Ask the Car People.SM


Honda Civic Sedan 2006

4597 messages,  Last post on Sep 04, 2008 at 8:40 AM

You are in the Honda Civic Forum.

What is this discussion about? Honda Civic, Sedan

Messages Page 160 of 461

#1584 of 4597 Re: Tidbits I learned from the sales guys [byuguy] by blueiedgod

Sep 16, 2005 (5:34 am)

Replying to: byuguy (Sep 14, 2005 6:19 pm)
There is no maintenance manual for the '06 Civics. An on-board computer tracks all of the maintenance for you and reminds you, for example, when it's time to change the oil.
  
Recommended oil changes are 5,000 - 10,000 miles. The car automatically tests the oil viscosity and tells you when the oil is too thin and needs to be changed. No more need for window stickers to remind you when to change the oil.
 
New to Honda. BMW's had it for years. Not sure if they really have a VISCOMETER in there, as it is a calibrated intrument, but BMW uses optical sensor to monitor the oil clarity, not viscosity. Not sure what Honda is doing, but it would be interesting to see how they implemented this feature.
  
No more timing belt. The Civic has a timing chain, now. Should last a long, long, time.
 
Starting with 2002 Honda Civic Si there was no timing belt. All K-series engines and now R-series are using timing chain. Which, still has limited life, and will eventually break.
  
Car is supposed to go 110,000 miles before needing a tune-up.
 
This is for normal driving conditions, and has been around since 2001
 
 There are two radiator fans.
 
Honda has had two fans since 1996 Civic. They are not two radiator fans, but rather one radiator and one A/C evaporator (or whatever the A/C raidator is called) fan. Honda uses half sized radiator in Civics. Half is the radiator, half is A/C evaporator. Nothing new here.
  
Windshield wipers are heavy duty. Should move a few inches of snow without any trouble.
 
Not sure what defines heavy duty wipers, but you can buy winter blades in any auto store or Walmart for under $10.
 
  
Auto trans is rated higher gas mileage than the manual. Auto 30/40. Manual 30/38.
 
Auto has higher final ratio than manual. Honda has been doing this for a few years now, because when people use cruise control in a manual, the car would lose steam on an uphill. Since the trans is manual, the cruise can not force the trans to shift. People were coplaining that cars were slowing down on uphills, so Honda lowered the final drive on mauals to combat loss of power when cruise control is used.

#1585 of 4597 Europe vs North America by newsie23

Sep 16, 2005 (5:54 am)

Looking at the 2 versions on the Honda worldwide site and the Frankfurt auto show coverage - North America was Cheated!. Also, had heard last year form a pre-production worker at Aliston, that A-Arm front suspension was being re- considered (didn't happen!)

#1586 of 4597 Re: Scion TC [filmnews] by yesroh

Sep 16, 2005 (6:10 am)

Replying to: filmnews (Sep 15, 2005 5:11 pm)
The EX should easily do it in under 8 seconds. The 1996 EX model did with a lot less horsepower and the current model did it in 8 seconds flat and I can show you a test where it did it in 8.4. Heck, my old Civic DX Sedan with a 5-speed, 102 horsepower, and a weight of 2300 could do it in 8.7 seconds and reach 100 miles an hour before the Neon which outpowered it by 30 horsepower. These new cars should be able to do 0-60 in the low 9's or high 8's with an automatic and in the mid to high 7's with the stick. If you compare old power-to-weight ratio on the Civic EX coupe, a 2517 pound vehicle with 127 horsepower, you get a ratio of 20.45 pounds per horsepower. I had a weight of 2701 for the new EX with 140 horses, translating to an inprovement in the power-to-weight of about 6%. Of course, I'm still trying to understand why y'all are so fixated on the EX. The DX would be much faster, now that they all have the same engines. I think the LX would be the best choice...a good compromise between performance and options.
     The old Si hatchback from 1992 could do 0-60 in 7.5 and average 32.5 mpg and had a better power-to-weight ratio than the 2006 EX. Are we talking coupe or sedan? Torque is up more than horsepower this year. The new EX could break 8 seconds easily, with a good driver. If not, I'll just get an Accord 4-door which will do the trick. Or...maybe the Accord LX coupe 5-speed! That could do 0-60 in the low 7's and average 30mpg (compared to the new Si's 26.5).

#1587 of 4597 Civic 06 Sedan test drive by tall '05 Accord driver by nowakj66

Sep 16, 2005 (6:22 am)

Yesterday I had a chance to sit in and drive a new Civic sedan. I drive an 05 Accord and am looking for a car for my wife that I can drive. I am also tall. I was curious how the Civic would fit and how it would compare to my Accord hybrid.
 
The Civic is an impressive piece of machinery. The car is definitely more refined but Honda wisely leaves niceties like heated leather seats and improved sound deadening to the Accord. The Civic has only cloth seats and it was a bit loud on the highway as far as road noise goes.
 
That said, there some things I really liked about the car. First – I fit! The new tilt and telescope wheel works wonders for my legs. I really liked the exterior style with the long raked windshield and low flat stance like Hondas of old. The dash is very deep. It really handles very well, although a bit under powered. I also really like how the car looks in Atomic blue metalic paint.
 
The two level dash can cause the steering wheel to block the speedo in some positions which was a bit of a drag.
 
When I got back in my Accord the dash and windshield felt very vertical. It also felt very quiet and comfy!
 
In the end it looked like a great car for the money.

#1588 of 4597 Re: Performance of non-Si models? Si Sedan? [allfiredup] by yesroh

Sep 16, 2005 (6:22 am)

Replying to: allfiredup (Sep 15, 2005 5:38 pm)
NO! As always is the case, the mags do their first tests on the top-of-the-line car which will probably have the lowest sales of the bunch. It's a bit annoying the way they do that. And how often do you see them test a Civic auto? Not too often, even though there will probably be a lot more automatics sold than sticks, especially now that the fuel economy is better and the 5-speed will probably have acceleration close to the 5-speed manual. I still have yet to see a test of the automatic on the current Civic. Anyone? I would guess low-8's, mid to high 7's, for 2006, depending on which model you drive. Simple logic says the DX would be the quickest, since it's the lightest with equal power, unless they put such lousy tires on it that it spins its wheels.

#1589 of 4597 Re: Comparison [ciprian] by yesroh

Sep 16, 2005 (6:33 am)

Replying to: ciprian (Sep 15, 2005 7:38 pm)
...don't forget the 5-speed automatic. It hasn't been covered much here but from what I've seen in the Accords when they went from a 4-speed to a 5-speed, this will really improve acceleration.

#1590 of 4597 Re: Civic 06 Sedan test drive by tall '05 Accord driver [nowakj66] by yesroh

Sep 16, 2005 (6:36 am)

Replying to: nowakj66 (Sep 16, 2005 6:22 am)
I think a lot of the little niceties will also add weight. If you add 20 pounds to a 3400 pound car you will not notice it as much as adding it to a 2700 pound car. The little niceties start adding up after a while to a fat small car. Also, most people in this segment are on a budget.
     I would just get warmer pants.

#1591 of 4597 Power-to-weight by yesroh

Sep 16, 2005 (6:48 am)

Power to weight isn't always a directly proportional comparison. I remember about six years ago, I was going through my old Consumer Reports magazines and noticing as the Honda Accord automatic went from a 125horsepower engine to a 150 horsepower engine, and the power-to-weight ratio improved, the acceleration times got worse. The 1992 did it in 9.8 seconds and the 1998 one did it in 10.5. It's a little know fact, also, that the 1994 Accord Lx with 130 horsepower could outgun the 1994 EX with 145 horses...Car and Driver even noted this in one of their tests. Few tests showed the more-powerful EX to be the better of the two.
     So why is this? Well, maximum horsepower isn't the final word. If you have an engine which puts out very little at lower rpms and suddenly peaks at higher, you won't get the full power except for a very short time in the acceleration. This is why the V-6's do better with the automatics...their high output comes at a larger range of rpm's, and so even if you have fewer speeds, the V-6 will put out closer to its peak over a larger range than the 4-cylinder will, usually. It also depends on what rpm's the peak power comes. If you have to wait until 7600rpm to get all your power, you'll be waiting a long time. I've noticed the CVT transmissions seem to get more performance out of the same engine and the reason is they can put an engine at its peak horsepower by keeping it at the same rpm for the entire acceleration. I still don't know why Honda doesn't just scrap their 5-speed autos and put CVT's on everything! Why is that?
     Transmissions also play a part in this. A 5-speed will usually accelerate faster than a 4-speed, all else being the same. But it depends on how close the gears are, and in some cases if they are too close you might have to do an extra shift before you hit 60 miles an hour, which will then take more time. If your transmission is geared towards economy then your top gear will probably be sluggish and the car will feel that way.
     I try to compare Civics to Civics because I think even an '05 will be somewhat close to an '06 because automakers generally have some sort of philosophy as to why they build certain cars, and the engines and transmissions would mirror that. Honda Civics have always been light cars with small engines that rev and get great gas mileage and good performance but usually not great. To compare a Scion to a Civic without real-world tests would be very difficult. The Scion is a much more torquey engine. I saw a test between a 1993 Honda Civic DX Sedan and a Chrysler Neon which out torqued and out-powered the Honda easily. But in the test, the Neon beat the Civic by 8/10 seconds up to 60 miles an hour, and then the Honda stomped the Neon in the 0-100 mph test by three seconds! Must have been the gearing, the nature of the engines (Honda might come on strong at higher rpms where the Neon was a low-end kicker) or something. It's just a very murky science.

#1592 of 4597 Re: Europe vs North America [newsie23] by w9cw

Sep 16, 2005 (6:53 am)

Replying to: newsie23 (Sep 16, 2005 5:54 am)
Those who have had the pleasure of traveling in Europe realize that North America is cheated on practically every vehicle! The vehicle choices in Europe are much more interesting than in North America.

#1593 of 4597 Re: Europe vs North America [w9cw] by yesroh

Sep 16, 2005 (6:59 am)

Replying to: w9cw (Sep 16, 2005 6:53 am)
Probably in part due to the fact most Americans want gigantic, gas-guzzling 500 horsepower cars. The roads and towns in Europe are small. People seem to be more humble. I drove around Europe for 2 1/2 months in 2002 and even on the Autobahn, at 100 miles an hour, people were much more polite than what I see here in the U.S. They were just just nice. What a refreshing change.

Messages Page 160 of 461

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement