What's /o/'s take on the new Honda Civic? The EX-T seems pretty cheap and halfway decent. It's only a couple grand more than the Fiat 500 too.
Why is there no Si by the way? Am I missing something? Honda's website doesn't seem to list one.
>>14737107
The new Si isn't out yet.
As to the new Civic, avoid all cars except the base model L versions with the 6 speed manual.
The CVT transmissions aren't proven yet and given the history of CVT', stay VERY far away from any car with a CVT
>>14737107
I haven't given Civic's (or Hondas in general) any real thought in about 7-8 years, they look ugly (subjective) and seem to have been coasting on reputation for almost a decade.
>>14737127
Is it possible to order a civic with the turbo engine and the manual transmission?
Anything in particular bad with the CVT that wouldn't be covered by a warranty?
>>14737248
>Is it possible to order a civic with the turbo engine and the manual transmission?
Nope
>Anything in particular bad with the CVT that wouldn't be covered by a warranty?
Nothing that wouldn't be covered under warranty, but CVT transmissions in general are known for blowing themselves to smithereens every 30k.
I live just down the street from a Nissan dealer and there's cars there every single day for replacement transmissions.
The only cars with reliable CVT's I've found are all hybrids.
>>14737266
I'm pretty unfamiliar with CVT transmissions, what's the deal with them anyway?
>>14737294
its anautomatic transmission that can change seamlessly through a continuous range of effectivegear ratios. This contrasts with other mechanical transmissions that offer a finite number of gear ratios. They usually allow the engine to run at max efficiency, that's why most hybrids have them.
>>14737248
>>14737266
Starting with the 2017 models, yes.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/news/a28259/the-turbo-honda-civic-is-getting-a-manual-gearbox/
But yeah, I'd wait until 2017 for a civic anyway. At least a year to sort out bugs, and CVTs are shitty in general.
An Si is coming later next year, and so is a Type R methinks.
>>14737375
A lot of the new WRXs on the road that I've seen are auto with the CVT, is the performance better than a manual?
I've been waiting for the coupe for a long time now. they're just starting to hit dealerships
>>14737294
They use a belt or a chain around 2 pulleys that can change sizes to go through a series of different gear ratios. CVT stands for Continuously Variable Transmission and was invented by the Swedes sometime in the 1950's and 60's. Everyone is switching to them for fuel economy, but they have long been known for being unable to handle anything over 100 HP, so the transition from scooter and bike transmission to car transmission isn't as seamless as the transmission itself. Do I think they will eventually work it out? Yes. But I don't think for another 10 or 15 years.
CVT's are also weird as fuck to drive.
>>14737415
Speaking of which, the weird as fuck to drive bit is why Subaru WRX's use them.
When driving a CVT car, the engine will go bthrough the RPMs till it hit the engine's peak horsepwer or peak torque output. Then the engine RPM will STAY there while the speed continues to increase.
It's weird as fuck to experience
example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbpzvgCGgWs
>>14737248
Yes, it will be soon.
>>14737248
>Anything in particular bad with the CVT that wouldn't be covered by a warranty
current one tend to die after 60k which is where the honda drivetrain warranty ends (if not a 30k) so it'll be fine till the warranty is over, after that you may want to consider getting another car.
>>14737294
long story short, they are great on paper. constant application of power and tq, good mpg improvement from standard automatics, no shift shock. In practice they are heavy, complicated, and finicky. Dealers will always remove and replace rather than fix a faulty part in the cvt. thats fine if you're still under warranty but not so much when you're not, expect to pay upwards of 5k just for the cvt.
>>14737415
Cvts tend to have zero balls from a stop and usually add a second to 0-60 times. The cvt is always cocking blocking you to keep the application of power smooth and keep fuel consumption low which makes it feel unresponsive to throttle inputs.They also have more drivetrain loos than normal autos making small displacements feel even smaller. A manual will have less drivetrain loss than a cvt while weighing much less and will not nanny you. so no, cvt performance is not better than a manual. CVTs are for mpgs.
But they do like to cruise at oddly low rpms at highway speed. When passing and overtaking at highway speeds the cvt will peg the rpms and accelerate linearly and doesn't stop pulling till you let off the gas. where as a manual or automatic will pull till it reaches the end of the gear ratio and the drop power to select a new gear.
>>14737441
Weird that they threw that kind of trans in the WRX instead of just a 6 speed auto. Kinda Interested in seeing how a modded one is with the CVT
>>14737574
Shitty that Subaru went with a commuter trans
>>14737577
>modded wrx with a cvt
I would love to see this.
>>14737577
The CVT means that it will accelerate faster than a manual if the computer is tuned for that, but the transmission's longevity is still in question.
>>14737606
lurking wrx forums lead me to believe that they have more problems than the manuals and tend to not handle power as reliably as the manual. worst part is if something breaks in the cvt there is literally 0 diy to fix it and good luck with warranty
That's a bummer, so how worthless is the stock non-turbo engine?
I'm looking for something around 20k in a turbo coupe. Less if it isn't new
>>14737969
>I'm looking for something around 20k in a turbo coupe. Less if it isn't new
Look for a 2008-2010 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbo Coupe. 9-13k.
