Howdy, Stranger!

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

Honda Civic Sedan 2006



  • here's an update for the dallas fort worth people in tx i've been calling all dealerships within a 35 mile area everyday @ around 130, they even know me by name

    Frank kent honda - has a bunch of sedans and getting some everyday, coupes coming in within next 3-4 days ( they are selling the sedans a little bit below msrp )

    Vandergriff honda - got some in friday night and getting some in tommorow night 5-7 days for coupe but they are hopeing b4 weekend

    huggins honda - sedans in saying in 7-10 days for coupe, just gotta warn you horrible service way worse than other 2 this dealership isn't even in running on where i should buy the lx coupe

    huggins honda
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Perhaps I stated this a little murky...the old engine had a rated power of 160horses, and the slightly revised engine is rated at 166horses. You would think that means a bump of six horses, right? However, if you take into account that the horsepower ratings have been tuned down, it's more realistic to think the six horses would feel more like ten because the older engine would probably be rated at 156 horses under the new system. It would be a pretty punchy car.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Apparently they bumped up the prices but you don't need to get the EX V-6 6-speed to dust a Civic Si. The LX V-6 auto will beat the new Civic Si quite easily for $25,100 (they were in the 23K range just a year ago). The Accord V-6 doesn't get better gas mileage but if you figure how much you are paying for the premium fuel as compared to the regular fuel required for the Accord, you're paying for a car that gets less gas mileage than the Accord. Figure the premium fuel would cost $3.20 a gallon and the regular would cost $3 a gallon...then Si would have an equivalent of 20.6mpg city/29mpg highway, which is less than the V-6 Accord. I'm talking equivalent MPG, not actual. Actual doesn't mean anything if you have to pay more for the 'special gas' you're getting.
    A 5-speed manual Accord 4-cylinder would be in the low 7's for 0-60 and get 24/34 on regular fuel with a price of $18,225 for the value package.
  • blaneblane Posts: 2,017

    Re your post #1397, disk brakes are much better than drum brakes at dissipating heat, so they minimize brake fade. They dry almost immediately after driving through puddles, since centrifical force throws the water off on a tangent, instead of it remaining trapped in the drums where it causes potentially dangerous loss of braking. Replacing disk pads is much easier than dismantling drum brakes to replace brake shoes. It's therefore much less expensive.

    Do you need any more reasons?

    No, drum brake equipped vehicles such as the Civic LX cannot be economically upgraded to disk brakes. That's EX territory.
  • sunilbsunilb Posts: 407
    Unless you need a car this very moment, anyone who is paying sticker for a civic is overpaying. These aren't limited production vehicles.... it's a mass market car. 3% over invoice is more than enough.
  • 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.

    As I understand it, the Si is still at the top of 2nd when it reaches 58 mph, So if you could settle for a 0-58 time, I'll bet it comes in much quicker. That shift up to 3rd to make sixty probably effects the time substantially. Knowing this little piece of info tells me it's going to be pretty quick.
  • The Dx cant make a 0-60 in 7.5, I,d expect like 9.0+.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    If that's the case I'd be very surprised and disappointed. One thing I don't understand is that the Civics keep getting better power to weight ratios but it doesn't show in performance. However, a 9.0+ isn't likely. With an 18% better power to weight ratio plus more torque, it should easily do low 8's. The current EX has 11% less power per horsepower than the new DX, less torque per pound, and it will do it in 8 seconds flat. Also, compared to the old horsepower rating, this DX engine probably puts out more than 140 horses. A sub-8 is very likely.
  • mf15mf15 Posts: 158
    I read an article that it wont be out until December is that true.
    Anyhow 25 year old son is looking for a sporty car and an Si is not too too much money. We had 3 accords and he probably thinks that they are somewhat for old folks like me, even though the V6 is fast. I have read many of the posts on this board and find them quite educational and interesting. Trying to come up with a good safe care that will last, TSX sounds great but too expensive, Acura RSX great but Si is cheaper for what is just about the same car. Been a member on Edmunds for years and always come here when looking at new wheels. Thanks Old Mike
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    The Si might be nice.
    For that kind of money, I'd probably get a Honda Accord LX V6 Coupe.

    That 2.4L 4 cylinder is very punchy though...
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Are you making fun of me?
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Of course acceleration on a manual tranny can vary wildly too. It depends so much on the skill of the driver. I think if I was testing I'd squeeze the extra 2 miles an hour out before I went for 3rd. It's a should be able to take it.
  • sunilbsunilb Posts: 407
    December is correct.
    Si could be good, but insurance will be high relative to other vehicles (all else equal). Gas mileage may be a concern, regardless of what the EPA says.
    Do you have other criteria besides sporty and durable?
  • bamacarbamacar Posts: 749
    Not sure where you get your numbers. Motor Trend said the 2001-2005 Civic did 0-60 in 9.1 seconds for the Civic 2dr EX Manual. The best I ever saw for the Accord 4 cylinder 5 speed manual was 7.9 seconds. I would guess the new Civic would be about 8-8.5 for the manual (8.6-9.1 for the Auto). The 2006 Accord with manual with the extra 6-10 hp would be around 7.6-7.8 at best. I would think the new Si could get to 60 in about 7.0 or so.
  • The New Civics are almost here and before I buy I wanted to read the CHAT TRANSCRIPT from 9/01/05 with the Honda techs. Can any moderator please let me know when you plan on posting it? I dont want to buy the car then read the transcript. It should be posted already for the extra info please hurry it up guys and let me know. :cry:
  • Just test drove a 2006 Civic LX sedan manual. I was very impressed with everything about the car. My only complaint is the lack of adjustable lumbar.

    Here is the problem. I test drove a 2006 mazda i (2.0L) manual right after the honda. I liked the Mazda much better. The mazda was optioned with abs and side airbags so the price comparison is apples to apples. The mazda3 was $110 cheaper, but comes with alloy wheels, 6-speaker, ambient temp, volume control on steering wheel.

    The 3 had much more low end torque. Very noticeable. RPM at 75mph was 3400. The civic was 3300 at 75mph. The honda has a delay in the engine when you rev it (makes heel toe shifting more difficult).

    Not trying to start a war here, but I started the day planning on buying a Civic and will probably buy a 3. The Honda is rated with better fuel econ 28/35 to 30/38 for the Civic which is significant but consumer reports shows better then the ratings for the 3's fuel econ.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 25,358
    Hmm. 3300 is only about 200-300 short of what my tC turns at 75, so it is still slightly on the buzzy side, although the 1.8l Honda motor is much more suited to it, so probably not a problem. For some reason, I just have a mental block that a car shouldn't turn more than 3K at 75mph.

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

  • Can someone who has driven the new 2006 Civic Sedan let me know if the seats are wider than the 2005?
    I have never been able to buy the Civic because my shoulders won't fit the seat. I fit fine in an Accord, Corolla, or Prizm. Any year.
    I love the Civics but I just don't fit. Please tell me the 2006 is wider with a wider seat. I get claustrophobic.
    Currently my wife has a 2004 Accord EX, we share a 2005 Odyssey, and I get around in a 1998 Chevrolet Prizm (Corolla clone) that is starting to break down. (Compressor went last week)

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,907
    There aren't a whole lot of small-displacement 4-banger stick shifts out there that will turn under 3k at 75 mph. The Civic has only 1.8L after all.
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Car and Driver usually have the fastest times. Manual tranny times can vary quite a bit. I don't usually buy car magazines anymore but I guarantee they had a manual at 7.5 for the 4-cylinder and the Civic EX at 8 for the manual. The previous model Civic EX did it in 7.9 seconds and I copied and saved that article and have it with me here. There can be as much as a second difference on the manual tranny...I've seen it before.
  • 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.

    Your comparisons are a bit off. The base RSX has a 155 hp 4, the Si will have a 2OO hp 4. So the RSX obviously it will not out-power the Honda. The RSX-S does come with the 201 hp 4, but also requires premium fuel - same as the Si - and is priced at $24k - much more than a loaded Si. It also gets 23/31 mpg with the 6-speed manual - barely any different than the Si. So, from a performance and fuel economy standpoint, the RSX has no advantage over the Civic Si.
  • Go with the Mazda3, and don't regret it. If you're driving a stick you can beat the EPA numbers easily by shifting early and driving conservatively. And you'll have much more power than the civic's small displacement.

    My friend (whose parents own a Mazda3), got a test drive in the new civic and said it wasn't even close in terms of driving dynamics, comfort, and style. In all honesty, Honda needed a home run here, definitely not a ground rule double. They both might get the ball out of the park, but one counts for a whole lot more. The 3 is simply so far beyond any other small car out there right now that the Civic needed to be absolutely astounding, not merely just another new Civic, like all the other ones that have come before. If the market was determined merely by quality of the product, Mazda would have total domination. While I can't say for sure until I've driven the new civic, based on the huge number of impressions from boards like this one, Honda failed to nail the formula.

    BTW, the DX with a stick will probably be in the low eight's for 0-60 times. An EX will be in the high eights. Too little displacement, and in the EX's case, too much weight. That equals mediocre acceleration. As was mentioned however, it will depend on whose numbers you trust. Car and Driver seems to deflate (faster times) their numbers slightly, or everyone else is merely off their rockers; Road and Track and the other big magazines seem more reliable. If you're to use their times, the DX might break into the high eights, but the EX certainly won't. I'd predict about nine seconds flat for the LX, the most popular model by far. Add about half a second for the automatic in each case (more weight, less power being transmitted to the wheels, much lower gear ratios). Altogether not bad, but the 3s beats them handily (even if it does drink far more gas).
  • My prayers have been answered and I will soon be buying a Honda Civic with Navigation. Going off the assumption that is the same "material" etc as an Accord, perhaps people with Accord Nav experience can answer... My question is... it's a touchscreen... how delicate is it? I mean, fingerprints should wipe off and stuff, I assume. Does the screen have any kind of protective layer on it that can be replaced if scratched (as opposed to replacing the "whole" screen)? Would a stylus work, or does it "need" the heat of a finger? And (this is extremely anal, I know), would it still function properly if I put a type of film over it. (I'm imagining something like the stuff you can buy to protect your PDA screen)

    I know I won't be getting it for anywhere near invoice, since I'm getting a Hybrid and I have to get it soon to make sure I get a California carpool sticker, but are invoice prices posted anywhere (this site or elsewhere) for these yet?

    Newbie (currently driving '91 Civic LX... for a few more weeks)
  • playplay Posts: 38
    Here is a possible solution for the 5 speed vs automatic dilemma. I too would rather have a 5 speed that gets the same or better MPG than an automatic. I don't understand what Honda is thinking, everywhere i read, no
    one seems to understand what Honda is thinking. People who buy stick do so because they like to shift and they like driving. So Honda will give them a short 5th gear so they don't have to shift to have more immediate pickup, and no appropriate highway cruising gear.

    My last purchase was an 04 TSX and it was the 1st automatic of my life. I couldn't see getting worse mileage with a stick (and the auto was a no charge option). A potential solution to all this, or a partial solution to all this, or no solution at all is as follows, though an engineer will need to evaluate this ....

    Buy the stick. It has more pickup, it has higher revs at the same speed than an automatic has. When you buy tires, buy tires with about a 5% (or whatever it would be) bigger circumference, and your back where you started. Just a theory, its a shame Honda has us grasping at straws. Anyone from Honda out there who would like to apologize? Feel free.
  • Buy mazda 3 if you plan to keep the car less than 4 years, Buy the civic if you want to keep for a long time. I have a 93 civic, still run with 200,000 miles no major problems, i see a lot of older honda still running, don't see to many older mazda. It's between the 06 civic or fit for me.
  • crv16crv16 Posts: 205
    I suspect Honda uses a short 5th gear because of stupid customers. When in 5th gear in an automatic, and you press down hard on the accelerator, (duh), it downshifts automatically. However, if a manual transmission Civic had a tall 5th gear and you press down hard on the accelerator, nothing much would happen. You'd need to downshift to get adequate acceleration. Now you and I understand that simple fact, but I bet it escapes a lot of people who think that you only use 5th gear on the highway.

    I own a 2003 Civic EX manual, which has very short gearing, and just recently bought a 2005 Accord LX manual for my wife, which actually has fairly tall gearing. It gets a little confusing going from my Civic to the Accord, because I can comfortable cruise 35-40 mph in 5th gear in the Civic. That same speed requires 4th gear in the Accord, because it would be lugging the engine in 5th.
  • 1.8 is smallish for today but should get better economy. I feel the civic with a 6 speed with true OD say 2500 rpm at 70 would be very economical. Funny how no one wants to downshift. but if the 5 th gear was the same as now and 6th the lower final for economy you could choose. I hate that busy down the hiway buzz with the high rpm.....

    I have cancelled my order for a 2006 Civic EX sedan in manual. I may actually go with a hybrid since tax credit of 2100 expected in true money and 50 mpg not shabby.

    If I knew Honda was serious about diesel 2.2 in 2007 I would look to that over hybrid. Remember in Europe you can buy Accord (TSX clone) and CRV diesel that truely get 42 combined (CRV) and 52 combined (Accord) with Hondas new award winning diesel.

    I saw the civics last night. Nice but not on my to buy list any longer.
    Plus If you buy a heavily discounted 2006 Accord (400 over invoice already) then why by the Civic. Give up sunroof, buy the the new 166 hp (175 hp with old standard) and get SE 5 speed 4 banger for a lot more car and only $19,500 with all safety features, ABS, alloys......
  • You are harsh but I think you speak the truth. Sometimes that hurts. Once gas prices are seen to stay high the ratios will be revised in later years as mpg braggin rights will become fashionable. Seems that the automatic got all the attention from the engineers....
  • I had a 2004 TSX, bought the manual because the auto is nothing but a fancy accord. The manual was sweet but 6th was high rpm, power on demand. Why?
    Again why? I love changing gears. The 5 speed accord 4 banger is a better tranny gearing and gets better economy than TSX and uses regular gas.

    I did resent paying same price as automatic but the drive was just so sweet in the manual.....

    tires will not do what you want.....
  • yesrohyesroh Posts: 290
    Actually, the new Civic is 30/39 unless they changed it.
    The Honda is new...the prices will probably come down. You also have to take into account resale value. I once almost bought a Ford Escort GT in 1991 because I test drove it, liked it, and I could buy it for $1500 less than the Honda Civic LX which I'd also test drove and liked as well. I figured I'd do myself some good and save money. Then I looked at the resale value and realized I'd lose money on the Escort from resale value. So the cheaper Escort was actually more expensive. Reliability was also much better on the Civic.
This discussion has been closed.