Howdy, Stranger!

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





Honda Civic Sedan 2006

15960626465147

Comments

  • Why have you guys not posted the HONDA CHAT TRANSCRIPT FROM 9/01/05 yet??? I have been waiting since that day to read up on the things I missed. This is not the first time that I have asked for this. Please help where are the moderators to help me out. Can some one post it somewhere so that we may read up on :cry: :cry: :cry: it.

    Thanks in advance.
  • crv16crv16 Posts: 205
    I read on another forum about a 2006 Civic owner who drives on the order of 1,000 miles per week. He's on his third tank. First tank was 38 mpg, second 45 and third 46 mpg. This is an EX/Automatic, 65-70 mph, with AC on.

    If this holds true, the new Civic should have a 10-20% improvement in real world fuel economy over the 7th gen.
  • dang that's amazing :) the lx should get more cuz it doesn't have the extra weight of the sunroof :)
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    My first four cars were manuals. I think I put in my time.
    I lived in an area where I'd be in traffic jams daily. After driving 10 miles an hour, stopping...moving forward 50 feet, stopping...starting again...clutching and shifting just wear you out. Also, I have a hand and a foot free with an auto...nice. I started on manual transmissions because I drove Civics for their fuel economy and peppy performance but I soon found that unless I worked my butt off and risked burning up my clutch, there was no performance advantage to a manual. On occasion I'd pull to the left lane to pass in 4th gear...oopsss...not enough power...let's try 3rd....nope...they're gaining on me....2nd! No...grrrrrrrrrrr(sound of engine reving too high)...too low....sometimes I had to make a quick decision which gear to take. With the new automatics having almost identical, and sometimes better fuel economy and performance that can match or improve on real world driving with the same number of speeds, and the Honda automatics being so intuitive...that is...they seem to always shift to the gear I want them to, when I want them to...the only disadvantage I see is the extra weight and price. In 1996 Honda even said their Civic HX automatic could lap their test track faster than their 5-speed. Imagine that...Honda itself claiming their automatic was faster. Shifting is fun, but before I'd go back to a manual, I'd get a tiptronic or something like that. I'm much more rested after traffic jams now and can sip my drink and change radio stations and accelerate at the same time.
    I've put in my time...13 years driving a stick shift. So I've proven my manhood. Now I just need to find a car that will work for me, not the opposite.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I'd cross the Focus and VW's off the list for lousy reliability. Consumer Reports has withdrawn their "recommended" status from the Focus just for this reason. Also, if you're shopping for an automatic, the 5-speed automatic will make much more use out of the 140 horses in the Civic. It will make a big difference. If you don't believe me, compare the 2002 Honda Accord with the 4-speed auto to the 2003 Accord with the 5-speed. Both performance and fuel economy improved quite a bit. The 4-cylinder automatic improved power by 6% and acceleration by more than 10%, and that's not considering the weight added on by the large engine. Do any other small cars have a 5-speed automatic?
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I suggested that too, a few entries ago.
    They could even try that for the automatic if it didn't add too much weight and complexity. I'm glad someone is agreeing with me!!!
  • I was overall VERY impressed with the driving experience. The steering is tight and communicative, as good as the Accord IMO. I was not used to the two-tier dash yet, but wouldn't see that as a problem because I imagine I would be accustomed in 100 miles of driving it. There was plenty of head and leg room for my 6'5" body, although someone small may want to sit behind me. Not sure about a 2 spoke steering wheel, may need to go to the coupe and get a 3 spoker. The only thing that dissappointed me (although it shouldn't given the numbers), was the low end grunt. It was less than my 1996 Accord, but on paper it is too, so I don't know why I expected more! I didn't rev above 3500 rpms, so I assume it has similar get-up-and-go to the EX sedan I drove last (2000 model, 127 hp, less weight). A little more tourque would make this car a complete 100%(maybe like my Accord's 139lb-ft vs the Civic 128lb-ft, but I understand the fact that it would lower the economy.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Weight has practically no noticeable effect (or is it 'affect'?) on fuel economy when cruising at a constant speed. This is why the fuel economy of the big V-6's and the 4-cylinder smaller cars doesn't vary as much on the highway as it does in the city. I recorded the highest fuel economy ever on my '99 Accord last winter when it was 400 pounds over its maximum weight. But because of the weight, I drove extra slow on the Interstate, for 14 hours. Fuel economy was outstanding.

    I think if you look at the last generation Civic it probably got a lot better than its EPA rating too. If you drove at 55-60 you'd probably get in the 50's.
  • for the '06 Civic so I thought I'd chime in with some calculations for the MANUAL versions. Since, with a MANUAL, there is a direct mechanical connection between the engine and the wheels (when the clutch is fully let out), RPM at a given speed can be easily calculated and is a function of: final drive ratio, top gear ratio, speed and tire diameter (which is based on tire size i.e 195/65-15, 205/55-16, etc). I will not bore with the formula; it is easy to either derive or search the net to find; there is no magic involved. The '06 Civic DX/LX/EX (both sedan and 2dr) have identical final drive and transmission ratios, the only difference is tire size. The SI has different final drive and transmission ratios as well as different tires. All the data for this was gotten right off the spec pages on the HONDANEWS.COM site.

    Anyway, here is how the data plays out (allowing for a tolerance of about +/- 100-200 RPM or so):

    '06 CIVIC DX (Sedan&2DR) 5SP:
    Final drive: 4.294, 5th gear ratio: .727, Tires: 195/65-15
    RPM@60: 2529 RPM@70: 2951 RPM@75: 3162

    '06 CIVIC LX/EX (Sedan&2DR) 5SP:
    Final drive: 4.294, 5th gear ratio: .727, Tires: 205/55-16
    RPM@60: 2539 RPM@70: 2963 RPM@75: 3174

    '06 CIVIC SI (2DR) 6SP:
    Final drive: 4.765, 6th gear ratio: .659, Tires: 215/45-17 (all season & Summer):
    RPM@60: 2575 RPM@70: 3005 RPM@75: 3219

    And yes, though the SI has a 6SP and has a taller ratio in 6th than the others in 5th, it also has a shorter final drive which ultimately makes for even higher revs at speed than the 5 speeds do.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Don't know what to tell you man.
    It's a tough world. The 6-speed might be too expensive, or, answer me this...do you think Honda is telling themselves,"The people who really love to drive fast and shift their own gears will want the 6-speed...the more timid EX drivers won't want to have another gear to shift"?
    Now way to tell. The common answer in this forum is that a super tall 5th or 6th gear will bog down easily with a cruise control on. Could be cost of a 6-speed manual. Honda wants their EX's to be the everyman car! The Si is for the wreckless and wasteful.
    Get larger tires. I might do that on an automatic if I ever buy one.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Yeah, driving can be a chore. When I got older and was burned out from work, marriage, life, and also being a competitive cyclist and working my butt off six days a week, I didn't want driving to require work too. I bought a car so I wouldn't have to walk or pedal everywhere...ie...not work. Different points of view, each valid in its own context.
  • crv16crv16 Posts: 205
    I think if you look at the last generation Civic it probably got a lot better than its EPA rating too. If you drove at 55-60 you'd probably get in the 50's.

    I have an 03 Civic EX manual, and if I drive very lightly, no AC, I can get 41-43 mpg. But more typical is 38-40, because I find it hard to drive slower than 75 mph.

    I think the new Civic has the potential to get far greater results than the previous generation because of the tall 5th gear on the automatic.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,276
    thanks for the calculations. Not as bad as I thought, considering it is a small engine. LT 3,200 at 75 is livable.

    For reference, my Miata was a real buzzer (3k @60!), and even worse (relatively) is my Scion tC, which is doing about 3,400 at 75, and 3K at ~66, which is silly considering it has a 2.4l that is more of a low torque than a high RPM motor.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • I had to create a new profile so that i could sign in. When I sign in using my old name, I get the msg:

    No access to view this discussion

    Can anyone explain why this happens? I can view this forum if I don't sign in. Have I done something wrong?
  • 69 MPH, and everyone flows at 75 MPH. So with engine buzzing at 3.2k RPM, that is a lot of gas down the drain. What is the RPM of the 06 auto at 75 MPH again? Anyone with calculations to show how much gas would be saved in running an auto vs manual at 75 MPH?

    Yeah, the 4+E would be a great idea to keep 5th tall for economy. I can't wait for my 5spd silver manual sedan EX to get here, assuming the Canadian price isn't through the roof...Oct 15 is the official Civic launch party here?
  • I've driven the Coupe and Sedan. both were very nice. the interior is a very nice upgrade from the outgoing gen. responsiveness in the coupe is a bit tighter than the sedan. for enthusiasts and weekend autocrossers the coupe will be a very nice choice. in regards to those wanting the 6-spd. tranny in the EX: the EX really doesn't need it IMHO. save the 6-spd. manual trannys for the sportier Si's (or Type-R's). oh. and for those who used to drive the EK civics, you'll like the shifter location. we no longer have to have shoulder problems or back problems (aka: shifter lean) due to the shifter being too far forward. hahaha! :)
  • igor2igor2 Posts: 148
    This discussion is so deaf to anything but praise to the Civic... I will not get over the fact that Honda is once again watering down everything for the USA... look here:
    http://news.auto.cz/?sekce=foto&ga_uid=GI_432a6e6d9258f&ga_id=GH_432a6e6d915ef

    it is a Czech website and this is the 5door.. 1.8 liter... but even without the fact that the 5door will not make it to the US and 3door only maybe... look the the different design.. the front lights ant the tailights... the overall shape.. and compare it to the "Accord" looks of the NA Civic.

    it is a noticeable difference... I am tired of auto makers watering stuff down for us... I would even go with VW for the sake of getting the real deal, not some .. "they will be fine with this" car. like the whole of Toyota, and now most of Honda, and all of GM... that's why I drive a Focus and dream about Mazda... Ford's side brands, and some of the persistent upscale EURO brands are the only brands maintaining this and selling the REAL THING here in the US... just for that.. despite the improvements that do make me jealous (5sp AUTO, better mileage, good looks).. I refuse to consider the new civic.. it is once again a ripoff.. cheapening the car, just so they can lower the sticker with the bigger engine... Americans should go ask for the smaller engin if they want a cheap car.. nit ruin the whole car for all of us.

    Igor
  • only1harryonly1harry Posts: 1,136
    1st and usually 2nd gas tanks are average. You start seeing better gas mileage as the motor, tranny/clutch, etc. get more broken in. When I bought my 97 Civic I got 33mpg on my first tank and I was driving like grandma. I was like what the hey? 2nd tank I got 34, and 3d tank jumped up to 37.5! So basically you 'll start seeing your normal gas mileage after 1,000mi. or even 1,500mi. That is if you break your Civic in properly.

    45-46mpg is awesome, although Hondas always get better gas mileage when it's warm out. The hotter it is, the better gas mileage they get. My '01 EX coupe 5sp. has 156k mi. on it, and I 'm still getting 35-37mpg with the A/C on. When the winter comes though, I know my mileage will drop back down to 32-34mpg (that's averaging 72-74mph). Hopefully I 'll be in an '06 by then if I can have one for close to invoice. I don't want to wait until my original clutch goes. I estimate by Jan-Feb. my g7 Civic will have 165-170k mi. on it.
    BTW don't all rush to get an '06. That drives the prices up for all of us (or most of us that don't want to pay sticker). Let them fill up their lots in October and get anxious a little, and then they 'll have no choice but to start dealing. If we could all hold out until Nov.1st to buy an '06, do you have any idea what kind of impact that will have on the prices? If they only sold 400 Civics, instead of the usual 40,000 in the month of October, they 'd be "giving them away" because they have to make room for the other 40,000 on their way in.. EVERYONE hold off a couple of weeks. We can make a difference and show them that we are not going to pay $19 grand for a dang Civic. The public, we the buyers, control the prices, aka the fair market price as Edmunds calls it. If everyone runs to the dealerships on Oct. 1st like they gotta have a Civic NOW or they 'll have a baby, what do you think dealers will do? They may even charge you more than sticker! Try and stay away for a few weeks. Pass the word, e-mail your friends. I know it won't happen but what do I have to lose? I type 65 words/min... Didn't waste too much time typing :)
  • only1harryonly1harry Posts: 1,136
    ""The Atomic Blue I've only seen on the website, but that is one of the two colors I'm considering when I do buy (the other being Galaxy Gray).

    Interestingly, the Royal Blue is the only Civic (in history, to my knowledge) to offer a choice of two interior colors. You can get either Ivory or Gray. I've owned eight Hondas (out of nine cars in my life) and the lack of interior color options has always irritated me. I hate light interior (tan/ivory/beige). White is my favorite exterior color and the new Civic looks great in it, but it comes with ivory interior. Yuck!
    I've always read that limiting one interior to the exterior color simplifies manufacturing and reduces cost. I'm sure it does and I doubt many customers refuse to buy just for this reason. I just limit my exterior color choices to ones that have the interior color I like. But a choice would be nice... ""

    I agree with you completely. I have the blue '01 Civic and it only came with an tan/ivory interior. It is now pretty much black. Light interior gets dirty very easily and very fast. I hate it.
  • Here is part 2, the AUTOMATICs. Same thing as before, same calculations but plugged in the transmission & final drive ratios for the AUTOMATIC on the DX/LX/EX (SI n/a w/ AUTO). Remember that an AUTO has a fluid coupling unless you are cruising and the torque-converter is in full-lock mode. For our sake here, the calculations assume you are cruising and the torque-converter is in full-lock, therefore acting like a manual at that point. With that in mind:

    Anyway, here is how the data plays out (allowing for a tolerance of about +/- 100-200 RPM or so). I have included the results from the MANUAL version below the results for the AUTO for comparison:

    '06 CIVIC DX (Sedan&2DR) 5SP Auto:
    Final drive: 4.437, 5th gear ratio: .525, Tires: 195/65-15
    RPM@60: 1887 RPM@70: 2202 RPM@75: 2359 (Auto)

    RPM@60: 2529 RPM@70: 2951 RPM@75: 3162 Manual)

    '06 CIVIC LX/EX (Sedan&2DR) 5SP Auto:
    Final drive: 4.437, 5th gear ratio: .525, Tires: 205/55-16
    RPM@60: 1895 RPM@70: 2211 RPM@75: 2369 (Auto)

    RPM@60: 2539 RPM@70: 2963 RPM@75: 3174 (Manual)

    For anyone who owns/has driven these, are these at least in the ballpark?
    The RPMs for the AUTO are close, but a little lower, than my '02 V6 EX Coupe (which is a 4sp auto).
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,276
    that is a huge difference. Unless the AT has to kick down at the slightest nudge to the gas pedal, they really could have geared the stick higher. Those RPMs at 75 are about the same as our '05 Odyssey!

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • One other thing to mention is that though there is a pretty big difference in cruising RPM between the AUTO and MANUAL (~30+ %), the gas mileage is lower, but (obviously) not decreased by that amount; the relationship is not linear. There are many factors (such as thermal efficiency and others...) that affect the MPG. RPM is one factor and as mentioned not in a linear relationship with RPMs.

    As has been said by others, Honda probably gears the manuals, especially in their smaller 4-banger vehicles, like they do to try to balance RPMs with available power; to at least try to diminish the need to down-shift every time a little acceleration is needed (along with the cruise control reason). There is no real reason they couldn't gear the 5-speed manual like it is then add a very tall 6th gear for quiet long cruising. I have noticed that the manual Accords are geared taller when cruising, but do have more power/torque available.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,687
    WHY they geared the manual so high, but these days people who drive manual are a dedicated few that understand they have to downshift if they need to accelerate at highway speeds. At least, that is my opinion. So they could have made the O/D gear much taller and probably beaten the automatic in highway rating.

    As for city driving, if we can judge by history, it will be easier to exceed the city rating with the stick than it will with the auto. When all is said and done, I was really hoping the Civic would approach 40 mpg (combined) much more than it actually does for the '06.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • Why would you realistically have a hope for that kind of improvement?

    Achieving 40 mpg in mixed driving would require a huge leap in technology or a much smaller and less powerful engine. Those leaps are just not possible or they would have already occurred. The last gen Civic didn't improve over the previous one by much.

    You can't make bigger, heavier and more powerful vehicles and get efficiency improvements unless you also have a genie.
  • 307web307web Posts: 1,033
    Assuming that the numbers are accurate, there is little benefit in the Hybrid on the highway.
    There is no reason to buy the Hybrid if you do mostly highway driving.
    What is real world city stop and go mileage for the 2006 Civic like?
  • only1harryonly1harry Posts: 1,136
    >> I think if you look at the last generation Civic it probably got a lot better than its
    >> EPA rating too. If you drove at 55-60 you'd probably get in the 50's.

    Sorry, I put my self through the agony of driving 55-60mph for 3days (1 full tank) with my '01 EX 5sp. to see what the best mileage I could get was, and it was 40.2mpg. The car had 5 or 6k mi. on it and the temps were in the low-mid 60's (it was Fall in NY). It was 99.9% highway miles.
    I was never able to get 40mpg after that. A few months later when the car had around 15k mi. I tried the same thing after a fresh oil change and got 39.6mpg. That's filling up at the same pump, same gas station. Tried it like a year later and barely got 39mpg. I doubt anyone got 50mpg with a 7th gen.('01-05) Civic. The HX might have come close but I doubt even that ever hit 50mpg..
  • 02accrdv6ex,

    Can you tell me why is rom so important, like why would I want to rev up my engine so high for?

    Thanks
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,276
    generally, the engine makes more power higher on the rpm scale. So, if it is turning faster, there will be more power being made and available when you hit the gas, without needing to downshift first.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • you sure type fast! I, however, cannot hold off because I am impatient and the snow is about to fall. Once the snow falls, then my Focus with AdvanceTrac stability control and long travel suspension/excellent damping will be perfect for blasting down the snowy bumpy roads in a relaxed manner, and my new car bug will have died down by then, thus saving me thousands of dollars in tax, depreciation, and insurance. That, however, would be too sensible for me, and coupled with my lack of community service urges me to spend hundreds over invoice to be one of the few suckers who enjoy the new Civic. Then, just a few days later, the roads will be covered with snow and I will miss my comfortable Focus and regret my impulse buy. Ads in local papers will depict a 1.9% finance rate to highlight my 5.9% paid.

    A few more months down the road, the roads will be drier and I will bask in the fuel-econominess of the Civic but also wish that the rear was a hatch so that I could throw my mountain bike and Ikea furniture in the back. I will also notice the sea of Silver Civic Sedans flooding the roads, and see myself as one of them. 'Why oh, why did I get Silver!!! The blandest color on earth!!', to which I will reply that 'it's a sleeper color that slips away from the minds of those that you have suprised.'

    Standing at the pump, the last 5 hours covered at 3.3k RPM highway driving will punish me for choosing 5MT over 5AT, as will the resale value.

    Delight finds itself in nicely rev-matched heel and toe downshifts. Life is about give and take...
  • UMMM... RPM @ 75 MPH difference is 800 btwn MT and AT!!!!
    How could Honda get away with something like that!
    This must be wrong! or...They must be stopped!!!
    Quickly! Retool the production line!!

    EPA ratings for both are similar, but would those still hold at 75MPH which is avg Cdn hiway speed?
This discussion has been closed.