Topic: First Drive: 2016 Honda Civic Sedan

[Autos_Editor]

All-new from the ground up, the 2016 Civic sedan raises the bar in almost every area ' but has it strayed too far from its economy car roots?
Read More...

[SKYMTL]

The more I look at it, the more it looks like a Crosstour with a facelift. 

I'm trying to understand that oversized rear quarter if there isn't a liftback. 

[JohnnyMac]

No mention on if they made it more queit than the last generation.  It's the main reason why my little sister crossed the 2015 Civic off her list.

I'm glad that Honda finally updated their powertrains and is offer a bit more performance.  I'm not sure I agree with the bottom two trim levels being geared more for comfort and top trim more for sport.  I'm just thinking someone who is getting the top trim is probably looking more for the comfort than the sport.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Though the Civic’s new engines now offer the most horsepower in their class, they also provide class-leading fuel economy, according to Honda. The 2.0L engine offers (l/100 km) ratings of 7.8 city/5.8 hwy/6.9 combined while the turbocharged 1.5T provides 7.6 city/5.5 hwy/6.7 combined. That compares to the 2015 Civic with 7.9/6.1/7.1. Interestingly, even the Civic’s new turbo engine offers slightly better fuel economy than some of its competitor’s naturally aspirated engines. The 2016 Toyota Corolla LE Eco, for example, has a combined rating of 6.8 L/100 km. Call me a cynic, but I’m skeptical that the Civic’s turbo engine can really offer that kind of fuel economy in the real world. It’s a subject that bears investigating in future test drives.

The recent comparison of the Jetta TSI vs. the Corolla showed that the 1.4 turbo mill in the Jetta was equal to the Corolla in fuel economy ratings, all while giving significantly more power.  Seeing as Honda's specialty is building really really really good engines, I think that if VW can do it, so can Honda.

I think it looks like a fantastic car.  It has all the features one would expect today (available adaptive cruise control in a compact car, anyone?), a bevy of fine engines, and styling to match.  I can't wait to go sit in one in person and see if the greater size actually translates to greater interior volume. 

[mixmanmash]

126mm (5") wider?   Something seems off with that figure.
Overall, I really like this new generation, but saddened by the lack of a manual transmission on the EX-T and Touring models.

[dougjp]

It seems like a real winner, however as with all first drives at manufacturer's promos, its best to wait for a full review. This ups the bar in the low(er) cost compact segment, and could easily attract family car size buyers, especially in Canada.

No CD....you think they could have put one in. My wife would cross the car off her list for that.

[valuator]

Wow, it's getting ridiculous how much car you can get for +/- $20k brand new these days.  It's not long ago we'd be calling this an Accord.  I was really impressed with a colleague's new Corolla S recently, but I'm more of a Honda guy and this looks to check all the right boxes for me.  Not in the market for a new car, but now that I have a short commute and the wife's vehicle is the primary family car, I'd have a hard time justifying any more can than one of these new Civics or Corollas.

[Noto]

The recent comparison of the Jetta TSI vs. the Corolla showed that the 1.4 turbo mill in the Jetta was equal to the Corolla in fuel economy ratings, all while giving significantly more power. 

Let me clarify this:
When I got into the Jetta, it was showing an average of 9.1L/100km.  Within the first 5 minutes of the drive, it was up to 13.7L/100km.  Feeling awful about myself, I then restrained myself and drove as carefully as possible, including driving at 100km/h on the highway stint.  The Corolla was more fun to "push"/drive hard, and hence the fuel economy jumped from 7.1L/100km to 7.5L/100km when I was in it.  The Jetta was then driven VERY conservatively and I got it down.

...but no matter how hard I pushed the Corolla, I never saw it go above 7.7L/100km.  The Jetta showed much higher #s, well into the teens, when I was enjoying it.  If anyone saw how grannylicious I drove the Jetta to get it back down into the 7s, my man-card would have been revoked by members of this forum.

That's not to say that the Jetta's 1.4T is piggish.  It's not.  It's just a turbo motor - your driving habits will matter far more than the type of transmission or other fuel savings measures it has.  This will be true of the Civic as well - the CVT will likely work wonders, but drive it like a 17 year old girl trying to get to a Bieber concert and it can use more fuel than an F-150.  YMWV.

I think it looks like a fantastic car.  It has all the features one would expect today (available adaptive cruise control in a compact car, anyone?), a bevy of fine engines, and styling to match.  I can't wait to go sit in one in person and see if the greater size actually translates to greater interior volume.

Note that the Impreza with EyeSight has adaptive cruise control in a compact car, WITH AWD.  With that being said, this Civic really is the appealing one - and it's a great age for competition.  You're correct - look at everything you get in a compelling package, STILL built in Ontario (for longer than 2020...facking Toyota  ). 

The Civic EX-T ($24,990) also adds the turbocharged engine.

...but then you get sh!t like this!  So $2,400 for the bloody turbo only in the -T trim?!  :|  I can't see many EX-Ts being sold.  The EX-CVT is going to be the sweet spot, with or without HondaSense.

The days of spending sub-$20,000 is gone.  Not because of $300 increases, which I don't have an issue with (though claiming it's "$1,800 in free stuff!" is bullsh!t marketing and is wholly misleading given that Honda is not 'losing' $1,800 per car on average, nor could you spend $1,800 and have it all installed on previous generations - the cost is not something that could be realized by consumers and therefore it is a fallacy). 

No, it's now that the base trims are so - well, as Greg puts it, "cheap" - that you are enticed to spend an extra $3,000-$4,000 to get the 'trim' you feel comfortable with.  As I said, the EX-CVT with HS is the sweet spot, yet it costs $24,590 - $5,000 more than the Corolla I'm driving around.  Do I get $5,000 worth of stuff?  HELL YEAH!  Is it worth it?  HELL YEAH!  ...but is the average transaction price not up $5,000?  yeah, it is

For those with restraint, that DX 6-MT is one helluva deal and dealers better stock them.

[Noto]

No CD....you think they could have put one in. My wife would cross the car off her list for that.

To be fair, your wife is in a massively small minority that still uses CDs.  Load up a USB stick for her with the capacity of 5,000 CDs for a trivial cost and all of a sudden, CDs are completely obsolete.



I remember in the 1997 Cavalier that we paid something like $800 to 'upgrade' so that it could have a CD player - and it broke 3 times (under warranty - when it broke a fourth time after about 6 years' of ownership, we stopped fixing it).

[Great_Big_Abyss]

The recent comparison of the Jetta TSI vs. the Corolla showed that the 1.4 turbo mill in the Jetta was equal to the Corolla in fuel economy ratings, all while giving significantly more power. 

Let me clarify this:
When I got into the Jetta, it was showing an average of 9.1L/100km.  Within the first 5 minutes of the drive, it was up to 13.7L/100km.  Feeling awful about myself, I then restrained myself and drove as carefully as possible, including driving at 100km/h on the highway stint.  The Corolla was more fun to "push"/drive hard, and hence the fuel economy jumped from 7.1L/100km to 7.5L/100km when I was in it.  The Jetta was then driven VERY conservatively and I got it down.

...but no matter how hard I pushed the Corolla, I never saw it go above 7.7L/100km.  The Jetta showed much higher #s, well into the teens, when I was enjoying it.  If anyone saw how grannylicious I drove the Jetta to get it back down into the 7s, my man-card would have been revoked by members of this forum.

That's not to say that the Jetta's 1.4T is piggish.  It's not.  It's just a turbo motor - your driving habits will matter far more than the type of transmission or other fuel savings measures it has.  This will be true of the Civic as well - the CVT will likely work wonders, but drive it like a 17 year old girl trying to get to a Bieber concert and it can use more fuel than an F-150.  YMWV.

Well, yeah, that's the idea behind a turbo motor, right?  If you want to put your foot into it, you get the power (and consumption) of a much larger engine.  But drive it like a granny, and it rewards you with consumption befitting a smaller engine.  Given that in this first drive Greg indicated that torque started at about 1800rpm, and there was some turbo lag until about 2000rpm, I would guess that the turbo starts to produce boost at 1800-2000rpm.  If you can drive around town keeping RPMS' lower than 2000rpm, you'll be off boost almost entirely, and will thusly be rewarded with tremendous mileage.  These aren't facts, though, just conjecturing.  And yeah, driving around under 2000rpm is granny driving.  I do it all the time in the Altima, and am rewarded with 7.1 L/100km in the city.  From a 2.5!!!  It's actually quite easy to do with a CVT.

I think it looks like a fantastic car.  It has all the features one would expect today (available adaptive cruise control in a compact car, anyone?), a bevy of fine engines, and styling to match.  I can't wait to go sit in one in person and see if the greater size actually translates to greater interior volume.

Note that the Impreza with EyeSight has adaptive cruise control in a compact car, WITH AWD.  With that being said, this Civic really is the appealing one - and it's a great age for competition.  You're correct - look at everything you get in a compelling package, STILL built in Ontario (for longer than 2020...facking Toyota  ). 

The Civic EX-T ($24,990) also adds the turbocharged engine.

...but then you get sh!t like this!  So $2,400 for the bloody turbo only in the -T trim?!  :|  I can't see many EX-Ts being sold.  The EX-CVT is going to be the sweet spot, with or without HondaSense.

The days of spending sub-$20,000 is gone.  Not because of $300 increases, which I don't have an issue with (though claiming it's "$1,800 in free stuff!" is bullsh!t marketing and is wholly misleading given that Honda is not 'losing' $1,800 per car on average, nor could you spend $1,800 and have it all installed on previous generations - the cost is not something that could be realized by consumers and therefore it is a fallacy). 

No, it's now that the base trims are so - well, as Greg puts it, "cheap" - that you are enticed to spend an extra $3,000-$4,000 to get the 'trim' you feel comfortable with.  As I said, the EX-CVT with HS is the sweet spot, yet it costs $24,590 - $5,000 more than the Corolla I'm driving around.  Do I get $5,000 worth of stuff?  HELL YEAH!  Is it worth it?  HELL YEAH!  ...but is the average transaction price not up $5,000?  yeah, it is

Price creep (inflation) is a reality in any market, for any product, all the time.  It's the reason why you can't buy a house for $50 000 anymore, or a new car for $4000.

That being said, $24,990 for the EX-T isn't that bad of a deal.  I bought my Civic SI new in 2008 for $27000.  I would argue that this EX-T EASILY betters the generation of SI that I had.  Really the only thing that my SI had going for it was it's fantastic 2.0L K20 engine which revved to an 8100rpm redline.  While this turbocharged mill may not match the excitement of that K20, I'm confident that performance numbers will be similar (less power, but more torque).  Now, keep in mind that the SI didn't really have any technology.  Its upgraded sound system only meant 350W, 6 speakers + sub, and an AUX jack.  It didn't have automatic climate control, push button start, heated seats, available NAV, or leather.  You certainly couldn't get BLIS or adaptive cruise control.  I think that with this EX-T, you're getting a WHOLE lot more car for LESS money than you could 7 years ago.   

For those with restraint, that DX 6-MT is one helluva deal and dealers better stock them.

Well, given that I've seen lots of people driving around in base model Valu-Civics, it seems like Honda has a habit of building them, which means dealers must be stocking them.  I'm sure it will be no different with this new gen.

[dougjp]

No CD....you think they could have put one in. My wife would cross the car off her list for that.

To be fair, your wife is in a massively small minority that still uses CDs.  Load up a USB stick for her with the capacity of 5,000 CDs for a trivial cost and all of a sudden, CDs are completely obsolete.



I remember in the 1997 Cavalier that we paid something like $800 to 'upgrade' so that it could have a CD player - and it broke 3 times (under warranty - when it broke a fourth time after about 6 years' of ownership, we stopped fixing it).

He he, yep, a stick is the only music source I use in my car.......but you don't know my wife! 

[Great_Big_Abyss]

No CD....you think they could have put one in. My wife would cross the car off her list for that.

To be fair, your wife is in a massively small minority that still uses CDs.  Load up a USB stick for her with the capacity of 5,000 CDs for a trivial cost and all of a sudden, CDs are completely obsolete.



I remember in the 1997 Cavalier that we paid something like $800 to 'upgrade' so that it could have a CD player - and it broke 3 times (under warranty - when it broke a fourth time after about 6 years' of ownership, we stopped fixing it).

He he, yep, a stick is the only music source I use in my car.......but you don't know my wife! 

The 6-disc In-Dash CD Changer in my mom's Pathfinder LE stopped working a month before she got rid of it.  Her new Discovery doesn't have a CD slot at all.  Our Altima has one, but we haven't used it in the year-and-a-half that we've owned the car.

People need to get with the times.  Expecting a CD player in a modern car is like expecting a tape deck in a car from 2000.

[greengs]

I have both a Toyota and a Honda so not really a fanboy of either brand but I don't see how Toyota can compete with the Corolla now.  They have to be working on something asap.  For under 25k cars are getting better every year and it's amazing the tech that's going into these cars. 

One thing I had a question about is the article mentions the hatch and CTR will be built in England?  Is that from Honda Canada?  I've read multiple times that our CTR will be based on the sedan and will be North American version only built here to keep the costs low(er).

[greengs]

The recent comparison of the Jetta TSI vs. the Corolla showed that the 1.4 turbo mill in the Jetta was equal to the Corolla in fuel economy ratings, all while giving significantly more power. 

Let me clarify this:
When I got into the Jetta, it was showing an average of 9.1L/100km.  Within the first 5 minutes of the drive, it was up to 13.7L/100km.  Feeling awful about myself, I then restrained myself and drove as carefully as possible, including driving at 100km/h on the highway stint.  The Corolla was more fun to "push"/drive hard, and hence the fuel economy jumped from 7.1L/100km to 7.5L/100km when I was in it.  The Jetta was then driven VERY conservatively and I got it down.

...but no matter how hard I pushed the Corolla, I never saw it go above 7.7L/100km.  The Jetta showed much higher #s, well into the teens, when I was enjoying it.  If anyone saw how grannylicious I drove the Jetta to get it back down into the 7s, my man-card would have been revoked by members of this forum.

That's not to say that the Jetta's 1.4T is piggish.  It's not.  It's just a turbo motor - your driving habits will matter far more than the type of transmission or other fuel savings measures it has.  This will be true of the Civic as well - the CVT will likely work wonders, but drive it like a 17 year old girl trying to get to a Bieber concert and it can use more fuel than an F-150.  YMWV.

I think it looks like a fantastic car.  It has all the features one would expect today (available adaptive cruise control in a compact car, anyone?), a bevy of fine engines, and styling to match.  I can't wait to go sit in one in person and see if the greater size actually translates to greater interior volume.

Note that the Impreza with EyeSight has adaptive cruise control in a compact car, WITH AWD.  With that being said, this Civic really is the appealing one - and it's a great age for competition.  You're correct - look at everything you get in a compelling package, STILL built in Ontario (for longer than 2020...facking Toyota  ). 

The Civic EX-T ($24,990) also adds the turbocharged engine.

...but then you get sh!t like this!  So $2,400 for the bloody turbo only in the -T trim?!  :|  I can't see many EX-Ts being sold.  The EX-CVT is going to be the sweet spot, with or without HondaSense.

The days of spending sub-$20,000 is gone.  Not because of $300 increases, which I don't have an issue with (though claiming it's "$1,800 in free stuff!" is bullsh!t marketing and is wholly misleading given that Honda is not 'losing' $1,800 per car on average, nor could you spend $1,800 and have it all installed on previous generations - the cost is not something that could be realized by consumers and therefore it is a fallacy). 

No, it's now that the base trims are so - well, as Greg puts it, "cheap" - that you are enticed to spend an extra $3,000-$4,000 to get the 'trim' you feel comfortable with.  As I said, the EX-CVT with HS is the sweet spot, yet it costs $24,590 - $5,000 more than the Corolla I'm driving around.  Do I get $5,000 worth of stuff?  HELL YEAH!  Is it worth it?  HELL YEAH!  ...but is the average transaction price not up $5,000?  yeah, it is

For those with restraint, that DX 6-MT is one helluva deal and dealers better stock them.

I think the price list at the end is confusing.  To go from EX 2.0 CVT to EX-T CVT I think is only $1,400 not $2,400. 

[JRM]

While the interior is 100% better looking and the engine upgrades sound fantastic, that over styled front end looks ridiculous, as does the high ended fast back design.  I had hoped Honda learned something from the Crosstour styling.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

While the interior is 100% better looking and the engine upgrades sound fantastic, that over styled front end looks ridiculous, as does the high ended fast back design.  I had hoped Honda learned something from the Crosstour styling.

It's in keeping with the design language apparent on their new Accord and Pilot...

[carcrazed]

While the interior is 100% better looking and the engine upgrades sound fantastic, that over styled front end looks ridiculous, as does the high ended fast back design.  I had hoped Honda learned something from the Crosstour styling.

I agree about the over-styled front end.  I don't mind the high ended rear if it means more trunk space.

The chrome bits in the front stand out too much in darker coloured cars.  I'd assume that it would look better with a white or silver colour.

[greengs]

The turbo seems pretty fast.  There's a review on C&D showing its 1/4 speed is the same as Focus ST (94mph)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-honda-civic-sedan-15l-turbo-test-review
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-focus-st-instrumented-test-review

[Noto]

I think the price list at the end is confusing.  To go from EX 2.0 CVT to EX-T CVT I think is only $1,400 not $2,400.

$1,400 would be reasonable, but $2,400 is not.  Whichever the case (i.e. whatever the actual pricing is), <<< there's my opinion.

[mixmanmash]

The recent comparison of the Jetta TSI vs. the Corolla showed that the 1.4 turbo mill in the Jetta was equal to the Corolla in fuel economy ratings, all while giving significantly more power. 

Let me clarify this:
When I got into the Jetta, it was showing an average of 9.1L/100km.  Within the first 5 minutes of the drive, it was up to 13.7L/100km.  Feeling awful about myself, I then restrained myself and drove as carefully as possible, including driving at 100km/h on the highway stint.  The Corolla was more fun to "push"/drive hard, and hence the fuel economy jumped from 7.1L/100km to 7.5L/100km when I was in it.  The Jetta was then driven VERY conservatively and I got it down.

...but no matter how hard I pushed the Corolla, I never saw it go above 7.7L/100km.  The Jetta showed much higher #s, well into the teens, when I was enjoying it.  If anyone saw how grannylicious I drove the Jetta to get it back down into the 7s, my man-card would have been revoked by members of this forum.

That's not to say that the Jetta's 1.4T is piggish.  It's not.  It's just a turbo motor - your driving habits will matter far more than the type of transmission or other fuel savings measures it has.  This will be true of the Civic as well - the CVT will likely work wonders, but drive it like a 17 year old girl trying to get to a Bieber concert and it can use more fuel than an F-150.  YMWV.

Well, yeah, that's the idea behind a turbo motor, right?  If you want to put your foot into it, you get the power (and consumption) of a much larger engine.  But drive it like a granny, and it rewards you with consumption befitting a smaller engine.  Given that in this first drive Greg indicated that torque started at about 1800rpm, and there was some turbo lag until about 2000rpm, I would guess that the turbo starts to produce boost at 1800-2000rpm.  If you can drive around town keeping RPMS' lower than 2000rpm, you'll be off boost almost entirely, and will thusly be rewarded with tremendous mileage.  These aren't facts, though, just conjecturing.  And yeah, driving around under 2000rpm is granny driving.  I do it all the time in the Altima, and am rewarded with 7.1 L/100km in the city.  From a 2.5!!!  It's actually quite easy to do with a CVT.

I think it looks like a fantastic car.  It has all the features one would expect today (available adaptive cruise control in a compact car, anyone?), a bevy of fine engines, and styling to match.  I can't wait to go sit in one in person and see if the greater size actually translates to greater interior volume.

Note that the Impreza with EyeSight has adaptive cruise control in a compact car, WITH AWD.  With that being said, this Civic really is the appealing one - and it's a great age for competition.  You're correct - look at everything you get in a compelling package, STILL built in Ontario (for longer than 2020...facking Toyota  ). 

The Civic EX-T ($24,990) also adds the turbocharged engine.

...but then you get sh!t like this!  So $2,400 for the bloody turbo only in the -T trim?!  :|  I can't see many EX-Ts being sold.  The EX-CVT is going to be the sweet spot, with or without HondaSense.

The days of spending sub-$20,000 is gone.  Not because of $300 increases, which I don't have an issue with (though claiming it's "$1,800 in free stuff!" is bullsh!t marketing and is wholly misleading given that Honda is not 'losing' $1,800 per car on average, nor could you spend $1,800 and have it all installed on previous generations - the cost is not something that could be realized by consumers and therefore it is a fallacy). 

No, it's now that the base trims are so - well, as Greg puts it, "cheap" - that you are enticed to spend an extra $3,000-$4,000 to get the 'trim' you feel comfortable with.  As I said, the EX-CVT with HS is the sweet spot, yet it costs $24,590 - $5,000 more than the Corolla I'm driving around.  Do I get $5,000 worth of stuff?  HELL YEAH!  Is it worth it?  HELL YEAH!  ...but is the average transaction price not up $5,000?  yeah, it is

You can keep it off boost at higher RPMs.  Just don't put your foot into it.  Boost is a function of how much you put your foot into it.

For those with restraint, that DX 6-MT is one helluva deal and dealers better stock them.

Well, given that I've seen lots of people driving around in base model Valu-Civics, it seems like Honda has a habit of building them, which means dealers must be stocking them.  I'm sure it will be no different with this new gen.