Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Honda Civic Quality Control Issues
hondasmonda
Member Posts: 28
I have noticed the considerable discussion generated in the Accord forum of the same topic, so I decided the Civic deserves a forum too.
I own a 1999 Honda Civic SI Coupe (EX in the US). This is my first Honda. My experience with the car has been below average. My intention is not to slander Honda on the basis of my experience.
Generally speaking, I have noticed the body of the Civic is very flimsy. I see a lot of dents on Civics that I don't see on other cars. Also, body panels are not aligned properly compared to most Toyotas, Nissans, and Mazdas.
Piston slap is a common problem with the Civic engine (a good indicator of poor workmanship/cheap components). The auto tranmission is known to have a number of problems as well as premature wear of the rotors/brakes. 2001 Models present a whole set of new problems.
I know, I know, some of you will say that every car manufacturer makes a lemon. I agree with that proposition. Nevertheless, I'm not certain that the Civic is as good a car as many of us believe.
I'm sure Honda built a really good car in the late 80s through to the mid-90s. Since Honda, however, has moved its manufacturing to North America, I have been hearing a lot about a decline in quality (not only in workmanship but in other areas).
Let's think about it: Honda is now using the same US and Canadian based parts suppliers as GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Honda Canada and Honda America basically assembles the car, but the majority of componenents come from third party suppliers who don't implement the same quality control standards as the japanese do. These North American components, in my own opinion, are not of the same calibre of japanese components, which are much better.
Pet Peeve: How do publications such as Consumer Reports give the 2001 Honda Civic a best buy (the rating was based on the reliability of the car) when the car has just come out? I find it difficult to believe that someone could accurately predict the reliability of a car on the basis of a few months. Is it possible Honda's reputation is preceding them?
Talk amongst yourselves.
I own a 1999 Honda Civic SI Coupe (EX in the US). This is my first Honda. My experience with the car has been below average. My intention is not to slander Honda on the basis of my experience.
Generally speaking, I have noticed the body of the Civic is very flimsy. I see a lot of dents on Civics that I don't see on other cars. Also, body panels are not aligned properly compared to most Toyotas, Nissans, and Mazdas.
Piston slap is a common problem with the Civic engine (a good indicator of poor workmanship/cheap components). The auto tranmission is known to have a number of problems as well as premature wear of the rotors/brakes. 2001 Models present a whole set of new problems.
I know, I know, some of you will say that every car manufacturer makes a lemon. I agree with that proposition. Nevertheless, I'm not certain that the Civic is as good a car as many of us believe.
I'm sure Honda built a really good car in the late 80s through to the mid-90s. Since Honda, however, has moved its manufacturing to North America, I have been hearing a lot about a decline in quality (not only in workmanship but in other areas).
Let's think about it: Honda is now using the same US and Canadian based parts suppliers as GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Honda Canada and Honda America basically assembles the car, but the majority of componenents come from third party suppliers who don't implement the same quality control standards as the japanese do. These North American components, in my own opinion, are not of the same calibre of japanese components, which are much better.
Pet Peeve: How do publications such as Consumer Reports give the 2001 Honda Civic a best buy (the rating was based on the reliability of the car) when the car has just come out? I find it difficult to believe that someone could accurately predict the reliability of a car on the basis of a few months. Is it possible Honda's reputation is preceding them?
Talk amongst yourselves.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
As for quality control issues, which could be real, this is mostly a plant issue, a management and training issue. A quality product can be built anywhere in the world by anyone who is intelligent and hard-working. If you think Mercedes Benzes are all built by Germans, think again--but the quality control standards are (usually, not always) very high for Mercedes, as is the training standard.
I think Consumer Reports is focusing on value for the money spent, and really, for the MSRP of a Civic, you do get a lot of features, a good service and parts network, and good economy, engineering, etc.
If the Honda is really slipping in quality, this will show up soon enough in owner surveys, crash tests, warranty costs. No manufacturer gets away with a shoddy product in America for very long. Americans don't forget when they've been screwed. Just try and sell a Fiat or a Peugeot or a Lotus here anymore...even Jaguar is still dogged by their past sins, and GM and Ford continue to lose market share due to the rather bad products they produced in the late 70s and 80s.
As for Mercedes quality - the Big M's SUVs are produced in Kentucky or Alabama (I believe) and the build quality on these vehicles has been less than stellar. The plant as I understand is owned by Mercedes. The staff is also trained by Mercedes (maybe they caught Chrysleritis). The likelihood is that reliance on suppliers such as Delphi, Magna, and the likes will typically yield lower standards.
8 years ago I lived in Japan for over 10 months. In comparision to North American culture, the Japanese pay much more attention to detail and work is given a high priority over other values (for better or worse).
Don't get me wrong, Honda still makes a decent car. For one, they are better engineered vehicles (although the newer Civic may have taken a step backward to cater to North American tastes). It is typically better than what the Big 3 have to offer. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that consumers pay a premium for vehicles with the Honda nameplate. For example, in Canada a Base Civic Sedan costs approximately 19,500. A better equipped Chevy Cavalier goes for $14,500. The Civic is a better car, but it all depends on how long you will own it. A 20% difference in price is significant. I have heard, aside from build quality, the Cavalier is a relatively reliable form of transportation. You do, however, lose big time on the resale with the GM product.
Perhaps we've just set an unrealistic expectation for Honda...we want them perfect. You've noticed, I'm sure, how people even on this board expect perfection from a car selling under $20K...every little speck of a defect, every little sunvisor squeek, and they are talking "LEMON LAW!". 15 years ago people were grateful to make it home from the dealer.
They changed the suspension whiloe improving the handeling.
But...They'll never make everybody happy.
Increase the thickness of the sheetmetal?
Not a problem! BUT...the car will weigh more, use more gas and the price will increase.
Honda (or any other manufacturer) will never be able to please everyone so they try to please the masses.
The consumers want it all...Oh, but don't raise the price!
A fine line to walk!
As each year progresses the art of producing a well-built car should be easier. A car is equal to sum of its parts. If the parts are not up to snuff, then neither will the car.
Technological improvements are expected to occur in vehicles every generation or so (i.e. power, fuel economy, emissions etc;).
Advances in technology have lowered the cost of producing cars. My contention is that Honda has started getting chintzy and is essentially milking its reputation earned in the late 80s and early 90s. Keeping a car under $20,000 is a lot easier today than it was 5 or 6 years ago. Honda, in my opinion, instead of passing the savings on to the consumer in the way of price or maintaining the quality of components used has chosen to pad the bottom line. In fact, Honda, in a number of business journals, is very boastful about how each generation of car becomes cheaper to manufacture. Decontented, I believe, is the word they like to use instead of skimp. I can't blame Honda because shareholders are constituents that they have answer to as well.
The common theme, in my experience, seems to be that the Civic has declined in quality. Even the Service Manger at the Honda dealership where I service my car has told me that Honda's produced in North America are less reliable and not as well-built as the Japanese made models (i.e. Prelude and CRV). Many of the service techs are thoroughly disgusted to even work on the newer Civics (it has become a Cavalier in Honda clothing --> pun intended). I agree with Mr. ShiftRight, the American public will not be so forgiving if Honda is actually slipping. These things usually take 5 to 6 years to bear fruition. But then again many people are leasing today and may very well not experience the unreliable years (Years 4,5,6 and onward).
Volkswagen is already starting to feel the effect of producing cars with outdated mechanicals and suspect build quality.
I guess time will tell...
Build quality was very suspect --> loud squeaks from the glove compartment area, misaligned door panels, and a weird sound coming from
the tranny. It drove rather sluggishly. I felt like I was driving a Pontiac.
and...that's fine. Lots of other cars out there they no doubt would like better.
The change in the suspension allowed the Civic to do even better than before in crash tests. It also allowed more interior room.
And...sorry...it did NOT detract from the handleing even one bit! They made other changes at the same time that actually IMPROVED the suspension.
I drove the 2001 Civic on a closed test track, weaving it through pylons. I also drove the competition. I TOTALLY disagree with your opinion, but you can think what you wish.
And, lugwrench...how many buyers do you think would even care?
In any event, the handling, in my opinion is far better on the previous generation Civic. There is a perceptible difference.
Even the steering felt very awkward and build quality on the Test Drive model was less than stellar--> akin to a GM built car.
I also disagree and I drive LOTS of Hondas.
And it's OK to disagree.
Some customers will swear there is a difference but none of us can tell one iota of difference.
But...hey, I had a customer buy an Accord the other day from me because he couldn't find a Japanese one at the dealerships closer to his home.
I'm glad he felt that way!
My experience with my 2000 Civic Coupe EX has been well chronicled on these forums. I have been very unsatisfied with my particular car (i.e. loose bolt, not even a part of the car, in the intake manifold which caused the engine too overheat and essentially destroy the entire engine. Sabotage or poor workmanship? You choose. Engine has been replaced - so we will have to wait and see) Other people seem to be entirely satisfied, and others are not.
The important thing is many of us can share our ownership experiences and observations about a particular car and Company that may or may not be building a lower quality product.
If you drive a g6 and a g7 back to back, you will immediately notice the difference in favour of the g6. Most people may not notice any difference because they don't currently own a g6 Civic and cannot do such an immediate comparison.
Instead of concentrating on improving the ride and handling of the 01, Honda used their time flattening out the rear floor - poor allocation of resources in my opinion.
I should reiterate - a double wishbone isn't the end all and be all of suspensions. The Civic with the wishbones isn't going to run circles around a BMW, Porsche, or Vette. The Civic was never intended to be a SPORTS CAR!!! But consumers do expect their econocars, for a lack of a better word, to have a decent ride. This is where the new Civic fails miserably.
It seems Honda's penchant for cheapness these days has caused them to develop an inappropriate strut system (re: GM quality struts). I can't remember the last car Honda has produced with struts.
The marketing whiz bangs at Honda tried to mask the cost saving measure by claiming that a strut design was required to increase interior space. Who cares about that stupid stump in the rear? Let's be realistic how often do you see a Civic loaded up with five passengers? Not often... How stupid do they think the buying public is? The auto consumer with above average knowledge isn't buying this patethic excuse for a story. Most of these consumers have been able to read between the lines (Hence the slower than expected sales - even in an environment where Honda's sales for other models keep increasing). Goto autonews.com for the numbers, if you don't believe me (I now expect Isellhondas to say that they have been flying off the showroom floor --> hahaha)
I can't point out what the problem with Honda is--> Could it be that Honda America has actually gained some influence with the Japanese Head Office and hence changed the corporate philosophy of the company. Let's face it, American companies are widely regarded, for better or worse, as big cost cutters in the production of goods. It seems to be showing in Honda's latest models produced locally in North America.
It's too bad --> This is a company that used to produce high quality fun cars like the CRX. It seems Honda has taken the fun factor from their entry level models.
Sounds like you might be trying to put words in my mouth.
It is interesting to read these postings. I learn of "problems" that I never knew existed.
I'm sure some of these troubles are real. I also know that misery tends to love company too.
I've only heard of a soft rear suspension here, at Edmunds, in these forums.
A set of aftermarket shocks such as Konis should stiffen things up for the folks that think they have a problem. People modify cars all of the time to make them more to their liking.
As someone in sales, I'd assume, you would spend more time focusing on the marketing end of things. I'm impressed that you actually spend time on these forums.
The suspension "issue" has actually been pointed out in a number of publications (online and print).
Most people who purchase Civics actually don't bother or even want to modify their cars. It is only a very small percentage of individuals who will take the initiative to modify their cars. I don't think it is acceptable for Honda to believe that if you don't like the ride, then put aftermarket shocks. This type of philosophy will ultimately hurt Honda's credibility.
As an aside, the wishbone/strut discussion is pointless. Implementation is the key. There is one car in the same class that has done it right. The Mazda Protege ES 2.0 with struts has a really sweet ride. The build quality (made in Japan) is significantly better than what I have seen on the latest generations of Civics. Even the materials on the Mazda seem to be of a higher quality than the Civic (ZOOM, ZOOM).
Honda has two choices to make in the coming years: (1) Improve the strut design or (2) Admit they had made a mistake and go back to the wishbone design. For many years, Honda's marketing literature would point out the superiority of the wishbone design over struts. What are people suppose to believe? Many people are repeat buyers of Civics and have been raised on the wishbone is better than struts philosophy.
Talk about a classic case of shooting yourself in the foot.
You are making a big deal out of something that few people care about.
You can continue to think and believe whatever you wish. If you want to think the handling has deteriorated (which it has not) good for you.
I agree with Hondasmonda, the Protege ES is light-years ahead of the Civic in terms of driving dynamics, but still has a fairly low resale value due to limited popularity not reliability.
I have recently test drove a variety of Mazda cars (since I am considering replacing my below average Civic) and have been quite impressed with their product lineup. The build quality on the Mazdas built in Japan appear to be considerably better than the Civics produced domestically. I have no issue with the fact that the Protege has struts. I have also been reading in a couple of publications, that the Protege has fewer reliability issues than the Civic.
"Well,...we...can't...really...tell...the...difference". My mom said that it seems the bodywork on her 2k1-Camry had a lesser quality fit than her previous '96. Before I told her, she didn't know that the last year for the Japanese Camry was '96. Again, reiterating my previous point that even on the same model, the Japanese-made version was of higher quality than the USA-made. "That's the first time I've heard that". Well, what does that tell you. When was the last time you walked into a showroom/shop/store and you knew more than the rep. The fact remains, there are those who still care about nuts and bolts, and what we say is worth $XX,XXX.00 every 4 years.
The Camry has been built domestically since at least 1992. Some Camrys are still being built in Japan but most of them are made in Kentucky. The '92 models were built in the good ole USA.
Honda Accords have been built at the Marysville, OH plant since the year 1982!.
Because I can't tell the difference in quality.
Once in awhile, I'll hear someone say they think that's the case...fine.
And good luck trying to fina a Japanese built Civic or Accord. Very few make it to the states.
And gassguzz...I really don't care what you may think, I REALLY CAN'T tell any difference.
Has anyone noticed the quality of the turn signal control on the G7 Civic compared to the G6? When I drove one, I kept activating the signal fully when what I wanted was a partial activation when changing lanes. The G6 turn signal was far easier to modulate than the G7. Another indication of low quality supplied parts for the new Civic.
I owned a 1998 Dodge Dakota; which, by the way, got highest in initial quality by JD Power during that year. I never had more problems with anything I had ever owned than with that truck. I will never buy another American vehicle. I looked at the Civics due to the tremedous success of my father and his Honda vehicles. Needless to say, I am not disappointed with my purchase. I bought a 2001 Civic in Feburary and have had no gripes, qualms, issues, [non-permissible content removed]-sessions, or any other sort of complaint.
I didn't post to get flamed, but what the hell would half of you know about quality control? Do you work for major automakers? 5% of you, maybe. Maybe I'll start complaing about how flimsy the emergency brake feels or how the groves on the left foot pad used to go the other way on the G6 Civics and now it's lower quality because my foot seems to slip a little.
I have yet to experience any sort of problem, but until then, I absolutley adore my vehicle. Great engineering, wonderful name, outstanding gas-milage. Buy it for what it is, not for it's shortcomings.
I'm out,
Wick
Wick,
Yeah, it's funny to see how some people will complain about the most trivial of things, isn't it?
Turn signal "easier to modulate" huh?
But, the last time I was in Minnesota it seems that every car on the road more than eight years old was a rust bucket.
Nevertheless, Honda's paper thin sheet metal and thinly applied paint do give me the impression that Honda's rust faster than other makes and models.
I believe it is the cheap plastic and lack of insulation within the frame. I have also been reading about front windows not being placed properly in their bindings (creates a whistling sound at highway speeds).
Another item - creaky sound upon exiting the car after a half hour or more of highway driving. Apparently, the flanges used for the catalytic are of such cheap quality they barely can hold the catalytic in place.
Comments anyone?
Many current and former Civic owners have noticed a disappointing trend with Honda. Specifically, that Honda may not be building as good a vehicle as it once did. Does that mean we should stop buying Hondas? Absolutely not. Let's bring some levity to this forum. Like all car manufacturers, Honda will produce its share of duds or lemons, if you prefer. Many of the service techs at my dealership (people who will typically tell you like it is) inform me that the CRV and the Prelude (still manufactured in Japan) are the best built Hondas. According to them, the Honda Civic of the last 5 or 6 years are more problematic than earlier models. That being said, Civics are generally better engineered vehicles in comparison to what the Big 3 has to offer in the econo-box segment.
If the stories are true about the decline in quality, then Honda will feel the effects of their cheapness in the near future. Mr. ShiftRight astutely points out that the American public is unforgiving (look at Chrysler, GM, and Ford with their declining market share).Honda has been able to increase its market share on its reputation for being reliable and having excellent build quality (re: quality control). Take this away from their cars and they will also see a decline in their market share. Honda is not exactly known for producing awe inspiring vehicles.
From an economic standpoint, Honda really had no choice but to produce their cars locally in North America. However, heavy reliance on North American parts suppliers can be a problem.
Apparently, 85% of the components for the Civic come from North American suppliers. These are the same manufacturers who supply (say it ain't so!) GM, CHRYSLER, and FORD. In fact, many of these "suppliers" are also being given more responsibility in the mechanical design of the car. There you have it folks! Your precious little Civic may in fact have something in common with the engineering marvel (GAG!! GAG!!) that GM calls the Cavalier. Heck, the Honda service techs at my dealership call the 2001 Model - the Honda Cavalier.
So there you have it, Madirishman! Not all of us are complaining about the little things.
I have had some specific involvement with the QA process for a client of ONE parent corporation. The classic case is that the Asian (Japan) division and Western (USA) division business structures are different. In a nutshell, it would take us 10-hour days and 1.5 weeks in Japan compared to half a day in the US to gain acceptance for our deliverables - for the very same product implementation. While we may not be able to tell the diff between tailight assemblies, I'll bet you the qualification procedures are different.
Since then of course, I've been trying to justify the $12,000 price difference. It hasn't been hard. There are tons of little things that stand out on this car that show me where Honda has cut corners. Why is there only a power lock control on the driver's side? How come the doors go 'twang' when I close them and not 'thunk'. How come other cars in this price range come with alloy wheels and a CD player? Why is the steering wheel so thin and coated with rubber instead of leather? Why isn't there 1 touch down window controls for the passenger side, and no 1 touch up at all?
All of this will lead you to believe on I am not satisfied with my Civic, but that's not true. I know I was buying a cheap car when I bought it, and I'm not suprised that that's what I got. I looked at VW's when I was shopping. They are all much nicer, but also much more expensive. $20K for a Golf or Jetta? Forget it. I looked a Ford Focus too. Nice car with more options for less money. Then look at the milage and recall history. 6 recalls in the first year, and 10 mpg less.
My Honda has power locks, windows and mirrors. It also has cruise control, AC, and the rear seats fold down. It get's 37 mpg and scored 5's for both front and side impact. And it was still only $14,000.
If you want a really nice car, I recommend an Audi. If you want a cheap car that won't cost much to operate, I strongly recommend the Civic. Sure it's a cheaply made car, but look at what you are paying. And even with all it's teething problems, I'd still like to see the repair bill after 5 years compared to a Focus or Cavalier, or see how many of those cars are still running after 150,000 miles.
Next time you buy a cheap car, don't be suprised when that's what you get.
It's been said that "the people who pay the least tend to expect the most"
I'm not sure if that's true but I always hear things like.." It would be nice IF "
If the car had power lock switches on both sides etc... Heck, I agree! It WOULD be nice!
Trouble is, all of these wishes cost money and car manufactures have to make decisions.
And, there is always the importance of overall VALUE. Total cost of ownership is what really matters. Resale values on Civics are fantastic.
So I wouldn't get ahead of myself by saying let's see in five years.
The Protege is starting to look real good to me. Much better materials and mechanicals, and the price is a little cheaper.
As technology progresses, consumers are entitled to expect well-built cars (yes, that includes rattles and failing components). As someone who bought into the Honda hype machine, I expect my $15,000 car to be as well-built as an A4. I remember in the late 80s and early 90s, the Civics coming out of Japan were built as good as any vehicle on the road. Let's face it, Honda's are in the upper range of their segment in price. Therefore, my expectations will accordingly be higher.
A couple of cars, in my opinion, are better built than the Civic:
(1) Mazda Protege (Made in Japan - better materials)
(2) Nissan Sentra (although this is subject to debate now the cars are built in Mexico).
(3) Toyoto Corrola (Made in Cambridge, Ontario - For some reason, Toyota has escaped the "North American Build Quality Problem" with this plant. It is possible that Toyota still uses higher quality components than Honda).