Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Honda Civic Sedan 2006



  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Forgot to mention the premium fuel! You're right about that! The Civic Si gets 22/31 mpg which is pretty bad for a Civic and not even as good as the Acura RSX which will out-power it any day and have a larger trunk and more passenger room. But in addition to having lousy gas mileage, if you add in the additional cash required to buy premium fuel (about a 13% increase), you might as well rate the Si at 19/27mpg. That's really bad fuel economy. My 1999 Accord V-6 does much better than that and has more power in a bigger, more substantial car. I don't understand how Honda gets such great fuel economy on every car except their Si.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I think it was already mentioned in this forum, but I spoke to some dealers about the DX and they said it was mostly for people who like to customize their cars. Honda Civics are very popular 'tuner' cars. So they buy a stripped down DX and built it up.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I agree...accept I'd want a CVT. Hybrids can make better gas mileage but a lot of that is a gimmick. I keep mentioning the 1992 Honda Civic VX. It was their hatchback with 92 horsepower (more than the old Hybrid gasoline engine, 1 horsepower less than the new one) and got 48/55 mpg rating with a 5-speed. It was also a 1.5 liter as opposed to the 1.3 liter used on the hybrids. That's actually better highway mileage than the Prius or the Civic Hybrid and with technology from 14 years ago. The little hatch was peppy had better accleration than the current Civic LX.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Take all those prices for the other cars and add $2000 for the navigation system.
    I personally would take the LX. Sunroofs are okay but they loose a lot of headroom and you pay for it. The EX also weighs's marginal, but it's there.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I don't agree. Look at the range in weights of the Civic DX, LX, and EX. The EX with auto is 102 pounds heavier than the DX with auto but still is rated the same mileage. Granted, they'd have to bump up the power on the HX and they could, with the jump from 1.7 liters to 1.8 liters. The new engines are larger and more powerful than the last but still improve gas mileage for the auto. So I think it's entirely possible based on what they did with the other engines. There is a 170 pound difference between the HX coupe with auto currently being sold and the DX with auto.
    I think maybe perhaps what I'm not taking into account here is...maybe the new engines are the same as the HX engine. We just don't know it yet.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    There are a few things you failed to consider on the increase in horsepower. Torque is up more than horsepower on the new Civics. That will be noticed. And, the new 5-speed auto will make a big difference in acceleration on the automatic equipped cars. That extra gear will probably make a bigger difference than the extra 13 horsepower.
    I think the problem with your Civic is, the newer ones just have a very high 5th gear (for the manual). I also owned a Civic Si, a 1990, and it was awesome! But try to drive that thing for 2000 miles from Spokane, Washington to Evansville, Indiana at 75 miles an hour. The hum of the 4000 rpms coming off that engine will drive you crazy!!! Fun is great for short distances. I bought an LX 4-door later, with less power and more weight and better gas mileage. The big difference between it and the Si is the LX had a taller 5th gear. So it felt sluggish if you punched it but it could match the Si in 0-60 times. I know...I timed it many times. It just didn't feel as lively because the top gear was tall. It was also much quieter driving that 2000 mile trip.
    Since my LX got much better mileage than my Si, I would sometimes leave it in 4th gear for fun driving. It felt as alive as the Si when I did that. Well, almost...I guess the bright red color and black Recaro-style seats in the Si helped too :=)
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I personally don't see why there would be ANY difference in fuel economy between the auto and manual. They're both 5-speeds.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    I'm not sure how much difference there is between the disc and drum brakes. I know the disc brakes are supposed to be better but many manufacturers don't put them in back because the rear brake accounts for such a small percentage of actual braking power that the discs in back would not be noticeable. So they save a lot of money and lose a bit in braking.
  • crv16crv16 Posts: 205
    The difference in MPG between standard and automatic boils down to gear ratios. 5th gear in the automatic trans is a .525 ratio, compared to a .727 ratio for 5th gear in the manual. At 60 mph, the automatic Civic will be revving a lot lower than the manual version, thus less fuel used.
  • 307web307web Posts: 1,033
    Why do you keep posting $23K for a Civic EX with navi?
    Even an Si with navi is expected to be lower.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Keep trying. I've never paid MSRP for any car I've ever bought. I've always paid less, and I've always bought new Civics and Accords. I was told 20 years ago that Honda dealers won't bargain with you, but that's just wrong. Keep trying...they're all in high demand right now but if you lay down the law and they know they can still make money on you, even though it's not quite as much as they wanted to make, I think they'll bite.
    I bought my last car, a 1999 Accord, over the phone. I knew what I wanted and I called three different dealerships until they gave me the price I wanted. I liked it a lot because it's hard to intimidate someone over the phone. It's also easier to hang up a phone than to walk out of a dealership. I saved gas and time too and got the car I wanted for $800 under MSRP.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    True, but how does the final drive ratio figure into this? If you look at the final drive ratio the numbers are the opposite...the manual has 4.294 and the auto has 4.437. I forget how this all the final drive simply the differential or is it the top gear combined with the differential? I would think the auto could get by with a higher top gear since it shifts for you. If a manual had a top gear that was too high, you'd wear yourself out having to downshift every time you hit a hill.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 25,343
    drove a semi-prepped LX 5 speed today. Overall, it drove nice, but did feel quite a bit different than my current car, so I do need more time to get familiar with it (it was a short drive).

    Anyway, a few quick points:

    -Nice engine. Very smooth, seemed peppy enough. I tried to get an RPM at 60, and it seemed to be ~2600 RPM. A little higher than I would like, but I really need to see accurate test results to be sure where it was at.

    -Clutch and shifter seemed typical Honda, although it seemed to be a long reach to 3rd gear (I had a little trouble finding it at first, just wasn't where I expected it to be).

    -Lots of room up front, very airy, and still enough room in the rear for my 6' self to sit behind me. Trunk also seemed big enough, nice and square with a big opening.

    -The big debate issues didn't bother me at all. THe steering wheel felt fine, even with 2 spokes. THere is actually a bump at 6:00 for you to hook your thumb on, in case you miss the 3rd spoke (not that other Hondas have it anyway). And, the speedo was not distracting at all, and very easy to check without taking your eyes off the road. I would, however, like to see it at night to see if it was distracting.

    -Only thing I am not sure about is actually the drivers seat. The cushion was long enough (finally), but I didn't really get comfy in it. It seemed to be softer than I expected, with maybe too much lumbar (but I did get used to it on our Odyssey) that can't be adjusted. I definitely need to spend more time with a prepped car to see how well I can get adjusted to the seats. It would also help if it wasn't covered in plastic.

    -Great center console. The handnrake is neat, and frees up space. BIg cupholder area with cover, hugh sotrage console, lots of little bins. The sliding armrest is very nice, and is a perfect height to rest your arm on while shifting (since the shifter sits higher than before).

    Overall, I liked it a lot, and can see myself in one, but only if I can spend more time proving that the seats will be good for my back. The Accord seats overall were more comfy to me.

    Oh, speaking of Accords, they had a ton of '06s on hand. The comparable Accord to the Civic EX 5 speed (an EX cloth 5 speed) is ~$4200 more (18.8K vs. 23K), and other than room and some HP, there is very little feature difference between them that I could tell.

    2015 Hyundai Sonata 2.4i Limited Tech (mine), 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's) and 2015 Jetta Sport (daughter's)

  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    You hit the nail on the head:

    I felt the car was smaller than I expected.

    My reaction exactly.
  • crv16crv16 Posts: 205
    The overall gear ratio is calculated by multiplying the final drive ratio by the gear ratio.

    The OGR for automatic 5th gear = 0.525 * 4.437 = engine turns 2.3 times for every turn of the axle.

    The OGR for manual 5th gear = 0.727 * 4.294 = engine turns 3.1 times for every turn of the axle.

    BTW, this is one of the reasons I'll consider buying an automatic Civic to replace my 2003 Civic EX manual. I'm getting a little tired of the high revs on the highway.
  • How big did you expect this 'compact' car to be? Was it that the pictures make it look bigger, or that you expected Honda to make a much larger Civic than before? I'm quite curious, becuase I have heard this commnet more than once. Thanks for any response!
  • I hope you are right about the intelligence of the Civic maintenance interval , the manitenance interval on a 2005 Accord is only based on the number ofm iles driven, nothing else.
  • True, it is not much bigger than its predecessor, but looks bigger from the outside. And, most reviewers have stated it feels roomier on the inside. Honda marketing research claims that there was little interest in making it bigger, that people wanted more features and style.

    I sat in an Acura TSX and it felt as small as a Civic! I terminated the test drive before even turning the key, because I couldn't see spending $28K for that.
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    I was hoping for Mazda3/Ford Focus/New Jetta/Corolla sizing on the outside, maybe more efficient use of space on the inside. Admittedly the new Cobalt is smaller than the old Cavalier, so not all manufacturers are upgrading in size as they upgrade their models. This iteration of the Civic is actually smaller on the inside than last year's, due to the raked glass and lower height. You have to check out the Scion xB, at least for seating, too see how much can be done on efficient use of interior space on small cars. Higher seats seem to help, but that requires higher vehicle height as well.

    My complaint with the last generation Civic wasn't size, it was other issues - use of flipper door handles when VW and Corolla moved to pull out handles, late to the game in offering CD players standard (and then having a weak sound system), but, most of all, in having a mediocre suspension system. They seem to be addressing the suspension this time around, but they are re-inventing the Dodge Neon (with Intrepid style raked glass front and rear) and not reinventing the car.
  • 307web307web Posts: 1,033
    I know. Lots of peple have the attitude of why should they spend $28,000 for a small TSX when they could drive a new Crown Victoria for less?
  • I went to several dealers in the Dallas, Texas area looking at the 2006 Honda Civic EX. Most of them are trying to get MSRP plus. They all stated that since the car is in limited supply and with gas prices being what they are they will be able to get that. I did however get a quote from one for the 2006 Honda Civic EX without navigation for $20,800 drive out price no trade in. That included window tinting,mud guards,trunk tray and pin striping. I stuck with my guns and was able to get a fair price. On the Civic EX with navigation one dealer offered $21,800.00 drive out no trade in. Which is a good price however not sure that I have to have the navigation although it is a fun but its an expensive toy.
  • obie2obie2 Posts: 20
    Does anyone know of a dealer in Southern Cal with '06 Civics on hand yet? Los Angeles preferably.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Compare the EX Civic to the LX Accord instead of the EX Accord. That Accord does a lot with 166 horsepower. Last I checked, the 160 horsepower Accord auto did 0-60 in 8.5 seconds which is faster than the old V-6 from 1995-1997. It also gets 34mpg highway on regular fuel. With the new horsepower rules and since the 2006 is now rated at 166hp instead of 160hp (probably equivalent to a jump from 160-170hp), I would say you could do 0-60 in the low 8's with an auto, and in the low 7's with a 5-speed. The current Accord with the previously rated 160hp engine did 0-60 in 7.5 seconds but that little ten horsepower jump might put you around 7.1 or 7.2. You'd probably get by for about as much as you'd pay for a Civic EX with tons of more room and a more refined car. I would recommend this instead of the Civic Si if you want a fast, economical car. The new Si looks to be a gas hog.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Yes! Someone else here thinks like an old person! And if you want to have a more peppy engine, just drive it in 4th gear. You always have that option!
  • They geared the Si a lot lower for performance. Conservatively they are quoting 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds, but in reality it look like it will be almost a full second quicker! A wiser mover would have been to leave the first 5-gears just as they are and have a very tall gear for highway cruising. The instead of a 31 mpg highway rating it would of could of been in the 35-37 range. The Acura Integra was geared the same way, about 20 mile per hour per thousand RPM in the highest gear. The current Acura RSX is also geared low. But hey with a 8,300 RPM redline , some peole wanted the lower gearing and did want to downshifht to get performance on the highway.

    By the way I have 6-speed Accord and 6th gear is pretty tall at 30 mile per hour per thousand RPM. My mileage rates are only slightly lower than the Si Civic being 20/30.


  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Based on the new engines, I'd think the DX could do 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. If they are trying to impress us by the Si doing it in 7.5 they must be from the wrong side of the world. A 7.5 second time for a 197 horsepower car that weighs 2800 pounds is pretty darn slow.
    Not to keep mentioning Accords but that's the car I've driven since late 1998. It has about 8% less horsepower per pound than the new Civic, and uses a 4-speed auto instead of a 6-speed manual. But it will do it in 7.4 seconds. I've actually done it in 7.25 seconds, with my automatic. I'd think the Si could at least break 7 seconds. Come on here! Where is all that power going? I'll get a DX before I'll get an EX.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 25,343
    not a true comparison for anyone that considers a moonroof required equipment. So, might as well compare an LX to an LX.

    2015 Hyundai Sonata 2.4i Limited Tech (mine), 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's) and 2015 Jetta Sport (daughter's)

  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    If the DX is for the tuner crowd, then why is there no coupe version?

    I'd still add a VP in between. Or maybe offer an option package on the DX that includes- you guessed it- a CD player and A/C.
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    I am not sure at this point whether the 166 vs 160 hp in this year's Accord is due to retesting to the current SAE standard (in which case performance is unaffected) or is due to a change in the engine.

    My friend has the Accord 4 cylinder with the 5 speed; she formerly had a 6 cylinder Accord, last generation, and has no complaints about acceleration. I think that's great, and love 4 cyinders.
  • "Or, I could go up another $1000 from the Civic Si and get an Accord V6 and dust the Civic."

    First accord coupe comes stardard with 166 hp, to achieve the 244 hp it costs 27,000 6mt. Also MPG is 21/30 (not better than civic si). Your just wrong the 2006 Honda Civic Si is well done and ill soon get it. Also someone said something about premuim gas costing x% more. Premium costs .20 extra.
This discussion has been closed.