I can't figure out for the life of me why someone would risk taking one in the bung for a ride in a 195 hp Integra....

But yes, I did comment on the excellence of the Honda gearbox.

 

True but I just hate Hondas with a passion and no matter what they make.

 

Same here. Even the NSX is an underachiever, especially at $90,000. A standard Corvette (C5 or C6) will whip its *** for half the price; literally.

 

I had a 97 EX 2dr with every miner bolt on I could afford at the time and I loved that car put 109k in 4years I drove the **** out of it and I got a 02 WRX had that for a few years and now have a 06 WRX limited not that there was anything wrong with my 02 but I wanted the new one so I got it but I still think that my EX was one of the best cars I could have owned

 

After owning several 4x4's I bought a 93 Prelude VTEC Si new at 21 years old. This car was awesome. Great shifting, decent power and handling etc... This was the first CAR i've ever owned. All the rest have been subarus. The hondas are great cars BUT once you go turbo + AWD you will never go back. My prelude went from stock to i/h/e/jackson supercharger in a short amount of time and was very durable. The car still runs today as a track machine in Cali 13 years and two owners later. The quality of the build is less precise on a Subaru, I've owned a legacy, and an 04STi and the fit/finish is not even close. However, the safety of the Subarus, and the drivetrain are second to none. I got t-boned by a 4Runner going 30 mph in my legacy and got bounced into the other lane and hit a Jetta head on. The ONLY car to start up and drive away was mine. All other vehicles got towed away. The cop was sure the legacy would not drive but it started and drove home without a leak or hiccup.

FWIW I would go with the 06wrx if you can afford it. There are a lot of issues that were sorted out in this generation of WRX. Not that the Civic Si is a bad car, i drove one and liked it very much but if you feel yours is pretty damm slow, the Si will not be much of an improvement. WRX's shift like trucks though. As long as you can stand that, you're golden.

 

I used to have a 91 CRX It was my baby for the longest time it has still been the most reliable car ive owned. The car probably has over 250K and is still running i see it in my hometown everynow and then, but i put 110k on it in 2 years i drove the **** out of it and it started everytime but once due to what i thought was the stater but the whole time it was the cable from the starter to the battery finally coroded away i guess ahah., but then I got my 99RS and it has always been my favorite althought its had a couple more problems i wouldnt trade it for the world.

 

I had a '97 Civic EX for 3 years before buying my WRX...here's my opinion:
transmission - I much prefer the feel of the Subaru tranny. It is much notchier, less rubbery and vague, and just feels better. However, my WRX first gear is a real bugger to engage, a problem I never had with the Honda.
Seats - Honda seats caused back pain in 10-15 minutes. Subaru seats are comfortable enough for a 4 hour ride to Tahoe.
Interior - Subaru is vastly superior in fit, finish and durability.
Paint - both are crap.
Motor - um yeah. lol
Gas mileage - Honda got 26 on regular, Subaru gets 21 on premium. Not as much difference as one would think, considering my WRX has almost twice the horsepower of the Civic. I was actually very disappointed with the crappy mileage my Honda delivered.

 

you had a civic... theres no comparison to a wrx.

first of all, the wrx has better interior. the honda tranny is stronger. the wrx engine is 2.0 and turbocharged. what do you expect?

i had an integra. alot more reliable in my opinion.. but the wrx is still somewhat reliable, but the tranny is a bit weaker. AWD has that effect.

 

Prior to buying my wrx I had an Integra GSR with just about every N/A mod imagineable and was on the verge of boosting it when I decided on the wrx.

I have many friends that drive Honda's, so perhaps my opinion could be of some assistance. The RSX and Si are very different from the wrx, but at the same time, are often also considered when looking to purchase one or the other. Overall, the quality of Subaru is not nearly as good as you will find an Si or RSX. The paint is of higher quality, the interior is more solid and refined, and is more fitting. As for the lack of torque thing, while it is true that my integra had no torque, a stock (non-06') wrx is not too much better on the low-end with all that turbo lag. Once modded though, it is a completely different story.

It is basically all about what you are looking for. The wrx is going to be modable, quick, and practical with the AWD and 4-doors... A great performer. However the Civic Si traps just as high, will handle better, and brake better. Not talking about mods, the civic Si is actually a better performer than the wrx.... and the RXS-S is not far behind. The wrx's interior is functional and ergonomic, but lacks refinement and a solid structure, whereas the civic/rsx interior is put together nicely, feels very solid, and retains great functionality.

Honestly, usually when people are deciding between two cars, all they need to do is just go test drive each and that usually makes the decision for them.

 

I was a Civic Si driver for four years, and I've driven the 2005 and 2006 Civic SI models as factory stock. By no stretch of the imagination can they handle better or make the same trap times as my 02 WRX, or the 05 or 06 WRX models I've driven. When you've got AWD to take you out of the corner and know when to gas and brake, the WRX and STI can corner faster than $100,000 exotics; ask the Porsche Boxter driver I left behind by four car lengths a few days ago, just by turning a corner. The Civic frame just isn't stiff enough, nor are the strut mounts and springs, to handle performance-level cornering force.

By the time I sold my Civic it had custom rims, Falken Z-rated tires and stiffer springs and it was still night-and-day difference from my factory-stock WRX. You are comparing a lightweight FWD economy car to an AWD turbo sedan with rally heritage; you'd have to be smoking Honda-brand dope to confuse the two.

 

I'm still a Honda owner. I want to buy an S2000 but I'm married so I just settled for an 05 STI. My commuter car is Civic hatch CX and I love it.

 

I had a highly moded 92 Civic si that I sold prior to getting a WRX.
It had just about everything done to it possible(NA-FI hondas belong on the drag strip only). Motor wasent even hardcore(1.8 B/mild headwork and bolt ons), but even w/ kaaz lsd the car was useless on wet roads. Quality is similar. No one makes a better chassis. No one makes better motors than honda, I once installed plug wires on my civic wrong, Dam car started anyway. Reved that thing to 9k for years, and it was only burning a tiny bit of oil when I sold it.

 

i went ftom owning a 1993 civic that I turbo'd to a 2003 Acura RSX Type-S. after that I switched to the Evo and now I'm looking at a WRX Wagon.

I love Honda's. always have, always will. But I will never try to make a honda fast ever again. They are fun project cars, but that's about it. It really doesn't matter to me what kinda of car you drive, as long as it's Japanese ^_^

Honda cars are great, just not great at making power. My 2 cents.

 

I think the saddest omission in Honda sport compact cars was that they never offered a turbo from the factory. Look how well the Comptech supercharged versions of cars like the S2000 perform. BMW got the hint with the Mini. You'd think that a company that has competed in Formula One since before the turbo era would have offered a boosted model. Honda engines can make great top end power but they are sorely lacking in torque. Look at the recent Car & Driver magazine comparison between the Civic and the VW GTI. The GTI makes less peak horsepower but gobs more torque from way down in the rev band. The GTI ends up being quicker from a standing start even though it is a few hundred pounds heavier. On the street, torque (and a wide power band) kicks ***.

--
0==WW==0
"…axles of evil…" - george w. bush

 

Adding a turbo would not help the torque problem with the vast majority of Honda power plants; under 3k RPM you need displacement to generate torque, and Honda has never had adequate displacement or adequate fuel delivery. A Civic's fuel pump has the flow rate of a fishtank filter pump. VW motors generate torque with stiff rods, pent-roof combustion chambers and lots of fuel delivery at low RPMs -- and because they have to, or you wouldn't be able to get the 3800-lb pig rolling :-)

Honda made a choice back in the late '70s that fuel economy was going to be a major selling point for their vehicles, and they've stuck with that over all other priorities ever since then (even when gas was .89 a gallon in the mid-'90s); turbos and great gas mileage don't mix, of course . Even Acura models have opted for lower weight, high RPM and good MPG over larger displacement or forced induction. Their new pickup truck is very impressive in overall design, but the power plant is typical Honda and it leaves the vehicle weak and listless (especially in comparison to the new Tundra and Ford 150).

I don't see a problem with this approach at all. Making a simple, solid, reliable and cheap-to-operate commuter car isn't a crime, and the overall market is better because of Honda's focus. Without Honda's influence, American carmakers might still be cranking out 5000-lb V-8 gas guzzlers with lap seatbelts, bench seating, solid rear axles and $45k price tags. Oh wait, they still are.