Last post on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:21 AM
You are in the Honda Civic
What is this discussion about?
Honda Civic, Honda, Future Vehicle, Coupe, Sedan
#192 of 572 Re: - [dudleyr]
Jul 24, 2008 (2:33 pm)
I'm going to have to agree with you on quite a bit here. First of all, the reason the new Civic needs more RPM and a bigger engine to go the same speed is that it's pulling a much heavier vehicle. Today's civic is loaded with electronics, more space, more safety equipment, etc.. - all which add to the vehicle's weight.
You're not in the minority for fuel efficiency - if you were, the ugly-as-hell Prius wouldn't sell, and the Honda Civic wouldn't have taken over the #1 car sold in America slot from the Ford F150. The Civic comes in a "normal" economy car - the DX/LX/EX, and it comes in a Hybrid which easily gets the rated 45MPG+. So I absolutely fail to see where your assertion that Honda is fearful of promoting economy because it doesn't sell comes from. Probably a 1/3 of all Civic sedans I see are hybrids.
Honda even used to sell a manual tranny hybrid until 2005. It was discontinued for a number of reasons, one being a lack of sales. The other is notably that when compared to a CVT, a manual transmission isn't nearly as efficient.
So, if you want pristine fuel economy, get the 110hp CVT Hybrid. Hell, you can expect better average fuel economy in the CVT LX/EX over the Manual tranmission on the same trim levels. But if you want to control your car driving experience, get a manual and suffer the hit.
For "efficiency" types - there's the Fit.
Jul 24, 2008 (7:55 pm)
Everybody was fearfull of economy until this year. Most car ads did not even show the mpg, yet the hp was often in larger type than the cars name.
A 140 hp Civic can easily pull a taller gear. The Corolla did it with just as much weight. Remember, my 74 hp Quantum was a midsize not a small car. Even in 1983 it weighed nearly as much as todays Civic. Occasional down shift on the highway - so what I bought the manual because I enjoy shifting.
I have an Accord now and it could also easily pull a much taller gear. Right now it easily goes up moderate hills at 45 mph in 5th gear. I have never had to downshift on any highway. Currently it is about 2380 rpm at 60 mph. It could easily do 2,000 or 2,100 if it had a 6th gear.
We are just spoiled with power. Look at Europe and see a 518i. This was a while back, but this is a 5 series with the same engine size as the current Civic (the current 5 series has a 2.0 liter base engine). It did fine driving through the Alps and on the autobahn. Why do we need so much more to drive around the beltway on the way to work.
#194 of 572 Re: - [dudleyr]
Jul 25, 2008 (6:16 am)
If everybody was so fearful of fuel economy, as you say, then why are Toyota and Honda so profitable, while GM and Ford have been losing money and cutting jobs for years? I don't believe i've ever seen Honda push horsepower unless it was their Civic si or Accord V6. Otherwise, they ALWAYS promoted their fuel efficiency and value. The same goes for most of the asian car manufacturers. By "most" car ads, I am going to assume that you're referring almost exclusively to American cars.
If fuel economy wasn't a selling point and important to people before 2008, then why did Honda use a new form of i-VTEC in it's non-si civic trims that is geared towards fuel economy, and not performance as it was in years past, as well as in the current si engine? Honda cars are high RPM cars, and the new fuel-efficient i-VTEC is working under 3500 RPM. In an American vehicle, 3500RPM is pretty high - in a Honda it's where it just starts opening up.
#195 of 572 Auto trans for the Honda Si for 2009???
Jul 25, 2008 (8:45 am)
Sorry guys, I can't believe that Honda hasn't offered an automatic transmission for the Si the past couple years. My wife and I love performance and quality. We are looking at Honda and Scion. By the time we add a few low cost "goodies" to the Scion, we'll have right at 170 horse or a little more. Yep, it come with an automatic. If Honda doesn't offer AGAIN, an automatic transmission for the Si, we simply will get the Scion. We love the looks of both but the Honda Si is more sporty looking. Does anyone out there know for sure that Honda will or will not offer an automatic transmission concerning the 2009 Si?
#196 of 572 Re: Auto trans for the Honda Si for 2009??? [heybroder]
Jul 25, 2008 (8:47 am)
Get the Scion.
The Si's engine is VERY peaky in nature, and would be completely neutered with an automatic, therefore I don't look for Honda to do it; just as they didn't in the similarly peaky, low-torque S2000 Roadster.
#197 of 572 Re: Auto trans for the Honda Si for 2009??? [thegraduate]
Jul 25, 2008 (9:01 am)
We understand fully what you are talking about! tyvm for replying!! Yep, Scion is our choice! God bless, Randy and Pam www.raptureready.com is an awesome site
#198 of 572 Re: Auto trans for the Honda Si for 2009??? [heybroder]
Jul 25, 2008 (9:56 am)
It will never happen, so no need to wait. I'd look at a Mazda3 before the Scion, if you like a sport suspension and excellent brakes, as the Scion is a poseur with only pretensions toward anything sporting.
Jul 25, 2008 (3:53 pm)
"Occasional down shift on the highway - so what I bought the manual because I enjoy shifting. " - dudleyr
Exactly my point as well. I would buy a 6 MT Civic EX and downshift whenever it was necessary, without any complaints, because that's where the fun is!
The milage boost would be an added perk as well as the cool factor of having the only economy car with a 6 speed. Besides all that, the SI 6 MT is one of the favorite manuals of all time, according to the major magazines.
I think Honda should do it.
#200 of 572 Re: 6 MT [jiminthehills]
Jul 25, 2008 (3:55 pm)
The milage boost would be an added perk as well as the cool factor of having the only economy car with a 6 speed.
#201 of 572 Re: 6 MT [jiminthehills]
Jul 25, 2008 (5:03 pm)
"Besides all that, the SI 6 MT is one of the favorite manuals of all time, according to the major magazines."
Uhhh, favorite maybe, that is until the 3rd gear syncro starts doing its little act.