2012 Civic Scores too Low to be "Recommended by Consumer Reports"
 

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/consumer...commended.html

lulz

I agree that the interior build quality of Civics nowadays is garbage.

OK, but if it was the Si version you wanted, does Ford or Chevy have anything that competes with that? No.

Ford is buiding an SVT Focus

Of course, for the price tag of a Civic Si, you can have a 300+hp, 30mpg V6 Mustang or Camaro.

The Civic Si fanboys are fucking retarded. All of them. The Civic is, and always has been, an economy car (and not a very good one, at that). Trying to pretend it's something else is foolish and ridiculous.

I could also say that pretending a Mustang/Camaro is a sportscar is foolish. They're muscle cars that have been forced into handling decently. They were built off platforms shared with sedans, not dedicated sportscar platforms like Porsches, Miatas, etc.

At least with Civics you are starting with a lighter base, so it's easier to make it handle.

I would honestly rather have the new Civic Si (much improved over last year's), than a V6 Mustang/Camaro. With a V6 Mustang/Camaro you don't get the top brakes/suspension, and people can easily tell it's not the top model, so you look like a poser or a secretary. :lol: Also I'm quite sure that a Civic Si handles better, and is almost as fast, as those cars.

You're delusional.

Here's a little tip for you: There's no such thing as a FWD sportscar.

The Mustang and Camaro are not and never were sportscars. They are Ponycars. It's nice of you to point out the heritage, as it's a damn sight better than the Civic, notably from a performance standpoint.

I'm off now to check performance numbers, but think about this: if you ask 100 people whether they would rather have a Civic Si or a Mustang or Camaro, what do you think you'd get?

Are you asking specifically about V6 Mustangs/Camaros?

Because if you are, I think you'd be surprised by the results.

I've met/spoke to tons of Honda 'fanboys' who diss Mustangs/Camaros all the time.

That's because they're retarded.

The 2012 Cic Si goes 0-60 in 6.9 seconds. The V-6 Mustang does it in 5.1.

One of those is a performance car, and one of them is an overpriced, underpowered, underperforming poser that relies on badges and ignorance to generate sales.

Whatever you say chief. I guess every Civic Si owner bought it just because it's a Honda. They couldn't have possibly bought it because they liked it.

To me, the way a car feels & responds to the wheel is more important than how fast it accelerates or how much lateral G it generates. And no muscle car will ever feel like a small car.

LOL @ 3,500 lbs for a V6 Mustang (and 3,800 for a V6 Camaro :lol: ).

LOL @ 200 hp for Civic Si. :lol:

I can play this game all day, and the Honda loses every time. ;)

Sure, if 0-60 times are your sole definition of win or loss.

Sole Definition? That category is a blowout. Fuel efficiency is the same, and price tag is the same. Unless the Si has amazingly better handling (it doesn't) the pony cars shit all over it.

Tell you what- put two drivers who know what they're doing on the same track. One in a Civic Si, the other in a 2012 Ford Mustang, and I'll bet that the Mustang driver not only destroys, but eventually laps the Civic driver.

I'll say it again: the Civic is not, never has been, and never will be a performance car. It's an economy car- and an economy car that gets 30 mpg is an utter failure.

I don't know about you, but I don't drive on a track. I drive on roads. And I don't enjoy trying to hustle a big heavy car around a tight mountain road.

And your statement about what is and isn't a performance car is just your opinion, as there is no accepted definition of such.

I guess the Focus SVT you mentioned isn't a performance car either. Nope, a manufacturer can never take an economy car and turn it into a performance car.

Economy platforms do not translate well to performance. FWD+soft suspension+anemic 4-cyl engines != performance.

Nobody sets out to build a performance car and uses a 4cyl FWD softly-suspended platform as their starting point.

There is no such thing as a FWD, 4cyl performance car, no matter what Honda tells you. The Civic Si is not a sports car; it's an economy car that gets shitty mileage.

The exterior of the Civic SI looks pretty decent, but nowhere near the coolness of a Camaro. However, the interior of the Civic is still subpar SI or not. And the Camaro took the top 2010 interior ward by some mag I can't think of now.

Nobody is saying Civics are sports cars. A sports car is built from scratch, and doesn't share its platform with any other model. Examples: Corvette, Miata, Elise, etc.

But "performance car" simply means any car that is marketed to people who desire high performance attributes. Period. Nobody "sets out" to build a performance car, rather they take an existing car (typically a family sedan) and modify it to give it more performance. That includes WRX's, Taurus SHO's, Focus SVT's, and yes the Civic Si. There is no textbook definition saying a performance car must have RWD or a certain 0-60 figure.

Can you explain that to the idiots with the plastic picnic table bolted to their trunks?

See that is the only reason I think people hate Civics.......not because it sucks but because of all the ricers. In reality a Focus isn't any better than a Civic, but it doesn't get hated on because not very many Focus owners rice it out.

I am really glad I don't have to deal with every douchebag wanting to race my old piece of shit civic I used for commuting anymore. I will never own another one just because of that reason.

I couldn't drive over 75 on the interstate without some idiot wanting to be ricky racer cut me off and block me from passing them or playing speed up/slow down. Fuck I hated that, sooooo much.

It's probably because you had a coffee can exhaust on it :lol

/offtopic
I'm putting 20% tint on the Camaro for just that reason...makes it easier to ignore the dumbasses that can't be near the car on the road without wanting to "race."

/ontopic
My wife wants a new Civic....we're giving her 2006 to my daughter.

Nope, it was bone stock. It was the cheap model with no power locks, power windows too. There was nothing on that car that said rice besides the civic badge.

Were any of your body panels primer-coated? Another ricer giveaway :lol

How to upset your friends as a Civic owner

Upset your White friends - Do not attach type R sticker, fart can and intake
Upset your Asian friends - Do not attach type R sticker, fart can, intake and do not replace seats
Upset your Hispanic friends - Do not attach type R sticker, fart can, intake, don't replace seats and do not install lowering links
Upset your Black friends - Do not replace wheels. leave stereo stock.

^ if you can't afford new seats, race-look seatbelt sleeves will suffice

I used to twitch at the bs to justify it.

"Those seatbelts be biting into my skin yo...I put those on for comfort and shit."

My favorite is sitting at a light and have some clown in a riced out heap standing on the gas making that crazy gazoo noise.....just dying for some attention.

I can't help but laugh and think about how, when I was a kid, my friends and I would clothes pin a piece of cardboard to on the frame of our bicycles so it would slap against the spokes as we rode....make some noise...feel like we were going FAST. :lmao:

Fake blow-off valves are always a trip

Camaros was the poor mans corvette.

Based on personal experiences, I would disagree with it not being a good economy car; my wife's Civic was a great little car for what it was. And my '89 CRX Si I had (essentially a Civic) was pretty much bullet proof. I was just about to turn 200,000 trouble-free miles when I got T-boned in that car 12 years ago. Other than normal maintenance, neither car had a problem. Both had excellent fuel economy. Ergonomics were good (not great, but good). Interior quality was good. Fit and finish of body panels was good.

As for the original topic of this thread, those new Civics are fucking hideous. I was looking one over in the showroom while buying my Pilot. I think the only Honda vehicle I like now is my Pilot. I'd rather have a Mazda 3 than a Civic.

Haters! :lol

I was just the opposite when I had my Eclipse. I removed all labels that advertised GSX, AWD, or turbo. Installed a 16G turbo, but left the exhaust stock in appearance. It would run 13.7-13.8 in the quarter mile, but looked like a baseline model from the outside. Few things were more satisfying than unexpectedly leaving a Camaro or Mustang sitting at the line :?:.

The next light always played out in one of two scenarios: 1. Other driver looks dead ahead, will not make eye contact no matter what (happened most if they had some chica with them) or 2. they rolled down their window and asked what trickery I was up to. :lol:

Loved those cars; those were pretty bad ass back in the day.

My apologies, I was unclear with my statement. Civics used to be good economy cars.

That shit has been over for a good decade. They keep adding too much crap to them in the name of luxury, and have sacrificed economy as a result. Today's Civic is overpriced, underperforming, and doesn't get near the fuel economy of a Civic from the mid-90's.

I will agree that it has gotten overweight, in fact it is just as big as a 90's Accord now, but in terms of "underperforming", the current Si and the one right before it would blow away any previous Si.

Probably my favorite all-around car I ever owned. Incredible power from a little 2.0 (21 years ago), insanely reliable, and handled better than anything I owned up to that point.

It's sad how far Mitsubishi has fallen since the early 90's; there's nothing in their line-up I would even consider driving today.

Agreed

Yeah, I always dug the first-gen DSMs. AWD + turbo + lightweight car = awesome go-kart on steroids fun. Unfortunately, I've always been just a little too big to fit in them very well.

ETA: As far as their current line-up goes, I wouldn't turn down a new EVO. ;)

This thread reminds me of the fun I had in my Conquest TSi. Had a silver one like this.

http://jeepquest.net/gallery2/d/1786-1/SSPX0712_002.jpg

My roommate in FL had one of those, but never got it running in the ~3 years I knew him. He said it was pretty quick back in its day.

From what I remember of them they were 16 second cars (which was pretty good for the time period) with a glass jaw. Something with the heads.

It was a respectable ride for a 4-cyl turbo in that period and the interiors were awesome.

The problem with them was that the heads would warp/crack easily and the head gaskets would toast, especially on the earlier models without intercoolers.

Iron block + aluminum heads + turbo heat = glass jaw.