Thoughts on the 2012 Honda Civic?

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
1.4T Multiair apparently has a timing belt with a 74,500 mile change interval. Scratch the Dart off my list. Unless I find that it is easier than a D16 Honda Civic timing belt. I just keep remembering the nightmare that was the '82 Bertone X1/9 timing belt.


I don't like timing belts, and I think my VW is a bit too complicated for something so routine: but I'd rather have a belt than a timing chain that needs $$$$ replacement every 150k or whatever. I'm a little apprehensive about the chain in the wife's Camry, but since we still have probably 150k (5 years?) left before that could give problems I'll just worry about that when the time comes.

A Cruze wagon is interesting.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

Despite how it looks, this is exactly what they intend for it to do. Negative camber in the rear adds stability to the vehicle, and you definitely want as much stability as you can get with a loaded vehicle. Getting a little bit of negative camber also tucks the top of the tire in as the suspension compresses so they can set the static track of the vehicle (essentially how far apart the wheels are) as bit wider, which also adds stability, all else being equal.


Looks odd, but it seems to work.

Quote:

Another benefit of IRS is they can tune in some negative toe gain under compression to further add stability to the back end. None of this is generally possible with non-independent suspensions, especially those that are solid beams.

I've owned both types (large family vehicles with solid beam rear axles and IRS designs) and although the comparison obviously can't be apples-to-apples, those with IRS have been more stable and handle better than those with solid beams.

Originally Posted By: supton
top gear is pretty tall as it is, 1800rpm or so 60mph if memory serves right


If it's the same as our MDX (and the rest of the powertrain is), it's very tall. 2,000 rpm is about 72 mph, so yeah, 1,800 rpm would be at least 60 mph.


I keep looking at vehicles often enough that I just keep a spreadsheet with all the info I find out. Including gearing info. Ridgeline runs 1664rpm at 60mph, 1803 at 65, 1942 at 70 and 2081 at 75. It’d probably get better mpg for most people with shorter gearing, as it probably downshifts for the slights hill or breeze. I haven’t found a good plot of the torque curve for this motor though; I found a K&N one but it’s only good for above 3500rpm.

Quote:

The Ridgeline has far outlived its original intended life, and apparently keeps selling enough for Honda to continue to build it. It's clear that they intend for it to pass away, as it's the only SUV/van in their stable to not have been updated with current generation suspension components and a newer version of the venerable 3.5L V-6 engine. It comes with the same EPA ratings (15/21) as our 2005 MDX. It clearly hasn't evolved with the rest.

But that may be changed soon. Honda is said to be working on a second generation Ridgeline for 2014 which would presumably fix many of the current generation's shortcomings.

Motor Trend WOT article


Interesting. Probably not enough for me to be interested in, although a refresh will likely reinvigorate the whole trucklet argument again.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: supton
I keep looking at vehicles often enough that I just keep a spreadsheet with all the info I find out. Including gearing info. Ridgeline runs 1664rpm at 60mph, 1803 at 65, 1942 at 70 and 2081 at 75.


That sounds exactly like our MDX. I do believe that it's nearly the same power train, or at least gearing. It has similar power/torque figures, and even has the same EPA mileage estimates.

Originally Posted By: supton
It’d probably get better mpg for most people with shorter gearing, as it probably downshifts for the slights hill or breeze. I haven’t found a good plot of the torque curve for this motor though...


I bet you'd be surprised. I think people assume that Honda engines have no torque, but this engine's torque peak of 250 lb*ft is at 3,500 rpm. It's no stump-puller, but that's respectably low in the rpm range for a 3.5L V-6 that will pull strong to 6,200 rpm. It'll run with the TCC locked in 5th even on moderate hills. If it needs more power, it simply unlocks the TCC and the engine speed will flair about 500-800 rpm. It takes a lot for it to actually downshift into 4th.

We average better than the EPA ratings for ours; in fact, we get quite close to the "original" EPA ratings that were on the window sticker in 2005 (17/23). The 15/21 for our Acura is the "updated" estimated post-2008 figure. Running fast on the highway in the dead of summer with A/C blasting, it will return 21-22 mpg. An easier pace in the cooler months might return 24-25 mpg. It averages right around 23 mpg for us (on the road).

All that said, I DO wish it had shorter gearing. I think its R&P ratio is 4.25:1 or 4.35:1 (I can't recall at the moment). Our CR-V's is 4.5:1, and I think the Acura would be a little more "playful" with a 4.5:1 R&P.

 

[supton]

'09 and newer Ridgeline runs 4.53:1 with tires that require 683 rev's per mile (P245/65R17); gearing of 2.697/1.606/1.071/0.766/0.538; curb 4500-4600lb, GVWR 6050, GCWR 10085, max towing 5k. [Pre-'09 is slightly different at 2.693/1.566/1.023/0.729/0.531/R1.889] I have read that it's pretty hard to keep the torque convertor locked up, which is usually a prerequisite for towing; yet I have not heard of many transmission issues (and have read that it will lock the TCC when the temp gets too high).

My beef is that to get above 3k rpm, where the torque likely is on this motor requires 3rd or even 2nd. 4th gear at 65 is just below 2600rpm; 3rd at 65mph is almost 3600. I know a Honda will live there all day long, but I don't know if that means it converts gasoline into hp any more efficent than an old school pushrod motor turning a few less rev's. I also would think that means it's going to be kinda slow on takeoff (read that as lots of tranny heat from slipping to get it going). Which is probably ok, since it's really designed for occasional use, not continous heavy duty use.

2012 CRV is 4.44:1 final with 2.786/1.614/1.082/0.773/0.566; tire sizes depend. 215/70R16 on LX and 225/65R17 on EX/EX-L, for 724 and 707 rev/mile (I believe no gearing change between the two); curb of about 3500lb, GVWR 4560, GCWR 6060, max towing 1,500. 60mph is 1819rpm, 65 is 1971 and 70 is 2122.

Oddly enough, the RAV4, for both I4 and V6, run a 3.08 final. The I4 runs 3.938/2.194/1.411/1.019, while the V6 runs 4.24/2.36/1.52/1.05/0.76. Shorter rear ratio but deeper transmission gearing. The I4 runs 2272rpm at 60mph and the V6 1694 at 60mph, with tires that turn 724rev's per mile. Lower driveline friction is what Toyota went after?

I think I might have gone off on a tangent...

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: VicVinegar
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
1.4T Multiair apparently has a timing belt with a 74,500 mile change interval. Scratch the Dart off my list. Unless I find that it is easier than a D16 Honda Civic timing belt. I just keep remembering the nightmare that was the '82 Bertone X1/9 timing belt.

The Cruze is looking better and better. I can't believe I'm seriously pondering a small GM.

They just need to make this happen for the US:

Is that Cruze hatch supposed to be coming? The only news I can remember is a diesel in the pipeline.

Even without the hatch I think the Chevy deserves a look if I get serious about a new ride. Haven't read too much that is negative about them, unlike the Focus and the not so positive vibe I've been getting about their new AT. I know, I should get a stick.

I don't actually believe that the Cruze diesel or wagon will be sold in the USA because of how many times diesels and wagons were announced but never got built.

 

[Spazdog]

I know. I just think it's a sharp looking wagon.

Pretty sure GM is going to forfeit the diesel wagon segment to VW.

Maybe to Mazda....but as much as I like Mazda, I can't get past the leering grin of the Mazda3.

 

[Hokiefyd]

True about the Ridgeline; I forgot about the taller tires vs. the ones on our MDX (P235/65R17). The finished engine speeds appear the same.

Yes, if you're towing all the time, you could just leave it in 4th and lock out 5th gear. Without a trailer, torque is not an issue, but with a trailer it could be.

The CR-V 2WD model has a 4.44:1 final drive. The AWD model has a 4.50:1 final drive. This is new for 2012; in the 2007-2011 generation, I believe that all have the 4.50:1 final ratio.

 

[kkreit01]

Surprised to see the Civic in CR's "list to avoid". It must be that bad. Lol. I pretty much take CR as a grain of salt when it comes to auto reviews though.

 

[sw99]

I would have to agree with the last few years of CR reviews I have seen. As far as the Civic, we are more than pleased with the purchase. But than again, this is our first Civic.

 

[sw99]

UPDATE

Fuel mileage has been great and we have zero complaints. The worst mileage we've had is 37.5 and we are coming up on 2700 miles. Very happy with our Honda Purchase!

 

[SLCraig]

Originally Posted By: sw99
UPDATE

Fuel mileage has been great and we have zero complaints. The worst mileage we've had is 37.5 and we are coming up on 2700 miles. Very happy with our Honda Purchase!


Overall I love my 2011. The 2012 Civic is not eye pleasing at all if you ask me, but I've been in two of them, and I still think they are a decent car. A class leader, probably not, but a car that holds its value well, good on fuel, and is reliable, yes.