires,
>> it sucked bad in snow (in CT). Sith snow tires, marginal improvement.
>> With Japanese junkyard limited slip trans and snow tires, i
>> (literally!) drive circles around the stuck SUVs in the parking lot.
>> Ground clearance vs depth of snow is an issue, but in the semi-
>> civilized land of CT, at least for the last few years, it's only been
>> a mild issue, like once a winter (not including when the car is
>> walled in 3 feet of snow by the plows when parked on the street).
>>
>
>
> Thanks for all your repsonses everyone. I agree that saving 3.00 for a
> tank and loosing performance would be silly. I was just curious. I
> know the 07 Si's have traction control and limited slip and
> ABS/EBD/VSA so I am sure it will be fine. I just never drove a car
> with the lower profile 215/45VR 17's before and I just wanted to make
> sure that wouldnt cause a problem.



Low-profile tires are more susceptible to feathering, problems from
incorrect inflation, and alignment issues.

Keep your tire pressures to exactly that specified on the sticker in the
car. Do not just put 32# like you've always done.


>
> Also I never drove a manual trans in the snow. I had a 1981 VW
> Scirocco and a 1990 Miata and both had 5 speed manuals, but never
> drove either in the snow. I was wondering if driving a manual trans in
> the snow is any different?
>



Very much so. I much prefer a manual in snow. But like anything else,
you have to LEARN (or get taught) how to use its advantages.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Gordon McGrew > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:33:00 GMT, "alfred" > wrote:
>
>>
>>> It has limited slip, doesn't it?
>>> I have a 92 Civic. with original trans and original all season
>>> tires, it sucked bad in snow (in CT). Sith snow tires, marginal
>>> improvement. With Japanese junkyard limited slip trans and snow
>>> tires, i (literally!) drive circles around the stuck SUVs in the
>>> parking lot. Ground clearance vs depth of snow is an issue, but in
>>> the semi- civilized land of CT, at least for the last few years,
>>> it's only been a mild issue, like once a winter (not including when
>>> the car is walled in 3 feet of snow by the plows when parked on the
>>> street).
>>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks for all your repsonses everyone. I agree that saving 3.00 for a
>>tank and loosing performance would be silly. I was just curious. I
>>know the 07 Si's have traction control and limited slip and
>>ABS/EBD/VSA so I am sure it will be fine. I just never drove a car
>>with the lower profile 215/45VR 17's before and I just wanted to make
>>sure that wouldnt cause a problem.
>
> If you are expecting serious snow, you will probably want to buy
> smaller wheels and snow tires with higher profile and narrower tread
> (i.e. a -1 conversion or even -2 if the stock setup is extreme.) Not
> only will they be much better in the snow, but then you can go with
> dedicated summer tires instead of compromising with all-season tires.


Superb advice -- for snow.

If your winter (like mine) has only intermittent snow, but lots of cold
and ice, you should get ice tires instead. And in that case tread width
is less of an issue.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/