As an example, my VW TDI is rated at a peak of 90 horsepoower. On paper this looks pretty whimpey. HOWEVER, anyone that has driven a TDI engine can tell you that it accellerates BETTER than most cars with TWICE the horspower rating.
Ok, Motor Trend pegs your TDI near 14 seconds to 60mph. Motor Trend also puts my Accord (166 hp, not quite twice the hp) in the low 8 sec range (with the auto; manuals are in the low 7s). I have to disagree with you...it may feel like you are faster, but where the rubber meets the road, I can be merged into flowing traffic six seconds ahead of you. (And yes, I know, the diesel gets better mileage, but the point here is the lack of HP DOES make a difference in day-to-day driving, whether you believe it or not).
SIDEBAR: I believe, in this forum, the diesel should be compared with the new Civic Hybrid, the GLI with the Si, and the 2.5 with the mainstream Civics, right?
Why do people try to 'blow you off the road'? Perhaps trying to avoid being behind the diesel exhaust? JUST KIDDING...really though, why are people racing you? I drive in all sorts of traffic (about 30k miles a year combined in both cars of mine) and I can't say someone has ever 'hot dogged' with me, except someone I knew. Apparently the hot dog had a lead on you when he pulled over and gave you the thumbs up, or wouldn't you have blown past him too quickly to see his facial expression and gestures at night.
I can explain exactly what happened: I was in a hurry to get home that night, for important matters, really. So I am going 80 to 85 MPH using a radar detector on dark lonely interstate number 79 about 40 miles north of Pittsburgh. I come up on the Grand Am who also was not playing around. He sees me coming up fast and slows down probably thinking I am a state trooper. I past him at about 80 MPH he was going about 75 or so, he then realizes I am just a nobody like himself and floors his Grand AM at which point he took it up to 100 plus MPH. Since I was in a hurry anyway I figured, why not. So I also floor it and catch up to him pretty quick at which point we hot dogged for about ten miles until we got up to what is called the split where 79 goes onward south towards WV, the way I was headed and also veers off to the left to what is referred as the Parkway north which goes directly into downtown Pittsburgh. At the split we both slowed down because of other traffic and the bend at which point his passenger rolled down his window and gave me the thumbs up obviously impressed that he couldn't lose me and in fact barely pulled away. Our highest speed was 110 side by side for maybe a half mile until "I" backed down thinking this was getting little crazy even for me. I could see they were younger by 20 years and I should know better, but hey, it gave me a kick and I had fun. My brother was killed in a car accident in 1976, my only brother and I KNOW my limits. I have been driving since 1967. I drove across this country many times, I know how to drive and I know what’s safe and what isn't. You are you and I am me.
SIDEBAR: I believe, in this forum, the diesel should be compared with the new Civic Hybrid, the GLI with the Si, and the 2.5 with the mainstream Civics, right?
--------------------------------------------
The GTI and the SI...I would LOVE to be in either going hell bent trying to out do the other....THAT would be fun!
Mr Graduate-- again you are quoting somthing that is better to discuss over a cold beer. The "0-to-60" times are pretty irrellevent to normal daily driving. I dont know many people that sit at a complete standstill-- then BLAST their way up to 60MPH using WOT. (Wide Open Throttle)
Are you aware that most engine/xmission combonations are DESIGNED to make the 0-to-60 times look good? (most automatic xmissions will NOT shift into high gear before 60MPH) Again, this is because it will look good on paper and appeal to the folks that think this means "better". People "in the know" are very aware of this trick and thus put little credance in the 0-to-60 times.
I am glad that VW tends to NOT stoop to silly games like this when they design an automobile. I do not drive like that and could care less about 0-to-60 times.
I do know many people that find themselves stuck driving 40MPH behind somone where the speed-limit is 50MPH. It is under these condiitions where the passing is nearly effortless due to the available torque. (no downshifting...just apply more throttle and let the torque slip you past the slowpoke)
The raw numbers really must be understood within the context where they relate to everyday driving. Sure- more horsepower is available at FULL THROTTLE to acheive a pretty 0-to-60 time.... but it is not very practical.
Dont get me wrong here. I am "in" to drag-racing (at the track) and know quite a bit about what makes a car accellerate quickly. Anyone that asks about "0-to-60" times at a drag-race track would likely be laughed at! What really matters is how much time it takes to go a given DISTANCE... not to acheive a specific speed. (BTW: the HONDAS often win against VW but usually lose against the Dodge)
Again, this is because it will look good on paper and appeal to the folks that think this means "better". People "in the know" are very aware of this trick and thus put little credance in the 0-to-60 times.
Yes, but the difference is negligible (less than half a second) when a upshift is made before or after 60, unless the tranny is geared so bad that the engine drops out of the meat of its powerband after the upshift. I was referring to differences of 6 seconds in the Accord and Jetta (lets get back to the Civic now), which has a 0-60 of 8.0 even, compared with 13.8 from the 90 hp Jetta TDI we were discussing earlier.
I do not drive like that and could care less about 0-to-60 times.
You brought up the acceleration being superior to cars twice its horsepower. I was just using facts instead of opinion to make my point. Forgive me.
Dont get me wrong here. I am "in" to drag-racing (at the track) and know quite a bit about what makes a car accellerate quickly. Anyone that asks about "0-to-60" times at a drag-race track would likely be laughed at! What really matters is how much time it takes to go a given DISTANCE... not to acheive a specific speed. (BTW: the HONDAS often win against VW but usually lose against the Dodge)
When did Dodge enter the conversation?
I do know many people that find themselves stuck driving 40MPH behind somone where the speed-limit is 50MPH. It is under these condiitions where the passing is nearly effortless due to the available torque. (no downshifting...just apply more throttle and let the torque slip you past the slowpoke)
Well, downshifting wouldn't help at all with a diesel powerband like VWs, so you better have enough torque there. In the Honda, if a downshift is required, there is always more power and more power yet the higher in the rev-range with i-Vtec, while keeping plenty of usable (while not as much torque at 1200 rpm) down low. In the same sense of driving high-in the rev range (which Honda is designed to do), I find myself staying above 2,000 rpm generally when tooling around town, so my driving style wouldn't be well-suited to the Jetta (which is designed for low-rpm scooting).
To each driving style his own car, and it's nice to have such great competitors that we can discuss it!
Happy motoring in this last week before Christmas!
To each driving style his own car, and it's nice to have such great competitors that we can discuss it! --------------------------------------------------
Having owned the 05 Jetta TDI the 06 Civic EX and now the 06 Jetta TDI all 5 speeds, after wasting all that money and time what I like about the VW are these things: More comfortable, way easier to shift, the Civics’ 5 speed was strange and after 4000 miles I never really mastered it feeling comfortable where the Jetta is simple, very straight forward and easy without thinking to shift. The low end torque is unbelievable on the Jetta and nonexistent on the Civic, more room in the Jetta, a lot more room. The Civic was a nightmare getting my disabled in and out with her wheel chair where the Jetta's door opens to almost 90 degrees making it a snap. Heated leather seats, satellite radio, great sound system, a very safe and secure system in the ESP option on the Jetta...I could go on but in a nut shell and for this guy the Jetta is light years above and ahead of the Civic and why I bought two of them in a very short period of time and dumped a Civic no matter the money factor, it didn't matter the difference was so great going back to the Jetta. They always say put your money where your mouth is, I did and have the receipts to prove it.
I bought two of them in a very short period of time and dumped a Civic no matter the money factor, it didn't matter the difference was so great going back to the Jetta. They always say put your money where your mouth is, I did and have the receipts to prove it.
Many people in the market for an economy car can't, or don't need to, go over the budget they set for a car. A couple thousand dollars subtracted from a tight budget can mean a lot more than 10 thousand to a more wealthy family.
Heated leather seats, satellite radio, great sound system
A car optioned as your TDI lists for $25,390 (Jetta TDI package 2). The Civic EX lists for $18,260. Perhaps your Jetta is much better compared to an Accord EX-L. It has Dual-Zone Auto Climate Control, Heated leather seating, leather wrapped wheel, XM Radio, 8-way Power Seat,a LOT more room inside than the Jetta, 166HP engine (160 lb-ft of torque), and all for $1200 less than your NOx box ($24,150).
Just a few observations. My wife and I recently priced a well appointed '05.5 Jetta for her. She really wants a memory seat. We liked it, but had great reservations about VW after owning a less than stellar '85 GLI. I drove it very briefly, with no salesman aboard, so I did wring it out a bit. Acceleration was okay, just didn't seem quick. It handled nicely, and the ride was smooth and quiet. The price the dealer gave us, though, was not low enough for us to bite. The reason is we had also just looked at the Acura TSX, which worked out to only about 2K more. I believe this price difference would be easily made up at trade-in time. So, while my heart kind of wanted the VW, my head says wait for that suitably colored '06 TSX and be happier in the long run.
Now, jump ahead about a month. My wife's old '95 Odyssey decides to dump its oil, and after towing it to the dealer we decide it's not worth fixing. So, enter a new '06 Civic EX for me (she'll still get the TSX later). What a wonderfully tight, quiet, and zippy little car. It's probably not really fair to compare it directly with the Jetta, which is a bit larger, and matches up to the Accord better. But, for what it's worth, here are some reasons to pick the Civic. It seems quicker, better gas mileage, probably at least a couple thousand less comparably equipped, greater reliability, lower maintenence cost, better trade-in, and a funky dashboard. Like I said, I liked the Jetta, but I couldn't ignore these factors. Better seats and a bigger trunk are, to me, not worth the potential heartbreak of VW ownership.
the Jetta, which is a bit larger, and matches up to the Accord better.
I've been saying this for a while now. The Jetta 2.5 price matches perfectly with the Accord!
After some research, I agree with this idea more and more:
Accord I-4 MSRPs run from $18,225 to $24,950 (no options except nav, for $2,000; everything else is standard), while the Jetta 2.5 MSRPs run from $17,900 to $25,465** (**comparably equipped with leather and auto to match EX-L Accord). This seems like a perfect match to me.
Both cars have a "value" model, which is around $18,000, and both can be optioned up to about $25,000, with the lower-level engines.
With upper level engines (200 hp 2.0 Turbo Four in the Jetta vs 244hp 3.0 V-6 in the Accord), the cars again meet at price about 400 dollars different when comparbly equipped = $26,940 for Jetta (package #1 options), $27,300 for Accord EX-V-6 (the extra $400 is probably worth it for 44 more horses.)
So you see, a comparo between the Accord and the Jetta looks a lot more fair than the Civic vs. Accord. The Jetta owners talk about how their car is higher class than the Civic, and it is. But is it better than the Accord for the same money?
If someone is up for a debate on the topic, feel free to start a forum, and let us know here.
I was thinking about this very same topic. If you put price aside for a moment, and just look at the cars, the Jetta is bigger, has a bit more horsepower (the 2.5) and more features than the Civic.
Against the Accord, it's almost just the opposite, so it would seem that the Jetta falls in between the two and is not a natural competitor for either.
I'm anxious to see one of the car magazine 'comparos' including the Jetta. Where does it fit, and what cars are its rivals?
A car optioned as your TDI lists for $25,390 (Jetta TDI package 2). The Civic EX lists for $18,260. Perhaps your Jetta is much better compared to an Accord EX-L. It has Dual-Zone Auto Climate Control, Heated leather seating, leather wrapped wheel, XM Radio, 8-way Power Seat,a LOT more room inside than the Jetta, 166HP engine (160 lb-ft of torque), and all for $1200 less than your NOx box ($24,150). ------------------------------------------------------ YES, I looked at Accords...MPG just doesn't make it, not even close. ROOM, I hardly think so, try sitting in a Jetta after getting out of an Accord, I did.
Actually mine stickered at exactly 26,019.00 ...they did, believe it or not, discount me. Money, like I already stated was no factor least I would still be driving the Honda. The Honda had it's good points but it just wasn't "right" for me and the family.
I even did something I never do. I bought a one hundred thousand mile bumper to bumper warranty to top it off. I am paying four percent interest for four years but the car will be paid for in no more than two, the warranty I paid cash for.
One mention: I was originally afraid of going diesel with cold winters around here, but I am pleasantly surprised with the temperatures being in the single digits it takes about 5 seconds max for the glow plug light to go out and then I fire it up without any difficulty whatsoever. I now have 2500 miles on it and my worst MPG were when I was road racing at which point it dropped to 41 MPG down from 47 MPG. Honestly, after owning two diesels, I don't think I can go back to a gasser, unless I find another 1967 Dodge RT 440 with 375 HP so I can feel some real torque.
ROOM, I hardly think so, try sitting in a Jetta after getting out of an Accord, I did.
Yes, Ive sat in both as well (at the auto show). The Accord is larger in every single dimension; legroom by 3 inches, headroom by 3 and a half inches, and shoulder room by 6 inches (all figures are combined front and rear.) Total interior cargo volume measures over 11 cubic feet larger than the Jetta. I'm not sure how you figure the Jetta to be larger...can you elaborate?
Sure I can elaborate: You see I drove Camrys for ten years, you know the "mid" sized Camry, which by the way, I love them. After driving those Camrys and going to a Civic, well in one word, ridiculous. But when sitting in the Jetta with everyone packed in, well, there really isn't much difference than it and the Camry, OR the Accord which is Camry’s rival.
You are stuck on numbers, facts, "experts" opinions, magazine articles, you would probably elect Joseph Stalin since you like being told what's better and what you should do, and how to basically live....kidding only kidding.
My point is you have consistently used facts, figures and "experts" advice when I used my hard earned money and bought what I absolutely believe to better a better choice for around all transportation, fuel economy and comfort and most of all, safety.
My decision may seem strange or even insane to you and for that matter buying three new cars in mere months WAS insane to me but my passion for the Jetta versus anything else offered is proof positive which is backed up with real hard dollars, MY dollars. Think me insane, I don't care. At least I am happy, not confused and worried about reading every small detail trying to convince myself how to live based on someone else’s advice, my own intuition got me this far and I’m doing well for it.
Thanks for putting into words what I have been unable to do very well.
The magizene articals and "numbers" they spew out must be tempered with some wisdom....lest one will be led astray down a path of false knowledge. Raw data -in itself- is not knowledge.... let alone wisdom enough to make an informed decision. (Unfortunately, they do not seem to teach that in school nowadays)
DRIVE the vehicles in question for several thousand miles. Take a 16-hour trip. There is no question which of these 2 is the higher QUALITY and remains so after 150K miles. (Hint: It is NOT the most reliable of the 2)
I drove a TDI and really liked it. I almost bought a Golf TDI in 2003, but the dealer added $300 and I walked. Also, read about the hoorible reliability and delarer service and was extremely glad I didn't buy. Since then I have toyed back and forth between high miles per gallon cars and fun cars. I have analyzed and reanalyzed the cost savings of high mileage cars and it just isn't there. The TDI used to be good value for the money, the new 2006s are overpriced. The TDI is a ggreat diesel very good low end torque at 1800 rpm right off the line. Starting and in town driving is very responsive , but then it slows down as objectively measured by 0-60 mph times of 13-14 seconds. The TDI and other Volswagons do have a great German road feel and great safety features. So what is the problem, they are not relable and the dealer service is really arrogant, expensive and not necessarily competent. I once, a long long time ago, had an Audi LS100 and everything went wrong, from a headlight fuse conenctor burning out, to a mtor mount falling off, to the manual gear shift selectro coming apart. I went to the Audi service every couple of weeks and all of the service advisors knew me on a first name basis. That is an experience that I do not intend to have any close service advisor relations with any dealers, susch as VW in the future. Beisde the above i really like the VW, especially the high mileage and good take-off torque of the TDI Jetta abd Golf.
Now what I really like nice handling responsive cars with nice sounding motors that are reliable. It seemsabout every 10 years I pick up a high reving Acuras/Honda tha meets this requirment. 1985 CRX Si, 1995 Acura Integra GSR, 2006 Honda Civic Si. Acura listen up, I really liked the RSX type S except for for the control/gauge layout and the funky red display ( don't like BMW's either). If the display on the RSX would have been as clear as the GSR I would have bought one long ago! I actaully really like the new Civic digital display , especially the Sis.
In reading this thread it is really amazing the excuses that peoeple come up with to justify the poor VW relability. Well it's a German car and it needs regular maianteance ... POO Humbug! When a VW achieve the level of Honda/Acura or Toyota/Lexus dealers then maybe, I and thousands of others will buy one!
The only reason I use facts is to help prove my point. I drive an Accord ly(at 6'5", 200) because it was the roomiest car for the money. I didn't buy the car because it's headroom measure was xx inches, I bought it because it fit. The only reason I bother using figures is because in other forums I am criticized by others when I post anything without hard proof. I haven't had that problem here, yet, because I always use facts in my posts as well, to prove that my opinions aren't COMPLETELY baseless!
Think me insane, I don't care. At least I am happy, not confused and worried about reading every small detail trying to convince myself how to live based on someone else’s advice, my own intuition got me this far and I’m doing well for it.
As far as convincing myself, that isn't necessary, buddy. I have a ten year old Accord that I love as much as the day I got it, but it has become a little impractical, at my size, to drive that car every day. I immediately went to look at Accords again, because I was so happy with the old one ( I kept it, too, so I could take it to Lowe's and Sam's parking lots and not worry about buggies and door dings, crazy I know lol ).
Worried, confused with every detail? No, I have only corrected your posts for readers of this forum, so they will not be misled into thinking things like the Jetta TDI is the quicker car, and that the Jetta is 'so much bigger' than the Honda.
You are stuck on numbers, facts, "experts" opinions, magazine articles, you would probably elect Joseph Stalin since you like being told what's better and what you should do, and how to basically live
I'm not 'stuck' on facts, figures, and expert opinions backing up my case for the Honda. The thing is, the majority of facts, reliability figures (among others, like room), and expert opinions, all seem pretty positive about Hondas. I have already got my car, after test driving it for many many miles, along with test driving other things, it was the car I kept coming back to wanting. I only use facts (shouldn't be a bad thing, using published fact) to try to convey how I feel about the car, and as far as expert opinion, well, I figure, to most people, it is going to be more credible than someone who has their own Honda. That's why I use it. Maybe you should use them. Yes, you will likely find some that may make Honda look inferior (like the Accord weighing less than the Jetta, )...Go for it!
Maybe someone is touchy after the lowly, crappy, cheap, slow, Civic, beat out all other 'New for '06' cars for Car of the Year (by Motor Trend)? "No, those people are stupid, and a car with some torque should have won." That's fine. That's your OPINION. You can use your opinion, I can use mine and others.
Hey "TheGraduate" care to back up your last paragraph:
"Maybe someone is touchy after the lowly, crappy, cheap, slow, Civic, beat out all other 'New for '06' cars for Car of the Year (by Motor Trend)? "No, those people are stupid, and a car with some torque should have won." That's fine. That's your OPINION. You can use your opinion, I can use mine and others. "
Where do the facts describe the Civic as lowly, crappy, cheap, slow, ...? And I am not sure where the Antecendent is placed are you trying to quote what someone else might have said when you typed ' "No, those people are stupid, and a car with some torque should have won." ' or was that your thought ?
I am referring to the slams to the CIvic with sarcasm. The facts don't describe the Civic as any of those things. In fact, for the most part, the Civic is the most important car released for 2006 (in terms of units sold), and appears to have made great strides in design. Sorry if you got caught up in the sarcasm, and hopefully, that will be the last instance of it. I was just tired of being criticized for having facts that insist the Civic is better bang for your buck, and eyc comes back with "those who have driven know a VW is much better." Numbers don't lie, and my test drive didn't either. The Civic EX gives a lot of car for the money. The Jetta, when stripped down, is a fair contender price-wise, but with any options, goes straight to Accord territory. Long live the Civic (at least it has the reliability history to prove that it might actually live long!)
Hey dude, it’s your money and you are free to do with it what you want, me, I’ll throw mine at a car I believe will be around when others are finished. Putting the kind of miles I put on and if I loved Hondas the way you do, I would be buying one every other year because they would be ripe for the scrap heap in that short period of time. If my VW turns into a pumpkin, I’ll let you all know don’t hold your collective breathes though.
Side Note: If I knew the grad went to the Honda Church of Worship, well then I would have kept my religion to myself.
155k miles with less than $700 in repairs (my 96 Honda), or 40k miles with $2600 in repairs (friend's 2000 New Beetle Turbo). This is the comparo that I have personally made Honda to VW, within my personal circle. No books claiming reliability can beat seeing it first hand. I hoe you have better luck with your VW, because I really do love to drive them. I drove my girlfriend's dad's Audi Cabriolet A4 and loved it! Scrap heap Honda, though, I don't think so.
There is NO comparison between a Jetta and an Accord in ROOM. I don't understand how you can say the 'Hardly'. The Jetta is way too cramped compard to an Accord.
There is NO comparison between a Jetta and an Accord in ROOM. I don't understand how you can say the 'Hardly'. The Jetta is way too cramped compard to an Accord.
I sat in the Accord, drove it, got out and did the same in the Jetta, NEW STYLE and the difference was not much different with my 6 foot 180 lb son sitting in the back seat critiquing for me. Owned Camry’s for years which is same as the Accord for room, and again NOT much difference. Guess what, I don't care what you think, say, believe because I (KNOW) it‘s NOT cramped in the least, no way in GOD'S green earth least it would still be sitting on the dealers lot.
I love this forum, facts and reality seems to be altered here, it's surreal like the twilight zone.
I have to say I've had the pleasure of driving both these cars (Civic EX and Jetta Pkg 1, lest we forget the topic) and I really would have a hard time picking the Jetta over the Civic for any reason other than the supposed trendiness of the Jetta.
Through the seat of the pants, acceleration felt similar. However, really looking at it, the Jetta disappoints- an extra cylinder and an extra cog and it feels no quicker than a Civic? The Civic's engine also sings a sewing machine like song, while the Jetta's I5 kinda rumbles. I didnt find the Jetta's interior to be as leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else like it used to be, and GOD, please with that awful leatherette.
Now, certainly the GLI might be a different story, but the Jetta Pkg 1 that I drove handled nicely, but not sportily. I felt the new Civic had the same composure, but a more playful fiestiness, something the former Jetta generation had.
Cruise around to the stickers.... I dont see where the Jetta warrants another 4 grand over a Civic EX. It certainly doesnt make it up in fuel efficiency, trailing by 10 MPG on the HIGHWAY. THATS CRAZY!
In terms of safety, both are exceptional, and I like the fact that the Jetta has stability control. On that count, I'd give the Jetta the nod, but the Civics crash scores are exceptional, and it even received the Top Pick-Gold from the IIHS (the Jetta's is a Silver).
eyc51k- I dont mean to be rude, but theres a HUGE difference between room inside the Jetta and room inside a current Camry or Accord. It may not seem pronounced from the drivers seat, but try the rear.
My vote: Civic EX, no contest. The new grown-up Jetta is just too "me too", except for its bizarre 5 cylinder engine which provides no performance of efficiency benefit. Its a nice car, but for $23K, I want more.
I don't need to read things slowly to understand them; thank you very much. May hold good for you, so please take time reading what I wirte:
Real world or statistically, there is no comparison in room b/w the Accord and a Jetta. I haven't seen or read one post by anyone here or in any publication that puts space in the Camry/Accord on par with a Jetta. If you keep your eyes open (and an opem mind) while checking out an Accord, you will see what I mean.
Thanks, I did so. This forum gets bogged down with no posts for a while, in my opinion, because it isn't a worthwhile topic. Something that costs 14-20k compared with something that costs 18-28k? Not a fair fight to start with. That is my opinion though, so I will be moving to a discussion with another car that costs exactly $18,225(V.P)-$29,300(EXV6Navi), comparing to the Jetta that costs $17,995-$31,840. The $32,000 Jetta here is to include the rear airbags, navigation system, and 200 horsepower engine, (package 3 options)to be most competitive with the Accord V-6 with Navi.
Thanks for the debates and a Merry Christmas to all! (Can we still say Christmas here??:-))
their Driver's seats, I heard most of theirs were comfortable, and with over several hours of trip use, stayed snug comfy. So in a comparison of any of the previous years seat, does anyone know, or has driven to know well, if the 2006 Civic sedan's driver seat is as good?
And 2, has any one compared any of the 1997 thru 2000 Civics particularly as to their straight line tracking precision driving on the interstates (a little side note-to all the panty waists for Authorites we have smoothering the entire country; see, smell, and breathe in the shock and awe of the godly inspired German Traffic Engineering of 5,500 miles of silky smooth and toll free Autobahn highways all of Germany's drivers so pleasurably traverse on and orgasmically enjoy every day of their existance...) from before and 65MPH to 114MPH and above, and then comparing theirs to the 2006's straight line tracking ability? Is the 2006 Civic sedan's straight line tracking as good, or better?
I only test drove the 2006 Civic sedan (EX), not driven it more than 25 miles, but I feel like the tracking is much better on the interstate when:
1.) Getting passed and left in the wake of large 18-wheelers
and 2.) Driving in the grooved roadways (less prone to follow groove
I have driven my grandma's 1997 Civic probably 200 miles in my life, but I do remember it feeling a little light when getting passed by a big truck. The Civic naturally won't feel as secure as a larger heavier car, because the weight it what holds you down, and the Accords/Jettas weigh more, but the new Civic is definitely an improvement in straight line tracking, especially for 14k!
Exactly which Civic can you get for $14K? Certainly not a DX plus air conditioning....these things are still selling very close to MSRP, let alone invoice.
My family has both a '99 Civic EX and the '06 Civic EX. The seats in both are nicely supportive. The '06 seems a bit firmer, but that might just be due to the newness, and the side bolsters cradle you a bit more than the '99. I have not had the chance to try a long trip in either (the '99 is also a recent addition).
Both vehicles track very straight. The '06 may be a bit more sensitive to road irregularities and slight steering corrections. Don't know if tires and alignment aren't the largest factors for these characteristics.
My family has both a '99 Civic EX and the '06 Civic EX. The seats in both are nicely supportive. The '06 seems a bit firmer, but that might just be due to the newness, and the side bolsters cradle you a bit more than the '99. I have not had the chance to try a long trip in either (the '99 is also a recent addition).
Both vehicles track very straight. The '06 may be a bit more sensitive to road irregularities and slight steering corrections. Don't know if tires and alignment aren't the largest factors for these characteristics.
The steering on the 2006 is MUCH quicker than the previous models...I have noticed (and appreciate!) that. It gives it a sportier feel when you're driving it. That and the steering wheel is a bit smaller as well. The seats are firm and supportive. I have not yet taken a long trip in it. If it's as good as my 2004 I'll be thrilled....I did a 20-hour drive to Tennessee and back (and I did all the driving) and my body felt good when I got home. In contrast, every other car that I've owned would have left me with a sore back for a trip of that duration.
In my area (Southeast) Civics are going for 1,000 under MSRP these days, and I thought a Civic DX could be had for $14k something. Keep in mind, the southeast doesen't usually pay the Northeast premium on things (lower cost of living here). What is the starting price for a base Civic now? If none, did it really matter if I said 14k vs 15k in my post? The price wasn't the point, it was the improved straight-line tracking that someone had asked about.
You are correct in that the cost difference is not a big deal to most folks. (Why save a couple thousand dollars and not be happy with ones vehicle for the next 15 years?... that is only about $150 a year difference)
It is good to hear that Honda has finally improved on one aspect of the Civic handling (straight line) Perhaps after another 10-20 years, Honda may start to approach the handling qualities of a German Roadcar.
Honda still has some work to do to match the interior material quality and body rust resistance of the VW. (But we have already discussed that ad-naseum in past appends)
It is very difficult to compare these 2 vehicles which, for the most part, are in different "classes" and intended for different segments of the car-buying population.
I've driven the jetta , owned a mercedes c240 a couple of yrs ago.. German cars do have a certain feel that is very positive.BUT... ultimately... who wants to take 20K plus or minus. not a small bit of change.. and sink it into a car that has CONSTANT problems requiring it be in the shop??? NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE DRIVE IS I bought the 2006 civic ex. Stick.. it moves quick.,, it drives like a car 5k more in price.. its comfortable SAFE economical,and DEPENDABLE! As for those people who have 20k to buy a car that needs lots of pampering.........? ITS YOUR DIME!
I agree 100% that VW has the superior on-road handling (as opposed to off-road? LOL). I drove an Audi A4 Cabriolet (a VW at heart) from a car show to the selling dealership, and it was fantastic to drive. It's a good thing that the German cars have the handling made for high-speeds, since they don't have 75 mph caps like we do here.
I cannot attest to rust resistance, other than my 1996 Accord with 155,000 miles on it, which has none at all. I live in the south however, and snow/salt isn't an issue, although it is for many.
I owned a 06 EX speed and sold it off into the recycling bin and bought an 06 Jetta TDI...MUCH nicer car, MUCH more comfortable, MUCH more safer, Much more stable in bad conditions, (ESP), Much more economical at close to 50 MPG, and being it's a diesel it will out last your Civic by years and thousands and thousands of miles. Yes, you saved money up front, but on the back end you will be buying another car when mine is still ticking away like a Swiss Clock made by the masters who feast on red meat and not dried rice.
The Jetta a larger vehicle than the Civic? Different class size? Shoe me a $14K 06 Civic? no way , no how. There is discussion in other chat rooms around the net about the price Honda is asking for this "economy" car..
Again, it depends on which part of the nation you are in. In the SE U.S., Civics are easily going for $1,000 under MSRP. Yes, the Jetta is larger than the Civic, and costs much more as well. The Jetta is the nicer car here, and as far as safer? I can't say a whole lot, but the Civic has all safety features as standard, while the Jetta has things like rear airbags as options. I keep trying to convince people how the Jetta is much more comparable in price to the Accord, but noone will go to that forum! (starting prices for both are within $300, and loaded prices, the Jetta is actually $3 grand more than a loaded Accord V6!!)
2645 of 2657 Civic EX Coupe 5spd for 17,541 by emanb Dec 19, 2005 (2:04 pm)
I sent an email to an internet sales person who by the way I've met in person before and he quoted me 17,541 destination charges are included. This is from Autowest Honda in Fremont, CA.
Post 2645 in the prices paid forum...this fellow got over $2100 off of MSRP...many more cases of people getting thousands off of MSRP on Civics
Good to see you again, scape, I've missed our debates! :-) Have a Merry Christmas
The Civic is $15,110 for a manual transmission DX w/o air conditioning.
Add air at the dealer, it'll run between $900-1200. Lets say an even grand, including installation. Thats $16,110. So, even if its $1000 under sticker in the SE, thats still not $14K, unless you do math differently than do I.
Just curious- what makes the Jetta nicer? I know that VW dealerships are typically more opulent than are Honda dealerships, which is good given the that VW has been performing abysmally in JDP Initial Quality studies for a few years now, and not much better in their Long Term dependability studies or in Consumer Reports.
I've driven both; the Jetta just isnt worth the premium over a Civic EX. The former Jetta was a styling trend setter, had impressive handling/ride balance, a top notch interior and didnt look like much else, aside from perhaps a Shrinkidink-ed Passat.
Now, the Jetta doesnt set the style, has a ride/handling balance that is not above others at the price point, has a nice but no longer worlds better interior, and looks like a Corolla. To boot, its manages no better efficiency than does an AWD Legacy or a 268 horse Avalon. Wheres the competitive advantage?
I guess sales will tell the story.
FWIW, the Civic and Civic Hybrid as well as the Jetta and TDI will be in next month's CR, along with the Impreza and WRX.
did you see the recent test put out by the iihsatsad (or something like that)? there were ten new cars that passed what i'm sure are considered to be rather stringent standards for safety in an accident. the civic was on the list - the jetta wasn't.
Add air at the dealer, it'll run between $900-1200. Lets say an even grand, including installation. Thats $16,110. So, even if its $1000 under sticker in the SE, thats still not $14K, unless you do math differently than do I.
SE Civic? I think you may mean EX, but that's no biggie. I just read the DX price off of the Honda website. i didn't realize that destination wasn't being included in the price of $14,560, that I was referring to; my apologies. The EX in California is now being traded at $2,100 under MSRP according to my last post (which refers to another forum). This would make the Civic with A/C available for under $14k, but likely in most areas, in the mid 14s, to around $15k OTD.
I haven't driven the new Jetta enough to know how much nicer it is, but things available like a 12-way power seat, and nice wood trim make the interior a little more opulent (but for the price with some of these features, it better d@%# well be! A $32,000 compact VW? That's just wrong!
As far as the new VW style, hello Corolla! Even the Phaeton looks like a larger (though not more expensive) Toyota Corolla. While not a bad thing (I don't think Toyotas are really bad looking) I doubt this is what VW was going for.
I bought a brand new 06 EX five speed, drove it for 4000 miles and decided that I missed my 05 Jetta. Decided that because I was not as comfortable, didn't have as much room, sat higher in a seat that doesn't go 12 ways like on my Jetta. The mileage is a LOT better in my TDI than the Civic. The Jetta handles a million times better than the Civic. The Jetta has tons more low end power. The five speed in the Civic was hard to shift at all times perfectly, and I have been shifting since 1967. In the Jetta, no thinking required to shift. And for me what is beyond comparison for it's price tag is the snow storms I drove thru without difficulty knowing full well that the Civic would have been down over the hills like the SUV's I saw. If I had only one reason to go back to the Jetta, that reason is the ESP which not even offered on the Civic. I actually owned and drove these two automobiles, how many on here can say the same yet seem to have all the facts without the REAL experience. I know you guys are in love with the Civic, to me they are tinny toys with the newest one complete with a video game dash board. The front end in so long when looking out I felt like I was steering a star ship. I don't understand all the hype over the worn out Civic in new clothes. I like the Jetta so much more I owned two BRAND new ones in mere months. The Civic would have never taken me home in the two snow storms the Jetta did and for that factor alone everything thing else is a plus. The Jetta is absolutely a more solid car. It rides better, feels better and IS safer. You guys on here talking the talk didn't own both like I did, therefore your opinions don't carry much credence. I do have all the sales receipts if anyone doubts my words. I work for a wage. I don’t own a business. I am not rich, but the Civic was a big enough disappoint for me to sell it off with only 4000 miles on it. Opinions are like you know what, unless like me you have actually owned both automobiles your opinions carry no weight, in my book, and I am sure many others reading these boards.
If you've been shifting since '67, maybe age plays a factor. Perhaps the new Jetta is more targeted to the AARP crowd, which is against my perception that it is targeted at a youthful crowd as was the previous iteration. Were I to pit the Jetta against a Taurus or LeSabre, you can be sure I'd pick the Jetta.
"You guys on here talking the talk didn't own both like I did, therefore your opinions don't carry much credence."
I absolutely dont doubt your words, I just question why you even bothered with the Civic in the first place. The fact that you hated it so much yet still bought it (along with TWO Jettas) hurts your credence more than the fact that I'm voicing my opinion even if I've not owned but driven both twice on separate test drives.
"Opinions are like you know what, unless like me you have actually owned both automobiles your opinions carry no weight, in my book, and I am sure many others reading these boards."
That is one of the most arrogant statements I have read in 6 years of postings. So, if you dont own a vehicle, then your opinions carry no weight? I'm sorry but I beg to differ. Given that you've been posting for less than a month, too short a time to carry any credibility on "these boards", I wonder whose opinions carry more credibility... Also, I dont pass my opinions off as fact, although, you certainly seem to make a habit out of that.
WERE IT MY MONEY, I'd delightfully take the $4000 in change and buy a Civic EX OVER the overweight, overcylindered, underefficienct, unreliable Volkswagen Corolla. And I'd be sitting on cloth instead of vinyl to boot!
[For what its worth, the Jetta VE doesnt have stability control standard, so Im not sure how youre stating that the Jetta IS safer? Is the IIHS Crash Test results? The Jetta wins Silver, the Civic... Gold... hmmn...]
I absolutely agree with you. What Bpeebles won't admit too, primarily because he just purchased a 2006 VW Jetta TDI, is that German cars especially the VW require much more maintenance to keep them running in top performance. And the German maintenance is not cheap!. The other problem is that most VW dealers have atrocious service. I have owned a BMW and an Audi in the past and although they rode very well they were always in the shop for one minor thing or another. And anything not covered by factory maintenance was very, very expensive, even more than the Lexus cars I have owned. I have found domsetic cars to be terrible in relability and customer service. After over 35 years of buying cars, I try to limit myslef to Acura/Honda or Lexus/Toyota. I drove a TDI and the initial impression is very psitive. Because of the high torque at low rpm the TDI is very responsive around town and after it gets up to highway speed it is very drivable. But the numbers don't lie, a 0-60 time of 13 seconds is very, very slow. I have a 6-speed 2005 Honda Accord Coupe and a 6-speed 2006 Civic Coupe Si on order. Both cars are outstanding in terms of features, performance and relability.
Mr. Bpeebles is very biased for the 2006 Jetta TDI and rightly so becuase he owns one. Therfore you might not get a completley objective opinion and take it with a big grain of salt.
I learned to shift on a 51 Chevy , 3-speed on the column.
Shifting since 1963,
Only go for manual shift cars. My only fall back was in 1979 after a horrendous winter of ice and snow. Bought a Toronado automatic because it was the only FWD available.
Why would you buy an 06 Honda and the sell it for a VW TDI. That doesn't make any economic sense at all. I was considering buying a diesel and have a guest drive scheduled on this Monday for the Passat. Wonderful car from what I've been reading. Unfortunately you do have to put up with lots of maintenance. They are not as reliable as you may think. German cars drive great but there is a price to pay. Don't discount the Civic's safety and potential longevity. You may be very surprised. After reading your back and forth posts with the participants here I think an elder gentleman would exercise a bit more restraint. You sound like you have buyer's remorse for your Jetta purchase. Not that it matters, but the new Civic did win the MTCOTY award. Not even sure if the Jetta was a nominee.
P.S. Agree.. it looks exactly like a Corolla from the year. What were they thinking??
Comments
Ok, Motor Trend pegs your TDI near 14 seconds to 60mph. Motor Trend also puts my Accord (166 hp, not quite twice the hp) in the low 8 sec range (with the auto; manuals are in the low 7s). I have to disagree with you...it may feel like you are faster, but where the rubber meets the road, I can be merged into flowing traffic six seconds ahead of you. (And yes, I know, the diesel gets better mileage, but the point here is the lack of HP DOES make a difference in day-to-day driving, whether you believe it or not).
SIDEBAR:
I believe, in this forum, the diesel should be compared with the new Civic Hybrid, the GLI with the Si, and the 2.5 with the mainstream Civics, right?
------------------------------------------------------------
I drive 40 to 50K yearly----
I can explain exactly what happened: I was in a hurry to get home that night, for important matters, really. So I am going 80 to 85 MPH using a radar detector on dark lonely interstate number 79 about 40 miles north of Pittsburgh. I come up on the Grand Am who also was not playing around. He sees me coming up fast and slows down probably thinking I am a state trooper. I past him at about 80 MPH he was going about 75 or so, he then realizes I am just a nobody like himself and floors his Grand AM at which point he took it up to 100 plus MPH. Since I was in a hurry anyway I figured, why not. So I also floor it and catch up to him pretty quick at which point we hot dogged for about ten miles until we got up to what is called the split where 79 goes onward south towards WV, the way I was headed and also veers off to the left to what is referred as the Parkway north which goes directly into downtown Pittsburgh. At the split we both slowed down because of other traffic and the bend at which point his passenger rolled down his window and gave me the thumbs up obviously impressed that he couldn't lose me and in fact barely pulled away. Our highest speed was 110 side by side for maybe a half mile until "I" backed down thinking this was getting little crazy even for me. I could see they were younger by 20 years and I should know better, but hey, it gave me a kick and I had fun. My brother was killed in a car accident in 1976, my only brother and I KNOW my limits. I have been driving since 1967. I drove across this country many times, I know how to drive and I know what’s safe and what isn't. You are you and I am me.
I believe, in this forum, the diesel should be compared with the new Civic Hybrid, the GLI with the Si, and the 2.5 with the mainstream Civics, right?
--------------------------------------------
The GTI and the SI...I would LOVE to be in either going hell bent trying to out do the other....THAT would be fun!
Are you aware that most engine/xmission combonations are DESIGNED to make the 0-to-60 times look good? (most automatic xmissions will NOT shift into high gear before 60MPH) Again, this is because it will look good on paper and appeal to the folks that think this means "better". People "in the know" are very aware of this trick and thus put little credance in the 0-to-60 times.
I am glad that VW tends to NOT stoop to silly games like this when they design an automobile. I do not drive like that and could care less about 0-to-60 times.
I do know many people that find themselves stuck driving 40MPH behind somone where the speed-limit is 50MPH. It is under these condiitions where the passing is nearly effortless due to the available torque. (no downshifting...just apply more throttle and let the torque slip you past the slowpoke)
The raw numbers really must be understood within the context where they relate to everyday driving. Sure- more horsepower is available at FULL THROTTLE to acheive a pretty 0-to-60 time.... but it is not very practical.
Dont get me wrong here. I am "in" to drag-racing (at the track) and know quite a bit about what makes a car accellerate quickly. Anyone that asks about "0-to-60" times at a drag-race track would likely be laughed at! What really matters is how much time it takes to go a given DISTANCE... not to acheive a specific speed. (BTW: the HONDAS often win against VW but usually lose against the Dodge)
Yes it would, and I honestly think the GLI is the better performer of the two (although priced at a premium).
Yes, but the difference is negligible (less than half a second) when a upshift is made before or after 60, unless the tranny is geared so bad that the engine drops out of the meat of its powerband after the upshift. I was referring to differences of 6 seconds in the Accord and Jetta (lets get back to the Civic now), which has a 0-60 of 8.0 even, compared with 13.8 from the 90 hp Jetta TDI we were discussing earlier.
I do not drive like that and could care less about 0-to-60 times.
You brought up the acceleration being superior to cars twice its horsepower. I was just using facts instead of opinion to make my point. Forgive me.
Dont get me wrong here. I am "in" to drag-racing (at the track) and know quite a bit about what makes a car accellerate quickly. Anyone that asks about "0-to-60" times at a drag-race track would likely be laughed at! What really matters is how much time it takes to go a given DISTANCE... not to acheive a specific speed. (BTW: the HONDAS often win against VW but usually lose against the Dodge)
When did Dodge enter the conversation?
I do know many people that find themselves stuck driving 40MPH behind somone where the speed-limit is 50MPH. It is under these condiitions where the passing is nearly effortless due to the available torque. (no downshifting...just apply more throttle and let the torque slip you past the slowpoke)
Well, downshifting wouldn't help at all with a diesel powerband like VWs, so you better have enough torque there. In the Honda, if a downshift is required, there is always more power and more power yet the higher in the rev-range with i-Vtec, while keeping plenty of usable (while not as much torque at 1200 rpm) down low. In the same sense of driving high-in the rev range (which Honda is designed to do), I find myself staying above 2,000 rpm generally when tooling around town, so my driving style wouldn't be well-suited to the Jetta (which is designed for low-rpm scooting).
To each driving style his own car, and it's nice to have such great competitors that we can discuss it!
Happy motoring in this last week before Christmas!
thegrad
--------------------------------------------------
Having owned the 05 Jetta TDI the 06 Civic EX and now the 06 Jetta TDI all 5 speeds, after wasting all that money and time what I like about the VW are these things: More comfortable, way easier to shift, the Civics’ 5 speed was strange and after 4000 miles I never really mastered it feeling comfortable where the Jetta is simple, very straight forward and easy without thinking to shift. The low end torque is unbelievable on the Jetta and nonexistent on the Civic, more room in the Jetta, a lot more room. The Civic was a nightmare getting my disabled in and out with her wheel chair where the Jetta's door opens to almost 90 degrees making it a snap. Heated leather seats, satellite radio, great sound system, a very safe and secure system in the ESP option on the Jetta...I could go on but in a nut shell and for this guy the Jetta is light years above and ahead of the Civic and why I bought two of them in a very short period of time and dumped a Civic no matter the money factor, it didn't matter the difference was so great going back to the Jetta. They always say put your money where your mouth is, I did and have the receipts to prove it.
Many people in the market for an economy car can't, or don't need to, go over the budget they set for a car. A couple thousand dollars subtracted from a tight budget can mean a lot more than 10 thousand to a more wealthy family.
Heated leather seats, satellite radio, great sound system
A car optioned as your TDI lists for $25,390 (Jetta TDI package 2). The Civic EX lists for $18,260. Perhaps your Jetta is much better compared to an Accord EX-L. It has Dual-Zone Auto Climate Control, Heated leather seating, leather wrapped wheel, XM Radio, 8-way Power Seat,a LOT more room inside than the Jetta, 166HP engine (160 lb-ft of torque), and all for $1200 less than your NOx box ($24,150).
Now, jump ahead about a month. My wife's old '95 Odyssey decides to dump its oil, and after towing it to the dealer we decide it's not worth fixing. So, enter a new '06 Civic EX for me (she'll still get the TSX later). What a wonderfully tight, quiet, and zippy little car. It's probably not really fair to compare it directly with the Jetta, which is a bit larger, and matches up to the Accord better. But, for what it's worth, here are some reasons to pick the Civic. It seems quicker, better gas mileage, probably at least a couple thousand less comparably equipped, greater reliability, lower maintenence cost, better trade-in, and a funky dashboard. Like I said, I liked the Jetta, but I couldn't ignore these factors. Better seats and a bigger trunk are, to me, not worth the potential heartbreak of VW ownership.
I've been saying this for a while now. The Jetta 2.5 price matches perfectly with the Accord!
After some research, I agree with this idea more and more:
Accord I-4 MSRPs run from $18,225 to $24,950 (no options except nav, for $2,000; everything else is standard), while the Jetta 2.5 MSRPs run from $17,900 to $25,465** (**comparably equipped with leather and auto to match EX-L Accord). This seems like a perfect match to me.
Both cars have a "value" model, which is around $18,000, and both can be optioned up to about $25,000, with the lower-level engines.
With upper level engines (200 hp 2.0 Turbo Four in the Jetta vs 244hp 3.0 V-6 in the Accord), the cars again meet at price about 400 dollars different when comparbly equipped = $26,940 for Jetta (package #1 options), $27,300 for Accord EX-V-6 (the extra $400 is probably worth it for 44 more horses.)
So you see, a comparo between the Accord and the Jetta looks a lot more fair than the Civic vs. Accord. The Jetta owners talk about how their car is higher class than the Civic, and it is. But is it better than the Accord for the same money?
If someone is up for a debate on the topic, feel free to start a forum, and let us know here.
Thanks,
thegrad
Against the Accord, it's almost just the opposite, so it would seem that the Jetta falls in between the two and is not a natural competitor for either.
I'm anxious to see one of the car magazine 'comparos' including the Jetta. Where does it fit, and what cars are its rivals?
David
------------------------------------------------------
YES, I looked at Accords...MPG just doesn't make it, not even close. ROOM, I hardly think so, try sitting in a Jetta after getting out of an Accord, I did.
Actually mine stickered at exactly 26,019.00 ...they did, believe it or not, discount me. Money, like I already stated was no factor least I would still be driving the Honda. The Honda had it's good points but it just wasn't "right" for me and the family.
I even did something I never do. I bought a one hundred thousand mile bumper to bumper warranty to top it off. I am paying four percent interest for four years but the car will be paid for in no more than two, the warranty I paid cash for.
One mention: I was originally afraid of going diesel with cold winters around here, but I am pleasantly surprised with the temperatures being in the single digits it takes about 5 seconds max for the glow plug light to go out and then I fire it up without any difficulty whatsoever. I now have 2500 miles on it and my worst MPG were when I was road racing at which point it dropped to 41 MPG down from 47 MPG. Honestly, after owning two diesels, I don't think I can go back to a gasser, unless I find another 1967 Dodge RT 440 with 375 HP so I can feel some real torque.
Happy Holidays All!
Yes, Ive sat in both as well (at the auto show). The Accord is larger in every single dimension; legroom by 3 inches, headroom by 3 and a half inches, and shoulder room by 6 inches (all figures are combined front and rear.) Total interior cargo volume measures over 11 cubic feet larger than the Jetta. I'm not sure how you figure the Jetta to be larger...can you elaborate?
**Figures courtesy of vw.com's compare feature
You are stuck on numbers, facts, "experts" opinions, magazine articles, you would probably elect Joseph Stalin since you like being told what's better and what you should do, and how to basically live....kidding only kidding.
My point is you have consistently used facts, figures and "experts" advice when I used my hard earned money and bought what I absolutely believe to better a better choice for around all transportation, fuel economy and comfort and most of all, safety.
My decision may seem strange or even insane to you and for that matter buying three new cars in mere months WAS insane to me but my passion for the Jetta versus anything else offered is proof positive which is backed up with real hard dollars, MY dollars. Think me insane, I don't care. At least I am happy, not confused and worried about reading every small detail trying to convince myself how to live based on someone else’s advice, my own intuition got me this far and I’m doing well for it.
The magizene articals and "numbers" they spew out must be tempered with some wisdom....lest one will be led astray down a path of false knowledge. Raw data -in itself- is not knowledge.... let alone wisdom enough to make an informed decision. (Unfortunately, they do not seem to teach that in school nowadays)
DRIVE the vehicles in question for several thousand miles. Take a 16-hour trip. There is no question which of these 2 is the higher QUALITY and remains so after 150K miles. (Hint: It is NOT the most reliable of the 2)
Now what I really like nice handling responsive cars with nice sounding motors that are reliable. It seemsabout every 10 years I pick up a high reving Acuras/Honda tha meets this requirment. 1985 CRX Si, 1995 Acura Integra GSR, 2006 Honda Civic Si. Acura listen up, I really liked the RSX type S except for for the control/gauge layout and the funky red display ( don't like BMW's either). If the display on the RSX would have been as clear as the GSR I would have bought one long ago! I actaully really like the new Civic digital display , especially the Sis.
In reading this thread it is really amazing the excuses that peoeple come up with to justify the poor VW relability. Well it's a German car and it needs regular maianteance ... POO Humbug! When a VW achieve the level of Honda/Acura or Toyota/Lexus dealers then maybe, I and thousands of others will buy one!
YMMV double 6s,
MidCow
Think me insane, I don't care. At least I am happy, not confused and worried about reading every small detail trying to convince myself how to live based on someone else’s advice, my own intuition got me this far and I’m doing well for it.
As far as convincing myself, that isn't necessary, buddy. I have a ten year old Accord that I love as much as the day I got it, but it has become a little impractical, at my size, to drive that car every day. I immediately went to look at Accords again, because I was so happy with the old one ( I kept it, too, so I could take it to Lowe's and Sam's parking lots and not worry about buggies and door dings, crazy I know lol ).
Worried, confused with every detail? No, I have only corrected your posts for readers of this forum, so they will not be misled into thinking things like the Jetta TDI is the quicker car, and that the Jetta is 'so much bigger' than the Honda.
You are stuck on numbers, facts, "experts" opinions, magazine articles, you would probably elect Joseph Stalin since you like being told what's better and what you should do, and how to basically live
I'm not 'stuck' on facts, figures, and expert opinions backing up my case for the Honda. The thing is, the majority of facts, reliability figures (among others, like room), and expert opinions, all seem pretty positive about Hondas. I have already got my car, after test driving it for many many miles, along with test driving other things, it was the car I kept coming back to wanting. I only use facts (shouldn't be a bad thing, using published fact) to try to convey how I feel about the car, and as far as expert opinion, well, I figure, to most people, it is going to be more credible than someone who has their own Honda. That's why I use it. Maybe you should use them. Yes, you will likely find some that may make Honda look inferior (like the Accord weighing less than the Jetta,
Maybe someone is touchy after the lowly, crappy, cheap, slow, Civic, beat out all other 'New for '06' cars for Car of the Year (by Motor Trend)? "No, those people are stupid, and a car with some torque should have won." That's fine. That's your OPINION. You can use your opinion, I can use mine and others.
"Maybe someone is touchy after the lowly, crappy, cheap, slow, Civic, beat out all other 'New for '06' cars for Car of the Year (by Motor Trend)? "No, those people are stupid, and a car with some torque should have won." That's fine. That's your OPINION. You can use your opinion, I can use mine and others.
"
Where do the facts describe the Civic as lowly, crappy, cheap, slow, ...? And I am not sure where the Antecendent is placed are you trying to quote what someone else might have said when you typed ' "No, those people are stupid, and a car with some torque should have won." ' or was that your thought ?
Double sixes,
MidCow
Side Note: If I knew the grad went to the Honda Church of Worship, well then I would have kept my religion to myself.
----------------------------------------------------
READ this S_L_O_W_L_Y
I sat in the Accord, drove it, got out and did the same in the Jetta, NEW STYLE and the difference was not much different with my 6 foot 180 lb son sitting in the back seat critiquing for me. Owned Camry’s for years which is same as the Accord for room, and again NOT much difference. Guess what, I don't care what you think, say, believe because I (KNOW) it‘s NOT cramped in the least, no way in GOD'S green earth least it would still be sitting on the dealers lot.
I love this forum, facts and reality seems to be altered here, it's surreal like the twilight zone.
Through the seat of the pants, acceleration felt similar. However, really looking at it, the Jetta disappoints- an extra cylinder and an extra cog and it feels no quicker than a Civic? The Civic's engine also sings a sewing machine like song, while the Jetta's I5 kinda rumbles. I didnt find the Jetta's interior to be as leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else like it used to be, and GOD, please with that awful leatherette.
Now, certainly the GLI might be a different story, but the Jetta Pkg 1 that I drove handled nicely, but not sportily. I felt the new Civic had the same composure, but a more playful fiestiness, something the former Jetta generation had.
Cruise around to the stickers.... I dont see where the Jetta warrants another 4 grand over a Civic EX. It certainly doesnt make it up in fuel efficiency, trailing by 10 MPG on the HIGHWAY. THATS CRAZY!
In terms of safety, both are exceptional, and I like the fact that the Jetta has stability control. On that count, I'd give the Jetta the nod, but the Civics crash scores are exceptional, and it even received the Top Pick-Gold from the IIHS (the Jetta's is a Silver).
eyc51k- I dont mean to be rude, but theres a HUGE difference between room inside the Jetta and room inside a current Camry or Accord. It may not seem pronounced from the drivers seat, but try the rear.
My vote: Civic EX, no contest. The new grown-up Jetta is just too "me too", except for its bizarre 5 cylinder engine which provides no performance of efficiency benefit.
Its a nice car, but for $23K, I want more.
~alpha
I don't need to read things slowly to understand them; thank you very much. May hold good for you, so please take time reading what I wirte:
Real world or statistically, there is no comparison in room b/w the Accord and a Jetta. I haven't seen or read one post by anyone here or in any publication that puts space in the Camry/Accord on par with a Jetta. If you keep your eyes open (and an opem mind) while checking out an Accord, you will see what I mean.
Happy Holidays!
Thanks for the debates and a Merry Christmas to all! (Can we still say Christmas here??:-))
And 2, has any one compared any of the 1997 thru 2000 Civics particularly as to their straight line tracking precision driving on the interstates (a little side note-to all the panty waists for Authorites we have smoothering the entire country; see, smell, and breathe in the shock and awe of the godly inspired German Traffic Engineering of 5,500 miles of silky smooth and toll free Autobahn highways all of Germany's drivers so pleasurably traverse on and orgasmically enjoy every day of their existance...) from before and 65MPH to 114MPH and above, and then comparing theirs to the 2006's straight line tracking ability? Is the 2006 Civic sedan's straight line tracking as good, or better?
1.) Getting passed and left in the wake of large 18-wheelers
and 2.) Driving in the grooved roadways (less prone to follow groove
I have driven my grandma's 1997 Civic probably 200 miles in my life, but I do remember it feeling a little light when getting passed by a big truck. The Civic naturally won't feel as secure as a larger heavier car, because the weight it what holds you down, and the Accords/Jettas weigh more, but the new Civic is definitely an improvement in straight line tracking, especially for 14k!
~alpha
Both vehicles track very straight. The '06 may be a bit more sensitive to road irregularities and slight steering corrections. Don't know if tires and alignment aren't the largest factors for these characteristics.
Both vehicles track very straight. The '06 may be a bit more sensitive to road irregularities and slight steering corrections. Don't know if tires and alignment aren't the largest factors for these characteristics.
The steering on the 2006 is MUCH quicker than the previous models...I have noticed (and appreciate!) that. It gives it a sportier feel when you're driving it. That and the steering wheel is a bit smaller as well. The seats are firm and supportive. I have not yet taken a long trip in it. If it's as good as my 2004 I'll be thrilled....I did a 20-hour drive to Tennessee and back (and I did all the driving) and my body felt good when I got home. In contrast, every other car that I've owned would have left me with a sore back for a trip of that duration.
Warner
It is good to hear that Honda has finally improved on one aspect of the Civic handling (straight line) Perhaps after another 10-20 years, Honda may start to approach the handling qualities of a German Roadcar.
Honda still has some work to do to match the interior material quality and body rust resistance of the VW. (But we have already discussed that ad-naseum in past appends)
It is very difficult to compare these 2 vehicles which, for the most part, are in different "classes" and intended for different segments of the car-buying population.
ITS YOUR DIME!
I cannot attest to rust resistance, other than my 1996 Accord with 155,000 miles on it, which has none at all. I live in the south however, and snow/salt isn't an issue, although it is for many.
I owned a 06 EX speed and sold it off into the recycling bin and bought an 06 Jetta TDI...MUCH nicer car, MUCH more comfortable, MUCH more safer, Much more stable in bad conditions, (ESP), Much more economical at close to 50 MPG, and being it's a diesel it will out last your Civic by years and thousands and thousands of miles. Yes, you saved money up front, but on the back end you will be buying another car when mine is still ticking away like a Swiss Clock made by the masters who feast on red meat and not dried rice.
Shoe me a $14K 06 Civic? no way , no how. There is discussion in other chat rooms around the net about the price Honda is asking for this "economy" car..
2645 of 2657 Civic EX Coupe 5spd for 17,541 by emanb Dec 19, 2005 (2:04 pm)
I sent an email to an internet sales person who by the way I've met in person before and he quoted me 17,541 destination charges are included. This is from Autowest Honda in Fremont, CA.
Post 2645 in the prices paid forum...this fellow got over $2100 off of MSRP...many more cases of people getting thousands off of MSRP on Civics
Good to see you again, scape, I've missed our debates! :-) Have a Merry Christmas
Add air at the dealer, it'll run between $900-1200. Lets say an even grand, including installation. Thats $16,110. So, even if its $1000 under sticker in the SE, thats still not $14K, unless you do math differently than do I.
Just curious- what makes the Jetta nicer? I know that VW dealerships are typically more opulent than are Honda dealerships, which is good given the that VW has been performing abysmally in JDP Initial Quality studies for a few years now, and not much better in their Long Term dependability studies or in Consumer Reports.
I've driven both; the Jetta just isnt worth the premium over a Civic EX. The former Jetta was a styling trend setter, had impressive handling/ride balance, a top notch interior and didnt look like much else, aside from perhaps a Shrinkidink-ed Passat.
Now, the Jetta doesnt set the style, has a ride/handling balance that is not above others at the price point, has a nice but no longer worlds better interior, and looks like a Corolla. To boot, its manages no better efficiency than does an AWD Legacy or a 268 horse Avalon. Wheres the competitive advantage?
I guess sales will tell the story.
FWIW, the Civic and Civic Hybrid as well as the Jetta and TDI will be in next month's CR, along with the Impreza and WRX.
~alpha
SE Civic? I think you may mean EX, but that's no biggie. I just read the DX price off of the Honda website. i didn't realize that destination wasn't being included in the price of $14,560, that I was referring to; my apologies. The EX in California is now being traded at $2,100 under MSRP according to my last post (which refers to another forum). This would make the Civic with A/C available for under $14k, but likely in most areas, in the mid 14s, to around $15k OTD.
I haven't driven the new Jetta enough to know how much nicer it is, but things available like a 12-way power seat, and nice wood trim make the interior a little more opulent (but for the price with some of these features, it better d@%# well be! A $32,000 compact VW? That's just wrong!
As far as the new VW style, hello Corolla! Even the Phaeton looks like a larger (though not more expensive) Toyota Corolla. While not a bad thing (I don't think Toyotas are really bad looking) I doubt this is what VW was going for.
I bought a brand new 06 EX five speed, drove it for 4000 miles and decided that I missed my 05 Jetta. Decided that because I was not as comfortable, didn't have as much room, sat higher in a seat that doesn't go 12 ways like on my Jetta. The mileage is a LOT better in my TDI than the Civic. The Jetta handles a million times better than the Civic. The Jetta has tons more low end power. The five speed in the Civic was hard to shift at all times perfectly, and I have been shifting since 1967. In the Jetta, no thinking required to shift. And for me what is beyond comparison for it's price tag is the snow storms I drove thru without difficulty knowing full well that the Civic would have been down over the hills like the SUV's I saw. If I had only one reason to go back to the Jetta, that reason is the ESP which not even offered on the Civic. I actually owned and drove these two automobiles, how many on here can say the same yet seem to have all the facts without the REAL experience. I know you guys are in love with the Civic, to me they are tinny toys with the newest one complete with a video game dash board. The front end in so long when looking out I felt like I was steering a star ship. I don't understand all the hype over the worn out Civic in new clothes. I like the Jetta so much more I owned two BRAND new ones in mere months. The Civic would have never taken me home in the two snow storms the Jetta did and for that factor alone everything thing else is a plus. The Jetta is absolutely a more solid car. It rides better, feels better and IS safer. You guys on here talking the talk didn't own both like I did, therefore your opinions don't carry much credence. I do have all the sales receipts if anyone doubts my words. I work for a wage. I don’t own a business. I am not rich, but the Civic was a big enough disappoint for me to sell it off with only 4000 miles on it. Opinions are like you know what, unless like me you have actually owned both automobiles your opinions carry no weight, in my book, and I am sure many others reading these boards.
~alpha
"You guys on here talking the talk didn't own both like I did, therefore your opinions don't carry much credence."
I absolutely dont doubt your words, I just question why you even bothered with the Civic in the first place. The fact that you hated it so much yet still bought it (along with TWO Jettas) hurts your credence more than the fact that I'm voicing my opinion even if I've not owned but driven both twice on separate test drives.
"Opinions are like you know what, unless like me you have actually owned both automobiles your opinions carry no weight, in my book, and I am sure many others reading these boards."
That is one of the most arrogant statements I have read in 6 years of postings. So, if you dont own a vehicle, then your opinions carry no weight? I'm sorry but I beg to differ. Given that you've been posting for less than a month, too short a time to carry any credibility on "these boards", I wonder whose opinions carry more credibility...
Also, I dont pass my opinions off as fact, although, you certainly seem to make a habit out of that.
WERE IT MY MONEY, I'd delightfully take the $4000 in change and buy a Civic EX OVER the overweight, overcylindered, underefficienct, unreliable Volkswagen Corolla. And I'd be sitting on cloth instead of vinyl to boot!
[For what its worth, the Jetta VE doesnt have stability control standard, so Im not sure how youre stating that the Jetta IS safer? Is the IIHS Crash Test results? The Jetta wins Silver, the Civic... Gold... hmmn...]
~Shifting since '98
alpha
I absolutely agree with you. What Bpeebles won't admit too, primarily because he just purchased a 2006 VW Jetta TDI, is that German cars especially the VW require much more maintenance to keep them running in top performance. And the German maintenance is not cheap!. The other problem is that most VW dealers have atrocious service. I have owned a BMW and an Audi in the past and although they rode very well they were always in the shop for one minor thing or another. And anything not covered by factory maintenance was very, very expensive, even more than the Lexus cars I have owned. I have found domsetic cars to be terrible in relability and customer service. After over 35 years of buying cars, I try to limit myslef to Acura/Honda or Lexus/Toyota. I drove a TDI and the initial impression is very psitive. Because of the high torque at low rpm the TDI is very responsive around town and after it gets up to highway speed it is very drivable. But the numbers don't lie, a 0-60 time of 13 seconds is very, very slow. I have a 6-speed 2005 Honda Accord Coupe and a 6-speed 2006 Civic Coupe Si on order. Both cars are outstanding in terms of features, performance and relability.
Mr. Bpeebles is very biased for the 2006 Jetta TDI and rightly so becuase he owns one. Therfore you might not get a completley objective opinion and take it with a big grain of salt.
double sixes.
MidCow ( growing my white Santa Calus Goatee
I learned to shift on a 51 Chevy , 3-speed on the column.
Shifting since 1963,
Only go for manual shift cars. My only fall back was in 1979 after a horrendous winter of ice and snow. Bought a Toronado automatic because it was the only FWD available.
Double-sixes,
MidCow
P.S. Agree.. it looks exactly like a Corolla from the year. What were they thinking??