| Published
on 21
May
2011 |
All rights reserved.
|
|
|
Until the mid-1990s, Honda
was still an engineering-led company with an ambitious mind and strong
motivation for success. Take its Civic for example, it introduced a new
generation every four
years, and each generation brought the world some of the most
edge-cutting technologies. Somehow, the rising trend came to a halt as
Japan fell into a long recession. Then it was hit by the strength of
yen, the emergence of Korean competitors and, lately, the revival of
Detroit. These unfavourable factors stretched its resources
thin, limiting the progress it can make.
The 9th generation Civic was born under such circumstances. Honda still
managed to keep a relatively short turnaround cycle of 5 years (the
last gen was born in early 2006), but the result is the mildest
progress we have ever seen in its 40 years history. In fact, keeping
much the same styling, interior, chassis and powertrains, we may even
describe it as a light evolution of the old car. Fans of Civic might
feel being cheated.
The Civic sedan reviewed here looks remarkably close to the outgoing
car. Not only its length, width and height are practically unchanged,
it also
carries over the monospace profile with fast A-pillars, huge
windscreen and very short bonnet. There are some refinement though –
the bumpers and shoulders are more sculpted, the waistline rises
slightly towards the tail, the nose grille and headlights are made less
flush with the body in order to shout for their existence. However, the
benefits these changes bring are not too obvious, and some even work
against it. For example, the new shape taillights look
out of place with the rest of the design. There seems to
be less coherence between the old and new elements. While the old car
was all about futuristic, the new car dials back with some
conservatism. The result is a mixed impression.
Inside, we are displeased to see the return of the two-tier dashboard.
On the one hand its contribution to ergonomics is questionable, on the
other hand it looks really ugly. Its blocky design looks outdated, so
do the switch gears and
the lack of quality materials. The interior design, colors and
materials are at least a generation behind the latest European cars
like Volkswagen Golf and Opel Astra. Even the new Hyundai Elantra can
teach the Honda a thing or two. Equipment is equally outdated, as
keyless entry and engine start button are absent here.
Well, the cabin is not all that bad. At least it offers plenty of
space.
Although Honda has shortened the new car's wheelbase by 30 mm to 2670
mm, it is still a generous dimension by class standard (only fall short
of Hyundai Elantra's 2700 mm and Chevrolet Cruze's 2685 mm). Moreover,
engineers managed to squeeze more room out of the body shell, so the
rear seat actually gains 40 mm more legroom, while shoulder room gets
a massive boost of 74 mm. Overall, the whole cabin is 4 percent bigger
than before, according to America's EPA measurement.
Thanks to
large glass area, the cabin feels light and airy. By using more
high-strength steel
to construct the chassis, Honda managed to slim up its A-pillars,
improving
visibility, while making the body-in-white 7 percent lighter and 10
percent
stiffer. Aerodynamic drag is lowered slightly too. All these
improvements are
small but nonetheless they point to the right direction.
They need
to,
because the new Civic has no fundamental changes to its driving
hardware. The 1.8-liter
SOHC i-VTEC engine received only minor modifications to reduce friction
and fuel consumption, but its failure to offer direct injection and
all-valve variable cam phasing costs its output, which remains
unchanged at 140 hp and 128 lbft. Honda claims it now offers more
mid-range torque between 2000 and 4000 rpm, but in reality the gain is
too small to mention, so its performance falls slightly behind the
class standard. For a car used to be renowned for advanced engine and
brisk performance, how can we not disappointed ? Also carried
over is
the 5-speed automatic gearbox, which is a ratio short of the industrial
norm.
To squeeze more miles out of each gallon of fuel, Honda has remapped
the gearbox to promote
the use
of higher gears. This can hardly satisfy keen drivers, of course.
However, what disappoints keen drivers most is the steering, because it
has been retuned to be slower and more isolated (numb) in the name of
higher refinement. In this way, the Civic can no longer attract keen
drivers like the last generation did. It feels boring to drive.
On the positive side, the new car is undeniably more comfortable, with
a smoother and quieter ride, and a better isolated cabin. The stiffer
chassis, more sound deadening and a longer travel suspension setup
contribute to this refinement. Just like a 40-year-old man, the new
Civic trades much of its athletic character for a grown-up manner.
Trouble is, no one wants it to be another Toyota Corolla. It's time for
Honda to rethink about its core values.
|
Verdict:  |
| Published
on 21
May
2011 |
All rights reserved.
|
|
Civic Coupe Si
|
|
Traditionally, performance
versions of Civic are highly desirable. Top of the pick is Type R, of
course, but lesser models like Si, SiR or Type S are already exciting
enough to please young drivers, especially considering their room for
modifications. The wide availability of performance components for
Honda's K20 engine is a strong reason to buy sporty Civics.
However, the same cannot be said to the latest Civic Coupe Si, because
it has switched to the larger K24Z7 engine. This 2.4-liter motor has
practically the same specifications as the one serving Acura TSX (i.e.
Japanese and European Honda Accord). Both its VTEC and VTC (variable
cam phasing) mechanism work on the intake valves only. Compression
ratio remains a high 11.0:1, but the larger capacity by means of long
stroke stresses on torque instead of power. The result is a boost of 31
lb-ft, and now the peak torque arrives at 4400 rpm instead of 6100 rpm.
This improves the car's drivability as well as reduces fuel consumption
a little. On the flip side, the larger engine redlines at only 7000
rpm, a full 1000 rpm lower than before. Its maximum output barely
inches up by 4 horses to 201 hp.
Worse still, the K24Z7 cannot interchange parts with hot versions of
K20, because its camshafts are longer and its exhaust manifolds are
integrated with the cylinder head. This seriously limits its
tunability, thus will put off many boy racers.
On the road, the wider power band of new engine does feel more useful,
allowing you to make less gearshifts. In-gear acceleration is more
responsive, even though standstill acceleration and top speed show no
obvious progress. However, keen drivers would actually prefer to use
more the 6-speed manual, whose shift action is as slick and short as
before (because it is carried over from the old car). They would also
prefer a more thrilling experience from the engine, accessing its
ultra-high rev and listen to the switchover of VTEC cams. In the new
car, these thrills have been largely reduced, sadly.
The rest of the car shows a similar story to the Civic sedan. We don't
understand why Honda decided to slower its steering ratio from 13.6:1
to 16.1:1. This results in a laughable 3.1 turns from lock to lock,
robbing the car a sharp turn-in. The electrical power steering also
feels lifeless, especially at the straight ahead position. In short,
the steering is significantly poorer than the old car.
The new Coupe runs a 2620 mm wheelbase, 50 mm shorter than the sedan
and 30 mm shorter than the old Coupe. Si still gets the old car's
helical limited slip differential to help it put down the power
effectively. The same 215/45ZR17 tires provide traction and grip. As a
result, the handling (save steering) is remarkably close to the old
car. The only noticeably area is ride quality and quietness, thanks in
part to a stiffer chassis.
Not only the dynamic aspect is disappointing, the packaging is the
same. The new Coupe is an ugly duck, more so than the previous car. Its
monospace shape with short bonnet and high fastback looks more like a
Toyota Prius than a sporty coupe. The waistline looks too high, the
nose looks a mess and the tail is characterless. Inside, the cabin is
dominated by an ugly, low-rent double-decker dashboard like the sedan.
Few coupes these days look as undesirable. Moreover, the fastback eats
into rear headroom, limiting its usage to children. When you can buy
desirable hot hatches like Golf GTI and Scirocco, there is no reason to
choose the Honda.
|
| Verdict: |
| Published
on 16
Nov
2011 |
All rights reserved.
|
|
Civic hatchback (Europe)
|
|
We know the new Civic
sedan is a light evolution from the last generation. How about its
European hatchback sister? Much the same story. Although you can name a
lot of small changes, such as a 30 mm shorter wheelbase, slightly
altered exterior dimensions (30 mm longer, 20 mm lower and 10 mm wider)
and all new body panels, the car still looks remarkably close to the
old car, thanks to a radical wedge profile that made the old car so
distinctive. The shape is so familiar that you can easily forget the
restyled nose (with new headlights and a black mask mirroring VW Golf
GTI Mk5) and new taillights. If you notice the new nose and tail, that
is only because they are less easy to eyes than the old ones.
Style-wise, this is not a successful revision.
I don't understand why Honda decided to shorten its wheelbase while
everyone else is lengthening. It appears that the only reason is to
keep the hatchback's wheelbase 65 mm shorter than the sedan's like the
last generation. Fortunately, the old Civic hatchback had a spacious
rear passenger compartment, so the loss of 30 mm has not hurt it too
much. There is still useful space for tall adults. Moreover, the boot
remains a commanding 487 liters thanks to its unusual height.
The radical dashboard remains. It still employs a two-tier, aircraft
cockpit architecture. Good news is the digital instrument readings have
been replaced with conventional gauges for better ergonomics. Materials
have also been improved, with soft-touch plastics used on most surfaces
you are likely to touch – something clearly better than its sedan
sibling. On the downside, rearward visibility is still hampered by the
split hatchback window and thick C-pillars.
As before, the hatchback employs torsion-beam suspension at the rear
instead of the sedan's multi-link setup to free more space from the
cabin and boot. This explains for its superior space efficiency and, in
combination with the central-mounted fuel tank (located under front
seats), a rear bench that can not only fold flat but also flip up like
cinema seats to place tall luggage in the cabin. Honda hasn't altered
this feature since the old car. It doesn't need to, as no rivals can
match it yet.
The powertrains are also largely unchanged - the 99hp 1339 cc 8-valve
and 140hp 1.8-liter 16V i-VTEC produce the same output as before, only
the 2.2 turbo diesel gets an extra 10 hp to 150 hp. However, the
expensive diesel is not going to account for too many sales, as it is a
mismatch to this class (remember, it was originally designed for
Accord; Honda has yet to build a small diesel motor for European
market). The majority sales will go to the 1.8 petrol. It is not a bad
motor, but the lack of turbocharging torque means you need to work hard
on gearshift to overtake and, as a result, you have to tolerate with
the excessive engine noise at higher rev.
That is a pity, because otherwise the Civic hatchback goes quite
refined. Honda has listened to criticisms to the old car and spent
extra efforts to solve its NVH problems. The torsion-beam suspension
has been given softer springs and hydraulic bushings. Thicker windows,
reinforced door seals and extra sound deadening materials also help
cutting NVH. The result is much reduced road noise and harshness on
motorway cruising. Its rolling refinement is definitely improved a lot,
but it is not perfect yet – on harsher B-roads the suspension still
delivers poorer primary ride than what you will find on Golf, Focus or
many European rivals.
The softened suspension has little adverse effect on handling, but the
new steering does hampers the old car's sporty character. Although it
is still a pure electrical power steering, the mechanism is said to be
new. With 2.5 turns instead of 2.9 turns from lock to lock, it is even
quicker than before. It is also more linear and accurate. However, the
steering is made lighter – good for regular urban driving but too light
for the taste of keen drivers – and it does not deliver much feedback
to involve the driver. As a result, the new car is actually less
entertaining to drive than the old car.
Overall speaking, the new European Civic hatchback has taken a small
step forward, but such a small step is not enough to challenge the best
of the class, especially when the improvements are accompanied with
some compromises hard to ignore.
|
| Verdict: |
| Published
on 26
Dec
2011 |
All rights reserved.
|
|
Civic Hybrid
|
|
The last generation Honda
Civic Hybrid was a compromised package, no matter in terms of
technology, fuel economy or driving dynamics. The new car tries to
improve these areas and close the gap from Toyota Prius. Nevertheless,
judging from the measures it has taken, I doubt if it will succeed.
Honda thought a larger petrol engine would give it better performance,
but pumping the 1.3-liter SOHC 8-valve engine to 1.5-liter alone won't
solve the problem. Its tuning is still oriented to fuel economy – as
before, the so-called i-VTEC system has no variable cam phasing, just a
3-stage VTEC with a set of slow cams, fast cams and zero-lift cams (for
deactivating the cylinders in EV cruise). It even lacks the 4-valves
head of CR-Z. Horsepower is actually reduced a little bit to 90 hp,
although max torque is improved slightly to 97
lbft.
To improve fuel economy and stretch the availability of electric mode,
the DC motor is strengthened to produce 23 hp and 78 lbft instead of
the outgoing 20 hp and 76 lbft. Such improvement is equally subtle. A
better news is the NiHM battery has been replaced with Li-ion, whose
higher energy density allows a smaller and lighter package. Having said
that, the trunk of Civic Hybrid is still no match with that of Toyota
Prius.
Honda's IMA (Integrated Motor Assist) system has its thin electric
motor sandwiched between the engine and CVT, and the motor is
permanently connected to the engine without clutch. Therefore the
engine still spins and wastes energy when the electric motor propels
the car alone. This means it will never match Toyota's HSD (Hybrid
Synergy Drive) for efficiency. Moreover, its sole electric motor is
responsible for both propulsion and regeneration, unlike HSD which uses
a motor for propulsion and another motor dedicated to regeneration, so
its energy recoverage is not as efficient as Toyota's. Furthermore, the
Honda's EV mode is only available when the car is on light cruising. It
cannot pull the car from start, unlike most other hybrids.
On the road, the new Hybrid does deliver improved mpg over its
predecessor, although its EPA rating still lags behind Prius (44 mpg vs
51 mpg city; 44 mpg vs 48 mpg highway). The gain in performance is
negligible, as it still takes more than 10 seconds to go from zero to
sixty. The regular 1.8-liter Civic is still a better companion if you
want a brisk drive. In terms of ride and handling, it feels like a
normal car, albeit with an abrupt brake pedal (due to regenerative
braking) and less grip (due to low-rolling resistance tires). Therefore
it is a little bit more enjoyable to drive than Prius. On the downside
is refinement. Its engine-motor integration is not the best in hybrid
world, with noticeable vibration and noise whenever the engine cuts in.
In the end, the new Civic Hybrid is still a compromised package. As
Toyota is expanding its HSD offerings to smaller cars, Civic Hybrid
will find life getting harder and harder.
|
| Verdict: |
|
