Howdy, Stranger!

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





2008 Honda Civic

Does anyone have any info on any changes to the 2008 Civic...IE: Colors....Bluetooth Etc
«13456712

Comments

  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    probably wont see any major changes...or minor ones at that. 2009 will be the year they give it their 'update' with revised body styling and such. we'll have to wait and see.
  • medcatmedcat Posts: 9
    I read somewhere that they are adding an a Leather seat option. But i do not know if thats factual or not
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    this would be nice, but the fact that they don't offer it now is not to big of a deal breaker.
  • kenlwkenlw Posts: 190
    actually, I would NEVER have leather seats. They require too much maintenance and look awful after a few years (i average 10 years on a car.) Cloth holds up much better.

    A really simple improvement would be to add a $5 relay so that the headlights turn off when you turn off the car. This has been standard on many cars for over 10 years. It ain't rocket science, folks....instead we get a dopey dinger that tells you the lights are on.....
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    all of the cars i've ever owned have the dingy beeps, but never an auto headlight off.

    the only real changes i'd like to see in the civic probably wont happen until gen 9. i would like to see what the current gens face lift will look like though. (01-03 civic, looked ok but 04-05 was a very nice sublt improvment.)
  • kenlwkenlw Posts: 190
    "...all of the cars i've ever owned have the dingy beeps, but never an auto headlight off. "

    standard on my 97 camry for one. very convenient. the relay that would make it work costs no more than the dinger.
  • drmbbdrmbb Posts: 80
    My 1999 very, very basic chevy cavalier had an auto shutoff for all lights. If any light (headlights, interior dome light, parking lights) were left on with no key in the ignition for 20 minutes, the power was automatically cut to keep the battery from being drained. If chevy could do that on a completely no-frills econocar, then everybody should be able to do it on every model.

    Oh, and the chev also had the dingy thing too - it just had an idiot proof backup as well.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    just kidding ofcourse. ;)
  • glideslopesglideslopes Posts: 431
    Some strong rumors on another site for Paddle Shifters for the AT. Not sure if a AT Si, or and EX upgrade with the 155hp K20 2.0.
  • kenlwkenlw Posts: 190
    An AT Si would probably have sold me. I really thought they would do an AT before a sedan.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    An Automatic Si seems VERY pointless to me. The Civic Si is about offering a very raw performance experience. With all its power made in the stratosphere, and relatively meager torque (compared with its competitors), where many cars redline, a manual seems a must-have option in this car in order to really wring it out properly.

    Just my opinion, but its one that I believe would be shared by a lot of people (based on what I've read in other threads here).
  • kenlwkenlw Posts: 190
    most would have said the same about a 4 dr Si. And it may not appeal to you but would increase sales. At least one that I'm aware of....
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Having two extra doors doesn't change the performance characteristics of the engine. Having a performance-robbing torque-converter does.

    The engine's peaky nature simply wouldn't mesh well with an automatic.
  • kork13kork13 Posts: 90
    I completely agree with the others... An AT Si would rob it of all the fun. Just last night, I decided to stretch my Si's legs a bit, and brought it up to 6k+ rpms a few times, just for kicks... That's one of the funnest parts about the Si, and the upper-reaches is where the engine gets the best power. According to dyno results posted in another forum, between 6.2k - 7.8k rpms is the sweet spot, and an AT would never let you get up there. No, an AT Si would never do.....

    As for changes I'd like to see, the only thing I'd like to see (at least on the Si side) would be a more torquing engine, but that sort of improvement is probably a few years off, at least not until the next gen comes out.
  • kork13kork13 Posts: 90
    About the auto-off headlights, yea, it'd probably be nice. However, I wouldn't get rid of the dingy noise... That little ring helps me remember to get the keys out and turn the lights out ALL THE TIME. Yea, it's a little sad that I always forget, but it is still very useful for me.
  • I don't expect many significant changes to the Civic for 2008. A few extra features are rumored (possibility of leather as an option) but I don't think it will be anything earth-shattering.

    I think the biggest changes will be saved for the MMC for the 2009 model year. Honestly, I hope the MMC will bring dramatic changes, including a new interior. As a current owner of an '06 Accord, I love the quality and the layout of my Accord's interior. I despise nearly everything about the current Civic's. I am sure Honda won't go to the trouble of re-designing the interior (some people like it) but it's the interior that kept me from buying one.

    As far as the exterior goes, I think the Civic coupe looks awesome just the way it is. I wouldn't want them to make dramatic changes (probably new bumpers, maybe LED taillights?). The sedan needs a little more work I think... new bumpers, new taillights, new grille. I wonder if the 2008 Accord styling will rub off on the Civic?
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    exactly, everone who complained of an si sedan was an idiot, especially considering it started as a HATCH and not a coupe at all. and can anyone say acura integra gsr? one of the coolest performance honda 4 doors ever.

    an a/t simply wouldn't work. make the si's engine at least 2.2 or 2.3 litres making the same power to displacement ratio and then we would be fine. but honda would SOO make us pay for that. a gti for example does fine with the dsg, it has a ton of tq. the si requires a manual; its not about tradition but just the nature of the engine.

    any 2.0 with paddle shifters would be great; a sort of competitor for the base se-r and mazda 3 2.3. this is basically available on the csx in canada, and on the uplevl civic in japan. its the engine from the old si/ base rsx. i think it would be great; but honda already made the mistake of putting the si moniker on a car with that engine; it wont happen again.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    there is NO WAY that the 09's will have dramatic makeovers; hence the term 'MINOR model change'.

    revisions to the face and butt, little interior upgrades and maybe some different looking wheels. and maybe more accordish gauges. (same layout, nicer displays.) Anyone remember what an 01-03 civic looked like compared to an 04-05? a subtle difference (a good one at that) but NOTHING major.

    the 08 accord proabably wont rub off; its the new civic that rubbed on. they match stylistically now as opposed to one looking modern and one looking futuristic.
  • orbit9090orbit9090 Posts: 110
    Replying to: kenlw
    An Automatic Si seems VERY pointless to me.


    The point of an Automatic Si would be to get the upgraded engine and equipment without having the burden of manually shifting.

    Why? Well, I suppose spoiled, modern-day teens are finding it very difficult to shift at the same they are simultaneously smoking and sending cellphone text messages. Have you no sympathy for the 'gen-nothing' ers? LOL.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    i know a few manual driving young people who are amazing proficient at texting and driving. ;)

    while i agree about the feature content, the engine is the problem.

    take a performance model like a VW gti, or sentra se-r; they come with both a type of auto matic transmission and a manual. Why the auto? well because those engines, while having high hp numbers, have LOTS of torque, and DO NOT make their peak hp and tq right before redline like the si does. The si is also lacking significant torque, so a manual totally suits its nature.

    Honda is not stupid; they know and understand the limitations and advantages of a high revving high hp engine, and what not to do with it.

    Actually, its been proven that if you drive the si like a normal car, aside from the handling, (which still requires you to go quickly) it feels like a normal civic...any true honda enthusiast therefore wouldn't want to pay the premium for the si just for the visual upgrades, seeing as how the automatic tranny would make you not want to drive fast because of how it would hold gears to redline, which in turn makes you use the engine like the regular civics engine, and thus negating the want or need to get the si for 'more motor.'
  • sivicmansivicman Posts: 32
    I 'd like to see Honda fire the person in charge of their color choices, I've been saying this for years. There colors are so drab and conservative, the garbage can grays and silvers. Honda needs bright colors like Mazda offers to capture that youth buyer. Some of you might remember the bright colors Mopar offered in the early 70's that were awesome.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    bright blues, and bright reds and deep blacks are not exciting? remember, even mazda saves their best colors for the more expensive, sportier trims, the same way honda does.

    honda's problem is the way they package base colors with the interiors.

    and the honda silver is the BEST silver of all time.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    As a gen-nothinger myself, I do have sympathy, but the Civic Si with an Automatic would seem like a car with the worst turbo lag you could possibly imagine. The Si simply deserves a manual exclusively (and Honda agrees). There's not enough torque to make the Si a quick car with an automatic.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    i knew i could count on your backup. ;)

    actually, there is an engine that that honda made that had similar specs to the k20 in the si. it was called the f20 and it came in european/austrailian/new zeleand accord SiR's.

    it was a 2.0 with 180 hp, and made about the same torque, but it was tuned for midrange power and only redlined at about 7200 rpms. and it met its peak torque much earlier than the si did.

    Actually grad, this engine is a swap available for your older accord;...you should look into it! ;)
  • kenlwkenlw Posts: 190
    you guys need to realize that not everyone shares your teenlust for slapping a stick all day.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Geez, you "other" guys need to realize that having a manual isn't just about racing the 17 year old next to you when the light turns green.

    "Us guys" aren't all the same. I have two cars, and both are automatics. They are also well-suited to those transmissions, with reasonable torque peaks and modest redlines. If my Accord had a 8k Redline and max torque above 6,000 RPM, I'd be in a different boat...er...car. :)

    "Teenlust for slapping a stick" is an interesting phrase. I'm 19, and know how to drive a manual, but when car-shopping, an automatic suited me best, as it was more practical in my trafficky commute. Yes, I'm turning 20 next month, and yes, I chose practicality (4-door, 4-cyl, automatic midsize) over a car that one might "lust" after.

    Give us some credit. We're not boy racers (well, I'll speak for myself anyway), I just know that the inherent characteristics of the Civic Si engine would make an automatic Si not much quicker than an automatic Civic EX.

    If the Civic Si had as much torque as horsepower, I'd definitely feel differently (assuming a fair amount of it was available below astronomical RPMs).
  • iomaticiomatic Posts: 48
    I'm over 30 and enjoy MT on the Si. Wouldn't have it any other way.
  • kork13kork13 Posts: 90
    Like grad, I'm only 20 yrs, and although I do love taking advantage of the fun that an Si can be, I've always preferred having a MT in any car I drive. For me it's more a choice of having control over the engine or not. When I drive an AT, I often want it to shift in certain ways so that I can accelerate better, or be easier on the engine. However, an AT doesn't give you that freedom, thus the reason I've always favored a manual tranny. There are other reasons, to be sure, but that's my biggest reasoning...

    Now, I know that this is gonna spark the argument for those.... I don't even know what they're called, automatics that you can switch over into a "clutchless manual" mode... So I'll throw out my opinion on those now... if you want to be able to sit there and let your car drive you places, get an AT. If you want to have some control over your engine, get a MT. I may be a bit of a purist sometimes, but enough of this stupid fence-sitting madness...
  • drmbbdrmbb Posts: 80
    I drove stick in all my cars for the past 25 years, and I agree with a lot of the points about the advantages of manual trans cars. However, driving stick in heavy stop-n-go traffic is just a PITA. After my last drive down I95 from CT to VA, a trip that should not take nearly 15 hours if traffic WAS MOVING, I decided I just couldn't take having a clutch in my daily drive automobile. So, a couple of months later, I traded in and drove out with my 2007EX/AT, and it is sooo nice when the traffic clogs up at a toll booth, accident delay, construction delay, or just too many dang cars all on the same road. :)

    On an open, winding road though, a 5 or 6 speed manual is more fun, although not as much more fun as it was 20 years ago (you drive over half a million miles, and the thrill level drops a fair bit, I guess - although I still enjoy driving).
«13456712
This discussion has been closed.