Howdy, Stranger!

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





Honda Civic Sedan 2006

16566687071220

Comments

  • Like others I am dissapointed the standard has lower mpg in highway than the automatic. Can anybody explain exactly why? I don't mean speculation about rpm in 5th, but real facts. Thanks.
  • There is no other logical explanation - it has to be that the automatic in 5th is at lower RPM's. If they were the same the manual would have at least an equal mileage rating, and it should be slightly better. Even as it is I question if owners would notice any difference in real world, combined city/highway driving. If I wanted a manual I certainly wouldn't let this sway my decision.
  • coupe looks stylish, sedan still seems pretty sedate. How does price compare to the mazda 3?
  • "Not quite - the EX also adds 4 wheel disc brakes, alloy wheels, remote trunk release, variable speed wipers, console lighting and chrome exahust. That extra speaker also comes with a 350 watt stereo, vs. 160 watts in the LX. The interior fabric is a higher quality in the EX as well. And if you want NAV, (or want to add it later), the EX and Si are the only ones wired for it."

    You forgot to mention audio controls on the stering wheel, an auxiliary jack for the stereo, 60/40 split rear bench, and other goodies. However, the 350w stereo is in the coupe, not the sedan.
  • I was hoping to get an '06 Civic EX Coupe with auto and Navi for a little over $20k. It seems like it will be more like $22-$23k. Granted this will be the top end Civic, but it still seems a little high to me. Hopefully by the time I'm ready to buy my local dealer will deal a bit. Last time I was there I test drove a 2004 EX auto sedan, which was nice, but they wanted MSRP even though it was May '04.

    Maybe I should try internet sales this time, or look for another dealership. $23K is getting close to RSX territory. I can get a similarly equipped Mazda 3, sacrificing 9 hwy mpg for 20 hp and more torque for about $1000 less than the EX. I would rather have the Civic, but I won't pay $23k for a Civic. Maybe the Fit will be out by the time I am finally ready to buy.
  • blaneblane Posts: 2,017
    jeezlaweez,

    The 2006 Civics are "only 140 HP" because all brands of cars now have to calculate horsepower using the more stringent August 2004 federal regulations. If your old car had its horsepower recalculated to today's standard, the figure would be much lower too.

    I can't help but believe that your 2000 Civic EX had some sort of problem that as you wrote, made it feel "miserably underpowered". Perhaps the brakes were dragging slightly. Perhaps there was a fuel or electrical problem that went undiagnosed.
  • blaneblane Posts: 2,017
    claudius,

    The MSRP of the "'06 Civic EX Coupe with auto and Navi" is about $21,110. I read the sticker on one yesterday but don't recall the exact figure.
  • what's the diff of discs and drums? also can the lx be upgraded to have discs?
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I can name a number of reasons I'd rather buy a Civic Ex than pay $500 more for an Si. First of all, the $500 extra dollars I'd have to spend (plus tax). Second, the Si is only in coupe form. Many people would not want a 2-door. I have an Accord Coupe and it's a fantastic car but if I had a spouse or a kid I'd definitely want the 4-door. It's much roomier and practical. The gas mileage on the Si is pretty bad for a Civic. In fact, now that I think of it, it's the worst gas mileage I can ever recall. On an average 15,000 mile year, with gas prices at $2.50 a gallon, you'd spend about $29 more per month to fuel the Si...unless prices go up again. For $29 a month you could buy a lot more car. Other reasons...comfort. The Si is a sports car. It's designed to ride harder and have a sporty engine sound. Another huge reason is lack of available automatic transmission. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. Performance is great but most of the time when you drive you are at a constant speed, or stop/start in the city and that's where fuel economy, comfort, and practicality, not speed, pay off. Besides, I'd think the EX, with a 5-speed auto and 140 horses would be pretty capable. I figure if I'm going to pay over $21,000 for a Civic I'd rather just get an Accord. The 4-cylinder is pretty close to the Civic in performance but with a lot of room and better gas mileage. Or, I could go up another $1000 from the Civic Si and get an Accord V6 and dust the Civic.
    The Civic Si isn't necessarily better, but it's different.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I can think of a good reason the DX might sell. Cheap speed. It's 108 pounds lighter than the EX (coupe w/5-speed manual). You could spent a few hundred more and get alloy wheels and knock off another 40 pounds. If you want a really nice car to get from point A to point B, are not too interested in any luxury, and to be able to take on the Civic Ex and beat it, then I'd get the DX.
    But you are right...from a practical point of view. I can't see a big market for a stripped down Civic.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Forgot to mention the premium fuel! You're right about that! The Civic Si gets 22/31 mpg which is pretty bad for a Civic and not even as good as the Acura RSX which will out-power it any day and have a larger trunk and more passenger room. But in addition to having lousy gas mileage, if you add in the additional cash required to buy premium fuel (about a 13% increase), you might as well rate the Si at 19/27mpg. That's really bad fuel economy. My 1999 Accord V-6 does much better than that and has more power in a bigger, more substantial car. I don't understand how Honda gets such great fuel economy on every car except their Si.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I think it was already mentioned in this forum, but I spoke to some dealers about the DX and they said it was mostly for people who like to customize their cars. Honda Civics are very popular 'tuner' cars. So they buy a stripped down DX and built it up.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I agree...accept I'd want a CVT. Hybrids can make better gas mileage but a lot of that is a gimmick. I keep mentioning the 1992 Honda Civic VX. It was their hatchback with 92 horsepower (more than the old Hybrid gasoline engine, 1 horsepower less than the new one) and got 48/55 mpg rating with a 5-speed. It was also a 1.5 liter as opposed to the 1.3 liter used on the hybrids. That's actually better highway mileage than the Prius or the Civic Hybrid and with technology from 14 years ago. The little hatch was peppy too...it had better accleration than the current Civic LX.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Take all those prices for the other cars and add $2000 for the navigation system.
    I personally would take the LX. Sunroofs are okay but they loose a lot of headroom and you pay for it. The EX also weighs more...it's marginal, but it's there.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I don't agree. Look at the range in weights of the Civic DX, LX, and EX. The EX with auto is 102 pounds heavier than the DX with auto but still is rated the same mileage. Granted, they'd have to bump up the power on the HX and they could, with the jump from 1.7 liters to 1.8 liters. The new engines are larger and more powerful than the last but still improve gas mileage for the auto. So I think it's entirely possible based on what they did with the other engines. There is a 170 pound difference between the HX coupe with auto currently being sold and the DX with auto.
    I think maybe perhaps what I'm not taking into account here is...maybe the new engines are the same as the HX engine. We just don't know it yet.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    There are a few things you failed to consider on the increase in horsepower. Torque is up more than horsepower on the new Civics. That will be noticed. And, the new 5-speed auto will make a big difference in acceleration on the automatic equipped cars. That extra gear will probably make a bigger difference than the extra 13 horsepower.
    I think the problem with your Civic is, the newer ones just have a very high 5th gear (for the manual). I also owned a Civic Si, a 1990, and it was awesome! But try to drive that thing for 2000 miles from Spokane, Washington to Evansville, Indiana at 75 miles an hour. The hum of the 4000 rpms coming off that engine will drive you crazy!!! Fun is great for short distances. I bought an LX 4-door later, with less power and more weight and better gas mileage. The big difference between it and the Si is the LX had a taller 5th gear. So it felt sluggish if you punched it but it could match the Si in 0-60 times. I know...I timed it many times. It just didn't feel as lively because the top gear was tall. It was also much quieter driving that 2000 mile trip.
    Since my LX got much better mileage than my Si, I would sometimes leave it in 4th gear for fun driving. It felt as alive as the Si when I did that. Well, almost...I guess the bright red color and black Recaro-style seats in the Si helped too :=)
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I personally don't see why there would be ANY difference in fuel economy between the auto and manual. They're both 5-speeds.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I'm not sure how much difference there is between the disc and drum brakes. I know the disc brakes are supposed to be better but many manufacturers don't put them in back because the rear brake accounts for such a small percentage of actual braking power that the discs in back would not be noticeable. So they save a lot of money and lose a bit in braking.
  • crv16crv16 Posts: 205
    The difference in MPG between standard and automatic boils down to gear ratios. 5th gear in the automatic trans is a .525 ratio, compared to a .727 ratio for 5th gear in the manual. At 60 mph, the automatic Civic will be revving a lot lower than the manual version, thus less fuel used.
  • 307web307web Posts: 1,033
    Why do you keep posting $23K for a Civic EX with navi?
    Even an Si with navi is expected to be lower.
This discussion has been closed.