Howdy, Stranger!

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





Honda Civic vs Volkswagen Jetta

17810121316

Comments

  • Can you post the top gear acceleration times (i.e. 30-50mph)
    for the GTI and SI as well? Those are more indicative of real-world driving...
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    You normally drive in 6th gear at 30mph? Geez, my Automatic Accord won't even go to fifth gear until 42 mph, and then its at 1,200 rpm! Maybe you should be in a diesel, you sound accustomed to chug-a-LUGging the engine. Not good for it.
  • I know what you are getting at; I did not consider that difference in this test because the Civic is a stick while the GTI is an auto; the number for the Si is high because of it actually being kept in top gear, while the auto in the GTI downshifts as soon as the gas pedal is floored, like any typical auto. You could get a real comparison only when you compare both with a stick.

    CD has commented on this before when they test a stick v/s an auto.
  • If you see my post, clearly I am not talking about numbers only. CD clearly picked the Civic as the handler of these two cars, and I would assume that people buying this category look for handling prowess more than anything else. Apart from that, a 6 mph slalom difference is nothing to scoff at.

    Let me assure you, the price of these two cars will never be close and I am sure all prospective buyers understand that and make a decision knowing fully well what they are paying for.
  • You normally drive in 6th gear at 30mph?

    Those aren't my stats (30-50mph & 50-70 mph). If you have a problem with those stats, talk to C&D...

    Cars with good bottom end torque should have no problem driving at 30mph in 6th gear (VW's peak torque starts in the neighborhood of 1800 rpm). My 2003 Wolfburg Jetta's peak torque starts at 1950 rpm.

    >Maybe you should be in a diesel, you sound accustomed to chug-a-LUGging the engine. Not good for it.

    You sound accustomed to winding the engine into the stratosphere to get anywhere, so maybe you are in the right car :shades:
  • see my post above on the 30-50 & 50-70 times before you get all excited.
  • xkiddx13xkiddx13 Posts: 122
    I'm going to have to go with the Civic. mainly for overall performance and up keep you might spend less for the jetta at first but overall your going to pay for it in the end with all the repairs and maintenence on it, volkwagon is known for there cars needing alot of work.
    anyone that i know that has bought a jetta, says its the first time and last time they ever buy one. as for the civic with honda's quality there are more and more repeat customers.
  • 03Accordman:

    There are people that purposefully do not want to understand the implication of 30-50 & 50-70 times in top gear (5th or 6th) in a manual shift transmission.

    And those people normally drive slushmobiles and toute the only performance number that is relatively close or better than all other manual-shift performance numbers. It is called "grasping at straws" when someone assumes that a manual shift driver will not downshift a couple of gears for 30-50 acceleration and will normally downshift at least one gear for 50-70 acceleration.

    A shifting man,

    MidCow

    P.S.- While C&D, R&T, MT, AW still continue to post 30-50 and 50-70 times they COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS unless the transmissions are the same type both AT or both MT
  • If you are a shifting man, you will surely appreciate that the DSG transmission in the new GTI and GLI can shift faster than any human, doesn't contain a slush box (but two simultaneous wet clutches, instead) and thus doesn't lose any power or waste any fuel.

    This transition will also hold your gear, under normal circumstances and/or if you decide to do so, unless you punch the hard switch on the accelerator, so it's "top gear" acceleration times are just that.

    Away from simplistic arguments, it boils down to what kind of driver experience you appreciate. VW allows you relaxed, low RPM driving with torque available here and now, anytime (i.e., from 1800 to 5000 rpm, and top horse power also over a wide range of rpms). Honda means business above 5000-6000 rpm, and simply feals like an econobox at anything below that. Like it or not, there are many drivers out there who appreciate the serene driving experience that vast amounts of torque in the 2000-4000 rpm band have to offer.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    You sound accustomed to winding the engine into the stratosphere to get anywhere, so maybe you are in the right car

    Umm, stratosphere? It redlines at 6,500 rpm...not exactly stratospheric. Trust me bud, if I was interested in hot-rodding i'd have gotten a manual tranny; instead, I have to drive in town daily, and the more practical choice was the 5-speed auto. You can check on my posts in the mileage boards...I drive to where I get 3-5 over EPA listed city/hwy numbers in my car... Usually not revving above 3,000 rpm; unless I feel like stretching its legs. It feels like a sprinter next to the Jetta's dog of a 2.5 (the Accord's closest 2.4L competitor). Torque figures are virtually the same, mileage numbers are much better on the Accord, even though to get the peak torque the revs are higher. No real tradeoff in my book. You have your cake and save gas too!
  • allhorizon said:

    "If you are a shifting man, you will surely appreciate that the DSG transmission in the new GTI and GLI can shift faster than any human, doesn't contain a slush box (but two simultaneous wet clutches, instead) and thus doesn't lose any power or waste any fuel. "

    Yes, I fully understand DSG is better performance. I just like pushing in the clutch and shifting gears myself. Som e automatics are faster than me and DSG surely is. But I have way more fun and enjoyment in a car that I shift with a gear shiift and cluthc. I have been doing it for over forty years and old habits die hard.

    MidCow
  • > Trust me bud, if I was interested in hot-rodding i'd have gotten a manual tranny; instead, I have to drive in town daily, and the more practical choice was the 5-speed auto.

    I drive on the highway, so I take the 1997 Jetta 2.0 with the 5-speed manual (it's definitely not a sprinter - well not until I drop a supercharger in the engine sometime in the near future). When my wife and I drive in the city, I take my sprinter in the form of a 2003 Wolfsburg Jetta 1.8T (weekend car) with the 5-speed Tiptronic (the only reason being that I wasn't about to teach my wife how to drive a stick at this point in my life - she drives a 2003 Passat to work). In fact, every other car that I've owned was a stick until the 2003...

    > Usually not revving above 3,000 rpm; unless I feel like stretching its legs. It feels like a sprinter next to the Jetta's dog of a 2.5 (the Accord's closest 2.4L competitor).

    You and I are in definite agreement about the 2.5 - it is a dog. I would have made that engine a turbodiesel, IMHO...
  • If you see my post, clearly I am not talking about numbers only. CD clearly picked the Civic as the handler of these two cars, and I would assume that people buying this category look for handling prowess more than anything else. ...

    Let me assure you, the price of these two cars will never be close and I am sure all prospective buyers understand that and make a decision knowing fully well what they are paying for.


    I disagree. There are tens of thousand of GLI, GTI and A3 buyers every year for whom handling is very important, and they base their decision on it - just not at the cost of driving a car that (in their opinion) lacks aesthetic design and creature comfort, and that (in the case of the Si) needs to be revved to 6200 rpm to reach an abysmally low torque that is exceeded by 50% in the GTI, GLI, 2.0TFSI Jetta, or A3 at a low 1800 rpm. The latter allows you the kind of serene, relaxed, yet powerful driving reminiscent of old V8s or modern V6s...

    As to the street price, from my view they are close enough, comparably equipped.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Good for you, you have one of the best looking VW ever made in my opinion (Jetta Wolfsburg ed.). I loved driving the 1.8T VW i drove, but can't figure out why they dropped something so unfinished feeling in the standard Jetta. If I were you, I'd keep the 2003 until sometihng a little better comes along...I love that car.
  • >My comments on the CD comparo:

    The Civic scored in most driving related tests; the GTI socred in most comfort/convenience/rear seat accomodation areas. This was supposed to be a performance car test. Even the sub title is "Grace and handling finish second to a fast and practical box"

    They gave the handling crown to the Civic.

    Some results from the CD test:

    0-60: Civic 6.6, GTI 6.7
    skidpad: Civic 0.91, GTI 0.87
    Lane change (slalom): Civic 69.1, GTI 63.6 (yes, the civic beat the GTI by almost 6mph)
    Braking: Civic 197, GTI 171
    Gotta have it factor: Civic/GTI tied at 21
    Fun to Drive: Civic 25, GTI 21 (surprised?)

    Some quotes for the test:

    "Although the GTI didn't achieve the Si's handling marks, it didn't have any trouble staying in the Honda's rear view mirror on our test route" - So much for a driver's car

    "The GTI ends up being able to do just about everything the Si can do, but it does it without the grace of the Honda"

    "The extra body motion also makes teh GTI feel as if its center of gravity were about a foot higher than the hunkered-down Civic's"

    "It doesn't have the graceful and impressive handling of the Si, but it gets the job done"

    This gen civic is never going to win any CD comparison; that's because they completely hate the instrumentation. That's it.

    The GTI scored in areas of rear seat accomodation, practicality, interior fit and finish (always a VW strong point) and the excellent gearbox.

    I would recommend all to read the comparo and come up with their own conclusions.

    =============================================================

    I read the comparisons (I'm a Car and Driver subscriber), and there are some discrepancies in the way you read the performance test results. Here are the actual test results (and anyone can get the March 2006 Car and Driver and try and refute these results):

    0-60: GTI - 6.6sec Civic Si - 6.7sec
    0-100 Civic Si - 16.8 GTI - 17.0
    0-120 Civic Si - 27.1 GTI - 28.0
    1/4mi GTI - 14.9 @ 95mph Civic Si - 15.1 @ 95mph
    5-60 GTI - 6.9 Civic Si - 7.5
    30-50 GTI - 3.3 Civic Si - 11.3
    50-70 GTI - 4.3 Civic Si - 11.5

    Top speed - Civic Si - 130mph (redline limited)
    GTI - 128mph (governor limited)

    Braking - GTI - 171ft. Civic Si - 179ft.
    Roadholding - Civic Si 0.91 GTI - 0.87
    Lane change - Civic Si 69.1 GTI - 63.6

    That makes it GTI - 7, Civic Si - 5

    Your thoughts?
  • Let me try this again, in a very subjective manner. In reality, these are two quite different cars that appeal to different drivers.

    Si:
    - front LSD
    - slightly lighter
    - better handling for autocross purposes
    - 2-door sedan, exclusively, for now
    - design that appeals to a limited fraction of customers under the age of 22 or so
    - not suitable for long drives

    GTI/GLI/Jetta 2.0TFSI/A3:
    - by all objective measures, similar performance numbers compared to the Si, including skid pad, with appropriate tires
    - 50% more torque than what the Si has anywhere starting at a low 1800rpm - favorably compares to an old V8 or a modern V6
    - choice of hatchback or sedan (available in the GLI)
    - 3 doors or 5 doors available (5 door GTI in July)
    - lots of creature comforts, if desired
    - design (between the Jetta 2.0TFSI, GLI, GTI, and A3) appeals to broad consumer base of all ages
    - very relaxed long-distance driver
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I gotta say, I don't think you are talking about any more of a limited fraction appeal with one versus another, especially when you talk about styling. The Civic has a much better looking exterior, IMO, but that is just one's opinion. I also find the regular coupe Civic good-looking, so I don't base my judgements on the Si's wing and wheels. I also find that the nose'heavy look of the Volkswagen is not my taste, though it may be others. My dad was asking me why someone had "put a truck grill on the the front of that new Jetta"...he then realized it was a GLI and was supposed to have that. The VW isn't bad looking, but it's just a bit too awkward and bug-eyed for my (and my father's) taste. Mom thought they had redesigned the Corolla when she saw a Jetta 2.5. That doesn't bode well for a car that can easily reach $30,000. i have no doubt that it has better steering feel than the Civic, nor have I ever said otherwise, but I am led to believe that when someone who doesn't know a lot about cars looks at the Jetta on the street, they may not bother to give it a second look, since the Corolla has been out since mid-2002.

    (BTW, I mention the Jetta a lot here...it is a Jetta vs Civic Forum...the Civic/Golf forum is elsewhere).
  • "I read the comparisons (I'm a Car and Driver subscriber), and there are some discrepancies in the way you read the performance test results. Here are the actual test results (and anyone can get the March 2006 Car and Driver and try and refute these results):

    0-60: GTI - 6.6sec Civic Si - 6.7sec
    0-100 Civic Si - 16.8 GTI - 17.0
    0-120 Civic Si - 27.1 GTI - 28.0
    1/4mi GTI - 14.9 95mph Civic Si - 15.1 95mph
    5-60 GTI - 6.9 Civic Si - 7.5
    30-50 GTI - 3.3 Civic Si - 11.3
    50-70 GTI - 4.3 Civic Si - 11.5

    Top speed - Civic Si - 130mph (redline limited)
    GTI - 128mph (governor limited)

    Braking - GTI - 171ft. Civic Si - 179ft.
    Roadholding - Civic Si 0.91 GTI - 0.87
    Lane change - Civic Si 69.1 GTI - 63.6

    That makes it GTI - 7, Civic Si - 5

    Your thoughts?"

    So where are the discrepancies in the results I posted, except for the Braking distance typo for the Si (179 ft against the 197 I posted)? You have added a few parameters, but I don't see any incorrect numbers posted ny me.

    On the GTI - 7, Si -5 score, I am not sure how you counted them. Let me list them from your own post:

    You have stated 11 parameters, let me list the winning ones by car:

    Si:
    1) 0-60: GTI - 6.6sec Civic Si - 6.7sec
    2) 0-100 Civic Si - 16.8 GTI - 17.0
    3) 0-120 Civic Si - 27.1 GTI - 28.0
    4) Top speed - Civic Si - 130mph (redline limited)
    GTI - 128mph (governor limited)
    5) Roadholding - Civic Si 0.91 GTI - 0.87
    6) Lane change - Civic Si 69.1 GTI - 63.6

    That makes it 6 for the Si

    Now GTI:
    1) 1/4mi GTI - 14.9 95mph Civic Si - 15.1 95mph
    2) 5-60 GTI - 6.9 Civic Si - 7.5
    3) 30-50 GTI - 3.3 Civic Si - 11.3
    4) 50-70 GTI - 4.3 Civic Si - 11.5
    5) Braking - GTI - 171ft. Civic Si - 179ft.

    That makes it 5 for GTI

    So the score according to your posted results is:
    Si -6, GTI -5

    I am also counting the futile top gear 30-50 and 50-70 times. I say futlie because the Si is a manual and the GTI is an auto(explained earlier, the DSG in teh GTI lets the tranny kick down as soon as the pedal is floored while the stick in the Si let it be kept in top gear by the CD testers)

    Anyway, I am not a numbers only person; I have only responded since you posted total score incorrectly.
  • allhorizon said - "50% more torque than what the Si has anywhere starting at a low 1800rpm - favorably compares to an old V8 or a modern V6"

    Let me venture to say, you have never owned a Honda VTEC or even extensively driven one, IS THAT CORRECT?

    If you don't like a fun shifting car that highly interacts with the drive , then yeah a Honda VTEC is probably not for you. By the way since you are talking about torque you would porabably low a Peterbuilt! ;) The have gobs of torque at idle clear up to red-line at 2,400 RPM

    Cheers MidCow - Proud brand new owner of a new 2006 S2000 low torque 4 Cyl 2.2L Honda.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I think you need to take a look at 0-60 numbers...there is an issue there (6.6sec and 6.7sec...who got what?) I don't have my issue handy (i'm not home right now) to look it up.

    Does it really matter though? The 5-60MPH give a better idea at what car is suited for what. The GTI has the low-end advantage, but the Si makes up for it later in the rev-range. The Civic is the better handler in the real world (lane-change number is pretty drastically different at 6 mph.) Brakes are close to the GTI, but the GTI has the upper hand...

    Take this to the GOLF board. Perhaps the host can provide a link to it for you...(A little help, pat?)
  • "I disagree. There are tens of thousand of GLI, GTI and A3 buyers every year for whom handling is very important, and they base their decision on it - just not at the cost of driving a car that (in their opinion) lacks aesthetic design and creature comfort, and that (in the case of the Si) needs to be revved to 6200 rpm to reach an abysmally low torque that is exceeded by 50% in the GTI, GLI, 2.0TFSI Jetta, or A3 at a low 1800 rpm. The latter allows you the kind of serene, relaxed, yet powerful driving reminiscent of old V8s or modern V6s...

    As to the street price, from my view they are close enough, comparably equipped."

    So what do you disagree with? In my post I said I assume that handling is an important criteria for buyers of both these cars and you agree it is.

    As for aesthetic design, it is subjective; in my opinion the GTI is not a great aesthetic design what with its truncated side view as well as those cart-wheel type alloys. I like Civis better. As for comforts, again that is a decision made by each one of us; I wouldn't say that the Civis lacks creature comforts, would you?

    As for revving the engine up to get to the power band; I am sure just like there are thousands who like more power at low revs, there are thousands others who love to rev to 8k rpm to get that VTEC "rush."
  • Oh, I got it now!!! Blame my eyes.

    However, I am pretty sure the Civic got 6.6 to the GTI's 6.7, though I would like to confirm that once I get back home to my CD issue.

    Sorry 600k.., I will check that up and post those times.
  • >Good for you, you have one of the best looking VW ever made in my opinion (Jetta Wolfsburg ed.). I loved driving the 1.8T VW i drove, but can't figure out why they dropped something so unfinished feeling in the standard Jetta. If I were you, I'd keep the 2003 until sometihng a little better comes along...I love that car.

    Thanks for the kind words... I normally keep my vehicles at least 8-10 years, so I'm holding on to this one for dear life... :)

    The amount of passion VW and Honda owners have for their cars proves that these cars are still the standard bearers for their class - ones that other manufacturers have been emulating for years - and still do... :shades:
  • No problem...I missed that myself until I picked up my C&D issue one night while in this forum... :shades:
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    >> I will check that up and post those times.

    Let's not and say you did. :)

    We're talking about the Civic and Jetta here, okay?
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Hey, congrats on a terrific new ride!!
  • Cheers MidCow - Proud brand new owner of a new 2006 S2000 low torque 4 Cyl 2.2L Honda.

    Hey, congratulations to your new car - sounds like you are going to love it!

    What can I say - I just love small and flexible engines that have a lot of torque down low, and a wide powerband. I just love the fact that you can triple your speed, yet stay in the same gear and have power all the way. And I am not shift lazy at all - I drive a steep, very curvey grade every day where staying in the ideal range requires constant shifting between 2nd and 3rd. (That's actually a good VTec question: in what gear do you accelerate out of a tight, uphill curve when you are going ~20mph?) On the other hand, I find engines frustrating that develop anything close to their max power right when you have to shift.

    Let's agree that people have different preferences, no need to bring Diesel trucks into play... :)
  • So what do you disagree with? In my post I said I assume that handling is an important criteria for buyers of both these cars and you agree it is.

    That's almost what you said. You said "I would assume that people buying this category look for handling prowess more than anything else". It's the latter part I disagree with, and what distinguishes these cars, in my opinion. The Jetta/GLI is a different package, one which approaches the handling prowess of the Civic (and in some categories is its equal, or marginally better), but that, to at least some buyers, has other things to offer that the Civic does not have. And before you get your piece-by-piece comparo spec sheet out, I would be the first to agree that many of the perceived differences are subjective and of aesthetic nature. :shades:
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Posts: 1,978
    Nope! It is just that their Jettas are in for repairs and none of the Jetta owners could find any convenient Internet connections to respond :P .

    Jetta are very good when the are good, and bad when they are bad such as relibility. Buy a VW or Audi ( i had one and learned) and you will make a lot of new friends ( VW service manager, VW technicians, VW service desk personnel). But htat isn't all that bad when I drove up or was towed in they would fill out all of the paperwork and didn't have to ask me my name of anything, wow automated work order.

    Cheers,

    MidCow
Sign In or Register to comment.