Am I making the right decision in getting a Civic?
 

Hi,

Well, I've been researching what car I'll be getting in a few weeks and I've come to a decision. For the longest time I was going to get a Geo or Chevy Metro, but after doing lots of research I've decided I'll be getting a 2001 or 2002 Honda Civic hatchback with an automatic transmission.

Here are the things I want in my next car:
-Safety: The Civic is safer than the Metro.
-Automatic Transmission: Both cars have automatic versions.
-Very Fuel Efficient: The Civic is more fuel efficient than the Metro, according to the EPA. (2001 & 2002 Civic hatchback = 30 city / 36 hwy, 1996-2001 Geo/Chevy Metro = 26 city / 31 hwy)
-Very Inexpensive: The Metro is less expensive than the Civic. This is the only thing I can see as a negative about the Civic, but one bonus will be that the Civic will have a higher resale value than the Metro if I ever decide to resell the Civic.
-Able to carry 4 occupants: Both cars can carry 4 occupants, but the Civic has more interior space than the Metro.
-Must be made after 1996 so a ScanGauge can be used with it.
-Must be a hatchback for work related reasons. Both the Civic and Metro had hatchback models.
-Must be familiar to mechanics if it ever needs to be worked on: The Civic has more mechanics that are familiar with it than the Metro, I assume.
-Must have good availability of parts if any repairs are needed: The Civic has more parts than the Metro, I assume.
-Must have good availability of aftermarket parts for modifications: The Civic has more aftermarket parts than the Metro, I assume.
-Must cost very little to insure: The Civic will cost less for me to insure than the Metro.

I've also owned two Civics in the past so it'll be like an old friend.

Am I missing anything here? What do you think?
Thanks
Wayneburg

I would try to get a manual if possible.

But yeah of course Civics are better then Metros.

Physical issues with getting a manual. :( Man I would love one though.

Then the Civic is an even better decision. I feel unsafe trying to merge onto the freeway with my Metro and its a Manual, I cant imagine how much worse it is with an auto. I driven Auto Civics. They arent barn burners but they get onto the freeway confidently enough and that alone is worth it I think.

I am a little biased because I really like the metros (first and second cars were metros) there is also one other factor but if you are worried about safety then it isn't much of one. the metro came with a 3cyl option which means that you could get 50mpg (that was on the 5 spd and it may vary by year) your power was next to nothing but that goes with the territiory.

that being said, I think the civic is actually a little better. you will pay more for it but it will go longer and like you said, if you ever have to sell it, your money will come back to you. for over all fuel efficiency and longevity, I would go with the honda.

there is still something about those little egg shaped cars (metros) that just makes me grin. yea, I'm weird

Drive the generation you're thinking of buying... I hated the '05, very, very poor visibility for me, limited rear visibility, head was level with the side pillars, and felt like I was way too low down to see very far up the road. This was with being 6'1" and after adjusting the seat to get me behind the wheel, felt like I was nearly laying down. Felt very vulnerable from lack of visibility. Also found the ride overly harsh, and the engine seemed likewise. It was kinda like being dragged down the road in a 55 gallon barrel with slits for windows...

Now I'm used to economy cars, I'll put up with harshness to gain responsiveness and efficiency... it just didn't seem like a good compromise in that generation of civic.

I have ridden in earlier civics I thought were a lot better. I wouldn't buy one on the used market around here though due to several factors, high price for relatively well abused examples mean they actually represent poor value for a "run it into the ground, CPR it and run it into the ground some more" car shopper, and that they have a high theft rate, and draw too much police attention round here also. Reliability reputations cut no ice with me after 10-12 years and 150,000 miles they have the same alternator and starter brands in as some other cars, suspension rubbers etc aren't immortal.. basically everything starts dying off just the same as on any other vehicle.

If you can find one cheap with low miles from the mythical little old lady in Pasadena then go for it if you like it, if not, look for better value elsewhere. (Hint, tuners don't seem to like Echos/Yarises)

All IMO, YMMV etc.

Road Warrior

your missing: civics are easier to fix and if you run to any problems, honda-tech.com has alot of info and help needed.

parts are also cheaper and are everywhere since lots of people go for swaps and leave the D series at their garage

You must not live in the US...I'm almost 100% sure that the USDM Civic did not have a hatchback model in 2001 and the 2002 was only available in Si trim with manual transmission only...

Wow you're right. It came in a coupe. I don't know why I thought it was a hatchback. Oh well. I'll still be getting one.

That's a concern I share with the civic where I live. I'm in an area where the local gang bangers like to customize these cars. But, I plan to do some things to my car that will be very "Un-gang banger-like." I'm considering putting a boat tail on it. I'll probably get pulled over for having a foreign object projecting out of the rear of my car. :rolleyes:


Speaking of things under the hood...

Does anyone know if the alternator in a 2001 or 02 civic constantly runs? Can it be disabled or can its belt be isolated from the engine while the alternator is not in use? I don't want the alternator to constantly be adding to the engine's mechanical workload if the battery is charged.

Can an integrated starter alternator be installed on a 2001 or 02 civic?

I assume the radiator fan is electric. Does it run constantly and can it be hooked up to a thermostat? I don't want the fan to constantly be draining the battery if the engine doesn't need cooling.

Are the air conditioner and the heater one unit in the 2001 and 02 civic? I want to remove the heater because I don't need it since I live in the desert south west.

Where is the air conditioner located? I'd like to locate it somewhere else in the car if it is located in the engine compartment. The engine compartment gets hot. I makes no sense to put the air conditioner in there.

You are also getting a lot more for your money buying a Civic. you are getting a fun to drive, reliable and stylish automobile with good ergonomics and overall very solid design.

Get an HX.



Honda alternators are pulse-width-modulated and have been since 1988 and possibly earlier. What this means is that the alternator is controlled by the ECU to output power on demand. This is one of the features that makes Japanese cars better than domestics.

I don't know what that is. I hope you're not talking about how the starter is integrated into the electric motor on a hybrid.

Whoa buddy you need to catch up with the times. I don't know of any crank driven fans (except on trucks) since the late eighties. The electric fan is indeed controlled by the ECU to turn on only when the coolant passes a certain temp. This generally only happens at idle or in stop and go traffic.

The heater consists of a coolant/air heat exchanger mounted in a box that is downstream of your blower. You really don't want to remove this. There's no mpg gain from removing it, and it can be quite complicated re-routing or looping the coolant lines. It's a good thing to have in case your car begins to overheat.

The blower itself and all the ducting can be removed for a small yet significant weight reduction, but I wouldn't recommend this if you ever want to sell the car someday. It's going to be a lot of work to remove the dash and pull all the components. You'll have to eliminate the AC. Truth be told you'd be lucky to pick up 1 mpg but the value of the car will plummet. Some parts of the AC system are difficult to remove without damaging them. And you'll have to pay to have the AC system drained and recycled (about $40 or maybe free if they're nice).

The air conditioning is a large system that has components mounted on the engine, in the engine bay, and under the dash. You can't relocate any of this and for much of it there would be no benefit as you are assuming. The A/C pump is driven by a belt off the crank pulley. The A/C radiator (not the technical term) and fan are in front of your coolant radiator and can't be moved for obvious reasons. Various lines are routed through the engine bay but these do not soak up heat. In some places these lines are insulated. Under the dash in your air ducting attached to the blower motor is the condensor. This is the part of the A/C that actually cools the air.

"Under the dash in your air ducting attached to the blower motor is the condensor"

I think you gave him very good advice, but one minor correction: that's the evaporator. The condenser is the part that looks like a radiator, and is either in front of or beside the radiator.

I say a Civic is a great decision...over 70 degrees or longer distance, I get 40-42 mpg which is pretty decent. Just wish there was a 5th gear on the autos.

I would go with a 5spd civic, but try to find (or at least test-drive and look into) a VX or HX. The gas mileage savings will outweigh other things in the end.

Good luck.

he can't.

it's very unlikely he'll find a near stock VX or HX. they are so rare now it's likely going to require a cross-country drive to get it or he'll have to pay a lot more than it's "worth". other trim civic's get great mileage, even automatics. as we all know, it's easy to attain +30% epa estimates in driving style alone.

Well, now that I've been told the Civic HX was never a hatchback, I've had to do a little more research. So I'm going to go with the 1997 Civic hatchback which got 29 MPG city / 35 MPG hwy.

Well, actually I'll go for any of these cars in the order they are listed:
1997 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.6 L 29 city / 35 hwy
2004 Scion xA Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.5 L 27 city / 34 hwy
2002 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.7 L 29 city / 35 hwy
2003 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.7 L 29 city / 34 hwy
2003 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.7 L 29 V-Tec 26 city / 34 hwy
1996 Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.3 L 26 city / 31 hwy
1997 Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.3 L 26 city / 31 hwy
1998 Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.3 L 26 city / 31 hwy
1999 Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.3 L 26 city / 31 hwy
2000 Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.3 L 26 city / 31 hwy
2001 Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.3 L 26 city / 31 hwy
2003 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.7 L 25 city / 34 hwy
1996 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.6 L 25 city / 33 hwy
1998 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.6 L 25 city / 33 hwy
1999 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.6 L 25 city / 33 hwy
2003 Toyota Celica Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.8 L 25 city / 33 hwy
2000 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.6 L 25 city / 32 hwy
2002 Toyota Celica Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.8 L 25 city / 32 hwy
1996 Ford Aspire Hatchback Automatic 4cyl, 1.3 L 25 city / 31 hwy

Ford Escorts 1.9L automatics are worth a look also, they are easy to get into the 30s in with the auto. When I got mine all tuned up and dialled in, I'd have to pound the crap out of it with the A/C on to pull less than 30 city, I was pulling 32-34 tank averages with 50/50 city-hwy, and that was "going with the flow" at 75mph, and in a wagon. Hatch does better for aero with a Cd of .34 Parts are dirt cheap, the cars are dirt cheap, but suffer from "disposable car syndrome" meaning, find one that has maintenance records.

I'd think you might want to think about Geo/Chevrolet Prizms as well, the 1.8 though not the 1.6. Like the Escort the EPA numbers look a little low, but they are well known for exceeding them.

I am partial but I love Honda's. I drive a '96 hatchback and am getting anywhere between 42-46 mpg, and my car has 188k miles on it. Honda's in general are great on gas and require very little maintenance. I haven't had to do much more to mine than change the oil and the brake pads since I've had it. And they are super easy to work on.

Heh...Civic beats Metro for sure, but you might want to take a look at the "Hypermile sleepers" thread:
https://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=7449

Just curious, how much do you plan to pay for a Civic and how many miles are on it? When I priced used Civics a few weeks ago I realized I could buy a brand new Hyundai Accent for about the same money as a 4 or 5 year old Civic with 60,000 miles on it.

Does it have to be a hatchback? Corolla really doesn't get enough press on these forums.