Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
"However, we have traded places in each other's cars too and I cannot beat my sedan if he is driving the Pro5."
I meant to say that when I am driving his P5, and he is driving my sedan, I still cannot beat the sedan with the 1.8L"
I would say we are both equal from a skill perspective when it comes to using the manual. Although I have had some amatuer rally experience and he has not. If anything, that just exemplifies that I still cannot catch the 1.8L using his 2.0L Pro 5.
I find the Protege in snow pretty scary regardless unless you throw snow tires on her. The suspension is so stiff that she slides far too easily because there isn't much give to the road.
Anyway, I disagree with you, the Pro is a far superior handling car to the Civic. The old Civic's were close, the new Civic's handle slightly better than a Corolla. Just.....and that's just sad...
For my style of driving, highway power isn't really important. I drive in the city with heavy traffic. The Protege is better for that. Like I said before, the Protege is also better at handling the extra weight of passengers. In theory, i-VTEC is great, but it still doesn't produce torque in the Civic sedan application. Apparantly, Honda has sided with critics of the high winding nature of Honda engines. Witness the new Civic Si. It doesn't rev like the old one did.
But the thing is, I just don't get how the VW has alot more power (I mean a LOT more) and gets the same economy on REGULAR gas (the 1.8T recommends premium, but does not require it). Maybe it's because of the turbo. And my engine comes ALIVE (WIDE awake) at 1950rpm. The Protege didn't until 3500 (like everyone said) which was annoying especially with automatic.
Also, the VW has had some problems (mostly a rattle here and there- 2 to be exact), but the Mazda I had did have problems too. At least the Jetta hasn't left me stranded 60 miles from home on a Saturday morning like the Pro did (and in an underground garage at that!).
Sure the Protege can handle the extra weight of passengers but what if you are on the highway with 4 passengers? And when are most people more likely to have passengers in the car? On the highway or in their commute to work?
Yes, they did reduce the Si's redline, and yes it is slower than the 1.6L with 160HP. However, Car & Driver does not that it delivers linear power throughout the rev range. The Protege does not do this. The power just STOPS after 4500RPM.
I have people in my car all the time. The Civic is a dog with people in the car, highway or not. Frankly, I'm sick of talking about this. IMO, the Civic is not the right car for me. It is boring. It is appliance like compared to the Protege ES. I would have bought one if I thought it was better.
If you buy a Honda, any Honda, it's going to cost more to service. They stick you.
And insurance on a Protegé is higher than on Hondas, I don't know why either. It is considerably higher on my '01 Pro LX 2.0 than it was on the '98 Honda Odyssey, which was worth $3500 more than I paid for the Pro. Figure that one out.
Service on the Pro is cheaper, initially. I had service on the Pro this morning: Lub, oil & filter change; rotate and balance the tires/wheels - $58.76. Not bad. Rotate and balance alone was $36.95; on a Honda, just rotating the wheels is $60 and $40 for balancing.
I think the higher insurance is due to the kind of driving the average Protegé owner does in his car, fast and aggressive, sometimes resulting in big claims, which are passed on to the rest of us.
IMO, the 2.0L AT Pro is the best for merging with traffic on Interstates, much better than the 5-speed '94 Civic I owned. The low-end power of the Pro gets you up to speed when you really need it.
The other differences: The Pro feels like a bigger car with a stronger body and more able suspension at all speeds. The handling is far superior to the Civic's. The Pro's seats are more comfortable and you sit higher making it easier to get in and out. It feels like a real car, not an entry level econobox. And it looks like a real car; not a road toy meant for cruising Sonic drive-ins.
folwer3
Whether you consider the Civic an appliance or not obviously Honda has no problem selling their appliances. I have a Protege too, that means that it was the right car at the time for me. However, that doesn't mean that the Civic doesn't have it's own virtues or that I'm blind. It's faster, gets better gas mileage, and has a reliability record that surpasses anything Mazda has built to date.
And darnit, the fact that my fiance's $3000 1993 Civic can kick my butt just ticks me off.
the pro chassis is a cut down version of the Japanese capella [like 626]. As in the vw series [beetle, golf, jetta] based on the same chassis, the lighter version [beetle] has much superior handling to the heavier version [jetta, esp. the v-6].
The second reason is the pro rear suspension. the driver can feel the passive rear steering kick in during hard cornering. It's why the car mags raed the mp-3 handling over most sportscars.
SPORTIER? you're damn right it is!!!
btw the other car was a corolla I believe. This was back in 2000.
Anything is going to be beter than v-rated potenzas' on any surface other than dry pavement. As far as snow handling, I've never seen a car that would perform decent on snow with stock tires (with the exception of some SUVs). We had several new cars in our family: Prizm, Corolla, Camry, Altima... and all of them had to get new tires (snow tires) for the winter.
I don't have any problems with Pro during winter once I put a set of studded WinterKings on it. If you don't corner too fast and don't overrev the car, it performs quite decent. Our Pro doesn't have ABS and even my wife, who is far not the greatest driver, don't have too many problems driving it on snow days.
>Anyway, I disagree with you, the Pro is a far superior handling car to the Civic.
The lates Civic I drove was '96 on 14" tires so it's very hard to compare them. I don't know what the comparison would revial if you put similar tires on Civic. Most likely Pro would still out-handle Civic but I don't know by how much. Don't forget that it got bigger engine as well. The reason I said tires could contribute a lot to Pro's handling is because when we were buying our ES we tried DX as well. My dealer told me there is virtually no difference in suspension. However DX had regular s-rated tires on (I think they were 14" though) and it cornered significantly worse. It had smaller engine though.
Corolla is not the createst "corner-eater" and never tried to claim that title. I had '98 Prizm for almost 3 years (sold in '01) and when we got our Pro I saw a significant difference. That's considering the fact that I had upgraded tires on my Prizm.
I really enjoyed the give and take on the Civic vs. Protege preferences. With out a doubt this discussion board is one of more informative and entertaining here at Town Hall.
:-)
-Larry
Can't wait to see the turbo Pro. Doesn't make much sense for them NOT to offer an engine upgrade for the P5, as that body style appeals to a different crowd from the 3-box folks. Someone in Mazda NA must be tinkering with the idea, I think (OK, hope).
Wish they were bringing the RX-8 to the Cincinnati car show, but it's a smaller event, so likely won't be coming here. Doubt even a 6 will be there.
Let me guess... when you were buying that car, you expressed some hesitation at having to use high octane gas... right? The helpful salesman then assured you that despite what the people who designed, built and warranty your engine recommend, you can go ahead and throw the cheap stuff in there... how close am I? :-D
If you plan to keep that car for more than 3 year, do yourself, and it, a favor and put 91 octane into it like the manufacturer recommends.
Over time that low octane gas WILL mess things up. You also get fewer MPG and fewer HP with a lower octane. It's been proven on dynos. Use what the manufacturer recommends, never more never less, no matter what the sales guy tells you.
Of course a turbo motor is more efficient. Duh! How much are replacement turbos and engines?
Car and Driver this month liked the Focus SVT better than the GTI 1.8t (180hp) or the new Civic SI. Go figure.
I just wish Mazda would have been able to field an entry in that comparo.
maltb: I'm not talking about other cars. The Protege and the Civic are supposed to serve the same purpose. A Mustang GT is meant for going fast in a straight line but try driving it to work every day and you definitely won't see any where near the 35MPG that his Civic does.
And as for the life expectancy of a turbo motor VW offers a 10/100,000 mile warranty on it. My fiance had a 91 300ZX TT and it had no problems with 140,000 miles on it and the neighbor we sold it to is still driving it with no problems.
The real engine question is .... why can Honda/Acura get 200HP out of their 2.0L engine and Mazda can only manage 130HP with theirs?
I had a '96 Civic DX Coupe for 3 years. I liked that car very much. Decent power if you revved it up and it handled GREAT even on crappy stock tires. Great steering and shifter too.
But the newest Civics are just so bland. Not just the styling, but the handling too... bah!
Remember Mazda is about to go into the engine building business with (gulp) Ford and they aren't developing engines anymore by themselves (besides the rotary). They are in charge of designing the small engines for Fords new lineup of small cars as well as the new 2.5 170HP Mazda 6.
Personally I reserve the right to not like the new engines until they have proved themselves. Mazda designing and Ford building.....hmmmmm.....
In my turbo Passat that was 91 octane. In my Pro5 it is 87.
By the way, Mazda gets 170 hp from their 2.0L, you just can't buy it here. If they wanted to make a 240 hp version, it wouldn't be impossible for them to do. They don't need to though, thats what the Rotary is for
If you are not paying $230 a MONTH (the cheapest rate I got, and I tried 12 different companies), then don't complain!
shrique: I don't think Ford has a problem building engines but I hope they don't start building Mazda automatic trannys. The 626 4 cylinder had tons of problems with their trannies thanks to Ford.
170HP still isn't 200HP or 240HP. And the 240HP engine used in the S2000 is not the same one as the 200HP used in the RSX. And even if the HP goes up and the torque goes down obviously they are doing something right because Mazda hasn't made any engines recently that even come close to matching Hondas in fuel economy and performance. And as I've said before I think that high end is a more appropriate place for power unless you never intend to drive on the highway.
Of course, I would rather have problems with the tranny than have it completely fall out the bottom of the car. That's what happend to a friend of mine's Cavalier when the car hit exactly 100,000 miles. I mean fluid and all, fell completely out the bottom of the car! The mechanic said he never saw anything like it in his life!
That said... I pay $560 per year for my Pro5. High coverages, low deductables, I'm 30, married, have a spotless record, and also have my home insurance through the same company.
My '99 Passat 1.8T was $960 per year.
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl.htm
This document lists IIHS compiled insurance loss data for many popular models - the relative amount of money spent per car on average for the contributing agencies - broken down into three categories: injury loss, collision loss, and theft loss. Taking a quick look, the Pro ranks below average (high cost) on injury loss and collision loss, hence the higher premiums.
Of course, as others have noted, region, marital status, record, etc., will modify individual premiums within these guidelines. YMMV
hey at least the Protege is the #3 least stolen car in its class!!!
now I can sleep well at night knowing that my car won't be stolen from me like an Integra would!!
Man look at the Integra's numbers, its insurance premium must be through the roof!!!
'duh'
Further, no mention is made in the loss data report of which category (injury, collision, or theft) costs the most and therefore would have the most impact on premiums. My guess is that injury would win - hospital stays are expensive. Not sure, though.
The report is really more interesting in comparing injury and theft "rates", IMO. Speaking of which, what is up with the theft loss on Integras! Thats just crazy - maye it is a typo.
Protege5 $ 900
Honda SI $1100
Corolla $1000
Subura WRX $800
Porsche Boxter-S $1500
Go figure. I can buy a $75,000 car and pay only $600 more per year. Or get a $38,000 car and pay $100 less per year. Now only if I could afford these other cars.
My insurance rate is also fairly high (130/month)as I'm not yet 25 (24) and the Pro is brand new. I can't wait to hit 25 so I can see those premiums drop!!
Car: 2000 Protege ES
Insurance: $2200/year
(new driver)
I haven't tried any other brand as of yet since I really do like the idea of the techron being present in the Chevron, but will probably experiment with a different brand just to see if this is the cause.
The service manual has a long list of things to check(electical and vacuum connections, fuel pressure, etc.) and only mentions recommending trying a different fuel after all the other checks have proven OK.
I got a 2k pro es(1.8L).
I agree with you when you say that the size of the engine and HP are just 2 out of many factors that affect speed. Our LS400 has 250HP but it was slower than my 200HP Accord. Gearing and weight are probably the culprits there. Our Civic beat a 150HP Sunfire and a V6 Beretta. Both have more HP than our Civic (125HP).