Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Honda Civic 2005 and earlier

1464749515279

Comments

  • rivertownrivertown Member Posts: 928
    Just what I hoped to see on Civic board, a Mazda sales pitch. Yum, yum.
  • dinu01dinu01 Member Posts: 2,586
    It's not a sales pitch, relax.

    Just expressing MY opinion on the Protege, a competitor to the Civic.

    Dinu
  • bd21bd21 Member Posts: 437
    I'm guessing you are a younger man than me. I don't finance cars, so that's not a factor. I knew the ES had a more power and some fancier gadgets, that is why I compared cars with similar trim levels. I don't much care for fancy wheels and I steer clear of anti-lock brakes because I do all my own maintenance. The brain alone for that system can run a $1000 and I haven't had an instance yet where they would have made a difference. I live in Florida, if we had snow I would get them. I like a smooth quiet ride and I want the best bang for my buck. I keep cars ten plus years and I do all maintenance on them. Your points are taken, but the Honda better suits my needs. I know Mazda is a good car.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I think the Civic LX is a nice little car, but if you are looking for a smooth quiet ride, you really should check out the Lancer ES and Elantra GLS before you plop down your $15k. Both ride nicely and have lots of room. The Lancer is pretty peppy, a little better than the Civic I think, and the Elantra is much peppier (135 hp). Also, the Elantra will save you at least $2000 over the Civic LX automatic (if they are giving deals in Florida like they are in my state) and has a superior warranty. Lancer has good crash test results, the Elantra is mixed (good NHTSA, poor IIHS).
  • dinu01dinu01 Member Posts: 2,586
    I hope you enjoy your new car. The Civic is a good car and if it provides what you need, then it's the best choice for you.

    Happy motoring!

    Dinu
  • rivertownrivertown Member Posts: 928
    Like you, I buy a car for the long haul; thus, the resale value makes a difference. I figure good resale indicates long life.

    I don't do much of my own maintenance anymore, but I used to do the simple stuff (fluids, filters, tune ups, valves, etc). Get a load of that recommended maintenance schedule! My toolbox will collect cobwebs.
  • dcddcd Member Posts: 25
    You said you don't finance cars, but the low financing on the Civic and Mazda is an incentive, so I can't see a financial reason not to take it. I was going to put a sizeable down payment on the Civic I bought, but I decided to take the low financing and invest the cash, Just a thought.

    Enjoy your Civic. I am really enjoying the 37 mpg on mine. So much that I haven't driven my 03 Explorer V8 since I bought the Civic.
  • bjk2001bjk2001 Member Posts: 358
    OMG I checked out today's LA Times and saw some 00, 01, 02 Accord and Civic resale value was way higher than new car. What's wrong with this picture? Out of curiosity I went to Kelly's Blue Book website and input my daughter's 02 Civic EX Auto with less than 6k miles on it. Our resale private party price is $15,455. more than the price we paid $14,988 last April when we bought it new WOOHOO!
    Can anyone find another Nissan, Mazda, Korean car, German car like my Civic?
  • dinu01dinu01 Member Posts: 2,586
    Well some people care about it. If you change cars every 3 years or so you should definitely have resale value at the top of your list when shopping for a new car. Other people keep their cars 10 years or so and at that point a higher resale value gain you would have in a Civic is cancelled out by a higher interest rate you paid when you got the car and the fact that you Honda **may** have less features than a similarily-priced Mazda or Nissan.

    Dinu
  • rivertownrivertown Member Posts: 928
    I figure resale value also reflects the market's take on the durability of a car. Something like an opinion on "how similar to new is this car on average after 3/5/8 year's use" expressed in dollars.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Since you asked... the Automotive Lease Guide (www.alg.com) rates the BMW Mini Cooper, VW Golf GL, VW Jetta GLS, and VW New Beetle GL and GLS as having higher resale after 2 years and 4 years than the Civic EX automatic. The Subaru Impreza is ranked even at 2 years, a bit worse at 4 years. As for the current value of your used Civic being higher than the price of a new one... I wonder what luck you would have trying to sell your Civic at that price, given that you are competing against new car dealers who can offer a brand-new car with a full warranty and maybe even some special financing. I've often found estimated resale values to be inflated, at least for the market I live in.
  • bowke28bowke28 Member Posts: 2,185
    resale value DOES have validity even over the long haul. basically, someone is willing to pay $7000 for an 8 or 9 year old civic or accord tells me they have confidence in another 4-6 years of driving.

    dinu...i understand that you have free reign un here (which is scary), but if you are going to argue your point on every mazda product, please either post in the "vs" discussions, or set up your own. this discussion, along with the ones labeled with only the honda product itself are for owners or potential owners to discuss pros and cons of the HONDA, and give buying/selling/maintaining/repairing advice.

    p.s. which dealer do you work at? ;-)
  • gbriankgbriank Member Posts: 220
    I close to purchasing a new Civic EX, as a second car. What is everyone paying? Here in the Dallas metroplex, several dealers are offering me deals atleast $200 under invoice with options installed. Can I do better or is this a good deal?

    Thanks!
  • rivertownrivertown Member Posts: 928
    I don't have the specifics you're asking for.

    You can, though, shop other dealers within however large a radius you want by contacting their internet sales managers through their websites. Just ask for a quote on the car (trim, color, options, etc.) you want. Of course, the more specific your quote request, the better the info you'll get back. It's pretty simple.
  • eternalblueeternalblue Member Posts: 15
    My 02 Civic EX came with those Firestone tires (FP90, I think?) I've got about 5K on them right now and living in the snow belt of the northeast, I'm slipping and sliding all over the place, and I consider myself a very cautious driver.

    I went to tirerack.com and the ratings for this tire are, at best, abysmal. Especially in snowy conditions.

    Has anyone gotten a second set of snow tires for their late-model civic? What did you select?

    I've been pointed in the direction of the Nokian Hakka snow tires, but I've had no experience with them. They aren't something you can find on tirerack or discount tire, they're more rare, evidently. Any experiences with these?

    Anyone want to have a Firestone bonfire with all our stock tires as fuel? Those things are just awful. I can't say it enough.
  • gbriankgbriank Member Posts: 220
    Hey guys, I took the leap and am now the proud owner of a '03 Civic EX. So, what is the break-in period on this car? First 1000 miles, nothing above 5000 rpm's and above 80 mph?

    When should I change the oil? I'm getting conflicting change periods? Some say 1000 miles, others say ride it out till 4000 miles....
  • cwliangcwliang Member Posts: 54
    Well, it's too late for this, but you can check what everyone else paid in the Honda Civic--How much did you pay? forum...

    Break-in, I kept rpms under 4k and mph under 65. As for the oil, I think following the severe maintenance schedule is fine (5k changes), but really, the regular maintenance schedule should be fine too (though 10k just seems too long to me, so I follow the severe schedule).
  • gbriankgbriank Member Posts: 220
    I paid a few hundred under invoice and got 1.9% financing. I spoke with several dealers in the area, most were willing to come down to invoice but not much below. So, I chose to also add options. Floor mats, wheel locks, security system and leather wrapping for the steering wheel. I think that I did quite well. Probably could have gotten a $200 or 300 more off, but it would have meant more negotiation.

    Glenn

    Oh, he also through in the first three oil changes and a few other nice things.
  • dmbst68dmbst68 Member Posts: 50
    According to Honda's website, Honda currently has the following lease: 2003 Civic LX Sedan (auto), 48 months @$159 per month with a total of $1,333 down (includes down payment & sec. deposit, excludes tax & license). Lease is 12k miles per year.

    Why is this lease so inexpensive? The best they used to have was about $2k down and $189 per month. Maybe this trim level isn't selling as well as expected?

    Will this specific lease continue for awhile? The website says it expires at the end of February, but Honda brings lease specials back every month it seems.

    The website says "Special lease rates available on all new 2003 Civic models"...anyone know what these rates are? I didn't want to contact a dealer just yet. By the way, I'm asking for a friend who only has the $ to lease, not purchase. Gotta love this economy...

    Opinions please!! Thanks in advance.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    >>> Why is this lease so inexpensive? <<<

    Three reasons I can think of:
    1) High residual value = low lease payments.
    2) Cost of money for automakers is low now (witness low-rate financing programs).
    3) Car market stinks overall--need to move units.

    I recently saw a 5-speed LX lease for $139 with $1000 down and a $159 EX automatic lease with (I think) $1900 down. So if you want to lease a Civic, these are good times to do it.
  • rivertownrivertown Member Posts: 928
    I know this isn't what you were looking for, but . . . don't lease, at least before you read the boards about the probs you can easily get into. The best thing that can happen with a lease is at the end of it you've got nothing or a chance to buy that used car in a not very attractive deal. Some of the not-best outcomes: you get a bill for damage to car, you get a bill for extra miles, you hate the car or your needs change and you can't trade without a big dollar bite. Leasing is just not a good idea unless you've got a lot of money.

    Rather than leasing, use this tight car market to buy a decent car
    at a reduced price
    and at a low interest rate
    and end up in two year's time ahead of where you'd be at the end of a 4 year lease.

    I don't think there's a scam in these lease deals you're seeing, beyond the fact that leasing is a losing game.
  • bowke28bowke28 Member Posts: 2,185
    10 reasons leasing a honda is smart:

    1: usually $100-$150 less per month in payment.
    2: more car for less money.
    3: you pay only for what you use...no more.
    4: more options than traditional financing:
       a. drop it
       b. trade it
       c. buy it
       d. sell it
    5. newer (under warranty) more often.
    6. leasing company takes financial risk in a volatile market. (guaranteed residual)
    7. usage tax is only on your monthly pmt. rather than a large lump sum at the beginning.
    8. financing provides equity at the end, but you pay for that equity in your higher payments.
    9. do you want your money now? or wait 5 years?
    10. your only risk is miles and condition of the vehicle. both of these are under YOUR control.

    the most financially responsible way to buy a honda is to lease short term (36 months), and sell it on the open market. normally you can pocket $2-3000.

    if you have excessive wear and tear or high mileage, you can buy it or sell it and the responsibility is no longer yours to pay for damages.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    You probably ought to take a look at the Finance, Warranty & Insurance board for discussions and for further research Edmunds has a whole section devoted to the ins and outs of leasing here.

    I'm not trying to chase you off; these are just some resources I wanted to be sure you were aware of.

    Keep us posted.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I agree leasing isn't for everyone or every vehicle (e.g. you wouldn't want to lease a vehicle with high depreciation), but some lease deals can make sense. For example, I leased a '97 Sentra for $110/month. I figured the payments were actually less than the depreciation on the car (Nissan has stopped doing such stupid leases). Then at the end of the lease, I negotiated the residual value with Nissan and was able to buy it for less than market value, and then I sold it, pocketing $150. So that lease worked out fine for me. I currently lease a '99 Grand Caravan Sport. I leased it because it was another sweetheart lease, with payments about $200 less than if I had bought it outright. When the lease is up, I'll either buy it at less than market price again, or if the leasing company won't do that, I'll walk away. I can see where the current lease deals on Civics can make sense for some buyers, especially those who could sell their present car and use the money for some other investment (or pay off other bills). At $139/mo. for an LX 5-speed, payments are getting pretty close to depreciation.
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    What do you guys think of these taillights they get in Europe? I like them a lot.

    http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/picture_library/dir_17/car_portal_pi- c_8555.jpg?4240
  • rivertownrivertown Member Posts: 928
    you're not just paying depreciation, though that's figured in and you're paying it, too.

    You're also paying interest on the residual.

    You're also paying a fee just get a lease. That 'lease acquisition fee' with a Honda lease normally runs $550.

    You are often paying a higher interest rate than with a straight-out purchase.

    If you trade a lease, you pay a fee to the lessor, if you can find someone to take the lease. You also pay a fee if you get a service to find someone to take your lease.

    Sales tax: If you trade a car on a new car you get a sales tax credit equal to the tax on the value of your trade.

    Try this: Take the price of the car, then compare the lease payment with $1300 upfront to the monthly payment with nothing down at the current 1.9% for 5 years. How long will that $1300 pay the difference between the two? I dunno the answer to that myself, but that $1300 will pay the difference for a good while AND keep you out of a lease.
    The price of the car used to figure the lease is same price you can buy it at. You have add-ins on a lease and different add-ins on a purchase. The total may well be different, usuually higher in the case of a purchase.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Of course you are paying more than just the depreciation. What I was trying to say was that some lease payments get pretty close to what the depreciation of the car is. In that case, they become better deals.

    I would never pay a $550 "acquisition fee". Those are usually negotiable. If not, I'd walk.

    Re sales tax, it's true that if you trade your car (for the trade-in value, usually less than you'd get selling to a private party) it means less sales tax. Compare the benefit of trading the car and getting the tax credit vs. selling outright and leasing, for which you only pay tax on your monthly payments, not the entire cost of the car.

    As rivertown says, run the numbers between purchase and lease and see how they compare. Also, if you drive a lot of miles, a lease is usually not a good deal because the best rates are for 10,000-12,000 miles per year, and there's a per-mile charge after that.
  • rivertownrivertown Member Posts: 928
    Let me add, that even if the lease payments amount just to depreciation or a bit more, you're in that lease for the term (like it or not, come what may) unless you drop some serious bucks to get out. The same's effectively true for the first couple of years in a purchase, but that's two years or so vs. 4 years.

    LOL, move to Alaska or have a baby or find it's a lemon, you can do anything you want . . . as long as you pay the money.
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    rivertown - I absolutely agree with you. You can get a Civic with 1.9% APR right now. That's about as low as Honda goes in terms of financing (doubt they'll ever do 0%). I would trade in my current Civic, but I don't think Honda improved much with this current version, so I'm waiting a few more years.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Have an acquisition charge, not just Honda. These are not negotiable.

    Leases are not for everyone but work well for some people.

    People should think carefully before leasing OR financing a car. If they are the type who easilly tires of a car and wants out after a short time, thye should pay cash.

    And, of course...the lease payment consists of depreciation as well as interest. Nothing sinister here.
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Member Posts: 2,228
    What you should also take into account is credit ratings. Leases are often the better deal for those with bad credit because you can get financed easier and pay way less than you would with a super high interest rate. Example: I have ok credit, but I'm only 23 and haven't built my credit for the 7 year minimum that banks like to see. The best interest rate deal I got so far is for my 03 Aerio, which was 8.9% (I started at 12.75 for my 00 Hyundai Accent and 9.9 for my 02 Lancer). So in my case, I would compare the lease deals to 8.9%, not the best interest rate that a company offers which is very hard for most people to get, especially with no money down. To me, leases seem to be a better deal, but it also is very confusing and complicated to me, thus why I haven't tried one yet.
  • bowke28bowke28 Member Posts: 2,185
    the point behind leasing is not just to lower the payment. the biggest reason people lease from me is for the options at lease end. you can drop the keys on my desk, sign a couple papers, and walk away. you can buy the car, and normally get whatever new car rates are available. you can sell the car yourself, and pocket the equity over the residual. or you can trade/renew. pick out another, sign and drive. kinda like value meals at fast food joints..."i want a #3 this time"
  • rivertownrivertown Member Posts: 928
    Yes, you pay depreciation. Depreciation is the difference between what the car costs now and what it's expected to be worth at the end of the lease. You use that when you lease. That's what you buy, usually at an interest rate higher than what you'd pay if you simply bought a car. Bad or immature credit hurts you on both, interest on a purchase and interest or 'money factor' on a lease.
    On a lease, you don't buy the trade-in value (residual, in lease speak) on a car, BUT you do pay interest on that trade-in value/residual. That's reasonable. The leasing company spent money to buy that trade-in value; and since they don't get it until the end of the lease, they want you, and it's reasonable for you, to pay them interest on that money they spent for something they don't get until years later. The prob, if it's a prob, is that this interest rate, too, is usually higher than the interest on a car loan. It, too, depends on your credit rating; but the interest rate used to figure a lease is usually higher than that on a car loan.

    So, you're buying the depreciation - at a higher than car-loan interest rate; you're sorta 'renting' but not buying the residual/trade-in value - again at a higher than car-loan interest rate. And, for this privilege, you're also paying a fee - a 'lease acquisition' fee.

    I agree with Isell; there's nothing sinister in this. I agree with Bowke; what you do with trade-in value/residual at the end of a lease includes the simple option of 'give it back to the leasing company, who bought it in the 1st place'.

    So, leasing is like buying only the first part of a car's life - at a higher than car-loan interest rate, payng the leasing company interest on trade-in value - at a higher than car-loan interest rate - to hold the last part of a car's life, and paying a fat fee for the privilege of buying only the 1st part of a car's life.

    Since you're buying only a part of a car's life, you pay less with a lease.

    If ya got $200/mo to spend on a car, you can buy part of car's life (lease); OR
    you can buy all of a cheaper car's life.
    From a financial standpoint, it makes more sense to buy all of a car's life - because
    you can get money for the part you don't want when you sell it and because
    you don't spend money on higher interest and fees.

    Put this way, leasing is a way to buy part of at car's life whose whole life you can't afford to buy - for an additional price (fee) and at a higher interest rate. The alternative is to buy a cheaper car. In the long run, you come out better financially buying the whole life of a cheaper car.
  • rivertownrivertown Member Posts: 928
    If there's anything sinister to all of this, and it may not be sinister at all, it's the difficulty of getting information with which to directly compare the elements of buying vs. leasing.

    Think the lease vendor is gonna tell you the interest rate figured into a lease is higher than car-loan interest?

    Think anybody's gonna tell you that lease aquisition fee pays the lessor to work up the papers and the salesman to sell you the lease?

    Yeah, right.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    isell, when you say that all leases have an acquisition fee, does that mean that on leases that do not charge that fee (and I've seen many of them, e.g. the "zero out of pocket" leases like the one currently on the Lancer), that it's still there but someone else pays it?

    rivertown, you can determine the interest rate on the lease by asking for the "money factor". If they won't give it to you, I'd walk. There is some factor you apply to the money factor to get a good estimate of the interest rate. But I've forgotten what it is. I'll bet that leasing board posted earlier by our Host talks about it. But I'm tired from traveling since 5 this morning so I'll let someone else look it up if they are so inclined--or maybe isell could tell us what it is.
  • rivertownrivertown Member Posts: 928
    I think that lease acquisition fee, when you don't pay it upfront, gets rolled into 'amortized cost' upon which you pay interest, called 'rental charges'. It's like when you roll TTL into your car loan. You then pay interest on the 'lease acquisition fee' - all together now - usually at a rate higher than a car loan, since you're in effect borrowing it rather than paying it.
    Isell said lease acquisition fees apply to all leases and are non-negotiable. I think that's true. It's whether you pay 'em up front or roll 'em into the lease that may be negotiable.

    Yep, as I understand it, lease-speak for interest rate is 'money factor'.

    And, yep, there is a multiplier to approximate interest rate, given the 'money factor' on a lease. That multiplier, I'm told, is 2400. So, take the 'money factor' and multiply it by 2400 to get a close approximation of the interest rate. Ex: a money factor of .00079 X 2400 converts to an interest rate of about 1.9%.

    I dunno what the money factor on a Honda lease is now. Like interest rate on a car loan, though, you need a good credit rating to get the best 'money factor'.
  • rivertownrivertown Member Posts: 928
    I've come on strong anti-lease here, and that's not entirely fair.

    I don't think it happens much at all, but it's possible to work the numbers such that a lease is a good thing:
    If the 'cap cost' (which includes the price of car and anything rolled into the deal) is low enough AND the 'residual' (the predicted trade-in value) is high enough AND the 'money factor' (interest rate) is low enough, then a lease makes sense.*
    If the 'cap cost' is low, however, that usually reflects a low price on the car - a low price at which you'd be better off buying the car.
    If they completely waive the 'acquisition fee', which they say they never do, that also lowers the 'cap cost' and thus the 'amortized cost'.

    *'Amortized cost' is 'cap cost' minus 'residual'.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Folks, please remember that this discussion is focused on the Civic.

    As many of you know, there are leasing discussions all over the Smart Shopper and the FWI boards. Please check into them for this level of detail on the subject.

    Thanks!
  • rivertownrivertown Member Posts: 928
    If you guys wanna shift the lease talk to Finance, Warranty & Insurance, the "Lease Questions - Ask Here" thread, lemme know.

    TY, Pat.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    That's a great discussion -- if anyone wants to meet up with rivertown there, here is the link: Lease Questions - Ask Here.

    :-)
  • doudoudiddoudoudid Member Posts: 76
    friend of mind has got an offer for a 01 black LX with 24000 miles at $10000. edmunds TMV is $9700. (my friend has been looking for 2 weeks, people usually asked 1000 more than edmunds TMV, so this one seem to be low)
    - can anyone gives me some advice?
    - also i heard the 01 civic has some reliability issue, is that true?
    - finally, the guy wants to have the car until march before he goes back to japan. if my friend put down a few hundred for deposit, how do we know he is not gonna run away?

    sorry about so many question, but i have never bought or sold cars...
  • cwliangcwliang Member Posts: 54
    i'm not sure whether the '01+ civics have reliability issues, though people have mentioned some problems on this board like rattles and struts leaking. i have an '02, and i think compared to the '01 the '02s ride a little better ('02s have a "revised" suspension b/c people were complaining that the '01s were too jolty). so i'd go with a used '02, or an older '99 or '00. if your friend wants a newer-used car, proteges are pretty reliable too and they depreciate faster so you might be able to get a good deal on a recent one.
  • gbriankgbriank Member Posts: 220
    Just replaced the tires on my 03 EX with Dunlop SP Sport A2's. BIG DIFFERENCE! The Firestones really bit the big one. Loud, not very good wet traction and broke pavement very easily.
  • BlokeBloke Member Posts: 10
    In short I wouldn't recommend buying an 01. I have an 01 EX Sedan and am very disappointed. Sure everything we have complained about has been repaired but it still has a terrible ride and more rattles than a Honda should have.
  • crazygrrrlcrazygrrrl Member Posts: 85
    Drove about 200 miles and got 39.76 MPG!!! I love my 2003 Civic LX!!!
  • dinu01dinu01 Member Posts: 2,586
    I would not hesitate to recommmend a 99-00 or 2002+ Civic, but if possible, stay away from the 01s. This is one car introduction Honda messed-up, quite an unusual thing for them, but it's done now.

    I would recommend a Protege ES 2001 or P5 2002. The ES is a bit cheaper and Mazdas depreciate quite a bit more than Hondas. The warranty was 3yrs/50kmiles, so your friend might be able to get one with a bit of warranty left for piece of mind. The car is very well put together (again ES and P5 trims), has been reliable for me in 32K miles and is a blast to drive. The ride is compromised by low-profile tires, so if your friend prefers a smooth ride or needs to drive in snow, a new set of tires would be something to look for and include it as a bargaining tool when buying.

    Good luck!

    Dinu
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    The reviews on Tire Rack might be overly negative, on the Firestone FR690. On my Civic LX Coupe, I have been surprised by their quietness and grip - I have Dunlop Sport A2's on my VW Golf, so I am familiar with that tire as well, and I do appreciate good tires. It could be that if I upgraded to Sport A2's on the Civic I would see an improvement; maybe the Civic suspension is better put together than on the Golf, which is why the Firestones feel OK, but with better tires it would be even better - who knows? Anyway, I was going to swap out the FR690's as soon as I bought the car, based on the bad Tire Rack consumer reviews, but after 4,000 miles on the Firestones my personal opinion is that they are either better than the reviewers give them credit for, or else Honda has so "micro-spec'd" this tire for their application, that it bears no resemblance to FR690's sold to the public.... (Some car manufacturer's have very specific performance standards for the OEM tires they use, to the point where the generic, direct to consumer version of that tire is quite different.)

    BTW, I have tried both Dunlop Sport A2's and the recently new Bridgestone 950's. The Bridgestone were a little better, and a little easier to balance. However, the Sport A2's are superb, and the deal of the century - I wouldn't hestitate to buy them again.

    BTW, I agree that some tires perform much better in the rain than others - Sport A2's, Bridgestone 950's, Aquatreds. Rain performance to me is more important than dry pavement performance - even a mediocre tire usually has adequate dry pavement performance, but when traction is so reduced by rain, excellent wet pavement performance is required to cope with off ramps, quick stops, etc. I'd rather have good rain tires than antilock brakes, and I DO like antilock brakes (but they don't improve traction, only help you not to lose what you have).
  • jjpcatjjpcat Member Posts: 124
    I am also surprised to see FR690 scores so low at Tire Rack. To be specific, a Tread Wear score of 4.3 is hard to believe. Firestone's own treadwear rating is 440. My 2k1 Civic LX has 32k miles now and I believe the tires are barely halfway into their lifetime. I believe they will last for 60-70k miles. This is more in inline with Firestone's own rating.

    I am a fairly aggreesive driver. The stock Michelin tires in my 96 Accord were all gone before 45k miles. But they have much higher treadwear rating at Tire Rack.
  • cwliangcwliang Member Posts: 54
    Do you find that wet traction is better with your Sport A2s than with the stock tires? I agree with your assessment of wet traction being very important, and I have been disappointed with the stock tires' wet traction ability... I find myself slipping and sliding when it rains. I was considering replacing them with the Sport A2s but decided to just drive slower. :)
  • doudoudiddoudoudid Member Posts: 76
    thanks guys for the replies, unfortunately my friend kind of bought it already, i said "kind of" is because she put own $300 deposit. the guy needs the car until march when he's going back to japan. she's got a good deal, $9300 including a service.... i think the guy who sold the car is a honest guy, he said dealer offered him 9000..... well should i tell my friend what i read from you guys? or should i let it be.... i'm sure if she insisted she can get the deposit back. is it really that bad?
Sign In or Register to comment.