Motor Trend 2006 Car of the Year

[haypops]

[quote name='regfootball' date='Dec 21 2005, 03:59 PM']
Again, they gave it to honda because of payola, ricer demographics they want to sell ads to, and the fact you can get the Civic with a hybrid for the ecoweenie factor.

You forget the natural gas home refilled Civic also. That said; the civic leaves me cold as do these awards.

[siegen]

Cobalt SS sedan:
0-60 mph: 7.1 sec
1/4 mile: 15.6 sec @ 90mph
60-0 mph: 132 ft
Lat. accelleration: .83g
600ft slalom: 64.1 mph
MT figure 8: 27.2sec @ .63g
EPA economy: 25/34 mpg

Civic Si coupe:
0-60 mph: 6.7 sec
1/4 mile: 15.7 sec @ 94mph
60-0 mph: 122 ft
Lat. accelleration: .90g
600ft slalom: 67.2 mph
MT figure 8: 26.5sec @ .65g
EPA economy: 22/31 mpg

15.7? That's rediculous. R&T tested it at 15.1, and I'm willing to bet money a skilled FWD driver could break into the 14's with that car. They probably couldn't get traction in 1st gear, one of the main problems with any FWD car (they're tricky to launch correctly, which is why the performance times vary greatly from Magazine to Magazine).

the high strung ricers usually have much worse 5-60 times than the 0-60+high rpm clutch drop times

Man you really like to talk about those 5-60 times huh? :P Did you know getting the best 0-60 or 1/4 mile doesn't involve a "clutch drop"? A skilled driver will feather the clutch to keep the car in a high enough rpm while still transfering as much power to the ground as possible without wheel spin.

The Cobalt SS would probably perform better in the 5-60 test than the Civic, due to the low-rpm TQ curve, but the difference won't be huge (the higher redline of the Civic allows it to stay in a higher TQ multiplicating gear ratio to a faster speed longer... if that makes any sense). The Cobalt does have a shorter geared 1st gear though, which I find interesting (considering it is a 5sp and has a lower redline). I looked into it, and the Cobalt comes with a very tall wheel/tire combo to balance it out (giving it a top speed of 31 in 1st gear). The Civic's overall tire height is about an inch less. So the Civic ends up having about the same TQ multiplication as the Cobalt in 1st gear, and at 6500rpms in first gear, it will be traveling at the same speed (31mph), onto it's top speed of 38mph in 1st gear.

The reason the Civic's 0-60 times generally suck is because it maxes out at 58mph in 2nd gear, requiring another shift before it completes the test (which makes it take longer). The Cobalt, as with most other 5sp manual transmissions, does over 60 in 2nd gear.

Here's some cool speed charts curtesy of Team Integra's gear ratio calculator.

[regfootball]

15.7? That's rediculous. R&T tested it at 15.1, and I'm willing to bet money a skilled FWD driver could break into the 14's with that car. They probably couldn't get traction in 1st gear, one of the main problems with any FWD car (they're tricky to launch correctly, which is why the performance times vary greatly from Magazine to Magazine).

you just can't accept that the Civic is an average performer, can you.

you can spit out all sorts of circular rhetroic about how they didn't shift it right, its front drive so it gets no grip, the gearing is the difference, etc. its pretty clear the cobalts' supercharged and non supercharged entries are not blown away by the civic. and the cobalt is only one competitor. I just picked it because of how MT was picking on it and it didn't seem right.

again i bring this up because....why did this car get COTY?...versus all the other subcompacts to the point where it is a landmark auto that stands out head and shoulders above all the others in its segment?

no pricing advantage
no engine performance advantage, except at above legal speeds on racetracks
no apparently greater fuel economy advantage
hybrid civic is not as good as prius apparently so what's the point
no space or utility advantage
certainly no styling advantage
no interior design sensibility or ergonomic advantage
no innovative driver convenience features

it might have a handling advantage. it probably shifts well and is built well. Subarus all do that these days too, though.

Simply put, this car is not enough of a standout performer nor does it bring enough new or unique to the table to deserve its merit as COTY. Case closed. Edited December 22, 2005 by regfootball

[siegen]

no pricing advantage
no engine performance advantage, except at above legal speeds on racetracks
no apparently greater fuel economy advantage
hybrid civic is not as good as prius apparently so what's the point
no space or utility advantage
certainly no styling advantage
no interior design sensibility or ergonomic advantage
no innovative driver convenience features

Where are you getting this information?

I can accept the fact that the Civic Si is an average performer, but the 15.7 is crap. Road & Track got 15.1, so there's no reason why MT couldn't get a similar number. If you compare this car to the RSX Type S (which MT got a 15.1 1/4 in), it weighs a little more, but has a shorter final drive, limited slip dif, wider tires, and front lower TQ mount (less wheel hop) among other chassis improvements. The Civic Si should perform the same or better in a straight line. Maybe that 15.7 was a typo and they meant 14.7?? :AH-HA_wink:

[The O.C.]

you just can't accept that the Civic is an average performer, can you.

you can spit out all sorts of circular rhetroic about how they didn't shift it right, its front drive so it gets no grip, the gearing is the difference, etc.  its pretty clear the cobalts' supercharged and non supercharged entries are not blown away by the civic.  and the cobalt is only one competitor.  I just picked it because of how MT was picking on it and it didn't seem right.

again i bring this up because....why did this car get COTY?...versus all the other subcompacts to the point where it is a landmark auto that stands out head and shoulders above all the others in its segment?

no pricing advantage
no engine performance advantage, except at above legal speeds on racetracks
no apparently greater fuel economy advantage
hybrid civic is not as good as prius apparently so what's the point
no space or utility advantage
certainly no styling advantage
no interior design sensibility or ergonomic advantage
no innovative driver convenience features

it might have a handling advantage.  it probably shifts well and is built well.  Subarus all do that these days too, though.

Simply put, this car is not enough of a standout performer nor does it bring enough new or unique to the table to deserve its merit as COTY.  Case closed.

[post="62280"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm sorry.....

The Civic is 10-TIMES the car the new Cobalt is....now matter what way you try to spin it, Reg....

I'm sorry....and I'm sure I'll get ragged on here for it....but it's TRUE

That's not to say I don't like the Cobalt....I do....but whereas GM is finally at a competitive (but not any way superior) level with the competition, Honda has taken the new Civic to a new level.

Really....the powertrain debate is a MUTE-POINT.....any low-rpm torque advantage that Honda may lack....is surely made up by it's clean and fast-revving nature. Simply put, it doesn't take any more time for Civic to rev into its powerband than it does the low-torque-advantaged Cobalt....and YES, I've driven both....

Call it different strokes for different folks. One thing is for sure....the Cobalt's Ecotech l4 cannot compete with Honda's NVH and smoothness. Sorry....but it's true.

Let's talk about fit-and-finish and quality-of-materials. Civic TROUNCES Cobalt's cheap, shiny, brittle, and nasty dash, door panel, and switch plastic.....irrelevant of what you think of the actual style of the interior.....and YES, I like the actual STYLE of the Cobalt's interior much more than Civics....but Civic is MUCH more well made.....with mostly soft-touch plastics and much superior switch feel.

Exterior design? Cobalt is attractive....but bland. Civic is attractive (in my opinion) and a bit unique.

I could go on-and-on....but won't. I almost didn't post this....'cause I know the attacks I'll get from the spinsters on here....but I had to.

After the Civic, GM better be DAMN worried about what Toyota does with the next-generation Corolla....

[pow]

I'm sorry.....

The Civic is 10-TIMES the car the new Cobalt is....now matter what way you try to spin it, Reg....

I'm sorry....and I'm sure I'll get ragged on here for it....but it's TRUE

That's not to say I don't like the Cobalt....I do....but whereas GM is finally at a competitive (but not any way superior) level with the competition, Honda has taken the new Civic to a new level.

Really....the powertrain debate is a MUTE-POINT.....any low-rpm torque advantage that Honda may lack....is surely made up by it's clean and fast-revving nature.  Simply put, it doesn't take any more time for Civic to rev into its powerband than it does the low-torque-advantaged Cobalt....and YES, I've driven both....

Call it different strokes for different folks.  One thing is for sure....the Cobalt's Ecotech l4 cannot compete with Honda's NVH and smoothness.  Sorry....but it's true.

Let's talk about fit-and-finish and quality-of-materials.  Civic TROUNCES Cobalt's cheap, shiny, brittle, and nasty dash, door panel, and switch plastic.....irrelevant of what you think of the actual style of the interior.....and YES, I like the actual STYLE of the Cobalt's interior much more than Civics....but Civic is MUCH more well made.....with mostly soft-touch plastics and much superior switch feel.

Exterior design?  Cobalt is attractive....but bland.  Civic is attractive (in my opinion) and a bit unique.

I could go on-and-on....but won't.  I almost didn't post this....'cause I know the attacks I'll get from the spinsters on here....but I had to. 

After the Civic, GM better be DAMN worried about what Toyota does with the next-generation Corolla....

[post="62605"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Agreed, the new Civic is a much more substantial and thoroughly engineered car than both its predecessor and the Cobalt. The fact it's the only small car to be an IIHS Top Safety Pick should be enough.

[regfootball]

[regfootball]

again, i'm not hearing anything factual or substantial here to refute this

no pricing advantage
no engine performance advantage, except at above legal speeds on racetracks
no apparently greater fuel economy advantage
hybrid civic is not as good as prius apparently so what's the point
no space or utility advantage
certainly no styling advantage
no interior design sensibility or ergonomic advantage
no innovative driver convenience features

Simply put, this car is not enough of a standout performer nor does it bring enough new or unique to the table to deserve its merit as COTY.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING

ANOTHER CAR DESERVED THE AWARD

had the civic not come with hybrid, its not COTY. The other versions cannot do it on their own Edited December 23, 2005 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Where are you getting this information?

I can accept the fact that the Civic Si is an average performer, but the 15.7 is crap. Road & Track got 15.1, so there's no reason why MT couldn't get a similar number. If you compare this car to the RSX Type S (which MT got a 15.1 1/4 in), it weighs a little more, but has a shorter final drive, limited slip dif, wider tires, and front lower TQ mount (less wheel hop) among other chassis improvements. The Civic Si should perform the same or better in a straight line. Maybe that 15.7 was a typo and they meant 14.7??  :AH-HA_wink:

[post="62571"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

maybe there is just simply not enough torque to move the car with alacrity.

[regfootball]

keep drinkin' it up boys

[Polish_Kris]

again, i'm not hearing anything factual or substantial here to refute this

no pricing advantage
no engine performance advantage, except at above legal speeds on racetracks
no apparently greater fuel economy advantage
hybrid civic is not as good as prius apparently so what's the point
no space or utility advantage
certainly no styling advantage
no interior design sensibility or ergonomic advantage
no innovative driver convenience features

Simply put, this car is not enough of a standout performer nor does it bring enough new or unique to the table to deserve its merit as COTY.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING

ANOTHER CAR DESERVED THE AWARD

had the civic not come with hybrid, its not COTY.  The other versions cannot do it on their own

[post="62685"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

What car? Name it..... I have the Motor Trend issue in front of me, they had like almost 2 dozon competitors. Explaining to detail why each car new-for-2006 did not take the prize.... I guess you proved your point enough that you don't like the Civic, we get it already :lol:

[Polish_Kris]

keep drinkin' it up boys

[post="62687"][/post]

I like Kool-aid in Strawberry

[regfootball]

just havin some fun with you boys

[sciguy_0504]

I don't know if you were joking or not. I don't care, either. You hit the nail on the head, reg, with that list on why the Civic didn't deserve COTY. Why should the Civic gotten COTY? Explain to me that.

[CaddyXLR-V]

I don't know if you were joking or not.  I don't care, either.  You hit the nail on the head, reg, with that list on why the Civic didn't deserve COTY.

Why should the Civic gotten COTY?  Explain to me that.

[post="62779"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It's new, it's a Honda, and it has a Hybrid version. Oh it was also the last to the party to break 200hp.

[regfootball]

I don't know if you were joking or not.  I don't care, either.  You hit the nail on the head, reg, with that list on why the Civic didn't deserve COTY.

Why should the Civic gotten COTY?  Explain to me that.

[post="62779"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

don't get me wrong, bro...i really DO NOT think it deserved it. i just love seeing those honda bangers quirm when you tell them something about their hondas that's not all peachy and rosy.

[regfootball]

It's new, it's a Honda, and it has a Hybrid version. Oh it was also the last to the party to break 200hp.

[post="62787"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

yup

[pow]

don't get me wrong, bro...i really DO NOT think it deserved it.  i just love seeing those honda bangers quirm when you tell them something about their hondas that's not all peachy and rosy.

[post="62809"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm not a Honda banger at all, but I recognize a worthy car when I see one.

[haypops]

autoweek says that other than looking like an ION, it sucks


GRITZINGER: I found myself longing for the Civic of old: a simpler, lighter, smaller and, at least for me, more fun-to-drive car than this latest interpretation. I could have done without its garish instrumentation, an uncomfortable seat and less-than-snappy performance. I think a lot of it has to do with the extra 150 or so pounds this car lugs around compared to the previous model. But it has also lost something in its driving dynamics; to me, this one says “dull” rather than “sporty.”

One more thing: As much as I like the new styling, I almost thought it was a Saturn Ion from the rear three-quarter view. I also hate the inability to tell where the corners of this little car are—something that made the old car much easier to drive.

No wonder Honda is bringing a smaller car into the market to slot below this one: It has managed to move the Civic out of the market it once ruled.

[regfootball]

autoweek says that other than looking like an ION, it sucks
GRITZINGER: I found myself longing for the Civic of old: a simpler, lighter, smaller and, at least for me, more fun-to-drive car than this latest interpretation. I could have done without its garish instrumentation, an uncomfortable seat and less-than-snappy performance. I think a lot of it has to do with the extra 150 or so pounds this car lugs around compared to the previous model. But it has also lost something in its driving dynamics; to me, this one says “dull” rather than “sporty.”

One more thing: As much as I like the new styling, I almost thought it was a Saturn Ion from the rear three-quarter view. I also hate the inability to tell where the corners of this little car are—something that made the old car much easier to drive.

No wonder Honda is bringing a smaller car into the market to slot below this one: It has managed to move the Civic out of the market it once ruled.

[post="62892"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm telling you, MT chose the Civic to appease the intended demographic....young rice fans. Autoweek has a broader view, and they seem to be calling it right. They notice the car was dumbed down for the young rice crowd, and lacks appeal for everyone else.

[siegen]

I'm telling you, MT chose the Civic to appease the intended demographic....young rice fans. Autoweek has a broader view, and they seem to be calling it right. They notice the car was dumbed down for the young rice crowd, and lacks appeal for everyone else.

Well actually Autoweek's main viewer base consists of red necks and hill-billies. They rag on the Civic because it doesn't come with a built in shotgun rack in the rear-dash, and the windshield is too swept for their large foreheads.

I'm an auto journalist so I would know. B)

[pow]

Well actually Auto main viewer base consists of red necks and hill-billies. They rag on the Civic because it doesn't come with a built in shotgun rack in the rear-dash, and the windshield is too swept for their large foreheads.

I'm an auto journalist so I would know.  B)

[post="63022"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Best, comeback, ever

[regfootball]

Well actually Autoweek's main viewer base consists of red necks and hill-billies. They rag on the Civic because it doesn't come with a built in shotgun rack in the rear-dash, and the windshield is too swept for their large foreheads.

I'm an auto journalist so I would know.  B)

[post="63022"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

i'm an auto PURCHASER so i would know.

so you're Angus Mckenzie then........

or, you're the editor for sport compact car or some 5th tier publication like that, that makes all their advertising dollars from companies that make body kits and those 'aircraft aluminum' wings. Edited December 25, 2005 by regfootball

[siegen]

i'm an auto PURCHASER so i would know.

so you're Angus Mckenzie then........

or, you're the editor for sport compact car or some 5th tier publication like that, that makes all their advertising dollars from companies that make body kits and those 'aircraft aluminum' wings.

[post="63229"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It's too bad the sport compact tuner scene consists largely of uneducated and hopelessly blind people with too much money and no idea what they should be doing with it.

Who's Angus Mckenzie? I don't read any magazines.

[razoredge]

:lol: bah ha ha ha ha ha bahhhhh ! :lol:

Honda sucks, big time, garbage ! Money talks. Civic is just another car for people that hate cars but need to get to work. I'll give it a 10 for nice Buick tailights but it all goes downhill from there. Its a Japanese car that has no place being in the United States along with alot of other trash.

This is a campaigne to get Honda sales back up. I noticed the last batch of Honda buyers did not keep them long. They were buzzing around like little flies then it was like someone sprayed some Raid around and they were gone and Camrys were all the buzz.

GM can get its bowels in place but the question is will Americans follow suit ?

[razoredge]

"Well actually Autoweek's main viewer base consists of red necks and hill-billies. They rag on the Civic because it doesn't come with a built in shotgun rack in the rear-dash, and the windshield is too swept for their large foreheads."

"I'm an auto journalist so I would know."

"It's too bad the sport compact tuner scene consists largely of uneducated and hopelessly blind people with too much money and no idea what they should be doing with it."

"I'm an auto journalist so I would know."

:blink: anyone else see a problem here ? :lol: a trend perhaps ? :o is this what some of us have been talking about ? B) I think we should all hold everything this guy says to high standards :unsure:

<_<

[siegen]

:blink: anyone else see a problem here ? :lol: a trend perhaps ?  :o  is this what some of us have been talking about ?  B)  I think we should all hold everything this guy says to high standards  :unsure:

I hope you detected my sarcasm in my other post ^_^

I got tired of regurgitating Civic information, when nobody was providing any solid counter arguments, so I just gave up.

Civic is just another car for people that hate cars but need to get to work.

That's what Hyundai accent's are for. :)

[regfootball]

I hope you detected my sarcasm in my other post  ^_^

I got tired of regurgitating Civic information, when nobody was providing any solid counter arguments, so I just gave up.
That's what Hyundai accent's are for.  :)

[post="63281"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

hyundai is the brand for people that are too cheap to buy real asian products, don't like cars in general, and expect cars to be as trouble free as a toaster. its for the person that equates a car to a vcr....you just go out and buy one.

i will give honda some credit for at least trying to create some personality in their lineup with stuff like the civic now, and the element.

hyundai is just a bunch of knockoff garbage. i don't even want them or kia on these shores. we pretty much need to have honda and toyota around for all the urban ecoweenie consumer reports bangers to drive around in. Edited December 25, 2005 by regfootball

[erod45]

I can see how the Civic has made COY. It is better than the previous model, which in my opinion was a big joke. The 06 Civic has more power and a better interior. The styling is futuristic and progressive, none of this retro BS, plus it is not mistaken for anything but a Honda. The engines that Honda makes are of technological innovation that symbolizes intelligence and ingenuity. The VTEC kicks in at 6000rpm giving you that rush of power that can only be had by an F1 inspired engine. It may not have alot of torque down low as compared to other cars, but it was taken care of by the "i" part in i-VTEC, in which, in my opinion has made torque more acceptable down low. Also, it is priced right for the average consumer to have a car that offers excitment, plus reliable transportation. There are other car manufacturers that has made excellent cars for the 2006 year, but I can understand how the Civic made the cut. Kudos to Honda for listening to their customer's requests in making the 2006 Civic a more desiraable car.

[razoredge]

Well I cant or wont go back and read 14 pages of posts, but GM made many of my cars of the year, any of the rest would be from Europe and quite expensive

[regfootball]

"The VTEC kicks in at 6000rpm" so, no power until 6000 rpm, then.

[razoredge]

yes sir.......a whole 1000 rpms of glory

[The O.C.]

Well, here you go......Edmunds Inside Line road test......they just did a comparison of the new Civic EX Sedan (NON-hybrid) versus the Mazda3 sedan. Both cars had automatics. Now the Mazda3 won the comparo.....but I'm more interested in comparing acceleration between the Civic EX and the Cobalt 4-door that was tested a few months back in the economy-car comparison........ Cobalt - 2.2L, 4-speed auto, 145hp, 155lb/ft 0-60 - 9.2secs 1/4mile - 16.6secs @ 82.7mph as-tested mpg - 22.5mpg Civic - 1.8L, 5-speed auto, 140hp, 128lb/ft 0-60 - 9.6secs 1/4mile - [email protected] as-tested mpg - 29.7mpg Considering the Civic's "on-paper" major torque deficit (and minor horsepower deficit) I don't consider 4/10ths of a second slower to 60 and half-a-second off in the quarter mile to be a major lack of performance compared to the way torquier Cobalt. I'd like everyone to also note the as-tested MPG. Now I know that no test is the same, but considering the testers probably drive these things with the heaviest of feet in any case....I think the difference of over 7mpg (considering the minor difference in performance) is quite significance...in favor of the Civic. My point is.....that numbers don't tell the whole story and some of the posters on here that are overly arrogant (reg...?) about the "torqueless" Civic need to hold their opinions until you've driven them back-to-back.....then make a fair comparison and don't fall victim to stereotypes about engine performance.

[regfootball]

yes sir.......a whole 1000 rpms of glory

[post="63368"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

that's what your lady said!!!!!!!

Har har!

he's got the staying power of a honda vtec!!!!!!!

[regfootball]

Well, here you go......Edmunds Inside Line road test......they just did a comparison of the new Civic EX Sedan (NON-hybrid) versus the Mazda3 sedan.  Both cars had automatics. 

Now the Mazda3 won the comparo.....but I'm more interested in comparing acceleration between the Civic EX and the Cobalt 4-door that was tested a few months back in the economy-car comparison........

Cobalt  -  2.2L, 4-speed auto, 145hp, 155lb/ft
0-60 - 9.2secs
1/4mile - 16.6secs @ 82.7mph
as-tested mpg - 22.5mpg

Civic - 1.8L, 5-speed auto, 140hp, 128lb/ft
0-60 - 9.6secs
1/4mile - [email protected]
as-tested mpg - 29.7mpg

Considering the Civic's "on-paper" major torque deficit (and minor horsepower deficit) I don't consider 4/10ths of a second slower to 60 and half-a-second off in the quarter mile to be a major lack of performance compared to the way torquier Cobalt.

I'd like everyone to also note the as-tested MPG.  Now I know that no test is the same, but considering the testers probably drive these things with the heaviest of feet in any case....I think the difference of over 7mpg (considering the minor difference in performance) is quite significance...in favor of the Civic.

My point is.....that numbers don't tell the whole story and some of the posters on here that are overly arrogant (reg...?) about the "torqueless" Civic need to hold their opinions until you've driven them back-to-back.....then make a fair comparison and don't fall victim to stereotypes about engine performance.

[post="63390"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

the mazda 3 wins (again and alone proving how lame a selection the civic as COTY is), the cobalt is still faster, and still the civic is better. Nice.

All i know, is that every ecotec car i've driven has great torque and every car its been in has gotten real world figures well above 30. you onbly need to ask cmattson what his larger ecotec malibu gets. I remember even the saturn L100's with the 2.2 getting above 35 mpg. the cobalt had the best mpg of any car car and driver tested last year. Edited December 26, 2005 by regfootball

[haypops]

All i know, is that every ecotec car i've driven has great torque and every car its been in has gotten real world figures well above 30.  you onbly need to ask cmattson what his larger ecotec malibu gets. 

[post="63412"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It seems that everyone reports a long and productive "break in period" for the ectec engine over at saturnfans.com. Excellent gas milage is the results obtained after many thousand os miles of driving. This seems a little unusual for a modern engine.

Isn't the car of the year award a rather unimportant victory for so much concern. It doesn't go to the most reliable or fastest car just the newest most significiant for its manufqctuere, what ever that is.

[siegen]

Edmunds Inside Line road test......they just did a comparison of the new Civic EX Sedan (NON-hybrid) versus the Mazda3 sedan. Both cars had automatics.

You mean this test right?

Haha, what a laugh. They compared the high end Mazda3 sport version against the base model Civic (2.3L vs 1.8L engines). The Civic had a $3,000 less as tested price, and acheived much better fuel mileage than the Mazda3 (despite those lead-feet). This was an "economy sedan" comparison, right? The Civic apparently won then, since economy usually refers to cost and efficientcy. Maybe Edmunds forgot what the comparison was about, or what the Civic is designed for.

A better comparo would have been a 4-door Si and the Mazda3. Unfortunately we don't have a 4-door Si (yet?...).

Considering the Civic's "on-paper" major torque deficit (and minor horsepower deficit) I don't consider 4/10ths of a second slower to 60 and half-a-second off in the quarter mile to be a major lack of performance compared to the way torquier Cobalt.

You can thank the Civic's flat powerband for that. Or the Cobalt's major drop in TQ at 5,000rpms, no upper rpm performance, which is where small displacement engines need it. A 2.2L equivalent of the Civic's 1.8L engine (even with SOHC and the economy i-vtec) and the same flat TQ curve would put the 2.2L Ecotec to shame (but it wouldn't acheive the 30/40 mileage, which would be the sacrifice). Just look at what Honda did with a 2.2L DOHC vtec engine, 245 HP at the brake hub N/A (that's in the S2000 btw).

I agree with you OC. People seem to forget that the Civic is doing much more with less, when compared to other vehicles. That's certainly more innovative than just putting a bigger engine in there.

[Snate]

Wow...I've driven my Cobalt for almost 17K miles and the lowest average I ever got was 27 MPG...and that was a few weeks ago when it was freezing cold. I drive half tollway (70-80) and half heavy traffic. My brother's grand am with the 2.2L auto can crack 40 on the highway...so I'm gonn have to say :bs: to 22.5 MPG.

[mystik]

*sigh* If you dont think Motor Trend is Import biased, you're a fool. Plain and simple. When you say that an 8000 RPM red-line is a super plus, then thats just ridiculous. I recently subscribed to 2 YEARS of MT because I thought they were a partial magazine. They have only gotten worse. They do nothing but bag on American cars, specifically GM and Ford. If you dont think they do, or you think that American cars dont deserve it, you cant be helped. Did the Solstice deserve it? Who knows. I've never driven one. Based on interior and looks alone, the Solstice is a much better statement purchase than the Civic. However, the Civic feeds the low budget, environmentalist cow-hugging crowd that seems to be ever growing nowadays a lot more than does the new Solstice. Which looks more like a CAR? A statement that you would love to show your friends, that you would love to pull up and talk to a girl in, that you would enjoy driving regardless of the day? Uhhh THE SOLSTICE. The Civic is just EFFICIENT. Its an efficient car made for efficient driving driven by efficient people who need efficient things to function efficiently. Civic is the statement of Honda, MX-5 is the statement of Mazda, the Solstice is a niche from GM. What would it look like if a mag gave a niche car from GM, a small SPOT on their automotive map, COTY? It'd make imports look bad. And we cant have that.

[Snate]

MT used to be alot better. I don't really think they rip on Domestics much...its more that they just gush over japanese cars....most of the time it is undeserving.

[regfootball]

[COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue]

You mean this test right?

Haha, what a laugh. They compared the high end Mazda3 sport version against the base model Civic (2.3L vs 1.8L engines). The Civic had a $3,000 less as tested price, and acheived much better fuel mileage than the Mazda3 (despite those lead-feet). This was an "economy sedan" comparison, right? The Civic apparently won then, since economy usually refers to cost and efficientcy. Maybe Edmunds forgot what the comparison was about, or what the Civic is designed for.

A better comparo would have been a 4-door Si and the Mazda3. Unfortunately we don't have a 4-door Si (yet?...).
You can thank the Civic's flat powerband for that. Or the Cobalt's major drop in TQ at 5,000rpms, no upper rpm performance, which is where small displacement engines need it. A 2.2L equivalent of the Civic's 1.8L engine (even with SOHC and the economy i-vtec) and the same flat TQ curve would put the 2.2L Ecotec to shame (but it wouldn't acheive the 30/40 mileage, which would be the sacrifice). Just look at what Honda did with a 2.2L DOHC vtec engine, 245 HP at the brake hub N/A (that's in the S2000 btw).

I agree with you OC. People seem to forget that the Civic is doing much more with less, when compared to other vehicles. That's certainly more innovative than just putting a bigger engine in there.

[post="63552"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

another post wrought with apologies for an average automobile.

[regfootball]

Wow...I've driven my Cobalt for almost 17K miles and the lowest average I ever got was 27 MPG...and that was a few weeks ago when it was freezing cold.  I drive half tollway (70-80) and half heavy traffic.  My brother's grand am with the 2.2L auto can crack 40 on the highway...so I'm gonn have to say  :bs: to 22.5 MPG.

[post="63583"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

snate buddy, your cobalt is crap, better get a civic!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[regfootball]

*sigh*

If you dont think Motor Trend is Import biased, you're a fool. Plain and simple. When you say that an 8000 RPM red-line is a super plus, then thats just ridiculous. I recently subscribed to 2 YEARS of MT because I thought they were a partial magazine. They have only gotten worse. They do nothing but bag on American cars, specifically GM and Ford. If you dont think they do, or you think that American cars dont deserve it, you cant be helped. Did the Solstice deserve it? Who knows. I've never driven one. Based on interior and looks alone, the Solstice is a much better statement purchase than the Civic. However, the Civic feeds the low budget, environmentalist cow-hugging crowd that seems to be ever growing nowadays a lot more than does the new Solstice. Which looks more like a CAR? A statement that you would love to show your friends, that you would love to pull up and talk to a girl in, that you would enjoy driving regardless of the day? Uhhh THE SOLSTICE. The Civic is just EFFICIENT. Its an efficient car made for efficient driving driven by efficient people who need efficient things to function efficiently. Civic is the statement of Honda, MX-5 is the statement of Mazda, the Solstice is a niche from GM. What would it look like if a mag gave a niche car from GM, a small SPOT on their automotive map, COTY? It'd make imports look bad. And we cant have that.

[post="63602"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

the civic is hardly any more efficient than most other econocars, especially when a bloodsucking purchase price is factored in.

hell, the new civic hybrid can't even beat an ancient prius in a comparo!!!!!!!! Edited December 27, 2005 by regfootball

[Snate]

snate buddy, your cobalt is crap, better get a civic!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[post="63618"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

:lol: I'd like to think I have some taste.

[regfootball]

:lol:

:lol: I'd like to think I have some taste.

[post="63620"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

:lol: :lol:

[pow]

This :huh: ^_^ thread :AH-HA_wink: is :P :D going :lol: :rolleyes: -_- nowhere <_< . :)

[razoredge]

that's what your lady said!!!!!!!

Har har!

he's got the staying power of a honda vtec!!!!!!!

[post="63411"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No Reg, at 47 Im more like the 38, 280 lb ft and I just keep going and going and going

Who would have though it only gets better :P

[razoredge]

I appreaciate OC showing us some performance figures, it only aids to prove the bias prejudice inflicted on GM. The gas mileage figures are just so wacked its pathatic, what is the National Inquirer sendings its rejects to the car mags ?

Someone said something about ecotec loosing torque at 5000 and this is where small cars really need it ? Come on please, where are we at here ? Is this the trip to and from work everyday or Watkins Glen ? I'll try to tell you again its going to be hard to establish credit with some of these unusual statements. I bet I could go test drive 100 well used Jap cars and redline them all and be the first one to do so on at least 98 of them.

[The O.C.]

Guys....I'm not going out to buy a Civic or anything......MY choice in this segment WOULD be a Mazda3s sedan. I'm just TRYING to make a point about the fact that you simply CANNOT generalize about the performance, flexibility, or economy of a vehicle simply based upon the stated horsepower and torque figures. I understand EVERYONE (damn near) on this site HATES the Civic.....okay then..... But HOW many of you have driven both a NEW Civic and the Cobalt (for example...?) And not just "around the block?"

[regfootball]

No Reg, at 47 Im more like the 38, 280 lb ft and I just keep going and going and going

Who would have though it only gets better  :P

[post="63647"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

razor buddy it does get better some of them older women really love that torque