Howdy, Stranger!

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





Honda Civic Sedan 2006

18990929495220

Comments

  • only1harryonly1harry Posts: 1,136
    I don't know the new Civic sedan or coupe's weight (maybe someone can post it here?) but the '94-01 Integra RS/LS/GS with 140hp, 128ft-lbs torque and a 5-sp., did 0-60 anywhere from 8.3 to 8.6s. The RS weighed as little as 2420lbs, the LS a little over 2500 (sunroof, etc), and the GS just under 2600lbs.
    I would imagine the new Civic weighs between 2600 and 2700lbs, so we should expect mid-8's in 0-60 acceleration or faster if they have a good tranny and quick shifter.
    I have seen 2 roadtests of the '01 EX coupe 5sp. (2550lbs) and they were 8.1 and 8.3sec 0-60. They said it was the fastest non-Si Civic they had tested. I 'm hoping the '06 Civic will be in the low 8's as well but I 'm not holding my breath.
  • So torque just mean gas usage. Therefore, when I want to purchase a car, I should search for a vehicle with the lesser torque because it would consume lesser gas?

    Thank you
  • drexelnet, if you want to save gas, in general get the car that most people say will save the most gas. for example, even with engines of similar size, the civic has gotten the best economy in car mag tests. there really is no way to tell how efficient a certain car is based on specs. you need to look at tire size, aerodynamics, gearing, power accessory parasitic loss, and also, torque.

    the greater the torque at low rpm, the less gas you will use given all other factors are equal. when you accelerate your car, the engine will stay at the max torque rpm until you demand more, and when it runs faster, then you will in general burn more gas. low rpm torque cars of same displacement usually are more efficient.

    given that, engine size is prolly the biggest factor. since the civic is only 1.8L, it is near the smallest in class, but coupled with its many efficient 'features' such as ivtec, etc etc, i am betting it is the most efficient in its class.

    you will save money on lower depreciation, less maintenance (hopefully for 1st yr run), and gas if you get this civic (or older civics). i think...
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    No, they were pulling your leg. Torque basically means how much power is available at lower engine speeds. It's not quite as simple as that, because some cars develop their peak torque at lower rpm, but generally you want a car to have a lot of torque. Think of torque as "hidden horsepower" - a car with low torque but high horsepower probably has to be revved up pretty high to deliver performance, but a car with high torque but lower horsepower probably pulls fine "right off the line."
  • I always thought the EX has 170HP vs the DX and LX have lower power. Since when did Civic changed that?

    Does it make sense? How do they compete with Tc?
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,407
    Why not add a tall sixth gear but label it E for economy and state in the owners manual that when using cruise control in the mountains it is best to use 5th gear.

    This way everybody can have their cake and eat it too. Good economy, quiet cruising, no downshifts needed in cruise.

    VW did this in the early 80's as did Volvo (it was 4 + E on these vehicles though)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,632
    It changed for '06.
  • 307web307web Posts: 1,033
    Because people would complain that when they try to accelerate in 6th gear, the car is too slow.
    They would need to have a cruise control lockout in 6th to protect people from themselves.
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    Well... The Civic EX Coupe is supposed to go up against the Scion tC. It has less power, but it weighs less and gets better mileage.

    And power levels are all the same this year. All Civics get iVTEC, whereas in the past the VTEC engines were reserved for EX models.

    And the EX has never had 170 horsepower! It was always in the 127 range, with the DX, Value Package, and LX coming in at around 115. The numbers sound little, but that's Honda for you. Not always the most powerful, but typically the most efficient.

    Personally, I would pick the Civic over the Scion tC because I can get a beige interior (won't get as hot in the steamy Southeastern summers) and because I'm a Honda person.
  • I'm on the waiting list for a 2006 Civic Hybrid and I am trying to shop for speakers. I know it uses the same 6-speaker system as the 2006 Civic Sedan EX. Does anyone know the speaker sizes for this model?
  • 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.
This discussion has been closed.