Honda Civic Sedan 2006

backy · September 2005

No, I wasn't asking you... I was replying to disapoited. And my comment about poor driving position was regarding the Corolla, not the Civic.

thegraduate · September 2005

Sorry, I got confused. No harm, no foul! :shades:

natenj1971 · September 2005

I was in Newburgh NY over the weekend and saw a navy Blue LX sedan sitting in a dealer lot. It was 17k, 5 speed. Seeing the car in person it reminded me of old style accord sedan (circa 95-96) "low and wide" The steering wheel seemed a lot smaller then the 05 civic (which I already thought was small). Very roomy looking interior and a nice shade of ivory too. You'll need a roomba to keep the dash clean.

yesroh · September 2005

The new Civics are wider but only marginally lower...I think it's less than half an inch, and still they are pretty tall. They're just a tiny bit shorter than the Accords. I'm glad they decided to widen them. I always wondered why Honda couldn't keep its same dimensions and just add three inches to the width to bring them up to the same width as the Accords. That elbow room really feels nice in the front seat and the wider track could give them better handling without stiffening the suspension so much. I think anyway...I used to design cars when I was a teenager. I thought about a lot of things.

Anyone want to argue about something? We need another fight here. It's getting quiet again.

yesroh · September 2005

Hey...
Maybe Honda thinks the people who buy the manual tranny are the ones who like more agressive driving, and therefore would like a more 'lively' engine. Therefore...the lower top gear.
The folks who buy the automatic (like me) are tired and just want a nice car with good performance that they can relax in and not shoot in and out of traffic. We all want to die in peace. I can't wait for the rocking-chair option.

poopoo_head · September 2005

umm...could be...but then if mtx drivers are aggressive, then why not let us downshift a couple gears and keep the 5th tall for economy/noise.

the EPA ratings prolly for 60mph, but once above that, esp 70mph where it's 3k rpm+, fuel econ will drop very quickly with mtx??!!!

why, oh, why did Honda make 5th short...

i like to drive aggressively and unwisely sometimes if i feel happy, but sometimes when i am really tired and sleepy i just want to sit in a car and have it move automatically to the destination. the auto, with 5 gears now, and my current car needing a 1k$ clutch change (plus auto EX are avail very soon in canada) is beginning to look real good. on the other hand...i sometimes like to abuse my car in the winter with rally techniques that a torque converter just won't allow. hmm...abuse or ease of mind...

i know what you are saying about dieing in peace...i want to die in one piece, too.

umm...hmm what am i posting about here, not much useful info...oh yeah, anyone know where a car gets serialized (assigned a VIN)...before assembly, during, or after? all canadian cars are either USA or Canada made

JBaumgart · September 2005

I also read that due to many complaints from manual tranny owners, Honda purposely made the top gear run at higher RPM's. It seems that, when in cruise control in top gear, previous Civics would not maintain speed when going uphill. Automatics of course will downshift into the next lowest gear to compensate, but manuals cannot do this without downshifting. Therefore changing the final drive ratio on '06 manuals was a conscious decision on Honda's part. Maybe one of the improvements in '07 will be to offer a 6 speed manual, with true overdrive, in lieu of the 5 speed.

I wonder how 6th gear will compare in the Si's?

nippononly · September 2005

on the assembly line, which is why the VIN designates build location.

And so far, every single '06 Civic delivered to my local dealer has been Japan-built. Shows what dealers know.

poopoo_head · September 2005

yeah, i read that too..

hahaahaha that is so funny, ppl complain about lack of power and honda responds by decreasing fuel economy as a result...

hhaha I wonder how many complainees would have guessed that this would be the fruits of their labours!! hehehe

poopoo_head · September 2005

i wish all dealers were that clueless...in alberta here, i phone them and they read the VIN off their delivery list thingy and they all do not start with a 'J' so i'm outta luck here in the north...

nippononly · September 2005

the sixth speed on the SI will be geared for performance, most likely. It will probably rev even higher on the highway than the rest of the line does in 5th.

As for this earlier:
"I don't think the fuel economy on the new Civics has dropped"

Combined EPA on the '05 Civic EX was 35.85. On the '06? 34.4.

For the auto: 35.5 on the '06, 34.85 on the '05. I call that a sidestep.

tawneycat · September 2005

Man car sales are way down. This should be attainable anywhere. I found it true in OKC as 5 speeds are not in demand anywhere.

dealerdealer · September 2005

You're very smart - except you mis-spelled the name of the site you're on! HA!

dealerdealer · September 2005

Car sales aren't down in Atlanta, GA! We can't keep cars in stock. We sell tons of manual tranmissions - keyword is SELL. Order-takers don't sell cars. They take orders and sell at or below invoice.

chrisducati · September 2005

Honda lost my interest when they dropped the hatchback. As for auto vs manual, I have owned two automatics out of out of about 15 cars I have owned. I hated both of the automatics. I don't understand why some drivers hate to shift. I have been in a car with someone who would lug the engine down before downshifting. Is it just being lazy or what?

stupidfool · September 2005

ya laziness is good

and also i never learned how to drive manual

jchan2 · September 2005

Some people think of driving as a "chore" and would like to do as little work as possible.

That's how Toyota and Lexus make so much money. Toyota makes bland mass market automobiles, and Lexus makes bland, high end automobiles for those with more money, who are interested in driving a status symbol, but who think of driving as a chore.

micweb · September 2005

I thought this Autoweek comment was in tune with my thinking:

The 06 model, though, departs from earlier generations in two significant ways. It de-emphasizes packaging efficiency (in favor of style) and simplicity (in favor of loading up with the latest gizmos).

Overall they loved the new Civic though. I really want to see the Coupe, since losing interior space in there (in the back seat, mainly) doesn't bug me as much as with the Sedan. The Coupe doesn't have as long a wheel base as the new Sedan, but it is longer than the '05.

A Coupe with a stick shift might be a hoot.

I was doing power to weight calculations today, and came up with the following:

'06 Mini Cooper (not S): 1 hp => 22 lbs
'06 Scion xA: 1 hp => 22.7 lbs
'06 New Beetle (5 cyl): 1 hp => 19 lbs
'06 New Jetta (5 cyl): 1 hp => 21 lbs
'05 Golf: 1 hp => 24 lbs
'05 Focus ZX3 (PZEV): 1 hp => 20.1 lbs
'06 Civic Sedan: 1 hp => 18.6 lbs

Couple of things to note. My ZX3 isn't doing too shabby in the horsepower to weight ratings. My former Golf was among the worst, as was my former Scion xA (no wonder they felt slow!). The new Civic has the best ratio of horsepower to weight, but its torque is much lower than its hp (only 128 lb-ft of torque, but still that matches my ZX3 so round town driving should be fine), while the New Beetle has the best torque (its 5 cylinder engine is rated at a mid-pack 150 hp for that size engine, but it has 170 lb-ft of torque, pretty darn good for 'round town driving).

I did test drive a new, New Beetle this weekend with the 5 cylinder plus 6 speed auto. It didn't feel quick...but maybe I was apprehensive about pushing a new car (the salesman sent me off in it by myself, so there was no weight penalty or inhibition in that regard).

So, I've temporarily crossed the New Beetle off my short list and put a question mark by the Civic...I really want to see how sporty the Coupe suspension is, it's supposed to be set up with stiffer springs, which might make it a nice handler.

drexelnet · September 2005

Do you know what is torque mean, I know really understand that. Is is good to have high torque or low torque.

Thanks alot

only1harry · September 2005

Zero torque would be best. That way you save tons of money you would have otherwise spend on gas :-)

Seriously speaking though. 128ft-lbs of torque is the same as the '94-01 Integras that also came with a 1.8L motor. Maybe Honda felt they would embarass all the Integra owners if they gave the Civic a few more foot pounds of torque? Because you know the engines in 2005/06 are more advanced than the Integra's that came out in 1994. They could have easily got 130's out of it but it would probably require a more agressive exhaust, air intake, maybe intake manifold, or larger throttle body, most of which means worse gas mileage. It's all about the gas mileage..

only1harry · September 2005

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.

drexelnet · September 2005

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

poopoo_head · September 2005

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...

micweb · September 2005

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."

maxellman · September 2005

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?

dudleyr · September 2005

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)

backy · September 2005

It changed for '06.

307web · September 2005

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.

jchan2 · September 2005

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.

ossining · September 2005

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?

crazycro · September 2005

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

it.

Thanks in advance.

crv16 · September 2005

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.

stupidfool · September 2005

dang that's amazing

the lx should get more cuz it doesn't have the extra weight of the sunroof

yesroh · September 2005

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.

yesroh · September 2005

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?

yesroh · September 2005

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!!!

thegraduate · September 2005

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.

yesroh · September 2005

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.

02accrdv6ex · September 2005

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.

yesroh · September 2005

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.

yesroh · September 2005

Yeah, driving can be a chore. When I got older and was burned out from work, marriage, life, and also being a competitive cyclist and working my butt off six days a week, I didn't want driving to require work too. I bought a car so I wouldn't have to walk or pedal everywhere...ie...not work. Different points of view, each valid in its own context.

crv16 · September 2005

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.

I have an 03 Civic EX manual, and if I drive very lightly, no AC, I can get 41-43 mpg. But more typical is 38-40, because I find it hard to drive slower than 75 mph.

I think the new Civic has the potential to get far greater results than the previous generation because of the tall 5th gear on the automatic.

stickguy · September 2005

thanks for the calculations. Not as bad as I thought, considering it is a small engine. LT 3,200 at 75 is livable.

For reference, my Miata was a real buzzer (3k @60!), and even worse (relatively) is my Scion tC, which is doing about 3,400 at 75, and 3K at ~66, which is silly considering it has a 2.4l that is more of a low torque than a high RPM motor.

fordfocus · September 2005

I had to create a new profile so that i could sign in. When I sign in using my old name, I get the msg:

No access to view this discussion

Can anyone explain why this happens? I can view this forum if I don't sign in. Have I done something wrong?

fordfocus · September 2005

69 MPH, and everyone flows at 75 MPH. So with engine buzzing at 3.2k RPM, that is a lot of gas down the drain. What is the RPM of the 06 auto at 75 MPH again? Anyone with calculations to show how much gas would be saved in running an auto vs manual at 75 MPH?

Yeah, the 4+E would be a great idea to keep 5th tall for economy. I can't wait for my 5spd silver manual sedan EX to get here, assuming the Canadian price isn't through the roof...Oct 15 is the official Civic launch party here?

trackwrex · September 2005

I've driven the Coupe and Sedan. both were very nice. the interior is a very nice upgrade from the outgoing gen. responsiveness in the coupe is a bit tighter than the sedan. for enthusiasts and weekend autocrossers the coupe will be a very nice choice. in regards to those wanting the 6-spd. tranny in the EX: the EX really doesn't need it IMHO. save the 6-spd. manual trannys for the sportier Si's (or Type-R's). oh. and for those who used to drive the EK civics, you'll like the shifter location. we no longer have to have shoulder problems or back problems (aka: shifter lean) due to the shifter being too far forward. hahaha!

igor2 · September 2005

This discussion is so deaf to anything but praise to the Civic... I will not get over the fact that Honda is once again watering down everything for the USA... look here:
http://news.auto.cz/?sekce=foto&ga_uid=GI_432a6e6d9258f&ga_id=GH_432a6e6d915ef

it is a Czech website and this is the 5door.. 1.8 liter... but even without the fact that the 5door will not make it to the US and 3door only maybe... look the the different design.. the front lights ant the tailights... the overall shape.. and compare it to the "Accord" looks of the NA Civic.

it is a noticeable difference... I am tired of auto makers watering stuff down for us... I would even go with VW for the sake of getting the real deal, not some .. "they will be fine with this" car. like the whole of Toyota, and now most of Honda, and all of GM... that's why I drive a Focus and dream about Mazda... Ford's side brands, and some of the persistent upscale EURO brands are the only brands maintaining this and selling the REAL THING here in the US... just for that.. despite the improvements that do make me jealous (5sp AUTO, better mileage, good looks).. I refuse to consider the new civic.. it is once again a ripoff.. cheapening the car, just so they can lower the sticker with the bigger engine... Americans should go ask for the smaller engin if they want a cheap car.. nit ruin the whole car for all of us.

Igor

only1harry · September 2005

1st and usually 2nd gas tanks are average. You start seeing better gas mileage as the motor, tranny/clutch, etc. get more broken in. When I bought my 97 Civic I got 33mpg on my first tank and I was driving like grandma. I was like what the hey? 2nd tank I got 34, and 3d tank jumped up to 37.5! So basically you 'll start seeing your normal gas mileage after 1,000mi. or even 1,500mi. That is if you break your Civic in properly.

45-46mpg is awesome, although Hondas always get better gas mileage when it's warm out. The hotter it is, the better gas mileage they get. My '01 EX coupe 5sp. has 156k mi. on it, and I 'm still getting 35-37mpg with the A/C on. When the winter comes though, I know my mileage will drop back down to 32-34mpg (that's averaging 72-74mph). Hopefully I 'll be in an '06 by then if I can have one for close to invoice. I don't want to wait until my original clutch goes. I estimate by Jan-Feb. my g7 Civic will have 165-170k mi. on it.
BTW don't all rush to get an '06. That drives the prices up for all of us (or most of us that don't want to pay sticker). Let them fill up their lots in October and get anxious a little, and then they 'll have no choice but to start dealing. If we could all hold out until Nov.1st to buy an '06, do you have any idea what kind of impact that will have on the prices? If they only sold 400 Civics, instead of the usual 40,000 in the month of October, they 'd be "giving them away" because they have to make room for the other 40,000 on their way in.. EVERYONE hold off a couple of weeks. We can make a difference and show them that we are not going to pay $19 grand for a dang Civic. The public, we the buyers, control the prices, aka the fair market price as Edmunds calls it. If everyone runs to the dealerships on Oct. 1st like they gotta have a Civic NOW or they 'll have a baby, what do you think dealers will do? They may even charge you more than sticker! Try and stay away for a few weeks. Pass the word, e-mail your friends. I know it won't happen but what do I have to lose? I type 65 words/min... Didn't waste too much time typing

only1harry · September 2005

""The Atomic Blue I've only seen on the website, but that is one of the two colors I'm considering when I do buy (the other being Galaxy Gray).

Interestingly, the Royal Blue is the only Civic (in history, to my knowledge) to offer a choice of two interior colors. You can get either Ivory or Gray. I've owned eight Hondas (out of nine cars in my life) and the lack of interior color options has always irritated me. I hate light interior (tan/ivory/beige). White is my favorite exterior color and the new Civic looks great in it, but it comes with ivory interior. Yuck!
I've always read that limiting one interior to the exterior color simplifies manufacturing and reduces cost. I'm sure it does and I doubt many customers refuse to buy just for this reason. I just limit my exterior color choices to ones that have the interior color I like. But a choice would be nice... ""

I agree with you completely. I have the blue '01 Civic and it only came with an tan/ivory interior. It is now pretty much black. Light interior gets dirty very easily and very fast. I hate it.

02accrdv6ex · September 2005

Here is part 2, the AUTOMATICs. Same thing as before, same calculations but plugged in the transmission & final drive ratios for the AUTOMATIC on the DX/LX/EX (SI n/a w/ AUTO). Remember that an AUTO has a fluid coupling unless you are cruising and the torque-converter is in full-lock mode. For our sake here, the calculations assume you are cruising and the torque-converter is in full-lock, therefore acting like a manual at that point. With that in mind:

Anyway, here is how the data plays out (allowing for a tolerance of about +/- 100-200 RPM or so). I have included the results from the MANUAL version below the results for the AUTO for comparison:

'06 CIVIC DX (Sedan&2DR) 5SP Auto:
Final drive: 4.437, 5th gear ratio: .525, Tires: 195/65-15
RPM@60: 1887 RPM@70: 2202 RPM@75: 2359 (Auto)

RPM@60: 2529 RPM@70: 2951 RPM@75: 3162 Manual)

'06 CIVIC LX/EX (Sedan&2DR) 5SP Auto:
Final drive: 4.437, 5th gear ratio: .525, Tires: 205/55-16
RPM@60: 1895 RPM@70: 2211 RPM@75: 2369 (Auto)

RPM@60: 2539 RPM@70: 2963 RPM@75: 3174 (Manual)

For anyone who owns/has driven these, are these at least in the ballpark?
The RPMs for the AUTO are close, but a little lower, than my '02 V6 EX Coupe (which is a 4sp auto).

Honda Civic Sedan 2006

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles