Actually... from the Honda Australia website... it looks better online cause it can focus on it's good angles... overall it's not a pretty car...seremify007 said:Looks better in person than on the web. It's more the 'allusion of space' using light/bright greys (instead of the trendy blacks) in a small sub-$25k car which is what makes it good.
Subjective. But it definitely looks alot better in the flesh than in alot of photos I've seen.lengy said:Actually... from the Honda Australia website... it looks better online cause it can focus on it's good angles... overall it's not a pretty car...
I agree. When i saw the blue leather on the web, it looked like crap. In person, i almost fainted cos it blew me away, nothing like the web.seremify007 said:Subjective. But it definitely looks alot better in the flesh than in alot of photos I've seen.
I think the interior has the 'wow factor' when you sit in it because of the combination of the huge space, the very slanted A pillar, the windscreen extending over the bonnet/engine bay, the two-tier dash with matching blue LCD speedo/radio, simple button styling, etc... give it a very consistent and modern appearance- even in the base model.
SP23s and Civic sports are both WAY more tryhard than a GT-R which is actually fucking fast.lengy said:Not everyone wants to drive a tuner, especially when so many tryhards drive one.
Also the insurance is higher for a grey import and you can't always be sure of the reliability.
Err, no it has a K24A, its completely different from the B series engines found in Integras. It does have V-Tec though.icraig88 said:go the accord euro, awesome drive, great stereo, nice interior and has the power to match, i think its the vtec integra engine i think..
How is the VTi-L not worth it?seremify007 said:Don't get VTi-L.. not worth it. Either go for the Sport, or get base VTi and upgrade the rims/parts yourself.
Read what I wrote. Tryhards are more likely to drive GT-Rs. It's an awesome car though.Riet said:SP23s and Civic sports are both WAY more tryhard than a GT-R which is actually fucking fast.
Err, no it has a K24A, its completely different from the B series engines found in Integras. It does have V-Tec though.
My friend bought automatic VTi for $26k, my Civic was $30k. So it's $4k. IMO, the features aren't worth the $4k... unless you wanted to get the sport which is much better value IMO.CieL said:How is the VTi-L not worth it?
You get an extra set of airbags, 6 cd stacker, mp3 compat., full sized ALLOY (not steel) spare tyre, actually vti-Ls have a full set of alloys which are bigger and fatter, better folding seats, a security alarm, buttons on the steering wheel...... for $3k more lol
Not really... the last supercharged V6 Holden had (VY) did 12.5L per 100km... thats better then any V8 by a long shot. Fact is more fuel is needed with forced induction, but still with V8s you have to feed two more cylinders and lug around an extra 200kg, which aint gonna do wanders for fuel efficiency!The supercharged 6 probably isn't as fuel efficient as a similarly tuned V8 model. Forced induction doesn't give you free power like that.
Yeah but Sti is an extreme example, that is like a high performance kinda car (and I wouldnt trust wheels m8... they will do anything to make the Commodore look better). With your avg boosted car, they aernt that aggressively tuned so they retain some fuel efficiency while have more power.The SV6, with it's strung out V6 engine and long gearing can get very good fuel economy for its performance level. One need only look at something like a WRX STi and see that even though its got alot less displacement (and 10 more kilowatts), there isnt that much advantage in fuel economy.
Thats not really V8 specific that weight thing, all engines these days are all alloy. As for mounting the engine lower cos their pushrod, I wouldnt really regard this as an advantage... the fact that these engines are pushrod are limiting them, you just have to look at the SS vs say something like an Aurion, one produces 45kw per L while the other produces 57kw per L. This is because with pushrod you can only have 2 valves per cylinder and cant utilise things like vvti... they are very primitive engines design wise.The all aluminium V8 also gives much better weight distribution because it is lighter and can be mounted lower (because it's not an overhead cam engine).
Yes that would explain it, you got it from wheels! The previous SS Commodore did a similar figure, yet they are now pushing 50kw more... I find it hard to believe that power gain (through adding 300Ml more dissplacement and tuning) came without any sacrafice, not to mention more reliable reviews like NRMA have put the figure closer to 17L per 100km.... which seems more accurate. So V8s are certainly not efficient, esp when you design them to do the 100 in under 6secs!Edit: the SS is listed in wheels as 14.XL/100. While the SV6 is 11.3 and the STI 11.0.