2012 Focus or 2012 Civic

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: asiancivicmaniac
Originally Posted By: rjundi
As far as "deal" goes the one you like better.

10-15 years is a really long time to own a car you do not like.....

My experience with a 95 Civic EX was great reliability wise over 9yrs/225k miles but I really disliked the car.


Not sure if you're using the 95 Civic just as an example of a car you didn't enjoy or as an opinion on Civics in general, but if it's the latter then I just wanted to say that the current Civic has probably surpassed what an Accord/Camry was in the 90s.


Are you kidding? The Civic/Focus/Cruze has surpassed what High end LUXURY cars were in the 90s. By MILES.

 

[rjacket]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: asiancivicmaniac
Originally Posted By: rjundi
As far as "deal" goes the one you like better.

10-15 years is a really long time to own a car you do not like.....

My experience with a 95 Civic EX was great reliability wise over 9yrs/225k miles but I really disliked the car.


Not sure if you're using the 95 Civic just as an example of a car you didn't enjoy or as an opinion on Civics in general, but if it's the latter then I just wanted to say that the current Civic has probably surpassed what an Accord/Camry was in the 90s.


Are you kidding? The Civic/Focus/Cruze has surpassed what High end LUXURY cars were in the 90s. By MILES.


In what way?

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: Nick R

Are you kidding? The Civic/Focus/Cruze has surpassed what High end LUXURY cars were in the 90s. By MILES.


Nick, I think I see where you're going with that. Those cars have lower NVH and many more features than many a mid-90's luxo-barge. Example: My Cruze is the quietest car I've ever driven on the highway. The Focus has tech features in it that were the province of luxury cars just 5-6 years ago. And they're affordable family cars. They're not small anymore by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[JTK]

Another thing to take into consideration is insurance cost. Maybe it's different in NC, but in NY, the Focus costs more to insure than other cars in this class.

Joel

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: pbm
While Honda makes a very good car I would only buy one with a manual transmission. I really think Honda needs to get their A/Ts from Aisin (Toyota) rather than design their own.


Thought Aisin was there own company. GM uses some of their stuff also.


Originally Posted By: Wikipedia

Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. (Aishin Seiki Kabushiki Kaisha?), also known as Aisin TYO: 7259, is a Japanese corporation which develops and produces components and systems for the automotive industry. Aisin is a Fortune Global 500 company, ranked 347 on the 2007 rankings.
Aisin Seiki was founded in 1949 and currently supplies engine, drivetrain, body and chassis, aftermarket, and other main automotive parts for various major OEM's. In addition to partaking in the automotive markets, Aisin also offers life & amenity products (e.g. furniture and sewing machines), energy systems, welfare products, and other products/services.[1]
Aisin is 30% owned by the Toyota Group of companies.


Appears Toyota owns a stake in Aisin, but Aisin is not part of Toyota.

 

[mike7139]

Thank you for the replies. I am not really one to like or dislike a car just because the way it drives. The main thing I am looking at is reliability. My first brand new car was a 2001 Grand Am GT that I purchased in October 2000(when I was 20) and I have now owned the car 11 years. I was checking out the Cruze but the 1.8 engine has a timing belt(yuck) and the 1.4 is an original 90hp engine(not fond of turbos on small engines). I would pick the Cruze if the bigger 2.0 engine was available.

Right now its either the Civic or the Focus.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: mike7139
Thank you for the replies. I am not really one to like or dislike a car just because the way it drives. The main thing I am looking at is reliability. My first brand new car was a 2001 Grand Am GT that I purchased in October 2000(when I was 20) and I have now owned the car 11 years. I was checking out the Cruze but the 1.8 engine has a timing belt(yuck) and the 1.4 is an original 90hp engine(not fond of turbos on small engines). I would pick the Cruze if the bigger 2.0 engine was available.

Right now its either the Civic or the Focus.


Trust me on this, the 1.4 has plenty of power. boost comes on at 1800RPM, and the transmission will rarely have you under that. If you get the manual, you can expect excellent mpg, automatic isn't anything special, but the rest of the car is still excellent. I wouldn't worry too much about the turbo. The engine was designed by GM of Germany (Opel) who have been using turbos on small engines for decades.

 

[mike7139]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: mike7139
Thank you for the replies. I am not really one to like or dislike a car just because the way it drives. The main thing I am looking at is reliability. My first brand new car was a 2001 Grand Am GT that I purchased in October 2000(when I was 20) and I have now owned the car 11 years. I was checking out the Cruze but the 1.8 engine has a timing belt(yuck) and the 1.4 is an original 90hp engine(not fond of turbos on small engines). I would pick the Cruze if the bigger 2.0 engine was available.

Right now its either the Civic or the Focus.


Trust me on this, the 1.4 has plenty of power. boost comes on at 1800RPM, and the transmission will rarely have you under that. If you get the manual, you can expect excellent mpg, automatic isn't anything special, but the rest of the car is still excellent. I wouldn't worry too much about the turbo. The engine was designed by GM of Germany (Opel) who have been using turbos on small engines for decades.



Yes my main concern is that the engine is too small for this car. I am afraid that the engine will wear out well before its time just because it has a turbo. I think GM should have just used its previous ecotec engine on this car.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: mike7139
Right now its either the Civic or the Focus.


Ford knows it has a hit on its hands with the Focus and, around here anyway, they're priced accordingly. You may find that you can't really "score a deal" on either one of them right now...they're both very popular small cars.

Either one of these will last as long as you want it to last. I will recommend that you let it come down to what you feel when you sit at the wheel and drive it. You'll know in your heart which car is speaking to you when you get in it.

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: mike7139
Thank you for the replies. I am not really one to like or dislike a car just because the way it drives. The main thing I am looking at is reliability.

Right now its either the Civic or the Focus.


I looked at reliability as first parameter in my Civic. Unfortunately it was not just the way the vehicle drove which was adequate all around.

I was not impressed at all by noise level and comfort offered in it. I thought the seats were miserable in it and had to spend lots of time on long commutes. Also the AC never broke down but was cool not cold. Same on heat. It was worst in stop and go traffic.

But it did get close to 40MPG! Too bad fuel was only topping $1.80 maybe then.

No one here can predict reliability. Honda wins on past reputation but they made duds too.

 

[kkreit01]

Answer here:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comp...omparison_tests

If a Ford beats a Honda in a C&D comparison, it must be good!

 

[mechanicx]

Yeah I know and if C&D says a Chevy finsished ahead of or even next to a Honda, you know it has to be double good. When you read between the lines they were saying the Sonic was best in class in a lot of ways.

An automotive mags ranking and opinion is almost worthless really. A person should test drive the models with an open mind. I'd take a good looking at the Cruze, Sonic and Focus.

To me how a car rides and drives and comfort is everything since most of these cars now are very reliable usually.

 

[JHZR2]

lol. Ford all the way.

The civic just isnt that good, which is my issue. In my back to back comparison, the 4dr yaris beat the 4dr civic.

 

[rjacket]

You should really test drive a Mazda 3. You'll get a better deal on it too as it is somewhat overlooked.

 

[Nick R]

I sincerely doubt that the engine is going to "wear out" faster because it has a turbo. This isn't the 1970s. What about Saab and volvo. Their engines with turbos go easily 200k miles. Turbo diesels, go just as long, and longer.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: pbm
While Honda makes a very good car I would only buy one with a manual transmission. I really think Honda needs to get their A/Ts from Aisin (Toyota) rather than design their own.


Thought Aisin was there own company. GM uses some of their stuff also.


As did Jeeps in the 1990s (Cherokees, for example). And the current HD Dodge/Cummins chassis cab trucks use an Aisin 6-speed automatic with power takeoff, similar to what is used in Hino trucks.

Aisin is.... complicated.. when it comes to ownership. And there are different divisions and collaborations at different times. Aisin-Warner was a collaboration between Aisin-Seiki and Borg Warner that built the AW4 (automatic) and AX-15 (5-speed) for Cherokees and most Toyota transmissions of the 70s and 80s.

The current company is Aisin AW, of which the two major shareholders are Toyota and Aisin Seiki. Toyota is (by a small margin) the majority shareholder. Toyota has rarely or never to my knowledge built its own transmissions for anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Aisin_transmissions

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
I sincerely doubt that the engine is going to "wear out" faster because it has a turbo. This isn't the 1970s. What about Saab and volvo. Their engines with turbos go easily 200k miles. Turbo diesels, go just as long, and longer.


No turbocharged *gasoline* engine has ever really been noted for long life. Yes, some Saab and Volvos hold up well, as did the 80s Chrysler 2.2/2.5. But compared to N/A gasoline engines of similar total output power... not so much. A big part of that is the type of car they go in and the type of driving they're subjected to, but a gasoline engine and a turbocharger are an uneasy alliance at best. Stresses go up REALLY fast with boost, and pretty soon you have to do things like back off timing a lot in order to avoid destructive detonation. And a low static compression ratio is necessary so you start out with an engine that doesn't have great volumetric efficiency right off idle.

Diesels are a TOTALLY different story, for the simple reason that detonation is physically impossible in a diesel. Assuming the basic engine structure is built strongly enough you can boost a diesel until the intake air is a red-hot plasma when the piston is finished compressing it and combustion won't begin until the injector fires, but gasoline engines are always going to be limited in how much boost they can tolerate before detonation gets destructive. DI gasoline engines can obviously tolerate more pressure, but remember that even in a DI gas engine, the fuel goes in somewhat early in the cycle and a spark still lights it at the correct time so detonation is still possible under extreme conditions. I'm really interested in seeing how the Ecoboosts hold up over, say, a 10-year period. Accelerated tests are a lot easier to pass than real-world usage.

 

[rjacket]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I sincerely doubt that the engine is going to "wear out" faster because it has a turbo. This isn't the 1970s. What about Saab and volvo. Their engines with turbos go easily 200k miles. Turbo diesels, go just as long, and longer.


No turbocharged *gasoline* engine has ever really been noted for long life. Yes, some Saab and Volvos hold up well, as did the 80s Chrysler 2.2/2.5. But compared to N/A gasoline engines of similar total output power... not so much. A big part of that is the type of car they go in and the type of driving they're subjected to, but a gasoline engine and a turbocharger are an uneasy alliance at best. Stresses go up REALLY fast with boost, and pretty soon you have to do things like back off timing a lot in order to avoid destructive detonation. And a low static compression ratio is necessary so you start out with an engine that doesn't have great volumetric efficiency right off idle.

Diesels are a TOTALLY different story, for the simple reason that detonation is physically impossible in a diesel. Assuming the basic engine structure is built strongly enough you can boost a diesel until the intake air is a red-hot plasma when the piston is finished compressing it and combustion won't begin until the injector fires, but gasoline engines are always going to be limited in how much boost they can tolerate before detonation gets destructive. DI gasoline engines can obviously tolerate more pressure, but remember that even in a DI gas engine, the fuel goes in somewhat early in the cycle and a spark still lights it at the correct time so detonation is still possible under extreme conditions. I'm really interested in seeing how the Ecoboosts hold up over, say, a 10-year period. Accelerated tests are a lot easier to pass than real-world usage.


Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[rjundi]

How much boost is there in a Cruze?

There is a huge difference between a hopped up Subaru STI with pressure boost at high rpm vs an economy minded Cruze with a small amount of boost at low RPM and up the range.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
How much boost is there in a Cruze?

There is a huge difference between a hopped up Subaru STI with pressure boost at high rpm vs an economy minded Cruze with a small amount of boost at low RPM and up the range.


max stock boost is 15psi iirc.