Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Has Honda's run - run out?
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Do you know of a car called the Honda Civic Hybrid? Or doesn't is suit your argument?
So almost same performance (0.1 Second to 60)for Mazda is an improvement?
Yeah, talking about the Civic SI doesn't suit your argument, so why would you include it, even though you would include all available modles inteh Mazda3 range?
Around town, it was slow as molasses. Oh, it would make a lot of noise and jerk you around, and because it was so small and lightweight, you'd FEEL like you were going faster than you really were. As for fuel economy, I averaged 29 mpg on that trip, almost pure highway driving. No a/c, as it was March.
Now for the time, it wasn't a bad little car. But I would HOPE that they've improved them somewhat over the years!
As for the Protege, I remember reading a couple of road tests that actually stated the more recent models were dogs when it came to acceleration. They were great handlers, and braking was excellent, but acceleration was stereotypical economy car.
Actually, the 1992 Protege was a pretty good car for it's time. It had about the same hp as the Civic--sedan and coupe. Now, the Mazda3 is a lot different. The Civic isn't.
"Why do you ignore the hybrid. A car that does 46/51 MPG EPA, definitely is a big improvemnt. What say you?"
It's a hybrid. Yeah, it gets good gas mileage.
"Like I wrote earlier, the how different was a 2002 Protege from a 1992 Protege in efficiency?"
Not much change, but there was more torque in the 2002. But, that 2.0L was old, kinda like the 1.7L in the Civic.
"Do you know of a car called the Honda Civic Hybrid? Or doesn't is suit your argument?"
Of course the hybrid gets good gas mileage. It's a hybrid. It's kind of unfair to compare to regular gas engine only cars right? I am talking about the top line Civic EX. It hasn't changed much.
"So almost same performance (0.1 Second to 60)for Mazda is an improvement?"
Considering the Mazda3 hatchback is quite a bit heavier than the Escort LX-E and gets the same mileage, yes, it's an improvement.
"Yeah, talking about the Civic SI doesn't suit your argument, so why would you include it, even though you would include all available modles inteh Mazda3 range?"
You're right, it doesn't support my argument, because I'm not talking about the Si, I am talking about the sedan and coupe and always have been. A 3 door hatch doesn't do much good for someone who wants a 4 door sedan right?
Why isn't the Si engine available in the sedan? Or coupe?
Next?
Look at how the Accord has gained power over the same time period that the Civic hasn't. And before you respond: "But the Si...."
I'm not talking about the Si. I am talking about the sedan and coupe.
1990-top engine-125 hp
2003-top engine-240 hp
What do you have to say about that?
DX/LX: 1.5-liter 92 hp/97 lb.-ft
EX/Si: 1.6-liter 108 hp/108 lb.-ft
Civic engine choices in 1992 (model change):
DX/LX: 1.5-liter 102 hp/ 98 lb.-ft
EX/Si: 1.6-liter 125 hp/ 106 lb.-ft
Civic engine choices in 1996 (model change):
DX/LX: 1.6-liter 106 hp/ 103 lb.-ft
HX: 1.6-liter 115 hp/ 110 lb.-ft
EX: 1.6-liter 127 hp/ 107 lb.-ft
Civic engine choices in 2001 (model change):
DX/LX: 1.7-liter 115 hp/ 110 lb.-ft
HX: 1.7-liter 117 hp/ 111 lb.-ft
EX: 1.7-liter 127 hp/ 114 lb.-ft
Today the Accord is a midsize, and going by EPA standards, it's at the upper end of the midsized spectrum. If you gave it another 3 cubic feet, spread between the interior and the trunk, it would actually rank as a full-size!
In 1990, the Accord was still in a market where good fuel economy was important. Today it's in a different league, where people are more concerned with room, comfort, and power. Fuel economy, while not totally forgotten, just isn't as important in this market.
OTOH, the Civic is still in the same market that it was in 1990. It's a little bigger, only because all cars in that class have gotten bigger. However, it hasn't moved up a class or two, as cars such as the Accord and Camry have.
EX/Si: 1.6-liter 108 hp
Civic engine choices in 2001
EX: 1.7-liter 127 hp
Top Accord engine in 1990
EX: 2.2-liter 125 hp
Top Accord engine in 1998
200 hp
Top Accord engine in 2003
240 hp
What's wrong? What's going on?
Does the move from compact to midsize necessitate the need for an extra 115 hp?
Simply put: Business decision.
Civic sedan in some other markets is offered with the 2.0-liter engine.
I'm not talking about the Si. I am talking about the sedan and coupe.
That’s okay. It is your choice that I don’t understand (or care about). I’m talking about Civic as a model. Even when I go to trim level, I specify (just did in my last post, the old Si was also a hatchback).
1990-top engine-125 hp
2003-top engine-240 hp
What do you have to say about that?
Nothing new. 240 HP didn’t happen without (relatively) major transformation for MY1998 in the Accord lineup. The old size wasn’t designed for V6 engine and that is no guess. Apples to apples comparison makes sense to me.
So, in 1992, their business decision was to offer the same engine in the Si as in the EX? Why not now?
"Even when I go to trim level, I specify (just did in my last post, the old Si was also a hatchback)."
Yeah, the old Si was a hatchback. It had the same engine as the EX coupe and sedan! Not now though. That's my issue.
And back to this:
"I can rationalize for the Accord gaining power since 1990 is that the car fills an entirely different market today. Back in 1990, the Accord was a compact"
Does anyone know when the Civic went from sub-compact to compact?
I;m sure there is alot of differences between a 92 Protege and an 02 Protege. I have sat in a 90-94 Protege and have seen 99-03 Protege's. The interior in the 99-03 Protege is better than the interior than that of a 90-94 Protege. The exterior styling of a 99 Protege is better than a 90 Protege. Before the 99 Protege the Protege was a 50K seller that in 2002 turned into an 80K seller. So Mazda has definately made progress in the compact arena.
Response to post 3610(andre 1969):
"As for the Protege, I remember reading a couple of road tests that actually stated the more recent models were dogs when it came to acceleration. They were great handlers, and braking was excellent, but acceleration was stereotypical compact car."
Yes eaxactly thats what all the reviewers said about the 99-03 Protege(about the handling part and the engine.) About the braking thats interesting the Protege didn't even come with standard ABS.
About the Civic I prefer the 96-00 models to the new ones. The 96 is better looking than the 01, and has a better interior. Im not the type that is going to soup up my car so aftermarket parts aren't a big deal to me. Is Honda going to make ABS standard for the next Civic? I already thought the Civic had standard ABS for the 05 model year but I just looked at my current issue of CR and the current Civic only has standard ABS on the EX, Si, and hybrid models. Honda already has standard ABS all across the board for the Accord but I guess just to do it for the last model year of this current generation Civic Honda thought maybe it was a waste of money. I'm not a big person when it comes to ABS but some people and I notice it on these boards were kind of unhappy with having to move all thw ways up to the EX trim in order to get ABS standard with the Civic. I guess ABS is becoming a big selling point nowdays when it comes to car buying.
BTW, I noticed this other day the 05 Civic has ground effects on the back bumper just like the 03-05 Civic Sedan's do on the back end.
NO. This shouldn’t be difficult to understand. Let me repeat myself from post #3603: “You don't need that kind of power, you want it.”
The move from compact to midsize didn’t warrant 240 HP, and as a matter of fact, it was 200 HP when that transition did happen. So, let us not get carried away with numbers (you have done it at least twice in two days, as I pointed out earlier).
I hate to be repetitive, but if you keep circling around the same logic, it would be unavoidable, at least until I decide to give up. To address the V6 issue, check my previous posts.
So, in 1992, their business decision was to offer the same engine in the Si as in the EX? Why not now?
What part of business decision do you understand? But let me (try to) help you out. Honda wasn’t using VTEC until early 90s (a reason you lug on to 125 HP from Accord’s 2.2 in 1990 although with VTEC, the output was upped to 140 HP in 1992). Civic Si essentially used the most advanced engine in the lineup, as did EX.
Over the next few years, being a performance oriented model, Si received a high revving, higher output engine with DOHC VTEC engine. EX wasn’t meant to be that! 1999-2000 Civic Si was bashed for lack of low end torque while power was okay. Honda responded with 2.0-liter engine to address the torque issue (although I feel Honda should have upped the power output also).
Yeah, the old Si was a hatchback. It had the same engine as the EX coupe and sedan! Not now though. That's my issue.
See above.
Does anyone know when the Civic went from sub-compact to compact?
MY2001, I believe. The exterior dimensions didn’t change, but gained dimensions on the inside. The old Civic was, however, already bordering on compact category.
"Not much change, but there was more torque in the 2002. But, that 2.0L was old, kinda like the 1.7L in the Civic."
So till the Mazda3 came out, the 92 Protege wasn't much different from a 2002 Protege. good that you finally understood my point.
"Considering the Mazda3 hatchback is quite a bit heavier than the Escort LX-E and gets the same mileage, yes, it's an improvement"
Ther is no actual performance improvement.
"It's a hybrid. Yeah, it gets good gas mileage"
So that's not an efficiency improvement.
"You're right, it doesn't support my argument, because I'm not talking about the Si, I am talking about the sedan and coupe and always have been. A 3 door hatch doesn't do much good for someone who wants a 4 door sedan right?"
You are talking about Civics, and the last I knew, the Si is a Civic. You can't have it both ways and use just specific trims for your arguments. When we point out a Civic with a performance gain, you want more doors. Just because Mazda has a 2.3L engine in the 3, you want Honda to have an exact copy of the car.
By the same logic, why isn't rotary engine available in the Mazda6? Or why isn't the 3.0 MZ6 engine is a top level Mazda3? Or are these cars at a power range that 'you' think is enough?
The Civic is an economical, sporty compact car, with a sport version available (Si), so Honda believes the engines in each trim are are sufficient, and so do 300,000 buyers each year. Even with the 06 Civic, I don't expect the Civic to be pushing 160HP, as clearly in Honda's and the target segment's view, what they have is more than sufficient. Having said that, I have always said that things like paint quality etc need to be improved in a Civic, and I am sure that will be addressed in the 06 Civic.
Next?
And the answer to the question he is trying to hammer home is this: over the last decade, Honda has chosen to emphasize fuel efficiency and as little price increase as possible in the Civic line, and one of the "tools" it has used to accomplish this is to keep power output about the same through most of that time. The most commonly sold Civic, the bread and butter model, is the LX four-door. This model still has 115 hp, definitely the bottom of the field. The SI is a niche model (at least, even if Honda did not intend it to be, that is still the way it turned out!), but if you look at the EX, which is supposed to be a "premium" Civic, its 127 hp is still behind everything else in the field. And its price is near the top of the pack too.
Toyota, the other fuel economy leader in this segment, gets around this problem by having only one powertrain for most Corollas, making about the same power as Civic's uplevel trim. Its niche model is the 170 hp XRS, which also sells in very small numbers.
All of the Accord four-cylinders make one power rating, and it wouldn't be a bad idea for the next Civic to do the same, and just make LX/EX distinctions on the basis of equipment levels. But the one powertrain it DOES have ought to be at least a 20% jump in power from the LX of today, without a reduction in fuel economy. My money is on Honda being able to do this, and still keep price creep fairly low for the new model.
hungarian: you have a point on the difference in length of the Fit and the Civic, but the fact remains that Fit will take over the low-price rung on Honda's ladder, and if the Fit and the Civic cross too much in price (like they might well do with a Civic DX), it will only hurt the sales of both. Witness the Echo fiasco at Toyota, where most Echoes sold with a higher sticker than lower-end Corollas, which were all better-equipped and nicer cars. (resulting in the sales death of the Echo).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Civic engine choices in 1991
EX/Si: 1.6-liter 108 hp
Civic engine choices in 2003
EX:: 127 Hp
Si: 160Hp
Don't take the Si out of the discussion, since you are discussion Civic's as a whole, not specific trim levels. I know its repetitive, but you just don't seem to get it.
Business decision that worked very well, the car is a best seller in its segment.
Thanks.
I'm just glad that none of you other folks make decisions at Honda. I look forward to a significantly improved Civic in 2006, with power to at least match the competitors, in sedan and coupe form.
"Don't take the Si out of the discussion, since you are discussion Civic's as a whole, not specific trim levels."
The Si isn't just a trim level since the only hatchback in the US is an Si and the only Si is a hatchback. I wish it were simply a trim level. Then, maybe, you could get an Si coupe or sedan.
"I don't expect the Civic to be pushing 160HP"
Thank God you don't work for Honda. Wanna bet that the next Civic gets 160 hp in the sedan?
Also, this discussion is about Honda's run running out, and newcar seems to imply that its running out because of the Civic being unchanged, that too after this same car is the best selling car in its segment.
Is that all there is to this discussion?
The crux of your dicscussion is that the Civic performance is same as 1992. This is simply not true, with the Si puttinhg out 160HP. And since it does, you choose to exclude it from your argument.
"Thank God you don't work for Honda. Wanna bet that the next Civic gets 160 hp in the sedan?"
Yeah, I do want to bet on it. It will only have a 160+ HP engine if the fuel mileage is better than current.
Also, there definitely might be a coupe Si with a 160+ hp engine, but by your logic, you shouldn't be able to get it into the bet.
Since we seem to agree to disagree on this, maybe its time to move on to something other than the power improvement of the Civic over the years, resulting in Honda's demise.
No, actually, I didn't name this thread. I think the name should be changed. They should just call it "Honda" or something. I don't think the "run is running out", I'd just like to see more than 127 hp in the Civic EX. That's all.
I don't want a rotary in the Mazda6 or an 290 hp V6 from the NSX in the Accord. You go overboard sometimes.
Alright Kenny Rogers, if I could, I would bet you. Lol.
but your comment on the other cars in this segment kind of omits many volume players: the Sentra 2.5, the Ford Focus, even the Crapalier. The only standout in the whole segment that matches your comment is the sad little 120 hp Lancer, a model the market has mostly forgotten. And the Civic LX makes even less power.
I don't expect the next Civic to have 160 hp. But I would hope for 140, and expect something in the 130s. You can bet the '08 Corolla that arrives in a little over 2 years will have 140+. That is just if they use the existing 2.0 that used to be in the RAV. It made 148 hp in that car, and you can bet they could develop it a little to make the same power with Corolla-level fuel economy for Corolla's next revision.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Honda Fit:
DX five-door hatchback and four-door sedan with 1.5-liter I-4 semi-VTEC engine rated at 102-105 bhp (SAE), with your choice of five-speed manual or CVT automatic (no "gear step" option)
EX five-door hatchback and four-door sedan with 1.5-liter I-4 i-VTEC DI engine rated at 120 bhp (SAE), with your choice of six-speed manual or CVT automatic with 7-speed "gear step" option.
Honda Civic:
LX four-door sedan and two-door coupe with 1.8-liter I-4 semi-VTEC engine rated at 125-130 bhp (SAE) with your choice of five-speed manual or five-speed automatic.
EX four-door sedan and two-door coupe with 1.8-liter I-4 i-VTEC DI engine rated at 140 bhp (SAE) with your choice of six-speed manual or five-speed automatic.
Si two-door coupe with 2.0-liter i-VTEC DI engine rated at 195-200 bhp (SAE) with six-speed close-ratio manual.
We might see a new Civic CRX derivative, but the Si coupe could become the performance Civic model for the US market.
As you can see, the "Civic DX" market will be shifted to the Fit models.
newcar does have a point here: in its day, the '92 Civic EX was a fast car in its segment.
I don’t think so. 1992-1995 Civic EX was a reasonably quick car in its day, but it was never at the top of the power game. Consider these top engines from the early 1990s (cars with less power than Civic highlighted in italics):
Chevrolet Cavalier: 3.1/V6 (140 HP/185 lb.ft)
Dodge Neon (1995): 2.0-liter (150 HP/135 lb.-ft)
Ford Escort: 1.8-liter (127 HP/114 lb.-ft)
Honda Civic: 1.6-liter (125 HP/106 lb.-ft)
Mazda Protégé: 1.8-liter (125 HP/125 lb.-ft)
Nissan Sentra: 2.0-liter (140 HP/133 lb.-ft)
Saturn SL2: 1.9-liter (124 HP/122 lb.-ft)
Toyota Corolla: 1.6-liter (130 HP/105 lb.-ft)
VW Golf: 2.0-liter (134 HP/133 lb.-ft)
Saturn SL2 had 1 HP less, but likely made up for it in the low-mid range. The story, compared to the competition, is not much different today. Some cars have changed names/transformed, but the mainstream Civic hasn't changed position in this regard.
Fast forwarding to the present...
Corolla XRS is expected to appeal to a buyer that Civic Si goes after, albeit with 4-doors. I see XRS as more of a replacement to Celica than anything else.
With those adjustments, you can see that the Civic EX was right at the top of the power range in its segment back then, with the exception of the Chevy that had an available V-6 (exclusive then, gone now?).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
In contrast, some of those other cars like the Neon with the 150 hp engine, the Cavalier with the 3.1 V-6, etc, those were high performance models, such as the Neon R/T and the Cavalier Z-24. The majority of Cavaliers just came with the pre-Ecotech 2.2 boat-anchor that was derived from the old Cav 2.0 of the 80's. And the vast majority of Neons had the SOHC 132 hp 2.0. Now for a base engine, that really was at the head of the pack back in 1995, but fast forward 10 years, and the Neon is heavier and bigger, and stuck with the SAME engine!
The Si is how Honda chose to chase the performance buyer. If you want to argue that you think they chose the wrong body style, fine, but they haven't overlooked the segment completely as is being implied.
And the hybrid? C'mon, that's the most attention-getting segment nowadays, ignoring that is ignoring the most important accomplishment Honda has made with the Civic.
I'll concede that if you ignore the most important Civic and you also ignore the highest performing one, then ... well, how significant can whatever statement that follows really be?
-juice
So perhaps Honda's strategy to keep the sedan out of the performance market is deliberate. Instead they let the hybrid create a green halo, and let the TSX rake in the big bucks.
-juice
and carguy's remarks reminded me of one other thing I would really like Honda to be a leader on (among the Japanese): a MAJOR reduction in hard plastics in the car's interior. People talk about the "quality" of plastics, things like texturing, etc. For me, it is much more important how much of it is soft-touch or better yet padded. If the places I rest my elbows are rock-hard, it doesn't leave a good impression, even if those plastics are "high quality" rock hard surfaces. Same with the places I have to touch or rest things on. The inside of the current Civic, while no torture chamber, could use a lot of work in this respect.
Yes, VWs have major mechanical problem areas. But their interiors put most of the major Japanese players DEEPLY to shame, and they sell for more money too. Raise the price if you must, Honda (and Toyota, and Nissan, and Mazda, and Subaru), but the inside is where we spend most of our time - make it more pleasant. The Civic could do with taking some cues from the Accord, and then go another 10%.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Hey, I'm a Honda fan too. I've owned two of them. If I didn't like Hondas, I wouldn't care, and I wouldn't be posting in here. You don't see me in any of the Kia or Isuzu forums.
I think there are two reasons why people in here see me as anti-Honda.
1. I am critical of some of Hondas latest offerings.
2. I currently own a Mazda.
I have two issues with the current Hondas.
1. I don't like the way the Accord sedan looks.
2. I think the EX Civic needs more power.
That does not mean that I don't think the Civic Hybrid is great or the Si Civic stinks, although, I don't like the way the Si Civic looks either.
"When Nissan came out with the new Altima with all that HP Honda matched it."
YUP!!!
Nobody expected a 240 hp Accord. Nobody "needs" a 240 hp Accord. Nobody is complaining about the Accord having 240 hp either. Oh yeah, the 240 hp Accord still gets good gas mileage.
I consider a 1990 Accord(4th generation Accord)was mid-size by my standards. The first 3 generation of Accord's were compacts no doubt.
When you have Nissan advertising a 245 hp Altima, you HAVE to have a 240 hp Accord - people wouldn't look at it, save for Honda purists, otherwise.
And I don't know about you, since I'm not a point A to B commuter, but if I got an Accord, I'd want 240 hp instead of 125 - I DRIVE may cars and enjoy power, not just the thrill I get from a boring commute.
But back then, the Taurus relied mainly on V-6 engines and automatic trannies, whereas the Accord was 4-cyl all the way, and manual trannies were much more common.
As you can see I am too.
"2.) I currently own a Mazda."
I understand your point about you owning a Mazda. I used to get busted on too by a Honda owner when I had my 626. He has to poke fun at me all the time. I left the Mazda brand because they had nothing I wanted back then. If they had the 6 back then I would be driving that but they didn't have it back then.
"I have two issues with the current Hondas."
1.) I don't like the way the Accord Sedan looks.
Neither do I.
"2.) I think the Civic EX needs more power."
I could see what your saying but like I said before there is other stuff in the next Civic that Honda has to do as well to match the competition.
About the Accord getting 240 HP I don't need an Accord with a V6 because I don't have a family. If I had a family and we had to go on long trips I could use the V6. The 4cyl would be more than good enough for me right now.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Honda's 2.4l is pretty peppy, in fact it outruns some of the outdated V6s in some competitors.
I think these big 4 bangers have pretty much made small V6s obsolete, especially with all the balance shafts.
-juice
Seems to me that the Civic has *forced* many of the others in this segment to up the ante in horsepower because Honda left them no where else to compete.
The TSX sells well because it offers an upscale and stylish alternative to the ordinary family sedan. The performance is good, but those focused on max performance will pay about the same price for a G35 coupe or sedan.
Despite the four-door similarity, there's not much overlap between the Civic and TSX. A performance Civic would encroach on the RSX's territory (regardless of the door count). That's probably why the Si didn't get a more aggressive engine.
As far as the actual tires to buy, Tire Rack offers consumer reviews on just about every tire listed, so it's easy to get a real review from another CRV owner, probably in your climate zone.
The Yokohama Avid T4 is a great all around tire, as is the Continental Touring Contact AS and Pirelli Scorpion STR.
ateixeira "Honda CR-V" Dec 1, 2004 11:12am!make=Honda&model=CR-V&ed_makeindex=.ee94ff9
I've got a 1999 CR-V (also 102K miles) with Aquatred IIIs under it. Not a bad tire.