Last post on Sep 04, 2008 at 7:40 AM
You are in the Honda Civic
What is this discussion about?
Honda Civic, Sedan
#1459 of 4597 Re: 0-60 times [mdpay]
Sep 14, 2005 (4:49 am)
Actually, the new Civic is 30/39 unless they changed it.
The Honda is new...the prices will probably come down. You also have to take into account resale value. I once almost bought a Ford Escort GT in 1991 because I test drove it, liked it, and I could buy it for $1500 less than the Honda Civic LX which I'd also test drove and liked as well. I figured I'd do myself some good and save money. Then I looked at the resale value and realized I'd lose money on the Escort from resale value. So the cheaper Escort was actually more expensive. Reliability was also much better on the Civic.
#1460 of 4597 Re: driving impressions [yesroh]
Sep 14, 2005 (4:53 am)
Perhaps I stated this a little murky...the old engine had a rated power of 160horses, and the slightly revised engine is rated at 166horses. You would think that means a bump of six horses, right? However, if you take into account that the horsepower ratings have been tuned down, it's more realistic to think the six horses would feel more like ten because the older engine would probably be rated at 156 horses under the new system. It would be a pretty punchy car.
Don't forget that Honda under rated the K24 for the 2003 Accord. Honda rated it at 160 hp then, and TOV dynoed it at 170 hp. So the new 166 hp on the K24 is just the more honest rating with the new SAE requirements. It is probably the same as 170 hp under the old rating. The CR-V, which has a similar engine (different heard) is rated at 156 HP for 2006, was rated 160 HP prior. There are no new specs for the 2006 Element, which has exactly the same engine as the Accord. I wonder if it gets rated at 156 HP like CR-V, or 166 like the Accord?
I switched from a K20 powered Civic to K24 power CR-V, and K24 is much nicer down low. It pulls from idle. Although, K20 was pretty strong for a 2 liter 4 cylinder, K24 just has more torque, which gives you an impression of more power.
#1461 of 4597 Re: RPMs [tawneycat]
Sep 14, 2005 (4:55 am)
I have thought about the Civic Hybrid many times but the fact is, unless you are a victim of dealer gouging from Toyota (which is very common...those bastards) the Prius has better performance, lots more room, and better fuel economy for about the same price. The Honda's 10.4 cubic foot trunk is just too small for me. I need room to put my bicycle, and I can't fold the back seat down for more room. The Prius has 16 cubic feet. With that much space I could easily put a bicycle and a lot of other things in the trunk without even folding the seat. It also gets better gas mileage and has much more interior space. But I can't say I would absolutely NOT buy a Civic Hybrid. It just doesn't look like as practical a car as the Prius.
Speaking of overdrive...why can't they have a very tall 6th speed only for flat to very moderately rolling roads? Make it like a gear that you don't use all the time...and still be able to turn in great gas mileage in 5th if you like.
#1462 of 4597 Re: driving impressions [blueiedgod]
Sep 14, 2005 (4:58 am)
Actually, if you go to Honda's website they claim they modified both the V-6 and 4-cylinder to squeeze out more power. The V-6 gains 4 more horses...not much, but it's an improvement. I personally don't see why anyone would need any more power than what I have in my 1999 Accord. It'll snap your neck easily and now they are just building and building horsepower on their newer models. I know Honda has to compete but it's a little excessive when you look at fuel prices. I think the 4-cylinder Accord makes much more sense.
#1463 of 4597 Re: MPG: Standard vs Automatic [play]
Sep 14, 2005 (5:04 am)
Bigger tire circumferences would look bad though. I say just drive slower than the auto-equipped Civics.
#1464 of 4597 Re: Why keep the DX? [gearjammer62]
Sep 14, 2005 (5:29 am)
There is about a $2000 difference in price, maybe...not sure because prices on the new Si are still not confirmed. The RSX's now come standard with leather in the top model and I think that's how they managed to tack on the extra $2000 cost...you pay for the leather. The new Si only has 197 horsepower...it was predicted to have 200 but it doesn't. Perhaps that's the new SAE testing modificiations which sucked out the extra 3 horsepower, just like it took 9 horses away from the RSX. In the performance to fuel economy contest, though, the RSX will still get better gas mileage and likely have better performance. It puts out 4 more horsepower, 1 more foot-pound of torque, weighs 37 pounds less and gets 1 mpg better in the city. It also has leather as standard (not an option on the new Si), has 2.6% more interior volume, mostly due to its vastly larger trunk. It could be a close contest but it looks like the RSX beats the Si on all fronts. I expected the new Si to be close to the RSX in performance, but not quite as quick, and better in fuel economy. That would make sense to me since the Civic has always been an economy car, even in sporty mode.
#1465 of 4597 Re: 0-60 times [ludexr]
Sep 14, 2005 (5:38 am)
I'd reverse that recommendation: get the Civic if you plan on keeping it only 2-3 years because of its superior resale value. Longer term, it's not a factor. BTW, I see lots of older Mazdas (Proteges, 626s) around.
#1466 of 4597 Re: 0-60 times [yesroh]
Sep 14, 2005 (5:39 am)
Actually, the new Civic is 30/39 unless they changed it.
Window sticker says 30/40 for automatics, 30/38 for sticks.
#1467 of 4597 Test Drive! Test Drive!
Sep 14, 2005 (5:53 am)
I test drove the 06' Ex Civic Sedan (auto) yesterday morning. Then I went back with my brother and he drove it. We both came away very impressed with the car. We're both 5'10" and 165lbs. (yes, we're twins) and the car seemed an excellent fit. We couldn't find anything about the car we didn't like. We've both driven the Mazda 3i & 3s and feel the new civic is a better all around value. Yes, the 3s is quicker and tighter in the corners but that's the only advantages we found for the 3.
We loved the looks, build quality, ride, quietness, stereo, and very acceptable pickup and handling. Nice touches include the one-touch to open sunroof, key/key fob incorporated into one piece, two tier instrument set-up, and stereo controls on steering wheel.
If you have any specific questions I'll be glad to answer them.
#1468 of 4597 Re: 0-60 times [backy]
Sep 14, 2005 (6:02 am)
Okay, well then you may be right. The information I have is new and I know from experience the first information that is put out isn't always correct. It tends to change over the first few months. I have a website which claims to have all the new information on the Civics yet the dimensions of the car are clearly way off from what Car and Driver says. So I'm not sure where to find accurate info this early.
Not to make you sound stupid, but...are you sure it's a 2006? Some folks can't tell the difference.