Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Honda Civic vs. Hyundai Elantra

1212224262733

Comments

  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Honda is a very profitable company, and it would not surprise me to learn that the profit per Civic is more than the profit per Elantra--especially since there are large rebates on the Elantra and no Honda-to-consumer rebates on the Civic.

    But there are some cost savings involved, for example:

    * Hyundai is a much larger company than Honda and is more horizontally integrated, thus has greater control of the end-to-end process. For example, it produces its own steel, makes its own industrial robots, and makes its own container ships. I don't know that Honda does all that.

    * Labor rates in Korea are lower than in Japan, but are going up. As Hyundai shifts production to the U.S., its labor costs will continue to rise.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Member Posts: 2,798
    Has it ever occured to anyone that a Honda Civic does not cost $4000 more to make than a Hyundai?

    Elantra GLSes normally sell for about $12,000 (-Edmunds TMV), and Civic LXes normally sell for about $16,000.

    Considering that these cars have about the same level of sophistication and equipment, and also factoring in that the Hyundai's price includes the 100,000 mile warranty, where is that other money going?

    Does a Civic cost $4000 more than an Elantra to build? I'd guess no.


    Honda pays US workers salaries in US dollars. While Hyundai pays its Korean workers Korean wages. Maybe this is why the new Chevy's are built in Korea? Maybe because the labor is cheaper there? Just a hunch. :-)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    As per post 1164... Hyundai pays U.S. workers salaries in U.S. dollars also. But the Elantra isn't made in the U.S.--yet.

    BTW, only one Chevy--the Aveo--is made in Korea. It's way cheaper to use Daewoo's existing facilities to make a small car than to tool up a factory in the U.S. to make a car that will sell in limited volume, at a small profit per car.
  • smith20smith20 Member Posts: 256
    In addition to Hyundai making many of its own components, the non-Hyundai Korean supplied components will generally be cheaper than the Japanese/US supplied components. Furthermore, as Hyundai moves to US based manufacturing, much of the R&D costs are still going to be in Korean wages.

    However, opening US production facilities is actually financially very useful and not just beneficial for logistic and marketing reasons. Producing the US market cars domestically in the US is an important hedge against a weak US dollar, such as we've seen the past 3 years. It's kind of like the principle behind investing in both stocks and bonds at the same time.
  • mononeomononeo Member Posts: 89
    Korean currency is actually strong against the dollar right now, which means that the cost-benefit for building the cars in Korea is extremely diminished.

    Currency issues are quite interesting. One of the reasons why Japanese cars have been so much better than American cars for quite some time is that the ¥ wasn't worth as much as the $ for a really long time. Hence, things cost less in Japan and they could cram a lot more into each car for less money. Now that the US economy has diminished, the $ is weak and American cars can have more stuff put in them for less money. This is a simplistic approach for explaining this affect, and yes, many other factors play into it, but for the most part it is true. So when you see companies like Hyundai shifting production to the US, you aren't going to see their costs rise, as labor is not a big cost in car manufacturing. The USA Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama plant has the ability to be fully automated, and while not fully automated, has the capacity for 300,000 vehicles annually. Do you know how many people work there? 250-300... That's not a lot of salaries for producing 300,000 cars.
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    I see your point, however, I don't think the value of the dollar has much to do with the perceived poor quality of American vehicles. Japanese cars have been more reliable vehicles for two simple reasons, the absence of labor unions and the absence of employment-based litigation. Engineers that specify cheap parts that fail and production workers that assemble incorrectly aren't held responsible in "modern" America. In Japan, I would suspect that poor performers get fired. Ultimately, I see foreign companies that assemble vehicles in the USA going through the same quality problems within 10-15 years after the unions and lawyers get a foot into the assembly plants.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Member Posts: 2,798
    I see your point, however, I don't think the value of the dollar has much to do with the perceived poor quality of American vehicles. Japanese cars have been more reliable vehicles for two simple reasons, the absence of labor unions and the absence of employment-based litigation. Engineers that specify cheap parts that fail and production workers that assemble incorrectly aren't held responsible in "modern" America. In Japan, I would suspect that poor performers get fired. Ultimately, I see foreign companies that assemble vehicles in the USA going through the same quality problems within 10-15 years after the unions and lawyers get a foot into the assembly plants.

    This is not the way a Japanese comany operates, I worked for a Japanese corporation in Japan and have some insight into how quality is viewed.
    US - for most companies quality is achieved by Quality Control = Inspections

    Japan - for 99% of the companies quality is engineered into the product and the process. There is no need for QC, although there is a small QC department that tests random products. The product and processes are designed in such a way that it eliminates possibility of making defects, thus eliminating reliance on inspections.

    This approach was designed by an American statistician (Dr. Deming) while working for Western Electric in the 1930's, but was quickly abandoned in the US after WWII. He was invited to Japan to help Japan rebuild their indstry. They have taken his teachings to the full potential and beyond.

    Japanese workers take pride in the job they do, no matter how miniscule it is. Whether it is Janitor cleaning the bathroom or a VP running a corporation. The drive to do good job is the same. It would bring great shame on one's family to not to do quality work.

    The work ethics go both ways, if a corporation is not doing well, there are no massive layoffs. If corporation has to let someone go, the VP woudl personally call other companies and find a job for the laid off worker. If the company is not performing well, only the people responsible for the downfall get punished, the VP's and other executives lose their bonuses and their salaries are reduced, until the bring the company back out of the red. When was the last time any US company punished the people responsible for the company's downfall? US companies lay off some workers to increase profits so that upper managment can get their million dollar salaries and bonuses. This is why Japanese workers devote them selves to their job, while US workers just go to work.

    I agree that UNIONS is one of the detriments to quality automotive products. Neither Honda nor Toyota allow unions at the US assembly plants.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Interesting stuff, but consider most Civics sold in North America are not made in Japan, but in North America, and Elantras sold in North America are made in neither the U.S. nor Japan but the Republic of Korea.

    One factor contributing to the improved quality of Hyundais (like the Elantra) in the past few years is the use of new factories with state-of-the-art robotics. Hyundai built a new factory for the current-gen Elantra. How has Honda's manufacturing process for the Civic kept up? Has it slipped any since the legendary Civics of yore? For example, the current-gen Civics were fraught with recalls and other problems when they came out. Honda used to introduce new cars in Japan before sending them to the U.S. Now they are introduced globally at about the same time. I wonder if that has had an impact on initial problems (the transmission, braking, and rattles problems on early current-gen Accords being another example)?
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Member Posts: 2,798
    The Accords we get are the USDM Accords and the only place to get them. The rest of the world gets what we call Acura TSX as Honda Accord.
  • tanya2tanya2 Member Posts: 29
    In the automotive world you basically get what you pay for! The Hyundai Sonata is a good looking vehicle, but I am not so sure that it is of the same quality of the Honda Accord. Yes, you can get some good service out of these vehicle, and if you keep the vehicle for six plus years, you will probably get your money out of the vehicle is use. But if you like to trade every three years, I do not think that a Hyundai is a good choice, because your down payment on the new vehicle is the value of the three year old Hyundai. Outside of a Hyundai dealer, I cannot think of another car dealer who would want to take a Hyundai vehicle on trade. If they take the vehicle on trade, they will give you a low value, because it will sit on the lot for a long time. They are hard to sell used! Tanya
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Accords, Sonatas... how about Civics and Elantras??

    Tanya2, have you seen the new Sonata yet, or read reviews of it? Also, how many times have you attempted to sell a used Hyundai? How many Hyundais (specifically Elantras for this discussion) have you owned? Driven?
  • tanya2tanya2 Member Posts: 29
    As an example, the 2005 Hyundai GT 4 door hatchback is an impressive looking vehicle. It comes with a 2.0 / 4 cylinder / 16 valve engine at 132 hp, and a 4 speed automatic trans. The vehicle seems to have a lot of goodies in the package, and it's price $15,699 MSRP and $14,577 INVOICE looks great. But, here is the all important question: What percentage of the purchase price, on this vehicle, will you get back, as a trade-in value, after three years / 36,000 miles, as compared to the Honda Civic? The image of the Hyundai , right or wrong, is not that of a Honda, and value is perceived on image!
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    That is a good question. And I think you asked it the right way--looking at purchase price. But IMO we should look not at percentage, but actual dollars, because it's the dollars we spend (or put in the bank). What I can tell you is that I bought my loaded '04 Elantra GT for $13.2k + T&L, and that included 3 years of free maintenance. I routinely see '02 GTs (without ABS/traction, mine has that) with moonroof going for around $10k. Add the value of the ABS/traction feature, and we're looking at less than $1000 depreciation per year over the first 3 years. I think that is pretty good for any car. However, I really don't care, because I expect to have both Elantras I own in my family for at least 10 years, to take full advantage of the 10/100k powertrain warranty.

    P.S. My '04 GT has a 138 hp DOHC CVVT engine. The SULEV models have 132 hp, however--not available in my state. What are the comparable power and emissions figures for the Civic?
  • smith20smith20 Member Posts: 256
    I strongly second Backy's point here. Each percentage point of loss on an $18k car is a loss of $180 while each percentage point of loss on a $14k car is only a loss of $140. So the percentages points between different cars are apples and oranges unless the cars have the exact same initial price. In my opinion, the term "good resale value" is a misnomer. All depreciation is bad, period. Thus, limiting one's total investment up-front in that money-losing asset is a very important factor.
  • csandstecsandste Member Posts: 1,866
    under retail--- from several non-Hyundai dealers. In each case the car moved quickly and they wouldn't deal with me.

    Enterprise sells used rental Sonatas non-dicker -- at a price within $1000 of new-- one year old with 30K for godsake. They all move within a week or two. I don't think that's smart, but hey...Hyundai's get about the same price as Mazdas and do better than Mitsubishis, though not as good as Toyotas and Hondas at Enterprise lots.

    Dealers do perpetuate the idea of no trade in value on Hyundai owners then mark them WAY up.
  • mononeomononeo Member Posts: 89
    Correction, the Accord we have in the United States is available in Japan under the name of Honda Inspire. The car that was the TL here evolved into what the Accord we have now is. It is the TL we have here that is a car that is unavailable anywhere else in the world. This is why to a lot of people the Accord is a lot nicer than it was, because it is. It is a Japanese luxury car that is crapped out a little.

    Go onto the Honda site and compare the resale value of a CR-V to a Tucson, which is Hyundai's latest greatest quality product offering. Anyone can see that the Tucson has 3% worse resale value than a CR-V. Now think of what that rate will be like when all the other new Hyundais come out. If all the vehicles are great, it will hold up the brand as a whole, and it is possible for their entire range to see better rates of residual value with the effect of synergy.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Member Posts: 2,798
    ....What I can tell you is that I bought my loaded '04 Elantra GT for $13.2k + T&L, and that included 3 years of free maintenance. I routinely see '02 GTs (without ABS/traction, mine has that) with moonroof going for around $10k...

    The prices yo mentioned are retail asking prices. Which means that trade in values are about $3000 lower. For someone to buy a car for $13,000 and only get $7,000 after 3 years/36,000 miles is a pity.
    I bought my 2002 Si for $14,500 brand new. Last Thursday, I went to see what I can get for it on trade-in for a CR-V. I was given $12,500 as trade in allowance. I'd say NOT BAD!!!
  • smith20smith20 Member Posts: 256
    "I bought my 2002 Si for $14,500 brand new. Last Thursday, I went to see what I can get for it on trade-in for a CR-V. I was given $12,500 as trade in allowance. I'd say NOT BAD!!!"

    That is indeed phenomenal, but how did you get one for that cheap? I imagine the average person would have paid $3,000 or $4,000 more than what you paid for it. Going from 18k to 12.5k would not be that great.
  • smith20smith20 Member Posts: 256
    Edmunds also predicts 10k trade-in, and 13k dealer retail on that car, so that's a fantastic offer you got on trade-in.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Why restrict the discussion to trade in values? Of the many cars I've owned over the years, I've only traded one in. I've sold the rest myself because I take very good care of my cars, don't drive that many miles, and get excellent money for them. I would never trade in a car in excellent condition if I could get $1-2000 more selling it myself.
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    Phemonenal, and unusual. I paid $16,500 for a new SI in 2003. I considered a trade on a 2005 Corolla XRS and was quoted $11,000 (as a trade-in value) after negotiating the XRS down as far as possible. The hatchback style SI's are not holding their value nearly as well as the coupes of 1999-2000.
  • dglozmandglozman Member Posts: 178
    When calculating depreciation, actual purchase price (not MSRP) must be looked as starting point. And purchase price has to include all rebates. Also I agree that % is not a good indicator of depreciation. $ amount is more accurate. So for example if I purchase Elantra for $12000 (not including TTL, but including rebates) and sold it 3 years later for $7000, actual depreciation is $5000, and let say you bought Civic for $16000 and sold it for $11000, percentage wise Civic has a lower depreciation, but the dollar amount is the same
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Member Posts: 2,798
    That is indeed phenomenal, but how did you get one for that cheap? I imagine the average person would have paid $3,000 or $4,000 more than what you paid for it. Going from 18k to 12.5k would not be that great.

    The 2002 was not a very good year for the Si. Honda imported about 15,000 of them and only sold12,000. By January of 2003, dealers were giving them away. The car I bought was advertized in the paper for $15,000, I walked in and offered $14,500, they took it. I got 1.9% APR on top of that as well. There are people on the Si board who have gotten theirs for as low as $13,800. Some dealers were stubborn and did not want to negotiate, they probably still have the 2002's with 0 miles in the back lot.

    Since Honda does not offer rebates, but rather dealer incentives, these don't affect resale values as much.

    The salesman wants my car for his personal vehicle. I only have 15,000 miles on it, and it is in an immaculate condition. No dents, no dings, never been hit, nice coat of wax, clean interior... and it's black, the color he wants. I have upgraded the brakes (Honda's weak point) to Brembo Rotors and EBC green stuff pads ($120 alltogether). The lowest the dealership would sell him the new Si is $16,000 with his employee discount.

    Problem is the price of the CR-V, I know there is a dealer incentive, as some people have gotten theirs for $500 under invoice, but this dealer does not want to go bellow $200 over the invoice. I am pretty sure I can grind them down. I have nothing to lose, I have a car, they need to sell theirs. They know I am the only person who have showed interest in their 5 spd manual CR-V, they have to sell it to me. If not, they will have it on the lot for a long time.

    There are "I want" and "I need," I already have what I need, CR-V is something I want, but can live without.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Yes, and sometimes overlooked is what you can do with the extra money ($4000 in your example) over those years of ownership.

    CR just reviewed the Civic EX and Elantra GT. Both had plusses and minuses in CR's view, but overall CR rated the Elantra just a bit higher overall than the Elantra. The main plusses for the Civic were engine, fit and finish, fuel economy, controls and displays, and reliability. Main plusses for the Elantra were quietness, ride, warranty, and controls and displays. CR also praised the Elantra's "nicely finished interior." So with both cars pretty close, buyers can decide based on which car fits their needs--and budget--better.

    It's interesting to note also that sales of the Civic are down in 2005 compared to 2004.
  • tanya2tanya2 Member Posts: 29
    But what about the quality, and the operating characteristics of the two vehicles? Are they the same? Will the consumer be as happy with either vehicle?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Without knowing it, I think I answered your question in the previous post. The operating characteristics are different, so it's a matter of choosing what's important to you. If you do that, you can be happy with either car.
  • smith20smith20 Member Posts: 256
    For me personally, in 2004 the Elantra and Civic were "pretty close" in characteristics and thus I was not willing to pay more or less due to a specific feature of either car. So then when I looked at the prices, the utility being essentially the same in my eyes, I went for the Elantra. Another person might see exclusive benefits of the Honda Civic, however, and if the one or more features are worth the cost difference, then that person should buy a Honda Civic.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Or the other way around... I saw exclusive benefits of the Elantra, both in October 2000 and March 2004. One of the biggest was that the Civic is not offered in a 5-door. That knocked the Civic out of contention last year. In '00, the '01 Civic EX did not offer the driver's comfort, quiet, ride comfort, power/torque, or warranty of the '01 Elantra. And there was the not small matter of the Civic costing $6000 more that that time than the Elantra.
  • smith20smith20 Member Posts: 256
    Right, I agree and the 5-door configuration was in fact desirable for me too . . . I guess my post was one-sided since it was in response to the pro-Civic tanya2. It's obvious I think highly of Elantra's, I just want to stress I can understand why for some people a Civic would be a better choice . . . but if utility to the prospective buyer is fairly equal and it's only about money, I will debate that for a long, long time! :)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Counter-example: if I were going to keep a car for only 2-3 years, lease or buy, then the Civic would have an advantage due to its high resale value. That might vary based on circumstance (purchase price) but true in general I think. Another reason is if you carry 3 kids in the back frequently and you want the kid in the middle to have some extra leg room (no hump in the Civic). And of course the Civic has powertrain options (NG, hybrid) that the Elantra does not.
  • mononeomononeo Member Posts: 89
    Resale statistics are based on original MSRP. Hyundais never sell for MSRP. If you do the math, if you pay pretty much anything under MSRP for an Elantra and sell it within 5 years, it will have about the same resale or better than a Civic. I did the math way back when on this post, and you can't deny the laws of math people.

    Even if the Civic has, for example, 10% better resale value, you will probably end up having that absorbed by any repairs that may come up along the way.

    I'm a college student, and I work at a Chinese food restaurant that delivers everywhere in the Eugene-Springfield, Oregon metro area, the webstie is kowloons.com. In 2001, the owner bought 5 Civic DX sedans with automatics. They had 8 delivery vehicles. The vehicles got 180,000 miles on them by 2004, when they were sold. They were, this sounds odd enough, serviced by Mercedes-Benz of Eugene for all the routine maintenance which is coincidentally next door... So now only 1 of those original 5 cars is left. Why? Each of the four had to have their auto transmissions replaced every 60,000 miles. The one that is left has only had it replaced twice, so the owner hasn't gotten rid of it yet. He stil buys Honda, now we have 2004 Civic VP coupes with manuals, but he will never get autos again.

    Every 60k is pretty bad... If you are thinking about a Civic or an Elantra, and you have to get an auto, all things aside, I'd get a 'Lantra. Unless you plan on having it only a year or two.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Actually the Elantra is not immune to automatic tranny problems. At least with the Elantra, the tranny is covered under warranty for the first 100k miles. If I were to buy another Civic, though, I'd go for the stick shift not only to wring maximum performance out of the relatively small engines but because the Civic has one of the slickest 5-speeds of any small car. The stick on the Elantra is pretty good, but not as slick as the Civic's.
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    There are "I want" and "I need," I already have what I need, CR-V is something I want, but can live without.

    Good position for negotiations, but a CR-V? A practical, quality vehicle, but don't go getting old on me, dude. I like reading your technical input on the SI forum.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    We're getting sidetracked on some vehicles that really aren't part of this discussion - let's try to keep it to the Civic and Elantra and find other more appropriate discussions for the other vehicles. Thanks.
  • njdevilnjdevil Member Posts: 19
    we own 2005 honda civic ex special edition and a 2005 hyundai elantra gt 4 door . They both have manual transmission. They each have excellant qualities so we recommend both. If you drive automatic get the elantra which has more pep. We traded a 2003 elantra gt with 55,000 miles on it for the civic. we bought the cars from the same dealership because of the excellant service. we have owned 9 hyundai and one honda. we probably will stuck with hyundais.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I think you are the first person to post re owning both a late-model Civic and Elantra at the same time! I am curious, after owning so many Hyundais, what attracted you to the Civic?

    Also interesting that your dealership handles both makes. There was a thread earlier about Honda offering better service because the dealers carry only Hondas. In your dealer's case, offering multiple makes hasn't seemed to dilute the customer service.
  • tanya2tanya2 Member Posts: 29
    Can you post the name of the Honda / Hyundai dealer? --------Tanya
  • mononeomononeo Member Posts: 89
    I agree with Backy that if you are to buy a Civic, you should get the manual....and the auto tranny in the Elantra is better than the Civic's. The Civic's stick shift is what I would call, and I hate the cars (for a lot of reasons), great. I don't like Civics whatsoever, but their manual is about as good of a manual as a car could have in this price range.

    Has anyone ever noticed how horrendous the seats in the Civics are? My god, whenever I have to drive one they make my back hurt like no other for hours on end after I'm done driving. I know it's not me, because my father and brother both have Civics and they are always complaining? Civic owners: don't you get tired of the seats? MESSAGE TO HONDA: Americans need lumbar support!
  • tanya2tanya2 Member Posts: 29
    I use a large pillow on the back of the driver's seat of my Civic. It makes a big difference. Honda does have a big problem with seat comfort. Have you every driven an Accord, with leather, for a couple of hours? Your bottom starts to hurt, and you can't wait to make a pit stop! You are correct in that Americans need different seats. We want comfort! Tanya
  • njdevilnjdevil Member Posts: 19
    it is lehigh valley honda and hyundai (vinart dealerships) in emmaus PA
  • njdevilnjdevil Member Posts: 19
    when we brought our 2003 elantra in for service we were offered a civic as a loaner car. When we brought it back the service advisor asked us how we liked it. I told him that it was disappointed with the pep since it was automatic. He suggested that i see if there was a ex model with manual (the loaner was a lx) and try it. I did and the rest is history.
  • mcap56mcap56 Member Posts: 48
    I must echo the comments about the civic seating. I have an 04 ex manual and the seats are simply awful!! This issue isn't lack of lumbar support. If you look at the seat there is a very large bulge. There is far too much support, it isn't adjustable, and it is in the wrong place. The curve of the seat is much higher than the curve in most peoples spines. I may trade mine in because of it. A days of NYC stop and go traffic in those seats is really frustrating.

    The car is rock solid. You can't do anything to break it. But Honda's ergonomics are poor. Look at the dash mounted shifter in the SI. It ignores some of the most basic ergomomic principles. Although it is closer to the wheel, it is higher than the standard shifter. Therefore, when driving and keeping one hand on the shift and one on the wheel (like most people do when they shift a lot), you have to keep your shoulders elevated instead of a lower, more comfortable position. Look how far you have to reach for the radio. Look at how the wheel well interferes with your foot position on the clutch. I could continue.
  • mononeomononeo Member Posts: 89
    I would say first and foremost that if the Civic has one major downfall, it is the SEATS. I want to fax the president of Honda a picture of the shape of someone's spine and then the contours of the seat. I don't understand how that problem can be that persistent. I mean, this problem dates way back to early Civics. I think it may have to do with the fact that Civics are sold worldwide and that most of the world is smaller than Americans. For instance, a good friend of mine drives a 99 Integra GS-R, and she's a small Phillipino girl. Whenever we're in her car (aside all else), I have the same horrendous back pains, but she never seems to notice and thinks they are really comfortable. Perhaps it is that a majority of worldwide sales is to physically smaller people, and in the US, teenage and twenty-something women make up a significant portion of the sales, and they are physically smaller than "average" Americans (err, on average).

    Also, I think it is quite comical that you bring up the ergonomics. Honda is always hailed as the leader in ergonomics, but I don't see why anymore. Take for example the HVAC knobs. They are right by the radio knobs, and maybe it is just me, but almost everytime I reach to turn up the radio I turn the heat on! It drives me insane that after driving these cars all the time, for some reason, the design I just can't get used to. Another ergonomical anomoly is the location of the cup holders. While the Elantra's aren't the best in the industry, I think the Civic's are the worst. In front of the shifter? C'mon! That seems not only un-natural to me, but dangerous. On many occasions, I have seen people accidentally knock their shifters into the wrong gears or out of gear, and it doesn't matter if it is a manual or automatic. Also, has anyone noticed that the B-pillar (I actually don't know the name of the pillar, but I think that is it, the one next to the windshield on the left) is TOO THICK and whenever you are going around left turns you have to constantly bob your head to make sure you're not going to run over a little kid?!

    However annoying those problems are, i still think the seat one is the worst, as it is the most easily fixable.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    It's cost control. Honda puts a lot of money into their engines and they have to cut costs someplace. For example, on the last-gen Civics they cut the thread count on the fabric of the rear seats--didn't think anyone would notice. We know about moving away from the four-wheel double wishbone suspension in the current generation. And remember when the current generation debuted, it was missing things like a seat height adjuster and any sort of a center console. Obviously people complained and those features were added.

    I read once that the Elantra's seat is actually quite expensive to make. It uses firm cushioning ala Porsche and Volvo that feels hard when you first sit on it but is great for extended trips. Hyundai is one of the few companies that puts dual seat height adjusters on its entire lineup, from the lowly Accent on up. It's one of the reasons I went for the Elantra vs. the Civic.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Member Posts: 2,798
    There are "I want" and "I need," I already have what I need, CR-V is something I want, but can live without.

    Good position for negotiations, but a CR-V? A practical, quality vehicle, but don't go getting old on me, dude. I like reading your technical input on the SI forum.


    I am getting old, I am going to be 30 this summer !!!! I gave the CR-V to my girlfriend, and working on getting a 6 spd TSX.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    30 is not, I repeat NOT, getting old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If it is, then what does that make someone approaching 50????????????????
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    Those two extra doors make a big difference when getting insurance. My insurance rate went up $500 / year when I got a Civic SI in 2003. Even the Subaru WRX was quoted at a rate about $200 less than the SI. After badgering the insurance agent for 10 min, she gave me a line about the number of doors indicating the "sportiness" of the vehicle (i.e. 5 doors = cheaper than 3). I've heard this information from a few car dealerships also, although I am certainly no expert on car insurance.
  • serniterserniter Member Posts: 12
    The EX model civics have a VTEC engine. That might have added to the performance, and not just the transmission? I was looking for a car with ABS and side airbags (curtains if possible). From the few websites I visited, the Civic is available with ABS only on the EX version. Does the Elantra offer the ABS option as a stand-alone and on all models? I know that both these cars offer side airbags on all versions. Thanks.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Yes, but ABS is a little hard to find on Elantra GLS sedans I've found. It seems to be more widely available on the GT models and the GLS 5-door.
  • rail81rail81 Member Posts: 2
    We're currently considering a replacement for our second car, a '98 Ford Escort. At 130K, it's never broke but it's time to move on. To weigh the options my son and I decided to conduct an experiment. We factored in intrest payments, rebates, terms of a finance contract, etc on similiarly equiped Elantras and Civics. Even with the higher resale value of the Civic, (we gave the Honda 20% better); it's higher "get into" price offsets any advantage when you consider the additional intrest payments and lack of rebates. Factor in recient comparisons putting the Elantra ahead of the Civic (Car&Driver), and Hyundai's better warranty; the choice to us seems obvious to us. Hyundai.

    Honda's problem is you've got to move up to a higher trim level on the Civic to equal the standard features already available on the base Hyundai Elantra and that forces your to spend thousands more. You just can't make up that $3-4K higher purchase price and additional intrest with a higher resale value.
This discussion has been closed.