Has Honda's run - run out?

03accordman · December 2004

"Despite all of that, the Civic hasn't changed much with regards to efficiency or power in over 10 years."

Do you know of a car called the Honda Civic Hybrid? Or doesn't is suit your argument?

03accordman · December 2004

"Car and Driver did 0-60 in the Mazda3s hatchback in 7.4 seconds. The Mazda3 hatchback is quite a bit heavier than a Ford Escort LX-E, yet it's still a little quicker, and it gets the same EPA mileage. Improvement."

So almost same performance (0.1 Second to 60)for Mazda is an improvement?

03accordman · December 2004

"Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I'm talking about the sedan and coupe."

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?

andre1969 · December 2004

but I had a '91 Civic rental car when I vacationed in California. It had the optional larger engine with, IIRC around 100 hp. 4-speed automatic. The car would not do over 75 mph when left to its own devices...you had to manually downshift to 3rd as you punched the gas, to get past that sticking point. And it was a good idea to do it on level ground, or even better, a down-grade. Once you got up to around 85-90, you could shift back to 4th, and provided you had a long enough stretch with no up-grade, it would keep accelerating. I got it up to 115.

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.

newcar31 · December 2004

"Your point is that the Mazda3 is a lot improved over a 92 Protege and I say that there was a hell of a lot of scope of improvement with any of Mazda's cars in the 1990s."

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?

newcar31 · December 2004

Oh yeah---

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?

robertsmx · December 2004

Civic engine choices in 1991 (excluding CRX):
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

seminole_kev · December 2004

I didn't realize that the newest motors put out so little torque. For whatever reason, I thought they were putting out more than that by now. Hopefully the next model will address that.

andre1969 · December 2004

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, and competed with cars like the Ford Tempo, Chevy Cavalier and Corsica, Plymouth Acclaim, etc.

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.

newcar31 · December 2004

Civic engine choices in 1991
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?

newcar31 · December 2004

"I can rationalize for the Accord gaining power since 1990 is that the car fills an entirely different market today."

Does the move from compact to midsize necessitate the need for an extra 115 hp?

robertsmx · December 2004

Why isn't the Si engine available in the sedan? Or coupe?

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.

Thats okay. It is your choice that I dont understand (or care about). Im 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 didnt happen without (relatively) major transformation for MY1998 in the Accord lineup. The old size wasnt designed for V6 engine and that is no guess. Apples to apples comparison makes sense to me.

newcar31 · December 2004

"Simply put: Business decision."

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?

carguy58 · December 2004

Mazda really didn't make a splash in the compact segment until 98-99 when the 3rd generation Protege came out. Before the 99 Protege came out Mazda's best selling car was the 626. I;m not sure how the Protege sold in 1992. Mazda cars in the 90's were not that bad. Mazda's in the 90's were better than anything the Domestic Big 3 threw at you in terms of passenger cars in terms of packaging. The mid 90's is where Mazda slipped up an tried to be everything to everybody instead of being something to somebody. Mazda was not Mitsubishi in the 90's.

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.

robertsmx · December 2004

Does the move from compact to midsize necessitate the need for an extra 115 hp?

NO. This shouldnt 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 didnt 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 wasnt using VTEC until early 90s (a reason you lug on to 125 HP from Accords 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 wasnt 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 didnt change, but gained dimensions on the inside. The old Civic was, however, already bordering on compact category.

03accordman · December 2004

"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"

"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?

nippononly · December 2004

that newcar does have a point here: in its day, the '92 Civic EX was a fast car in its segment. In 2002, it is not. Hence Honda's decision to put a special powertrain in the SI, whereas in 1992 they didn't have to. At least, I think that is what he is trying to point out.

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).

03accordman · December 2004

Another convenient posting.

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.

robertsmx · December 2004

Civic and Element are the only two vehicles remaining in Honda lineup that do not have ABS standard. This is expected to change soon as Honda is supposed to make ABS and side airbags standard even in the bottom-end trims. Accord and CR-V already have that, so next Civic is likely to have it all.

03accordman · December 2004

"So, in 1992, their business decision was to offer the same engine in the Si as in the EX? Why not now?"

Business decision that worked very well, the car is a best seller in its segment.

03accordman · December 2004

Newcar was discussion only performance differences, not anything else like interiors etc, and I responded to that.

robertsmx · December 2004

I'm glad you're noticing it, but the person who complains about inclusion of Civic hatchback himself chooses to include the same in certain arguments. Consistency is often a big issue.

newcar31 · December 2004

"you have to concede that newcar does have a point here: in its day, the '92 Civic EX was a fast car in its segment. In 2002, it is not.'

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?

03accordman · December 2004

Before the Mazda3 came out, most cars in this segment had 120-135Hp powerplants. Honda did put in a higher spec engine in an Si, that's because Si is a performace model, while EX is a premuim everyday/everyman car, so in Honda's eyes it had sufficient power. Now with the MZ3 in the Mix, they may or may not increase power to that level, though we can rest assured that there will be some kind of power increase in addition to better fuel efficiency.

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?

03accordman · December 2004

"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."

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.

newcar31 · December 2004

"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"

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.

newcar31 · December 2004

"Yeah, I do want to bet on it."

Alright Kenny Rogers, if I could, I would bet you. Lol.

carguy58 · December 2004

I meant the 05 Civic Coupe has ground effects on the back bumper just like the 03-05 Civic Sedan does.

nippononly · December 2004

yes, this is the "honda's run running out" thread, and we have kind of gotten sidetracked in this whole scrutiny of the Civic.

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.

raychuang00 · December 2004

I expect the model lineup for the Fit and (next-generation) Civic to be something like this:

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.

robertsmx · December 2004

Going back to the future...

newcar does have a point here: in its day, the '92 Civic EX was a fast car in its segment.

I dont 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.

nippononly · December 2004

some of those are SLIGHTLY (I emphasize slightly) misleading. The 140 hp Sentra was a two-door sport coupe selling at a high price in its segment. The Corolla never had 130 hp until the current generation. However, while I don't remember exact numbers, it is likely there was already a 125 hp DX by 1992. And I don't know about that Golf, but maybe that was a GTI variant? Certainly the Jetta, by far the volume seller of the two and the real competitor for the Civic, had some piddly little engine making about 100 hp, if memory serves.

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?).

carguy58 · December 2004

should have more horsepower. I would guess Honda would make the next generation Civic with 140 HP.I am a both a Honda and Mazda fan so I'm like in the middle of the argument here. When Nissan came out with the new Altima with all that HP Honda matched it. When everybody was whining the the last generation Acura TL was bland in appearence compared to the Germans Honda went back and executed a beautiful 04 TL. When Honda got beat by Toyota with the 92-96 Camry they went back and made a great 1998 Accord to match Camry. The only thing Honda didn't do to match their competition is take a chance with the exterior of the current Accord to match Mazda or Nissan in the looks department. Honda is good at responding to other automakers challanges. We will see if Honda responds to the challenge with the 06 Civic. The styling needs to have a lots of pizzaz. I can't say that enough. The interior has to use better plastics than the current model. Honda cannot abandon the tuner crowd. Like I said before I am not a tuner myself but that was part of the 92-95 and 96-00 Civic audience and Honda kinda forgot about the turner crowd with the current Civic.

andre1969 · December 2004

had a 1994 Civic that I'm almost positive was an EX. It was just about fully-loaded and cost about $16K. However, it wasn't a high performance car, it was just the top trim level of a volume line.

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!

ateixeira · December 2004

I don't see why the Civic Si should be excluded, nor do I agree that the hybrid should be counted out.

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

ateixeira · December 2004

I think Honda has more concern with product overlap than Mazda. A hot Civic sedan would not doubt put a dent in TSX sales, and the Acura is a far more profitable model.

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

nippononly · December 2004

if your friend's Civic had a moonroof, it was an EX.

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%.

newcar31 · December 2004

"I would guess Honda would make the next generation Civic with 140 HP.I am a both a Honda and Mazda fan so I'm like in the middle of the argument here."

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.

carguy58 · December 2004

Responding to your post about the Accord being compact its kinda weird the Accord used to compete with the Ford Tarus for Number 1 sales crown in the late 80's/early 90's. The Tarus was a mid-size car and yet the Accord from 1990-1992(I think) was the top selling car in America. Imagine that a car being called a compact beating a mid-size car for number 1 sales crown.

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.

driftracer · December 2004

people don't drive and feel cars like they used to - they research, and compare a few lines in an internet article, plus the prospective vehicle's specs, and make a decision - they may do a quick 'round the block, but it's a given that there's not a night and day difference between ANY of the premium import mid-sizers or compacts.

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.

andre1969 · December 2004

the Accord did vie with the Taurus for #1 sales back then, but still, they were two totally different cars. One was a midsized car and one was a compact. Actually, I think the '90 Accord was the first to even be considered compact...before that I believe they were classified as subcompacts! I know the '85 and earlier models were subcompacts, but the '86-89 was kind of borderline between sub- and compact.

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.

carguy58 · December 2004

"1. I am critical of Honda's latest offerings."

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.

nippononly · December 2004

in today's Accord, manual tranny is still somewhat common. And it has 160 hp now, in a 3200-pound car. Not too bad, more than enough for me in a car I am going to commute in. But there will always be the V-6 crowd, god bless 'em.

ateixeira · December 2004

Don't forget there are plenty of aftermarket moonroofs. I own two. So it could have been an LX with one of those.

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

varmint · December 2004

100 posts about power and nuthin' on weight. Nuthin' on gearing. And very little on actual performance.

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.

varmint · December 2004

No, not the TSX. The RSX.

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.

geoster · December 2004

I know I could do a search and find my answer, but what the heck. I have a 1999 CRV with 102K on it. I got it used. Had no real problems on it. I do need to get a new set of tires. Currently I have the stock version on. I am not sure if they are the original ones. I live in Maryland. So we can get some snow, but lately a lot of sleet and rain. So what is the best brand to buy? Thanks for the help.

driftracer · December 2004

checking www.tirerack.com, they have a warehouse in Delaware, so you'd get the tires quickly - they're the cheapest around by a long shot.

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.

varmint · December 2004

Here's a better place to do some research.

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.

andre1969 · December 2004

on my Intrepid, but I dunno if they're T4's or not. They were just cheap tires with a long treadwear rating. I think they were only $250 for 4, including shipping. Had 'em on for about 2 years now, and I've been happy with 'em.

Has Honda's run - run out?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles