Hi, it's been a dream of mine to buy a Honda as my first real car. I'm looking heavily at the EX Sedan (or maybe a hybrid) and have been for about a year now (I'm patient, lol). I plan to buy a 2006 very late in the season next year or even waiting until later in the year until the 2007s come out (in case there are bugs with the new civis). My question is this... does anyone know if (and if so, how much) the navigation system costs? Is it an updated thing (fee-based like OnStar and XM Radio) or a one-time software buy (which would probably mean there's no further fee)? The Honda website mentions that you have to pay for XM after 3 months, but it doesn't mention the navigation system. Anyone know? Anyone have one? If so, I'm jealous.
I couldn't find any 4-doors in the two dealerships I checked in person and online. One dealership relatively nearby has some, but it's a little bit of a haul compared to the closer ones.
There is no separate charge for the Navigation System. In order to get one, you have to purchase the EX Sedan with Navigation Systemmodel vehicle, or Hybrid Sedan with Navigation Systemmodel. There are no monthly fees either. You buy it - you own it.
I see that the LX Sedan only has a 4 speaker setup but the Coupe has 6. Does Honda sell the tweeters separately and can they be easily added on to the Sedan?
I own a 2006 Civic LX Sedan and would love to have the separate tweeters. I can see what appears to be speaker grills in the front corners of the dash near the windshield and I was wondering if I could just pop them open and install the separate tweeters.
quite possibly you can. Sometimes the wires are already there, since it makes it easier to assmeble if they are all done the same way. If not, it is a fairly straightworward audio install job to run the wire needed (usually).
It’s so nice when you conclude you’re better off with the car you have rather than wishing for a new one. I compiled some cost and specification data for various new Civic and Accord models to compare with my ’04 EX AT Civic sedan using an Excel worksheet. I discovered one very interesting point.
The front/rear legroom for the ’04 and the ’06 compare as follows: 42.2/36.0 vs 42.2/34.6. Thus, the ’04 sedan has significantly more rear legroom than the ’06 ! That does it for me. I won’t consider changing any more. Why on earth would they go backward like that? Passenger volume is shown up a bit because the new Civic is wider, but trunk capacity is down, 12.9 cubic feet for the ’04 vs 12.0 for the ‘06. The new EX sedan is 136 pounds heavier, never good for fuel economy no matter what the EPA estimates show. I know, the new engine is more efficient, 31/38 for the ’04 vs 30/40. I just got 32.3 mpg for a local tank full that includes some San Diego freeway.
In retrospect I probably didn’t get too hot a price ($19,077 out the door including side air bags and about 10% tax & license) when I bought mine. Yesterday, my dealer mentioned his Costco price. From something I learned on this forum, I asked if that is $750 over invoice. He said $750 over “cost.” He defined “cost” as invoice plus the (questionable worth) dealer-installed items like wheel locks (today they steal the whole car), fender guards, door and fender molding, striping – stuff I don’t want.
If I don’t get too many requests, I’d be happy to email my Excel worksheet as an attachment, waiving any responsibility for its accuracy. It includes my ’04, the ’06 Civic LX and EX auto sedans, LX MT coupe, and Si; plus the LX and LX/SE AT Accords. I showed my actual price. For the others except the Si, I used $500 over invoice-plus-Destination, plus 10% T&L. For the Si, I used $20,000 plus Destination plus 10% T&L. :P
I'm a sucker for new cars, so I think every purchaser has to balance the excitement of something new vs. the economy of keeping what you have. It is almost always a lot cheaper to keep what you have, if your present car is less than 5-7 years old.
I think the best arguments against changing now are these:
You have an '04, presumably low miles; it is late in the production cycle, and probably free of early production bugs and glitches.
The '06 Civic is "green" i.e. a little too new to have production bugs and glitches out. Plus, during the next year there will be customer feedback to Honda on a whole host of issues. They might tighten the suspension, or loosen it; firm up the seats or make them more cush; change the audio controls; and a million other running changes that make the '07 a little more desirable. They might change the final drive on the automatic to make it peppier on the freeway, or lower the final drive on the manual to make it more fuel efficient. They might improve the stereo speakers. In short, the new Civic makes obvious headway on a retuned suspension and perkier engine, but in what areas have they perhaps taken a half step back?
Finally, your '04 Civic took its biggest depreciation hit in the last 18 months. You can sort of drive it for "free" in terms of depreciation in the next two years - the depreciation hit is much less. You will probably get the same trade-in on in in two years that you will get now.
Ok, those are the logical arguments, you have already laid out your spreadsheet arguments. Just stay away from the dealer, let your wife take the '04 in for service and you might - just might - be safe for a year. Then, next year you'll get a discount easier on the '07 (especially after the rush to small cars quiets down a bit) and a car with one year's worth of updates and improvements.
Re emailing the spreadsheet - if anyone wants to offer or ask for email addresses for this purpose, the way to do that is to make it public in your profile - not by posting it.
that doesn't sound right. I know that the '06 has a sruprising amount of legroom (i'm 6' and had plenty to spare).
One thing to be wary of is the way they measure legroom is kinda odd. In some cases, it is minimum numbers, so if they make the front seat so it goes back further (so you can't reach the pedals) the rear seat measurement will go down.
Seat height also makes a difference. If you sit "high", your legs hang down instead of sticking out (if that makes sense). Plus, foot room under the front seat also makes a difference.
Pretty much what I'm trying to say is don't base a decision just on the numbers. Try it out for yourself first.
I have test driven a 2006 EX AT Nav Civic sedan, and tried the back seat and agree that back seat room seemed ok. However, I am quoting the legroom numbers from the brochures of both cars. My comment is not a subjective one. I seem to recall a car mag made the same comment about passenger room and trunk space.
I haven't really ever tired out a prior generation Civic, but I know it is no limo in back. I could see a small change (1/2 - 1"), but not 6 inches!
I bet they did something like etend the range on the front seat or something, so the minimum leg room in back is smaller? Something must be different, because it isn't that much smaller.
I don't really pay attention to the numbers anyway, especially headroom. I have had cars with less headroom that I fit in fine, and others that measured bigger but I didn't fit into at all. A lot has to do with how you personally like to adjust the seat.
Again, the only way to know for sure is to test fit it yourself.
I also souldn't trade a nice '04 for an '06 if you are happy with the '04, unless there is something you just can't resist on the new one. If nothing else, it will cost quite a bit to upgrade!
One of the reviews I read said that the less roomy rear passenger space was a trade-off that Honda made when going to the new sleeker styling, with the more raked back windshield, as compared to the "3 box" styling of the past several years. In this case style won over function, if you will. But as long as the rear seat room remains at least adequate for most buyers, I suspect that their new styling direction will prove to be a good decision from a sales point of view, if for no other reason that it does differentiate the Civic from its many other boxy competitors out there.
Wow! I didn't say rear legroom decreased by 6 inches! I wrote, quoting the brochures: "The front/rear legroom for the ’04 and the ’06 compare as follows: 42.2/36.0 vs 42.2/34.6. Thus, the ’04 sedan has significantly more rear legroom than the ’06 !"
Front legroom hasn't changed at 42.4 inches. Rear legroom changed from 36.0 to 34.6 inches, a reduction of 1.4 inches.
But that's significant in a compact. I won't try to argue the point any more. Sorry if I didn't make it clear.
One of the enthusiast websites tested an 06 Coupe on a dyno and said:
Note that the higher of the two runs was performed in 3rd gear. The lower was in 4th gear. Power and torque at the hubs indicate that this engine is producing more like 150-155 hp and 135-138 lbs-ft of torque at the engine. Also note that the power peaks and torque peaks correspond almost perfectly with the advertised peaks of 4300 rpm for torque and 6300 rpm for horsepower.
Actual HP at the wheels per their chart is in line with some tests I have seen on 150 hp rated Neons; the horsepower they state above is not actual wheel flange hp (they tested on a machine that bolts to wheel flanges instead of putting the car on a roller) which would be much lower, but rather "calculated" flywheel power. They measure power at the wheel, then use an SAE formula to work back to how much horsepower the engine is putting out before drivetrain losses.
Still, the website was excited by the hp numbers on this new Civic. They also did acceleration tests (revving to 5,000 rpm and dropping the clutch, shifting only from first to second, which is typical aggressive testing procedure as opposed to normal driver driving) and came up with 8.2-8.5 seconds 0-60, which is good but not that good these days (slightly under 8.0 would have been a significant lead over other sport compacts; but the the Cobalt automatic, which doesn't come with nearly the baggage of expectations that the new Civic has to live up to, does 0-60 in 8.8 seconds according to Consumer Reports).
Some writers these days think 50-80 passing times are a better test of usable power (passing that RV on the way to the lake without getting yourself killed!) and so we'll have to wait for auto magazine testing in the next few months for those kinds of figures.
Still, the new engine looks very promising overall, it is great to hear a positive dyno test report (instead of "where did my advertised hp disappear to?") and Honda is apparently delivering on its promise to deliver 2.0 performance out of 1.8 liters, a pretty remarkable achievement (keep in mind that 150 hp Neons were the optional 2.0 DOHC models which required premium gas and were only available on the R/T and ACR models, so Honda isn't trying to match or surpass doggy 2.0's like the SPI SOHC Focus motor, or even midline performers like the 2.0 Duratec from Ford, but rather the best 2.0's out there, like this year's Mazda3 2.0).
At least this is better than hearing VW increased its base Jetta engine from a 2.0, 115 hp legacy engine to a 5 cylinder, 150 hp modern engine, and only shaved 0-60 times by .5 second...and barely beats 10 seconds....
I don't know what sleight-of-hand Honda pulled with the '06 Civic sedan, but to me the '06 feels like it has more leg room in the back seat than the previous-gen car does. Seems strange I know, and I was amazed when I climbed into the back seat, with the driver's seat adjusted for me. But that's what it felt like. It certainly didn't seem to have less room, as the raw numbers suggest.
Anyone agree with me that the rear visibility on the Civic 06 is pretty bad? I can see better looking through my rear view mirror than I can looking straight through the back window. This is with the seat so high that the steering wheel is uncomfortably close.
Another big concern are the awful blind spots on this car. The huge pillars really seem to restrict visibility. Looking behind an entire car can easily be hidden behind the pillar. The right mirror is *crucial* on this car.
Well, if your 2 year old Civic is working out for you, there is little reason to buy any new car now. However, the rear legroom excuse is very silly when you haven't even sat in the car.
The ’04 sedan has significantly more rear legroom than the ’06 ! That does it for me. I won’t consider changing any more. -----------------------------
I think you went over board on the word SIGNIFICANTLY, more rear legroom than the 06....Its not significantly, but a tad less leg room in the 06...Boy, do you ever get emotional about that ....
Has anyone purchased a 2006 Civic and, since XM Satellite Radio is not a factory install, had their dealer install one? Honda's cute "XM Ready" wording seems to be disguising a major cost.
Anyone here able to advise me on how much their installation actually cost?
I'm interested because EX-L and EX NAV Accords come with an XM radio as standard equipment, with no additional labor and material costs. That could bring the bottom line cost of a 2006 Civic EX or EX NAV much closer to that of a 2006 Accord if you want an integrated XM radio.
...I don't find there are any differences between the 7th and 8th-generation Civics in terms of rear seat comfort. However, the intrument panel does take some getting used, though.
By the way, I wonder how close is Honda to qualifying the 2.2-liter i-CTDi 138 bhp (SAE 08/04 net) turbodiesel engine so it meets the 2007 CARB diesel emissions standard? If Honda succeeds using the new EPA-mandated low-sulfur diesel #2 fuel and can get their 5-speed automatic from the 2006 Civic to withstand the initial high torque of the i-CTDi engine, I could see Honda offering the Civic sedan with the i-CTDi engine as early as the 2007 model year. Imagine no loss of performance compared to the R18 gasoline engine and around 38 mpg city, 47 mpg highway fuel efficiency!
The '06 Civic in the UK is getting the 2.2 i-CDTi turbodiesel from the Accord. According the Channel4 website, it can do 0-60 in 8.4 seconds and will have a 6-speed manual. An automatic is also mentioned to be available.
I wish i did buy a ex NAV because when i asked about installing the xm they said it was close to 1,000 with instalation cost.(seattle area) The cost on the honda site doesnt include install. THATS INSANE! I would consider the civic xm as a scam- thats a crazy cost, and for that price I could of just got navigation without paying for an additional cost of xm. My 04 TL was xm ready- i just activated it after my free 3 month trial- this is how it should be! I was told to go the local stereo shop- but I am unclear whether it will work in the display or is it some external unit not associated with the stereo itself. Buy one with NAV its well worth it!
"Hondas take a few 1000 miles to show true mpg colors. How fast is your highway speed on the commute?. I would have thought mid 30's in you scenario of driving."
Well, I'm close to the first 1000 miles in my EX. My freeway speed on commute is aprox 60 mph.
I'm still around 30 mpg and my driving style is moderate. I'm using regular Chevron gas - not sure if something else will make a difference.
Exactly on the same commute (and same driving conditions), my old car used to get aprox 35 mpg. I'm not sure what I can do in order to get a better mpg. Probably I should ask the dealer to take a look - but not sure if that's going to help too much. I've seen postings on these forum where other people reported ussually over 35 mpg on the same model of the car (AT EX).
.....and wow, Honda has definitely hit a homer with this baby! Oddly enough though, unlike with the previous gen Civic, I now prefer the looks of the sedan over the coupe. Honda has really done a supurb job with this car inside and out. Now I can't wait to see the new Corolla! Oh BTW, Hyundai, Kia, Suzuki, and the other companies can stop comparing their insignificant recyclemobiles to the new Civic. As ridiculous as it was that they compared their cars to the previous gen Civic, it would be absolutely hidious to compare to the new one. The new Civic is simply in a different league than any of their vehicles.
For those who have purchased the '06 Civic, how do you find the throttle-by-wire system to be working?
I was considering purchasing one of the new Civics, but in a test drive last night the car seemed to want to hold on to revs even after taking the foot off the gas.
Otherwise I really like the car, but I am concerned about this interfering with the usability of the car and wanted to see how people who actually drive the car daily feel about it.
My experience with Honda suggests both power and fuel consumption will improve right through the 7000 mile mark. No way you will get optimum fuel consumption at 1000 miles. A dealer trip would be a complete waste of your time and theirs.
Oh BTW, Hyundai, Kia, Suzuki, and the other companies can stop comparing their insignificant recyclemobiles to the new Civic. As ridiculous as it was that they compared their cars to the previous gen Civic, it would be absolutely hidious to compare to the new one. The new Civic is simply in a different league than any of their vehicles.
Hey, what a coincidence! I just saw a joint press release from Toyota, Mazda, Ford, GM, Hyundai/Kia, and several other car companies announcing that they were abandoning the compact car market effective immediately because it is impossible to compete with the new Civic. I heard that there was a lot of arguing amongst these companies before the decision was made, e.g. Toyota noting that their Corolla gets superior fuel economy to the all-new Civic, Mazda and Ford saying their compact cars have better ride and handling than the Civic, and Hyundai/Kia noting that their subcompact entries have more interior room than the new Civic. But in the end they bowed to the inevitable, realizing that no one would buy their cars now that the Civic is available.
Nice spin. I think you know what I mean, but I'll explain myself anyway. Hyundai's, Kia's and Suzuki's method of competing is by selling less expensive cars with longer warranties, yet their marketing approach is to constantly bombard the public with ads insinuating their products are a better value than the Civic. They don't compete by building cars that are on par with the Civic in terms of build quality, fit and finish, reliability, or refinement. Nor does GM, Ford, Chrysler or most of the other companies. Mazda and Subaru are close, and I believe Toyota is the only one at the same level (or maybe even a little better) as Honda. There, I explained myself even though I think you knew darn well what I meant. You were just itchin' to rib somebody, weren't you?
I took your comments at face value. I'm not a mind-reader. Thanks for explaining what you meant. Maybe you can see how I would be confused. Originally, you said Toyota couldn't compete with the Civic, but now you say Toyota may be a little better than Honda, and Mazda and Subaru are close.
Hyundai and Kia's strategy has changed from their "sell only based on price" strategy of the past, but perhaps you and others haven't recognized that yet. As far as build quality, fit and finish, reliability, and refinement, I don't think it's too fair to compare an all-new Honda design with older designs from the Korean makers and say the Civic is superior. It should be superior, especially for the price premium Honda charges. The current Elantra and Spectra were better than the '01-'05 Civic in many respects. I have been very impressed by the build quality, fit and finish, and refinement of recent designs like the Spectra, Rio, and Sonata. Short-term reliability is on a par with Honda and long-term reliability is nearing Honda's levels, with improvements in each generation. Hyundai is ahead of Kia in reliability for now, but both are improving steadily. I suggest we wait to see what the all-new Elantra compares to the Civic before we conclude that the Civic is far superior to what the Koreans can offer.
Seventh generation Accords (2003 through 2006) are drive-by-wire. My 2004 V6 Accord is probably the smoothest performing vehicle I've driven. That covers a lot of vehicles.
My drives of several 2006 Civics around Honda's test tracks proves that they are also extremely responsive.
I never specifically said Toyota couldn't compete with the Civic, hence the reason I said I can't wait to see the next gen Corolla. I am also not as sold on Korea's offerings as you appear to be. Honda has built rock solid cars for more than 20 years and has earned their rep, while the Koreans were still turing out absolute junk as little as 5-10 years ago. While we both believe the Koreans are closing the build quality gap (some are convinced they will completely close the gap), I still think the Koreans have a long way to go, and it's quite possible they may never be able to completely close it.
I'm hoping Toyota will give the next Corolla a comfortable driving position, finally--something Honda did a nice job on with the '06 Civic, including a telescopic steering column.
that for the same price (invoice) you can get Mazda 3 S grand touring which has:
2.3L 160 hp engine 17" alloy wheels 0-60 mph in 7.4 seconds (car and driver magazine) Black Leather seats and door trim Heated front seats Bose audio system with 7 speakers 222W 6 cd in dash changer Xenon headlights automatic climate control Tire pressure monitoring system Rain sensing wipers Automatic headlights Security system Moonroof Trip computer Side and curtain airbags 4 year warranty Made in Japan
But im' sure you're civic EX is a better buy given that it has better gas mileage.... Or maybe it's better just because it's a Honda (despite being first year tryout model).... Or maybe because it looks better (if you're over 90 years old that is)
Engine size an HP rating means nothing you get no useful performance advantage over a car with a smaller, quieter and more refined engine despite less rated hp and much higher mpg. 19.5K is probably too much to pay for a Civic that will be heavily discounted next year, but the Mazda3 just has a bunch of options tacked on to an unrefined car. The Civic's syling is much less cluttered than a Mazda3.
Put your reading glasses on and look at the pictures again:
And funny you say Mazda 3 is unrefined, as it is already in its third year of production, is the top recommended compact car by Consumer Reports, and won comparison reviews in many automotive magazines and websites. Consumer reports also rates it with highest owner satisfaction and reliability.
And I guess the "bunch of options" means nothing to you even though people pay a lot for things like heated seats (unless you like freezing your butt), leather (stainless durability), HID Xenon (see better at night), Bose audio (higher quality low distortion sound), cd changer, etc......
I have read a lot about "the clutch seemed funny...the feel is different than other manuals I have driven...it took a bit to get used to...".
Can anyone describe in more detail how they are different compare to the pass models? For example, is the clutch too sensitive (or more forgiving) when it is released too fast? Will the engine jerks if the clutch is released slowly without putting a bit more gas? (e.g. can slowly roll forward smoothly like a automatic tranmission without putting more gas)? Need more coordination between putting a bit more gas when release the clutch, etc.?
I heard some drivers complaining about rubbery feel & pushing the MT stick to 3rd gear. Any details about throttle-by-wire?
I like the looks of both of these cars, although I prefer the front and rear of the 3 and like the instrumentation on the 3 better than that on the Civic.
BTW, the Mazda3 is not CR's top recommended compact car any more. And CR hasn't tested the ''06 Civic yet so we don't know what they think of it compared to the Mazda3.
You must be comparing a 2006 Civic to a 2005 Mazda since I just went to Carsdirect.com and priced a 2006 Mazda3 and it came out to over $21K after discount. Using a 2005 for comparison was very shady.
"No useful performance advantage over a car with a smaller, quieter and more refined engine despite less rated hp and much higher mpg"
Care to back up those statements? The Mazda3 is as quick or quicker than the Honda Civic with either the 2.0L in the "i" model or 2.3L in the "s" model.
Honda Civic EX 0-60 per Vtec.net = 8.55 seconds Mazda3 i 0-60 = 8.6 seconds (Consumer Reports testing NOT using the methods Vtec.net used on the Civic EX) would probably be faster if tested by professional test driver Mazda3 s 0-60 per MT = 7.8 seconds
Fuel economy Civic manual - 30/38 Mazda3 i manual - 28/35 Mazda3 s manual - 26/32
The verdict? The Mazda 3 is the faster, sporiter car at the expense of fuel economy. The Civic is the more economical but doesn't have quite the acceleration of the 3 s. 20 extra hp does make quite a difference.
I have driven a new Civic and Mazda3 several times trying to make a decision between the two. I don't believe the engine of the Honda to be more refined than the Mazda. A little more engine noise is audible at high rpm than in the Honda, but some drivers prefer that.
I like them both very much. I just don't think your statement is completely accurate and is more personal bias than actual fact.
The Mazda3 clearly looked better than a 2005 or older Civic, but the two pictures make it a tossup. The Mazda3 looks a little sportier, but the Civic looks a little cleaner. These are the two best 4 doors in this class and it is a tough choice.
Comments
I couldn't find any 4-doors in the two dealerships I checked in person and online. One dealership relatively nearby has some, but it's a little bit of a haul compared to the closer ones.
There is no separate charge for the Navigation System. In order to get one, you have to purchase the EX Sedan with Navigation System model vehicle, or Hybrid Sedan with Navigation System model. There are no monthly fees either. You buy it - you own it.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/honda/civic/index.html?tid=edmunds.n.prices.makemodelsearc- h..0.Honda*
I see that the LX Sedan only has a 4 speaker setup but the Coupe has 6. Does Honda sell the tweeters separately and can they be easily added on to the Sedan?
I own a 2006 Civic LX Sedan and would love to have the separate tweeters. I can see what appears to be speaker grills in the front corners of the dash near the windshield and I was wondering if I could just pop them open and install the separate tweeters.
Thanks!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
The front/rear legroom for the ’04 and the ’06 compare as follows: 42.2/36.0 vs 42.2/34.6. Thus, the ’04 sedan has significantly more rear legroom than the ’06 ! That does it for me. I won’t consider changing any more. Why on earth would they go backward like that? Passenger volume is shown up a bit because the new Civic is wider, but trunk capacity is down, 12.9 cubic feet for the ’04 vs 12.0 for the ‘06. The new EX sedan is 136 pounds heavier, never good for fuel economy no matter what the EPA estimates show. I know, the new engine is more efficient, 31/38 for the ’04 vs 30/40. I just got 32.3 mpg for a local tank full that includes some San Diego freeway.
In retrospect I probably didn’t get too hot a price ($19,077 out the door including side air bags and about 10% tax & license) when I bought mine. Yesterday, my dealer mentioned his Costco price. From something I learned on this forum, I asked if that is $750 over invoice. He said $750 over “cost.” He defined “cost” as invoice plus the (questionable worth) dealer-installed items like wheel locks (today they steal the whole car), fender guards, door and fender molding, striping – stuff I don’t want.
If I don’t get too many requests, I’d be happy to email my Excel worksheet as an attachment, waiving any responsibility for its accuracy. It includes my ’04, the ’06 Civic LX and EX auto sedans, LX MT coupe, and Si; plus the LX and LX/SE AT Accords. I showed my actual price. For the others except the Si, I used $500 over invoice-plus-Destination, plus 10% T&L. For the Si, I used $20,000 plus Destination plus 10% T&L.
:P
I think the best arguments against changing now are these:
You have an '04, presumably low miles; it is late in the production cycle, and probably free of early production bugs and glitches.
The '06 Civic is "green" i.e. a little too new to have production bugs and glitches out. Plus, during the next year there will be customer feedback to Honda on a whole host of issues. They might tighten the suspension, or loosen it; firm up the seats or make them more cush; change the audio controls; and a million other running changes that make the '07 a little more desirable. They might change the final drive on the automatic to make it peppier on the freeway, or lower the final drive on the manual to make it more fuel efficient. They might improve the stereo speakers. In short, the new Civic makes obvious headway on a retuned suspension and perkier engine, but in what areas have they perhaps taken a half step back?
Finally, your '04 Civic took its biggest depreciation hit in the last 18 months. You can sort of drive it for "free" in terms of depreciation in the next two years - the depreciation hit is much less. You will probably get the same trade-in on in in two years that you will get now.
Ok, those are the logical arguments, you have already laid out your spreadsheet arguments. Just stay away from the dealer, let your wife take the '04 in for service and you might - just might - be safe for a year. Then, next year you'll get a discount easier on the '07 (especially after the rush to small cars quiets down a bit) and a car with one year's worth of updates and improvements.
and at least for me- wait long enough, and the new-car bug dies...
for the season-being...
:P
One thing to be wary of is the way they measure legroom is kinda odd. In some cases, it is minimum numbers, so if they make the front seat so it goes back further (so you can't reach the pedals) the rear seat measurement will go down.
Seat height also makes a difference. If you sit "high", your legs hang down instead of sticking out (if that makes sense). Plus, foot room under the front seat also makes a difference.
Pretty much what I'm trying to say is don't base a decision just on the numbers. Try it out for yourself first.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
:P
I bet they did something like etend the range on the front seat or something, so the minimum leg room in back is smaller? Something must be different, because it isn't that much smaller.
I don't really pay attention to the numbers anyway, especially headroom. I have had cars with less headroom that I fit in fine, and others that measured bigger but I didn't fit into at all. A lot has to do with how you personally like to adjust the seat.
Again, the only way to know for sure is to test fit it yourself.
I also souldn't trade a nice '04 for an '06 if you are happy with the '04, unless there is something you just can't resist on the new one. If nothing else, it will cost quite a bit to upgrade!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
"The front/rear legroom for the ’04 and the ’06 compare as follows: 42.2/36.0 vs 42.2/34.6. Thus, the ’04 sedan has significantly more rear legroom than the ’06 !"
Front legroom hasn't changed at 42.4 inches.
Rear legroom changed from 36.0 to 34.6 inches, a reduction of 1.4 inches.
But that's significant in a compact. I won't try to argue the point any more. Sorry if I didn't make it clear.
:P
Note that the higher of the two runs was performed in 3rd gear. The lower was in 4th gear. Power and torque at the hubs indicate that this engine is producing more like 150-155 hp and 135-138 lbs-ft of torque at the engine. Also note that the power peaks and torque peaks correspond almost perfectly with the advertised peaks of 4300 rpm for torque and 6300 rpm for horsepower.
Actual HP at the wheels per their chart is in line with some tests I have seen on 150 hp rated Neons; the horsepower they state above is not actual wheel flange hp (they tested on a machine that bolts to wheel flanges instead of putting the car on a roller) which would be much lower, but rather "calculated" flywheel power. They measure power at the wheel, then use an SAE formula to work back to how much horsepower the engine is putting out before drivetrain losses.
Still, the website was excited by the hp numbers on this new Civic. They also did acceleration tests (revving to 5,000 rpm and dropping the clutch, shifting only from first to second, which is typical aggressive testing procedure as opposed to normal driver driving) and came up with 8.2-8.5 seconds 0-60, which is good but not that good these days (slightly under 8.0 would have been a significant lead over other sport compacts; but the the Cobalt automatic, which doesn't come with nearly the baggage of expectations that the new Civic has to live up to, does 0-60 in 8.8 seconds according to Consumer Reports).
Some writers these days think 50-80 passing times are a better test of usable power (passing that RV on the way to the lake without getting yourself killed!) and so we'll have to wait for auto magazine testing in the next few months for those kinds of figures.
Still, the new engine looks very promising overall, it is great to hear a positive dyno test report (instead of "where did my advertised hp disappear to?") and Honda is apparently delivering on its promise to deliver 2.0 performance out of 1.8 liters, a pretty remarkable achievement (keep in mind that 150 hp Neons were the optional 2.0 DOHC models which required premium gas and were only available on the R/T and ACR models, so Honda isn't trying to match or surpass doggy 2.0's like the SPI SOHC Focus motor, or even midline performers like the 2.0 Duratec from Ford, but rather the best 2.0's out there, like this year's Mazda3 2.0).
At least this is better than hearing VW increased its base Jetta engine from a 2.0, 115 hp legacy engine to a 5 cylinder, 150 hp modern engine, and only shaved 0-60 times by .5 second...and barely beats 10 seconds....
Another big concern are the awful blind spots on this car. The huge pillars really seem to restrict visibility. Looking behind an entire car can easily be hidden behind the pillar. The right mirror is *crucial* on this car.
Yet you keep coming back to it. Puzzling.
Somebody very, very important must be riding in that back seat. Your wife?
-----------------------------
I think you went over board on the word SIGNIFICANTLY, more rear legroom than the 06....Its not significantly, but a tad less leg room in the 06...Boy, do you ever get emotional about that ....
Anyone here able to advise me on how much their installation actually cost?
I'm interested because EX-L and EX NAV Accords come with an XM radio as standard equipment, with no additional labor and material costs. That could bring the bottom line cost of a 2006 Civic EX or EX NAV much closer to that of a 2006 Accord if you want an integrated XM radio.
By the way, I wonder how close is Honda to qualifying the 2.2-liter i-CTDi 138 bhp (SAE 08/04 net) turbodiesel engine so it meets the 2007 CARB diesel emissions standard? If Honda succeeds using the new EPA-mandated low-sulfur diesel #2 fuel and can get their 5-speed automatic from the 2006 Civic to withstand the initial high torque of the i-CTDi engine, I could see Honda offering the Civic sedan with the i-CTDi engine as early as the 2007 model year. Imagine no loss of performance compared to the R18 gasoline engine and around 38 mpg city, 47 mpg highway fuel efficiency!
I'd love to see them bring it to the States!
Well, I'm close to the first 1000 miles in my EX.
My freeway speed on commute is aprox 60 mph.
I'm still around 30 mpg and my driving style is moderate. I'm using regular Chevron gas - not sure if something else will make a difference.
Exactly on the same commute (and same driving conditions), my old car used to get aprox 35 mpg.
I'm not sure what I can do in order to get a better mpg. Probably I should ask the dealer to take a look - but not sure if that's going to help too much.
I've seen postings on these forum where other people reported ussually over 35 mpg on the same model of the car (AT EX).
I was considering purchasing one of the new Civics, but in a test drive last night the car seemed to want to hold on to revs even after taking the foot off the gas.
Otherwise I really like the car, but I am concerned about this interfering with the usability of the car and wanted to see how people who actually drive the car daily feel about it.
Any input is appreciated! Thanks!
Hey, what a coincidence! I just saw a joint press release from Toyota, Mazda, Ford, GM, Hyundai/Kia, and several other car companies announcing that they were abandoning the compact car market effective immediately because it is impossible to compete with the new Civic. I heard that there was a lot of arguing amongst these companies before the decision was made, e.g. Toyota noting that their Corolla gets superior fuel economy to the all-new Civic, Mazda and Ford saying their compact cars have better ride and handling than the Civic, and Hyundai/Kia noting that their subcompact entries have more interior room than the new Civic. But in the end they bowed to the inevitable, realizing that no one would buy their cars now that the Civic is available.
Or maybe I just dreamed all that...
I just Googled it. You're absolutely correct.
Hyundai and Kia's strategy has changed from their "sell only based on price" strategy of the past, but perhaps you and others haven't recognized that yet. As far as build quality, fit and finish, reliability, and refinement, I don't think it's too fair to compare an all-new Honda design with older designs from the Korean makers and say the Civic is superior. It should be superior, especially for the price premium Honda charges. The current Elantra and Spectra were better than the '01-'05 Civic in many respects. I have been very impressed by the build quality, fit and finish, and refinement of recent designs like the Spectra, Rio, and Sonata. Short-term reliability is on a par with Honda and long-term reliability is nearing Honda's levels, with improvements in each generation. Hyundai is ahead of Kia in reliability for now, but both are improving steadily. I suggest we wait to see what the all-new Elantra compares to the Civic before we conclude that the Civic is far superior to what the Koreans can offer.
Seventh generation Accords (2003 through 2006) are drive-by-wire. My 2004 V6 Accord is probably the smoothest performing vehicle I've driven. That covers a lot of vehicles.
My drives of several 2006 Civics around Honda's test tracks proves that they are also extremely responsive.
2.3L 160 hp engine
17" alloy wheels
0-60 mph in 7.4 seconds (car and driver magazine)
Black Leather seats and door trim
Heated front seats
Bose audio system with 7 speakers 222W
6 cd in dash changer
Xenon headlights
automatic climate control
Tire pressure monitoring system
Rain sensing wipers
Automatic headlights
Security system
Moonroof
Trip computer
Side and curtain airbags
4 year warranty
Made in Japan
But im' sure you're civic EX is a better buy given that it has better gas mileage....
Or maybe it's better just because it's a Honda (despite being first year tryout model)....
Or maybe because it looks better (if you're over 90 years old that is)
zoom zoom zoom
19.5K is probably too much to pay for a Civic that will be heavily discounted next year, but the Mazda3 just has a bunch of options tacked on to an unrefined car.
The Civic's syling is much less cluttered than a Mazda3.
And funny you say Mazda 3 is unrefined, as it is already in its third year of production, is the top recommended compact car by Consumer Reports, and won comparison reviews in many automotive magazines and websites. Consumer reports also rates it with highest owner satisfaction and reliability.
And I guess the "bunch of options" means nothing to you even though people pay a lot for things like heated seats (unless you like freezing your butt), leather (stainless durability), HID Xenon (see better at night), Bose audio (higher quality low distortion sound), cd changer, etc......
Can anyone describe in more detail how they are different compare to the pass models? For example, is the clutch too sensitive (or more forgiving) when it is released too fast? Will the engine jerks if the clutch is released slowly without putting a bit more gas? (e.g. can slowly roll forward smoothly like a automatic tranmission without putting more gas)? Need more coordination between putting a bit more gas when release the clutch, etc.?
I heard some drivers complaining about rubbery feel & pushing the MT stick to 3rd gear. Any details about throttle-by-wire?
BTW, the Mazda3 is not CR's top recommended compact car any more. And CR hasn't tested the ''06 Civic yet so we don't know what they think of it compared to the Mazda3.
Using a 2005 for comparison was very shady.
Care to back up those statements? The Mazda3 is as quick or quicker than the Honda Civic with either the 2.0L in the "i" model or 2.3L in the "s" model.
Honda Civic EX 0-60 per Vtec.net = 8.55 seconds
Mazda3 i 0-60 = 8.6 seconds (Consumer Reports testing NOT using the methods Vtec.net used on the Civic EX) would probably be faster if tested by professional test driver
Mazda3 s 0-60 per MT = 7.8 seconds
Fuel economy
Civic manual - 30/38
Mazda3 i manual - 28/35
Mazda3 s manual - 26/32
The verdict? The Mazda 3 is the faster, sporiter car at the expense of fuel economy. The Civic is the more economical but doesn't have quite the acceleration of the 3 s. 20 extra hp does make quite a difference.
I have driven a new Civic and Mazda3 several times trying to make a decision between the two. I don't believe the engine of the Honda to be more refined than the Mazda. A little more engine noise is audible at high rpm than in the Honda, but some drivers prefer that.
I like them both very much. I just don't think your statement is completely accurate and is more personal bias than actual fact.