Honda Civic 2005 and earlier

backy · September 2003

Civic has a great reputation for reliability and resale value. That's the main reason why its price is higher than most competitors. We were discussing our opinions of the packaging of the car, not the quality of the car.

I could get into the old debates about relative reliabilities and the worthlessness of resale value, compared to TCO, but I'll let someone else go there if they really want to.

mdriver · September 2003

I can't believe I'm hearing people viewing ABS with suspicion. No matter what everyone's anecdotal story is about pumping brakes, etc., the fact is, it stops the car shorter and more importantly gives the driver control during a panic brake. That's not my hunch, that's a fact proven by the insurance industry. Besides, even if you are a fantastic driver, the nut in the oncoming lane may not be able to operate the brakes with the same finesse as you and ABS might come to his (and your) rescue. ABS does shave off only a few feet, but that's how progress works in the world - incrementally. I'm surprised nobody said they had a need for a laminated windshield. I mean, it's possible to pump the brakes and avoid an accident and not break the glass, right?

dunworth · September 2003

Sorry I think you misunderstood my comment. I know ABS does work, although depending on the system, stopping distances can be slightly longer not shorter. I do not know about the effectiveness of the system used for the Civic.

My normal braking technique is a pumping one - I do it automatically. I have driven on European roads (autobahn, M1 etc)where good braking technique is a must due to higher speeds and most cars I drove did not have ABS.

I myself have never locked my brakes on any of the cars I have owned (domestic, Japanese, Korean and European) which is what ABS prevents.

ABS coupled with stability control make sense in a well equipped pricier car but the value in a Civic/Corolla et al can be difficult to justify if you are on a budget.

We each choose different paths for safety. I myself want a car that has full size rear head rests like the current Civic and Corolla. I could have saved $1200 on a previous 2002 Civic but it did not have this feature (plus I liked the overall refresh of the interior).

The current crop of well designed FWD small cars are inherently more stable due to weight distribution, power to weight etc. If I was buying a Camry sized vehicle, I would want probably want ABS etc.

isellhondas · September 2003

State Farm was giving us a small discount because one of our cars had ABS. It wasn't much, I think 15.00 a year. A few years ago they stopped doing this. The reason? My agent said the results had determined there was NO reduction in accidents on ABS equipped cars.

Me, I would rather have ABS than not but I don't think it's all that big of a deal. Other tests have shown the presence of ABS will INCREASE stopping distances on dry payment.

Go figure?

mdriver · September 2003

Airplanes have had ABS for decades. Obviously, they wouldn't still use it today if it didn't work. All large aircraft have it. And ABS is rapidly become standard equipment on all cars sold in Europe. In fact, EVERY Civic sold in the UK comes with standard ABS. That's right, you get it whether you like it or not. I predict that the next generation of Civic in the US will have it standard, as Honda has done with the new Accord.

Pumping brakes is fine when you're anticipating stopping on a slippery surface. But a panic brake is an involuntary stab of the pedal. Anyone who thinks they can control braking in a panic, probably thinks that they can brace themselves in a crash and don't need an airbag.

And nobody has still answered my question about other drivers who don't pump brakes who may crash their Chevy Suburban into the flyweight Civic and turn it into a pancake.

Hasn't anyone seen those tests where they brake a car on a split surface (one side more slick than the other) and the car stops straight with ABS on, but flys all over with it off. How are you going to manually pump just one side of the car's brakes then if not equipped with ABS?

isellhondas · September 2003

But in all of my yers of driving I, personally have NEVER ONCE been in a situation where I really needed ABS and I would imagine most people share my experience. Of course, I do drive sensibly, don't tailgate and we don't get that much ice or snow around here.

I once sold a car to a paramedic who hated ABS. he said the Aid Trucks with ABS take much longer to stop on DRY payment than the ones without it.

lngtonge18 · September 2003

In MOST applications, ABS SHORTENS stopping distances, even on DRY pavement. The reason? ABS not only helps keep control, but it also keeps the brakes operating at the point where they provide the most stopping power, which is that point right before the brakes lock up. If you look at instrumented tests in car magazines of the same car equipped with ABS and without, the one with ABS almost always stops shorter. Car and Driver even did a very interesting test on a Mercedes CL600 coupe back in the mid-90s. The ABS system was equipped with a special switch that allowed them to turn off the ABS system at will. They tested the brake system on multiple surfaces with the ABS on and off. The conclusion: ABS significantly shortened stopping distances in the dry, rain, and snow, but lengthened the distance some on gravel and ice. They determined that even if you live in a dry climate, ABS still comes in handy because the car stops quicker.

Those reports of people thinking ABS takes longer to stop actually come from people who don't know how to use the brakes properly (or they had crappy early GM ABS systems which were subpar in their performance). They get scared by the noise or pulsation and release the pedal a little, thereby confusing the ABS system and resulting in longer stops due to the decreased brake pressure. This is why brake assistance is becoming more widespread. It was introduced due to people's inability to use ABS effectively.

anonymousposts · September 2003

about your driving style if ABS is such a do or die option. In my 8 years/30 cars or so worth of driving I have only activated my ABS twice. But it's pointless to me anyways because I have to have a sunroof so I would buy an EX regardless. Just like when I bought my 03 EX-L coupe. My fiance needed the 8-way power seat so we had to get leather. Luckily we got other goodies like dual-zone climate control and heated seats. This past weekend when we bought our Accord we didn't even think about a cloth Accord. This year the leather gets you side curtain airbags and XM radio (which is awesome). So for the people who are buying a car well within their budget spending an extra $1000 is worth it for the desired option + a few other goodies.

And the option-packaging does benefit the customer. Look at the Mazda6. It's disastrous option packages have killed it's sales because people think they can get option A, C, and D while skipping B but when they go to buy it they find out it's unavailable or you still have to buy E, F, and G to get B. At least you know what you are getting with the Civic.

And if ABS is such a requirement why not go all the way and find a car with side curtain airbags. Then you need VSC. And why not go ahead and get AWD. Before you know it you are spending $26,000 for a Forester or even more for an AWD Audi, VW, or SUV. For $15,000 the Civic is a darn safe car.

rivertown · September 2003

I'm strongly anti-BS, myself; and I wouldn't think of buying an airliner without ABS.

FWIW, I've never heard of an ABS mechanism not working. The most negative thing I've heard is the cost of repair if the ABS system fails. Overall, I like ABS; but I wouldn't put in the 'essential' catagory.

OTOH, some folks need all the anti-BS they can get.

vocus · September 2003

Most people don't think to pump the brake pedal when stopping on slippery surfaces or in an emergency situation. I know when someone stops suddenly in front of me or cuts me off, the very first thing your brain says is to slam the brakes down as hard as you can. I actually saw a study conducted by an independent company (I don't remember which one), and they let subjects drive in a simulator. Every single time, the person slammed the brakes down when something pulled in front of the car, and the 'car' skidded out of control.

On my first time driving in the rain back in 1997, I remember a situation that scared the hell out of me. I was in my parents' 94 Bonneville going down a 4-lane road heading toward a red signal. I got there in time where the light changed green for me, so I kept moving at about 30mph or so (35 is the limit on this road). This tractor-trailer didn't get stopped in time coming from the other direction, and went through the light. I slammed the brakes to the floor to avoid hitting him, not even thinking about ABS (I did have it). I steered around the truck, and kept from going underneath it thanks to ABS. That one experience would make me want ABS in all my cars from here on out.

mdriver · September 2003

Quote: "in all of my yers of driving I, personally have NEVER ONCE been in a situation where I really needed ABS"

Hmmmm. I can say the exact same thing for my seat belt. I've never needed it. But one day I might.

If we used the I-never-needed-it rationale to build cars, we'd be still riding around without seat belts, laminated windshields, air bags, collapsible steering columns, etc, etc. What a (more) dangerous place the road would be.

npaladin2000 · September 2003

Personally, I was in a situation about 10 years ago where ABS was a necessity. I was driving down this road, doing about 35-40, and there was this slight curve, which was blind at the time, due to foliage. So anyway, there's no one coming (there's a yield there) so I'm going...and when I clear the blind, there's this huge tractor in the middle of the road, poking along as tractors do, and incidentally tracking a ton of mud all over the road. Turns out someone had grown a construction area and not put up any warning signs. I slammed the brakes on, they locked (No ABS) and I whammed into a tree head-on when I lost control. If I had still had steering control, then maybe I could have steered a bit to avoid either the tree or the tractor while I panic=stopped. THe chances of NOT hitting something certainly would have increased.

ABS isn't always supposed to stop you shorter. It's designed to allow you to maintain CONTROL of the vehicle while you stop. And after that accident, I won't buy a car without ABS.

dunworth · September 2003

mdriver: I am a big believer in safety - my first car was a Volvo! But at each and every price point you have to make compromises. I would rather have responsive handling, airbags and rear headrests before ABS since my back seat is always occupied. As I said before, I know ABS works and have driven cars with and without it.

Anyone know if the ABS system in the Civic makes any difference in stopping distances? The reason I ask is that all not systems work well. Someone mentioned the Mercedes test several years ago. I think generally, Benz uses one of the best systems out there plus they generally have superb brakes to begin with.

I saw a review of a Buick LeSabre a year or two ago, which I consider a pretty decent car for its size and price point. Unfortunately the reviewer tried to push the car and neither the ABS or the traction control activated as it should have - there was nothing actually wrong with the car just a different system. IMHO something this size should have these safety features operate well.

crv16 · September 2003

State Farm was giving us a small discount because one of our cars had ABS. It wasn't much, I think 15.00 a year. A few years ago they stopped doing this. The reason? My agent said the results had determined there was NO reduction in accidents on ABS equipped cars.

ABS brakes are like the SUV syndrome - they are giving people feelings of invincibility, therefore they are driving faster than conditions allow. That is why there was no reduction in accidents -- people were driving faster thinking their ABS brakes could save them in any dangerous situation.

I have ABS brakes, and wouldn't want to do without. Do I use them? Yes, on occasion in snowy weather they kick in. But I drive as if I don't have them - meaning slow enough for the conditions.

dunworth · September 2003

Your probably right. The Buick is a fine car, and one my favorite rentals for really long trips. I have never had an issue with their brakes or any other component system.

I have never had ABS activate on any car I have driven despite living in the Toronto area. The suburb where I live gets lots of inclement weather in the winter. Fortunately streets are well maintained and people are generally very civilized.

Back to the Civic. The more I own my car, the more I realize how much larger it is inside than many supposedly larger cars. I parked beside an older Mazda 929 Serenia recently as well as a 5 series BMW and the mighty Civic looks to be comparable. The flat floor in the back is truly a breakthrough in terms of enhancing interior space.

mdriver · September 2003

The flat rear floor is nice, but hardly a breakthrough. That feature probably registers dead last on consumers I-got-to-have-that radar.
I can't believe that the flat floor contributes more than a miniscule amount of interior volume. Too bad Honda can't rave about the poor suspension tuning like it can a flat floor.

bd21 · September 2003

Honda Civic has the only flat floor that I have ever seen in a car in its class, so I'd say that is significant. I wish my Accord had one. I have been looking at and test driving 4 door compacts for the past year and the one I liked the best was the Civic LX. It had the quietest, best ride, adequate power and the most room of all the cars I drove. The only thing that kept me from buying one was the crappy looking front end (the flat middle part) and the available color choices. Honda re worked the front end for 04 and added a color I can live with, so I'll be picking one up soon. For a compact 4 door sedan, I don't think there is a better car out there for a family for the money. I getting a 2004 4dr LX with automatic for 16K, which includes all dealer fees and 6.5% Florida state tax.

strager · September 2003

If you're OK with the styling, the Scion xB is one terrific car and its interior room just blows away the Civic/Protege/Matrix - with approximately the same gas mileage and a lower price. I think it's going to be big hit in the compact car segment.

backy · September 2003

As the youngest of three children, and someone who got to straddle "the hump" all my childhood years, IMO the flat floor of the Civic is one of its best features. It's not worth $3000 to me, but it's a great feature that I wish more car makers would emulate.

anonymousposts · September 2003

Honda actually reworked the suspension in 2002 to provide a smoother ride. I am sure that most people test drive the car before they buy it so they would know if the suspension is an issue for them.

While I was having a few accessories installed on my 04 Accord we were wandering around and came across a 2004 Civic EX coupe. Niiiice is all I can say. Those wheels set the car off as do the new front end, rear end, and character lines. Wouldn't hesitate to buy one in a second if we were in the market for a Civic-sized car. Between the efficiency, reliabilty, looks, and safety the 04 Civic is one hard car to beat. I was also surprised at how nice the interior was. Very classy in black and I love those gauges.

rivertown · September 2003

The flat floor didn't impress me all that much when I was shopping, but
I've grown to really appreciate it. Moving around in the back seat is EASY as is cleaning the car up.
If I had to scartch the flat floor or the ABS, I'd keep the flat floor.

anonymousposts · September 2003

river: We sat in an 03 SI while at the Honda dealer and it brought back some great fond memories of our dearly departed 02 SI. Man I loved that car.

rivertown · September 2003

I know, Anony. I replaced a 27" TV a couple of weeks ago. Flip the back seats, cargo cover into the passenger seat, and off I went - at speed, LOL.
"So many cars, so little time."

The Si is great; but what ya'll have going sounds great, too.

vocus · September 2003

So what car did you replace now? Jeez, and I thought I changed cars alot..

dunworth · September 2003

The Civic's flat floor does make a difference for carting around three people in the back. I also have a Corolla and we always take the Civic if we are carrying more than 4 people.

Everyone I take is always amazed by the room in the back of the Civic compared with any other smaller car. The Saturns are the only only which as as roomy but their seating position is slightly awkward.Actually the Civic is roomier than my dad's old '92 Accord (which has now become and '03 Accord).

port_48 · September 2003

Anyone having trouble with the front splash guards wearing the paint off the rocker? I have a 2002 DX 4dr with dealer installed splash guards all around. If you start at the top of where the guard meets the body and follow it down to where it makes its 1st 90 degree turn that 90 degree portion rests on top of the rocker and has rubbed the paint off. The spot has started to rust on the driver's side. Any speculation on how I'll make out when I point this out to the dealer? I think this could've been avoided it they'd used the slotted holes in the guards to install them so they wouldn't rub.

Thanks,

W
16,800 mi

anonymousposts · September 2003

vocus: gee and I are expecting so we had to get rid of the 03 EX-L Accord coupe 5-speed for a 04 EX-L sedan automatic. This time the trade wasn't by choice, but necessity. We should be done car shopping for a while now ... I think

port: My significant other recommended you use teflon tape to cover up the spot where it rubs. All dealer-installed OEM Honda accessories are covered by the same 3 year/36,000 warranty as the rest of the car so the dealer should repair the rust but the tape should prevent any further or future damage.

port_48 · September 2003

Thanks so much for y'alls replies. I'll wander on over to the dealer and see what they think. Should be interesting - they're fairly small and job out their body work.

Wm

vocus · September 2003

Congrats on the new car and the new addition.

tranti · September 2003

Honda Civic manual suggested oil change at 10000 miles for normal driving. So, I decided to have oil change every 5000 miles. Last oil change, I decided to let it go 7,500 miles.
I read a lot of websites about oil change. Chevron.com, Castrol.com, Mobil1.com, Cars.com... They all suggest oil change at 3,000 miles.
Furthermore, after 7500 miles, I had the oil change. To my surprise, the car accelerates much stronger. I think that the oil is much degraded if we use it until 7,500 miles. I switch back to change oil every 5000 miles.

mdriver · September 2003

If you think your car had stonger acceleration after an oil change, then you must have had concrete in the engine as the lubricant. A change in wind direction would have more effect on acceleration than a simple oil change.

Ask the oil producers how often to change (and buy) the oil. The industry has always promoted (very successfully) a 3K change to boost sales.

I change the oil at 10k miles just like the manual says under normal driving, which I do. Since Honda designed, tested and built the engine, I'd say they know what they're talking about more so than an oil company who wants you to buy more oil.

bd21 · September 2003

Don't assume Honda has come a 10,000 mile oil change interval to get your engine to last forever. Honda only needs to make your car last as long as its longest offered warranty, which is 7 years or 100,000 miles. They know that most people don't hang on to cars that long anyway. Honda's engineers didn't come up with this interval to make the car last as long as possible. They were asked if an engine could survive with this service for a reasonable life span. That way Honda could state they have one of the least costly cars to maintain. Very few people out there actually fall into the normal driving category, so when your Honda starts burning oil and needs a ring job down the road, you may wish you had changed the oil a little more often. Personally, if I were considering buying a car and saw that the owner had only done only 10,000 mile oil changes, I would consider the engine damaged and not buy the car. I consider any oil changes over 5000 miles, poor maintenance. Go to the maintenance engine oil board and read about the guys that have their engine oil tested regularly. I'm a mechanic and I have read many engineering and oil analysis reports over the years, so I am comfortable stating the following: I can assure you not a single reputable mechanic out there would buy or recommend someone buy a car that was neglected with 10,000 mile oil changes with dino oil.

tientran · September 2003

Dear Mdriver,
I think someday you will change your mind and will change oil around 5,000 miles.
BTW, don't forget to change transaxle fluid. I change the fluid of my car at 40,000 miles. The fluid is very dirty especially near the fluid plug.

dunworth · September 2003

An oil change is C$30 at the dealer where I go. Considering I paid C$21 K for my car, I think it is cheap maintenance. I do notice the engine is quieter after a change and I do it every 4 months - about 4,000 miles or 6,000 km. In Canada, Honda recommends oil changes every 8,000 km/ 5,000 miles or 4 months.

Basic maintenance like changing fluids (oil, tranny, coolant) and various filters is very cost effective maintenance for a car. A cheap well maintained car will run better than a more expensive car that is not looked after.

Even my 1994 Hyundai Excel, arguably one of the least well rated cars on the road gave me great service because of the proper basic maintenance I did. (Ofcourse anyone can get a lemon which no amount of maintenance will help).

backy · September 2003

Agree 100% on oil changes being cheap insurance. I have always changed oil on my vehicles every 3000-4000 miles, which for most cars falls into the "severe service" schedule--pretty common in Minnesnowta. In over 30+ years of driving I've never had any kind of engine trouble, and I think my cars have burned a total of maybe 2 quarts of oil between changes (that's all the vehicles I've owned over 30 years combined). I just had the oil service on my Elantra today, and along with tire rotation and some other checks at the dealer it was all of $36.

swordfish555 · September 2003

I just went to the Honda owners website & there was a notice that 5W30 weight oil is recommended for year round use for a 2003 Civic. I thought 5w20 was the prefered oil? Anything changed that I missed?

dunworth · September 2003

swordfish: I think it depends on which engine/model year you have and where you live. Here in Toronto where weather is probably not unlike backy's "Minnesnowta" (good one!) they use a semi-synthetic formulation.

Like Canada, the US is a really big country and "severe service" ranges from state to state. Rather than a website, I would check with a couple of local dealers what they use for their oil changes.

anonymousposts · September 2003

Saw a 2004 Civic EX sedan today. I still like the freshening. Almost thought about thinking of the Civic EX coupe as a replacement for our GS300 and Dakota.

dunworth · September 2003

You are replacing a Lexus with a Civic? That's a pretty big change.

mdriver · September 2003

So I must be the only person that follows the manual's suggestion of a 10k oil change under normal driving conditions. All I can say is, the oil change industry really has done a great job on scaring people. At least some of you are saying 5k change and not the ludicrous 3k. That's a start. But the oil change industry won't budge from their 3k change policy for ALL cars. The notion that Honda deliberately builds an engine to fail at 100k is based purely on fantasy. If the manual is ignored for oil change intervals, you should probably ignore everything else it says. $25 may be cheap insurance to you, but it's a $25 sale at Jiffy Lube who will be happy to change your oil every 500 miles if you want.

dunworth · September 2003

It's not just the oil industry. Honda themselves suggest 5K miles oil changes at least where I live. The recent problem Toyota is having with engine sludging is in part due to infrequent oil changes as well as a design flaw in the engine. I think the sludging problem is rare on vehicles that have followed the severe service intervals and not Toyota's manual suggestion of 8K.

I do not know how many cars you have owned but if the 10K oil change works for you, then it is really not an issue. And if that is what the service manual says, they can not deny warrantee coverage either.

isellhondas · September 2003

I don't think there is a "wrong" answer. Honda feels that 10K intervals are the maximum people should go under non-severe circumstances.

Some people like to take better care of their cars than that. I am one of those people. My wife's new CRV will never go more then 5000 miles before an oil change.

Am I wasting money? Perhaps. I've seen the inside of a dirty engine and it isn't pretty.

Also, I plan to keep this CRV a very long time.

vocus · September 2003

I personally change my oil at 5K miles always, no matter what the manual says. I think 3k is too soon, and I don't trust 7500 intervals that most manufacturers recommend.

dudka · September 2003

Ok I understand where people come from, but not all oils are the same. I do my own changes as it not only cheaper, but Paragon Honda that I used to go to secretly put the cheapest oil they could get. They were not using Honda oil, but rather a brand called "Wolf head" or somethign like that, they did not care for the weight either. I saw a tech pour some from one case and some from another.

Anyway, back to the subject. I have been using Exxon Superflo 5W-20 recommended by the manual. When you first pour it in it is thin and amber. After 3000 miles is it thick and black. Same with Motorcraft 5W-20. But when I used Mobil 1 5W-30 it was still amber at 3000 miles and getting dark at 5000 miles, but still not as black and thick as dyno oil at 3000 miles. But financially it is not equivalent, dynooil costs me $1/quart and Mobil 1 cost $4/quart. f it were able to stand up to 12,000 miles I would buy it, but for now I am sticking with Exxon. I would like to try Amsoil that someone has been prasing here, but it is not sold in stores which raises my suspisions a little. One day I may also buy that Honda branded 5W-20 and see if it is as special as Honda claims it to be.

I have an Si so I visit red line often and that may contribute to why my oil is deteriorating at 3000 miles.

lngtonge18 · September 2003

I asked a mechanic friend of mine who does not change the oil in my car so gains nothing off of his opinion. He is the shop foreman for my local Mitsubishi dealer. He believes strongly in the 3k oil change, but says it is ok to push it to 5k. He said the "normal" schedule is based on perfect driving conditions that are met just about nowhere, except in a controlled lab environment. The severe schedule would include high speed driving, city traffic, hot and cold temperatures, etc. In other words, the kind of driving conditions everyone encounters. He recommends following the severe schedule if you want your engine to last. Since he deals with repairing engines gummed up from sludge due to infrequent oil changes quite often, I'm willing to believe his real world experience over some lab tech writing a manual. I also see how dark the oil turns by 4k in all my cars, which tells me the lubrication properties are tainted by breakdown and chemicals. A couple of my cars actually alert you to dirty oil by tapping the valves. As soon as the oil is changed, all is quiet again.

bd21 · September 2003

Your mechanic is right on target. I would seriously question any mechanic who supported anything differently if you are using Dino oil. Very few people out there truly fall under normal driving conditions. If you want to keep you car past 100,000 miles then always follow the severe schedual, but if you don't keep cars with this kind of mileage, go ahead and extend your oil changes. Just remember when you try to sell it, a real mechanic might look down the oil cap and will easily be able to determine your car was neglected. Also, I always check service records, if the oil wasn't at least changed at 5000 miles I wouldn't recommend buying the car.

anonymousposts · September 2003

dunworth: The Lexus sucks gas like an athlete sucks water. Great car but he is tired of 20MPG during his 80 mile round-trip commute. It really adds up.

I change my oil at 7500. At the 15,000 mile mark I switch over to Syntec and continue the 7500 mile oil changes. It would be hard for me to let the odo get to 10,000 before changing the oil even though I am sure it wouldn't cause any problems unless you drive under severe conditions.

dunworth · September 2003

Yes that is a gas guzzler, especially compared with a Civic. Is the GS300 not equipped with the same family of V6 (albeit different tuning) that is in the Camry/ES/Avalon et al?. My dad's Avalon is good for 37 mpg (imperial) or 31 mpg (US) when cruising on the highway.

My brother's BMW does not need oil changes as regularly, I think the interval after the first couple is 15,000 km (10,000 miles). They use a synthetic. But ofcourse they charge over C$100 for the service instead of C$30 from Honda so you do not save money, but you do save time.

anonymousposts · September 2003

The GS/IS use the inline 6. He is leaning towards a 1996 Civic EX sedan, a 1993 Civic EX coupe, a 2003 Civic Si, or a 2004 EX coupe. As soon as the Dakota sells we will start looking more seriously.

seaf · September 2003

I believe I read somewhere that in Europe where environmental waste is more strictly regulated, oil change intervals are more closely scrutinized, and a study showed that it's not really the exact mileage but really the weather and driving conditions. Some manufacturers are considering putting in sensors to detect oil quality so as to prevent unnecessary oil changes. I also remember it mentioning that winter driving is harsher than summer, so a longer interval for the summer months than winter months.

It's hard to translate these into actual numbers in the U.S. But I think a safe bet is to change the oil right before winter so it has fresh oil to go through the harsh winter months, then change it again in late spring. This results in a change every 6 months or about 5-6k miles. it's more time-based rather than mileage based. Since anytime I put more miles than usual into my car is due to highway long distance trips and they're more gentle than city traffic miles.

Honda Civic 2005 and earlier

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles