By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Not bad Honda.
I wonder what a 6 speed manual with real Overdrive could have gotten. I would have paid same as auto for that.
http://info.detnews.com/autosconsumer/autoreviews/index.cfm?id=21034
The panel was a cross section of 8 Detroit area drivers. Most really like the car. A lot LIKED the digital, two level display, so the jury is out on that issue in my book. There was one strong complaint about the parking brake lever getting in the way, so I bet Honda will fiddle with it next year (no need to get ANY complaints on something that inconsequential, right?). There was concern that the interior was cramped, but most of the panel seemed to be driving trucks and suvs.
On the interior size issue, the Honda seems, to me, comparable to the Cobalt and old VW Jetta, but smaller than the Focus, new Jetta, and Corolla. I guess on that issue it will come down to personal choice - there doesn't seem to be any consensus among manufacturers, at least.
My only complaint about the '04 is the front seats. I am 5-8 and am still playing with adjustments to be comfortable. The seat (squab I believe the British call it) is severely inclined which might be the reason, and there's no adjustment for that. I've found the best position all the way up and all the way back, with a fairly vertical seatback. Even then to be comfortable, it seems best if I don't press my hips all the way back in the seat. I must eventually get it right because I've taken two long overnight trips in the car. I don't seem to have this complaint in '03, '05, and '06 Civics I've sat in. Anyone else have a problem with the '04 seat?
:P
Honda claims to to be ergonomic experts but they seem to blow something very basic i.e. total misplacement of the parking brake this time.
As for gas mileage, the new Civic will be better than the previous generations because a) the i-VTEC plays all kinds of games to make the engine more efficient across the board and b) the aerodynamics are somewhat cleaner. In fact, the new 1.8l i-VTEC motor is a marvel in smoothness and efficiency, IMO. The extra weight (not much) will be far-offset by these improvements, plus the weight really does not affect highway mileage anyhow.
I have an '06 LX coupe 5sp. on order. Still, I would have liked to see adjustable lumbar support in the new Civics or at least the EX. How expensive can that be? My Integra has and it's a '99.. Maybe because it has the Acura badge and not Honda? Accords have adj. lumbar support, why not the Civic?
'06 Civic LX coupe
'11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
'13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
To see the comparison, i have a Mazda 3 5 door (so, I'm spoiled) and compare it.
The Civic has enough room in the rear. I'm 5,11" and sat in front comfortably. Then I sat "behind me" in the left back seat and still had enough room at my knees. that's how I test a car... not with the EPA figures in inches. the car is smooth, but way less powerful than my 2.3 l Mazda. Especially the driving at low rpm is way worse than with the Mazda. (I apologize for comparing to the Mazda.. but that is the car I love and know....). The Mazda can maintain very decent driving at under 2000 rpm and very reasonable acceleration at under 3000 rpm. The Civic needs way more than 2500 for some decent driving. the car only had 25 miles. So it might get better after breaking in. That somehow explains why Honda geared the 5th gear so low..... or why the AT shifts down all the time.
the trunk is small, the "hole" to put stuff in is even smaller (again, I'm spoiled with the Mazda...) the civic is more a 2nd or single car (which is my plan for a new car...) than a 2 children-family car. Teh steering wheel seems to be smaller than the Mazda one (again, my aplolgy for bringing in that car I already own), the speedometer is weird.... I suppose you end up with speeding tickets quickly because you end up being too fast.
I would like to know about your long distance experience (since I'd miss the lumbar support). not sure if I'd like that. Also the lack of a coolant temperature gauge annoys me (I think of getting an LX MT) and makes it lok cheap.
the trunk and interior comes by no means close to the Mazda 3 (See a Mazda 3 and lift the bottom in the trunk and you seee the compartments there, also the little compartment for the tools... then you know what i mean..)
also, the sales person told me that there still is a timing belt that has to be replaced. i hoped to get rid of that expensive thing. He also told me, that the maintenance intervals are at 5000 miles now instead of at 10000 miles as they used to be. This somehow lets me think more of getting a second Mazda with a chain and 7500 miles service intervals. Please confirm or correct that.
In general, the Civic is not bad, economical (Please provide some more real world MPG numbers) but doesn't reach the Mazda 3. No way. Especially the mini-trunk puts it in another league (which i don't care about cause we have the Mazda to carry stuff ;-) Still deciding which second car for just secondary driving I'll get..
I had a look under the hood. it looks very compact. I suppose repairs get labor intensive..... makes me worry even more about the timing belt (please someone give detail if it has a belt or chain). The sales guy first didn't know if it has a belt or a chain. then he looked under the hood and said it has a belt... don't know how he could see that :-)
Before I buy any car I want to try it out on ht ehighway (hopefully wihtout a watchdog salesperson...). but the 140 hp are inflated... well, you have 140 hp at 7000 rpm.... so in the real world at 6000 rpm you only have 120 - 130 hp.
the test drive made me think of other options (if MT Corollas with ABS and 6 airbags would actually be available I'd consider that). I"m not that excited anymore.... I'm definitely not in love with the civic... maybe the mileage will convince me....
The new 1.8l has a timing chain, not a belt.
Tune up intervals are 100,000 miles+. I do not think that the other maintenance intervals have changed. All Civics have a 'maintenance minder' system standard that monitors total engine revolutions and distance to tell you when you need service (to the best of my knowledge). Check an owners manual for the numbers to be sure.
Power is 140 hp@6300 and 128 lb/ft @4300. So you get peak power close to redline. However, these figures are SAE net, rev 8/04 the 'new' procedure for testing. Many models dropped with the new testing procedures, such as the corolla from 130 to 126hp and the RSX from 160 to 151. I think that the 3 would actually be a bit lower if tested by the new procedures. TOV tested an EX coupe on a dyno and it showed that it is actually reading closer to 150-155hp at the crank (136hp 130lb/ft at the hub as tested). Not bad for a 1.8l rated for near 40mpg hwy mileage.
The Mazda is sporty, the Civic is economical. Whichever you choose, you'll get a great car.
sure, it has a maintanenace minder. But that doesn't help me BEFORE purchasing. I might end up driving a lot, and I don't want to be in the shop all the time to change oil. About the hp numbers.....
I'm not sure what to think about htem. Especially when honda sqeezes them out of high rpm. witht he Mazda engine I can assume that the 2.3 l engine doesn't have inflated numbers. but the 1.8 l engine might...
anyway, who cares about numbers, i love low rpm cruising and the civic needs rpm to drive. I love to see a chart with tourque over rpm for both the cars. does anyone have a link? I care more about tourque at 1500 - 3000 rpm since thaose are the important rpm. I don't care about hp at 7000 rpm.
Can an owner look into the manual to see the maintenance numbers and when oil changes have to be made? I'm sure our dealer (Zimbrick in Madison WI) rips people off with maintenance. A colleague of mine has a 2002 civic and was told the timing belt has to be replaced every 30000 miles :-)
However, I am curious how hard the new Honda engine will be on oil. My 02 Accord 4cyl (2.3l VTEC) is great on oil and it never looks dirty. My wife's CR-V with the K24 2.4l i-VTEC seems to go through a little more oil and it always seems to be dirtier (same oil). Makes me think the i-VTEC engines are that much harder on the oil?
It's all very strange. We took it to the dealer yesterday and the shop couldn't repeat the alarm problem, of course, but then it happened when a salesman was standing next to me, and later it happened for him. So they gave us a loaner car, and it's in the shop, two weeks after purchase. Has anyone heard of a problem like this?
I do have two issues. What? Yes, the stereo sometimes skips. Its a night issue and I think it has something to do with vehicle power. Not sure if the stereo power supply is off the standard or the whole vehicle electrical system has an issue. Also, I get a rattle from the rear deck once the car cools down. The rattle is not present when the vehicle is in the sun and the interior has heated up. Anyone else have these issue? :shades:
I am 6-3" and have not had a problem with the hand brake at all and my knee is still around 1 1/2 to 2 inches from the brake.
I don't understand the 'inflated' HP claims about Honda but not Mazda. The Civic makes its 140hp at 6300 (500 rpm below the redline). The 2.3 in the 3 makes its 160hp at 6500, which is the redline of that engine. Likewise the Civic makes its 128 lb/ft at 4300 where the 150 lb/ft of the 3 is 4500, 200 rpm higher. In both cases, the Civic makes its peak power at a lower RPM than the Mazda does. The Civic is tested to new SAE standards, if anything the 3 might have inflated numbers, having been tested with older standards.
The Civic can cruise at a low rpm, it's just not going to have the power without a shift that the Mazda does. The Mazda has a 20 lb/ft and 20 hp advantage, as well as 500cc's more in displacement. Torque at 1500-3000 is most likely going to favor the 3. "No replacement for displacement". If you care more about power, then the 3 is your better choice. If you don't mind losing about 20hp and gaining about 1 second in 0-60 in exchange for an extra 5/7 mpg, than the Honda is the best choice. I believe the Civic can easily match the 2.0 in the 3i.
I too have been looking at both these vehicles for a while. It is a difficult choice. And referring to your dealer, I suggest looking for a different dealer. They seem to not be well trained in their product, and if you're sure they are ripping people off in maintenance, whats to say they aren't going to rip you off in other areas as well.
If you find some torque / hp curves for either engine, be sure to post it, I am interested in that too.
I also like the 3 for its sporting nature and the automotive press which pretty much unanimously hail the 3 as the best economy car available. Its mpg, 25/31 isn't too bad plus the HB versatility is nice.
I think, for me, it will eventually come down to getting the best quotes on both vehicles, factoring in my own yearly mileage and interest charges and see which is cheaper. It seems that the Civic is slightly less msrp equipped how I want it, EX Navi vs 3 GT with bose/sunroof pkg.
I think one can get a 5 speed 05 accord for 17k and a 06 civic for a bit more.....
I had a unique experience of actually throwing a 05 left over as a comparision on 06 civic .The accord was turning to be a better buy.
about the SAE Power.. the Mazda still has 160 hp. SAE made some cars "lose" power, som gaines, some stayed the same. And 2.3 l sound like 160 hp. hwereas 1.8 l sound less like 140 hp. Well, I havn't driven the 2.0 Mazda eihter, which I would compare to the civiv. I just noticed the big low end rpm difference despite the Civic weighing 100 pounds less.
I need to repost my comment (it was deleted, so I censor it) hope soemone can tell me about the maintenance cycle (wehther chain and when to change oil. Here si my old comment...hope someone can help me (sorry, too lazy to write it new:
I don't care about what sales people say... Does anyone know from a
reliable source if there is a timing chain or a belt?
The variable oil change interval is being used by VW/audi/BMW etc. too.
not sure if Honda has the same. The deal is, a sensor measures
temperature, load, rpm and other stuff over time. Based on that it "knows" how much the oil was used (like lot of short distance driving with cold engine,
or lot of high rpm high temp driving..). Some systems have a dirt sensor
that measures the ash content in the oil. based on that info it tells
you when to change the oil. The catch is, under real world driving you
never reach the distance they promise. VW/Audi promised 50000 km oil
changes. Under real driving conditions the oil change light comes on after
30000-40000 km. (Well, still better than the 5000 miles changes...
anyway)
So, it'd be good to know after how many miles the Honda maintenance
minder tells you to get the oil changed. Maybe after 10000 miles, maybe
after 5000 miles. It still is too new to tell.. since no one has already
driven 10000 miles (if so, then it'd have been highway mainly which
doesn't wear out the oil anyway..)
Does any civic 06 owners have a manual to have a look to see what Honda
says? I really don't want to ask the sales guy, since they just want
you to change the oil every 10 miles..... in their shop, of course....
I used to drive a Seat Ibiza TDI (which is a VW) back in Europe. The
oil interval was set at 15000 km. Since I drove a lot of autobahn the
shop told me that I could extend the oil change well to 25000 km. Even the
manual said that for drivers with many miles. And when they give me
advice that makes them lose business, I believe them. It'd be more
suspicious if they told me to change the oil more often than the manual says.
I always hear that we have severe drivng conditions
in Wisconsin. Taht's why we should change the oul more often. What do
we have.. Winter and Summer... like everwhere else. We don't live in a
dessert nor in Antarctica. Severe driving conditions would be only short
distance driving or towing a trailer all the time. And driving 75 mph
on the highway is not severe for a car that easily makes 100 mph.
I would want to get some real world mileages
It's decent to see both, so you know what you are gaining or compromising.
BUT at the end of the day, no matter how many Mazda's get great reviews, I would stick with Honda just due to the vastly greater dealer network, coupled with Honda's war-chest of money to take care of "almost recall" issues. Mazda internally operates on a shoe string and while the warranties are written the same, Honda has much more "discretionary" cash to fix things, especially nits. For example, I had a tiny intermittent c-pillar molding rattle in a Civic Coupe, 2003, that I expected to be ignored (wall job) but they sent a noise technician on an extended test drive until they found it and fixed it - on my first visit back to the dealer.
On my Focus ZX3, there is a slight sound of metal flexing/popping when I release the clutch pedal; knowing this is a budget car from Ford, I limited my request to them to confirming nothing was hanging or detached in the clutch lever aread, and told them I could live with the noise so long as a visual inspection didn't indicate anything obvious out of place.Of course if the noise weren't so intermittent, I would ask for and get a repair...but sometimes it's better to realize what segment of the market you are in and accept the good (cheap entry price, great power and handling) and the bad (lack of perfect fit and finish, lack of zero defects). I think likewise, the Honda line is much more a zero defect line than the Mazda, but then the Mazda3 is definitely much more of a enthusiast driver's car than the Civic (excluding the Si).
Also, did anyone purchase the subwoofer as an accessory? I am interested to know their experiences. The specifications state that the Si/ Coupe has a 350 watt 7 speaker system (that includes a subwoofer), whereas the EX sedan has a 160 watt 6 speaker system. Is the addition of the subwoofer the only difference between the two systems? And at USD 300 +, is the subwoofer worth it/ are there better aftermarket options?
It's pointless for any posters to try to convince you otherwise as it seems that you have made up your mind already based on your test drive of the car. This is what a test drive is supposed to do--so you did the right thing and found out that you would not be satisfied with anything 'less' than your beloved Mazda 3.
After reading your posts, I'm left wondering--What's the point in continuing any further along these lines?
I hope you find the suitable 2nd car you're looking for.
This weekend I test drove an 06 civic. I was wondering if anyone has had a tall child sit in the back seat for an extended period of time? My daughter is 5' 9" and with the drivers seat adjusted for me, my wife (5' 8") sat back there and seemed to be quite cramped. Any thoughts on the backseat legroom would be appreciated. Of course, we have been driving around for the past 16 years in a 1990 suburban. I guess less backseat legroom goes with the civic program.
Thanks,
Dave
You should be comparing the mazda 3 S touring + moonroof to the civic EX. Even the touring trim still has more equipment then the civic EX, such as 17" wheels & tires, and 6 cd changer (part of moonroof package). You can add NAV to both. Also you can get the 2006 mazda 3 for invoice (go read mazda3forums.com) which is $17800 (3S touring + moonroof/cd), can you get a civic EX for that ? I know many people here paid 19-20K$.
btw, I am also considering getting the mazda 3S GT, exactly for the reason that you can get all this luxury touches in an economy car. Many people that previously owned luxury cars say they are happy with the mazda 3 (again go read mazda3forums.com), and even I in fact own a $30K (msrp) car and think that the 3S GT has comparable luxury and performance for a lot less.
You can only dream about leather, bose audio, heated seats, climate control, xenon HID headlights, automatic wipers and lights, 17" wheels and tires in a civic or any other economy car.
I am comparing the top of the line 3 to the top of the line Civic. For some reason I see the Civic EX w/nav(i) comparable to the 3 GT. One is fuel efficient with a proven great resale and the Honda name, while the other is a more luxurious vehicle, though with less mpg, and without the so called "Honda Reliability and Resale".
If I were to buy a Mazda 3, it would be the GT HB with 5AT. If I go with Civic, it will be the EX with Navigation and 5AT.
In my opinion and twisted view, the 3 GT and EX w/nav(i) are comparable. Somedays I lust over the Civic, other days I lust over the 3. Right now the 3 GT is the winner. The other day the Civic was on top. I have yet to test drive a Civic (can't find one I want at the local dealer). When the time comes to finally get a new vehicle, which is taking longer than expected, I will get quotes, test drive both back to back, compare TCO to my 'gut feeling' and then choose.
BTW, if the Mazda 3 GT HB got more like 27/35 mpg, then there would be no competition at all.
I have the crv, a 1999 civic ex and a mazda 5. And although I don't have a mazda 3, your reasons for backing the civic are based on perception of superior service and build quality, which is why I am responding.
Ironically, the car that has given me the most headache is the honda civic, and i take that thing to dealer for regular service. I had the misfortune of a "defective" OEM computer that had to be replace out of pocket because the warranty ran out (90,000) miles. in addition, when it was brand new, it would simply not start one cold day, and the technicians could not duplicate the problem. My crv was recalled due to a potential fire hazzard, and I was compensated with a rental and got my crv back. No big deal.
My mazda 5 was also recently recalled for potential fire hazzard, but I found the service to be superior. The dealer called me, picked my car, and dropped off an upgraded MPV. In addition, the reset my warranty and gave me $500.00 in cash! I will receive my Mazda 5 back in a few days detailed in and out.
Based on my experience, I find hondas to be overrated. I have owned 3 civics, and I do not believe they are as reliable as people say. I also don't believe that the build quality is superior. I experience the same rattle you describe in your civic, and the headliner in my crv is coming off at the edges. sloppy.
Don't get me wrong. I believe that overall hondas are good cars, but they are not great cars, and they not superior to my mazdas. I also prevously owned a miata (140,000 mi) and a 323 (250,000 mi.) both were sold as running cars to other people. man those cars are bullet proof.
Mazdas 3, 5, miata, MPV, and RX8s are all assembled in Japan BTW. It's a fact that Japanese and Korean manufacturers still have better micro quality standards. Except for the TSX, NSX, and S2000, all hondas are assembled in US and Canada.
I am getting only 25 mpg in city driving only on my first 200 miles on the OD in my 06 Coupe Automatic EX with NAV. I did inflate the tires to 33 lbs after noticing from the dealership that it was at 25 lbs each tire. Here in Clearwater Florida, we have a lot of very long red lights to waste our time, and fuel, so this may reflect the lower than EPA reading of 30 mpg city. Not to mention that the car has not been broken in yet.
Thank you!
Who the heck was in charge of that ergonomic train wreck?
It may be a factor of how far back the seat is for some drivers, how much the driver splays his or her legs, how big the driver is. I know on the two Mk IV (2000-2005 generation) VW Golfs I owned, my right leg kept hitting the center stack, which annoyed me, but no such problem on: Civic Coupe, Focus ZX3, Dodge Neon, Scion xA (much narrower car, but still no problem) etc.
I think adjusting the location of the brake lever on the new Civic will be a lot easier for Honda than reworking a center stack to make it narrower is for VW, so I bet Honda will redesign this part of the car in a year or two, even if only a small percentage of owners complain.
FWIW, when I test drove a Civic at the Honda show, I didn't think to check on this factor (I had read about it before my test drive), but on the other hand I don't recall the brake lever being in the way either. That doesn't mean it ISN'T in the way for enough other drivers to matter, just sort of explains why Honda didn't catch it to begin with when they were redesigning the car.
I suppose there si a magnet somewhere to collect the metal (if there is any...).
Dealers tell a lot when the day is long.... you should change oil when the honda manual says, or when that maintenance minder comes on. Not when the guy who makes money on oil changes tells you.
As I mentiones a couple of time.... 3000 miles oil changes we had in communism. those cars were designed in the 60s. that time is over.... and one reason to buy a Honda is its more modern design and less maintenance cost. No honda ever broke down beacause of mantenance according to Honda (10000 miles). Never.