Has Honda's run - run out?

03accordman · November 2004

"OK, let's just talk about efficiency and engines. Take a look at the 1992 Civic and the 2004 Civic. The 2004 Civic isn't significantly more powerful or more efficient than the 1992 Civic"

"The 1992 Protege with the 1.8l gets about the same mileage as the 2004 Mazda3 with the 2.3L, yet it is not nearly as powerful"

So is the 2.3L engine more efficient than the current Civic engine? That would give a clear indication of engine efficiency of each car.

newcar31 · November 2004

"Fast forward to the present, and Mazda continues to offer larger displacement engine, now 2.0/2.3 liter engines with 148-160 HP (up 30-45%) and Civic goes with 1.7/2.0 liter engines with 115-160 HP (up 30-65%)."

You know that the 2.0L is only available in the hatchback. I'm talking about the 1.7L which IS NOT a big improvement over the 1.6L in the 1992 EX Civic.

"Simple until you think about it. But you simply wont get it."

Oh, I get it just fine. In order to maintain a younger average age of buyer, younger buyers need to continue to buy the product. If the average age is going up, it either means that less younger buyers are buying or more older buyers are buying or both. Period.

"So is the 2.3L engine more efficient than the current Civic engine? That would give a clear indication of engine efficiency of each car."

GEEZ!

You really do not understand what I am getting at here. I'll repeat myself:

Take a look at the 1992 Civic and the 2004 Civic. The 2004 Civic isn't significantly more powerful or more efficient than the 1992 Civic.

The 1992 Protege with the 1.8l gets about the same mileage as the 2004 Mazda3 with the 2.3L, yet it is not nearly as powerful.

The Civic has not improved engine power or efficiency significantly since 1992. The Protege/Mazda3 has. The 1992 Protege with the 1.8L does not get as good of gas mileage as the Mazda3 with the 2.0L and the 2.0L has more power. The 2.3L gets about the same mileage as the 1992 1.8L but it has 160 hp instead of 125.

Get it?

newcar31 · November 2004

"To answer your question, why do you think BMW uses MacPherson struts?"

Why did the Civic have wishbones? Why does the Accord have wishbones?

carlisimo · November 2004

Wishbones fit better in the old Civics' lower bodies than struts would have. It allowed the Civic to have a lot of front suspension travel despite its small size; other cars like the Sentra that used struts in a similarly-low body were prone to running out of travel and hitting their bumpstops.

Struts go better with a tall design, and they allow more space in between them than wishbones do. According to Honda, the decision to go to struts was determined by the new engine bay design (the steering box moved; dunno why they felt that was more important). So it was a packaging issue.

carguy58 · November 2004

As far as looks are concerned it seems like Honda is getting more conservative with their exterior stylings. Looks are becoming more important in today's car business as a selling tool. Instead Honda is going backwards. With Acura they are going fowards. The newer Civic in my opinion has to be sportier than the current one. If its not Honda loses those precious young buyers.

As far as RSX is concerned I like the stylings of the Integra's better(90-93, and 94-01.) I do prefer the looks over the 02-04 RSX over the 05's RSX's as well. I hope for the next generation RSX it gets the family look that the RL and TL have have but I don't know.

newcar31 · November 2004

"Struts go better with a tall design"

Take a look at the high cowl on the current Accord compared to previous Accords.

"the decision to go to struts was determined by the new engine bay design"

Or, was the decision for a new engine bay design determined by the decision to use struts?

andre1969 · November 2004

that the taller design came about because of the decision to switch to struts. Not the other way around. But then again, it's possible that Honda went to a higher, taller design because of more stringent side impact requirements. Those low beltlines and generous glass area make for a nice, airy interior and great visibility, but they're not so great when it comes to kissing the 3500 lb battering ram in laboratory tests! Or the even heavier SUVs and cars that roam the streets...

ateixeira · November 2004

I'm not sure how the new 2.3l is geared, but the 1.8l back then was geared pretty short (final drive was 4.11:1). Mileage wasn't a strength, torque was.

Mazda certainly has enhanced performance, though.

The Civic Si made the same horsepower but it had less torque than the Protege LX.

The 323/Protege did not (fortunately) use the worst transmission ever produced - the Ford CD4E. Only the 626, and even then only the 4 cylidner automatic, got it.

Yikes, in the 626 thread we'd have about one failure per week. A rebuilt one still wouldn't give you another 2 years. They were just total junk.

-juice

carguy58 · November 2004

Andre....the Protege did not use a Ford Tranny at all. The Mazda's that used Ford Tranny's were the 94-97 4 cyl 626's and MX-6's. The 6 cyl auto and 5 speed manual MX-6 and 626 did not use a Ford Tranny at all. The 98-02 626 still used a Ford tranny in the 4 cyl auto but was much improved over the 4 cyl auto tranny used in the 94-97 626's and MX-6's

varmint · November 2004

"Or, was the decision for a new engine bay design determined by the decision to use struts?"

I believe Honda reversed the direction in which the engine spins. They did this to make their new engine lines more compatible with other car makers, thus allowing them to sell engines to other companies. That change meant they had to revise the entire engine compartment.

ateixeira · November 2004

The 98-02 626 still used a Ford tranny in the 4 cyl auto but was much improved

Yeah, they'd last 3 years instead of 2. LOL

Seriously, we observed failures even after the improvements, though the rate of failure did drop slightly.

Just thought about something - isn't the 2.3l block a Ford design? Mazda tuned and enhanced, but I believe the original architecture is Ford's. Same for the 3l V6 in the 6s.

The difference with Mazda now is they have deeper pockets. Thankfully Ford it letting them do a lot of the work with the small cars.

Ironically, I owned a '91 Ford Escort, which had a Mazda engine (that same 1.8l) and chassis. So back then it was reversed.

-juice

newcar31 · November 2004

"Mazda certainly has enhanced performance, though."

Now you see my point. Good. The Civic coupe and sedan haven't changed much at all from a performance or efficiency standpoint in over 10 years, unless you're talking about the hybrid.

"I believe Honda reversed the direction in which the engine spins."

I believe that was only on the new generation engines, not the 1.7L.

andre1969 · November 2004

Ford used to have two different 2.3 blocks. One was an OHC unit that first showed up in the Pinto, but ended up in the Mustang and Fairmont. The other was actually the old inline 6 that dated back to the Ford Falcon, with 2 cylinders lopped off. It first showed up in the Tempo, I think.

Isn't there some 2.3 engine out nowadays that's actually built by Yamaha?

newcar31 · November 2004

http://www.carseverything.com/content/article/1346.3/

03accordman · November 2004

"The Civic has not improved engine power or efficiency significantly since 1992. The Protege/Mazda3 has. The 1992 Protege with the 1.8L does not get as good of gas mileage as the Mazda3 with the 2.0L and the 2.0L has more power. The 2.3L gets about the same mileage as the 1992 1.8L but it has 160 hp instead of 125"

Clearly the Protege had a lot more scope for improvement. And don't forget, the 2.3 is not the standard engine in the MZ3, its an option. That way we can compare the Civic Type R (euro) that gets 210HP from a 2.0L engine.

A buyer will compare efficieny of two current cars, not see where the car was 10 years back. That's why I brought in the efficiency of the Civic vs MZ3. Get it now?

carguy58 · November 2004

"The 1992 Protege didn't have problems with AC, CEI's. Overall I agree with you, the Mazda 3 is a big improvement over the Protege, but the execution of Mazda leaves alot to be desired, just like the 6, another car spoiled by the actual execustion."

I agree with you somewhat about the 3 with the A/C issue and rust on the 3 and 6 respectively. The CEL's on the 3 thats usual first year bug. The 03 and 6 and 04 3 are first year models. I look at it like this as long as Mazda correct these issue's with the current generation 3 and 6 they'll be ok. The only thing is a source like Consumer Reports won't recommend a Mazda car in its first year if major first year issue's with models keep on popping up on Mazda's future line of cars.

carguy58 · November 2004

"Yikes In the 626 thread we'd have about one failure per week. A rebuilt one still wouldn't give you another 2 years. They were just total junk."

I see alot of 93-97 626's out there(the Ford Tranny came arrived with the 94 626)but I never observed the ones still running if they had the V6 emblem on them or just the plain 626 emblem on them with just means its a 4 cyl 626. I wonder if you spilt the number of 626 6 cyl models and 4 cyl models out there if there was a great disparity in 6 cyl 626 model's still running than 4 cyl 626 model's still running from the 93-97 period.

03accordman · November 2004

Like I said, a lot more scope for improvement, and also a change in direction. The same 2.3L is also used in the Mazda6, and the Automobile magazine (The kindest publication towards Mazda6) article that you've been propogating calls it a dog of a car with the Auto. What does that say for performance enhancement for the Mazda6? Even the 3.0 is known to have minimal low end torque. The wagon gets poor EPA gas mileage too, in some cases lesser than some Minivans (a certain Odyssey comes to mind). Anyway, Mazda is nowhere near Honda as far as engine efficiency goes, and the only thing they can boast is the rotor wankel engine in the RX8, and you can't compare a wankel engine with convenctional engine with regards to engine displacement.

Anyway, this discussion on not only about the Civic, but Honda as a company. And as such, its doing far, far better than Mazda.

carguy58 · November 2004

Acura's average buyer...

Yeah that surprised me too that Acura's average buyer is only 43. I doubt the RSX lowers their average buyer that much though because the MDX and TL sell way better than the RSX does. I think its a matter of Acura going back to its sporty styling roots from the early to mid 90's that is leading to their comeback in their last few years that maybe is capturing younger buyers.

As far as the Civic Average age buyer is concerned the last time I read it was 39 years old.

newcar31 · November 2004

"Clearly the Protege had a lot more scope for improvement. And don't forget, the 2.3 is not the standard engine in the MZ3, its an option."

Even the standard 2.0L is an improvement. My point hasn't changed and you haven't refuted my point yet. The Civic hasn't changed much in over 10 years. Get it? Do you understand?

"A buyer will compare efficieny of two current cars, not see where the car was 10 years back."

I was not talking about the efficiency of the two current cars, I WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW THE CIVIC HASN'T CHANGED MUCH IN OVER 10 YEARS with regards to power and fuel efficiency while the Mazda has. Refute that.

Besides, the 2.0L in the Mazda is just about as fuel efficient as the 1.7L in the Honda.

"The same 2.3L is also used in the Mazda6, and the Automobile magazine (The kindest publication towards Mazda6) article that you've been propogating calls it a dog of a car with the Auto."

What does that have to do with the Civic not changing? The Civic hasn't changed with regards to efficiency or power in over 10 years. Respond to that.

carguy58 · November 2004

alright lets not pick on each other. Mazda did do well in the late 80's/early 90's. The Ford tranny killed them in the 626. The 95 Protege they tried to be Honda and Toyota which did not work. The 98 626 that didn't work out for them either. Now Mazda is trying to re-invent Lets give Mazda sometime and see how they do. Its unfair to compare them to Honda. Of course Mazda is going to be behind in engines from Honda because Honda is the benchmark automaker in engines.

newcar31 · November 2004

"What does that say for performance enhancement for the Mazda6? Even the 3.0 is known to have minimal low end torque. The wagon gets poor EPA gas mileage too, in some cases lesser than some Minivans (a certain Odyssey comes to mind). Anyway, Mazda is nowhere near Honda as far as engine efficiency goes, and the only thing they can boast is the rotor wankel engine in the RX8, and you can't compare a wankel engine with convenctional engine with regards to engine displacement."

LOL!

Despite all of that, the Civic hasn't changed much with regards to efficiency or power in over 10 years.

robertsmx · November 2004

Excellent post (#3549).

ateixeira · November 2004

Actually, not to take what I said back, but I recall a Ford Escort LX-E review in C&D that hit 60mph with that 1.8l in 7.5 seconds.

The Mazda3 2.3l took 7.6 seconds IIRC.

So the old engine was quicker in some cases. I think Proteges were in the 8 second range, though, pretty close to the 2.3l and perhaps even better than the 2.0l.

As for Honda, well, they probably haven't grown the engine much simply because they haven't had to. The 1.7l is surely cheaper to build yet it sells in more volume than the 3.

Fuel efficiency was already good so there was less room for improvement. You get dimishing returns.

The 1.8l engine wasn't bad, I averaged about 28mpg driving spiritedly. I doubt the 2.3l is any better in real-world driving.

-juice

newcar31 · November 2004

"Of course Mazda is going to be behind in engines from Honda because Honda is the benchmark automaker in engines."

Forget about Mazda. Look at how the Accord has changed since 1992. More powerful, more efficient. What about the Civic?

"Actually, not to take what I said back, but I recall a Ford Escort LX-E review in C&D that hit 60mph with that 1.8l in 7.5 seconds.

The Mazda3 2.3l took 7.6 seconds IIRC."

Car and Driver did 0-60 in the Mazda3s hatchback in 7.4 seconds. The Mazda3 hatchback is quite a bit heavier than a Ford Escort LX-E, yet it's still a little quicker, and it gets the same EPA mileage. Improvement.

varmint · November 2004

"I believe that was only on the new generation engines, not the 1.7L."

But it does include the K series used in the Si here and more upscale Civics in other markets. So the engine bay accommodates both the old and new.

carlisimo · November 2004

Honda said they changed to struts because they wanted to fit the electrical steering system in there. Believe it if you want... I'm just saying that Honda said that, in an official capacity.

The Accord is taller now, but it's wide enough to have the space to fit the wishbone suspension and everything else that goes in there.

As for the Civic not changing... I dunno, robertsmx already stated that its power range has increased 30-65%, along with its weight and price. Just like every other car of its class. It's always had smaller engines than its competitors and that hasn't changed, but that's part of Honda's identity. Apparently there's enough torque for the many who buy the car.

Finally there are all the people who buy lower-trim Civics for the mileage. I think they take the mileage thing a bit too far but there are many of them. And none of the Civic's high-power competitors come close in that, at least on paper, which is what matters to said buyers.

ateixeira · November 2004

A tenth is a rounding error, not a significant improvement.

I do think that efficiency has improved significantly, however.

But like I said, isn't that 2.3l based on the one from the Ford Focus? Ford has that engine tuned as a PZEV, and to me that's even more impressive.

Mazda adds S-VT to make more power, though torque is about the same and it loses the PZEV status. But you're giving Mazda all the credit, I think Ford deserves most of it actually.

From Ford's point of view, they got the 2.3l to be more efficient than the 2.0l Zetec, along with more power, more torque, and less emissions. Royal Flush. Give the trophy to Ford, not Mazda.

As for the Civic, again, I'll go to the diminishing returns argument. It's harder to improve on mileage when you're in the 30s, vs. the 20s that the 1.8l was getting for Mazda.

-juice

newcar31 · November 2004

"I dunno, robertsmx already stated that its power range has increased 30-65%"

How so? The most powerful engine in the Civic coupe/sedan in 1992 was 125 hp. Now, it's 127 hp.

"But like I said, isn't that 2.3l based on the one from the Ford Focus?"

The 2.3L was in the Mazda6 in 2002 in other markets and manufactured in Hiroshima, before the Focus had it.

http://www.carseverything.com/content/article/1346.3/

From the article:

"Mazda Motor Corporation's new family of 4-cylinder engines is the latest in a new range of powertrains that will establish Mazda as Ford Motor Company's center of excellence for all large I-4 gasoline engine development."

"Mazda adds S-VT to make more power, though torque is about the same and it loses the PZEV status."

I thought the PZEV status is mainly due to a special gas tank?

newcar31 · November 2004

"A tenth is a rounding error, not a significant improvement."

Lol. Yeah, I agree, a tenth is not significant.

"Actually, not to take what I said back, but I recall a Ford Escort LX-E review in C&D that hit 60mph with that 1.8l in 7.5 seconds.

The Mazda3 2.3l took 7.6 seconds IIRC.

So the old engine was quicker in some cases."

I'm sorry, but I'm a car nerd and I remember 0-60 times, and I had to correct you, but it's funny that you say that about "rounding errors" when you also said "the old engine was quicker in some cases" when you thought the difference was 7.6 vs. 7.5

ateixeira · November 2004

Still, wasn't it an evolution of a Ford engine family? IMO a PZEV with good torque is a better achievement than what Mazda managed.

PZEV requires more than a gas tank, I'm sure the engine tuning is significantly different. Basically it has to pollute only the equivalent of what a pure electric car would generate based on the energy required to charge it.

New engine - new to Mazda, maybe.

My point is the 2.3l is not a descendant of the 1.8l we're talking about. It's an evolution of a Ford block. So we should compare what Mazda has accomplished with what Ford has accomplished with the same block.

They have a lot more in common than that 1.8l (which now resides in the Miata, somewhat evolved).

The V6 in the 6s is based on the Duratec, also. While it manages good HP, torque is just 192 and only at very high rpm. Ford managed 207 at lower rpm for its cars.

It may be hard to seperate the two, but Mazda tossing S-VT on a couple of engines doesn't mean they deserve a medal.

Jaguar uses the same Duratec block and manages more HP and torque.

So from that point of view all Mazda has is a de-tuned Jaguar engine. Or a tuned up Ford one.

-juice

ateixeira · November 2004

Got me on the rounding error comment. ;-)

But I still say the 2.3l started life as a Ford block.

-juice

newcar31 · November 2004

"Still, wasn't it an evolution of a Ford engine family?"

What Ford engine family? The engine was brand new in 2002 and is not related at all to the old Ford 2.3L or the 2.5L that were used for years in old T-birds, Mustangs, etc.

"PZEV requires more than a gas tank"

I swear I remember reading somewhere that the main thing about the PZEV Focus was the gas tank.

"My point is the 2.3l is not a descendant of the 1.8l we're talking about. It's an evolution of a Ford block."

What Ford block? I know where the 3.0L V6 in the Mazda6 came from, not sure where the 2.3L came from since it wasn't used in any vehicles before 2002 as it is not the same engine as the older Ford 2.3L or 2.5L. Like I said, unlike the 3.0L, the 2.3L was brand new in 2002.

"The V6 in the 6s is based on the Duratec, also."

I know that. It was used in the Taurus and Escape before the Mazda6.

varmint · November 2004

IIRC, the big difference between PZEV and the SULEV rating is how long the emissions hardware is warranted. Maybe I'm just thinking of a CARB rating and not a national one, though.

andre1969 · November 2004

and it looks like the Mazda 2.3 is a stroked version of their 2.0.

2.0: 3.44 X 3.27 (bore X stroke)
2.3: 3.44 X 3.70

The Ford Focus 2.3 has the same bore X stroke. So the Focus 2.3 is a Mazda engine, then?

BTW, the Focus 2.0, which has a bore x stroke of 3.34 X 3.46, is derived from the old Escort 1.9, which I think is just an enlarged version of the 1.6 that the Escort first came with way back in 1981.

nippononly · November 2004

a PZEV is just a SULEV with a 150K mile performance warranty on the emissions components, and a zero-vapor-loss gas cap. The actual emissions limit of both is the same though. And I believe in both cases the only smog-forming emissions occur during warm-up. Once the catalyst is at its operating temperature, it catches 100% (smog-forming emissions only, of course)? Going by fuzzy memory on that last one.

As to the ongoing discussion on fuel efficiency, the Civic (specifically the HX) is still the highest-rated car (gas-only) on the road. In fact, in real-world testing, it gets close to some of the hybrids as well as the Jetta TDI diesel for mileage. Even the high-volume LX is tops in its class, neck and neck with Corolla, while all the others in the class lag significantly behind, including the Sentra, the Mazda3 2.0, and the Focus. Not to mention the Cavalier and the Neon.

As much as I would like to see Civic with a jump in power for the next gen, I am undecided whether I would like to see a significant jump in fuel efficiency instead. Given the wants and needs of the market, I will bet the '06 gets a boost in power, and only a slight (if any) increase in gas miserliness.

newcar31 · November 2004

"As to the ongoing discussion on fuel efficiency, the Civic (specifically the HX) is still the highest-rated car (gas-only) on the road. In fact, in real-world testing, it gets close to some of the hybrids as well as the Jetta TDI diesel for mileage. Even the high-volume LX is tops in its class"

So if they already have three (including the hybrid) high mileage choices in the Civic line, why does the EX have to make do with 127 hp?

Is it really that crazy of a question? Is it way out of line? There are already 3 different power outputs available, why not give the 3rd choice a little more juice?

robertsmx · November 2004

The most powerful engine in the Civic coupe/sedan in 1992 was 125 hp. Now, it's 127 hp

I consider Civic Si to be a Civic, I'm not sure why you don't. In 1992, Civic Si and EX were the two models with top power in Civic lineup at 125 HP. Civic Si has since gone up to 160 HP, while peak power for EX hasn't changed, although midrange has.

Honda does not change models drastically. Last time that did happen was with 1998 Accord but to accomodate the need for largish family sedan with a V6 for the American market.

As for Civic, 1992-1995 generation was followed up with 1996-2000. The 1.5 was dumped in favor of 1.6 throughout (earlier, only EX and Si got 1.6 others had 1.5). EX had its output uprated to 127 HP, with minor improvement in fuel economy.

2001-present Civic saw a minor bump in displacement for added midrange power, although the top end wasn't increase (for HX and EX trims but it did for LX trim).

But here is an interesting stat on fuel economy. The 127 HP Civic EX now delivers 31-32 mpg (city)/ 37-38 mpg highway.

Back in 1992, the 125 HP Civic EX was rated slightly lower at 27-29 mpg (city)/ 34-36 mpg. Not a huge jump (on highway), but overall increase is reasonable (10-15% in city where it really counts for compact cars) considering that the new version has added safety, features, weight, size and power.

So if they already have three (including the hybrid) high mileage choices in the Civic line, why does the EX have to make do with 127 hp

How much power is needed in a 2600 lb car? Remember, I'm asking for need, not want. If you want to consider the latter, feel free to tell me how much would be "wanted" in a 2600 lb car?

Outside of marketing needs for sake of running flashy commercials on television, personally, I don't see the need for overly powerful cars. 19-20 lb. per HP works well for me today, so why wouldn't it, tomorrow?

newcar31 · November 2004

"I consider Civic Si to be a Civic, I'm not sure why you don't."

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I'm talking about the sedan and coupe.

"Honda does not change models drastically."

Since 1990 (and even before that), the Accord has changed quite a bit. IIRC, in 1990, the most power you could get in the Accord was 125 hp. The last year of that generation, it was bumped up to 140 hp. Then, in the next generation the 4 cyl made 160 hp and eventually you could get a V6 with 170 hp. The next generation, the V6 got bumped to 200 hp. We all know the current generation V6 is at 240 hp. In 13 years, the top engine in the Accord gained 115 hp, or an extra Civic LX engine, lol.

The Accord does not "need" a 240 hp V6 any more than the Civic sedan and coupe "need" at least 160 hp for the top engine.

"How much power is needed in a 2600 lb car? Remember, I'm asking for need, not want."

If a 3 cyl Geo Metro can carry 4 people, I'm sure 80-90 hp would work in a Civic. You wouldn't "need" any more than that to accelerate to and maintain a freeway speed.

newcar31 · November 2004

"Outside of marketing needs for sake of running flashy commercials on television, personally, I don't see the need for overly powerful cars. 19-20 lb. per HP works well for me"

For you. Not for anyone with a 240 hp Accord apparently.

carlisimo · November 2004

I didn't realize an early 90s Civic sedan could be had with 125hp. That sounds like it was a lot for the time, and 127hp is little for today. It wasn't an unusual amount for 2001 though; it was normal. "Good enough," which is ok if the car's selling points are other things.

It's been pretty recently that 130hp has become outdated for a standard economy car. The next Civic isn't very far away, and I'm expecting a range of 125-145hp. I don't see Honda giving a non-Si Civic a stronger engine than that, while the arrival of the Fit should kill off the bottom-most Civic.

nippononly · November 2004

that prompts a thought: I wonder if they will cancel the stripper Civic DX after the Fit arrives. The two models will be similar in size and price will cross over a lot if they keep a DX in the lineup.

Even if they ARE Honda, there is no place in the market any more for a base model compact with no A/C, no proper stereo, and no basic power accessories (windows, locks). This lack is really beginning to set the Civic apart (not in a good way) as the Koreans have advanced their offerings. Honda has really only kept the DX to have a really cheap car to sell, and the Fit will take over the bottom rung of the pricing ladder when it arrives.

They advanced the Civic a half step for the 2001 revision. There is a real need to take that whole step and a half forward the next time around.

newcar31 · November 2004

"There is a real need to take that whole step and a half forward the next time around."

Exactly, escpecially considering it's competitors and the Fit being available.

hungarian83 · November 2004

"The two models [Fit and Civic] will be similar in size"

The Honda Fit is 24 inches shorter than the Civic. I would hardly call that similar.

However, with the arrival of the Fit, the Civic should (and will) be pushed up the ladder. Getting rid of the Civic DX would not be a bad idea since the Fit will have its own "base" level trim line.

grbeck · November 2004

Isn't Honda offering a Special Edition of the Civic EX sedan, which features special wheels and other equipment to set it apart?

It could be a signal that the next generation of Civic will move slightly upmarket.

robertsmx · November 2004

I firmly believe Civic will stay where it is now. It will not move any more upmarket than it does, atleast in terms of pricing.

Honda is, however, likely to give Civic nicer touches on the inside and out, more than it did going from 1995 to 1996 or from 2000 to 2001 model change overs. More like a scaled down version of Accord, which is exactly something Civic should be.

I think DX, LX and EX will continue to be the mainstream trims, with Si added a year or two down the road (may not happen immediately).

Fit isn't meant to replace Civic anywhere, but fill the void that departure of low cost high mileage Civic HB left (CX, DX, VX etc). And with Fit, Honda can offer more for same price as Civic due to it being based off a cheaper platform. Look at European/Japanese market, and you get the idea, since both Civic and Fit/Jazz co-exist.

robertsmx · November 2004

I can speak for only myself. I drive a car with weight/power ratio of 21 lb/hp and the performance is far from disappointing. 240 HP is overly powerful IMO even for 3400 lb Accord. You don't need that kind of power, you want it.

I'm talking about the sedan and coupe.

I'm talking about "Civic", not picking and choosing combinations between its available trim levels.

in 1990, the most power you could get in the Accord was 125 hp. The last year of that generation, it was bumped up to 140 hp. Then, in the next generation the 4 cyl made 160 hp and eventually you could get a V6 with 170 hp.

You added power to Accord rather quickly. Here are the facts (consider I-4 first):
90-93 Accord: 2.2-liter I-4, 125 HP or 140 HP
94-97 Accord: 2.2-liter I-4, 130 HP or 145 HP
98-02 Accord: 2.3-liter I-4, 135 HP or 150 HP
03- Accord: 2.4-liter I-4, 160 HP

As far as V6 was concerned, the 95 introduction (2.7/V6) was essentially a quick fix. The V6 was shoehorned into a chassis that had to be stretched a little (for V6 only). This eventually resulting in the first major makeover... the larger Accord (1998-2002) for America (and some other markets) while Europe and Japan continued to get the smaller Accord.

carguy58 · December 2004

I think Honda made a V6 that made 240 hp to compete with Nissan in the HP wars. I don't mind Honda doing a thing like that. It doesn't bother me. Nissan always goes for HP.

Response to post 3594:

"But here is an interesting stat on fuel economy. The 127 HP CIvic EX now delivers 31-32 mpg/ (city)/ 37/38 mpg highway."

"Back in 1992, the 125HP Civic EX was rated slightly below at 27/29 mpg(city)/ 34/36 mpg. Not a huge jump(on highway), but overall increase is reasonable(10-15% in city where it really counts for compact cars) considering that that the new version has added safety, features, size, weight, and power."

Yeah Honda always does well when it comes to fuel economy. It shocks me they improve on fuel ecomomy the way they do all the time. My 02 Acura CL makes 19/29 city/highway and now the new TL makes 21/30 with 45 more HP than my CL has. Go figure.

If you are looking for a Honda product that is for the enthusiast for the HP factor doesn't the current base Acura RSX makes 160 HP and its based off the Civic platform?

carguy58 · December 2004

" I think Honda Product Planners have gotten too complacement about Honda cars with the Buicky Accord and boring evolutionary Civic; it seems like they are targeting an older age group. But they are doing a great job with Acura."

"Probably AHM needs to do is a handover of the design responsiblity back to the Japanese."

I agree with you somewhat. I am only in my mid 20's but the 03 Accord Sedan was just a turn-off for me when it came out and still is now. They're are trying get people who have been buying domestic cars for a number of years. Thats what it seems like. I think this strategy has backfired big time on them with this generation of Accord.

To cover the 2nd part of your post the 04 TL was designed in America so it has nothing to do where it is designed I don't think.

03accordman · December 2004

"I was not talking about the efficiency of the two current cars, I WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW THE CIVIC HASN'T CHANGED MUCH IN OVER 10 YEARS with regards to power and fuel efficiency while the Mazda has. Refute that"

Newcar, you do realize that writing in caps implies shouting, right?

The reason I compared the current engines and efficiencies was becuase you picked the Mazda3 as being much better than a Civic, in your original posting. Your point is that the Mazda3 is a lot improved over a 92 Protege and I say that there was a hell of a lot of scope of improvement with any of Mazda's cars in the 1990s. The other thing is that the major differences between the 92 Protege and Mazda6 came up only with the Mazda model that came out last year, so till 2003 even the Mazda's were pretty much the same. How different was a 92 Protege form a 2002 Protege? Similarly, let's wait for the 06 Civic and then compare improvements.

Honda's Civic does remain the best selling car in its segment, so there must be something right about this car that so many people buy it. The Civic powertrain has evolved over the past decade, and there is also a Hybrid Civic. Why do you ignore the hybrid. A car that does 46/51 MPG EPA, definitely is a big improvemnt. What say you?

CIVIC EX: 32/37 MPG City/Highway
CIVIC Hybrid: 46/51 MPG City/Highway

"Besides, the 2.0L in the Mazda is just about as fuel efficient as the 1.7L in the Honda."

Not really. 32/37 vs 28/35, though I do agree there is a HP difference. Anyway, once again, you are comparing a new engine with an older one here.

"What does that have to do with the Civic not changing? The Civic hasn't changed with regards to efficiency or power in over 10 years. Respond to that"

Like I wrote earlier, the how different was a 2002 Protege from a 1992 Protege in efficiency?

Has Honda's run - run out?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles