Last post on Sep 04, 2008 at 7:40 AM
You are in the Honda Civic
What is this discussion about?
Honda Civic, Sedan
#976 of 4597 Re: used civic [sms92]
Sep 01, 2005 (8:54 am)
I personally don't think that it is worth buying a 2-3 year old Honda or Toyota. The resale values are too high to make it attractive over owning a new one, especially if 2-3 years would put you in a different generation of the model you're looking at.
You'll save on insurance and some taxes and possibly some financing costs by going used. The savings are about in proportion to the sales price, so it won't be much for a 2-3 year old.
Now, if you were willing to buy a 6+ year old Civic, then you could probably save a bunch of money and get into a car with a fair amount of life left in it. I've got a 1996 manual Civic with 100,000 miles on it. It is very clean and will likely go another 100,000. If I sold it, I'd only expect to get $3500 or so for it. If you found something like that, it could be economical.
On the other hand, buying a new Lincoln or Land Rover is extremely costly compared to buying a 3 year old one because they depreciate so much.
#979 of 4597 Poor Fuel Economy
Sep 01, 2005 (9:12 am)
Very disappointed with initial fuel economy numbers. A top priority for me is fuel savings. The new civic city numbers are WORSE by 6%. (32 down to 30).
After reading the engine info a few weeks ago from Honda, you would think the 06 Civic was capable of producing its own fuel. Numerous technological improvements all for nothing. It appear to me that the main fuel economy improvement comes from the auto trans gearing. 5th gear is listed as .525 overdrive. I wonder if this is a misprint. The Toyota Corolla with a 5 year old 1.8L is rated with better fuel economy 32-41 m/t vs. Civic 30-38 m/t. I just don't understand it.
Don't get me wrong, the 06 civic on paper looks perfect for me. Standard abs, full airbags, telescope wheel, and so on. I just don't see any improvements in fuel economy with the new engine. I hope the official EPA numbers show different, but I doubt it.
#981 of 4597 Re: Poor Fuel Economy [mdpay]
Sep 01, 2005 (9:25 am)
I'm also a disappointed in the MPG. I think that we have a case here of Honda being caught with their assumptions (about gas prices) down.
I've been saying for some time that one of the effects of higher gas prices will be car companies reacting with higher MPG options. If gas prices stay high (which I expect), then we'll probably see Honda either bring back the HX variant or add something roughly similar, meaning a non-hybrid car that sacrifices performance to get much better MPG.
For those interested, my energy awareness web site is The Cost of Energy">link title
#982 of 4597 Re: Poor Fuel Economy [mdpay]
Sep 01, 2005 (9:27 am)
Those are the unfortunate consequences of having a larger, heavier car with more power. The fuel economy with the auto is better so for people interested in an auto it is good.
Also, the car may attract some buyers who would have went with a low end Accord.
If fuel efficiency is your number one concern, you could go with the hybrid. Or buy an even smaller car.
#983 of 4597 new Civic versus 2-year old Civic
Sep 01, 2005 (9:52 am)
It may be that buying a new Civic is smarter than buying a 2-year old Civic, since Hondas do not depreciate as rapidly as many other brands.
What about a new Civic versus a 2-year old Altima? or Corolla?
if you are buying the new car from a dealer who is motivated, then the scales may tip in favor of the new car purchase.
But since no one is buying used cars since the new car dealers (and manufacturers) are so motiviated, whouldn't that be driving used car pricing down? I am guessing that individuals sellig used cars do not yet understand why no one is calling them inquiring about that used car for sale.
#984 of 4597 Re: Poor Fuel Economy [tradscott]
Sep 01, 2005 (9:55 am)
if decreasing the MPG and increasing the power causes more folks to buy the Civic, then, in the aggregate, the nation is better off. (assuming the vehicle the owner otherwise would have been driving gets worse mpg than the new Ciovic they ultimately decide to buy)
If you can move someone from a 20 mpg car to a 30 mpg car, that is better than moving him from a 20 mpg to a 25 mpg car, no? Let's not get hung up on what Honda might have accomplished. They need to sell cars not make us happy that they achieved everything they could have achieved. Who cares if the Civic could have gotten 50 mpg if lots fewer people want to drive one (in comparison to the 30 mpg version)
#985 of 4597 Re: LA Times Article on New Civic [creakid1]
Sep 01, 2005 (10:15 am)
I found creakid1's post most interesting. First of all, let me state that I've been purchasing Asian or European cars since 1968, and bought my first Civic in 1989. It was a 1990 DX hatchback, and I loved that car. We have typically driven small cars, and have based our purchasing decision on quality vs. price - not perceived quality, per se, but build quality that can be seen by the naked eye, and decent mechanical quality. Depreciation rate is really not a deciding factor, as we tend to keep a car a minimum of 10 years.
I've been carefully looking for a new car for my wife since March of this year. I've looked at (and, driven) the Accord and Civic, Toyota Camry and Corolla, Subaru Legacy, and lately, and most suprisingly, the new 2006 Hyundai Sonata and 2005 Elantra, as well as the Kia Spectra. We all know of the build quality of the Honda and Toyota, as well as the fit and finish of these two marques. But, I'm beginning to wonder if it is not more a market perception, rather than reality.
Look closely at the gap and seam differentials on all USA or Canadian-built Civics, especially on the front bumper as it meets the body. The gaps and seams are irregular left to right. The same can be said on the Camry, and even with their rear door alignments, and some upper door trim. If you critically inspect these vehicles, you will see what I mean. Conversly, if you inspect a Japanese-built Civic, this is not the case. Are we seeing the difference between Asian-built vehicles vs. those built here in North America - or something else? Honda's and Toyota's reputation was built in this country by vehicles primarily built in Japan.
I don't buy any vehicle simply because it's a Honda, Toyota, et. al. Most surprisingly, when I inpected one of the least respected marques sold in the USA - KIA - I found some significant suprises. The 2005 Sprectra EX I "reluctantly" looked at suprised me to no end. First of all, the gaps and seams are perfectly consistent from sample to sample, and are excellent on any specific vehicle. The exterior sheetmetal build quality is certainly the equal (or, better than) the Civic or Corolla. And, all of the interior bits and pieces fit extremely well and are of decent quality. This was a shocking suprise to me, as this is the first time I've ever looked at a Korean-built car.
Local independent mechanics tell me that late models of Hyundai and Kia products are reliable, and with their 5yr/60K limited warranty, and 10yr/100K powertrain warranty, it is something to consider. Are we experiencing a parallel to the growth and quality of the Japanese-built vehicles as seen in the 70s though the 80s with their Korean-built counterparts? Only time will tell. But, for one who has bought these types of vehicles for almost 40 years, I'm impressed, especially with the new Sonata and Spectra.
I'm certainly not trolling here, or speaking heresy. I'm just telling it like I see it. Given the target marketing demographic of the new Civic (the younger generation), I think Honda will have a hit on its hands. Honda realized that the "staid and conservative" nature of the previous generation was not a good fit for first time new car buyers. I wish them well with the 2006 Civic.