Honda Civic Sedan 2006

kernick · August 2005

Now if they'd just bring back the small Civic - the 2 seat CRX. That 140hp engine would be great in it.

billmchale · August 2005

I am not sure comparing a 5 year old Taurus to a brand new Civic is the option you think it is for a variety of reasons.

1. The Taurus is not going to be as reliable. Some people can't afford a car that is going to spend a lot of time in the shop. And of course the repair costs of keeping the Tarus running for another 10 years are going to be higher than keeping the Civic running for 10 years.

2. In a few years (assuming gas prices stay high) people will certainly be cross shopping the civic on the used market with cars like the Toyota Corrola that has a larger trunk and good gas mileage

3. I am not confident that a 5 year old Taurus would be safter than a new Civic. The Taurus might have an edge in a collision but will it in terms of accident avoidence?

307web · August 2005

A used Taurus is going to obviously need more maintenance and repair than a brand new Civic. However, it is extremely unlikely that the repair costs could come anywhere near the costs of buying, taxing and insuring a brand new Civic.
You can buy a lot of gas and repairs for $15-$20K.

jchan2 · August 2005

A used Taurus will offer the following advantages:
Lower Upfront Costs (It costs like what, $6,000 to get a 5 year old Taurus SES?)
Bigger Car (certainly it will have more room than a Honda Civic)
Lower Risk of being stolen (Civic Si owners know a lot about this topic I'll bet)
Cheaper Insurance

Advantages of owning a brand new Honda Civic:
Agile Handling
Better Accident Avoidence
Cheaper to maintain for another 10 years
It's brand new! 0 Miles! Yay! (well, maybe 5 miles)
More airbags
Higher MPG (not that it'll make much of a difference if you're comparing it to a 2000 Taurus, where the $$ saved could be put towards gasoline)
Warranty

That's about all that I can think of.
On another note, I was able to get Premium gas for $2.69/gallon today. Filled up 10 gallons in my Infiniti. (which was the limit on the coupon Shell sent me- regular price for a gallon of Shell V-Power at the same pump would have been $2.89/gallon)

Me, if someone asked me if I'd take a used 2001 Ford Taurus SES vs. a brand new Honda Civic, I'd go with the Civic, since I can afford to swallow the costs of owning, maintaining, insuring, and gassing up a brand new car.

But if you're so tight on money that a few extra MPG will make or break your monthly budget, then you better go with the Taurus and sock away the money into a savings account to use as gasoline money.

Although I think that if people on a budget are concerned about MPG, they should shop around for a USED Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla.

I'm lookin forward to seeing the 2006 Civic out and about on the streets.

turtoni · August 2005

i see too many civics already. driven by anonying kids.

billmchale · August 2005

So how many 15 year old Tauruses do you really see compared to 10 year old civics? To begin with regardless of depreciation, i doubt you are going to pay $20K more for the civic; you would have to get the Taurus for free and then buy only top of the line Civic. So lets see a quick check of Carmax shows that 5 year old Taurus is going for about $7K and if we assume say $16K for a Civic (Obviously we are trying to choose a fairly low spec model for economy purposes). So the initial extra cost of the Civic is about $9K. Granted that is alot of money.. but lets start running some more numbers.

Assuming that the combined mileage of the Taurus is about 25 mpg (for the sake of calculating that i am assuming the driver will drive 2 as many highway miles as city so 27+27+20 = 74/3 = 24.666) and the Civic gets about 37 (40*2+30 = 110/3 = 36.666) and that the average car is driven for 12,000 miles a year... and lets assume that we are aiming to keep our car for 10 years so for 120,000 miles. In that 10 years the Tarus will burn almost 1560 more gallons of gas. So even assuming that gasoline costs an average of $2 a gallon that is $3100 in savings on fuel... if fuel costs $3 (which may not be an unreasonable average over 10 years) the savings in fuel will be $4671. Ok, so in any case, the advantage of the Taurus is only $4500-$6,000 now.

Now lets consider that the Taurus will have no warrenty and is not exactly a car famed for its reliability. Again lets assume that we are planning on keeping either car for 10 years. Even assuming the Taurus is is good shape, by the time 5 years has gone by we are going to be dealing with a 10 year old car and all the various little things that just start going wrong (starters, alternators, gaskets etc). The 5 year old civic on the other hand will probably still be going strong. If the cost of the Taurus hasn't caught up by 5 years, I would be willing to bet it will start at that point. Mind you, you could sell the Taurus and buy another 5 year old used car.. but of course that will cost you another $7-8K...

So in any case, overall, I would say that it is not at all clear cut that the 5 year old Taurus will cost you less; if you plan on keeping your cars 10 years or so (And I know I do) I would be willing to bet that the civic is actually likely to come out on top in terms of true cost of ownership.

adp3 · August 2005

yep

anyone buying a new car for ANY economic reason is a dunce

if economics is a factor, then you buy used. Period. At least buy a one-year old car. But if you are gonna buiy a brand new Civic and then crow about how much money you save on gas....well...you're just dumb.

Now, I have nothing against buying a brand new Civic (or anything) because you want the latest and greatest. I am cool with that. But don't make it about the money, because IT AIN'T ABOUT THE MONEY.

adp3 · August 2005

you left out some fairly serioius numbers

insurance?
license and registration?
sales tax?

and let's not forget that the money you didn't spend on the Civic (that initial 9K delta) is making around 5% return for you if you invest it half-decently

I agree that the analysis is different if you keep the car for 10 years. Of course, that's a bad assumption given the American public. What is average? Maybe 5 years? You'll NEVER make up the difference in 5 years, even if the Taurus loses its tranny.

How about we do the analysis with ALL the numbers, and let's make the analysis more useful. Compare buying a new Civic with a used...CIVIC. Compare apples to apples, so we don't have as many unknowns. There is no question that buying the used car is smarter, from a purely economic standpoint. (which is not why most of us buy cars, but if someone is gonna choose a car because they want to save money on gas, then let's analyze the decision from a purely economic perspective)

robrwa123 · August 2005

I thought of the tax savings difference, but then realized these deductions/credits do not apply to LEASING - actually, the new energy bill credit does, but only if you take on a 5-year lease, by some estimates, which I do not want because that would defeat the purpose of leasing (i.e., warranty coverage and always having a newer model car).

corey415 · August 2005

Billmchale,

Hey man, when I grew up with my brother and sister, the family car was a 1986 Honda Accord. A car that is much slower, much less safe, and probably has less interior room and trunk room than the current civic sedan.

Bottom line, the current civic sedan should be more than adequate as a family car. The trunk size is fine too. The current civic size is big enough I think. It is supposed to be a compact car right?

If you really need a bigger car with a bigger trunk that is relatively fuel efficient, then get an accord sedan 4 banger.

robrwa123 · August 2005

Keep your insults to yourself. :mad:

So, tell me when these hybrid cars are going to be selling for under MSRP, given that gas is now $3 a gallon and will soon be $4 a gallon? In January, the tax credits take effect, and dealers will know that, i.e., pricing will be affected accordingly. Before then, the cars will be in high demand given their new release, and I need a car this month (daughter will take my car to college). The new HCH will be better and cheaper than the Prius, and is not anything smacking of its previous generation Civic hybrid. Last but certainly not least, the deposit is refundabel if I don't like it!

jiimmm · August 2005

I bought a BRAND NEW civic a couple of months ago for $12,175.
Insurance on an civic is very cheap. I have average 37 mpg on my first 4300 miles.
No question in my mind a new civic is a better investment than a used taurus

filmnews · August 2005

Anyone have a date?

raychuang00 · August 2005

Anyone have a date?

I've heard from a couple of dealers that we may start seeing them in sales lots probably by mid-September 2005.

307web · August 2005

A 2006 Civic is not going to be $12K starters. It doesn't matter if you were able to buy a year end clearance 2005 Civic for that much.

There is no way the Civic will be cheaper to own than a 2000 Taurus. It will be nicer to drive new Civic, but not cheaper. Replacing worn out alternators, brakes, starters and even transmission on the Taurus will not add up the extra cost of the car, taxes and insurance of a new Civic even with spending more on gas for the Taurus.

gearhead1 · September 2005

I made the same statement on an earlier post, and these nuts jumped all over me too. They can't get it through their heads that some people really do prefer an automatic, but like the style and design of the high line car.

I understand you prefer an automatic, and it's obvious Honda doesn't want this car to be mistaken or percieved for anything other than the racer that it is

Why can we not have the automatic on the Si Civic. The RSX base has the same type drive train, and the one I had several years ago was no less a sporty car. Live and let live I say. Let these guys have their 6 speeds and let us have the automatic. Why do they care what we drive???

It would bother me that an auto on this Si even existed, and apparently Honda feels the same way. They didn't tune this cars exhaust note to sound like the NSX at the VTEC crossover for nothing. You really want the Civic Coupe with auto and no spoiler. It's nearly the same car style wise. What's wrong with that?

Also, a downforce spoiler on the REAR of a FRONT drive car is stupid. It just decreases traction to the front wheels. That is what these guys know about cars. Do they have a clue? A street driven car needs a spoiler like a monkey needs a computer.

This is a racing performance machine. The spoiler actually provides a function even though no power is delivered to the rear. It provides down force on the rear to control drift around corners. Will most people actually drive fast enough to utilize this feature. Some might. Did I mention this is a racing machine? Some of us do have a clue.

guyf · September 2005

Here it is...

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/050831-8.htm

billmchale · September 2005

Yeah maybe if you only keep your cars for 5 years, the Taurus will be less expensive.. but I at least like to keep my cars for at least 120,000 miles if I can 200,000 so much the better. But there is a whole of other factors than the straight repair costs. That transmission we keep talking about dropping out the Taurus.. Not only will that be costly to replace but it will also be costly in time and effort and probably in the rental vehical you use while the Transmission is being rebuilt.

Mind you many people, myself included, need a car we can depend to start and run with little more than basic maintenance day after day. Granted even the best car will occasionally break down, but I think it is pretty safe to say that a brand new Civic will be more reliable than a 5 year old Taurus and a 5 year old Civic will be much more reliable than a 10 year old Taurus. Ultimately buying used and holding onto an older car only makes sense to a certain point. Anyone here care to argue that I would have been smarter financially to keep the 1989 Cavalier that i was dumping $200 a month in repairs on in 1997 for another 8 years and 145K miles rather than getting a car that has proven remarkably trouble free?

Mind you the smart thing economically is probably getting a 2 year old Civic or Corolla, but mind you we are only 2 years away from getting the new Civic used.

stupidfool · September 2005

think of it this way if you own a taurus for say 7.5 years and try to sell it it'll go for around 2-3k if you don't have over 100g miles on a civic same situation it'll sell for 2-3k MORE than the taurus, ford isn't really known for it's car long life honda on the other hand is!

i wanna know price and pics

neumie2000 · September 2005

Sorry if this has been answered, but is the 06 Civic going to be made in the USA or Japan?

gwido · September 2005

The Civic Coupe and Si will be produced and assembled at Honda's plant in Alliston, Ontario. Sedans will be produced in East Liberty, Ohio, while all Hybrid models are built in Suzuka, Japan

blueiedgod · September 2005

In general the new Civic is an appealing package, but I am concerned by the fact that the trunk is smaller. I personally prefer a hatchback for its utility but have been drawn to considering the new Civic simply because it gets such good gas mileage. But only 11.5 cu ft for the coup and 12 for the sedan? Thats getting awfully small...

This is your last chance to get a Civic hatchback. 2005 Honda Civic Si is the only Honda Hatchback sold in the US. With the heavy discounts, I snatched one up back in 2003 for $14,500 at 1.9%. I don't see why Honda would not bring those discounts back. It still has more HP than new Civic EX 160 vs 140, has about 17 cu. Ft of space, and is very peppy. The dashboard mounted shifter is a blast after a 15 minute period of getting used to. Comes with built in roll cage from the factory (pull the cover off the A-pillars to see it) and ABS with EBD. Fully loaded with A/c sunroof, power everything. :-)

capitano · September 2005

I see some posters expressing a desire for an automatic version of the Si.

I have to ask. What's the point? A peaky engine with an 8k redline does not match well with an automatic. It defeats the purpose of the car. The RSX type is in the same boat. The net result is that whatever performance advantages the Si has over the regular coupe are largely lost when an automatic tranny is used.

Toyota had a similar issue with the Matrix XRS. The 2003 offered an auto and it was a dog. The auto was dropped on the 2004 and later models. The newer corolla XRS is the same.

blueiedgod · September 2005

Don't forget that after 10 years you will get some money back when you sell the Civic. While you just have to junk the Taurus.

My girlfriend had a 1991 Taurus with 140K miles on it. Dealers we offering $600 for it. I had 1988 Prelude SI 4WS with 130,000 miles on it. Dealers would give me $4000 for it. This was back in 1999.

Honda was 3 years older, smaller and close in miles and was netting $3400 more on trade in. I still have the Prelude

tawneycat · September 2005

For a few Stop Now. I see some animal survival behavior with SOME of the storm victims. Most people are decent law abiding citizens who respect others, themselves and the law.
I like the forum and I like interesting-- thought provoking comments but getting personal (negative) to people you have never met is cowardice because you would never do it in person. Words sting more than a punch so please watch how you write because writing is one dimensional conversation and must be clear.
Let's just discuss the Civic and we can discuss opinions and strategies but no putting down.

billmchale · September 2005

blueiedgod, the outgoing civic SI is a very appealing package. I test drove one in 2004 (a couple of minor things had gone wrong in my car that had made me worry that there was a larger issue) and it was a great little car. It took me about 30 seconds to adjust to the dash mounted shifter; I am sorry to see that its not being continued in the new car. The only problem is that you take a pretty significant hit in fuel economy by going with it. In any case, I am probably still 3-6 months away from buying (baring a major failure in the VW... I am only buying in 6 months because several major maintenance issues are coming up timing belt, clutch, brakes... and alot of little things that really should be fixed that I have put off as well as some body work... in other words I am thinking of buying because I am not sure I want to drop $3000-$4000 on a car that will by then have 160K miles on it) I doubt there will be many of the outgoing SI available at that point. Of course I could buy a two year old used one. I will just have to run the numbers when it comes time to buy.

alpha01 · September 2005

I know its very subjective, but the rear exterior styling of the Sedan, and the interior of every model, leaves me very cold. Im not impressed.

Too bad.

~alpha

loudgizmo · September 2005

Funny you should mention this. Honda has this habit of creating designs that I personally don't like when I first see them, but then grow on me over time. The front end of the last generation Prelude (I had one) is a perfect example. I thought the headlights looked very econo-boxy when I first saw the car, but it drove so beautifully that I got it anyway. Over time I got to like the looks quite a bit, and I'm sorry I sold it (long story).

So far, the Civic interior is tracing that same arc for me. The first spy photos I saw had me wondering what our friends at Honda were smoking, but now I've come to like it, and my only reservation is the dual-level instrument pod and digital speedo. I'll have to see it in person before I'll know how I feel about those details.

By the way--when are we expecting the exact pricing information to come out? I was hoping it would be today, but it looks like nothing yet.

sms92 · September 2005

Alot of you have mentioned the savings in buying a used civic (of course, more so with used Taurus). I had a quick question about that - - while we would love to save some money by buying a used car when we looked at 1, 2, 3 and 4 year old used civics they seemed to hold their value so well that it made no sense to buy them. In other words, let's say you assume a life span of 12 years, the 1 year old civic would be discounted at 1/12 (or less!), the 2 year old by 1/6 (or less), etc. To me that isn't a deal, its just a recognition that the car is 1, 2, 3, or 4 years old and a subtraction for that portion of its life span with no other real depreciation. Based on this, we were planning to buy new and get all the great new honda safety features. What do you all think - - are we looking for used honda civics the wrong way or is this lack of discount pretty common? Do you still think used makes sense? Please advise!

307web · September 2005

It doesn't matter that the Civic resale will be higher because the initial cost of the Civic was way way more than $2K more than the Taurus. A 5 year old Taurus has already lost most of it's value. It can only do down so much more after that, so depreciation will not be a major cost of ownership at that point. The major costs will be scheduled maintenance, replacing worn out parts on the higher mileage Taurus and doing unscheduled repairs that will be much more than a new 2006 Civic, but added maintenance and fuel costs do not add up to the difference in purchase price of a new 2006 Civic.

Yes, the 2006 Civic is a better car and will be much, NICER to own and looks better and has new car smell and it will be more reliable and uses less gas, but it will still COST more to own. Even if the Taurus tranny blows out at 80,000 miles and you replace it with a remanufactured transmission. You pay that money and move on and have still saved thousands over buying a 2006 Civic.
The price of a 5 year old Taurus is low enough that you can pay for repairs and still come out ahead. Just don't buy a new Taurus since it loses so much value in the first years.

micweb · September 2005

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050901/ts_latimes/civicsdutyhelphondarebound

micweb · September 2005

Extensive press releases can be found at this Honda dealer:

http://www.collegehillshonda.com/artman/publish/article_341.shtml

Also pictures:

http://www.collegehillshonda.com/artman/publish/cat_index_7.shtml

I don't often say this, but the new model sounds awesome - a complete reversal of the trend set by the last model update (old cars for young drivers).

Particularly impressive are the differences in the Coupe - it has a much firmer suspension and different dimensions. It is now much more than a "body style" conversion of the four door into a coupe.

Gas mileage is up to 30/40, with a 5 speed auto transmission.

Side air bags, side curtain airbags, ABS on all models. The only thing not in the package is stability control.

bigdaddycoats · September 2005

pricing?????

moparbad · September 2005

What are the MSRP for the new Civics?

sms92 · September 2005

I am sorry I think I wasn't clear - - I am not interested in a Taurus. My point is does it make sense to buy a USED civic over a NEW civic. What I am describing above is the fact that you don't seem able to get a good deal on a used civic - - there is no discount in real terms, just a subtraction for the portion of the lifespan of the car that is gone. Normally, we only buy used cars. Maybe I am doing something wrong with my used civic shopping?

Don't want to derail the discussion but while we are all waiting for more specs/2006 prices I wanted to hear your opinions.

Thank you.

filmnews · September 2005

I can not wait to build my Civic on Honda.com. I want to know when we will be able to do this. The 2005 Mustang GT, you could build a week or so before its release.

creakid1 · September 2005

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050901/ts_latimes/civicsdutyhelphondarebound

"Driving impressions:

On farm roads outside of Chicago last week, all
versions of the new Civic lived up to factory promises
of sportier ride and handling and better acceleration
and braking than with previous versions."

What does that mean? The new bulkier wider Ion-size Civic, with the rear
Double Wishbone suspension deleted all together, rides
even less comfortably than the already mediocre-riding
'01-05 7th-generation Civic. Sure is a step closer to the Ion. LOL.

Since '01, the Civic is no longer a baby Accord with
Double Wishbone suspension front & back. In other
words it's a piece of garbage. The new A4-like taillights do look better matched than the ones on the face-lifted A4, though. The new 8th-generation Civic has to rely on looks, safety features & the early models' reputation alone in order to sell.

By the way, today I'm buying an used '00 Civic for over $7k. :P

ctalk · September 2005

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=107050#5

"The Si Is Back
After driving the Si on the road and racetrack, we agree with page 4 of the 2006 Honda Civic press kit, which states, "Bottom line, the 2006 Civic Si is the best handling, best performing Civic to ever touch tire to asphalt in America."

tradscott · September 2005

I personally don't think that it is worth buying a 2-3 year old Honda or Toyota. The resale values are too high to make it attractive over owning a new one, especially if 2-3 years would put you in a different generation of the model you're looking at.

You'll save on insurance and some taxes and possibly some financing costs by going used. The savings are about in proportion to the sales price, so it won't be much for a 2-3 year old.

Now, if you were willing to buy a 6+ year old Civic, then you could probably save a bunch of money and get into a car with a fair amount of life left in it. I've got a 1996 manual Civic with 100,000 miles on it. It is very clean and will likely go another 100,000. If I sold it, I'd only expect to get $3500 or so for it. If you found something like that, it could be economical.

On the other hand, buying a new Lincoln or Land Rover is extremely costly compared to buying a 3 year old one because they depreciate so much.

natenj1971 · September 2005

came across this article on the sedan:

http://www.autosite.com/content/shared/articles/templates/index.cfm/article_id_int/714

mdpay · September 2005

Very disappointed with initial fuel economy numbers. A top priority for me is fuel savings. The new civic city numbers are WORSE by 6%. (32 down to 30).

After reading the engine info a few weeks ago from Honda, you would think the 06 Civic was capable of producing its own fuel. Numerous technological improvements all for nothing. It appear to me that the main fuel economy improvement comes from the auto trans gearing. 5th gear is listed as .525 overdrive. I wonder if this is a misprint. The Toyota Corolla with a 5 year old 1.8L is rated with better fuel economy 32-41 m/t vs. Civic 30-38 m/t. I just don't understand it.

Don't get me wrong, the 06 civic on paper looks perfect for me. Standard abs, full airbags, telescope wheel, and so on. I just don't see any improvements in fuel economy with the new engine. I hope the official EPA numbers show different, but I doubt it.

loudgizmo · September 2005

I'm also a disappointed in the MPG. I think that we have a case here of Honda being caught with their assumptions (about gas prices) down.

I've been saying for some time that one of the effects of higher gas prices will be car companies reacting with higher MPG options. If gas prices stay high (which I expect), then we'll probably see Honda either bring back the HX variant or add something roughly similar, meaning a non-hybrid car that sacrifices performance to get much better MPG.

For those interested, my energy awareness web site is The Cost of Energy">link title

tradscott · September 2005

Those are the unfortunate consequences of having a larger, heavier car with more power. The fuel economy with the auto is better so for people interested in an auto it is good.

Also, the car may attract some buyers who would have went with a low end Accord.

If fuel efficiency is your number one concern, you could go with the hybrid. Or buy an even smaller car.

adp3 · September 2005

It may be that buying a new Civic is smarter than buying a 2-year old Civic, since Hondas do not depreciate as rapidly as many other brands.

What about a new Civic versus a 2-year old Altima? or Corolla?

if you are buying the new car from a dealer who is motivated, then the scales may tip in favor of the new car purchase.

But since no one is buying used cars since the new car dealers (and manufacturers) are so motiviated, whouldn't that be driving used car pricing down? I am guessing that individuals sellig used cars do not yet understand why no one is calling them inquiring about that used car for sale.

adp3 · September 2005

if decreasing the MPG and increasing the power causes more folks to buy the Civic, then, in the aggregate, the nation is better off. (assuming the vehicle the owner otherwise would have been driving gets worse mpg than the new Ciovic they ultimately decide to buy)

If you can move someone from a 20 mpg car to a 30 mpg car, that is better than moving him from a 20 mpg to a 25 mpg car, no? Let's not get hung up on what Honda might have accomplished. They need to sell cars not make us happy that they achieved everything they could have achieved. Who cares if the Civic could have gotten 50 mpg if lots fewer people want to drive one (in comparison to the 30 mpg version)

w9cw · September 2005

I found creakid1's post most interesting. First of all, let me state that I've been purchasing Asian or European cars since 1968, and bought my first Civic in 1989. It was a 1990 DX hatchback, and I loved that car. We have typically driven small cars, and have based our purchasing decision on quality vs. price - not perceived quality, per se, but build quality that can be seen by the naked eye, and decent mechanical quality. Depreciation rate is really not a deciding factor, as we tend to keep a car a minimum of 10 years.

I've been carefully looking for a new car for my wife since March of this year. I've looked at (and, driven) the Accord and Civic, Toyota Camry and Corolla, Subaru Legacy, and lately, and most suprisingly, the new 2006 Hyundai Sonata and 2005 Elantra, as well as the Kia Spectra. We all know of the build quality of the Honda and Toyota, as well as the fit and finish of these two marques. But, I'm beginning to wonder if it is not more a market perception, rather than reality.

Look closely at the gap and seam differentials on all USA or Canadian-built Civics, especially on the front bumper as it meets the body. The gaps and seams are irregular left to right. The same can be said on the Camry, and even with their rear door alignments, and some upper door trim. If you critically inspect these vehicles, you will see what I mean. Conversly, if you inspect a Japanese-built Civic, this is not the case. Are we seeing the difference between Asian-built vehicles vs. those built here in North America - or something else? Honda's and Toyota's reputation was built in this country by vehicles primarily built in Japan.

I don't buy any vehicle simply because it's a Honda, Toyota, et. al. Most surprisingly, when I inpected one of the least respected marques sold in the USA - KIA - I found some significant suprises. The 2005 Sprectra EX I "reluctantly" looked at suprised me to no end. First of all, the gaps and seams are perfectly consistent from sample to sample, and are excellent on any specific vehicle. The exterior sheetmetal build quality is certainly the equal (or, better than) the Civic or Corolla. And, all of the interior bits and pieces fit extremely well and are of decent quality. This was a shocking suprise to me, as this is the first time I've ever looked at a Korean-built car.

Local independent mechanics tell me that late models of Hyundai and Kia products are reliable, and with their 5yr/60K limited warranty, and 10yr/100K powertrain warranty, it is something to consider. Are we experiencing a parallel to the growth and quality of the Japanese-built vehicles as seen in the 70s though the 80s with their Korean-built counterparts? Only time will tell. But, for one who has bought these types of vehicles for almost 40 years, I'm impressed, especially with the new Sonata and Spectra.

I'm certainly not trolling here, or speaking heresy. I'm just telling it like I see it. Given the target marketing demographic of the new Civic (the younger generation), I think Honda will have a hit on its hands. Honda realized that the "staid and conservative" nature of the previous generation was not a good fit for first time new car buyers. I wish them well with the 2006 Civic.

canadianbacon · September 2005

Creakid1: There is in fact a double wishbone suspension in the rear, though I was personally hoping for a return to the double wishbone all round setup that was featured on the earlier generation civics. Those things were beauties for the intelligent engineering. Now they go with struts as a cheap (though nearly as effective) way to get a balance in handling and ride quality.

On the whole, I have a lot of mixed reactions. Take the engine - more powerful, VTEC across the board, larger displacement (therefore a wider torque band) - but it also has lower fuel economy, at a time when gas prices are soaring; in my mind Honda overshot the performance goal and didn't pay enough attention to the mileage factor. It still gets great mileage, don't get me wrong, and the increased power is probably worth it. But at a time when other companies are finding ways to increase both power and fuel economy (BMW, Toyota-Lexus most obviously, as well as even GM's latest four cylinders), Honda's approach of increasing one while decreasing the other simply won't cut it. Any company can create a more powerful engine by doing what Honda did to the civic - increase displacement, give it better breathing, etc. - but it takes thoughtful designing to increase both - designing and engineering that used to be a staple of Honda engines. With this one they seem to have taken a step back. I'm also rather disappointed that the EX will not have a slight increase in power over the DX and LX models. That may come in later model years though, so I doubt it will be a huge loss to Honda.

The rest of the car is just as mixed. The bigger, more powerful engine is offset once again by an increase in curb weight. Granted, this does mean even an EX model (the heaviest, including the sunroof and other features) will have a slightly lower power-weight ratio than the outgoing EX model, therefore improving acceleration, the weight of the civic is now reaching extreme levels of compact cars. A Mazda3 weighs nearly the same as an EX, but has either 8 to 20 more horsepower to move around with, plus a larger displacement engine. The only reason the Civic featured in Edmunds recent economy car comparo could even keep up with the Cobalt and Mazda3 was its low curb-weight. Now that that trump is gone, it will have a tough time setting any standards (which is, I'm sure, what Honda aimed to do with this car).

The interior looks almost too futuristic, but the fit in finish is great, and I'm expecting classic Honda ergonomics inside. The tach and digital speedometer is kind of cool, and I as a younger buyer certainly find it cool, but cool could have come across in a variety of ways. The whole interior does look pretty classy though, definitely a step up in plastic texture from the last generation. My friend just bought a 4 door LX '05 model, and except for the instrument display, the interior was fairly simple and dour - this new one looks to be anything but.

On the whole though, this car is now likely to have outsized itself. The civic was once a tiny economical runabout that offered better-than-average handling, good interior room for its exterior dimensions, great fuel economy, and a level of fun-to-drive that couldn't be matched by the competition. Now it's spread itself too thin. It's lost it's title of best handling economy car when it lost its double-wishbone front suspension. It has now lost the fuel economy war to the Toyota Corolla, which will probably have even better fuel economy in its 2007 year update. It's exterior has become so bloated that the interior doesn't have to be engineered nearly as thoughtfully. It seems to me that Honda took the easy way out in this generation - adding girth, power, and slightly better handling, at the expense of fuel economy and the other trademarks of Honda engineering. Granted, it still does an amazing job of what it was originally intended to do, it just seems that when compared to the Mazda3, the two cars are going to be so similar it will come down to the intangibles: tastefulness, driving feel and all the other subjective points that make up a buyer's mind. The one thing Honda has hands-down over the Mazda3 is the offering of a coupe version, and for right now, the Si. Americans love their sporty-looking cars, and as sexy as the Mazda3 sedan is, it's no two-door. Also, until the Mazdaspeed3 comes out sometime next year, the Si will be the place to go for cheap speed with a japanese nameplate.

Only time will tell how well each does in comparison to the other though.

loudgizmo · September 2005

I'm guessing that Honda felt it could/had to let the Civic drift upwards in size (and lose its hatch variant) in part because the Fit/Jazz is coming next year.

micweb · September 2005

I don't own a Mazda3, but I do own a current Focus with a similar engine. On my Focus I get 30-31 mpg on a mostly freeway commute. On my 2003 Civic on the same commute I got 35. Even without the improvement promised by the 2006 Civic, 35 mpg is pretty good (each car had a stick).

Now, if the handling is much improved on the 2006 Civic (my main objection to my former 2003 Civic) and if it is much quieter (my main objection to my Focus) - well, the 2006 Civic starts to look very attractive indeed. Especially if the new 5 speed automatic can come close to its rated mileage (in my experience, I do better on mileage with stick shifts than autos, in terms of gap between real world and EPA ratings).

On the size issue, I feel the Accord is just a little too big for a personal car, and the outgoing Civic just a little too small. So upsizing the Civic a bit makes sense to me. The only issue I have, is that I have gotten used to "upright" seating like on the VW, Scion, and Focus, and when I had the 2003 Civic felt like I was sitting too low. I would like to see what Honda does with seating positions in the new Civic. BTW, a friend has a Mazda3, based on the next generation, in Europe, Focus platform, but Mazda uses more conventional low seats.

If the Civic doesn't hit the right size spot for me, I will probably look at the new Ford Fusion (based on the Mazda6 and smaller than Accord/Camry) or wait for the eventual next release of the Focus.

zacharya · September 2005

The only thing the forgot in safety was electronic stability control. I can't wait to take one for a test drive. Sounds awesome!! With gas at $3.49/gallon, I may take the hybrid for a test drive.

Honda Civic Sedan 2006

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles