Info needed: EM2/ES1 Civic's

My roommate needs a replacement for her aging '99 Alero which is on its last legs to say the least. I've been looking at options and I keep coming back to the 01-05 Civic.

Overall I'm sure the reliability is typical Honda but are there any common issues to look out for?

My preference would be for a manual for simplicity reasons but how reliable are the automatics? Most anything in her price range is going to be high mileage (100k+)so if we're going to consider an automatic it needs to have a reputation for bulletproof reliability.

Is there a real word difference in fuel economy between the LX (115hp) and the EX (127hp)? Right now I'm leaning towards an EX just because they have ABS and the MPG figures are close enough on paper.

I'm also open to any suggestions on other cars. What she really needs is a reliable appliance for getting back and forth to work. Performance and handling are not a concern. Here are her criteria:

• $5,000 - $6,000
• Overall very reliable
• 30MPG or better. Her commute is 60 miles round trip, 90% highway.
• Prefer four doors
• Definite preference for imports
• Late 90's or newer
• Heated seats would be a big plus

And since this is the GRM board I'll go ahead and address the standard answers :)

Miata - Unnecessary as I already have one she can drive. She doesn't seem to like convertibles anyways.

E30 - Too old. Also she can drive my E46 if she really wants to.

P71 - Boring, ugly, huge, lousy fuel economy, etc. No chance.

I bought my ex a 2003 EX sedan with the auto and it was a fantastic car. Averaged closer to 40 mpg on the highway, shifted better than previous autotragic Civics and was pretty damn comfortable.

They did just have a recall on airbags in those cars but I don't think they can help her, she's beyond repair.

I used to average 27 mpg in a P73 in 95% highway driving. It was boring, ugly, huge, and, in my opinion, horribly uncomfortable though.

If you have narrowed it down to this one car, the best year to buy is the '05...second best is the '04. I've driven several Civics with automatic as loaner cars (not sure I'd buy one, tho) and they drive about the same as the manual transmissioned cars. That is, the transmission doesn't sap the engine like you would think it should and if you go for an LX or EX the mileage you get on the hiway with auto will come very close to the manual if you use the cruise control (NO cruise control on DXs or VPs).

Some fans of Civics claim the '96-'00 is the better car (and I'm one of them) but the later car is decent.

OH, Civic automatics never had the problems that automatics in the Accords and Odditys did.

BTW, you won't find heated seats in a Civic, Accord or even an Integra at this price point.

I had an 03 LX flavor (coupe/5spd). It got ~35-38mpg even if I beat on it.

Check the coolant and see if it's dark/got any oil in it (I've heard the 2003-2005's had some HG issues).

No heated seats option but it does have side airbags. the 2003-2005's have a MUCH more aesthetically pleasing gauge cluster. (coupes - red layout, sedans - blue layout)

Struts don't last very long (~60-75k?). Front seats rock a little (there's an easily googled fix).

they're great cars. I sold mine in 2009 with 140k miles on it for ~$5000 with snow tires (it made more than one 4x4 suv in the snow take a second look at it.)

integraguy wrote: Some fans of Civics claim the '96-'00 is the better car (and I'm one of them) but the later car is decent.

I think the 92-95 is better then the 96-00

Your roommate? Who drives your cars? Your either a real good friend or she's getting all the benefits of living with a dude (provided your a dude) without being more than a roommate.

PHeller wrote: Your roommate? Who drives your cars? Your either a real good friend or she's getting all the benefits of living with a dude (provided your a dude) without being more than a roommate.

Think you missed something.

Her car. Her budget.

He's just helping her shop.

"I think the '92-'95 is better than the '96-'00".

Having owned an example of both generations, I agree with that view. However, I was just stating other folks opinions on the '96-'00 versus the '01-'05.

I miss my '92 CX with the B18 engine and transaxle...light and fast and looked very stock.

integraguy wrote: "I think the '92-'95 is better than the '96-'00". Having owned an example of both generations, I agree with that view. However, I was just stating other folks opinions on the '96-'00 versus the '01-'05. I miss my '92 CX with the B18 engine and transaxle...light and fast and looked very stock.

Why do you like the 92-95 better than the 96-00. I have a 96-00 (96 hatch with the lean burn HX engine) and l love it. But the OB2 is a drag for sure. I thought otherwise they were pretty similar? I like the 92-95 styling and the 96-00 interiors...

Soma007 wrote: Is there a real word difference in fuel economy between the LX (115hp) and the EX (127hp)? Right now I'm leaning towards an EX just because they have ABS and the MPG figures are close enough on paper.

I think you are on the right track. I have owned 10-12 different manufactures offerings and nothing has come close to Honda's reliability. I have not owned a toyota...

How about the infiniti g20? They seem to fit the bill (including heated seats)

Thanks for the info everyone!

Looks like there aren't any real serious issues with these cars. I'll be encouraging her to get a manual but she'll probably be more comfortable with an automatic so its good to hear they're pretty solid.

Shaun wrote:

integraguy wrote: "I think the '92-'95 is better than the '96-'00". Having owned an example of both generations, I agree with that view. However, I was just stating other folks opinions on the '96-'00 versus the '01-'05. I miss my '92 CX with the B18 engine and transaxle...light and fast and looked very stock.

Why do you like the 92-95 better than the 96-00. I have a 96-00 (96 hatch with the lean burn HX engine) and l love it. But the OB2 is a drag for sure. I thought otherwise they were pretty similar? I like the 92-95 styling and the 96-00 interiors...

I have had both in coupes. I just think my '93 is more fun to drive then my old '96.

My thoughts on the '92-95 versus '96-'00:

Yes, the intro of OBD II on the later cars is a drag.

Yes, the styling on the later car is derivative of the earlier car...Honda said that they listened REAL good to what folks (supposedly?) had to say about the '92-'95 and worked the "improvements" into the end product. Having also owned an '89 I didn't really care for the comment that a Honda spokesman said "...folks (potential customers?) were turned off by the lack of a front grille, so we made sure to include it on the '96." As someone who perfers function over form...why have such a large grille if it's non-functional? Speaking of LARGE, I can sort of understand incorporating the headlight and side marker/turn signal into 1 housing (in the '89, that job is done by 3 seperate units) but the headlights on the '96-00 are too huge in my view. In fact, that's the main reason why the newer car is less attractive. In the '92-'95 model, you can see where several parts/panels are used inside and outside the car in it's assembly. On the '96-'00 model, lots of small parts were molded/styled as fewer but bigger assemblies. Sort of like someone somewhere said reduce the number of parts needed to build the car wherever possible.

BUT, my biggest gripe about the '96-'00 versus all the earlier cars, is that the earlier cars are in nearly every way, easier to work on.

Hondas owned:

'89 4 door sedan

'92 CX hatch converted to Integra B18 engine and trans,

(BTW, the Integra engine in the lighter car get as good or on the hiway BETTER gas mileage than the CX engine.)

'97 Civic 2 door coupe

'92 Integra LS 4 door (with auto) and no it wasn't the "donor" for the CX.

And in some years, (to the OP) coupes and sedans in other than EX trim had ABS. EXs, in general, get about 10% less MPG.