Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Nissan Sentra vs Honda Civic
Hi everyone. I plan to buy my first car and after surfing the internet for days making researches, these are the main 2 cars that interest me: Honda Civic and Nissan Sentra.
I based these choices on the look of the car through pictures, on the fact that these brands are respected and on the price range.
What would you suggest between these 2 cars? Obviously at the end of the day, I'll have to test drive them, however I'm also interested to know the opinion of others based on reliability, quality of the car, and basically which one is the best.
What is the advantage and disadvantage of each? To me, they seem very similar in terms of a look and in terms of reputation, I don't know what I would pick. Are they both GREAT cars?
Please help!!! lol
Thanks!
P.S: I'm not sure if I'll buy a new car 2005/2006, or a used one from around 2002-2003, but I don't think it matters that much in terms of comparing these 2 cars.
Also, how would other similar cars like Toyota Corolla and Mazda 3 compare? it's really hard for me, it's basically a fight between these 4 cars:
Nissan Sentra
Honda Civic
Toyota Corolla
Mazda 3
How would rank them as a top 4 from best to worst? Any other similar car in the same price range that I should consider?
Thanks for any help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I based these choices on the look of the car through pictures, on the fact that these brands are respected and on the price range.
What would you suggest between these 2 cars? Obviously at the end of the day, I'll have to test drive them, however I'm also interested to know the opinion of others based on reliability, quality of the car, and basically which one is the best.
What is the advantage and disadvantage of each? To me, they seem very similar in terms of a look and in terms of reputation, I don't know what I would pick. Are they both GREAT cars?
Please help!!! lol
Thanks!
P.S: I'm not sure if I'll buy a new car 2005/2006, or a used one from around 2002-2003, but I don't think it matters that much in terms of comparing these 2 cars.
Also, how would other similar cars like Toyota Corolla and Mazda 3 compare? it's really hard for me, it's basically a fight between these 4 cars:
Nissan Sentra
Honda Civic
Toyota Corolla
Mazda 3
How would rank them as a top 4 from best to worst? Any other similar car in the same price range that I should consider?
Thanks for any help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Toyota Corolla
Honda Civic
Nissan Sentra
BUT... theres a new Civic debuting this fall, that looks to be a leader in safety features, though it wont be discounted too much. Additionally, there should be a few changes, but not a total redesign for the Corolla this fall. The Sentra is hopelessly outdated, having debuted in 2000. Skip it (even though I love mine, it is a version that is no longer available, and the car hasnt changed much since I got it in Jan 2003). So for right now, the Corolla is the choice if you value ride, efficiency, reliability, safety (with side curtain airbags). The Mazda is the choice that I would make, for its great handling, strong engines, and expressive styling.
Good luck!!!
~alpha
The Corolla is a good car to. As a matter of fact, a couple year ago, I drove an rental 03 Corolla LE to Orlando, Fl. I was so impressed with the car that I seriously considered getting one.
That was before the debut of the Mazda3 though.
All the cars on the list are pretty good cars. As Alpha stated the Civic is all new in less than two months.
But the Mazda3 will be adding some new trim levels for 06 as well and top of the line models will get single-zone automatic climate control.
I have no idea what's in store for the 06 Corolla, and then Sentra will get very FEW changes for 06 with its redesign hitting showrooms sometime early next year (LONG overdue)
Happy Motoring Days my Friend.
I would go with the Sentra SE-R.
It is Beatiful. The car has 180 HP. The civic, well Its ok but for me, it would be a Sentra SE-R. I own a Sentra 2002 GXE and its GREAT! Its only had one problem, The service Engine soon light poped on, but its a common problem. I consider it a Glitch, but I just took it to the dealer and they fixed it. As for the other two cars, this is what i would rate it.
Mazda 3
Sentra
Civic
Corolla :confuse:
Sentra 100%
From Civic or 3, it is a matter of preference, I believe, in either economy(honda) or sportiness (mazda).
I think I'd drive an Elantra before a Sentra; after all, they are just as "old", and have a better warranty.
I just picked up a rental 2005 Sentra today to drive while my KIA Spectra EX is in the body shop. It's front bumper fascia was scraped by a nimrod (NO... not me! ;-) in a parking lot.
First the good news....
I found the Sentra to be a decent running car that appeared to like to rev high before shifts. The car was pretty rattle and squeak free for 35k rental miles too.
Other than that though.... I wouldn't trade my new design Spectra for one of these in a million years. The interior is so uncomfortable and ergonomically wrong when compared to the new KIA that it would take several paragraphs to describe the shortfalls of the Sentra.
The Sentra also lacks sooooo many of the little standard touches that are standard on the Spectra.
So.... before you flame me, I'm not saying the Sentra is a bad automobile. BUT I do agree with the poster above that it is readily apparent that this baby's ready for an overhaul! I'm sure the next one will be right in the thick of things competitively.
-SM
Well, they are releasing their new for 2007 Sentra in an odd fashion: with less power than most of its competitors. I thought Nissan was all about driving excitement in the engine room...The 5 year old Elantra has more ponies (138?) than the 2007 Sentra (135)? This seems wierd coming from Nissan. Also, Civic (140hp), Mazda 3 (148-160hp), Focus (151hp), Cobalt (145hp). The Corolla and Suzuki Forenza have less (126 hp).
Just a thought, here, folks. I realize the difference is small, but Nissan has been class leading in power for so long, I was surprised to see 135 hp instead of 155 or even something closer to 170. If an SE-R model is available, I expect to see it around the 200 hp of the Civic Si and Cobalt SS.
Also, which of the quoted figures are SAE certified and which are not? Toyota and Honda are both definitely SAE certified, as will be the 07 Sentra. But the Focus, 3, and Cobalt.... I do not know, as Ford and GM said they would only re-rate according to the new, certified methodology upon model or engine changes.
~alpha
As far as re-rating goes, GM and Ford have not seen much change to the engines that have been re-rated, as the Japanese makes are taking more of a hit in listed power numbers. I'd bet that the focus is still going to be in the 150 range, being the same engine that adequately powers the Fusion/6 (It's the 2.3L I-4, just massaged slightly).
I have read that the Forenza was painfully slow, belying its hp ratings (something like 11.X seconds to 60).
How do you know that the new 2.0L 6M Sentra wont keep pace with the 2.0L 5M Mazda3i? The Sentra SE-R will be around again to compete with the Mazda3s....
BTW, any torque figures for the 07 Sentra floating around? If more than 145lb-ft, they will be in fine shape. If in the 120lb-ft and under, they may get lost in the crowd.
Feel free to post links to wide pictures, but please make sure that any picture you want to actually display in your post is no wider than about 500 pixels - thanks!
Click here
97 Civic_ EX 1.6: 127@6600, 107$5500, 2518
97 Accord SE 2.2: 130@5300, 139@4200, 2900
06 Civic_ EX 1.8: 140@6300, 128@4300, 2740
06 Snetra 1.8sSE: 126@6000, 129@2400, 2580
The 06 Civic actually delivers less HP than the 97 Accord in practical dirving. After all, who drives at 6300RPM?
At 4200RPM, the Accord has higher torque than the Civic. Considering the weight difference, the two Hondas are about the same. I would geuss that they have much lower torque at below 3000RPM compared to the Sentra. The torque-RPM curve cannot stay almost constant between 2500 to 4300. It depends on the gear box design. Here you see the Nissan technology. They made a 1.8 liter engine behave like a 6 cylinder.
Today's Civic is indeed as good as a 97 Accord. 97 Civic was in a different class.
2.0 liter engine
138HP@6000RPM
136lb-ft@4500RPM
2700lbs
25mpg in city, 34 highway.
Sentra: 28-34mpg
Civic: 30-40mpg
Again, the Civic is gas friendly because it keeps drivers away from acceleration. The Sentra takes order from the driver. I can make my Sentra go at 33mpg average by intentionally pushing the gas pedal lighter.
The Sentra 1.8 engine, coupled to either the current 4A or 5M, is not anywhere near the top of the class in refinement or efficiency. I have much higher hopes for the 2.0L and 6M/CVT combos.
~alpha
Even if the Sentra numbers are reduced by 10%, it is still peppier at 2000-3000 RPM. The 05 Civic had 114lb-ft@4800, there are many user review complaints about its performance. The 06 Civic (new model) is indeed more powerful now. However, Civic also lowered the city gas mileage from 32mpg to 30. I just suspect the Civic engine is not strong enough to deliver higher torque at low RPM range.
I never drove a Civic, but I have had an Accord for 8.5 years. The 06 Sentra is indeed faster, if I compare them without using 4000RPM. A friend of mine has a 03 Sentra, he drove my Accord once and also said his Sentra performs better. And, by the way, my Accord is in perfect condition, like new.
Besides, if a 06 Civic is equipped like a 06 Sentra 1.8s Special Edition, it is at least $5000 more expensive (Edmunds TMV pricing). That is after adding the ABS + side air bags package to the Sentra.
Also, comparing the 2006 Sentra to an Accord that is from what? Model year 1997 is hardly a relevant comparison.
No, the Sentra's HP ratings are not SAE certified. There are no SAE certified figures available, so a direct comparison is to the new Civic's 140 horses and 128 foot pounds is tough.
~alpha
A fair comparison could be 05 Sentra 1.8 (not 2.5) with 05 Civic, their torques are 129@2400 vs. 114@4800. By how much can a SAE correction change this ratio?
One bad thing about the 07 Sentra: no side molding at all.
I had a look of the Nissan webpage. The good news is that they say the 07 Sentra can deliver 90% of its 140lb-ft max torque at 2400RPM. And the safety stuff are standard. And the start price is around 15K.
With the 19.3K to buy a 06 Civid EX AT sedan without option, I would rather buy a 06 Subaru Outback Sport Special Edition. It is better loaded, a lot more of a car, and I can save a few bucks.
Why the adversity to RPM's? There's nothing wrong with using an engine within it's design limitations. The Civic engine is smooth as silk at 4,000 and above...all the way up to it's almost 7,000 rpm redline. What's wrong with some rpm's? Did you ever ride a motorcycle? You'd probably hate that experience if you don't like rpm's.
Warner
I do not like it, nor the downshift to get there. I like 6 cylinder cars just because of this. The Sentra is the only non-German compact 4 cylinder car which has good low RPM acceleration. This is what I have found so far, based on published specs. If you know some mechanics, you know this is hard to achieve. Driving a car to work everyday at age 50, I do not seek the motercycle excitement. I actually feel annoyed by the noises made by the other "sporty" cars, sometimes. You have to understand that different people look for different features on their cars. The number of drivers who hate having to use high RPM is not negligible. A lot of people do not know the importance of the location of max hoese power and max torque yet. The old specs from 10 years ago only gave the maxima. Now every specification of a new car is mandated to reveal the max HP and max torque together with the RPM numbers where the maxima appear. That is not for no reason. In fact, I would like to see the entire HP@RPM and Torque@RPM curves for these cars. Without those, some car makers can still fool comsumers with cheaply designed engines, even dependable but cheap ones.
Yes, as Ford has done with its Escape (200 hp). Despite having 44 less horsepower, the Honda engine has more power across the entire rev range, so its spanks the Escape in acceleration measures.
With the Sentra, you can accelerate by push gas pedel slightly harder and make the RPM increase continuously. With a car having max torque 130@4200, when you push the gas pedal a little bit harder, the car does not take your order to accelerate. Then you have to floor the pedal, the tahometer needle will jump to 4000, while you feel the dragging for a second, hear the engine hauling. I just hate it when that happens.
I hope I make my opinion clear. You may disagree with me.
Thank you, and I do respectfully (on part of it anyway). Your facts are fine, and I don't find fault with anything you said; it's just subjective to each person. I drive in traffic everyday, and go between my 06 Accord with 160lb-ft and my 96 Accord with 139 lb-ft. Honestly, I can't tell much difference below 3k RPM in around town acceleration. Above 3k RPM though, boy, that 06 takes off. I hit the gas hard today when merging (short on-ramp), and I took off faster than I ever could've with my 96, and I wasn't flooring it. This is more to do with horspeower (high-end) than torque, yes I realize that.
If you are used to the engine characteristics of a V-6, I'm surprised you find a small 4-cylinder doable (Honda OR Nissan).
What I like about Honda's, is that there is natural progression of power increase...the higher the rpm, the more power available. Some cars run out of steam before redline, and that scares me for this reason...
If I'm getting out of the way of a truck bearing down on me dangerously, I'm gonna floor it if I can't get out of the lane(and likely, you are too). Flooring it is going to put me higher in the rev range, and in a Honda, that is where my power is going to be. My 2006 Accord makes its peak hp at 5750rpm (I think, 750 from redline). Our Odyssey made its peak hp closer to 5,000 rpm, which made it feel like it went soft when right at redline (of the few times it had to go there). I didn't like that.
Agreed to disagree tthota.
First of all I'm a new poster and never disagreed with you that the Civic engine makes the bulk of it's power at higher revs.
I do not like it, nor the downshift to get there. I like 6 cylinder cars just because of this. The Sentra is the only non-German compact 4 cylinder car which has good low RPM acceleration. This is what I have found so far, based on published specs. If you know some mechanics, you know this is hard to achieve. Driving a car to work everyday at age 50, I do not seek the motercycle excitement. I actually feel annoyed by the noises made by the other "sporty" cars, sometimes. You have to understand that different people look for different features on their cars. The number of drivers who hate having to use high RPM is not negligible. A lot of people do not know the importance of the location of max hoese power and max torque yet. The old specs from 10 years ago only gave the maxima. Now every specification of a new car is mandated to reveal the max HP and max torque together with the RPM numbers where the maxima appear. That is not for no reason. In fact, I would like to see the entire HPRPM and TorqueRPM curves for these cars. Without those, some car makers can still fool comsumers with cheaply designed engines, even dependable but cheap ones.
Hey, if you like driving a tractor and keeping the revs low, that's fine with me. Don't assume that everyone likes that though, or that an engine has superior design or engineering because it makes its power at lower rpm's. It's simply designed differently. It probably has a heavier flywheel and different cam, etc to achieve that goal (and thus probably revs up much slower than an engine designed to rev as well - it takes more effort to spin that heavy flywheel up to speed). EVERY torque and rpm curve cross at 5250 rpm's, it's just a matter of what they do before and after that point. If you like low rpm torque, why stop with a 6 cylinder? Why not a big block that makes 300 foot pounds while it's idling? You'd never even have to step on the gas then, you could just put really tall gearing in the transmission and shift. My point is that each application is different. If you don't like spinning the engine up to make power that's fine and it sounds like you bought the right car for YOU, but don't assume that everyone wants that same driving experience. I would personally HATE to drive a car who's engine wouldn't wind out a little. I don't really see the advantage to the low rpm torque personally. If it were a towing vehicle or truck that carried a heavy load that's a different story (and thus why those types of vehicles are designed to make power in that range). An economy car is not a different story though.
Warner
Anyway, max torque at low rpm is desired in the design of small cars. Some examples are:
2006 Saab 9-3: 2.0 liter, 221@2500
2006 Audi A4 convertible: 1.8 liter, 166@1950,
2006 Audi A3: 2.0 liter, 207@1800,
2006 VW Golf: 2.0 liter, 122@2600,
2006 Sentra: 1.8 liter, 129@2400.
Among them, Sentra has an affordable price. I buy it because I have to pay college tuition for my son.
A bad example among German cars is the MINI: 111@4500.
Maximum torque is just that the RPM where maximum torque occurs. Each engine has a torque cureve base on RPM. All are in a somewhat bell shaped curve . but the diffrrences in the curve, very flat to a very steep peak make a differnece in the torque. The weght of the car makes a significant difference.Also the type of transmission, automatic ( number of gears or CVT) and manual number of gears and each gear ratio. Ant then finally there is the rear-end gear ratio. If it is a large number then it in effect multiplies the torque, but your engine runs at a higher RPM and your gas mileage will be less.
I think what maybe you shouldconcetrate on, instead of "Peak Torque" is the actual accelration times 0-10, 0-20, 0-30, 0-40, 0-50, 0-60. Most major car magazines when they review a car will give those numbers inseconds.
You probably want to concetrate on the 0-30 or 0-20 times. This will give you a much better idea than just the max torque number of a cars actual performance.
To put this all in perspective, would you buy a pet based solely on its eye color?
Cruis'n in a low torque, high RPM 2.2L 4 cylinder,
MidCow
P.S.- It is amazing how many arm chair designers are better than factory design engineers
Compare Nissan Maxima with Sentra, the max torques are 255@4400 and 129@2400, and weights are 3447 and 2620. A Sentra has 76% of the weight of a Maxima, but only 50.5% of its torque.
For the compact cars with small engines, it helps to have the max torque appear early at ~2500RPM. In addition to what I listed as example of cars designed in this way, there are the VW Passat 2.0, VW Jetta 1.9 and VW GTI 1.8. Only a strong engine can take the load of high torque output at low RPM.
Those numbers like 0-60 in 7 seconds are for racing, where the engine turns at >5000RPM. I never have my cars run at >4500RPM for a second.
thegrad
Torque is base on a lot of things; stroke length, engine size and aspiration. You said: "Those numbers like 0-60 in 7 seconds are for racing" No No they are a metric used to measure performane. They are used to compare one car to another; it doesn't mean you should always try to achieve.
By the way did you know that CVT tries to always maintain the optimum engine RPM for efficiency which in many cases is 4,500 or more. Don't ever get a CVT.
Again you misunderstand maximum torque. Maximum torque is only one measurement. Put a 4.11 rear end in a compact and see what you think of the torque!
My experience tells me you experience is all wet; Ever look at a diesel ?
My participation in the discussion has ended. so long.
MidCow
P.S.- I seems like you want the Sentra and are trying to find a way to justify it abeit rather obtuse. If the Sentra floats your boat more than a Civic than by all menas get the Sentra.
MidCow
What happened, Midcow? I thought you were buying an Si, not an S2000? Change of heart? Mind? Just wondering...
Warner
Good buy, Honda Fans!
I'm older than you!. What do you think about me getting a license plate that says "Nvr2Old"
And yes I will enjoy my peak torque at 6200 RPM
S2000 MidCow
I still think Nissan is better than Honda per dollar. If I had $30,000 to spend this time, I would have bought a Maxima SE, which could be boring for you. A 350Z is not practical for me, although my favorite car was a 300Z 5 years ago.
...this coming from someone who loves his '03 Sentra (2.5L 4A)
~alpha
As for the gas mileage, when there are still F150 on the street, we can drive cars. Sentra is only secondary to corolla and civic on mpg, by not very much. Actually the difference on mpg is the price a Sentra owner has to pay for better low rpm power. One can minimize it by intentionally not use the power. Once I managed to increase the mpg number showing on the Sentra trip computer from 32.6 to 32.9 while driving in local streets for 10 miles. If you floor the gas pedal after stopping at every red light (if no other car before you) in a Civic, the mpg will probably be below 30.
Someone told me that Toyota and Honda have their computerized fuel system limit fuel rate to achieve optimized mpg. That is, the driver's desire is distorted by the car. I prefer manual cars because I hate to have the auto transmission distort my desire of proper gears. However, there are too many other things keeping me from getting manual ones. I certainly don't want further distortion from a stupid computer.
Well that's a no-brainer right there. I'm not sure why anyone would need to floor it, though. I've never "had" to floor my Accord from a redlight to get the lead on traffic, say, if I needed to change lanes and found it easier to do so in front of everyone instead of trying to fit in the traffic. You managed to get nearly 33mpg, very nice, but compared with the Honda when driven gently, it still falls behind. I just got 36.4 mpgs on my Honda Accord, so strictly by numbers I could get approx. 43 mpg on the Civic when driven as gently.
One last thing about Nissan that bothers me has been their Interior quality. While my granddad's 99 Nissan Frontier XE feels solid inside, the last Armada, Titan, new Frontier, Altima, and Quests I've sat in (International Auto Show) had buttons that felt loose in their housings compared to my 1996 Honda, and felt especially bad compared with my new one. They need to take a page from Honda's and Toyota's interior quality, so that I don't feel like I'm going to break the climate control knob in my hand.
The Sentra is a fine choice if the items where the Civic excels dont mean anything to you- efficiency, safety, room, build quality, ride, handling, resale value.
For me, and many, thats too much to ignore simply in favor of low-end torque.
~alpha
Cheers,
Going to put some mile on the S2000 to break it in right. P.s I was passed by A Senta :P