Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Honda Civic Honda Civic vs Toyota Corolla vs Mazda3
879 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM
You are in the Honda Civic Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: z71bill (Oct 26, 2006 10:23 am) Then Honda sure didn't try very hard... I get well over EPA estimates on trips in my Accord traveling at 75 MPH...I've even gotten 39.96 MPG once and average around 38 MPG at that speed (75)(it stickers at 34 MPG) |
|
|
So in your opinion the car companies (at least Honda) sand bag the EPA results so that cars actually get MORE MPG? Or maybe they completely ignore the detailed rules and methods of the EPA and just make cars the best way they can. I guess anything is possible - I normally get close to the EPA city rating as an overall combined average. I may start out a trip driving close to the speed limit - but after a while end up following traffic which is normally around 80 MPH - that does hurt MPG. I hate it when I am cruising along at 65 MPH (speed limit) and have a steady stream of cars passing me on the left - which would not be that bad - except I am always getting caught behind someone going 55 in the right lane and because of the constant stream of passing cars I can't (safely) get around the guy doing 55. It almost seems safer to go 80 MPH and just stay in the normal flow of traffic.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: z71bill (Oct 26, 2006 5:20 pm) The reason I stay at 75 MPH is that the car is revving high enough to never have to downshift in hills, but low enough that it is still relatively efficient (2,500 RPM). I made the same trip at 68 MPH (less than 2,300 RPM) and the car had to downshift on a lot more hills, making my economy actually lower than when I went 75 MPH. |
|
|
Replying to: z71bill (Oct 26, 2006 5:20 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: archmikus (Dec 08, 2006 11:08 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: eldaino (Dec 08, 2006 12:47 pm) Personally, I would say the 3 is several substantial notches ahead of the civic when it comes to "sportiness". In fact, in my driving, I would say the 3 is very fun to drive while the civic is pretty bland. The civic isnt a mush-mobile, but it's not very entertaining. I also find the 3 gives up little in terms of comfort compared to the civic (eg. I find the seats to be more supportive in the 3 and ride is not overly harsh). But yea, the "sportiness" or w/e you want to call it is really the one area where the 3 really shines over the civic. If it's not noticeable, then the only drawbacks to the civic may be a weaker engine and styling (which is subjective). Of course, the 3 gives up little to the civic in every other category including fuel consumption, comfort, build quality, reliability, resale value... etc. The civic wins in those, but not by a substantial amount. That's the why the 3 has been getting so much praise here in the States. It has the "fun factor" without losing too much of everything else. |
|
|
We happen to have both cars and I couldn't agree more. The 3 is definitely a "drivers car" while the Civic is the "perfect car". The Civic does so many things right and it's a great car for the majority. But the 3 is like a ride and it's fun to thrash it around. We love them both, but for different reasons. The Sandman 
|
|
|
Replying to: socal2006 (Dec 08, 2006 3:33 pm) The civic is just as fun to thrash around. I can appreciate a fine handling car trust me. I've driven both vehicles extensively and there was nothing that i could do in the 3 that i couldn't do with the civic. And trust me i thrashed them about quite a bit. Is the 3 marginally better? Yes it is. Marginally. So marginally in fact that after you factor in fuel ecomomy and resale value, getting the 3 (to me) for sporting abilities doesn't make much sense. Get a true enthusiast car. The civic si could eat the 3 for lunch in the handling dept. and thier power and mileage figures are about the same. I think the 3 is a very nice car, and i actually considered it very strongly at one point esp. the hatch version. But i personally adore the way the new civic looks, that and its horspower to engine size ratio, silky smooth transmission, outstanding fuel ecomomy and great dash layout made it the winner in my book. Do i bash anyone for having a 3? No but it certainly is not so much sportier that it makes the civic pale. Sandman you should toss your civic around...trust me its up to the task. 
|
|
|
Replying to: eldaino (Dec 12, 2006 10:12 am) The handling is better then "marginal" much better. Edmunds slalom test showed the Mazda3 went through it at 69mph(quicker then the WRX, I know, hard to believe) and the Civic was 64.6. The Mazda3 is also 1 second quicker 0-60 and .8 in the quarter mile. Also, fuel economy, according to CR, is only 29-30mpg highway in the Civic . Resale value is the same. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Honda Civic Honda Civic vs Toyota Corolla vs Mazda3
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Honda Civic
2010 Toyota Corolla
2010 Mazda MAZDA3
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
