Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Honda Civic vs Volkswagen Jetta

1456810

Comments

  • snowdancesnowdance Member Posts: 18
    Truth is its really hard to compare the two.. Honda Civic.. 2500 lbs.. Jetta 3200 lbs.. That is 700 lbs of sound proofing and steel difference. (Engines, transmissions, wheels, brakes ect are about the same weight..) It just plain cost money to move weight..

    If you want fuel mileage.. Get the Honda.. If you want comfort and quite get the VW.. As far as reliability.. I drove my 2000 jetta 270,000 miles before trading it for a newer Jetta wagon.. (Nothing but normal maint as in the manual and was not burning oil..) Think the big thing on all cars is maint.. Most people just do not bother..

    Snowdance
  • orbit9090orbit9090 Member Posts: 116
    image

    My opinion why Civic is better than Jetta.
  • 600kgolfgt600kgolfgt Member Posts: 690
    What this Honda ad really says:

    "Submit your form, check in your identity, and become one of the masses..."

    " I drive a Japanese car. Me Too. Me three. etc, etc, etc...."
  • tomsr1tomsr1 Member Posts: 130
    My 06 Civic was assembled in Canada,and looks as good as
    anything from Japan.So it is not the worker it's the
    management that cause junk products.If they don't have to
    ship them across the Pacific why aren't they cheaper?Is
    a Civic worth $5000 more than a Focus?The main drawback
    to Focus is everybody has one.I once rented a Focus
    Automatic and it was so boring but my Civic is not.As far
    VW goes the next year will tell if the quality is back
    so it can be a threat to Honda/Toyota.
  • rwatsonrwatson Member Posts: 144
    Well, in a couple weeks my 06 GLI will be 1 year old and no problems. Well none other than the ones I reported earlier:

    Weird rattle at idle-Went away in a couple weeks with no return.

    Knob on the radio mysteriously cracked- Radio head unit replaced.

    While one year is not much of an indicator of a car's long-term reliability, it must mean something as some of the more vehement posters here report their VW being a piece of junk immediately after leaving the lot. Not so hear. Not even a bogus "Check Engine" light. I found the majority of the "Check Engine" lights to be a loose gas tank caps. They're just overly-sensitive. Seems the coil problem from the 1.8T's are no longer an issue either, as my 04 Passat wagon never had the problem.

    All-in-all, I'd say this is an awesome car and a hoot to drive. I never get tired of driving it. I just got back from a 1,500 mile road trip from Louisiana to Oklahoma city and back and was hardly fatigued. True, the GLI suspension and seats are more for a younger man (I'm 40 and pushing 41 in 2 months) but at in my 20's I had Japanese "pocket-rockets" that beat the fire out of me after a 4 or five hour road trip. Funny, they wouldn't even handle half as good as any of my VW's, other than my Passat Wagon. It handled on-par with my 97 Eclipse GST.

    As far as the "fat and heavy" cracks that make one feel as if they made a profound discovery, and are waiting for a Nobel Prize to roll down, I noticed the same thing. Especially when I walked around the car and took a look at the standard accommodations. then after I bought my VW, I had this conscientious feeling of driving a car that looked like a Corolla. I was almost sickened to think that I drove a car that resembled a Japanese tin box. Then another Jetta (Normal 2.5) rolled up beside me at an intersection, with a Corolla in front. THAT'S when I saw the big, HUGE difference: You could really see the quality of the VW over the Toyota. The so-called "fat" was the obvious difference in size of the two, and the VW wears its weight better than the Toyota wears its own paint. Just looks like a better piece all together. As far as the Honda Civic or Accord go, just the interior alone makes me think of a Pontiac Aztek. Thank God it has "Zero German engineering." :P Wouldn't want to see the makers of quality succumb to the masses.
  • 610looper610looper Member Posts: 20
    Perhaps Honda meant North America, which happens to include Canada & the United States.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    As far as the Honda Civic or Accord go, just the interior alone makes me think of a Pontiac Aztek.

    In what way does the Accord make you think of an Aztek?

    image

    image

    image
    Doesn't seem like a credible Honda slam to me. Honda has high-quality materials that would put a GM vehicle to shame. You may like the design of the Jetta better, but I don't think the quality difference is that large in the Accord vs. the Jetta.
  • rwatsonrwatson Member Posts: 144
    Gee, I went to the Honda site and viewed the latest and greatest photos. I would never compare the Honda's interior to any Pontiac interior. I was comparing the Appliance's interior to the Aztek's exterior. THAT'S the link! :P
    image

    COMPARED TO:

    image

    image

    The dash reminds me a little of the Aztek's front end too. Now, the pic you brought up shows pleasing interior. Just another example of Japanese ingenuity.
  • aoogsaoogs Member Posts: 3
    hey everyone,

    I'm looking for a second car, my old corolla had an untimely demise in an accident =( But now I'm looking into what car to buy, and I love the look and specs of the 2002 Jetta, the gls 1.8t to be precise. I have a couple of questions though

    do I REALLY need to put premium gas into the car, or will it suffice w/ regular if I buy it at 80k miles?

    If i want a car that I can reasonably assume won't cost me over $1500 a year to maintain, does the jetta fit?

    Thanks in advance for any comments, I appreciate all bits of advice (large, small...one word...)
  • defreitasmdefreitasm Member Posts: 152
    I love my 2.5 2005 1/2 Jetta.
    Civics and Jettas shouldn't even be a comparison. They are two entirely different cars and they get compared because of size. The Jetta is a superior driving machine with many more refinements. Sure the Civic is more reliable but I hate the way it drives. I test drove one back in 2000 and ended up with an Accord. I drove a brand new civic last year for a month and couldn't wait till my Jetta came from the shop after my wife damage both the transmission and oil pans. Incidentally, I bought the Jetta as a replacement to my Accord. The Jetta rides and handles much better than my Accord ever did. I must admit that the Accord was fairly reliable but I did have some problems. There were issues with transmissions in 2000 and other years. So many that Honda extended the warranty on both Accords and Odysseys. The transmission on my Odyssey failed at 75,000 miles. The Odyssey had quite a few recalls on some things as well. I have 38,000 miles on my Jetta without a hiccup.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Civics and Jettas shouldn't even be a comparison.

    Well, when prices and size classes overlap, it's hard not to compare. They are very different machines, I'll give you that. The Civic has EXCELLENT fuel economy (30/40) with good power (7.7 sec for Manual Transmission LX Sedan per Motor Trend) and handling, while the Jetta has iffy fuel economy (22/30) with good power (8.3 sec 0-60 per Car and Driver, I think) and EXCELLENT handling. The Civic has the nicer-sounding and higher revving engine, while the Jetta has more low-end pull and a less refined engine note.

    I feel like the Jetta is the car for people that want to get in on the "German" bandwagon, and the Civic is more of a practical piece. To each his own - people have these choices for a reason.

    The Jetta can be optioned to over $30,000 though; more than an Accord with the 244 horsepower V6 and Navigation with a larger interior. Lots of features for $30k on both vehicles.

    Reliability still scares me on VW - too many people getting burned just after their warranties are expiring, and unlike Honda, they don't have a good Customer Service department from what I've heard and witnessed.

    Sure the Civic is more reliable but I hate the way it drives. I test drove one back in 2000

    Remember, that 2000 model Civic debuted in 1996 - hardly comparable to anything of today (11 years later).

    I wish you and your Jetta the best; sounds like yours may be a winner!

    BTW, what model Jetta do you have?
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."Civics and Jettas shouldn't even be a comparison."...

    I say why not!?? Indeed, I live with both side by side.

    For example, if one has a need/want for a specific purpose driven task, i.e., 54 mile R/T commute and weekend run about. The majority of days (5/7=) 71.4% and miles (14256/18222 per year=)78.2% are in a TOUGH commute. By getting a Civic vs a VW Jetta (TDI in my case) there is a savings of $5436. in acquisition costs. Over 250,000 miles (38/50 mpg @ 2.39/2.60 per gal)there is a difference of 6579/5000 gals =1579 gals MORE (x 2.39= -$3,774. or $1,662.00 total saved.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Sorry, that statement you took as my quote was something I quoted from someone else. It wasn't my original statement. I forgot to make it in bold, and it can't be changed now! :)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Well hopefully no harm no foul? Just maybe a continuation of the discussion. :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Certainly, just clarifying my stance. :)

    This forum got quiet lately, I guess everyone's out driving in the snow!
  • erickplerickpl Member Posts: 2,735
    My daughter had a 2004 Civic. She loved it - until the day she got t-boned. Her Civic's doors, if they had beams in them, failed and her passenger door was on top of her center console, which led to a concussion and gash on her head. My 99 Civic was no different as far as the strength of the door was concerned.

    When looking for a replacement, we put safety and structural integrity on top, and IMO, no Japanese car in this segment has the structural strength of a German car. This is my opinion based on my searching and looking at the new Civics, Mazdas, Acuras, Mitsus, and Subarus. Nothing inspired confidence for her safety.

    Then we looked at the Germans. We looked at BMW, Audi, and VW. Audi's were nice, but I didn't want to contend with MMI and she didn't want a hatch. BMW's are wonderful cars, but I didn't want her in a new 3 Series as we prefer the E46's from the previous generation. Pricing was still kinda high for what we were wanting.

    So we looked at VW. She fell in love with the Jetta. Doors - solid as a rock. Suspension, a bit soft, but you can fix that with some aftermarket shocks/springs, but it still handled well. Braking - VERY nice. The 2.0T engine with a 6 speed manual was her dream come true (she likes to row her own gears). The features and interior quality convinced her and my wife that VW was what was going to be sitting next to my Jeep in the driveway. Neither one wanted to even CONSIDER VW, but I insisted and told them they might be surprised.

    We pick up her 2007 Jetta GLI today.

    Honda's are great cars for what they are (I'll leave it to you to determine what that may be :D). After owning a 99 and an 04, I just am NOT convinced safety and strength are two of Honda's stronger suits. You can argue till you're blue in the face about it, but I've got my daughter's Honda in a junkyard telling me something entirely different - that for her to feel safe, a Honda will NOT be our driveway.

    -Paul
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    No argument from me but you will soon get replies informing you that the 2006 Civic is a "gold" pick from the IIHS after its testing including off set front, rear and side impact. Although I own a 2006 Civic I am not a Honda fan...just imparting information. Further, Subaru has a very good IIHS score also I believe.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    While this is not germane to the main point of your post, the suspension is actually a very calibrated and precise system. The struts and shocks are made by SACHS, and they are extremely well built. Bottom line: do not "fix" it. Longer term use has shown the springs good to 250,000 miles. Unless you experience fluid leakage, your shocks and struts are easily good to 150,000 miles with a very normal pretty slow gradual aging (believe it or not it is a synthetic vs conventional oil debate, in the strut/shock fluid.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    To my sotp experiences, the Civic has a much more "nervous" ride compared to the Jetta. I would ask why would I want that type of nervousness? Or what is the utility of that nervousness? Indeed if you are "set" on the firmer ride, the Koni Yellows/Reds might be the ticket in that they're adjustable.

    On the other hand I say this with 75,000 miles on a Z06. Again you will never guess who oem's the shocks on this!? YUP, SACHS.
  • erickplerickpl Member Posts: 2,735
    Yeah I know about the Civic's rating, as well as Subaru's, but when I can open/close a door and have it warp as I'm closing it (they seemed to twist at the hinges a bit), that tells me I don't feel comfortable with it.

    She was hit hard in that Civic. I don't blame her one bit for not wanting another. And I know her Civic is the gen prior to the current one and I'm sure the new ones are MUCH better, but still, if she isn't comfortable in it, she isn't driving it.

    -Paul
  • erickplerickpl Member Posts: 2,735
    My experiences show the Honda is a solid performer suspension-wise, esp with my 99 si. But the German suspension just feels so much more planted, despite the body roll, which is what I'd REALLY like to reduce.

    BMW's active roll stabilization is pretty cool. Wonder if VW will do something like that in the future.

    -Paul
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    You might want to ask HER if it REALLY matters!? :) My swag is she could probably care less. Also a suspension change starts to get into big bucks. A DIY depending on the components can start at 250. And unless you know the tricks, you should probably get it aligned again (50-100). But as you probably know one change will affect/effect the other and now the shocks and springs sway bar(700 )are now not good enough and the rims tires are suspect 1000-2500. :)

    I am not sure what "solid performance" means (to you) in terms of the side by side comparison. Body roll is very easy to compensate for, a rear sway bar will work wonders. However it does change the handling dynamics. I actually have all the upgrades: Sof Springs, Bilstein Shocks, Rear Sway Bar. But the oem stuff is doing just fine.

    So if her and your approach could possibly be a "goldilocks" approach, the adjustable Koni's are really the ticket.

    As you can tell it doesn't matter to me and I drive a Z06. :)

    My take is no, unless they see the typical VW driver willing to pay the extra freight.
  • erickplerickpl Member Posts: 2,735
    The safety matters to her, my wife, and me. As for the ride, it is something my wife and I really felt. She hasn't mentioned it, but she and I both know that one thing affects the other.

    My other ride is a modified Jeep Wrangler. Can't change one w/o changing a bunch of other stuff. If she decides she wants to change things, it'll be on her to do the research and not just pick up the shiniest thing on the shelf at the store. ANY mod has pros and cons, and by building the Jeep, we realized that it was more involved that we originally thought. Even more so for a street car. :)

    -Paul
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    "The safety matters to her, my wife, and me."

    That is usually a given. I am not sure how this would apply?
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    that planted feeling is probably due to the fact the german cars have a tendency to weight a whole heck of a lot. (i.e. my 06 civic handled exceptionally well, but because of the weight of my rabbit, it feels more 'planted'.)

    So the doors on the 06 civic were warped when you closed them? Very strange, i actually think that the thud on my civic sedan sounded nicer than the one my rabbit currently produces!

    Don't want to argue until your blue in the face, but to say that you don't really care about the new ratings is a little ignorant.

    Perhaps she liked the jetta more for other reasons other than safety. Especailly if its a gli!! ;) The civic has done exceptionally well in new crash tests, they even came up with a new body structure to achieve it. 04 compared to the 06+ body style is just centuries apart man! Again i think that if you establish that you want a safe car, look into that first and then the rest comes up to personal preference; and since you guys went with the gli, its safe to say that it possessed many qualities that the civic did not, to make you want to purchase it.

    But safety can't be one of them. if you were shopping for an 01-05 civic, ok i'll give you that one, but if you ever had any safety concerns about the new civic, you should be just as worried about the jetta since they both achieved great ratings. (in all fairness, how safe do you think the 01-05 jetta was in comparison to the new ones? See my point? its a bit unfair.)

    I agree that there is no comparable feeling to a solidly built german car, but i do miss the light tossability of my civic.
  • erickplerickpl Member Posts: 2,735
    A lot of it boils down to that she just didn't want to be in a Honda again.

    The newer Civics are certainly different from the previous generation and probably warranted a look, and their styling is very polar (love em or hate em), but she just wouldn't go there or consider them. With her making the payments, she's the one who got to decide what she wanted. I was just there to point her at possibilities (and cosign).

    -Paul
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    For sure, it is her choice and from what I can gather, both your nickel (s). Since we have them side by side, in one sense we prefer them both. :) Just to get a sense of the IIHS actuarial take, get a side by side comparison as to your insurance costs. Something tells me, the Civic's have gotten in more accidents than Jetta's and the insurance price difference/s would probably reflect this. Let us know what you find and all the best!
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    A lot of it boils down to that she just didn't want to be in a Honda again

    i figured it was more this than acual consideration for crash test ratings; otherwise the civic would have been a strong contender for her.
  • tazerelitazereli Member Posts: 241
    that the side impact may have been a bit higher that IIHS tests side impact. More speed with its inherently more kinetic energy may very well shove the door in to the point of contacting the center console. if it was similar to IIHS's speed, then I'd be a little more worried. i feel pretty safe in my 98 civic when compared to similar cars of that vintage.
  • erickplerickpl Member Posts: 2,735
    Yeah, I think the IIHS impacts are at 40 MPH or less, but I am not sure on that.

    Her impact was in a 45 MPH zone, but cars routinely go 50-65 (and sometimes higher through there). I'm being conservative when I say she was probably hit at around 55 mph.

    -Paul
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I can almost see not wanting to be in that kind of car again after such a bad wreck, and I can't help but wonder if I'd feel the same way. Although, if she were hit and hurt like that in a VW, I wonder if she'd be looking at a Honda?

    It sounds more mental than practical (although VWs are very safe, heavy cars) that she would want a different kind of car.

    In 1995, my grandmother was hit at 55 MPH in the passenger side of her 1991 Civic DX. She had only bruises from her seatbelt and a bump on the head from hitting the window glass. The fact that it held up so well from a hit at that speed made her want ONLY a Honda after that. The car was totaled, but she walked away.

    I don't say this to talk about the Civic's integrity, because that is really hard to debate on these models that aren't made anymore. I say it, to say that it is a mental thing. "This car kept me safe so I won't buy anything else" is likely as common as "I got hurt in this car so I'll never buy it again," even if a different car may have gotten them much more injured. It's not logical, but it is how we as humans work. Not saying you or your daughter are wrong in any way, just trying to give a little outsider's perspective (and just one perspective, at that).
  • erickplerickpl Member Posts: 2,735
    I imagine your analysis is correct. If she gets popped in the VW, she may very well go down the "It saved me and that is all I'll drive" road or "I got hurt, so forget VW's entirely now" road.

    My dad was t-boned in 04 in a Mazda 626 (pre 6) and won't drive one again, even with side bags being available (his didn't have em).

    My wife had an accident in 05 where her car went airborne due to excessive speed (long story), she came down and went into a phone pole that had been converted to a fence post at probably something between 50-60 mph. She walked away with no scratches, a few bruises, a sore throat (from the airbag dust), and that's it. We put her in another one just like it.

    I think you hit the nail on head as to why she didn't want another Honda (or Acura) - it hurt her and didn't protect her as well as it could/should have.

    She called me a couple of hours ago after driving to and from school, saying how much she loves her new car. She just got it yesterday and is already outside washing it. :) Gotta love black. hehe

    BTW my 99si was black too. NEVER AGAIN even though black cars are darn nice looking for the 5 minutes they're clean after a wash.

    -Paul
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Black IS a NIGHTMARE to keep clean (and over the years shows scratches quite well), but looks darn good when it is shiny... like a Tuxedo on wheels. I tend to like cars that are colors (I have a red and a blue/gray one), so they aren't exactly easy to keep clean, as say a silver or gold car would be.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    You guys are making a good case for SUV's! :)
  • erickplerickpl Member Posts: 2,735
    Can you say Tourag (however you spell the darn thing), Q7, X5, X3, or Cayenne S? :)

    -Paul
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    So far two consumeables on the Honda are wearing 2x faster than on the Jetta: alignment and tires. Both cars were baselined at each respective dealer when new. I needed an alignment at app 42,000 miles with the Honda. Tires while very evenly worn, do not look like they will go past 55k. The Jetta so far with 89,000 miles has not needed an alignment and the tires will probably go 120k to 130k. The Jetta is run on the highways at higher sustained speeds than the Honda.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I'm a little confused, your Jetta is run on the highways more than the Honda?

    My 1996 Accord went 141k miles before ever having brake pads put on the car. I still have the orignal rear ones. It ran lots of highway miles.

    I'm curious if your Honda is run on the same route as the VW, your post almost makes it sound like it might be (the highway comment) or you may just drive it faster; I wasn't really clear on that.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Actually correct. It is the one that we use when we do longer trips and cross country. It has been R/T'd cross country.

    Yes the daily commute is EXACTLY the same route. During the RUSH HOUR commute, it is HARD (and actually dangerous to drive one faster or slower than another. So I apologize if that was not too clear.

    On the brakes for sure the rears will run 125k on the Jetta. I actually think the fronts will go at least that, but am prepared to do the rotor and pad change when and if needed, as the fronts do the majority of the braking.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Then it sounds to me like the Honda lives the more abused life. More cornering comes to your Honda (it ONLY does your city commute, whereas your Jetta gets to split that with long straight highway trips). Also, if your city is anything like Birmingham, AL where I live, the roads in town are much worse than those outside of town, bumpy and pothole filled vs. smooth 70 MPH interstates.

    So, with that stated, your post seems logical. The car getting more (abuse isn't a good word) stress will be wearing faster (the Honda). Highways are a velvet pillow for a car. They stay at optimum operating temperature, you don't stop and go, you don't use the brakes (much!), and you don't corner at all. You're Jetta gets all the treadmill time, while your Civic is doing the triathalon.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I would agree with you, except for the fact the Jetta has double the miles on the (same) commute than the Honda. We do take the Honda on highway trips, but shorter highway trips such as 1000 mile r/t. In that commute, the Civic is the gas guzzler with 38-42. The Jetta gets 48-51.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Sounds like the Honda is the ONLY gas guzzler in your family. TDI Jetta, eh? If the Civic averages 40 MPG at $2.20 a gallon, and the Jetta averages 49 MPG at $2.70 a gallon, it almost seems like a wash!

    If the Honda sees a higher percentage of city miles than the VW does (which is what I'm trying to figure out) then it still sort of makes sense to me.

    What kind of tires do you have on each, out of curiousity? I just realized I probably look like I'm grilling you. I'm not trying to be a pest, so send me an online *slap* if I need to stop! :)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    No not at all. Since I see them side by side, something that might seem totally logical and a no brainer would not be as apparent if someone else just owns one or the other. No attempt was made to equalize the tires, other than run what came OEM. GY LS, Dunlop on the other.

    Yes ULR is currently at 2.83 and diesel at 2.97. So the math would put fuel cost at 2.83/40=.07075 vs 2.97/49= .0606122. This would make the ULR 14.3% more per mile driven.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    In terms of lessons learned about the vehicles side by side, quite a few "commonly known" things about Honda and VW have been shown to be at the worst suspect and on a practical level reinforces the dictum "buyer beware." Indeed for the same miles driven (41,500) on both cars. The Honda is one alignment and 4 tires more expensive than the VW. This is of course with a look back with the VW as it has more than 2x the miles the Honda has currently. So if we put some dollar figures to those items, we are talking 60-100 for the alignment and (just to replace with the obviously short wearing) oem tires, app 300.

    While sort of unrelated, BUT REALLY RELATED, another issue would be what tires to replace the Dunlop OEM's with. If one is not careful, most selections lose mpg which would partially negate why one bought a economic/economy vehicle in the first place? However it is pretty obvious, they are not long wearing in my case. When you start to take this stuff out to 250,000 -300,000 miles the consequences of the decision just jump out at you. On the other side if one is a ricer, they are probably thinking geez, what a fogie.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    On the VW side, I am just as surprise as anyone (in the VW gearhead community) that the lowly rated and thought of oem GY LS tires seem to be going to 125,000 miles with no issues other than dead even across wear.
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    Even 55,000 miles on a set of OEM tires (or almost any tire for that matter)is a lot yet you say the tires on a Jetta you own is expected to go 120-130,000 miles. This on one (1) set of tires? I can honestly say that neither I nor anybody I know ever got anywhere near that and I would be happy if I got that "poor" 55K mile treadlife on ANY tire I ever bought regardless of price paid or brand or treadwear estimates. My tires wear evenly, I rotate religiously, keep correct air pressure, drive sanely, don't do burn-outs, but they just plain WEAR OUT!! How is it that some get 100+K miles on brake pads....100K miles on tires....50 mpg and so on? Am I doing something wrong? Am I buying the wrong brand? Do I believe everything I read on a website?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    How is it that some get 100+K miles on brake pads.

    It is quite simple, they were never really used for most of those miles. Before the car was handed down to me, it was driven 70 miles a day round trip on my grandmother's work commute, 31-32 miles or so of which was beltway-type interstate (I-459 in Birmingham, if you are familiar). 70 MPH speed limits, with very little traffic holdups. The car ran for 120,000 miles that way before I got it. She had them checked several times, because she just knew it would need them before then (she got the 1996 Accord only 2 years after changing where she worked - she has since retired), but they always told her approx. what percent of brake pad life was left, so she never had to get them done. That fell to me, at 141k miles. I still have the original rears, but want to get them at least looked at on my next oil change (I'm at 3,300 miles on this oil, so I'll go in very soon).

    The short answer for extending brake pad life?

    Don't use 'em! :P
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    Yeah but you gotta stop sometime. It just seems unreal since I change pads at about 30K intervals and do not live in a large city where there is more STOP than GO. Sure I stop at a few lights and stop signs every day but still... Anyhow,we always use the tires...round and round we go.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Yes ONE set (1). No alignment since the new car break in ( 12,000 or one year warranty) What this means in English is I drove it around for app 5,000 miles and brought it in to the local VW Dealer and ask them to check the alignment and give me a written result. I did the same with the Honda Civic.

    On the tires, we do geek out, (www.tdi.com) about the proper air pressure, but I will not bore you all with the discussion. Truly how I thought I had the wrong brand (GY) was on the discussion thread and as a result really thought I got the short end of the stick.

    I can't yet speak on either about the brake pads and rotors as I am not yet at 135,000 miles on either. As you all know it is VERY easy to check the remaining material on a disc brake. You can also feel when a rotor is warped. I can swag with a micrometer and a bit of shop manual research but....

    Both cars routinely see once or twice a month operation on the streets of San Francisco.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Yeah but you gotta stop sometime. It just seems unreal since I change pads at about 30K intervals and do not live in a large city where there is more STOP than GO.

    You have to remember, she drove about 60 miles (of 70) where she never had to apply the brakes (unless an unlikely traffic tie-up occurred). This meant that for over 80% of her driving, she never used the brakes more than occasionally. The other 20% is when most of the wear occurred. It isn't where she lived, it is how far her brake-less commute was versus the area where she DID have to use them. Between her house and her office, in my head, I'm counting four traffic lights and two stop signs; over 35 miles. She made a round trip, so 8 redlights and 4 stop signs a day, over 70 miles. Considering all of the lights fall in zones where the speeds should be under 40 MPH, it doesn't surprise me at all, nor does it make me think a different car of similar weight and driven similarly couldn't do the same thing.

    I've got 30k miles on my current front pads now, and they have been used a lot more than my grandmother used. Still plenty of life in them though, although not nearly as much as the original ones would have had at this stage. I drive 28 miles a day, with probably 15 lights, and 3 or 4 stop signs; only 14 miles of interstate in that 28 miles.

    We always use the tires, yes, but how do you use them? I think the current pattern is looking like I'll get about 65,000 miles from my OEM tires on my 2006 Accord (approximately 1/4th of tread above the "warning bars" has been used, and I have 17,000 miles on the car). If you drive in curves, do more turning, or drive more aggressive in general, tires, brakes, and gas will all be fleeting.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    "Am I buying the wrong brand?"

    On the Tires Tires Tires thread, there is very slow fishing for recommendations for the 185/70/14 sized tires. I had actually heard from a few Honda Civic folks (same model generation) the Dunlop wore very fast. Indeed Tire Rack has them rated something like 29th/30 tires. They are working hard over there at Dunlop to dominate last place. :) Perhaps in a couple years, they will stick it! :)

    Since I did this about 1.5 years ago, I bought the Toyo Spectrum? for this size and application (T rated) The indications are no loss in mpg and I think a 100,000 mile ?chance. I will report when I get them on, if folks are interested. I got Toyo's because I have some Toyo's (Proxes T1S's) and was impressed with the quality after 17k miles. They have way better rain performance than the more dry performance oriented GY Eagles that came standard with the Z06. They suffer a bit in the dry performance department but I have to say, I don't call on 1 g lateral performance too much. Plus when I take it cross country, I have inevitable run into rain, some snow, and that extra rain performance helps. An example would be: rain all the way from Las Vegas, NV to Grand Canyon, AZ. Yes, I thought that too: IT DOESN'T RAIN IN THE DESERT! :) Overnight snow storm in the Colorado Rockies.

    I wonder what other folks experiencs have been with Civic oem tires. One lesson in the side by side comparison would be to get the VW oem tires that fit the Civic. But neither Continental, Michelin nor GY have the oem tire that fits. I do know that Costco sells the Michelin DT, which is a model they sell to specific vendors and not for overall sale to the wider retail tire market.
Sign In or Register to comment.