Am i mad to buy a....

robertxxx

Honda civic 1.8 later model.2006

Why not 1.6 avensis?

1.6 Diesel focus?

1.4 golf.

Please tell me why i shouldnt buy one.

eringobragh

What your needs..

ie commute/weekend car..your annual mileage and your age

Damokc

If you can afford to run it go for it man! I'd love an old 1.8 5 door Vti-S.

robertxxx

commute and weekends it would be the main car, about 20 miles a day.

Are they heavy on juice?

Are they still magnets to car thief's? its the later shape.

Im between 30 and 40.

eringobragh

robertxxx wrote: »

commute and weekends it would be the main car, about 20 miles a day.

Are they heavy on juice?

Are they still magnets to car thief's? its the later shape.

Im between 30 and 40.

I know its not on your list but have you thought of a 2006ish 2L Accord (VTEC :P)? Reckon I'll grab one as my "sensible" car.

I don't think a diesel is required for your annual mileage..

Dont see why not, they're just a normal snore mobile.

pburns

I thought when I opened this thread it was going to be about a 15mpg 4.0l V8 or similar! Hardly a mad purchase - if you want it go for it.

Tea 1000

robertxxx wrote: »

commute and weekends it would be the main car, about 20 miles a day.

Are they heavy on juice?

Are they still magnets to car thief's? its the later shape.

Im between 30 and 40.

The 1.8 Civic is lighter on fuel than probably all other 1.8 litre petrols, and as good if not better than many 1.6's. I was very surprised at it's frugality when I had one for a few days.

Green Hornet

I had the 1.8 saloon (2006+ model) for a couple of years and it was very light on fuel for a 1.8. Average measured mpg = 42 mpg on a daily 80 mile round trip. Never had a days trouble with it either.

mustang01

if your not doing big mileage ur prob better off staying with petrol, less trouble in the long run because new common rail diesels give der fair share of hassle, if you want diesel go for the 1.8 focus, its fords own engine and far better than the 1.6 !

RXMPS

RoverJames wrote: »

Dont see why not, they're just a normal snore mobile.

Not they are not.

Good engine in that Civic ( 1.8, 140bhp, 44mpg, 0-60 8 secs )

1200kg, revs freely and handles great.

What do you drive?

ottostreet

RXMPS wrote: »

Not they are not.

Good engine in that Civic ( 1.8, 140bhp, 44mpg, 0-60 8 secs )

1200kg, revs freely and handles great.

What do you drive?

Whats unusual about those figures?

The Bishop Basher

It's a very standard car and by no means a mad or exciting purchase. Can't see any reason whatsoever not to go for it.

robertxxx

ottostreet wrote: »

Whats unusual about those figures?

What?

ottostreet

robertxxx wrote: »

What?

What is in those figures to make it a 'non snore mobile'..?

robertxxx

Honda, 8 sec, 44 mpg!,

RXMPS

ottostreet wrote: »

Whats unusual about those figures?

It's pretty good for an n/a petrol.

What do you drive to dismiss that?

An LFA?:rolleyes:

RXMPS

RXMPS wrote: »

...........

What do you drive?

MG ZT.

ottostreet

RXMPS wrote: »

It's pretty good for an n/a petrol.

What do you drive to dismiss that?

An LFA?:rolleyes:

An MR2 & an FTO.

Both quicker than the Honda, but I still wouldnt call them 'fast'. What is so unusual about the Honda that makes it anything other than a regular car? After all..the OP thinks he's 'mad' to consider one. What's mad about them? As another poster said, he was expecting a V8 gas guzzler or something else. They're a nice car and all, but they're hardly considered anything but run of the mill.

Those Civic are 8.9 seconds to 60 according to Autotrader too btw.

RXMPS

RoverJames wrote: »

Those Civic are 8.9 seconds to 60 according to Autotrader too btw.

8.2 according to Autocar btw.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/RoadTestsOnTheRoad/Honda-Civic-1.8-i-VTEC-EX/218126/

RXMPS

ottostreet wrote: »

An MR2 & an FTO.

Both quicker than the Honda, but I still wouldnt call them 'fast'. What is so unusual about the Honda that makes it anything other than a regular car? After all..the OP thinks he's 'mad' to consider one. What's mad about them? As another poster said, he was expecting a V8 gas guzzler or something else. They're a nice car and all, but they're hardly considered anything but run of the mill.

Your too are both ancient and drink petrol while not being fast.Can't compare really, an FTO is no faster than a modern diesel bmw these days.

Well an MR2 turbo is fast.

Anyway the Civic is a good car, modern, quick enough and good on fuel fuel.

He said mad, because who would have thought a 1.8 dohc vtec Civic could be so fuel efficent, I would have thought it would drink petrol and have a huge insurance premium.

We don't all drive 90's sportscars like yourself, mad for you is an STI, mad for most is a 1.8 Civic.

djimi

robertxxx wrote: »

Are they still magnets to car thief's? its the later shape.

I wouldnt have thought youd have much to worry about tbh. Make sure you have a good security system in it and Id say it would be safe enough.

ottostreet

ottostreet wrote: »

An MR2 & an FTO.

Both quicker than the Honda, but I still wouldnt call them 'fast'.

???

RXMPS wrote: »

mad for you is an STI, mad for most is a 1.8 Civic.

Mad for me is anything that costs proper money to run, or dedication to want to keep it on the road. A 1.8 Civic requires...what? A little extra money for tax over a year?

Roverjames said 'Dont see why not, they're just a normal snore mobile.'

I have still yet to see anything that makes them anything but a sensible purchase.

RXMPS

RXMPS wrote: »

.............

He said mad, because who would have thought a 1.8 dohc vtec Civic could be so fuel efficent, I would have thought it would drink petrol and have a huge insurance premium...............

It's not a type R dude, it's 140bhp
140bhp isn't of the way for a 1.8, decent but not overly impressive.

I imagine he thinks it's potentially mad and you thought it would drink petrol and have a huge insurance premium as the branding of the higher powered VTEC Civics have ye somehow reckoning this 1.8 is somehow akin to them

RXMPS

I never said it wasn't sensible.

Yee really have each others backs on here, jumping on me and trying to make me look stupid for what exactly.

@ Otto why are you quoting your own posts.

@Rover do you get some satisfaction out of trying to be smarter than someone, with your 8.9secs comment?

RXMPS

RXMPS wrote: »

.............

@Rover do you get some satisfaction out of trying to be smarter than someone, with your 8.9secs comment?

......... it's 12% slower than you claimed

I still reckon you are thinking this 140bhp yoke is somehow akin to a type r....

RXMPS wrote: »

..................

He said mad, because who would have thought a 1.8 dohc vtec Civic could be so fuel efficent, I would have thought it would drink petrol and have a huge insurance premium..................

You're the one who came along asking what folks drive in an attempt to somehow make us look silly...

RXMPS wrote: »

Not they are not.

Good engine in that Civic ( 1.8, 140bhp, 44mpg, 0-60 8 secs )

1200kg, revs freely and handles great.

What do you drive?

RXMPS

ottostreet wrote: »

???


Roverjames said 'Dont see why not, they're just a normal snore mobile.'

Snoremobile is a 1.4 80bhp Focus, Golf, Corolla or the like.

Nothing boring about that Civic imo.

RXMPS

RoverJames wrote: »

......... it's 12% slower than you claimed

It's 2.5% actually.

Your probably quoting the 2011 car, with all your wisdom.

RXMPS

RoverJames wrote: »

You're the one who came along asking what folks drive in an attempt to somehow make us look silly...

Your drive a knock off Rover 75 so I don't have to do anything to make you look silly.

TestTransmission

RXMPS wrote: »

It's 2.5% actually.

Your probably quoting the 2011 car, with all your wisdom.

RXMPS wrote: »

Your drive a knock off Rover 75 so I don't have to do anything to make you look silly.

Grow up a bit or don't bother posting in motors anymore

RXMPS

RXMPS wrote: »

It's 2.5% actually.

Your probably quoting the 2011 car, with all your wisdom.

How is 8.9 seconds 2.5% slower than 8.0 seconds?

RXMPS wrote: »

Your drive a knock off Rover 75 so I don't have to do anything to make you look silly.

You see, that's why you asked what we drove so you could come back with a statement like that :cool: Clever Boy :P

RXMPS

TestTransmission wrote: »

Grow up a bit or don't bother posting in motors anymore

What about James huh?

Different rules?

He can say whatever he wants.

RXMPS

RoverJames wrote: »

How is 8.9 seconds 2.5% slower than 8.0 seconds?





You see, that's why you asked what we drove so you could come back with a statement like that :cool: Clever Boy :P

It's 8.2 for the 2006 car.

Is Autotrader gospel or something.

You shouldn't call something a snoremobile when you drive one yourself.

RXMPS

RXMPS wrote: »

It's 8.2 for the 2006 car.

Is Autotrader gospel or something.

..... it's 8.3 for the higher powered VTi models
140bhp 1.8 2006 late model Civics are not 8.3 to 60

TestTransmission

RXMPS wrote: »

What about James huh?

Different rules?

He can say whatever he wants.

No time for trolls.Banned for a week, next time it's permanent

RXMPS

RXMPS wrote: »

............
You shouldn't call something a snoremobile when you drive one yourself.

..did I say a ZT wasn't a snoremobile?
Did I ask was I mad to buy and drive one :P

TestTransmission

RoverJames wrote: »

..did I say a ZT wasn't a snoremobile?
Did I ask was I mad to buy and drive one :P

He's gone now, he won't be responding.Back on topic please

TestTransmission

TestTransmission wrote: »

...............Back on topic please

Op, you're not mad to buy one, I wouldn't imagine they are high risk to be robbed and the insurance won't be bad on them.

They are decent in fairness :pac:

jayok

OP - the 1.8 SOHC Civic, puts out a respectible amount of power (138BHP) 140PS and a decent amount of torque.

No, it's not a pocket rocket, but it's no slouch either. The 1.8 seems to have the perfect balance of the car down (compared to say the 2.2 diesel of 1.4 petrol). It's moderately efficient and generally reliable although the earlier civic did have some TSBs, etc, the petrol remains relatively solid. Also, it's a chain-cam so there's no timing belt to worry about and it pretty simple to maintain and service.

If you can get youself a well spec'd verison (e.g. EX or Type-S in 3 door) and you'll get a range of useful toys, like cruise, etc.

jayok

jayok wrote: »

OP - the 1.8 SOHC Civic, puts out a respectible amount of power (138BHP) 140PS and a decent amount of torque............

:cool:

They're not DOHC so ?

jayok

RoverJames wrote: »

:cool:
They're not DOHC so ?

Nope the R18A is a SOHC, the DOHC was saved for the K20Z4 (me thinks) - Type R.

ottostreet

OP, based on my arguments above, I probably appear like I've been negative about the car. They are a lovely car, and theres nothing wrong with them at all. A little bit dull for me, but to have someone try to argue that they are anything but a normal car performance wise...well that's just gonna get my back up.

A sensible purchase, if you can afford it, go for it!

Leprechaun77

The wife has a Type S Civic 1.8l and they are a nice car to drive, albeit the suspension is quite firm. I think it is noticeably quicker than any of my last cars of similar engine size, but it is no rocket. It's probably a bit lighter and has a few extra bhp, but a performance car it is not. As a previous poster mentioned, it is a good compromise between economy and driving experience.

wes31

here is every thing about the R18A engine


http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/R18A/index.html