Howdy, Stranger!

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





Honda Civic Sedan 2006

12930323435147

Comments

  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    Extensive press releases can be found at this Honda dealer:

    http://www.collegehillshonda.com/artman/publish/article_341.shtml

    Also pictures:

    http://www.collegehillshonda.com/artman/publish/cat_index_7.shtml

    I don't often say this, but the new model sounds awesome - a complete reversal of the trend set by the last model update (old cars for young drivers).

    Particularly impressive are the differences in the Coupe - it has a much firmer suspension and different dimensions. It is now much more than a "body style" conversion of the four door into a coupe.

    Gas mileage is up to 30/40, with a 5 speed auto transmission.

    Side air bags, side curtain airbags, ABS on all models. The only thing not in the package is stability control.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    What are the MSRP for the new Civics?
  • sms92sms92 Posts: 13
    I am sorry I think I wasn't clear - - I am not interested in a Taurus. My point is does it make sense to buy a USED civic over a NEW civic. What I am describing above is the fact that you don't seem able to get a good deal on a used civic - - there is no discount in real terms, just a subtraction for the portion of the lifespan of the car that is gone. Normally, we only buy used cars. Maybe I am doing something wrong with my used civic shopping?

    Don't want to derail the discussion but while we are all waiting for more specs/2006 prices I wanted to hear your opinions.

    Thank you.
  • I can not wait to build my Civic on Honda.com. I want to know when we will be able to do this. The 2005 Mustang GT, you could build a week or so before its release.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050901/ts_latimes/civicsdutyhelphondarebound

    "Driving impressions:

    On farm roads outside of Chicago last week, all
    versions of the new Civic lived up to factory promises
    of sportier ride and handling and better acceleration
    and braking than with previous versions."

    What does that mean? The new bulkier wider Ion-size Civic, with the rear
    Double Wishbone suspension deleted all together, rides
    even less comfortably than the already mediocre-riding
    '01-05 7th-generation Civic. Sure is a step closer to the Ion. LOL.

    Since '01, the Civic is no longer a baby Accord with
    Double Wishbone suspension front & back. In other
    words it's a piece of garbage. The new A4-like taillights do look better matched than the ones on the face-lifted A4, though. The new 8th-generation Civic has to rely on looks, safety features & the early models' reputation alone in order to sell.

    By the way, today I'm buying an used '00 Civic for over $7k. :P
  • ctalkctalk Posts: 646
    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=107050#5

    "The Si Is Back
    After driving the Si on the road and racetrack, we agree with page 4 of the 2006 Honda Civic press kit, which states, "Bottom line, the 2006 Civic Si is the best handling, best performing Civic to ever touch tire to asphalt in America."

    :D
  • 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.
  • :cry: 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • adp3adp3 Posts: 446
    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.
  • adp3adp3 Posts: 446
    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)
  • w9cww9cw Posts: 888
    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.
  • Creakid1: There is in fact a double wishbone suspension in the rear, though I was personally hoping for a return to the double wishbone all round setup that was featured on the earlier generation civics. Those things were beauties for the intelligent engineering. Now they go with struts as a cheap (though nearly as effective) way to get a balance in handling and ride quality.

    On the whole, I have a lot of mixed reactions. Take the engine - more powerful, VTEC across the board, larger displacement (therefore a wider torque band) - but it also has lower fuel economy, at a time when gas prices are soaring; in my mind Honda overshot the performance goal and didn't pay enough attention to the mileage factor. It still gets great mileage, don't get me wrong, and the increased power is probably worth it. But at a time when other companies are finding ways to increase both power and fuel economy (BMW, Toyota-Lexus most obviously, as well as even GM's latest four cylinders), Honda's approach of increasing one while decreasing the other simply won't cut it. Any company can create a more powerful engine by doing what Honda did to the civic - increase displacement, give it better breathing, etc. - but it takes thoughtful designing to increase both - designing and engineering that used to be a staple of Honda engines. With this one they seem to have taken a step back. I'm also rather disappointed that the EX will not have a slight increase in power over the DX and LX models. That may come in later model years though, so I doubt it will be a huge loss to Honda.

    The rest of the car is just as mixed. The bigger, more powerful engine is offset once again by an increase in curb weight. Granted, this does mean even an EX model (the heaviest, including the sunroof and other features) will have a slightly lower power-weight ratio than the outgoing EX model, therefore improving acceleration, the weight of the civic is now reaching extreme levels of compact cars. A Mazda3 weighs nearly the same as an EX, but has either 8 to 20 more horsepower to move around with, plus a larger displacement engine. The only reason the Civic featured in Edmunds recent economy car comparo could even keep up with the Cobalt and Mazda3 was its low curb-weight. Now that that trump is gone, it will have a tough time setting any standards (which is, I'm sure, what Honda aimed to do with this car).

    The interior looks almost too futuristic, but the fit in finish is great, and I'm expecting classic Honda ergonomics inside. The tach and digital speedometer is kind of cool, and I as a younger buyer certainly find it cool, but cool could have come across in a variety of ways. The whole interior does look pretty classy though, definitely a step up in plastic texture from the last generation. My friend just bought a 4 door LX '05 model, and except for the instrument display, the interior was fairly simple and dour - this new one looks to be anything but.

    On the whole though, this car is now likely to have outsized itself. The civic was once a tiny economical runabout that offered better-than-average handling, good interior room for its exterior dimensions, great fuel economy, and a level of fun-to-drive that couldn't be matched by the competition. Now it's spread itself too thin. It's lost it's title of best handling economy car when it lost its double-wishbone front suspension. It has now lost the fuel economy war to the Toyota Corolla, which will probably have even better fuel economy in its 2007 year update. It's exterior has become so bloated that the interior doesn't have to be engineered nearly as thoughtfully. It seems to me that Honda took the easy way out in this generation - adding girth, power, and slightly better handling, at the expense of fuel economy and the other trademarks of Honda engineering. Granted, it still does an amazing job of what it was originally intended to do, it just seems that when compared to the Mazda3, the two cars are going to be so similar it will come down to the intangibles: tastefulness, driving feel and all the other subjective points that make up a buyer's mind. The one thing Honda has hands-down over the Mazda3 is the offering of a coupe version, and for right now, the Si. Americans love their sporty-looking cars, and as sexy as the Mazda3 sedan is, it's no two-door. Also, until the Mazdaspeed3 comes out sometime next year, the Si will be the place to go for cheap speed with a japanese nameplate.

    Only time will tell how well each does in comparison to the other though.
  • I'm guessing that Honda felt it could/had to let the Civic drift upwards in size (and lose its hatch variant) in part because the Fit/Jazz is coming next year.
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    I don't own a Mazda3, but I do own a current Focus with a similar engine. On my Focus I get 30-31 mpg on a mostly freeway commute. On my 2003 Civic on the same commute I got 35. Even without the improvement promised by the 2006 Civic, 35 mpg is pretty good (each car had a stick).

    Now, if the handling is much improved on the 2006 Civic (my main objection to my former 2003 Civic) and if it is much quieter (my main objection to my Focus) - well, the 2006 Civic starts to look very attractive indeed. Especially if the new 5 speed automatic can come close to its rated mileage (in my experience, I do better on mileage with stick shifts than autos, in terms of gap between real world and EPA ratings).

    On the size issue, I feel the Accord is just a little too big for a personal car, and the outgoing Civic just a little too small. So upsizing the Civic a bit makes sense to me. The only issue I have, is that I have gotten used to "upright" seating like on the VW, Scion, and Focus, and when I had the 2003 Civic felt like I was sitting too low. I would like to see what Honda does with seating positions in the new Civic. BTW, a friend has a Mazda3, based on the next generation, in Europe, Focus platform, but Mazda uses more conventional low seats.

    If the Civic doesn't hit the right size spot for me, I will probably look at the new Ford Fusion (based on the Mazda6 and smaller than Accord/Camry) or wait for the eventual next release of the Focus.
  • The only thing the forgot in safety was electronic stability control. I can't wait to take one for a test drive. Sounds awesome!! With gas at $3.49/gallon, I may take the hybrid for a test drive.
  • -it just seems that when compared to the Mazda3, the two cars are going to be so similar it will come down to the intangibles: tastefulness, driving feel and all the other subjective points that make up a buyer's mind. The one thing Honda has hands-down over the Mazda3 is the offering of a coupe version, and for right now, the Si. Americans love their sporty-looking cars, and as sexy as the Mazda3 sedan is, it's no two-door. -
    Mazda3 > civic, hatchback. :confuse:
  • You add 150 lbs for refinement and safety features and yes you loose economy. Why? HP has been increased. Power requires energy and mass requires more of it. I too wish some car company got its head out of its collective butt and make a true 6 speed OD. The EX /LX is a prime candidate for this. Gears 1-5 about the same with 6 as true OD> True OD is good on downhill and flat. It saves gas. I bet 41-42 EPA rating possible with true OD manual. No you cannot push on the gas with the OD engaged. No power. That is the point. Hello Honda. I can gear down as that is fun! The EX auto does demonstrate the advantage of lower final drive with the 40 mpg rating. I predict that any skilled stick driver will always beat this auto mpg in real world even with the 5 speed auto. City mileage fell victum to weight and power plain and simple.

    That all said, I believe the 06 EX 5 Speed sedan will get me upper 30'S in most driving I do with OK power when I want it along with decent handling. That is the point. IF Honda can attract more buyers who are tired of $3.00 per gallon plus now, then the county is better off.

    But listen up HOnda. Start thinking MPG savoring 6 speed OD or at least bring the nice Honda Diesel accord over here for me to trade up to.!!!!!!
  • http://automobiles.honda.com/civics/index.aspx

    From what I see, the new civic is a techno-marvel. Satellite navigation with voice activation, 160 watt sound system with XM, and my god, the dash looks spectacular. I was thinking of an Accord or an Acura TSX but with this new Civic I don't think they are worth the extra money, and the Hybrid will get at least 40 mpg, for those concerned about $4 gas.

    Bravo Honda, most redesigned economy cars are far from revolutionary, but you have created something for the technofile in all of us.
  • I am very interested in The New Civic.

    At first, I liked what I heard, with more power (compared to engines of it's size) AND better economy (compared to other engines of it's size), but I am no longer as impressed.

    After the 2004 facelift, the Civic (coupe in particular) is a very attractive acr at a strong price. Excellent value! Only enhanced now that prices and rates are at an all-time low.

    The new car is bigger and more powerful, but it doesn't have a practical competitor to Mazda3 5-door or Matrix/Vibe. The coupe is nice, but the 5-door performance hatchback is "IN".

    To stay ahead of Corolla, and within striking distance of the 3, power is up to 140, but torque is still low, as the 3 and future Corollas will have more.

    The new dash may excite younger buyers, but turn off anyone over 30. I don't hear great things about the S2000 dash as far as ergonomic excellence. It seems eccentric, at best. Trying too hard to be different.

    A valid point about the Corolla being more efficient with a 3 year old engine with similar power/torque. Car and Driver said it had the best balance between power and efficiency in it's class back in '03. The new Civic adds 10HP, but loses 3 MPG with a 5-speed. Toyota can stay ahead of the game here.

    Not feelin' the exterior, as the rear bumper is too big, the grille/headlights are too small, and the coupe reminds me of the old Acura CL, more feminine to my eyes than the current coupe.

    The Si stays ahead of the Corolla XRS and Mazda3 S, but with Mazdaspeed coming, and Cobalts and such easily passing 200HP, it may not grab enough attention with 197HP.

    The added safety features, and ABS on all models helps ALOT! And it's sterling rep will enhance it's position.

    Let's put it this way, I think to cosider trading my 142HP Integra, the rumored CRX model maybe my only hope of getting in a new Honda, as the RSX has too much anti-style.

    I like the thoughts behind the Hybrid though. Make it as fast and powerful as other compacts (about 130 combined HP), but with 50MPG.

    Another strike against the manual tranny, dogging it in defernece to the slushbox. That's a quizling! No reason for that.

    DrFill
  • when will we know price :sick:
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    I think you can assume price will be 1-3% higher than the outgoing comparable trim lines. Honda lost 12% of its Civic market in the last year and odds are it won't overprice the new Civic; if it did, it would be shooting itself in the foot.

    On the other hand, Honda has been overallowing on trade-ins on the existing generation Civic since I bought mine (since gone) in '03. I wouldn't be surprised if discounts and overallowance are harder to come by in the first year of the new model's introduction. It seems like it should be pretty hot in the market place, especially if Americans turn back to sedans (from SUV's) for commuting, given the gas crunch.
  • Is the camshaft driven by a chain or belt in the new 1.8L engine?

    Alland
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    you: My point is does it make sense to buy a USED civic over a NEW civic.

    me: I picked the Taurus as an example of a used car that is a good financial move compared to ANY new car. And the reason it is a good financial deal is because it does depreciate so much. If you're a used-car buyer, you should be focusing on vehicles that depreciated a lot, not ones that depreciate a little. You are correct in thinking that a used Civic that is almost the same cost as a new one, is not a great deal.

    If the state you live in has sales tax, excise tax based on value, and expensive car insurance a used car is the best financially. You could save $10K on the purchase, $500 on sales tax, hundreds on registration, and might decide to forego collision and comprehensive coverage on a $5K used car (Taurus again for an example). That is basically money that could be invested and earn interest. All those savings would more than pay for any repairs and increased gas usage.

    Don't buy a new vehicle if the reason you're doing it is to Save Money by getting a little better mpg. Buy a new vehicle because you like it.

    Now with that said - if you want a new vehicle, the Civic is a good choice to save money relative to other new vehicle choices.
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    I saw pictures of it, but it looks like a cross between a Toyota Prius and the current Accord.
This discussion has been closed.