Last post on Sep 04, 2008 at 7:40 AM
You are in the Honda Civic
What is this discussion about?
Honda Civic, Sedan
#1400 of 4597 Re: Why keep the DX? [blane]
Sep 13, 2005 (4:29 am)
Forgot to mention the premium fuel! You're right about that! The Civic Si gets 22/31 mpg which is pretty bad for a Civic and not even as good as the Acura RSX which will out-power it any day and have a larger trunk and more passenger room. But in addition to having lousy gas mileage, if you add in the additional cash required to buy premium fuel (about a 13% increase), you might as well rate the Si at 19/27mpg. That's really bad fuel economy. My 1999 Accord V-6 does much better than that and has more power in a bigger, more substantial car. I don't understand how Honda gets such great fuel economy on every car except their Si.
#1401 of 4597 Re: Why keep the DX? [filmnews]
Sep 13, 2005 (4:35 am)
I think it was already mentioned in this forum, but I spoke to some dealers about the DX and they said it was mostly for people who like to customize their cars. Honda Civics are very popular 'tuner' cars. So they buy a stripped down DX and built it up.
#1402 of 4597 Re: - [dudleyr]
Sep 13, 2005 (4:39 am)
I agree...accept I'd want a CVT. Hybrids can make better gas mileage but a lot of that is a gimmick. I keep mentioning the 1992 Honda Civic VX. It was their hatchback with 92 horsepower (more than the old Hybrid gasoline engine, 1 horsepower less than the new one) and got 48/55 mpg rating with a 5-speed. It was also a 1.5 liter as opposed to the 1.3 liter used on the hybrids. That's actually better highway mileage than the Prius or the Civic Hybrid and with technology from 14 years ago. The little hatch was peppy too...it had better accleration than the current Civic LX.
#1403 of 4597 Re: Civic 2006 [obie2]
Sep 13, 2005 (4:45 am)
Take all those prices for the other cars and add $2000 for the navigation system.
I personally would take the LX. Sunroofs are okay but they loose a lot of headroom and you pay for it. The EX also weighs more...it's marginal, but it's there.
#1404 of 4597 Re: 2006 Honda Civic [boomchek]
Sep 13, 2005 (4:54 am)
I don't agree. Look at the range in weights of the Civic DX, LX, and EX. The EX with auto is 102 pounds heavier than the DX with auto but still is rated the same mileage. Granted, they'd have to bump up the power on the HX and they could, with the jump from 1.7 liters to 1.8 liters. The new engines are larger and more powerful than the last but still improve gas mileage for the auto. So I think it's entirely possible based on what they did with the other engines. There is a 170 pound difference between the HX coupe with auto currently being sold and the DX with auto.
I think maybe perhaps what I'm not taking into account here is...maybe the new engines are the same as the HX engine. We just don't know it yet.
#1405 of 4597 Re: Civic too high! [jeezlaweez]
Sep 13, 2005 (5:00 am)
There are a few things you failed to consider on the increase in horsepower. Torque is up more than horsepower on the new Civics. That will be noticed. And, the new 5-speed auto will make a big difference in acceleration on the automatic equipped cars. That extra gear will probably make a bigger difference than the extra 13 horsepower.
I think the problem with your Civic is, the newer ones just have a very high 5th gear (for the manual). I also owned a Civic Si, a 1990, and it was awesome! But try to drive that thing for 2000 miles from Spokane, Washington to Evansville, Indiana at 75 miles an hour. The hum of the 4000 rpms coming off that engine will drive you crazy!!! Fun is great for short distances. I bought an LX 4-door later, with less power and more weight and better gas mileage. The big difference between it and the Si is the LX had a taller 5th gear. So it felt sluggish if you punched it but it could match the Si in 0-60 times. I know...I timed it many times. It just didn't feel as lively because the top gear was tall. It was also much quieter driving that 2000 mile trip.
Since my LX got much better mileage than my Si, I would sometimes leave it in 4th gear for fun driving. It felt as alive as the Si when I did that. Well, almost...I guess the bright red color and black Recaro-style seats in the Si helped too :=)
#1406 of 4597 Re: MPG: Standard vs Automatic [butron]
Sep 13, 2005 (5:04 am)
I personally don't see why there would be ANY difference in fuel economy between the auto and manual. They're both 5-speeds.
#1407 of 4597 Re: sedan ex [stupidfool]
Sep 13, 2005 (5:12 am)
I'm not sure how much difference there is between the disc and drum brakes. I know the disc brakes are supposed to be better but many manufacturers don't put them in back because the rear brake accounts for such a small percentage of actual braking power that the discs in back would not be noticeable. So they save a lot of money and lose a bit in braking.
#1408 of 4597 Re: MPG: Standard vs Automatic [yesroh]
Sep 13, 2005 (7:17 am)
The difference in MPG between standard and automatic boils down to gear ratios. 5th gear in the automatic trans is a .525 ratio, compared to a .727 ratio for 5th gear in the manual. At 60 mph, the automatic Civic will be revving a lot lower than the manual version, thus less fuel used.
#1409 of 4597 Re: Price [claudius753]
Sep 13, 2005 (7:35 am)
Why do you keep posting $23K for a Civic EX with navi?
Even an Si with navi is expected to be lower.