Last post on Feb 17, 2010 at 2:54 PM
You are in the Honda Civic
What is this discussion about?
Honda Civic, Hyundai Elantra, Sedan
#1098 of 1641 Re: Really why the Elantra is better. [backy]
Mar 18, 2005 (6:00 am)
That is hilarious--a car with a VVT engine with more power and torque than the Civic EX, sport suspension, 4-wheel disc brakes, alloy wheels, leather interior, 6-speaker sound system, 8-way driver's seat, power everything, and 10-year warranty is not worth new any more than $8,000??? I really don't know how you can justify paying even $15k for a Civic EX then.
It is always cheaper to knock someone else's design to make it cheaper. VVT, even if Hyundai has it, is what Honda developed in late 80's (VTEC) and installed on a Honda NSX in 1991, and the rest of the line couple of years later. Well, Honda has moved on to i-VTEC, while Hyundai is just installing VVT on their engines. That is progress I guess, 16 years later the VTEC patent must have expired, so Hyundai jumped on it.
In all fairness, I am not anti-Korean. There are certain things that Korean manufacturers have proven them selves. Electronics is one of them, GoldStar was the best bang for a buck you could get in the 90's. Even now LG is good quality. I have had GoldStar TV's and microwaves that kept on going way past their expected life. But Korean automotive manufacturers are only starting to show the same attention to quality process as they did to Electronics in the 80's. Statistically it takes 7-12 years to start producing quality product from the onset of quality oriented procedures.
To another poster, even though someone advertizes their 2001 Hyundai at $6K does not mean it will sell at that. A 10 year old Civic EX (twice the age, 1994 model year) will sell for $6K the day the ad published. The Civic EX selling price in 1994 was $12,000-$13,000, this is a 50% residual on a 10 year old car.
#1099 of 1641 Re: Really why the Elantra is better. [blueiedgod]
Mar 18, 2005 (9:52 pm)
Yes, Honda had VVT technology before Hyundai. How many other small cars have VVT engines? Why haven't, for example, Ford, GM, and DC "jumped" on the Honda patents? BTW, I sure wish Honda would jump on the Hyundai patent for their dual-knob seat-height adjuster--assuming it's patented. I'd like the Civic a lot more if it had that feature.
If it takes 7-12 years to start producing quality product, how is it that there is statistical and anecdotal evidence that Hyundai has already greatly improved the quality of their cars just in the past five years?
Prices from today's local paper:
'94 Civic EX: CA car, automatic, very nice - $2800/bo. (the only '94 EX advertised; other '94 Civics, mostly LXes, range from $2199-3995. So about $10k depreciation in ten years, assuming the EX could be had for $12-13k (they were $15k when I shopped for a 5-speed in '95, so $12-13k for an automatic seems kind of low to me).
There were no '01 Elantras advertised. The closest to it was a '02 Elantra GT 5-speed, $9995, which is about 20-25% depreciation from purchase price over 3+ years. Not too shabby.
#1100 of 1641 Re: intangibles [bikerpa]
Mar 19, 2005 (4:49 am)
It's funny that you mention this, the car I had before my Accord was a 1977 Volvo 245DL with 320,000 miles on it. That car, with 70s technology got 35 miles per gallon with a 4-speed stick shift. Oh to reminess.
#1101 of 1641 Well well well
Mar 19, 2005 (5:48 am)
I am really tired of people bringing up resale value. This doesn't take Kiplingers to tell us what is the truth. I may be 18, and you may claim I am naive, but I have probably taken a college statistics class or economics class a lot more recently than you have . The residual values of cars put into percentages by firms like Kiplingers is representative of the price cars sold for based on their original MSRP. Hondas sell for their actual MSRPs. So when the residual values are calculated, and you see that the Hyundai has a lower value after five years, this is not necessarily true.
Let's do some math!:
The following statistics are provided by Edmunds TrueMarketValue assessments and are considered without customizing any statistics (basically, if you go to TMV, these are the prices that are going to show up before you do anything).
2001 Elantra GLS versus 2001 Honda Civic LX
(no options except automatic transmission added)
-A 2005 Elantra GLS today sells on average for $12,032 according to Edmunds.
-A 2005 Civic LX today sells on average for $15,994 according to Edmunds.
>Reiterating, this is Edmunds' TMV system, not my own conjecture.
Now, we to make this comparison simpler, we're going to just suppose that these cars sold for the same prices in 2001.
>The cars in the pricing are both black cars with 60,000 miles (15,000 miles per year industry average over four years) and no optional equipment other than automatic transmission. Although, I did have to select that the Elantra had the optional equipment of keyless entry and perimeter alarm, as the Elantra does come standard with these. Edmunds does not recognize this.
-The used 2001 Civic under the suggested and afforementioned conditions comes in at a TMV price of $10,178 dealer retail.
-The used 2001 Elantra under the suggested and afforementioned conditions comes in at a TMV price of $6935.
This means that the cars dropped in value:
-Honda Civic LX depreciated 36.36%
-Hyundai Elantra GLS depreciated 42.38%
Yes, the Civic does have better resale value. How much better? Clearly, not by much. People may be wondering though, what about all of these other people talking about Elantras for $8000 and Civics for $14000? Well let's run those numbers too.
Under the same conditions as before, except the original price paid of the cars was lowered to the prices claimed by the conjecture in this forum, these are the resale rates:
The 2001 "conjecture" car pricing:
-The Honda Civic LX depreciated 27.8%
-The Hyundai Elantra GLS depreciated 13.32%
What does this tell us? You decide. I know that I have seen Elantras regularly in Saturday newspaper ads for $7500-8500. I also admit that I have seen Civics in Saturday newspaper ads for $14000 for an LX. These are both great deals for these cars, but if you consider that if the Elantra has a lower entry point, and then almost doesn't depreciate at all, what is the better deal? It's like you get to drive your Elantra without it depreciating. Considering you don't have to pay for repairs, all you have to pay for is maintenance, gasoline, and the actual car: you're putting miles on your car for almost no loss of resale value!! That is amazing to me, and it should be to you as well. Granted the Civic has faired well in this test, but for the other car to depreciate so minimally is shocking.
BUT I AM NOT DONE:
I have a few more points.
Despite what comment someone has made about my father's negotiation skills (which I find funny, as I did not take them personal at all, I just thought it was funny someone thinks you can substantially negotiate Honda pricing), it is the truth that Honda does not like to budge on pricing. I live in a small metro area, and seeing as how there is only ONE Honda dealership, they are able to add onto the price a smokin' $2000 market value adjustment. If you are going to negotiate anything, it is going to be in this "adjustment" when it is a Honda. Hondas do not have rebates available. Period. That is not negotiation, that is economics. Another striking difference is that at our local Hyundai dealership, they post the invoice prices on each and every car. The salesman helping me used to work at the Honda dealership (which are coincidentally owned by the same group: Kendall, and I know he is telling the truth as I've encountered him there in the past) so he is knowledgable of both lines. I thought they had mistakenly left the invoice sheets on the cars, as they were clearly from the distribution facility, but he confirmed that they were intentionally placed there. I asked him if that was something Kendall Auto Group does, and he explained that they do this for all brands when they are having sales except Honda. Why? It is illegal if you are a Honda dealership under their franchise obligations to post invoice prices on their cars at the dealerships. It is obvious that Honda wants a less informed consumer, as there would be no other reason for this, other than to lead to more BLOATED pricing.
On a more personal note, a friend of mine died the other day in a side impact crash in his Honda Civic. His car did not have the side impact airbags that Honda charges for. Hyundai has side-impact airbags standard on every model, even the lowly Accent. If he had these airbags, they may have saved his life. I just think it is horrific that Honda charges you for safety. These may save your life, and doing this is like Honda making you buy your life from them. I know that Hyundai has officially announced that ALL new models (even lowly Accents) in the future will be fitted with side-impact airbags, side-curtain airbags, antilock brakes, traction control, and electronic stability control. If Hyundai is going to do this in inexpensive cars, why can't Honda do it?
#1102 of 1641 Still, one more thing!
Mar 19, 2005 (5:50 am)
All of you Honda people haven't thought about one interesting fact.
THIS IS A FORUM OF HYUNDAI ELANTRA VERSUS HONDA CIVIC.
Don't you think it says something that this is Hyundai versus Honda, not Nissan, or Toyota, or anyone else for that matter? I think that this says a lot in it of itself.
#1103 of 1641 Re: Still, one more thing! [mononeo]
Mar 19, 2005 (7:14 am)
I'm not entirely certain of what point you are trying to make, but in case there is any confusion let me tell you that we pretty much let roll any comparo that interests anyone, no matter how unlikely a few of them might seem to be.
I am not saying this comparo is unlikely, I'm just pointing out that the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the subject matter of any given comparo is that one or more members are interested in making that particular comparison.
That's really all it says.
#1104 of 1641 Re: Still, one more thing! [pat]
Mar 19, 2005 (8:15 am)
The interest in the discussion tells me that the Civic is considered a benchmark for small cars against which others are judged. Not too many people benchmark against a Neon or Cavalier. Also, it says that people are interested in this particular comparison. I know I am, since the '01 Civic EX was the car I compared most closely to the Elantra I bought in late 2000. And I might have bought one if I could have gotten it for $14,000. Instead, the dealer turned me off by 1) totally ignoring me when I was in the showroom, even in the middle of a weekday when no one else was in there, and 2) Sticking a ridiculous ADM price on the then-new Civic EX, putting its price close to $20,000. So I went down the street to the local Hyundai dealer, drove the then-new '01 Elantra GLS, fell in love with it, and had no problem getting a price $500 under invoice even when there were no rebates on the car. Then I watched as buyers of the '01 Civic complained about numerous problems with their cars on the Edmunds Civic discussions and the Civic was recalled three times, while I got great service from my Elantra. I liked it so much I bought a GT 5-door last year for my wife, to replace our minivan, and it has been a trouble-free car.
I still think the Civic is a very good small car. I just don't think they are worth the price premium any more. Maybe the upcoming redesign will change that, but who knows? And the Elantra is supposed to be redesigned for '06 also. Lots of new fodder for discussion here!
#1105 of 1641 Correction to 1099
Mar 19, 2005 (10:35 am)
In post 1099 I implied that GM was behind the curve when it comes to VVT technology. It turns out GM originally developed the variable valve timing concept, with Fiat being the first automaker to put VVT into a production car.
I wonder if Honda jumped on any patents from GM or Fiat?
#1106 of 1641 Re: Still, one more thing! [backy]
Mar 19, 2005 (7:29 pm)
Good point, backy. I had similar experience shopping for a small car in 2002(EX vs GT). And I have to say that I thought that Elantra and Civic were quite similar. Dimension-vise, driving-vise (I drove AT cars), controls-vise. Honda was a little better. But not ~3000$ better. Plus GT had another plus being a hatchback, has leather. But different people have different priorities. I bet that a lot of people would easily pay 3K difference for Honda badge and subtle quality difference. I'd rather put it in my kids college fund(tax exempt) or numerous other things. So I personally think that one should be happy buying either of these cars - depending on the priorities. But saying that Elantra is a piece of junk compared to Civic is ignorant.
#1107 of 1641 In regards to previous post (s).
Mar 20, 2005 (3:31 am)
I don't think you understood what my point was in my mentioning that this is a forum of Elantra versus Civic.
While I do acknowledge that there is a free flow of communication regarding any comparisons of vehicles, I was putting emphasis on the fact that there has to be a reason that there is a forum like this at all. Yes, as patHOST mentioned, there is a lot of people that have interest in comparing these cars. That says a lot, right there.
Basically, it was placing the importance on the actual fact that the Elantra is arguably the Civic's prime competitor, not any other car. This is meant to give a realization to all of the people on this forum that act as though a Civic is uncomparable to the Elantra, as though it is in a class all it's own. Clearly, the sheer fact that this forum exists says that the Civic is not the clear choice in the economy car segment that many people think it is.
And can someone please respond to my resale value post? I'd like to see someone try and argue with facts.