Howdy, Stranger!

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

Honda Civic Sedan 2006



  • 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.

    Your comparisons are a bit off. The base RSX has a 155 hp 4, the Si will have a 2OO hp 4. So the RSX obviously it will not out-power the Honda. The RSX-S does come with the 201 hp 4, but also requires premium fuel - same as the Si - and is priced at $24k - much more than a loaded Si. It also gets 23/31 mpg with the 6-speed manual - barely any different than the Si. So, from a performance and fuel economy standpoint, the RSX has no advantage over the Civic Si.
  • Go with the Mazda3, and don't regret it. If you're driving a stick you can beat the EPA numbers easily by shifting early and driving conservatively. And you'll have much more power than the civic's small displacement.

    My friend (whose parents own a Mazda3), got a test drive in the new civic and said it wasn't even close in terms of driving dynamics, comfort, and style. In all honesty, Honda needed a home run here, definitely not a ground rule double. They both might get the ball out of the park, but one counts for a whole lot more. The 3 is simply so far beyond any other small car out there right now that the Civic needed to be absolutely astounding, not merely just another new Civic, like all the other ones that have come before. If the market was determined merely by quality of the product, Mazda would have total domination. While I can't say for sure until I've driven the new civic, based on the huge number of impressions from boards like this one, Honda failed to nail the formula.

    BTW, the DX with a stick will probably be in the low eight's for 0-60 times. An EX will be in the high eights. Too little displacement, and in the EX's case, too much weight. That equals mediocre acceleration. As was mentioned however, it will depend on whose numbers you trust. Car and Driver seems to deflate (faster times) their numbers slightly, or everyone else is merely off their rockers; Road and Track and the other big magazines seem more reliable. If you're to use their times, the DX might break into the high eights, but the EX certainly won't. I'd predict about nine seconds flat for the LX, the most popular model by far. Add about half a second for the automatic in each case (more weight, less power being transmitted to the wheels, much lower gear ratios). Altogether not bad, but the 3s beats them handily (even if it does drink far more gas).
  • My prayers have been answered and I will soon be buying a Honda Civic with Navigation. Going off the assumption that is the same "material" etc as an Accord, perhaps people with Accord Nav experience can answer... My question is... it's a touchscreen... how delicate is it? I mean, fingerprints should wipe off and stuff, I assume. Does the screen have any kind of protective layer on it that can be replaced if scratched (as opposed to replacing the "whole" screen)? Would a stylus work, or does it "need" the heat of a finger? And (this is extremely anal, I know), would it still function properly if I put a type of film over it. (I'm imagining something like the stuff you can buy to protect your PDA screen)

    I know I won't be getting it for anywhere near invoice, since I'm getting a Hybrid and I have to get it soon to make sure I get a California carpool sticker, but are invoice prices posted anywhere (this site or elsewhere) for these yet?

    Newbie (currently driving '91 Civic LX... for a few more weeks)
  • playplay Posts: 38
    Here is a possible solution for the 5 speed vs automatic dilemma. I too would rather have a 5 speed that gets the same or better MPG than an automatic. I don't understand what Honda is thinking, everywhere i read, no
    one seems to understand what Honda is thinking. People who buy stick do so because they like to shift and they like driving. So Honda will give them a short 5th gear so they don't have to shift to have more immediate pickup, and no appropriate highway cruising gear.

    My last purchase was an 04 TSX and it was the 1st automatic of my life. I couldn't see getting worse mileage with a stick (and the auto was a no charge option). A potential solution to all this, or a partial solution to all this, or no solution at all is as follows, though an engineer will need to evaluate this ....

    Buy the stick. It has more pickup, it has higher revs at the same speed than an automatic has. When you buy tires, buy tires with about a 5% (or whatever it would be) bigger circumference, and your back where you started. Just a theory, its a shame Honda has us grasping at straws. Anyone from Honda out there who would like to apologize? Feel free.
  • Buy mazda 3 if you plan to keep the car less than 4 years, Buy the civic if you want to keep for a long time. I have a 93 civic, still run with 200,000 miles no major problems, i see a lot of older honda still running, don't see to many older mazda. It's between the 06 civic or fit for me.
  • crv16crv16 Posts: 205
    I suspect Honda uses a short 5th gear because of stupid customers. When in 5th gear in an automatic, and you press down hard on the accelerator, (duh), it downshifts automatically. However, if a manual transmission Civic had a tall 5th gear and you press down hard on the accelerator, nothing much would happen. You'd need to downshift to get adequate acceleration. Now you and I understand that simple fact, but I bet it escapes a lot of people who think that you only use 5th gear on the highway.

    I own a 2003 Civic EX manual, which has very short gearing, and just recently bought a 2005 Accord LX manual for my wife, which actually has fairly tall gearing. It gets a little confusing going from my Civic to the Accord, because I can comfortable cruise 35-40 mph in 5th gear in the Civic. That same speed requires 4th gear in the Accord, because it would be lugging the engine in 5th.
  • 1.8 is smallish for today but should get better economy. I feel the civic with a 6 speed with true OD say 2500 rpm at 70 would be very economical. Funny how no one wants to downshift. but if the 5 th gear was the same as now and 6th the lower final for economy you could choose. I hate that busy down the hiway buzz with the high rpm.....

    I have cancelled my order for a 2006 Civic EX sedan in manual. I may actually go with a hybrid since tax credit of 2100 expected in true money and 50 mpg not shabby.

    If I knew Honda was serious about diesel 2.2 in 2007 I would look to that over hybrid. Remember in Europe you can buy Accord (TSX clone) and CRV diesel that truely get 42 combined (CRV) and 52 combined (Accord) with Hondas new award winning diesel.

    I saw the civics last night. Nice but not on my to buy list any longer.
    Plus If you buy a heavily discounted 2006 Accord (400 over invoice already) then why by the Civic. Give up sunroof, buy the the new 166 hp (175 hp with old standard) and get SE 5 speed 4 banger for a lot more car and only $19,500 with all safety features, ABS, alloys......
  • You are harsh but I think you speak the truth. Sometimes that hurts. Once gas prices are seen to stay high the ratios will be revised in later years as mpg braggin rights will become fashionable. Seems that the automatic got all the attention from the engineers....
  • I had a 2004 TSX, bought the manual because the auto is nothing but a fancy accord. The manual was sweet but 6th was high rpm, power on demand. Why?
    Again why? I love changing gears. The 5 speed accord 4 banger is a better tranny gearing and gets better economy than TSX and uses regular gas.

    I did resent paying same price as automatic but the drive was just so sweet in the manual.....

    tires will not do what you want.....
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Actually, the new Civic is 30/39 unless they changed it.
    The Honda is new...the prices will probably come down. You also have to take into account resale value. I once almost bought a Ford Escort GT in 1991 because I test drove it, liked it, and I could buy it for $1500 less than the Honda Civic LX which I'd also test drove and liked as well. I figured I'd do myself some good and save money. Then I looked at the resale value and realized I'd lose money on the Escort from resale value. So the cheaper Escort was actually more expensive. Reliability was also much better on the Civic.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    Perhaps I stated this a little murky...the old engine had a rated power of 160horses, and the slightly revised engine is rated at 166horses. You would think that means a bump of six horses, right? However, if you take into account that the horsepower ratings have been tuned down, it's more realistic to think the six horses would feel more like ten because the older engine would probably be rated at 156 horses under the new system. It would be a pretty punchy car.

    Don't forget that Honda under rated the K24 for the 2003 Accord. Honda rated it at 160 hp then, and TOV dynoed it at 170 hp. So the new 166 hp on the K24 is just the more honest rating with the new SAE requirements. It is probably the same as 170 hp under the old rating. The CR-V, which has a similar engine (different heard) is rated at 156 HP for 2006, was rated 160 HP prior. There are no new specs for the 2006 Element, which has exactly the same engine as the Accord. I wonder if it gets rated at 156 HP like CR-V, or 166 like the Accord?

    I switched from a K20 powered Civic to K24 power CR-V, and K24 is much nicer down low. It pulls from idle. Although, K20 was pretty strong for a 2 liter 4 cylinder, K24 just has more torque, which gives you an impression of more power.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I have thought about the Civic Hybrid many times but the fact is, unless you are a victim of dealer gouging from Toyota (which is very common...those bastards) the Prius has better performance, lots more room, and better fuel economy for about the same price. The Honda's 10.4 cubic foot trunk is just too small for me. I need room to put my bicycle, and I can't fold the back seat down for more room. The Prius has 16 cubic feet. With that much space I could easily put a bicycle and a lot of other things in the trunk without even folding the seat. It also gets better gas mileage and has much more interior space. But I can't say I would absolutely NOT buy a Civic Hybrid. It just doesn't look like as practical a car as the Prius.
    Speaking of overdrive...why can't they have a very tall 6th speed only for flat to very moderately rolling roads? Make it like a gear that you don't use all the time...and still be able to turn in great gas mileage in 5th if you like.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Actually, if you go to Honda's website they claim they modified both the V-6 and 4-cylinder to squeeze out more power. The V-6 gains 4 more horses...not much, but it's an improvement. I personally don't see why anyone would need any more power than what I have in my 1999 Accord. It'll snap your neck easily and now they are just building and building horsepower on their newer models. I know Honda has to compete but it's a little excessive when you look at fuel prices. I think the 4-cylinder Accord makes much more sense.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Bigger tire circumferences would look bad though. I say just drive slower than the auto-equipped Civics.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    There is about a $2000 difference in price, maybe...not sure because prices on the new Si are still not confirmed. The RSX's now come standard with leather in the top model and I think that's how they managed to tack on the extra $2000 pay for the leather. The new Si only has 197 was predicted to have 200 but it doesn't. Perhaps that's the new SAE testing modificiations which sucked out the extra 3 horsepower, just like it took 9 horses away from the RSX. In the performance to fuel economy contest, though, the RSX will still get better gas mileage and likely have better performance. It puts out 4 more horsepower, 1 more foot-pound of torque, weighs 37 pounds less and gets 1 mpg better in the city. It also has leather as standard (not an option on the new Si), has 2.6% more interior volume, mostly due to its vastly larger trunk. It could be a close contest but it looks like the RSX beats the Si on all fronts. I expected the new Si to be close to the RSX in performance, but not quite as quick, and better in fuel economy. That would make sense to me since the Civic has always been an economy car, even in sporty mode.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    I'd reverse that recommendation: get the Civic if you plan on keeping it only 2-3 years because of its superior resale value. Longer term, it's not a factor. BTW, I see lots of older Mazdas (Proteges, 626s) around.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    Actually, the new Civic is 30/39 unless they changed it.

    Window sticker says 30/40 for automatics, 30/38 for sticks.
  • I test drove the 06' Ex Civic Sedan (auto) yesterday morning. Then I went back with my brother and he drove it. We both came away very impressed with the car. We're both 5'10" and 165lbs. (yes, we're twins) and the car seemed an excellent fit. We couldn't find anything about the car we didn't like. We've both driven the Mazda 3i & 3s and feel the new civic is a better all around value. Yes, the 3s is quicker and tighter in the corners but that's the only advantages we found for the 3.

    We loved the looks, build quality, ride, quietness, stereo, and very acceptable pickup and handling. Nice touches include the one-touch to open sunroof, key/key fob incorporated into one piece, two tier instrument set-up, and stereo controls on steering wheel.

    If you have any specific questions I'll be glad to answer them.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Okay, well then you may be right. The information I have is new and I know from experience the first information that is put out isn't always correct. It tends to change over the first few months. I have a website which claims to have all the new information on the Civics yet the dimensions of the car are clearly way off from what Car and Driver says. So I'm not sure where to find accurate info this early.
    Not to make you sound stupid, but...are you sure it's a 2006? Some folks can't tell the difference.
  • playplay Posts: 38
    Bigger tire circumferences would look bad though. I say just drive slower than the auto-equipped Civics.

    How about we trade commutes (unless yours is less than 130 miles)? :) Here in Southern AZ traffic moves comfortably at 78-80 MPH and I,i too, hate the feel of a car that feels like my too tightly wound first boss from way back when, not to mention the difference in MPG.

    I really don't think the eye is going to see a 5% difference in tire circumference, this might be a 2% difference in tire height.

    Can any of you enthusiasts say whether having a 5% larger tire circumference, (or whatever the difference is to account for the gearing difference between automatic and stick) on the stick with the same gearing as other sticks, would not leave you with the same RPM's per mile? If this is incorrect thats cool, but I'd like to hear why.
This discussion has been closed.