Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Honda Civic vs. Hyundai Elantra



  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,631
    That is hilarious--a car with a VVT engine with more power and torque than the Civic EX, sport suspension, 4-wheel disc brakes, alloy wheels, leather interior, 6-speaker sound system, 8-way driver's seat, power everything, and 10-year warranty is not worth new any more than $8,000??? I really don't know how you can justify paying even $15k for a Civic EX then.

    I haven't seen a new Elantra GT for $8k either--my previous post talked about Elantras, not Elantra GTs. Actually, GTs hold their value pretty well. Partly because they are pretty rare, but also I think because they are seen as very desirable small cars. Where else can you get the performance and features of the Elantra GT for starting at a little over $12k after rebates and discounts?
  • danf1danf1 Posts: 935
    And a few minutes later you denigrated car salespeople referring to "some boob car salesman." So I might ask, by 2025 will that stereotype also drop and make yourself a "curiosity"?
  • john500john500 Posts: 409
    Although blueidegod is pro-Honda, his criticisms are very fair and echo mine. Hyundai is still a "new" car. Conventional advice to an 18 year old kid is to go with what is known and allow other people (with more disposable money) to validate the quality of Hyundai. To paraphrase the closing comments in post 1080, Hyundai may very well be a "diamond in the rough". As you mentioned though, the public perception of quality will lag the actual quality. In the meantime, if a consumer decides to sell the car, the consumer will pay for it with a lower resale value. In the 2004 automobile issue, I believe Kiplinger rated some of the Hyundai models at a staggering 10 % retail value versus about 35 % for Honda models after 5 years.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,631
    Interesting comment. Actually, one of the main reasons I bought my two Hyundais is that I do NOT have much disposable income to spend on cars--I have much better things to spend my money on than depreciating assets that rust in the salt slime of Minnesota winters. I plan to hold onto each one within my family for at least 11 years. Resale value is a non sequitur in that equation. Instead of paying $8-10,000 more for my two cars than I did (e.g. if I had bought Civics instead of Elantras), I have that money in my pocket (actually in interest-earning investments).

    BTW, 10% resale value after 5 years is absolute bunk. I see '01 Elantra GLSes every day for sale in the $6000 range. That is a little more than half what I paid for my '01 GLS 4-1/2 years ago. I guess that means I'll see the value drop $5000 in the next 6 months. ;-) These kinds of figures are meaningless. You need to look at actual out-of-pocket costs over the life of ownership, not some paper figures.
  • csandstecsandste Posts: 1,866
    Actually the local Hyundai dealer uses 18 year old kids who bird-dog potential customers and annoy them with statements like "would you buy this Tucson today for $10,000?" I've offered twice and they back up when I pull out my Discover card.

    That's one reason why I purchased a Malibu Maxx rather than another Hyundai (along with the increased flexibility). Hyundai still has a way to go with dealer (and salesperson professionalism). Chevy despite the anti-GM rants has really learned-- from Saturn, I think.

    So-- not all car salesmen fit the stereotype, but Hyundai has farther to go in professionalising their sales force than they do in improving the hardware. A good sales experience is something that has been Toyota's weak spot for years, and my local Hyundai dealership also peddles Nissans (Hyundai has outsold them for years).

    As to AutoTrader, without going back and checking, I think it's a self-listing service. I've e-mailed used car contacts in the past who've mislisted a vehicle --i.e. peddling a 97 Cavalier with 70,000 for $13,995, checked back and never seen any changes or recognition when I've pointed it out. So not all used car salesmen (or new car) are boobs but some of them certainly are.

    The bird-dog (who I insisted get a cut of the action) when I bought my '01 Hyundai was peddling carpets when I ran into him two weeks later. He quit, because the sales manager and higher ups "were a bunch of jerks who treated us all like crap." "When I was buying a car this go around, each of the competing (Mazda, Chrysler, Chevy), dealers that I checked with had ex-salesmen with horror stories about working for this particular multi-line dealer.

    Avoiding this abuse is what gave Saturn some success despite having barely adequate product.
  • danf1danf1 Posts: 935
    So you had a problem with one particular dealership. It just seemed like you were making a broad stroke generalization of all car salespeople. That sounds like a terrible store, and I can assure you that Hyundai and Nissan are probably not pleased with them due to low CSI scores.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    That is hilarious--a car with a VVT engine with more power and torque than the Civic EX, sport suspension, 4-wheel disc brakes, alloy wheels, leather interior, 6-speaker sound system, 8-way driver's seat, power everything, and 10-year warranty is not worth new any more than $8,000??? I really don't know how you can justify paying even $15k for a Civic EX then.

    It is always cheaper to knock someone else's design to make it cheaper. VVT, even if Hyundai has it, is what Honda developed in late 80's (VTEC) and installed on a Honda NSX in 1991, and the rest of the line couple of years later. Well, Honda has moved on to i-VTEC, while Hyundai is just installing VVT on their engines. That is progress I guess, 16 years later the VTEC patent must have expired, so Hyundai jumped on it.

    In all fairness, I am not anti-Korean. There are certain things that Korean manufacturers have proven them selves. Electronics is one of them, GoldStar was the best bang for a buck you could get in the 90's. Even now LG is good quality. I have had GoldStar TV's and microwaves that kept on going way past their expected life. But Korean automotive manufacturers are only starting to show the same attention to quality process as they did to Electronics in the 80's. Statistically it takes 7-12 years to start producing quality product from the onset of quality oriented procedures.

    To another poster, even though someone advertizes their 2001 Hyundai at $6K does not mean it will sell at that. A 10 year old Civic EX (twice the age, 1994 model year) will sell for $6K the day the ad published. The Civic EX selling price in 1994 was $12,000-$13,000, this is a 50% residual on a 10 year old car.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,631
    Yes, Honda had VVT technology before Hyundai. How many other small cars have VVT engines? Why haven't, for example, Ford, GM, and DC "jumped" on the Honda patents? BTW, I sure wish Honda would jump on the Hyundai patent for their dual-knob seat-height adjuster--assuming it's patented. I'd like the Civic a lot more if it had that feature.

    If it takes 7-12 years to start producing quality product, how is it that there is statistical and anecdotal evidence that Hyundai has already greatly improved the quality of their cars just in the past five years?

    Prices from today's local paper:

    '94 Civic EX: CA car, automatic, very nice - $2800/bo. (the only '94 EX advertised; other '94 Civics, mostly LXes, range from $2199-3995. So about $10k depreciation in ten years, assuming the EX could be had for $12-13k (they were $15k when I shopped for a 5-speed in '95, so $12-13k for an automatic seems kind of low to me).

    There were no '01 Elantras advertised. The closest to it was a '02 Elantra GT 5-speed, $9995, which is about 20-25% depreciation from purchase price over 3+ years. Not too shabby.
  • mononeomononeo Posts: 89
    It's funny that you mention this, the car I had before my Accord was a 1977 Volvo 245DL with 320,000 miles on it. That car, with 70s technology got 35 miles per gallon with a 4-speed stick shift. Oh to reminess.
  • mononeomononeo Posts: 89
    I am really tired of people bringing up resale value. This doesn't take Kiplingers to tell us what is the truth. I may be 18, and you may claim I am naive, but I have probably taken a college statistics class or economics class a lot more recently than you have ;). The residual values of cars put into percentages by firms like Kiplingers is representative of the price cars sold for based on their original MSRP. Hondas sell for their actual MSRPs. So when the residual values are calculated, and you see that the Hyundai has a lower value after five years, this is not necessarily true.

    Let's do some math!:

    The following statistics are provided by Edmunds TrueMarketValue assessments and are considered without customizing any statistics (basically, if you go to TMV, these are the prices that are going to show up before you do anything).

    2001 Elantra GLS versus 2001 Honda Civic LX
    (no options except automatic transmission added)

    -A 2005 Elantra GLS today sells on average for $12,032 according to Edmunds.
    -A 2005 Civic LX today sells on average for $15,994 according to Edmunds.
    >Reiterating, this is Edmunds' TMV system, not my own conjecture.

    Now, we to make this comparison simpler, we're going to just suppose that these cars sold for the same prices in 2001.
    >The cars in the pricing are both black cars with 60,000 miles (15,000 miles per year industry average over four years) and no optional equipment other than automatic transmission. Although, I did have to select that the Elantra had the optional equipment of keyless entry and perimeter alarm, as the Elantra does come standard with these. Edmunds does not recognize this.

    -The used 2001 Civic under the suggested and afforementioned conditions comes in at a TMV price of $10,178 dealer retail.

    -The used 2001 Elantra under the suggested and afforementioned conditions comes in at a TMV price of $6935.

    This means that the cars dropped in value:
    -Honda Civic LX depreciated 36.36%
    -Hyundai Elantra GLS depreciated 42.38%

    Yes, the Civic does have better resale value. How much better? Clearly, not by much. People may be wondering though, what about all of these other people talking about Elantras for $8000 and Civics for $14000? Well let's run those numbers too.

    Under the same conditions as before, except the original price paid of the cars was lowered to the prices claimed by the conjecture in this forum, these are the resale rates:

    The 2001 "conjecture" car pricing:
    -The Honda Civic LX depreciated 27.8%
    -The Hyundai Elantra GLS depreciated 13.32%

    What does this tell us? You decide. I know that I have seen Elantras regularly in Saturday newspaper ads for $7500-8500. I also admit that I have seen Civics in Saturday newspaper ads for $14000 for an LX. These are both great deals for these cars, but if you consider that if the Elantra has a lower entry point, and then almost doesn't depreciate at all, what is the better deal? It's like you get to drive your Elantra without it depreciating. Considering you don't have to pay for repairs, all you have to pay for is maintenance, gasoline, and the actual car: you're putting miles on your car for almost no loss of resale value!! That is amazing to me, and it should be to you as well. Granted the Civic has faired well in this test, but for the other car to depreciate so minimally is shocking.

    I have a few more points.

    Despite what comment someone has made about my father's negotiation skills (which I find funny, as I did not take them personal at all, I just thought it was funny someone thinks you can substantially negotiate Honda pricing), it is the truth that Honda does not like to budge on pricing. I live in a small metro area, and seeing as how there is only ONE Honda dealership, they are able to add onto the price a smokin' $2000 market value adjustment. If you are going to negotiate anything, it is going to be in this "adjustment" when it is a Honda. Hondas do not have rebates available. Period. That is not negotiation, that is economics. Another striking difference is that at our local Hyundai dealership, they post the invoice prices on each and every car. The salesman helping me used to work at the Honda dealership (which are coincidentally owned by the same group: Kendall, and I know he is telling the truth as I've encountered him there in the past) so he is knowledgable of both lines. I thought they had mistakenly left the invoice sheets on the cars, as they were clearly from the distribution facility, but he confirmed that they were intentionally placed there. I asked him if that was something Kendall Auto Group does, and he explained that they do this for all brands when they are having sales except Honda. Why? It is illegal if you are a Honda dealership under their franchise obligations to post invoice prices on their cars at the dealerships. It is obvious that Honda wants a less informed consumer, as there would be no other reason for this, other than to lead to more BLOATED pricing.

    On a more personal note, a friend of mine died the other day in a side impact crash in his Honda Civic. His car did not have the side impact airbags that Honda charges for. Hyundai has side-impact airbags standard on every model, even the lowly Accent. If he had these airbags, they may have saved his life. I just think it is horrific that Honda charges you for safety. These may save your life, and doing this is like Honda making you buy your life from them. I know that Hyundai has officially announced that ALL new models (even lowly Accents) in the future will be fitted with side-impact airbags, side-curtain airbags, antilock brakes, traction control, and electronic stability control. If Hyundai is going to do this in inexpensive cars, why can't Honda do it?
  • mononeomononeo Posts: 89
    All of you Honda people haven't thought about one interesting fact.


    Don't you think it says something that this is Hyundai versus Honda, not Nissan, or Toyota, or anyone else for that matter? I think that this says a lot in it of itself.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    I'm not entirely certain of what point you are trying to make, but in case there is any confusion let me tell you that we pretty much let roll any comparo that interests anyone, no matter how unlikely a few of them might seem to be.

    I am not saying this comparo is unlikely, I'm just pointing out that the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the subject matter of any given comparo is that one or more members are interested in making that particular comparison.

    That's really all it says.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,631
    The interest in the discussion tells me that the Civic is considered a benchmark for small cars against which others are judged. Not too many people benchmark against a Neon or Cavalier. Also, it says that people are interested in this particular comparison. I know I am, since the '01 Civic EX was the car I compared most closely to the Elantra I bought in late 2000. And I might have bought one if I could have gotten it for $14,000. Instead, the dealer turned me off by 1) totally ignoring me when I was in the showroom, even in the middle of a weekday when no one else was in there, and 2) Sticking a ridiculous ADM price on the then-new Civic EX, putting its price close to $20,000. So I went down the street to the local Hyundai dealer, drove the then-new '01 Elantra GLS, fell in love with it, and had no problem getting a price $500 under invoice even when there were no rebates on the car. Then I watched as buyers of the '01 Civic complained about numerous problems with their cars on the Edmunds Civic discussions and the Civic was recalled three times, while I got great service from my Elantra. I liked it so much I bought a GT 5-door last year for my wife, to replace our minivan, and it has been a trouble-free car.

    I still think the Civic is a very good small car. I just don't think they are worth the price premium any more. Maybe the upcoming redesign will change that, but who knows? And the Elantra is supposed to be redesigned for '06 also. Lots of new fodder for discussion here!
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,631
    In post 1099 I implied that GM was behind the curve when it comes to VVT technology. It turns out GM originally developed the variable valve timing concept, with Fiat being the first automaker to put VVT into a production car.

    I wonder if Honda jumped on any patents from GM or Fiat? ;-)
  • Good point, backy. I had similar experience shopping for a small car in 2002(EX vs GT). And I have to say that I thought that Elantra and Civic were quite similar. Dimension-vise, driving-vise (I drove AT cars), controls-vise. Honda was a little better. But not ~3000$ better. Plus GT had another plus being a hatchback, has leather. But different people have different priorities. I bet that a lot of people would easily pay 3K difference for Honda badge and subtle quality difference. I'd rather put it in my kids college fund(tax exempt) or numerous other things. So I personally think that one should be happy buying either of these cars - depending on the priorities. But saying that Elantra is a piece of junk compared to Civic is ignorant.
  • mononeomononeo Posts: 89
    I don't think you understood what my point was in my mentioning that this is a forum of Elantra versus Civic.

    While I do acknowledge that there is a free flow of communication regarding any comparisons of vehicles, I was putting emphasis on the fact that there has to be a reason that there is a forum like this at all. Yes, as patHOST mentioned, there is a lot of people that have interest in comparing these cars. That says a lot, right there.

    Basically, it was placing the importance on the actual fact that the Elantra is arguably the Civic's prime competitor, not any other car. This is meant to give a realization to all of the people on this forum that act as though a Civic is uncomparable to the Elantra, as though it is in a class all it's own. Clearly, the sheer fact that this forum exists says that the Civic is not the clear choice in the economy car segment that many people think it is.

    And can someone please respond to my resale value post? I'd like to see someone try and argue with facts.
  • gregoryc1gregoryc1 Posts: 766
    I would not purchase an "Elantra", (Hyundai) or a Kia vehicle, because they are sold by "multi-line new car dealers", (usually Chrysler Dealers). On the other side of the issue, Honda vehicles are sold and serviced by Honda dealers. It is not a "side business venture" like the Chrysler dealers. To me that shows a commitment to the product line! If you do a search about "Chrysler Vehicle problems" you will discover that Chrysler dealers cannot correct the problems with Chrysler vehicles, so where does that leave you as the owner of a Hyundai or Kia? Hyundai and Kia ARE NOT on the same "quality level" as Honda. They are a cheap imitation! But, it is a free country, and you can purchase anything that you like. It is your money.
  • mononeomononeo Posts: 89
    Most car dealerships are multi-car dealerships. Where I live, Honda is a Honda/Acura/Chevrolet dealership. In contrast to where you live, Hyundai is an exclusively Hyundai dealership. It is also important to point out that most exotic cars are sold at multi-line dealerships. When is the last time you saw a sole Ferrari dealership? This says nothing about brand commitment.

    In regards to your claim that you would not buy an Elantra, that is fine. Claiming that you wouldn't because they are "NOT on the same 'quality level' as Honda" is simply not true. In actuality, in the last J.D. Power & Associates Initial Quality Survey, Hyundai tied with Honda for having 102 problems per 1000 vehicles. This is a tie for second place, behind Toyota Motor (which is Lexus, Toyota, and Scion). If you take away Lexus and Scion from the Toyota brand equation, and look at it as an alone brand, it ranks behind both Honda and Hyundai.

    I fail to understand your logic behind bringing up that Chrysler "cannot correct problems with Chrysler vehicles, so where does that leave you as the owner of a Hyundai or Kia?" First of all, this sentence does not make sense and the scope of its topicality is profusely incomprehensible. Chrysler can fix Chrysler vehicles. Hyundai and Kia are not part of the same vehicle lines. They are owned by the same parent corporation, but Kia Motors America and Hyundai Motor America are completely different companies. Additionally, Hyundai models are purposefully higher quality vehicles than Kia models in Hyundai's (the parent company in Korea) overall brand strategy. Also, all dealerships that sell new vehicles distributed by Hyundai Motor America or Kia Motors America are required by law and by dealer franchise contractual requirements and obligations to service these vehicles.

    Another interesting fact; In the latest edition of Consumer Reports, the Hyundai Sonata was rated the Most Reliable Vehicle.

    It would seem that Hyundai's quality is much more comprehensive than your argument's.
  • gregoryc1gregoryc1 Posts: 766
    Don't believe the Hyundai / Kia / Comsumer Reports / J.D. Power corporate "spin"! When YOU own the vehicle, all the "problems" are YOURS! Purchase the vehicle that YOU like. It is YOUR money. I personally believe that Hyundai and Kia are poor copies of Honda and Toyota, and as such, I would not purchase one of these vehicles. This is NOT a personal attack on YOU. It is simply MY OPINION!
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Greg, in the interests of full disclosure you should note that you spend a whole lot of time criticizing Accords and criticizing Honda as a manufacturer.
Sign In or Register to comment.