I realize this is stretching the topic a bit, but after all there are many similarities between the Civic and the CR-V mini-SUV. Moreover, this was not an intentional comparison test. I drove the automatic CR-V as replacement for my aging Accord, not for my 2000 Elantra GLS 5-speed. But as I drove my Elantra to and from the Honda dealership, I could not help comparing. The CR-V did not come out well. I liked the high seating and visibility all around, and I thought the steering, while a bit light, more precise than the Elantra's. But at all speeds the Honda engine was remarkably noisy and surprisingly weak, while at 75 mph (the legal speed limit here) the wind noise in the Honda was incredible - even the salesperson admitted she was surprised. Also at 75 mph the Honda had no pickup left at all. Finally, the brakes on the Honda were quite weak, certainly much weaker than those on the Elantra. I was so surprised at these deficiencies that, after I left the Honda showroom, I drove the Elantra over the same ground. The Elantra was markedly quieter at all speeds and at 75 mph still had plenty of strength left for passing. In summary, although the CR-V costs around $6000 more than the Elantra, I would not make an even trade.
That comparison is just as bad as edmund's econo comparison. How are you going to compare the CR-V to an elantra? the CR-V weighs 3100lbs and the Civic weighs 2400. They both have similar engines so of course the CR-V will be straining to move that extra 700lbs. Stick the Elantra engine in and you get the same result i'll wager.
As for Edmund, they give good info, but they blew it with the econo comparison. How are you going to judge half the cars auto and half the cars manual? the validity of the tests can be thrown out the window, or else you can only compare the auto to the auto and manual to manual cars in the test. There is now way you can accurately compare performance of an auto car to the manual one.
one thing i will agree on is that I too wouldn't get the CR-V. Rather get a 2yr old Explorer
isellhondas: Elantra V-6?? I don't think there is any such animal. In any event, mine is a 4-cyl. nikecar: Of course it's not a perfect comparison test. I never meant it to be. Nevertheless, I don't think it was entirely invalid. Taking each car on its own terms, the Elantra's engine is sufficient to pull its weight, the CR-V's is not; the Elantra's brakes are sufficient to stop it without undue delay or pedal pressure, the CR-V's are not; the CR-V is much noisier on the highway - wind noise, road noise, and engine noise - than the Elantra. I have seen the word "refinement" use here a lot, usually to compare Hyundai invidiously with Honda. Refinement, unlike hp per rpm or mpg of gas, is of course subjective. But I don't think a weak, noisy engine, a jerky transmission, and a raucous cabin could be deemed refined by anyone. By all these criteria, the Elantra simply outperforms the CR-V.
nikecar: You say, "of course the CR-V will be straining to move that extra 700lbs." Funny I don't recall anything in the Honda brochure I was given at the dealership about "straining," nor do I remember the saleperson mentioning it. If the Civic engine must strain to move the CR-V, perhaps Honda should install a different engine in it.
I apologize for offering 3 postings in a row, but I have learned that in my last 2, I accepted a false premise - that is, that the Honda CR-V weighs 700 lbs more than the Hyundai Elantra. In fact, the auto CR-V weighs 3,126 lbs, the manual Elantra weighs 2,626 lbs, which is a 500-lb difference. A 200-lb exaggeration, which is 40% of 500 lbs, is significant. In other words, nikecar, the CR-V's performance deficit is less justifiable than you thought - though, again, I would insist that any car should have the engine it needs without reference to whether that engine would suffice for a different car.
The majority of people would disagree with you. I think the CRV has more than enough power and they stop quite well. Noisy? Well, perhaps to a point but not so bad that many complain.
In fact, the CRV sells so well that we never have enough of them!
No giveaway low interest financing either. No reason to with sales so strong!
the crv is weaker then the elantra. it cant even be compared to the elantra. the elantra weighs less and has more horsepower. the crv has approxamately 115 hp. that car, along with toyota's rav 4 is classified as what.....it has 4 wheel independent suspension and front wheel drive, so it can't really be classified as suv. but it doesnt look like a car. so what do we call this thing....a wannabe SUV? I drove one before cause my weekend job is parking cars. its small and cramped, (maybe cause i am 6'1"). it closed like a tin can, not the solid sound you get from a honda accord. and accelerated like a slug. for this price, i rather get a baseline cherokee. at least this automobile, when people look at it, they wont have to wonder whether its a car or suv. remember all, this is my opinion, so don't start saying this is the total truth. just my 2 cents and first hand experience.
With a CRV, it's so slow that you can park it while accelerating! It maybe 146hp, but it acts like 115 hp! And yes, you can't compare it with an Elantra.
Elantra's 140hp versus CRV's 146hp. Not much difference is there? Except the CRV is supposed to be a SUV, which is a lot heavier. So how much did you say the CRV is?
So now this becomes a CRV vs Elantra discussion? Ok....... How can you compare a small SUV an a compact sedan to begin with? Next thing you know, they gonna bring the Passport into the equation, then the Elantra gonna get heavily outgunned..... Well just my 2 cents, I rather got a base Explorer than a CRV or Cherookee...I just dont trust those Jeep.
Yes, many people buy Honda CR-Vs - in 1999, to be precise, 120,754. That same year, 232,140 bought Chevrolet Blazers. Does that make the Blazer a better vehicle? For that matter, more people bought Chevy Cavaliers last year than bought Toyota Corollas. Or consider: a couple of hundred thousand more people bought Cavaliers and Escorts in 1999 than bought Civics - does that prove that Cavaliers and Escorts were better than Civics? Or that the minority that bought Civics were misdirected? Or perhaps the majority were? There are many popular models, that is models which sell in the hundreds of thousands every year, yet everybody from Consumer Reports to Edmunds to the people posting here try to compare them. If sales statistics were all that were needed, CR could close its testing labs, Edmunds could dismiss its reviewers, and accountants could rule the world. Surely the decision what car to buy would be greatly simplified - just buy what everybody else bought during the last reported accounting period. And I still think the Honda CR-V is surprisingly noisy, underpowered, and unrefined.
isellhondas...1, you would be surprised about how that job goes. yea, i park cars, but its in a separate lot, so i take the cars down a straightaway and around 2 curves, so i know how they handle. 2, you are a complete [non-permissible content removed] like most salesman out there who just know how to sell cars, not have a background of car maintance and so forth and also be irritating and annoying when trying to convince someone to buy a car. Its funny, yet sad how i know more then the salesman about a car. for example, when i was shopping before i bought the elantra. i was looking at the ford focus. salesman said it had 165 hp when we all know it has 130. So shut the hell up. You are an embarassment to honda. There are other cars out there just as good as them. the honda passport....that is the same as an izuzu rodeo. piece of crap if you ask me. so stop prazing honda for everything. they are good, but some cars out there are better then some of their models. you are really starting to piss me off, like most salesman do
george00: First you mention the similarities of the civic and CR-V so the numbers I posted in the weights of the car are of the CRV and Civic, not the elantra, and that is why I said the crv is 700 pounds more so of course the Civic engine will move the car better than the CRV. Slap the CRV engine in a civic or elantra and it will do fine and vice versa with the smaller car engine in the CRV doing poorly. About a better engine in the CRV, well then get the Passport. The purpose of the CRV isn't to be able to compete with a bigger SUV but to give people that would normally buy an econo car a chance to get the best of both worlds. Slap a bigger engine in it, the price jacks up and you can get a real SUV. When i see someone in a CRV or RAV4 or Tracker or Sportage I see someone that wants an SUV but can't afford it. The reasons they got them is the same reason you got your elantras..they are cheap for the options that are included.
and about Blazers, no they aren't better, just cheaper. and with the worst accident safety records of all the SUVs, I'll bet a bunch of people will be kicking themselves in the tail. And cavaliers are cheap too. I had a 92 and that's the reason I got it. also because my dad helped pay for it, else I would have gotten a Sentra which had better acceleration and suspension.
I just bought a 94 forerunner and think I did the wrong thing.. I am looking to trade for a small reliable car, and I want power, automatic transmission, great gas mileage. I have two jobs, and do a lot of running. I am burning a lot of fuel!!!!!!!!! My questions are: 1) Am I going to sacrifice power for fuel economy? Especially if I go to a 6 cylinder engine for the power. What I have read here concerning the Honda Civic says it is sluggish. If you go to a V-Tec engine...what does it to the feul rating. Good things are being said about the sentra...any ideas. What do you suggest is the best for the money?
get a Daewoo Nubira or a Hyundai Elantra. a very simple test. Put a Nubira next to a civic next to a corolla next to a protege next to a focus, and have normal people walking down the street inspect all of them(NO car salesmen please). If ONE person chose the civic over the Nubira, I will stop posting on the edmunds forums.
the toyota corolla is among the most reliable cars on earth. i used to have one. the reason why a lot of people over look it is because of the hefty price tag. to get it pretty loaded, its pushing 18,000. i recommend the elantra for you huntered. reliable, cheap, powerful with great gas milage and excellent warranty.
huntered. the elantra has a twin cam engine which its designed to be responsive, yet have great gas milage, like 25/35 mpg. i have the 5 spd. so, auto should be similar. i am not sure though.
heh, nikecar and jkobty will be out of here for sure then. Some1 bound to choose something rather than the civic or nubira.
hunterd: You wont get a 6 cylinder on a compact car. So... 1) The honda civic does feels underpowered sometimes unless you got the highest trim (Ex,Si), but then you spending almost 4-5k than an Elantra. If you could wait, maybe you can check out the 2001 Civic in a few months.
2) The Corolla is a nice car with good pickup, but it has lousy handling, and price can be steep too, although not as high as the civic.
3) The new Sentra seems to has a lot thing going. It has good handling, good power and priced competitively. 1st year reliability is unproven though
4) Mazda protege has the best handling on the class as well as the roomiest room. Like the civic, its underpowered unless you got highest trim (EX)
5) Hyundai Elantra has good handling, decent room and largest engine in its class, although I seem unable find the extra HP when compared to the corolla. Reliability is an issue, but the warranty should help somewhat.
My suggestion? well, I have a corolla and an elantra. If you prefer good fuel economy with decent power and top notch reliability with some price to pay, get corolla. If you want the best value and somewhat low reliability, go with Elantra. If you want the best overall handling and driving experience, get the Protege EX or Sentra. The civic is just too pricey for what you get imo.
I just test drove a sentra yesterday. Power was good. I still haven't test driven a civic or corolla; thats today. Haven't driven the elantra or protege either.....Thats on the agenda too. Thanks for info. Reliability is probably top on my list, next to gas mileage and power.
Make sure you look at the Nubira CDX in Poly Silver color. If you get anything else and then accidentally see one driving next to you, you might just kick yourself for having not looked at it. Nikecar: I ahve already chosen the Nubira over Civic, 2 days ago. so you might have to stop posting
ah but you never mentioned yourself in your little unofficial test. And if you do, then you too can stop posting because I for one would pick the Civic over the Daewoo. I would pick the Elantra over the Daewoo, I would pick the corolla over the Daewoo, I'd pick the Protege over the Daewoo, and the Focus over the Daewoo too especially if it was the Zetec engine.But of all those cars, I'd pick the Protege over all of them. Protege then Civic, tie with Focus and Elantra, corolla and Daewoo.
Until the Elantra can prove itself in the long haul of reliability, it won't endear itself to mass america. But while I would pick the civic over the elantra now, I would pick the Protege and the new Sentra over the Civic.
pick a Nubira over even an Altima, not just Sentra. My nephew has an altima that is falling apart at less than 90,000 miles. Front suspension broke, the springs punctured the right front tire, timing belt problem, underbody is totally rusted, starting to spend more time in the shop than on the road. He cannot afford to get a new car though, but do you think he will ever buy another? Canada is very rough on cheap Japanese cars.
Don't think its Canada being rough on the car, rather the car knows its in Canada and is doing all it can to get out!!! heh. j/k
I have a 99 Altima and so far no major problems. Of course I'm not in a snow area either, but I for one will keep my Altima over a Daewoo thank you very much.
Of course one man's car is another man's lemon. My old Cavalier was solid as a rock, yet other's I knew with the same car and less mileage had major problems. Even with numerous accidents to the front, it was in better condition than theirs... buying a car is like a crap shoot. one time you are lucky with a good car, next you get a lemon.
Buying a car has a very serious luck factor. For the past ten years I have only owned Korean cars. Ford Festiva, Daewoo Cielo, and now Daewoo Leganza and Nubira. So far I did not have to do any repairs on any of my Korean cars. Normal maintenance, oil, filter, brakes, tires, spark plugs. Maybe I am just lucky. Actually a smart human would like to eliminate the luck factor from the equation. Why is it that some Cavalier owners are happy while many others are not? The answer is the assembly line. Maybe the bad Cavalier was assembled on a Monday or a Friday, or maybe the united auto worker had a fight with his wife the day before, or maybe he was just tired and did not fasten that screw as tight as it needs to be. That is why the Daewoo Nubira eliminates this. It is built in the Kunsan plant, the most advanced car plants in the world. It has 350 robots each capable of building 5 different versions of the same car at the same time. NO HUMAN ever touches a Nubira until it rolls over from the assembly line. Then an engineer drives it around and does a thorough check. This car is totally built by robots, and therefore is robot perfect. Robots do not have fights with their union or with their wives, they do not ask for more money, and they do not get tired. That is why the Kunsan plant was labeled by the Financial Times as the most advanced and most efficient plant in the world. The other top 9 plants were of course Japanese. In edmunds latest review of economy cars, they placed Nubira as #5 out of 10. Civic and Corolla were #9 and #7 I think. They said that it is a no brainer to build an $18,000 economy car, but for Daewoo to build a car as good as the Nubira and charge so little for it is a great achievement. The only reason it was not #1 is because it is still new to North America, and thus people do not quite know it yet. But in countries like Australia where it has been selling since 1997, they labeled it as the BEST DEAL in town. I will try to find the article and paste a link to it.
Hmmm.... Jkobty, Elantra is cheaper and offers more features than the Nubira. Edmund also ranked it better than Nubira in the test (#3 vs #5), so is that means the Elantra is even a GREATER achievement than the Nubira? If so, people should buy Elantra instead of Nubira then.
As I said before the only reason Nubira did not rank #1 is because it is rather new on the market. Here is an Australian article comparing the 2000 Nubira with the 2000 Elantra, Corolla, Sentra(Pulsar). http://drive.fairfax.com.au/content/20000121/reviews/review1.html
Excerpts: 1. The Nubira is light years ahead of Hyundai's Lantra and in several respects - engine performance, equipment, space and comfort - is now also a better car than its $20,000 Japanese competition 2. With trim, ride and handling modelled on European standards, the Nubira is more than a match for its Japanese competitors, says Bill McKinnon. 3.Hyundai and Kia tend to build cars from the Japanese textbook, while Daewoo seeks to impart a European feel and flavour to its line-up.
4.The Nubira was styled in Italy, had its interior decorated in Britain and supervised from drawing board to production by engineer Dr Ulrich Bez, ex-Porsche and BMW. 5.Almost two and a half years down the track, Nubira resale values are holding up strongly. Remember these guys have had more experience than Americans with Daewoo cars, so they know what they are talking about. 6. The Nubira is the heaviest car in this class, and feels respectably tight and solid on the road more articles and comparisons 7.Daewoo has modelled the Nubira's interior on the VW Golf. The dash layout, quality materials, comprehensive trimming and fit and finish are within a whisker of Japanese standards. 99 Nubira http://www.autofan.com/november/1/index.htm 2000 Nubira http://www.autoworld.com/news/Daewoo/NubiraII_Test.htm 2000 Nubira by carpoint http://carpoint.msn.com/vip//Overview/Daewoo/Nubira/New.asp
But you are right, Elantra is too a good deal, as I said before. That is if you can live with the ugly styling. I couldn't. In fact my wife was able to get a similar monthly payment on a Sonata GL 4Cyl. But she still went for the Nubira. It is nice to drive a good looking car.
3. Elantra's peak HP is at 6000 RPM!!! when was the last time you drove a Hyundai at 6000 RPM. DO it twice a week and the car will be junked in a few weeks. I prefer the larger torque at a lower RPM. HP is a number you dream about and read on paper. Daewoo engines were designed to give you all the torque you need at low rpm so that your engine lasts a long time. They are not race cars, but their design ensures that you do not have to abuse the engine to get it to behave. Their engines are called long winding, or have long legs.
4. Nubira has a proven engine designed in Germany and built by GM Holden in Australia. The transmission is also GM.
5. Nubira has ABS (BOSCH), which to many people is very important.
6. Nubira has a SONY 6 speaker CD system.
As you can see, Daewoo is charging a Korean price for its cars, but its cars are fitted with the highest level of brand name equipment possible.
Styling is subjective, and I may have different taste than that Italian designer. I think Elantra is nicer than the nubira and you think its the opposite, thats totally acceptable, otherwise this world will be so dull.
Regarding 0-60 speed, my number comes from edmund directly, and they are both for manual. The carpoint links indicates that the car engine is 1.8L????? Newsflash: The engine is 2.0L, they switched it since the 1999 model! Its bad when an auto reviewer cant even get some of the basic specs right... If there's discrepancy, then its between Edmund and Carpoint, but I tend to believe Edmund, since Carpoint mistaken the engine for something else.
Regarding HP, Nubira hp peak up at 5400rpm, so when did someone drove it up to 5400rpm as well? And for the torque, Nubira max torque is at 4800rpm, Elantra is at 4400rpm, not much difference there. The carpoint link also showed that the Elantra has faster top speed as well (both auto and manual), while Edmund showed that Elantra has better EPA mileage. Looks like the Elantra engine is not that bad at all.
Whats wrong with the Elantra interior? Except for the choice of fabric color being displayed in your example, I dont find anything wrong with it. I also think the Corolla interior is a bit better than both of them.
Here are the prices that I got from Edmund, both cars are equipped similarly: (auto,abs,ac, cruise, cd, power everything) ELantra GLS: $12,960 Nubira CDX: $14,697 (it does have alloy wheels though, should cost around $300-400)
So for what its worth, I think you find that the $1,300 difference for the same features is justified for the nubira, while I on the other hand think it can be spend on something else.
Thanks. After following the Leganza forum, I thought you will jump out and hit anything that non-Daewoo. Its always nice to have civil disagreement. ^__^
magazines are normally biased because they have to please the carmakers that ADVERTISE with them the most. Listen and Watch when the Ford Daewoo deal is finalised how all those car magazines will suddenly take a 180 degree turn in their opinions about Daewoo. And who will make them "Change" their mind? Ford money of course. Should you beleive them when they start saying all nice things about Daewoos? Even though Daewoo cars deserve every praise, I would not take a biased magazine opinion for it. Go and check it out for yourself, and you be the judge.
Find that highly doubtful. But if your happy with your Daewoo..congrats.. I don't care if Korea is the #1 shipbuilding nation, or the highest per capita consumers of dog meat, still wouldn't buy one of their cars.
gee where is it that I've said I've never been in one? point it to me please. Do I own one? no. why? because I've been in them and don't like them. I could care less what other's think. You nor they pay off my car loan. and neither do the magazine editors. the styling is ugly IMO, and to be honest with you the best thing I thought was the price. but until those cars get a proven track record only a few will ever get them. sorry.
I think it is funny. I laughed my head off checking the Elantra forum. Stalling problems and transmission problems and poor gas mileage 18mpg! Too bad you think Elantra is better than Nubira still. Daewoo's are the only Korean cars worth buying. Check the Nubira forum, you will not find complaints. Keep hold of your warranty papers now you might just get to use them a lot. As I said before, the difference is that Daewoo plays it safe and uses proven technology from very reputable suppliers. They make less profit on their cars, but at least they keep their customers.
What transmission problem? Are you referring the stalling is due to transmission problem? I have not experience that at all, so I can't comment on that one. Maybe elantra00 knows about it a bit more.
That poor gas mileage is because the Elantra is used for short trips (1-2 miles) all the time through traffic jam (not to mention having a brother that doesnt keep good track of fuel & mileage ^_^). I stated later that we took the Elantra for a combine city and highway drive and gets 32mpg (auto). Dont think its that bad especially since its only has around 1400 miles in it, so its still around break-in time. There are some post in the Nubira forum that stated they have poor mileage as well (22 mpg and 220 miles on a full tank)
Nah, I dont think Elantra is better than Nubira, but I do think they offer better value for the similar features you get. And yes, the warranty is extra nice as well. Besides, it does have a bit better resale value (albeit too little to have any significant effect).
the stalling is due to low idling in all elantras, manual and auto. i noticed that my elantra idles at about 500 rpms. (manual transmission). never stalled on me once cause its in neutral when i stop. however, i had the same problem with my old car, an 86 toyota corolla. it was auto and stalled on me more and more until i did something about it. cranked up the idle to 1000 rpms. ran fine then on. jkobty, maybe if you opened your eyes while you read, you would see that the car was still in its "break in" period and thats why it was due to the gas milage. as well as the stalling with the automatic trans. the manuals were fine. so don't jump to conclusions. know your facts, then talk.
just having fun . The Elantra should serve you well. You can't be all that bad, at least you were smart enough not to get an overpriced Honda or Toyota.
to the price of a used Honda or Toyota in 5 years when you can buy a brand new Daewoo for the same money? Do I hear resale values down the drain. you got it.
I cannot believe that isellhondas is still harping on resale when even he has admitted he was overdoing it. I feel constrained to respond, though I know I am probably wasting my time, because I really would like this forum to compare the Elantra with the Civic and perhaps other competitive cars in meaningful ways. Anyway, here goes: 1. Who is having trouble selling Hyundais - Honda dealers like isellhondas? It is true that I do not see any used Hyundais for sale on the local Honda dealer's lot - perhaps Hyundai owners for some reason don't want to trade for Hondas. Hyundai dealers are having no trouble at all selling their cars. According to a dealer here who also sells Mazdas, Dodges, and other makes, the Elantra is their best selling car by far - and that is confirmed by the appearance of more and more of them on the streets and in the parking lots. I put my key in the door of someone else's car just the other day. 2. Resale value is a complex equation, not just a matter of comparing purchase price and resale price. First, if you borrow the purchase money, you will pay interest on the higher amount every year of the loan; and if you pay cash, you will lose the interest or other investment income on that extra money forever. Second, in most places you pay sales tax and perhaps other taxes based upon the price of the car - that tax is not recoverable upon resale. Third, in many places, there is an annual tax based upon the depreciated value of the car, which is based upon a statutory formula, not supposed resale value - and those taxes are not recoverable upon resale. Fourth, insurance premiums are naturally more expensive for a more expensive car, as the insurance company's exposure in case of accident or theft is that much higher - another higher annual expenditure. Fifth, all cars have problems, even the very best. I have spent several thousand dollars over the years keeping my 1990 Honda Accord going. Hyundai's much longer warranties - 5 years bumper-to-bumper, 10 years on the powertrain - will likely save you significant sums in repair work. 3. Extra taxes at the beginning, extra taxes every year, lost interest on the extra money (the higher purchase price as well as the higher taxes), higher insurance premiums every year, uncovered repair costs - it is likely, indeed virtually certain, that a Civic will cost you more than an Elantra in the long run, as well as in the short run. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy a Civic. Perhaps it's worth the extra money to you. But to claim it's cheaper is economic nonsense. 4. Now it would be nice to compare seating comfort in the two cars, transmission and engine performance, sound systems, quiet, driving enjoyment - those things which determine what a car is worth to us now. Isn't what this forum is supposed to be about?
Elantra00: So the stalling is due to low idling? I noticed this Elantra idle around 850 rpm, so I should be ok. Thanks for the info.
IsellHondas: Like george00 said, the total cost of ownership is the most important one. But do consider that civic cost more to begin with than an elantra, so its natural they have a higher resale value.
George00: Excellent explanation of the resale value and other factor that contribute to total cost of ownership. Do you have any link that maybe can show that Elantra does cost less in the long run than a civic?
Getting back to the subject, here's my opinion regarding the 2 car: Engine: Elantra win this one, unless the Civic Si engine is brought in (which cost even more). Comfort: Similar, both offer a degree of road noise. Found the Elantra is a bit more comfortable due to Civic low seating position. Transmission: Honda usually has a rougher transmission, and I found the Elantra transmission quite smooth. Sound System: no comment, i'm not an audio expert Driving enjoyment: Elantra is much better in an open highway, just press the pedal and go. Again, Civic Si WILL beat it hand down in this section though. Interior: Honda and Toyota usually excel in this section. Fit & finish lean to Honda.
Elantra probably offer the best value for your money right now. No other car in the compact class can offer the same features without costing at least $1500 or more.
Comments
Is your Elantra a V-6?
As for Edmund, they give good info, but they blew it with the econo comparison. How are you going to judge half the cars auto and half the cars manual? the validity of the tests can be thrown out the window, or else you can only compare the auto to the auto and manual to manual cars in the test. There is now way you can accurately compare performance of an auto car to the manual one.
one thing i will agree on is that I too wouldn't get the CR-V. Rather get a 2yr old Explorer
nikecar: Of course it's not a perfect comparison test. I never meant it to be. Nevertheless, I don't think it was entirely invalid. Taking each car on its own terms, the Elantra's engine is sufficient to pull its weight, the CR-V's is not; the Elantra's brakes are sufficient to stop it without undue delay or pedal pressure, the CR-V's are not; the CR-V is much noisier on the highway - wind noise, road noise, and engine noise - than the Elantra. I have seen the word "refinement" use here a lot, usually to compare Hyundai invidiously with Honda. Refinement, unlike hp per rpm or mpg of gas, is of course subjective. But I don't think a weak, noisy engine, a jerky transmission, and a raucous cabin could be deemed refined by anyone. By all these criteria, the Elantra simply outperforms the CR-V.
The majority of people would disagree with you. I think the CRV has more than enough power and they stop quite well. Noisy? Well, perhaps to a point but not so bad that many complain.
In fact, the CRV sells so well that we never have enough of them!
No giveaway low interest financing either. No reason to with sales so strong!
Why are you guys even comparing these in the first place? They are totally different.
You should be comparing the Elantra to a Daewoo or something!
And by "parking" a car, you can tell that it accelerates like a "slug"...amazing!
Sure hope you never park one of my cars!
Ok....... How can you compare a small SUV an a compact sedan to begin with? Next thing you know, they gonna bring the Passport into the equation, then the Elantra gonna get heavily outgunned.....
Well just my 2 cents, I rather got a base Explorer than a CRV or Cherookee...I just dont trust those Jeep.
First you mention the similarities of the civic and CR-V so the numbers I posted in the weights of the car are of the CRV and Civic, not the elantra, and that is why I said the crv is 700 pounds more so of course the Civic engine will move the car better than the CRV. Slap the CRV engine in a civic or elantra and it will do fine and vice versa with the smaller car engine in the CRV doing poorly.
About a better engine in the CRV, well then get the Passport. The purpose of the CRV isn't to be able to compete with a bigger SUV but to give people that would normally buy an econo car a chance to get the best of both worlds. Slap a bigger engine in it, the price jacks up and you can get a real SUV. When i see someone in a CRV or RAV4 or Tracker or Sportage I see someone that wants an SUV but can't afford it. The reasons they got them is the same reason you got your elantras..they are cheap for the options that are included.
and about Blazers, no they aren't better, just cheaper. and with the worst accident safety records of all the SUVs, I'll bet a bunch of people will be kicking themselves in the tail.
And cavaliers are cheap too. I had a 92 and that's the reason I got it. also because my dad helped pay for it, else I would have gotten a Sentra which had better acceleration and suspension.
I hope you enjoy your Hyundai, and I'm glad you know so much more than I do.
george...
You missed the point. My posting was entirely tongue in cheek!
1) Am I going to sacrifice power for fuel economy? Especially if I go to a 6 cylinder engine for the power. What I have read here concerning the Honda Civic says it is sluggish. If you go to a V-Tec engine...what does it to the feul rating. Good things are being said about the sentra...any ideas. What do you suggest is the best for the money?
Toyota Corolla (also sold as Geo Prism) has superlative quality like the Civic but it also has more power. www.toyota.com
a very simple test. Put a Nubira next to a civic
next to a corolla next to a protege next to a focus, and have normal people walking down the street inspect all of them(NO car salesmen please). If ONE person chose the civic over the
Nubira, I will stop posting on the edmunds forums.
huntered. the elantra has a twin cam engine which its designed to be responsive, yet have great gas milage, like 25/35 mpg. i have the 5 spd. so, auto should be similar. i am not sure though.
hunterd:
You wont get a 6 cylinder on a compact car. So...
1) The honda civic does feels underpowered sometimes unless you got the highest trim (Ex,Si), but then you spending almost 4-5k than an Elantra. If you could wait, maybe you can check out the 2001 Civic in a few months.
2) The Corolla is a nice car with good pickup, but it has lousy handling, and price can be steep too, although not as high as the civic.
3) The new Sentra seems to has a lot thing going. It has good handling, good power and priced competitively. 1st year reliability is unproven though
4) Mazda protege has the best handling on the class as well as the roomiest room. Like the civic, its underpowered unless you got highest trim (EX)
5) Hyundai Elantra has good handling, decent room
and largest engine in its class, although I seem unable find the extra HP when compared to the corolla. Reliability is an issue, but the warranty should help somewhat.
My suggestion? well, I have a corolla and an elantra. If you prefer good fuel economy with decent power and top notch reliability with some price to pay, get corolla. If you want the best value and somewhat low reliability, go with Elantra. If you want the best overall handling and
driving experience, get the Protege EX or Sentra.
The civic is just too pricey for what you get imo.
accidentally see one driving next to you, you might just kick yourself for having not looked at it.
Nikecar: I ahve already chosen the Nubira over Civic, 2 days ago. so you might have to stop posting
Until the Elantra can prove itself in the long haul of reliability, it won't endear itself to mass america. But while I would pick the civic over the elantra now, I would pick the Protege and the new Sentra over the Civic.
Sentra. My nephew has an altima that is falling
apart at less than 90,000 miles. Front suspension
broke, the springs punctured the right front tire,
timing belt problem, underbody is totally rusted,
starting to spend more time in the shop than on the road. He cannot afford to get a new car though, but do you think he will ever buy another?
Canada is very rough on cheap Japanese cars.
I have a 99 Altima and so far no major problems. Of course I'm not in a snow area either, but I for one will keep my Altima over a Daewoo thank you very much.
Of course one man's car is another man's lemon. My old Cavalier was solid as a rock, yet other's I knew with the same car and less mileage had major problems. Even with numerous accidents to the front, it was in better condition than theirs... buying a car is like a crap shoot. one time you are lucky with a good car, next you get a lemon.
For the past ten years I have only owned Korean cars. Ford Festiva, Daewoo Cielo, and now Daewoo
Leganza and Nubira. So far I did not have to do any repairs on any of my Korean cars. Normal maintenance, oil, filter, brakes, tires, spark plugs. Maybe I am just lucky.
Actually a smart human would like to eliminate
the luck factor from the equation. Why is it that
some Cavalier owners are happy while many others
are not? The answer is the assembly line. Maybe the bad Cavalier was assembled on a Monday or a Friday, or maybe the united auto worker had a fight with his wife the day before, or maybe he was just tired and did not fasten that screw as tight as it needs to be.
That is why the Daewoo Nubira eliminates this.
It is built in the Kunsan plant, the most advanced car plants in the world. It has 350 robots each capable of building 5 different versions of the same car at the same time. NO
HUMAN ever touches a Nubira until it rolls over from the assembly line. Then an engineer drives it around and does a thorough check. This car is totally built by robots, and therefore is robot
perfect. Robots do not have fights with their union or with their wives, they do not ask for more money, and they do not get tired. That is why the Kunsan plant was labeled by the Financial Times as the most advanced and most efficient
plant in the world. The other top 9 plants were of course Japanese.
In edmunds latest review of economy cars, they placed Nubira as #5 out of 10. Civic and Corolla
were #9 and #7 I think. They said that it is a no brainer to build an $18,000 economy car, but for Daewoo to build a car as good as the Nubira and charge so little for it is a great achievement.
The only reason it was not #1 is because it is still new to North America, and thus people do not quite know it yet. But in countries like Australia where it has been selling since 1997,
they labeled it as the BEST DEAL in town. I will
try to find the article and paste a link to it.
Jkobty, Elantra is cheaper and offers more features than the Nubira. Edmund also ranked it better than Nubira in the test (#3 vs #5), so is that means the Elantra is even a GREATER achievement than the Nubira?
If so, people should buy Elantra instead of Nubira then.
Here is an Australian article comparing the 2000
Nubira with the 2000 Elantra, Corolla, Sentra(Pulsar).
http://drive.fairfax.com.au/content/20000121/reviews/review1.html
Excerpts:
1. The Nubira is light years ahead of Hyundai's Lantra and in several respects - engine performance, equipment, space and comfort - is now also a better car than its $20,000 Japanese competition
2. With trim, ride and handling modelled on European standards, the Nubira is more than a match for its Japanese competitors, says Bill McKinnon.
3.Hyundai and Kia tend to build cars from the Japanese textbook, while Daewoo seeks to impart a European feel and flavour to its line-up.
4.The Nubira was styled in Italy, had its interior decorated in Britain and supervised from drawing board to production by engineer Dr Ulrich Bez, ex-Porsche and BMW.
5.Almost two and a half years down the track, Nubira resale values are holding up strongly.
Remember these guys have had more experience than
Americans with Daewoo cars, so they know what they are talking about.
6. The Nubira is the heaviest car in this class, and feels respectably tight and solid on the road
more articles and comparisons
7.Daewoo has modelled the Nubira's interior on the VW Golf. The dash layout, quality materials, comprehensive trimming and fit and finish are within a whisker of Japanese standards.
99 Nubira
http://www.autofan.com/november/1/index.htm
2000 Nubira
http://www.autoworld.com/news/Daewoo/NubiraII_Test.htm
2000 Nubira by carpoint
http://carpoint.msn.com/vip//Overview/Daewoo/Nubira/New.asp
http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Heraud/Hyundai/Elantra/2000R.asp
http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Heraud/Daewoo/Nubira/2000R.asp
Nubira rates 70%, Elantra 63%.
But you are right, Elantra is too a good deal, as I said before. That is if you can live with the ugly styling. I couldn't. In fact my wife was able to get a similar monthly payment on a Sonata GL 4Cyl. But she still went for the Nubira. It is nice to drive a good looking car.
to blind or with no taste to say that this car
http://carpoint.msn.com/vip//Overview/Hyundai/Elantra/New.asp
YUK, YUK
is better looking than this car
http://www.autoworld.com/news/Daewoo/NubiraII_Test.htm
There is no way that you could have better taste than Giorgetto Guigiaro who styled the Nubira, and the master of Italdesign.
2. Elantra takes 10.2 seconds 0-60.
http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Heraud/Hyundai/Elantra/2000S.asp. I am comparing automatics here. a little bit of misinformation by you there when you
say Elantra is faster. Manual Nubira 0-60 is 9.2
seconds.
http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Heraud/Daewoo/Nubira/2000S.asp
3. Elantra's peak HP is at 6000 RPM!!! when was the last time you drove a Hyundai at 6000 RPM.
DO it twice a week and the car will be junked in a few weeks. I prefer the larger torque at a lower RPM. HP is a number you dream about and read on paper. Daewoo engines were designed to give you all the torque you need at low rpm so that your engine lasts a long time. They are not race cars, but their design ensures that you do not have to abuse the engine to get it to behave.
Their engines are called long winding, or have long legs.
4. Nubira has a proven engine designed in Germany and built by GM Holden in Australia. The transmission is also GM.
5. Nubira has ABS (BOSCH), which to many people is very important.
6. Nubira has a SONY 6 speaker CD system.
As you can see, Daewoo is charging a Korean price for its cars, but its cars are fitted with the highest level of brand name equipment possible.
Take a look at the ugly Elantra interior
http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Gallery/Hyundai/Elantra/1.asp
VS
The VW Golf look in the Nubira
http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Gallery/Daewoo/Nubira/0.asp
Regarding 0-60 speed, my number comes from edmund directly, and they are both for manual. The carpoint links indicates that the car engine is 1.8L????? Newsflash: The engine is 2.0L, they switched it since the 1999 model! Its bad when an auto reviewer cant even get some of the basic specs right...
If there's discrepancy, then its between Edmund and Carpoint, but I tend to believe Edmund, since Carpoint mistaken the engine for something else.
Regarding HP, Nubira hp peak up at 5400rpm, so when did someone drove it up to 5400rpm as well?
And for the torque, Nubira max torque is at 4800rpm, Elantra is at 4400rpm, not much difference there. The carpoint link also showed that the Elantra has faster top speed as well (both auto and manual), while Edmund showed that Elantra has better EPA mileage. Looks like the Elantra engine is not that bad at all.
Whats wrong with the Elantra interior? Except for the choice of fabric color being displayed in your example, I dont find anything wrong with it. I also think the Corolla interior is a bit better than both of them.
Here are the prices that I got from Edmund, both cars are equipped similarly: (auto,abs,ac, cruise,
cd, power everything)
ELantra GLS: $12,960
Nubira CDX: $14,697 (it does have alloy wheels though, should cost around $300-400)
So for what its worth, I think you find that the $1,300 difference for the same features is justified for the nubira, while I on the other hand think it can be spend on something else.
Again, strictly my opinion.
luck. You cannot go wrong either way.
the most. Listen and Watch when the Ford Daewoo
deal is finalised how all those car magazines will suddenly take a 180 degree turn in their
opinions about Daewoo. And who will make them
"Change" their mind? Ford money of course. Should
you beleive them when they start saying all nice
things about Daewoos? Even though Daewoo cars deserve every praise, I would not take a biased magazine opinion for it. Go and check it out for
yourself, and you be the judge.
and transmission problems and poor gas mileage
18mpg! Too bad you think Elantra is better than
Nubira still. Daewoo's are the only Korean cars
worth buying. Check the Nubira forum, you will not
find complaints. Keep hold of your warranty papers now you might just get to use them a lot.
As I said before, the difference is that Daewoo
plays it safe and uses proven technology from
very reputable suppliers. They make less profit
on their cars, but at least they keep their
customers.
stalling is due to transmission problem? I have not
experience that at all, so I can't comment on that
one. Maybe elantra00 knows about it a bit more.
That poor gas mileage is because the Elantra is
used for short trips (1-2 miles) all the time
through traffic jam (not to mention having a
brother that doesnt keep good track of fuel &
mileage ^_^). I stated later that we took the
Elantra for a combine city and highway drive and
gets 32mpg (auto). Dont think its that bad
especially since its only has around 1400 miles in
it, so its still around break-in time. There are
some post in the Nubira forum that stated they have
poor mileage as well (22 mpg and 220 miles on a
full tank)
Nah, I dont think Elantra is better than Nubira,
but I do think they offer better value for the
similar features you get. And yes, the warranty is
extra nice as well. Besides, it does have a bit
better resale value (albeit too little to have any
significant effect).
you well. You can't be all that bad, at least
you were smart enough not to get an overpriced
Honda or Toyota.
I know this is hard to understand, but...
It's the total cost of ownership that really determines price in the long run.
If today's "bargain" is worth next to nothing in five years then perhaps the Honda or Toyota wasn't "overpriced" at all!
when you can buy a brand new Daewoo
for the same money?
Do I hear resale values down the drain. you got it.
But...no...I don't "have" anything...sorry!
I just know how impossibly hard Korean cars are to sell in the used car market. You probably don't like to hear or admit it, but it's a fact.
Ask anyone in the business.
Of course, things could change I guess.
1. Who is having trouble selling Hyundais - Honda dealers like isellhondas? It is true that I do not see any used Hyundais for sale on the local Honda dealer's lot - perhaps Hyundai owners for some reason don't want to trade for Hondas. Hyundai dealers are having no trouble at all selling their cars. According to a dealer here who also sells Mazdas, Dodges, and other makes, the Elantra is their best selling car by far - and that is confirmed by the appearance of more and more of them on the streets and in the parking lots. I put my key in the door of someone else's car just the other day.
2. Resale value is a complex equation, not just a matter of comparing purchase price and resale price. First, if you borrow the purchase money, you will pay interest on the higher amount every year of the loan; and if you pay cash, you will lose the interest or other investment income on that extra money forever. Second, in most places you pay sales tax and perhaps other taxes based upon the price of the car - that tax is not recoverable upon resale. Third, in many places, there is an annual tax based upon the depreciated value of the car, which is based upon a statutory formula, not supposed resale value - and those taxes are not recoverable upon resale. Fourth, insurance premiums are naturally more expensive for a more expensive car, as the insurance company's exposure in case of accident or theft is that much higher - another higher annual expenditure. Fifth, all cars have problems, even the very best. I have spent several thousand dollars over the years keeping my 1990 Honda Accord going. Hyundai's much longer warranties - 5 years bumper-to-bumper, 10 years on the powertrain - will likely save you significant sums in repair work.
3. Extra taxes at the beginning, extra taxes every year, lost interest on the extra money (the higher purchase price as well as the higher taxes), higher insurance premiums every year, uncovered repair costs - it is likely, indeed virtually certain, that a Civic will cost you more than an Elantra in the long run, as well as in the short run. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy a Civic. Perhaps it's worth the extra money to you. But to claim it's cheaper is economic nonsense.
4. Now it would be nice to compare seating comfort in the two cars, transmission and engine performance, sound systems, quiet, driving enjoyment - those things which determine what a car is worth to us now. Isn't what this forum is supposed to be about?
So the stalling is due to low idling? I noticed this Elantra idle around 850 rpm, so I should be ok. Thanks for the info.
IsellHondas:
Like george00 said, the total cost of ownership is the most important one. But do consider that civic cost more to begin with than an elantra, so its natural they have a higher resale value.
George00:
Excellent explanation of the resale value and other factor that contribute to total cost of ownership. Do you have any link that maybe can show that Elantra does cost less in the long run than a civic?
Getting back to the subject, here's my opinion regarding the 2 car:
Engine:
Elantra win this one, unless the Civic Si engine is brought in (which cost even more).
Comfort:
Similar, both offer a degree of road noise. Found the Elantra is a bit more comfortable due to Civic low seating position.
Transmission:
Honda usually has a rougher transmission, and I found the Elantra transmission quite smooth.
Sound System:
no comment, i'm not an audio expert
Driving enjoyment:
Elantra is much better in an open highway, just press the pedal and go. Again, Civic Si WILL beat it hand down in this section though.
Interior:
Honda and Toyota usually excel in this section. Fit & finish lean to Honda.
Elantra probably offer the best value for your money right now. No other car in the compact class can offer the same features without costing at least $1500 or more.