Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Has Honda's run - run out?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I bet a lot of ex-Civic sedan owners stepped up to a TSX, it's only about the price of your average car.
If those same people could get a Civic Sedan Type R then I bet half of them would.
The goal of the Civic is to draw people in to the Honda family. It's not a "destination" car, it's the entry-level model. I'm sure Honda would want you to move up into something else.
A hot sedan might prevent that.
Before you laugh, a *lot* of Mazda6 intenders ended up buying a Mazda3. Mazda has a bit of a problem with price overlap.
Supposedly the next Mazda6 will grow bigger. We'll see.
That CR-V has 205/70R15 tires. Unfortunately not too many great tires in that size, I found when I did research for the same size tire on my Forester.
I ended up getting a Plus One. With 16" rims you'll find much better quality tires, higher speed and load ratings, better traction and better heat resistance.
-juice
As for buyers doing their research... I dunno. Sure, plenty do, but I know many more people who've told me "I'm going to get a Corolla or a Civic" and they go out and buy a lower trim level. I tell them to look at Mazdas or Scions, but all they know is that the Corolla and Civic are safe choices. One of my friends bought a Civic LX after driving a Neon in bad shape and he consulted me the day AFTER buying it, and I gave him buyers remorse when I told him the LX doesn't have ABS. He also misses the Neon's power, but fortunately nothing else about that car. Then a month after buying the Civic, first rains of the season, he got severely rear-ended by a pickup. He was fine, better than the pickup driver, and now he appreciates the Civic a lot more. (after it was in the shop for a month)
Good point, but the Civic is already one of the lightest in its class, not much room for improvement there, especially if they are going to (as I am sure they are) give the '06 standard ABS and side air bags and curtains.
As to actual performance, C&D's big econobox comparo early this year (or late last year?) had about ten cars in it, and the Civic only ended up about sixth. In acceleration off the line it was dusted by many of the cars in the test, including the other gas mileage champ, the Corolla. I don't recall what the slalom looked like, but with the cheap high-sidewall Firestones the Civic LX gets I can't imagine it excelling more than a few in the group.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I really don't think so. A CTR would be stripped to a weight of about 2,400 lbs with no radio, bolstered cloth seats, and only a manual transmission. Carpets and headliners might be an option, nevermind floor mats. Type R cars are about performance above (nearly) everything else.
The majority of TSXs are sold with automatics, leather, and a long list of luxury features. These car blends handling performance with near luxury content. I see more people downsizing from TLs to the TSX than I do coming up from Civics.
What you might be thinking of is something like the Acura EL (sold in Canada). It's a low-level lux Civic. That car would compete somewhat with the TSX. But the EL is a bit more than a standard Civic with a bolstered engine.
The discussion thus far has ignored nearly every other aspect of what makes a car (or engine) good. Mostly, I see a discussion regarding an engine with no real attempt to define what that engine is expected to accomplish. There's no effort to fit the tool to the job, just comparisons of which tool gets a louder noise out of Tim Allen.
You want to know why the Civic didn't get a more powerful engine? It didn't need one. The job didn't call for it.
Should the Si have gotten a bigger engine? Probably. But the failure of that car is not a failure of the entire line.
OK. I wasn't talking about a 200 hp Civic Type-R.
I was talking about a 160 hp or so Civic EX. If not 160 hp, maybe 150 hp. SOMETHING more than 127 hp.
Would that be too "hot" of a sedan? Would it steal sales away from the TSX?
"You want to know why the Civic didn't get a more powerful engine? It didn't need one."
240 hp Accord.
True enough, but this ignores the fact that there are some (maybe many) people out there that base their choice of compact sedan on power and performance first, even given its mundane mission in the market (basic, safe, inexpensive transportation). The Civic is low in the pack on performance standards alone, and the interior is certainly nothing special in terms of materials (I do give it a big thumbs up for ergonomics). The looks on the exterior aren't making everyone stop and gasp. The price is higher than most of its competitors (mainly because many of the others hand out cash back like it is going out of style, but still), and the warranty is shorter. And of course, people who do research on their purchase beforehand are mostly either looking up performance numbers or safety ratings.
Safety is certainly something Honda takes very seriously, and the '06 is going to have lots of standard safety features that will put it ahead of its peers.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Sure, but show me a car company that has met every single demand the market has dreamed up. Is that a realistic expectation?
Should Honda be offering the Civic as...
A sporty coupe
An efficient coupe
A wagon
A sporty wagon
A hatchback
A sporty hatchback
A comfortable sedan
A sporty sedan
An efficient sedan
A hybrid sedan
oh... and diesels for each...
I'll bet there's a few buyers in each one of those segments.
There are some cars that are individually worse than the Civic in any given category, but they generally excel in at least one way, even if it is only warranty duration or low price. If Civic wants to be the light fuel-efficient model in its set, then fine, but it had better be tops in fuel efficiency for the LX (volume line) and fastest through the slalom (excellent handling due to lightness). Or something like that. It didn't really excel in any way at the redesign in 2001, but merely kept pace a bit, and really doesn't today. Hence my "step and a half" comment above.
Again, these are all things I want to see in the next Civic because I am something of a Honda fan, and am gunning for it remain on top of its game for many years to come. In terms of what it actually NEEDS, it may not be all of what I have "requested", but if it only takes a half step forward again for '06, it will gradually over the course of some years squander its reputation as the value and "fun" leader among compacts, I think. I don't want Civic or Honda to sink into the woodwork. I am not that worried about Honda, but Civic...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Now maybe, model for model, the Civic might price about the same as the Corolla, but he had a hell of a time finding a Civic equipped the way he liked it, at a price he liked. I've driven his Corolla a few times, and ridden in it a few times too. And while it's really too small for my tastes, it feels like a vast step ahead of the Civic. At least, the way my body fits in it!
It did. I used to own a 1988 Corolla GT-S, and it had 1.6-liter/115 HP engine. This engine was later uprated to 130 HP. At that time, the most powerful Civic had 1.5-liter engine with 105 HP.
And after all the numbers I quoted, I would hardly call Civic EX sitting atop the power game in the early 90s, unless you want to compare it to lesser models of other brands. But in that process, we would be eliminating lesser models of Civic from consideration.
As for 2001+ Civic versus 2003+ Corolla, Honda wasn't emphasizing much on Civic for the time being. It is widely understood that in general, Honda emphasized more in creating and defining its light truck offerings since mid-90s.
Now that the company has a reasonable hold and marketshare (up from 0% in 1993 to 5.9% in 2003) in light truck world, focus should revert back to mainstream cars like Civic and Accord.
I also think Honda should move back to 4-year design cycles. Five years is just too long. Honda's flex manufacturing process should pay some dividends now. At least we're not as finicky as the Japanese market is. There it seems two years is too much.
A sporty coupe
An efficient coupe
A wagon
A sporty wagon
A hatchback
A sporty hatchback
A comfortable sedan
A sporty sedan
An efficient sedan
A hybrid sedan"
I know what you're trying to get at, but I don't think asking for more power in the Civic EX is asking too much. Does it need more power? No. Does it need 127 hp? No. Does it need alloy wheels? No, it did fine without them for years. I'm sure the EX would still function with an LX Civic engine.
Doesn't the Civic LX or Civic hybrid cover the "efficient sedan" part already? If so, what is the Civic EX for? More options? The "sporty" version?
BUT, it wasn't as far behind back then as it is now.
In the past, Honda has differentiated between LX and EX with minor power upgrade as well, but that is no longer true, except in Civic today and that could change. So, I won't be surprised a bit if Honda goes about a 140 HP engine for DX, LX and EX trims, only differentiating between feature content (Honda's way of packaging things is by trim).
Si, however, could use about 200 HP to go with sport tuned suspension. Honda needs to drop this after market appeal thing and simply go with factory installed performance rubber and brakes.
BUT, it wasn't as far behind back then as it is now.
What was your count of cars that offered less power than Civic back in the day (early 90s)? For me, only Saturn LS2 came close with 1 HP less (and I italicized it for the reason), however its midrange punch would more than make up for it. Let me see what you noticed.
Well, the Civic EX has a more powerful engine than the LX. Why? Is that a "feature"?
"Let me see what you noticed."
OK, to make it apples to apples (how you like it), let's compare 1994 SEDANS to 2004 SEDANS with the most powerful available engine.
1994
Chevrolet Cavalier: 140 hp--Civic down 15 hp
Dodge Neon (1995): 132 hp--Civic down 7 hp
Ford Escort: 88 hp--Civic up 37 hp
Honda Civic: 125 HP
Mazda Protégé: 125 hp--Civic even
Nissan Sentra: 110 hp--Civic up 15 hp
Saturn SL2: 124 hp--Civic up 1 hp
Toyota Corolla: 115 hp--Civic up 10 hp
VW Jetta: 172 hp--Civic down 47 hp
Fast forward to 2004
Chevy Cavalier 140 hp--Civic down 13 hp
Dodge Neon 150 hp (SRT-4 isn't fair)--Civic down 23 hp
Ford Focus 144 hp--Civic down 17 hp
Mazda3 160 hp--Civic down 33 hp
Nissan Sentra 170 hp--Civic down 43 hp
Saturn Ion 140 hp--Civic down 13 hp
Toyota Corolla 130 hp--Civic down 3 hp (no biggie)
VW Jetta 200 hp--Civic down 73 hp
A 94' Cavalier has 140 hp, but it's a V6. It also had 185 pound feet of torque. And it's 140 peak horsepower comes at only 4000 something RPM.
The Saturn ION is also available in Redline trim. Which translates to 205hp and 200 pound feet of torque.
And why is the Neon SRT-4 unfair? You just said let's compare each car with the most powerful engine available? Did you mean, with the most powerful engine available, so long as it doesn't embarass the civic, otherwise, just the base engine?
I said I was comparing the most powerful available engines. I don't really feel like digging up all of the power curve info.
"The Saturn ION is also available in Redline trim."
Not in a sedan it isn't.
"And why is the Neon SRT-4 unfair?"
Cause it's a friggen beast and way beyond anything else available, but if you want to include it, that's fine.
"Did you mean, with the most powerful engine available, so long as it doesn't embarass the civic, otherwise, just the base engine?"
Lol. You obviously don't understand the point I am trying to make.
I am saying right now that because Honda will take the Civic upmarket, the days of the cheap Civic DX model are pretty much over. They will instead buy the four-door sedan version of the Honda Fit, which will likely have just as much interior space as the current Civic. I expect the next-generation Civic to gain at most 150 lbs. due to its somewhat larger size and the need to accommodate side-curtain airbags. As such, Honda will provide more powerful engines for the Civic LX (from 105 to 125 bhp SAE) and Civic EX (from 127 to 140 bhp) with a displacement increase to 1.8 liters. The next Civic Si model--most likely a two-door coupé--will likely get a new 2.0-liter engine rated around 190 bhp SAE.
A Civic Sedan is for an older buyer than the Civic Coupe is. They can go a little conservative with the next Civic Sedan's styling. The Civic Coupe is where Honda must put as I say a whole of pizzaz into the styling.
Yes Honda does have product overlap all over the place especially in coupes and sports cars. You got seperate exterior styling for Civic Coupe and Sedan, seperate exterior styling for Accord Coupe and Sedan, and the RSX sort of is the middle ground between the Civic Coupe and Accord Coupe I guess. If it were up to me I would just ax the seperate exterior styling of the Civic Coupe and Sedan and just make one exterior design for both Civic Coupe and sedan. The Accord Coupe I would let it stay put because to younger people the Accord Sedan is an older person's car. The Coupe model can keep the Accord name "cool" with the youth if you know what I mean. The Civic has always been a car for young people so having one exterior design for both Sedan and Coupe wouldn't hurt I don't think. I would still think the younger buyers would buy the Civic Coupe than a Civic Sedan even if both Coupe and Sedan models shared the same sheet metal and exterior styling. I think some younger people asociate 4dr cars as sometimes being old people's cars with exceptions of Mazda's new line of the 3 and 6.
Getting back to the TSX its a nice car. The styling is really elegant and the interior is real nice. I just think in reality its an Accord with sportier exterior styling and a heavier price tag. When I think about Acura I think about Integra/RSX, CL/TL, RL and MDX. The TSX I don't think about it as being part of Acura that much. I hope they don't bring out a next generation TSX to the states. I just think its overpriced. Its nice and all but the sticker shock!
But all in all, I hope you are right that Honda will see the wisdom of killing the cheapest Civic in the line, so it doesn't heavily overlap in price with the Fit.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And the problem with a 200hp Civic (problem for Honda, not for me) is that yes, it would eat into sales of the Accord, RSX, and TSX. From an enthusiast standpoint I think "so?" but Honda's used that excuse to keep the Civic type R away, so they obviously believe it. Their engines are the Civic's engine's glass ceiling, and theirs aren't as easy to power up.
Chevy Cavalier 140 hp--Civic down 13 hp
Dodge Neon 150 hp (SRT-4 isn't fair)--Civic down 23 hp
Ford Focus 144 hp--Civic down 17 hp
Mazda3 160 hp--Civic down 33 hp
Nissan Sentra 170 hp--Civic down 43 hp
Saturn Ion 140 hp--Civic down 13 hp
Toyota Corolla 130 hp--Civic down 3 hp (no biggie)
VW Jetta 200 hp--Civic down 73 hp"
Include the Civic Si in this mix and then compare.
You don't read very well do you?
I said I was comparing sedans to sedans. Robert is always talking about "apples to apples" comparisons and the only way to compare the cars that Robert was talking about is to compare sedans to sedans.
Why? Because not all of the the cars that Robert cited are available as coupes or hatchbacks, but they're ALL available as a sedan. The sedan configuration is the common denominator.
If you think that comparing a sedan to a 3 door hatchback is OK, then I'm done with this. Apples to apples. A taste of your own medicine.
For instance, the Chevy Cavalier only comes with a 140 hp 2.2. Whether you get a stripper model or a fully loaded one.
Most of the Neons only have a 132 hp 2.0. The 150 hp 2.0 is optional, and not very common.
I'm not sure which trim level of the Focus is the most popular, but I'm sure that most of them have the 2.0. Although thankfully, it looks like the 136 hp 2.0 is now the base engine. Not so long ago, they had that wussy little 110 hp unit!
Now with the Mazda3, I have a gut feeling that a greater chunk of them might be the 2.3 unit, and not the base 2.0.
Sentra? It's almost a given that the vast majority of them use that little 1.8 unit, that puts out all of 126 hp.
Ion only comes with the 2.2 Ecotech, same as the Cavalier. Although for some reason it's a bit of a dog in the Ion, where in the Cav it almost turns the thing into a musclecar. Well, for this class of car, at least!
Now the vast majority of Corollas just have that 130 hp 1.8, as the 170 hp engine is a limited production high-output model, along the same lines as the Civic SI.
As for the Jetta, I have no idea what kind of model breakdown that it would have. Since it's sportier and more upscale than the other cars in this group, I'd imagine that a goodly number of them actually DO have the 200 hp engine. However, the base engine is a 2.0 that puts out a whopping 115 hp.
I think the Civic could use an optional engine that's offered across the board, not just in a limited production hatchback that nobody's going to buy. Sure, the car still sells well without it, and performance of the 127 hp engine is adequate. But I believe an optional engine would help the car much more at the upper end of its market.
I used the vehicles that Robert picked and used the most powerful available engine, with the exception of the SRT-4. I didn't include the 170 hp Corolla either, because I used the 2004 model year.
"Most of the Neons only have a 132 hp 2.0. The 150 hp 2.0 is optional, and not very common."
But it's an option, and it's not hard to get. And, it's not uncommon.
Nissan at 170? Sure, in a Sentra SE-R Spec V, 6-speed manual only (no problem for me, but a problem for 95% of the buying public).
Corolla at 180? In the XRS only - 98% of them will have the wimpy motor.
I'm not saying for a second that Honda shouldn't buff up the Civic's power, but if you compare sedan drivelines used in the main selling models, it's a very close comparison.
Can't you get the 165 hp 2.5L in a non SE-R?
"Corolla at 180"
I didn't even use the Corolla XRS. Besides, it's 170 hp, not 180.
"VW at 200 hp"
Fine. 1.8T. 180 hp. For about the price of a loaded Civic EX.
The rest of the pack ranged from 9.5 seconds (Corolla) to 10.8 seconds (Lancer 2.0). The Civic came in at 10.5 seconds. Here's the url for the test, if anybody's interested...
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/100022/page019- .html
Oh, almost forgot about the Lancer. You can get the 2.4L in the Lancer now.
Add the Lancer to the list.
There is certainly a lot of vehement disagreement in here about Civic's relative performance among compacts and also its mission. You can't be perfect, and you can't even be best at everything. But with the Fit coming, Civic has the chance to take a real (albeit small) step upmarket for '06. That means better interiors and hopefully more power. And those standard safety features that WILL set the Civic apart from its peers. Heck, even Camry doesn't yet have standard side curtains, and I am not even sure they are AVAILABLE on the Corolla.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So, take the Jetta off the list, and add the Lancer 2.4L.
I still think a well equipped Civic with between 160-200hp would steal away at least a few TSX sales.
HP is so misleading, at least compare power-to-weight ratios.
Otherwise a Chevrolet Uplander minivan would outrun a Lotus Elise.
In a way weight is even more important than HP, because it affects acceleration just as much, but also affects braking and handling.
HP alone has very, very little significance.
-juice
We aren't talking about 4000 lb Chevy Uplanders here.
For instance, according to that 2003 Edmunds test I posted, their Civic weighed 2500 lb, the lightest of the bunch. The Corolla weighed 2,590 lb. 90 lb might not sound like much of a difference, but that's still a 3.5% increase in weight. The Lancer in that test came in at 2,734 lb, while the Suzuki Aerio was a porky 2805 lb...in the running with the base weight of your typical late 60's compact! 200-300 lb can make a big difference in this market.
Weight isn't the only factor, though. You also have to consider the tranny and the gearing, both the tranny gears and the differential gear. Yeah, I know they're FWD, but they still have a differential. And smaller engines tend to benefit from more gears.
Especiall if you have a couple of people in the car with you, very noticable.
My Intrepid, with its tiny 2.7 (tiny for a car of that size, at least) is fine with 1 or 2 people, but once you add the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, that's when I can really feel the performance dropping off.
A Jetta with a 2.slow is gonna get killed by a '91 Civic Si.
-juice
I read much better than you, and its evident to everyone from your repetitive posts which then get repititive responses.
You didn't start excluding the Si just because Robert is talking apples to apples, you have actually being excluding it since the beginning of your argument, as it punches holes in your theory. The argument with you since the beginning is whether the Si should or shouldn't be included as a Civic, and you totally ignore the Hybrid.
You have started this whole 'Civic did not improve in 10 years' thing, and you refuse to include models that clearly prove you wrong, for reasons like not having enough doors, hatchback, shape, etc etc, and Hybrid not being an improvement even though you do mention fuel efficiency. You continue to pick and choose a configuration an say the Civic has not improved. Is 46/51 MPG not an improvement to you? Is 160 HP in an Si not an improvement?
You can doubt Honda's decision not to offer the Si's engine in a sedan, but you can't keep repeating like a parrot that the Civic has not improved in 10 years, just because one engine is not offered in one configuration.
I thought we moved on from this particular discussion, but doesn't seem so.
Sure, if you compare a 1992 Civic to a brand new Jetta.
According to the manufacturers websites, the Civic EX sedan weighs about 2600 lbs for 20.50 lbs per hp. The Lancer with the 2.4L weighs about 2800 lbs for 17.5 lbs per hp. Sentra with the 2.5L weighs about 2700 lbs for 16.3 lbs per hp. Mazda3i weighs about 2700 lbs for 18.2 lbs per hp. Mazda3s weighs about 2800 lbs for 17.5 lbs per hp.
The Hyrbid gets great gas mileage. It's improved over other Civics.
The Civic EX hasn't improved.
It will help this discussion if you gave up the “best fit” policy. Either that or you completely missed this point from me:
“In the past, Honda has differentiated between LX and EX with minor power upgrade as well, but that is no longer true, except in Civic today and that could change.”
OK, to make it apples to apples (how you like it), let's compare 1994 SEDANS to 2004 SEDANS with the most powerful available engine.
More of a best fit approach! So, let me ask you: What is Civic? Is it a sedan or a coupe or a hatchback? Or is it a combination of just two of them?
The Civic EX hasn't improved.
Depends on what you perceive improvement to be. This piece from a C&D road test (Civic EX) sums up a few things:
“It used to be accepted wisdom in the car biz that smaller engines always produced better fuel economy, but the new Civic offers the latest evidence that this isn't necessarily so. The '01 Civic EX's 1.7-liter engine makes 127 horsepower -- only two more ponies than the 1.6-liter powerplant in the '92 EX. But it makes more torque -- 114 vs. 106 pound-feet -- at 400 fewer rpm. As a result, although the new car weighs 58 more pounds than the earlier one, it matches the earlier car's performance, shaves several seconds from its top-gear acceleration times, and delivers three more mpg in the city.”
At this time, do we care about safety/chassis/feature improvements?
They make up for some of it with lower curb weight, and most of the rest with gearing.
-juice
The Edmunds review mentioned above doesn't have the Lancer 2.4 or the Mazda3 in the test. It did have the Sentra 2.5L with the automatic, and it was quite a bit quicker than the Civic. So there.
You are the one that asked about power to weight ratios. Well, there ya go.
"The latest rumors on next Si are up! Supposedly a coupe form with steeply raked windshield, TSX-esque headlamps (sounds like the front end from the Civic HB spy pictures that floated around recently), with at least 200 HP, 6-sp manual transmission, and 17 inch rims, and due to be introduced behind mainstream models."
Good news. I'm glad Honda doesn't listen to the people on Edmunds that think 200 hp is way out of line for a Civic.
Since the Si might have 200 hp, would it be that far-fetched to see a 150-160 hp EX? I don't think so. We'll see.
DX/LX: 1.8-liter/130-140 HP to address the "Civic sense".
EX: 2.0-liter/155-160 HP (hopefully, the K20B that I referred to eons ago) to instill some flavor with features
Si: 2.0-liter/200 HP
And move RSX up to TSX level with 200-210 HP K24.
When you factor in gearing (let's not actually open that can of worms) then performance is about average for the class, not slow.
Sentra has a 2.5l engine but it's got the non-indy torsion beam rear suspension.
Corolla's is also not fully indy. Plus even the upgrade engine doesn't really have a significant torque advantage. And XRS probably is a tiny fraction of all Corolla/Matrix models. And if you want the indy rear it only comes with AWD and a pathetic 123hp. Plenty of issues there.
Lancer finally got on the ball with the Ralliart models, the old ones really didn't offer anything that competitors didn't have. EVO overshadows all of them. And will Mitsu even be around to honor that warranty? They're a mess.
The 3s is the newest in the segment and attacks it from a premium price/content angle. The back seat feels small to me, though. Does it have a flat floor like the Civic? And address the A/C issue quickly because Civic shoppers put reliability first.
Finally, we have not yet mentoined Subaru, they use a torquey 2.5l engine but with AWD they need a torquey engine due to the extra weight and drag. WRX is in another price class.
I like 5 doors so kudos to Toyota, Mitsu, Mazda, and Subaru for offering them.
I like the Mazda 3s 5 door (practical, torquey, Nav available) and the Subaru Outback Sport (practical, torquey, AWD) in the small car segment, but the big sellers are the Civic and Corolla, so they must know what they're doing.
-juice