Honda Civic 8th Gen soooo disappointed

[Dogbreath]

So, you bought a 1.8 petrol, can't be bothered to rev it and don't understand why a turbo-diesel has more mid-range grunt and better economy. Sound about right?

Almost certainly.

 

[Uriel]

This.

Does the 8th Gen have an eco setting? Thought it appeared on 9th.

I've driven 9th in 1.8 and found it quite acceptable. That's with Eco turned off.

My 2010 Insight has an Eco button and it drains the car of any semblance of life. If I'd only driven it in Eco mode I'd have never have bought it. What's more if you have a moderately steady right foot the Eco button brings no benefit to fuel economy. All my best tanks for mpg have been in Normal mode and the car feels so much better to drive.

 

[sigma]

Ah, I stupidly thought that there were only 8 Gens. I've not driven an 8th gen, my comment was about the 9th.

I drove the car without it engaged then next time I drove it, it was on. I was thinking WTF, then I realised it was on so I turned it off and it was back to normal. The difference is night and day.

 

[delta0]

If you are used to a diesel where you can rag it without feeling like you are ragging it I.e. without having to rev it then a non-turbo petrol is going to feel very different.

 

[Dogbreath]

I cant believe the fact that for a 140BHP engine I am outstripped by nearly every car on the road even setting off I am into 3-4k revs before I am at 15mph if I have more than one person in the car then getting up hills (lots of them where I live) is major struggle its like the car is stuck in treacle.

If the RPM required to reach 15mph in a particular gear increases if there are more people in the car, then the clutch is slipping (or you are mistaken). Could explain the lack of performance.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

Assuming it is indeed the 1.8 140ps engine, that thing is a VTEC engine and as such, will need revving to get the power out of.

Did you not test drive it? I took out a 160ps 2.0 VTEC and whilst it was an okay car and engine, the power delivery just didn't suit me. It did feel utterly gutless below about 6K.

It's not quite the same, Vtec engages a very low cam opening and opens the throttle to full to reduce pumping losses. This is why is a good engine for motorway etc for its power output. The high load cam means it's not really any different to a focus/Astra etc engine

 

[-Mike-]

 

[itchy]

I love our civic 2007 1.8 30 to 40mpg around local speed bump roads and I have seen the speedo reach 130mph.

0-60 is 8.6 sec on 1.8 VTEC.

Problem the cost of parts is bloody scandalous, our air con compressor is making a a mad noise.
Cost from honda to replace £800 ?????

I love honda cars but unless you getting a new one every few years the parts price is crazy!

 

[lemonade]

I love our civic 2007 1.8 30 to 40mpg around local speed bump roads and I have seen the speedo reach 130mph.

0-60 is 8.6 sec on 1.8 VTEC.

Problem the cost of parts is bloody scandalous, our air con compressor is making a a mad noise.
Cost from honda to replace £800 ?????

I love honda cars but unless you getting a new one every few years the parts price is crazy!

There not really, try buying a brand new genuine part from another dealer of another brand and it will be round about the same price range.

 

[rodenal]

There not really, try buying a brand new genuine part from another dealer of another brand and it will be round about the same price range.

I can't really agree with that.

There are some really quite bizarre parts that are borderline cheap from Honda - Non xenon headlight housing for example for the fn2 was only about £64 iirc.

BUT they tend to be borderline scandalous (asking) price for the class on servicing and common failure items. I've always managed to get a discount just by asking but many people aren't comfortable doing so...for whatever reason.


I've just bought 2 front shocks (sachs), a full set of eibach springs, camber bolts and drop links for circa £300

2 shocks and springs from Honda along with drop links were £450 alone I'd be willing to bet a set of front shocks, springs and drop links from Ford would be nearer half that

 

[lemonade]

I can't really agree with that.

There are some really quite bizarre parts that are borderline cheap from Honda - Non xenon headlight housing for example for the fn2 was only about £64 iirc.

BUT they tend to be borderline scandalous (asking) price for the class on servicing and common failure items. I've always managed to get a discount just by asking but many people aren't comfortable doing so...for whatever reason.


I've just bought 2 front shocks (sachs), a full set of eibach springs, camber bolts and drop links for circa £300

2 shocks and springs from Honda along with drop links were £450 alone I'd be willing to bet a set of front shocks, springs and drop links from Ford would be nearer half that

Ford, Vauxhall etc will be a lot cheaper, because they generally are less quality or more basic from my own experience, but take the ac compressor for example, they are around £600 or so brand new from VW. Some parts are inevitably going to be expensive, an o2 sensor costs nearly £200 from Honda, you can get the same part from Denso for less than half from aftermarket stores.

There's a lot of other factors involved too, but generally speaking my Accord I find very cheap to run, have bought a lot of parts from Honda and never cost a bomb, but nothing major has gone wrong with my car yet!

 

[rodenal]

I dunno, most manufacturers use Sachs shocks for example, denso o2 sensors, bosch mafs, etc etc - they aren't going to be any better or worse whether they're on a civic or an astra.

Stuff tends to break less, but tends to be more expensive when it does go in my experience. They need pushed hard on servicing costs too.

I don't honestly think you can compare Honda with Audi/VW in terms of market spot regardless of what Honda themselves think (biggest mistake they've made recently is pricing of their new models). They're in the mix with Ford, vauxhall, Skoda, Seat, renault etc etc.

It was more understandable when the Yen was very strong and their cars weren't assembled in the uk!

 

[Uriel]

This was taken from Warranty Direct's data on engine failure rates for cars they cover:

Manufacturer, Failure Rate (%), Failure Rate (1 in x),
Honda, 0.29%, 1 in 344
Toyota, 0.58%, 1 in 171,
Mercedes-Benz, 0.84%, 1 in 119,
Ford, 1.25%, 1 in 80,
Audi , 3.71%, 1 in 27,

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/mi...nd-toyota-top-the-engine-reliability-ratings/

There seems to be quite a gulf in quality between Honda and everyone else.

Edit: Similar article on suspension components puts Honda in the top 3 (maybe first - it's not clear). http://www.cararticles.co.uk/uk-a-third-of-cars-need-suspension-fixes-every-year.html

 

[rodenal]

Reliability and quality of component parts are two different things.

The same components could be put together in different ways by different companies and the resultant product would differ.

I agree Hondas typically tend to suffer less in the way of failure (or at least major failure). I strongly disagree this should make the same components more expensive to buy from them. I also strongly disagree that a modern Honda is a "quality" product, at least anything under the Accord in the range.

It will be all down to throughput ultimately - if they sell less units they will be far less inclined to produce/procure replacements at a lower cost and accordingly selling price

 

[Uriel]

I work in a (Civil) engineering company, but terminology with other types of engineering is sometimes similar. I think what you refer to as 'quality' we would fefer to as 'grade'. We use 'quality' in terms of meeting a mimumum standard. Grade relates more tio being a premium product.

Using this terminology, the Accord range would be high grade product, made to a similar level of quality to other Honda models. It would also suggest that Honda uniformly have a higher degree of quality to anything made by say - Audi (except perhaps paintwork).

I accept that isn't how most people refer to quality though.

Edit: this is an example explaining grade vs quality http://www.nowfoods.com/Quality/Do-Supplements-Work/M084364.htm

 

[rodenal]

Bit of both really.

Like i've mentioned before, many car manufacturers use (near) identical products from the likes of Sachs, denso, bosch etc etc - it's how these components are integrated & tested as a complete unit along with silly things like location/exposure to certain elements that will make the difference.

Hence it's not neccesarily the component quality but the attention to detail and its use in manufacture plus amount of testing done that tends to make the overall product a more reliable one.

We aren't talking military grade or completely bespoke materials & components here in the most part.

 

[lemonade]

Reliability and quality of component parts are two different things.

The same components could be put together in different ways by different companies and the resultant product would differ.

I agree Hondas typically tend to suffer less in the way of failure (or at least major failure). I strongly disagree this should make the same components more expensive to buy from them. I also strongly disagree that a modern Honda is a "quality" product, at least anything under the Accord in the range.

It will be all down to throughput ultimately - if they sell less units they will be far less inclined to produce/procure replacements at a lower cost and accordingly selling price

Reliability and quality ultimately go hand in hand. if you use poor quality materials for your part then it's not going to last very long. I assume when you refer to "quality" you are referring to cabin material and how its put together?

Honda for example before used to have a direct one to one relationship with vendors they used to buy parts from to use on their cars or have them bespoke made, it's one reason why they were so reliable, they were all thoroughly vetted by Honda first, case in point in the Takata airbag fiasco, if you know the background of it and when Honda stopped having intimate relationship with partner vendors.

I would happily pay more for a part if it meant it is better quality and lasts longer, but of course that won't be the reason why some parts are expensive.

 

[rodenal]

Quality and reliability are obviously related. But buying quality components does not a reliable product make, there are many more factors. I spend much of my working life dealing with the aftermath of failure of very high quality, high value, bespoke items that have been integrated poorly or just not designed for the environment they end up living in.

Anyway, this is going round in circles - there is no good reason parts that are mass manufactured and sold on to honda should be more expensive than the same parts sold by other car manufacturers. Bespoke products manufactured in Japan or the likes I can understand

I'm double using the word quality I guess. On a component level I mean tangible quality in terms of manufacturing standard. On a product (car) level I mean both tangible (rattles, squeaks, panel gaps, paint quality, how well trim is screwed together ) and intangible i.e percieved interior or overall product quality and market position.

Honda are/were quite clearly positioned ahead of most manufacturers on a reliability front and I guess therefore longevity front, but for me are/were quite clearly on a Ford/Vauxhall level with regards to product use "quality".

 

[Uriel]

Are Honda really that expensive? Just on pricing -servicing of my 2010 Insight has worked out cheaper than my previous 2 cars - a Skoda Fabia and an Octavia.

The Honda has been serviced at main dealers. The Skodas were done at independents (I started main dealer servicing with the Fabia but moved away because of price).

My last Honda main dealer service & MOT was cheaper than my wife's Chevrolet Aveo having pretty much the same thing done at an independent.

 

[rodenal]

I find their haggled servicing price ok, but the asking price for a 75k service on the FN2 for example is too much (£500 for filters, gearbox oil and clearance checks)