honda civic 2013 1.6d

aidanki · 14-03-2013 2:23pm #1

so anyone got one/test drove one yet

are the figures of 75mpg anyway close to true

NobodyImportant · 14-03-2013 2:54pm

Havent driven this variant, but I took a 2.2 Civic Diesel to Belfast and back about 2 years ago. With Cruise Control on at 60mph, it Averaged over 60mpg. Think around the 63mpg.

So it doesnt seem unreasonable that going down from a 2.2 to a 1.6 and advances in technology (that 2.2 engine came out in the early noughties) since then.

Seems the engine has been getting great reviews.

BobBobBobBob · 14-03-2013 3:17pm

Drove one about two weeks ago, really enjoyed the drive but rear of the car and the rear view vision are fairly cat so I ruled the car out of my search. Real MPG - Honda Civic 2012 1.6i-DTEC

Henry Ford III · 14-03-2013 3:48pm

Honest John got 56mpg in his roadtest.

Top Gear's roadtest said it was an unrefined engine, and gave the car 6/10.

Tea 1000 · 14-03-2013 3:58pm

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Honest John got 56mpg in his roadtest.

Top Gear's roadtest said it was an unrefined engine, and gave the car 6/10.

Bet they gave the Focus 9/10.
I'd say a test drive is the best teller.

JohnBoy26 · 14-03-2013 4:04pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Bet they gave the Focus 9/10.
I'd say a test drive is the best teller.

Well to be fair the focus has a much better chassis than the civic.

Yawlboy · 14-03-2013 4:12pm

Just read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/14/car-manufacturers-manipulating-fuel-efficiency-tests?CMP=NECNETTXT766

Tea 1000 · 14-03-2013 4:13pm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Well to be fair the focus has a much better chassis than the civic.

Better rather than much better, but a shít interior and mediocre engine mean its a bit of an over-rated car.

Tea 1000 · 14-03-2013 4:19pm

Yawlboy wrote: »

Just read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/14/car-manufacturers-manipulating-fuel-efficiency-tests?CMP=NECNETTXT766

No surprise, but if they all do the same tricks, then they should all be optimistic by a similar margin!

JohnBoy26 · 14-03-2013 4:20pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Better rather than much better, but a shít interior and mediocre engine mean its a bit of an over-rated car.

No much better, fully independent rear suspension vs the civics cheap torsion beam setup.

Henry Ford III · 14-03-2013 4:30pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Better rather than much better, but a shít interior and mediocre engine mean its a bit of an over-rated car.

Matter of opinion really isn't it?

Tea 1000 · 14-03-2013 4:33pm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

No much better, fully independent rear suspension vs the civics cheap torsion beam setup.

Fully independent rear suspension doesn't automatically mean much better. It is better, but much better is a silly exaggeration. An M3 is much better than a 316i. A Focus has a better chassis than a Civic.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Matter of opinion really isn't it?

Yep, but some things can be measured!

NobodyImportant · 14-03-2013 4:39pm

Mediocore engine? 1.6 diesel with 120bhp and gets 70+ mpg and low CO2, sounds like a good engine to me.

JohnBoy26 · 14-03-2013 4:53pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Fully independent rear suspension doesn't automatically mean much better. It is better, but much better is a silly exaggeration. An M3 is much better than a 316i. A Focus has a better chassis than a Civic.

In this case though it's not a "silly exaggeration" the focus is dynamically much better than the Civic with it's control blade rear suspension. Im not saying all cars with independent suspension are much better but they're least some bit better most of the time. Also we are talking about fwd cars here, comparing too rwd cars is a different ball game tbh.

Really It's time Honda woke up and smelled the coffee because at this stage the Civic is one of very few cars in it's class to still use semi independent rear suspension, which is a shame considering they were class leaders (imo) in the late 90's with double wishbone front and fully independent rear suspension.

Tea 1000 · 14-03-2013 4:59pm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

In this case though it's not a "silly exaggeration" the focus is dynamically much better than the Civic with it's control blade rear suspension. Im not saying all cars with independent suspension are much better but they're least some bit better most of the time. Also we are talking about fwd cars here, comparing too rwd cars is a different ball game tbh.

Really It's time Honda woke up and smelled the coffee because at this stage the Civic is one of very few cars in it's class to still use semi independent rear suspension, which is a shame considering they were class leaders (imo) in the late 90's with double wishbone front and fully independent rear suspension.

Maybe Honda are right considering that most buyers don't know the difference. Although I'd sooner they did go back to fully independent setups.
I still don't think the Focus is as good as they say anymore, and actually if memory serves, it didn't get overly glowing reviews in its latest guise.

JohnBoy26 · 14-03-2013 5:07pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Maybe Honda are right considering that most buyers don't know the difference. Although I'd sooner they did go back to fully independent setups.
I still don't think the Focus is as good as they say anymore, and actually if memory serves, it didn't get overly glowing reviews in its latest guise.

Your probably not wrong there, your average joe wouldn't know the difference but a true honda fan would. Those old Civics were built with quality a first priority and cost second. Also im not calling the focus a great car or anything, tbh im not really a fan of fords, it's only it's driving dynamic is all I was talking about.

Tea 1000 · 14-03-2013 5:12pm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Your probably not wrong there, your average joe wouldn't know the difference but a true honda fan would. Those old Civics were built with quality a first priority and cost second. Also im not calling the focus a great car or anything, tbh im not really a fan of fords, it's only it's driving dynamic is all I was talking about.

Bean counters and their stock price watching are to blame.

colm_mcm · 14-03-2013 5:38pm

The beam suspension also improves boot space to be fair.

Chuck Stone · 14-03-2013 5:43pm

That engine and the 1.8 ivtec in the forthcoming Civic tourer is going to be some car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9KfxiMa8E

JohnBoy26 · 14-03-2013 5:45pm

colm_mcm wrote: »

The beam suspension also improves boot space to be fair.

It does but that wasn't the reason it was chosen over an independent suspension though, cost was the main factor.

colm_mcm · 14-03-2013 5:57pm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

It does but that wasn't the reason it was chosen over an independent suspension though, cost was the main factor.

Probably. Strange that they didn't go for it in the saloon then.

JohnBoy26 · 14-03-2013 6:04pm

colm_mcm wrote: »

Probably. Strange that they didn't go for it in the saloon then.

Well the Saloon is a true Civic on it's own platform and was made primarily for the USA/JDM market so I don't think any less could be expected of it really IMO.

colm_mcm · 14-03-2013 6:11pm

Would've thought Europeans if anyone would be the ones demanding independent rear suspension, certainly not the yanks anyway.

peter barrins · 14-03-2013 6:17pm

This post has been deleted.

peter barrins · 14-03-2013 6:19pm

This post has been deleted.

Tea 1000 · 14-03-2013 7:05pm

peter barrins wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

New one is. Last one was OK, nothing special.

peter barrins wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd trust that 2.2 diesel from Honda ahead of almost any other diesel made in the last 6 years or so.
Subaru's boxer diesel, BMW's 6 cylinder diesels, Honda's diesels and Mercedes newer 2.2 and 3 litre diesels seem to be the most reliable out there. You can look at honest John for lists of problems, but most are fairly one-off, or small percentage, which is the same for anything. I know more Honda Accord diesels from friends and relatives of 8 or 9 years old with over 150k miles on them and no issues (bar maybe the manifold recall) than I do of any other brand. Nearly every other diesel seems to blow it's turbo, injest it's swirl flaps, crap it's injectors every few months, clog the crap out of its EGR valve, and other such crap.
1.6 in the Golf is becoming a bit known for issues. VW are covering outside warranty for some, Skoda are refusing to.

aidanki · 14-03-2013 8:01pm

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road-tests/honda/honda-civic-16-i-dtec-2013/

this is quite a good review to say the least?

peter barrins · 14-03-2013 9:24pm

This post has been deleted.

aidanki · 14-03-2013 9:37pm

pretty informative here

http://www.civinfo.com/forum/user-reviews-9g/89248-civic-1-6-diesel.html

might you the golf is also v well rated

Tea 1000 · 14-03-2013 10:00pm

peter barrins wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Bunch of user whines really... Pinch of salt stuff for the most part.

peter barrins · 14-03-2013 10:18pm

This post has been deleted.

JohnBoy26 · 14-03-2013 10:25pm

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Bunch of user whines really... Pinch of salt stuff for the most part.

You must be joking, turbo failures pinch of salt stuff? They also give timming chain trouble. Early 2.2s were ball of sh*te and were not great reliability wise. In fairness though Honda did improve the engine as time went on.

NobodyImportant · 15-03-2013 9:08am

Honest John - "But VW doesn’t have an engine that holds a candle to the 1.6 i-DTEC. Or a body with the commodiousness and versatility of the Civic’s with its huge 467 – 1,368 litre load capacity and ‘magic’ rear seats"

Although The early 2.2 Diesels werent without problems, they were still better than most of the rest. It was Honda's first attempt at an in house diesel dont forget and they quickly made it right.

Tea 1000 · 15-03-2013 11:58am

peter barrins wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Accord 2.2 diesel is a far better unit than Lexus's 2.2 though.

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

You must be joking, turbo failures pinch of salt stuff? They also give timming chain trouble. Early 2.2s were ball of sh*te and were not great reliability wise. In fairness though Honda did improve the engine as time went on.

Turbo failures on the Accord diesel aren't that common, and yes, I've seen how people treat and service their cars, so I take that with a pinch of salt. You have a few hundred thousand of any car in the UK around for 10 years and the list of people with complaints will be massive. But the list of folk without will be a hell of a lot longer.
Early 2.2's were not a ball of sh*te, they were excellent for their time and actually were reliable. A handful of teething issues that Honda extended the cover for is all the negative you'll have. Take any engine out there that has a turbo, any engine ever built and I'll guarantee you'll have folk where the turbo failed. Petrol or diesel.

honda civic 2013 1.6d

Comments