Midsize Sedans 2.0

carboy21

suydam said:

Good for you. I need all the visibility I can get.

Thats why rear view cameras are now standard due the modern cars poor rearward visibility .

roadburner

akirby said:

I use BLIS as an added safety measure. I don't rely on it 100%.

That's the key- but the problem is that most will rely on it 100%, and woe be unto you should you be beside one of those operators when the system goes offline.

suydam

I don't think that's likely to be the case.

benjaminh

carboy21 said:

suydam said:

Good for you. I need all the visibility I can get.

Thats why rear view cameras are now standard due the modern cars poor rearward visibility .

Rear view cameras on not standard on all cars. For the BMW 320i, for instance, it's an extra-cost option.

stickguy

I consider my sonata to be a full sizer at this point. Big outside, huge inside. Definitely going to get something smaller next time around.

and for visibility, I like the Blis. more info is better, especially in poor visibility conditions. Plus it works even when you are looking ahead.

but non negotiable these days in the rearview camera. With the small windows, high trunks, huge pillars and gigantic headrests, no mirrors can deal with the giant blind spots some cars (especially SUVs) have these days.

crosspath is also great, for when you get stuck between 2 giant SUVs and have to back out blind!

carboy21

crosspath is also great, for when you get stuck between 2 giant SUVs and have to back out blind!

I always make it a habit of parking in reverse. Consumes little more time but its worth it in the above situation. After you do it a few times , it becomes a habit to back your car in rather then nosing it in

berri

I agree that BLIS is a great idea and don't know why it is so hard to find on new cars there days. Even if you are "perfect" at setting your mirrors, screw ups happen and BLIS is a good back-up before you commit.

benjaminh

Honda has just released the EPA highway rating for the 2016 Civic, and it comes in at a class-leading 42 mpg. That's pretty darn good for a "midsize" car.

stickguy

is that the base 1.8 (2.0?) NA engine? Wonder what the 1.5T is going to get?

Pretty good though, assuming you can replicate that real-world

Mr_Shiftright

I always thought the rationale for rear view cameras was for seeing things down low behind the car, like children or hidden objects. In that sense, every car ever made has a blind spot. If you're relying on a rear view camera to see the fire truck parked behind you, I think you have a problem not related to car design.

Seems like I always remember Subarus as being somewhat gas-hungry compared to the competition.

carboy21 said:

suydam said:

Good for you. I need all the visibility I can get.

Thats why rear view cameras are now standard due the modern cars poor rearward visibility .

benjaminh

stickguy said:

is that the base 1.8 (2.0?) NA engine? Wonder what the 1.5T is going to get?

Pretty good though, assuming you can replicate that real-world

The new naturally-aspirated engine for the 2016 Civic is a 2.0, which makes about 15 more hp than the old 1.8. The new 1.5 turbo makes 174 horsepower.

That 42 mpg hwy figure is from the Orange County, Calif, auto show, plastered on a big billboard behind a Touring model, which does have the turbo:

http://www.civicx.com/threads/42-mpg-highway-being-displayed-for-2016-civic-1-5t-touring.399/

Maybe both the 2.0 and the 1.5T get 42 on the hwy? In any case, we'll find out on Monday, when the press embargo ends, and Honda puts out its press releases, and every car magazine will have stories on the 2016 Civic out.

As you say, it's a question for the turbo whether 42 can be achieved in the real world. As we know, most car magazines have had trouble hitting the EPA numbers with vehicles with Ford's Ecoboost engines. Consumer Reports went so far as to call the engines "Ecoboast," because the mpg was such a letdown. And I don't think Ford is alone in this. I think if you have a very light foot most turbos can maybe get close to their epa mpg numbers....But who wants to always use a light foot when you have a turbo?

When I get off work, I have an uphill ramp to the freeway, and no merge lane. I've had to floor it in every recent car I've owned to get up to speed for that. I assume if I had a turbo Civic the same might be true? Difficult to say....

Anyway, Honda might have the same problem as other turbos with hitting their EPA numbers with their 1.5T....


http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/07/ford-ecoboost-poor-fuel-mileage-complaints-wards/

stickguy

well, VW (I know, maybe not the best example..) seems to have done it. The 1.8t Jettas in the familiy (2 of them) get really good MPG. Especially on the highway, where even zipping along above the SL and with hills they both have gotten 38+. And tend to do fine local driving too. So my SSS experience of 2 with that motor is that it is quite quick, and will attain the reasonably high EPA mileage #s in the real world.

suydam

My Buick Encore, which has a turbo, gets better than the EPA estimates. So does my Honda Accord with the CVT. I think that's true for a lot of cars nowadays.

explorerx4

Here is the dash display for my '13 Escape 2.0 ecoboost after a trip to Wisconsin and back last week.



The mileage readout is optimistic, but we still averaged the epa highway rating of 28 for the whole trip.
You have to add 2k to the trip odometer to get the actual distance covered.
Divide that by the engine hours and you will see a pretty high avg mph.

stickguy

I have a few pics I took on the RDX after a highway run where the TC was breaking 30. The VCM I guess really helps, because it gets real good mileage at 70-75 steady run on the flat, running on 3 cylinders.

carboy21

explorerx4 said:

Here is the dash display for my '13 Escape 2.0 ecoboost after a trip to Wisconsin and back last week.



The mileage readout is optimistic, but we still averaged the epa highway rating of 28 for the whole trip.
You have to add 2k to the trip odometer to get the actual distance covered.
Divide that by the engine hours and you will see a pretty high avg mph.

My 2015 Hyundai Elantra, gave me 42 mpg on a 200 mile road trip with 80% highway driving. The full tank average was 34mg on mixed driving.

benjaminh

Pricing for the new "midsize" 2016 Civic has just leaked, and it seems competitive. Here are some msrps before destination:

2016 Civic LX 6MT: $18,640 (increase of $150)

2016 Civic EX CVT: $19,440

2016 Civic EX CVT: $21,040 (decrease of $150)

2016 EX Turbo: $22,200

EXL Turbo: $23,700

EXL Turbo navi: $24,700

Touring w/Turbo & Honda Sensing: $26,500

The Touring model has front and rear heated leather seats, 450-Watt 10 speaker premium audio, adaptive cruise control, etc. I could potentially see some well off people getting this new Touring model instead of an Audi or loaded Accord.

http://www.civicx.com/threads/official-2016-honda-civic-pricing-invoice-retail-revealed.412/

explorerx4

Honda seems to be pulling the same thing as Nissan did with Altima/Maxima.
Maxima sales have never been the same.

ab348

Does the current Civic also use a CVT?

Sandman6472

Have the 1.8t engine in both the Golf and A3 and they are excellent in the mileage department. We are very happy with our choices. About parking, I also back into parking spaces about 90% of the time as it's so much easier when coming out later on. When I worked at the post office, we had to back in to spaces after some carriers had backing accidents...it became mandatory. They reasoned that one could see what was there before backing in...backing out after having parked the vehicle for awhile, one isn't quite sure what's out there most times.

The Sandman

thebean

ab348 said:

Does the current Civic also use a CVT?

Yes, it does (except for the MT model, of course).

benjaminh

I'm considering getting a Civic EX-Turbo for my next midsize car.

Car and Driver tested the 2016 Civic with the 1.5T as going 0-60 in 6.8 seconds:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-honda-civic-sedan-15l-turbo-test-review

Here's a video review from Cars.com:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=calyECY2Jg8

explorerx4

It also returned less than the EPA city mileage in their road test. It's just the nature of turbo engines, it depends how you drive them.

roadburner

I'd wait for a turbo AND 3 pedals...

m6user

Accord is Honda's midsize car.  Civic is their compact offering.  Because it has just enough interior/trunk room to satisfy the EPA category doesn't change anything.  I'm sure Honda would agree that this is their compact car. 

benjaminh

explorerx4 said:

It also returned less than the EPA city mileage in their road test. It's just the nature of turbo engines, it depends how you drive them.

With a gentle right foot apparently sometimes it can get close to the epa rating. Here's what Motor Trend said today about mpg with the 1.5T in the new Civic:

"The optional engine makes 174 hp and 162 lb-ft of torque -- greater than all Si variants up to 2005 -- but achieves Real MPG of 27.1/45.3/33.1 mpg city/highway/combined with our Touring-grade test car."

http://www.motortrend.com/features/mt_hot_list/2016-honda-civic-10-new-tech-niblets/

ab348

benjaminh said:

I'm considering getting a Civic EX-Turbo for my next midsize car.

Wait a bit.

The magazines (especially) and online sites always go ga-ga over new Honda introductions. Sometimes it takes a while for a revisit when they are more objective about what it does well and what shortcomings it has.

I am not a fan of how it looks in the pics from certain angles, especially the rear.

roadburner

explorerx4 said:

It also returned less than the EPA city mileage in their road test. It's just the nature of turbo engines, it depends how you drive them.

Yes, my MS3 can achieve great or dismal economy numbers- it all depends on how much fun you want to have. Contrast that with my Club Sport, which returns over 26 mpg in suburban driving even when I beat on it like a redheaded stepchild.

stickguy

Car and Driver never gets real MPG as good as the ratings. I believe they flog them like rented mules.

explorerx4

Some people like to cite C and D numbers as gospel, so you've got to accept both sides of them.
In addition to that, these are pre-production cars.

brian125

Check out your vehicles MPG below. See if its more or less than manufactures claim.


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.shtml

robr2

I'm doing a little better. My Passat is rated at 23 combined. I'm averaging about 24.6.

roadburner

My MS3 is rated at 23,2 combined; I rarely average less than 25.5.
My Club Sport is rated at 23 combined, and as I mentioned above, it takes quite a bit of hooning-or track time-to make it average less than 26. It would do even better if it had six speeds rather than five- especially since fifth is 1:1.

benjaminh

m6user said:

Accord is Honda's midsize car.  Civic is their compact offering.  Because it has just enough interior/trunk room to satisfy the EPA category doesn't change anything.  I'm sure Honda would agree that this is their compact car. 

True. But the 2016 Civic is still a midsize by the EPA classification. And compare the dimensions of the 1994-1997 Accord with the 2016 Civic

1994 Accord: length 184 inches, width 70.1 inches

2016 Civic: length 182.3 inches, width 70.8

So for those old enough to remember fondly the 5th generation of Accord, the new Civic is about that size.The Accord is now almost full size, while the Civic is midsize, and the Fit has taken over the compact size that the Civic used to be. Over at driveaccord.net at least a few Accord buyers are considering the 2016 Civic, and a couple have mentioned that it reminds them of the size the Accord used to be.

suydam

Basically midsize sedans are much larger than they used to be.
Regarding fuel stats: I'm averaging just about what the EPA says for both my vehicles.

m6user

If you like to live the past that's up to you. Things change in this world.  People have gotten larger too and not just from a weight perspective.  The stuff we carry with us has changed too.  Midsize has just gotten larger and so has compact but they remain in their respective categories.
Our RDX averages about 1.5-2mpg better than EPA.  Our new Mazda6 is averaging about 1mpg better but it isn't broken in yet.

akirby

Stop saying that the window sticker is "what the mfr claims". It's what the EPA claims since they set the test parameters and the rules for what goes on the window sticker.

Smaller Turbo engines have a much wider range of fuel usage than naturally aspirated engines so there will be more variability.

suydam

I've always preferred smaller cars. Now that I'm carrying fewer people around on a daily basis the larger compacts are gaining appeal. I prefer to think of changing driving needs rather than living in the past. I'm probably not driving a Ford Fiesta again!

m6user

Suydam, I wasn't referring to your post.  I should have made it more clear that I was referring to benjaminh post about how big Accords  use to be.

Michaell

I look at it from a different perspective.

99% of the time, I am in my car by myself. We have an Outback for family duty. So, I don't need a mid-sized car. I currently drive an Elantra GT.

However, I also lease to keep the payments budget friendly. And, the best lease deals are found on cars in the mid-sized sedan category - Camry, Accord, Mazda 6, Ford Fusion, etc.

So, when my current lease is up in 12 months, I'll be looking at those cars closely to see which one has the best discount from sticker and the best lease numbers.

I'll look at compacts - the new Civic is pretty intriguing, but I wonder how lease friendly it will be in a year.

So many choices, and really, not a bad car out there.

suydam

I know. But I agree with him. The new Civic is nothing like my little 90s car. 
I also think about driving needs. We do occasionally have a couple of adults in the back seat. It might be the new compacts will be fine for that. 

carboy21

Upward size creep. Not everyone needs bloated cars. Sonata and Accords no longer fit decently in a normal sized garage where you have other stuff along the side walls and if you have more then one car in a Garage. Not talking about Mac Mansions with super sized garages.

nyccarguy

Fuel Economy isn't one of my strong suits. I can't match the EPA window sticker claims for the life of me:

2015 Subaru Legacy 2.5i Premium - 20.6 MPG average over 20K miles - best tank 28.9 mpg

2011 Honda Pilot EXL w/ Naviagtion - 16 MPG average over 28K miles (it just rolled over 70K) - best tank 25.3 mpg

2001 Honda Prelude Type SH - 24.0 MPG average over 6K miles (156K on the clock) - best tank 26.4 mpg

benjaminh

from the Washington Post:

"....Creeping up on mid-sizers

The auto industry calls it bracket creep. We call it astonishing, when a 1980s Civic sits next to a 2016 Civic and they pretend to be relatives. The new Civic is big, so big it's not just a Focus/Mazda 3 rival--it's sized very close to other tweeners like the VW Jetta, Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200.

Honda says that's no bad thing--in fact, with a lot of high-strength steel in its body, the new Civic is down nearly 70 pounds over the previous model, even while it's grown in almost every direction. It's grown 2.9 inches overall in length, to 182.3 inches long. It's 1.9 inches wider, at 70.8 inches, but lower by 0.8 inches, at 55.7 inches tall. The proportions have changed within that bigger envelope, too--hood and cowl height have dropped 1.6 inches, front overhang is down 1.2 inches, the trunk is 3 inches longer, and trunk space is up to 15.1 cubic feet from 12.3.

All told, the Civic wraps up 112.9 cubic feet of space in its bod, putting it within a few cubes of the Chrysler 200 at 117.4 cubes, and well over the usual EPA yardsticks for mid-size cars. A Mazda 3 falls just shy of that marker at about 108 cubic feet of interior volume.

Those numbers might glaze your eyes over on a spec sheet, but inside the Civic they pay very big dividends...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/cars/2016-honda-civic-first-drive/2015/10/20/1dbd5eb4-774f-11e5-a5e2-40d6b2ad18dd_story.html

Michaell

carboy21 said:

Sonata and Accords no longer fit decently in a normal sized garage where you have other stuff along the side walls and if you have more then one car in a Garage. Not talking about Mac Mansions with super sized garages.

You don't have to tell me ... we moved into a new house a few weeks ago and the Subaru Outback that fit comfortably in our old garage barely fits into the new one. The new house is only a few years older than the old one, too.

Had to pare down the amount of stuff kept in the garage so both the Outback and the daughter's MINI would fit. Fortunately my golf clubs made the cut.

zigster38

Honda's are generally lease friendly - I'm waiting end of nov or dec to trade in my Honda Accord for the civic. Accord barely fits in garage space and civic has the turbo and better mileage. I think Honda might be surprised at how many Accord buyers get a Civic. I've had a turbo Saab so I know turbos beat on highway mpg and are under in city. I'm guessing about 225 a month with minimal down on an EX-T by end of December. 

zigster38

Come to think of it, my 9-3 Saab sedan was the same size as the new Civic! 

Michaell

zigster38 said:

Honda's are generally lease friendly - I'm waiting end of nov or dec to trade in my Honda Accord for the civic. Accord barely fits in garage space and civic has the turbo and better mileage. I think Honda might be surprised at how many Accord buyers get a Civic. I've had a turbo Saab so I know turbos beat on highway mpg and are under in city. I'm guessing about 225 a month with minimal down on an EX-T by end of December. 

Not always - Honda is not yet supporting the leases on the 2016 Pilot or HR-V or any CR-V save the LX, so the money factor is the equivalent of 4%. We'll see what the lease numbers look like for the 2016 Civic when they get released - hopefully next month.

Let us know how your lease goes at the end of the year ... $225/mo is very budget friendly for me. Hoping that by next October the end of year lease deals will be even better.

brian125

@nyccarguy said :


2015 Subaru Legacy 2.5i Premium - 20.6 MPG average over 20K miles - best tank 28.9 mpg

2011 Honda Pilot EXL w/ Naviagtion - 16 MPG average over 28K miles (it just rolled over 70K) - best tank 25.3 mpg

2001 Honda Prelude Type SH - 24.0 MPG average over 6K miles (156K on the clock) - best tank 26.4 mpg


Ideal conditions and having a light gas foot may be the only way in some vehicles to get to that MPG claim. I had a 03 pilot and never made the EPA's claim.


I have a heavy foot so I'm usually under all my vehicles mpg. My 2016 BMW X-5 (3.0 turbo ) just picked up this week already made its 1st trip from NY to Myrtle Beach. EPA claim On the turbo X-5 is 18/24. Driving 55 MPG to as high as 75 did get me almost 24 mpg going down.

explorerx4

2013 Ford Escape AWD Titanium 2.0 Ecoboost 43k, EPA 24 combined, 22.7 mpg.
2013 Ford Fusion FWD Titanium 2.0 Ecoboost , 28k, EPA 26 combined, 28.0 mpg. << mid size sedan
2013 Ford Escape AWD SEL 2.0 Ecoboost L 8k in 9 months, EPA 24 combined, 25.3 mpg.
1991 Ford Mustang GT RWD 5.0, 39k, EPA 19 combined, 19.9 mpg.