Spoiler alert: I think it’s this one, the 1992-95 generation. But do tell me what you think in the comments.
I’ve ridden in all manner of Civics. The first was my high-school homeroom teacher’s late-70s two-door hatch. It wasn’t a favorable first impression: no matter how I adjusted the seat, my knees were simultaneously in the dash and at my chin. I guess the next generation Civic was slightly roomier, but I never experienced one to know for sure.
A college buddy’s 1985 CRX HF didn’t seem much bigger on the outside than my homeroom teacher’s car, but it was comparatively capacious inside. And even though it had but 58 horsepower, it never seemed to lack grunt. It was likeable under any circumstance. I even drove it confidently and relatively happily through a blinding snowstorm on the Pennsy Turnpike.
I’m not, however, a fan of the square styling of the other early-80s Civics. It’s enough for me to mark them right off the list.
Other Civics have come and gone since these early efforts. My brother is a confirmed Civic driver. His 1998 and 2006 Civics stand out in my mind. The ’98 was an okay enough car but compared to its 1992-95 predecessor, all of the details were one level cheaper.
I’ve driven his ’06 and find it to be just a blast to drive – great power and stability, a lot of fun on a twisty road. The cabin is a great place to spend time, at least in the front seats, with an interesting dashboard and materials of way better quality than his ’98. It’s a wonderful car, actually. But it just doesn’t feel like a Civic. It’s too big, it’s too expensive, it’s too complicated.
That’s why I think the 1992-95 Civics are the last great ones. They are still imbued with right small, simple, frugal Civic spirit but offer arguably the best material quality, build quality, and reliability of any Civic until the last two generations. But even though those newest Civics wear the storied name, they really are different cars with different missions.
I wouldn’t necessarily say the Civic has become worse over the years. It certainly is bigger than it once was, but it’s grown at a much slower rate than many mid-size cars like the Accord and Camry. It’s a lot more refined than early Civics, but still has some peppiness in it. Unlike competitors, the sporty Si actually has performance and power upgrades.
I will say that the current generation lacks the solidness and expensive look the 2006-2010 generation did, so I guess that will be my answer. The 2016 Civic looks very promising though.
Ford ST twins blow the Si away though
In what way? Car and Driver tested a Civic Si Sedan in 2012 and it was quicker than the Focus ST. The Fiesta ST is slower still. Factor in quality, durability, seating comfort, spaciousness, and ownership costs, and it isn’t even close. The day when we’ll have to settle for turbocharged compliance compromises is rapidly coming, but there is no way I’ll do it one day sooner than I have to.
Link, please. I find this very hard to believe.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-honda-civic-si-sedan-instrumented-test-review
The only Focus ST that posted better numbers was a European model running on European gasoline, which is diluted with ethanol no more than half as much as US gasoline is.
That article doesn’t mention either ST anywhere. They only mention the GTI
I’ve seen instrument tests that put the Focus about half a second quicker to 60, but I don’t bother trying to compare performance numbers unless it’s a comparison test with the cars driven on the same day.
Regardless, there’s nothing there to support your assertion.
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2013-ford-focus-st-vs-2012-volkswagen-gti-comparison-test-car-and-driver2013-ford-focus-st-vs-2012-volkswagen-gti.pdf
The Honda’s numbers are better. Believe whatever you want to. I’m just glad that there’s no reason to settle for some turbocharged econobox yet, with that naturally aspirated, real helical LSD equipped, pure gearbox high quality car posting better numbers in addition to having an engine that doesn’t moo like a heat pump. Nice.
I wholeheartedly agree with you here. After a few weeks of a FoST and possible bragging rights, you’re left with…a FoST. The Civic will better serve you in every other manner, including resale.
I can’t decide between the ’86 AWD wagon era or the ’03 pre-bi-dash level series. But Civics are remarkable cars; the only let down has been Honda has not always marketed a U.S. hatchback, which is against a crime against nature…
The link you posted says the Focus ST is better than a GTI. It makes no mention of the Si. I have read that the current generation has received lack luster reviews for its decontented interior and poor brakes. Which is disappointing considering these used to be the Civic’s strong points.
The 92-95 had nice interiors and good handling, but tended to rust fairly easily around the rear wheel wells. See the last picture of the blue Civic for an example of this, although this one has mild rust compared to some of the others I have seen. This is what probably ended taking a majority of this generation off the road. Still, this is my favorite generation so far.
Although not as rusty as the earlier models, I don’t care for the cost cutting of the interior materials that later models had to endure.
Honda seemed to want to use the cheapest possible rubber for the engine and suspension mounts in the 2001–2005 models. I have yet to find one without a broken front engine mount, or cracked lower control arm bushings.
My only sample point of driving a Civic was my wife’s 2001 sedan. Honda definitely had corrosion protection figured out by then. I didn’t get much seat time in competitive vehicles to compare against, but most of the components didn’t feel cheap. Notable exception would be the fuel door opener cable, which broke twice due to an under-engineered plastic part.
Overall it was fairly reliable, with the 5-speed stick it was fun to drive, and got decent fuel mileage. Its intended mission wasn’t really “family vehicle” though. Thankfully the stroller just fit in the trunk, so we were able to get-by with it while we only had one kid.
The 96-2000 generation I think was a substantial step up from 92-95. Much more premium interior, and less “tinny” feeling overall. They were also the last Civic with the double wishbone front suspension. The Civic was finally a “real” car an adult could drive without feeling like they were in a penalty box. Plus, they still offered 3 bodystyles, and this generation has the best Si so far.
The 2001-2005 Civic was the start of their downward spiral, IMO. The flat rear floor and general roominess are appreciated, but the handling was dulled down considerably, and I think they have more road noise than the 96-00’s. The engine and transmission were still sewing machine smooth with these, however.
From 2006 on… no thanks.
I’ll also vote for the 1996-2000 (we had a 2000 EX sedan), which has a nicer interior trim than our current 2012 Civic.
That said, the 2012 model has a bit more pep, more fuel efficient (thanks to the newer transmission with the extra gear), but it seems to have less headroom due to its styling.
I will cast my vote for the 01-05 generation, followed by the 88-91 generation. I don’t care for the styling of the 93-00, to me it seems like a step down compared to the models before and after it. I also don’t care for the 06-present, mostly for the form factor. My mom had a 06, and it drove well and had good material quality, but the huge windshield and excessively low body seemed to sacrifice a lot of function. Our former 03 was very nicely styled, handled well and was very efficient, but the engine didn’t like to be driven assertively. I suspect we got a bad one, but I’ve never driven another one of that generation to compare it to.
I feel the same way about the Accord, having no love lost for the 94-97 generation. My opinion must not have been shared by the masses when these cars were new though, as it seems like I see more 93-00 Civics and 94-97 Accords than any other years around here.
The 1999 – 2000 Honda Civic Si — sharp coupe styling, 160hp, upgraded interior / exterior without looking like a cheap add-on. Great handling little car. Definitely a high point. And yes I used to own a new MY2000 Civic Si so I am biased . . .
Agreed. I had a 2000 Civic Si that made a Honda believer out of me. The B16A was a fantastic engine; 8200 RPM redline, IMO best sound of any four-cylinder, with excellent power all the way to redline yet perfectly tractable at low RPM. I bought mine with 90,000 miles and traded it in two years later with 140,000 miles, and my trade in value was only $1500 less than I’d paid for the car. By that mileage it would use about half a quart of oil between changes, and I’d had the timing belt service done, but the car literally needed nothing else. Overall it was probably the best car I’ve ever owned. Only thing I’d have changed would have been a sixth gear to bring cruising revs down a bit, and an LSD as it was hopeless in the snow.
Based on this experience, I later owned a 2006 Civic Si that was a total disappointment. I loved the space age styling inside and out, and the LSD made it much more competent in the winter, but unlike the bulletproof 2000, it had all sorts of issues. It had rust perforation after only five years, the third gear synchros were shot, and the power steering would not work on cold mornings. The manual instructed one to “shut off the car and turn it back on to cycle the PS system.” Honda by Microsoft?
I unloaded it after only about 6 months to buy my first new car, a Dodge Challenger R/T. After 5 years and 45,000 miles, only issues I’ve had have been a torn rubber seal between the hood and front fascia, and a turn signal bulb that cost me $0.97 to replace myself.
My personal ideal Civic would be a 92-95 hatch (love the little tailgate!) with the drivetrain from an Integrated Type-R.
Definitely, this one
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/2006_Honda_Civic_5-door.jpg
looked like a spaceship when it first appeared, both inside and out, with its two-tier dashboard, arrow-shaped door handles and “chrystal” grille
unfortunately the original design has been watered down sometime around 2009, and after the 2011 restyle it completely lost the feel, to the point that the initially bland looking Civic 4-door sedan started to look like a better option, styling wise
I’ve never seen one of those before, they didn’t make it to the US. Definitely not bland.
Meanwhile it evolved into this. Still, definitely not bland…And there’s a wagon too.
For looks, my favorite is the 4th-gen hatchback. However large the 8th-gen may be (which I own), it has enough legroom in back to make it a practical family car, unlike the earlier torture chambers. Honda has made tremendous progress in space utilization since the original.
The thing handles like a go-cart with utterly stable roadholding, but rides rough & noisy on some pavements. I don’t know why this is supposed to be an old-folk’s car in Europe, it’s very aggressive. Reliable at 55Kmi.
My best Civic so far is my 2013 Fit.
I agree. The Fit is more like a functional replacement of the old 80’s Civic, as the new Civic went up-size and up-market. The 2-door hatchback Civic went away when the Fit came on the market in the U.S.
It seemed to me at the time that a lot of former Beetle owners went to Civics in the 70’s-80’s (especially with the Rabbit’s reliability issues). There’s a little cult of Fit owners on-line who remind me a lot of old Vee-Dubbers.
Agreed. As an owner of a Gen1 Fit, I have considered it as a modern version of the early Civic since I first drove it. With its height and cargo capacity, it is very similar to the early 80s Civic wagons.
I didn’t like my ’04 Civic, but efore my ownership experience, I always respected them. Like Jim, my favs were the early-mid 90’s examples.
Ours was a basic DX model with crank windows and a 5-speed manual. It made the acceleration in my ’88 240DL wagon seem downright peppy by comparison. The gearing just never seemed right either–like driving a lawn tractor in a drag race. Maybe getting the sportier version would have solved this, but I’ll never know.
Also, we could never get the SEL to turn off and it was already leaking from its second radiator when we made the decision to get rid of it.
Between our lackluster Civic experience and friend’s Odyssey nightmare, I don’t think I’ll be visiting another Honda showroom for awhile.
I’ve driven or ridden in examples of the first 6 generations and sat in an 8th generation, and owned a 4th, 5th, and now 6th generation Civic. As is typical for most Japanese cars, each generation is just a bit better than the one before it.
The 6th is my favorite because it was the last with double wishbones and those that followed this generation got taller cowl and window lines. The 5th generation gives it a real “run for the money” in my book because of the various permutations (CX, DX, EX, LX, and VX) and it drives with a bit more….”verve”. The 4th generation is actually almost too good, and feels borderline sterile, BUT…it was the last generation to offer a 4WD/AWD variant for the U.S. market.
I’m considering buying a 7th gen Civic, but only because I can afford it and current previous owners say it is better than the 8th gen. The 9th generation looks like the first Civic that didn’t really improve all that much over the previous generation….at least in the U.S. market.
I suspect Honda will produce a fairly ground breaking Civic in the 10th generation….they have to.
That’s what I was thinking – the last “True Civic” was the 2000 (6th gen?) with the good suspension.
I have a 90 2WD wagon (4th Gen). I love the way it drives but it could use about 30 more HP…
My Fav is this one
But i also like it in saloon version also.
This black one is really nice version
We had ’89 and ’90 3-door hatches and loved both. Sold the ’89 DX when my wife had our first son, and drove the base ’90 165K miles before selling it to my brother, who ran it up to 220K before selling it again. Very hoonable cars.
I’ve always thought the 3-door was the Civic in its purest form.
This Black one
Gorgeous
I had this one in burgundy, beautiful car & I added the factory fog lights.
Interesting question. I’ve owned several Civics, beginning with a 1977 CVCC hatchback and ending with a 1999 EX sedan.
The 1996-2000 generation was a step above the 1992-95 generation in refinement and build quality. The final great Civic, in my opinion, was the 2006-11 generation, as it was a really inspired overall design.
With the 2012 Civic, Honda slacked off and basically “phoned it in” just as Ford, Chevrolet and Hyundai were getting tougher. Based on the concept unveiled in New York, and the spy photos of the actual car, the next Civic looks like it will be a very impressive vehicle. The idea that Civics are inexpensive and “simple” transportation, however, will definitely be a thing of the past.
While there’s a certain fascination about the very earliest Civics, I’m in agreement with you, Jim, that the last Civic that was really a Civic was the 1992-95 generation.
“Peak” Civic, in my view, was 1983-1995. Though the shape changed slightly, it was the classic uncluttered Honda interior and speedometers, the classic peppy, reliable little Japanese car. We had a ton in my family on my mom’s side, Dad had a beige’84 base model hatch with vinyl (ow, hot!) seats, Aunt had a medium blue ’86 DX hatch, Mom had a teal ’91 DX hatch, Grandma had a mint green ’92 DX sedan, and an Uncle had a darker green ’98 sedan. All but the Uncle moved on to Toyota and Subaru by around 9/11. Well, and me, I regressed to land yachts as soon as I could take the helm. Too many cramped, calf-burning rides in the summer on that ’84 vinyl seat, and a bit of grandfather on the brain quickly led me to the dark side of hood ornaments, velour, and whitewalls.
After that they got bigger and bigger, and though I can’t verify this, the Civic today feels and looks like what the Accord felt and looked like during the peak Civic years.
My mom’s family were interesting, they went, as a group, generally, from Studebaker and Dodge (50s-mid 70s – Presidents, Coronets), to Renault (late 70s – LeCars), to Mazda (80s/90s -GLCs, 626s, B-series pickups), to Honda (late 80s, 90s – Civics), to Toyota and Subaru (2000s-Camries, small Tacomas, Foresters, Legacies). Although another Uncle recently went Mazda again for the first time in 30 years with a 6.
The 96-00 was the last good generation. Yes, the details were cheaper than in 92-95, but rust proofing was significantly improved, the body was mildly stiffer, the power steering system was replaced with the Integra’s system and had much more progressive bleed-off of assist as speeds increased, sound insulation was increased, and suspension geometry was optimized. The cylinder head breathes marginally better and offset frontal impact scores were now acceptable.
Beyond that, they’re pretty much the same mechanically. So between the 6th and 5th gen, the 6th easily gets the nod.
The last generation which was recognizably Civic in character was the 4th generation, but I tend to be puritanical in many of my views. The 5th gen got such refinements as a hydraulic clutch, a much higher cowl, decreased visibility and a curb weight enough to make it need power steering. In short, it turned into a more sprightly and efficient Accord.
Honestly, though, if you get a 4th, 5th or 6th generation Civic with a five-speed, you really can’t go wrong (unless you find one with the eight-valve head–no thank you). I wonder how hard it would’ve been to retain the 92-00 platform and stiffen it a bit for 01-05 duty.
I wonder how hard it would’ve been to retain the 92-00 platform and stiffen it a bit for 01-05 duty.
My take is the 2001 generation was about cost cutting, starting with the suspension. Styling changes inside and out were minimal. Degradation of the character of the Civic was what it was about. I think it was Car and Driver that said, after wringing out a 2001, “this is something rare, a mistake from Honda”. Honda must have noticed Hyundai nipping at their heels, so resolved to build a Hyundai. Then in 06, they decided to build a spaceship. Problem is, the Civic isn’t a about building a Hyundai clone, nor a spaceship. It’s about building a small, lively, practical, reliable and efficient car at a reasonable price. Of course, management will look at Civic sales, which continue to be strong, and think they are doing the right thing, while they continue to bulk up on SUVs.
The 1988-91 was the best generation, in my opinion. Low cowl, light weight, four body shapes as in 1984-87 but more smoothly styled, and, on the 3-door, a usefully shaped hatch (and flip-out rear side windows too, in their final appearance).
The two-piece tailgate on the 1992-95 3-door wasn’t so great, although the new coupe looked nice. One annoying feature of that generation was the exterior door handles – ever try to use one? Those were corrected for the next generation.
(I drove an ’83 1300 from 1987 to ’96 – it was then the cheapest Civic, a 3-door with the 4-speed stick, 12-inch wheels, and no armrests. It was around $4000 new; I don’t know how much more the 5-speed cost then. But even the 1300 was obviously a well-made car and easy to work on; I changed the radiator myself.)
There was a great one?
I’d say the late 90s ones were the best refined for what they were, but I wouldn’t go and call an economy car “great”. Durable and reliable? Yes. Great? Not for me, really.
I’d rather have the Accord, but a lot of the late 90s Civics here look to be doing better than the early-2000s ones.
The 1992-1995 generation gets bonus points for being OBD I, and therefore legal to swap a JDM B16 or such into.
Peak Civic? My highly biased opinion: 96-2000. Actually 97-2000, which had 14″ wheels while the 96s had 13s.
Bit more engine, at 1.6L, than the previous generation. Hatchback on the longer platform, so more room for my stuff. Typical, smooth, though peaky, Honda power delivery. My hatchback, lacking cruise control, had an unnerving way of letting the speed creep up. Way too many times, I would fly around a bend on the freeway, see a police car, glance at the speedo, and see I was cruising around 85. Fortunately, my Civic also appeared to be invisible as I never got a ticket.
Pic taken in 2013, with 110,000 on the clock. Last service reported to CarFax July 2014 at 121,000 miles. Registered to new owner last September.
My 97, bought used as a beater so the black one could be put up in the winter and avoid the salt that drowns streets in metro Detroit. No power steering, so consistantly returned better fuel economy than the hatch, which had power steering: 41+ vs only 40+ for the hatch.
Sold in 2003, with 85K on the clock, to a guy living in Toledo. Still on the road. Ohio registration renewed last November.
My Aunt’s 98 LX. Nicer interior materials than my DX coupe and hatch. More sound insulation too. When she bought it, she wanted me to listen to what she thought was excessive wind noise. I listened. I heard. Told her that the only reason she could hear that little bit of wind noise was because the rest of the car was so quiet. She would never of heard it over the clatter in her old Subie. Consumer Reports talked about how this generation of Civic would “glide effortlessley” down the road. It was true!
Pic taken when I sold the car for her in 2008. It’s still on the road. At the oil change last January, it had 210,000 on the clock.
I’m a fan of this generation and body style. A friend of mine had a lime green one that was highly impressive.
I currently have an LX sedan with this engine. I wouldn’t say its power delivery is that peaky, actually. Ever taken a look at the intake runners? Long, skinny and fully symmetrical. I would actually say the meager torque is simply spread very evenly across the rev range, meaning there’s surprisingly decent pull at low speeds in high gears without breathlessness at the top end, but there’s never any sense that the engine comes “on the cam.”
And you’re right about it being too easy to go really fast. 85-90 is the natural cruising speed for my car, and it hits the limiter at an indicated 119 (so prob about 115). The speed kept climbing until that happened. Not bad for a basic 1.6 with restrictive intake and exhaust with 215k miles on it.
I would actually say the meager torque is simply spread very evenly across the rev range, meaning there’s surprisingly decent pull at low speeds in high gears without breathlessness at the top end, but there’s never any sense that the engine comes “on the cam.”
And you’re right about it being too easy to go really fast. 85-90 is the natural cruising speed for my car, and it hits the limiter at an indicated 119
I think they are quite peaky (we are talking about the basic 1.6 here, not the V-TEC that came in the EX trim) I had a talent for making a flying left turn on my morning commute, downshifting to third, calling to the engine room and receiving no answer. Velocity would accumulate, slowly, for several seconds, then the power would come with a rush. No tach on a DX, but sure felt like torque fell off a clif as I rolled around that corner.
On the other hand, I was motoring down the freeway one day in the white one and realised that I was rapidly approching the exit I wanted. Had to get past a semi so, staying in 5th at 70, gave the gas pedal a nudge. The car lept ahead. As I slid into the outside lane, I glanced at the speedo: 100 and change.
Quote from the April 1998 Consumer Reports: “The Civic glides shurefootedly through twists and turns. It also delivers an unusually comfortable ride for a small car. The interior is roomy and well laid out” Compare to Car and Driver’s take on the 2001 “a mistake by Honda”
So much mechanical goodness in an affordable package. Late 90s is peak Civic.
I love my 2009 Civic. For me, this generation seems to have it all. It may be a bigger car and it may not be sporty. However, it’s incredibly reliable and checks all of the right boxes. My buddy upgraded from his 2007 Civic (which I was jealous of but couldn’t afford when it was new) to a 2014 Civic and he seems happy. I’ve seen the 2014 models and I’m just not impressed.
Though, if I had some extra dough and a garage and wanted to keep the miles low on my Civic, I’d buy a beater Civic from an earlier generation.
My vote goes to the 1996-2000 Civic’s, that was IMO the last of the fun and interesting style Civic’s before they became boring.
As I think about it, I have no actual experience with the 92-95, although I get to hear one with a bad muffler start up every afternoon outside of my office window.
I like the 96-2000. To me, it struck a perfect balance in a modern all-round small car. You can find better individual attributes in those that came before or after, but this one is the peak average. Refinement, build quality, stiffness, interior appointments, handling, power, and all the rest. Also, the 96-2000 was styled almost perfectly, the sedans particularly.
My MIL had one when she died, and my BIL still has it. It has maybe 50K miles on it. The only thing that has kept me from begging to buy it has been the automatic tranny.
…this one is the peak average. Refinement, build quality, stiffness, interior appointments, handling, power, and all the rest. Also, the 96-2000 was styled almost perfectly, the sedans particularly.
Here’s an endorsement for the late 90s generation. The red sedan was bought by a kid down the street from casa del Steve, so I saw it parked at his parent’s house as I drove to work in the morning.
The kid’s mom had a later generaton Civic, an 01 or 02. About a year after the kid bought the red one, the mom’s 01 dissappeared, and was replaced by a black late 90s Civic sedan. Tells me they regarded the late 90s generation as an upgrade, compared to the 01.
Personally, I much prefer the late 90s styling, with it’s better rear visibility, and it’s proper round, white on black, instruments vs the electronic stuff Civics have now.
This one.
This one is a close second.
My family has been stuck on small Hondas ever since we moved to the US in 1992. First a ’82 Wagon with the 5spd, rusty beater sold to my dad by a friend at work for $750. Served us decently until we upgraded to a ’85 Sedan, again a 5spd, with some rust and miles on it. It constantly warped cheap rotors and broke a CV axle (again, due to age and wear). A rear end accident totaled it, as we upgraded again, to a 1990 Civic Wagon. An automatic this time, bought in 1996 with 60k miles as I recall. It blew a headgasket early on, manufacturing defect supposedly. Besides an alternator, a broken spring, and near the end of us owning it in 2007 a gas tank (rusted out), as well as front ball joints upper and lower along with new axles, the car didn’t really give us trouble. Oh the main relay would cause the car to not start when it was hot outside on occasion, but we never bothered fixing it. I drove the car through highschool, maintaining it, grinding down rust and repainting every spring. I managed to keep it looking really nice, and even put some ‘extras’ on it like 15″ alloy wheels off a Civic Si, lower lip spoiler from a ’94 Accord, and some fog lights (and the requisite stereo and speakers). I loved that car, we sold it in 2007 with 167k miles on it for $1400 (plus $1250 we got for someone backing their A6 into the driver’s door and leaving a decent little dent). Like other commenters have mentioned, we replaced it with a 2007 Fit, which was the logical replacement for the wagon.
I have since purchased a 2012 Civic LX Sedan (manual), and yes they are not quite like the old Civics, for better and for worse. The car still has great ergonomics, a fantastic shifter, and a super smooth engine that gets incredible mpg. But the handling is no longer ‘go-kart’ like, instead it is marshmallow soft. Interior is not the plain and simple design it once was, although I rather like the digital speedo within my line of sight. Seats are super comfortable. In other words it is a better, more relaxing commuter, but it is definitely missing the ‘spark’ of Hondas past.
The one before the decontented 2012 models.
All of them.
I like the 84-87s.
My favourite generations of Civic are the 1st gen through the 3rd gen Civic.
I haven’t driven a Civic in 30 years, but the one that interests me the most is the Si hatchback from the early 2000s. Were they imported from England (to the US)?
Were they imported from England (to the US)?
Yes. The hatchback version was only made in England. I looked at one in 03 as I sold the 97 beater coupe. Problem was the Si had a moon roof, and I sit too tall in the saddle to fit comfortably. I still see a couple of them around town now.
I had the same headroom problem in the Integra and RSX. Would have been fine if they had not made the headroom eating moonroof standard.
The SRX was the best. Also drove and liked the late seventies wagon. I suppose my 83 accord three door hatch was about the size of todays civic. It went underwater when they had a misadventure with lake Conroe dam several years ago. Last Honda I owned. Fun to drive and dependable once we found the burned electrical wires that kept killing the alternators.
I didn’t care for the styling of the pre 93 Civic’s. I got my 98 while awaiting delivery of my 2012 Fit Sport. For some reason, I actually found myself driving the Civic a LOT more than the new Fit, LOL!! BTW: The wheel upgrade came from my totalled 2007 Fit!
Those wheels match the car well. I would have never known they came from a fit.
Had three 97 civics two survived four years of upstate NY winters with no visiblle corrosion before we emigrated to Georgia
they handled like sports cars, peppy and fun to drive on back roads
all three were my kids college transportation one died when my daughter ran a light
and was T boned in 2005 one was sold off after 200k miles and the other stayed in the family until 2012 when we sold it at 230k miles
I wish they still made them as well, my SIL just dumped his 2002 civic with 260k but he bought it used and I don’t think is was maintained very well the first five years before he got it. The only complaint we had is it was not very comfortable for long trips. but boy were they gas savers
Jim Grey: I think you’re right. The last pretty one too. The 84 four door is just right too.
I am by no means a Honda guy, but the 2001-2005 seemed to be okay. Never spent a whole lot of time in them, but they were a nicer design and seemed as dependable as the predecessors as they are everywhere. If–and that was a big “if”–I were to buy a Honda, I would consider those Civics, see asterisk below.
Then 2006 came and Honda saw fit to implement cab-forward design on the Civic (to date, something only Chrysler could do) and it became ugly. The dashboard looks as if it were taken out of a spacecraft. I will say that this is an industry-wide epidemic with this ugliness factor with weird, complex interiors and exteriors. Those of us who yearn for conservative yet attractive styling will be ignored and pushed aside. Chrysler has done this with the new 2015 200 and the Jeep Renegade. Mercedes-Benz just started following this trend. Ford and Chevy have jumped on the bandwagon. But that’s all a subject for another time.
**One problem I have with the Civic is the ridiculous aftermarket appearance a lot of them seem to have. The Civic was (and is) intended to be a small, anonymous car, not a race car. The big and obnoxiously loud and annoying mufflers, spoilers, Altezza lights, chrome, and rubber-band tires and the rims that are often worth more than the car itself are a turn off. However, I guess “souped-up” Civics will be my generation’s version of the 1967 Ford Mustang and the 1970 Dodge Charger. People in my age range seem to have no problem foregoing a newer car for old ’90s Civics and other small Japanese cars that command asking prices of $10k (or more) with all of these performance modifications, which is difficult for me to understand.
You’ve summed up why I hate Hondas. They’re is nothing really wrong with them. They seem to attract a lot of interesting owners, though.
To me, the Civic is just another Econobox, like an Escort, Neon, or Jetta.
To me, the Civic is just another Econobox, like an Escort, Neon, or Jetta.
I had a 2002 Escort, which was the same as the 97 generation. Instead of the Civic’s tendency to gain speed on the highway, the Escort would complain, loudly, if I went over 75. The Escort’s weak shocks left the handling pretty loose compared to the Civic.
The Jetta, at least my wagon, is a step up in class compared to my 90s Civics. Firmer suspension, quieter engine, but lacking the engaging driving experience of the Civic…but then my Jetta is an automatic while my Civics were sticks.
A coworker had a Neon. By the time it hit 200,000 miles, it was a collection of replacement parts in formation: junkyard trans, junkyard engine….
My ’81 Escort’s roadholding was dramatically improved after strut replacement. Dearborn evidently had a habit of supplying horrible, sloppy factory shocks, perhaps due to being run by Broughamites until recently.
I’m not crazy about the 8th-gen Civic’s dash, but I think I understand why they did it. Can’t have a small steering wheel with a viewable, traditional gauge set; the Passat’s steering wheel occludes parts of its gauges.
My ’81 Escort’s roadholding was dramatically improved after strut replacement.
I drove an 81 Escort when new. The front end would bob up and down about 3 times just from going through an intersection, and over the crown of the crossing street.
The 02 was vastly better than that, but the struts were done at 40,000 miles. When the temp was below freezing, the gas cells would lose pressure, the fluid would foam, and the car would dance all over the highway until the agitation warmed up the struts, and expanded the gas in the cells, enough to prevent the foaming. It got new Monroe struts at 40K, which restored some sense of stability, until they too went off by 80K
The Civic was pretty wobbly on the highway over 100,000 miles, but those were the original shocks.
the Passat’s steering wheel occludes parts of its gauges.
No problem with my Jetta.
No problem seeing the instruments in my 98 Civic either.
The US market Passat dash, from the VW web site, looks exactly like my Jetta.
That’s one of the things I really like about my VW, the old school styling. Inside, it very much resembles my old Civic.
“**One problem I have with the Civic is the ridiculous aftermarket appearance a lot of them seem to have. The Civic was (and is) intended to be a small, anonymous car, not a race car. The big and obnoxiously loud and annoying mufflers, spoilers, Altezza lights, chrome, and rubber-band tires and the rims that are often worth more than the car itself are a turn off. However, I guess “souped-up” Civics will be my generation’s version of the 1967 Ford Mustang and the 1970 Dodge Charger. People in my age range seem to have no problem foregoing a newer car for old ’90s Civics and other small Japanese cars that command asking prices of $10k (or more) with all of these performance modifications, which is difficult for me to understand.”
I don’t have this problem with the pre ’92 Civics, but I do with the subsequent models, whenever you hear a fart can exhaust approaching you, dollars to doughnuts it’s a modded out Civic. I haven’t noticed the same thing being done to many old Altimas or Corollas.
I don’t hate them though. The 83-95, at least, were good little cars. I’ve no experience with what came after.
4th gen hands-down. I think, that’s the ’88-’91 years. Hatch, wagon and even sedan all look great, and also the best Si in the US, I think. Later size and power increases may have worked for family cars but started diverting from the Civic spirit in my opinion. I briefly owned, from new, a later 2nd gen (1982) which was a flawless car for 44K miles in 2 years. I spent a fair amount of time behind the wheels of various gen-3 Civics, and then didn’t try one till we tested a 2008 Hynrid. What a disappointing car compared to the Prius, itself not a paragon of automotive excitement. I, my wife, and our early-teen kids all walked away from that car and said “no thanks”. The kids’ perspective was solely from the back seat.
As much as I hated the dashboards of the 2006 Civic, I liked it’s exterior styling. A friend of mine has a 2007 coupe, not a SI but the model below which is loaded with most options including large aluminum wheels, the power sunroof and a decent stereo. His car has now 225,000 miles but it still runs like new. The engine runs smoothly, doesn’t drink any oil and the 5 speed manual transmission is noise free and gear changes are easy. Among all the Hondas and Acuras I have driven, this one has to be my favorite. The only bad point is the non-working a/c. As I live near Montreal, rust has always been an issue with older cars but the newer Hondas improved a lot over the early-1990s models. The 1991 and older models didn’t hold too well after a few winters in the salt, things improved on the 1992, improved again on the 1996 (I hated the restyling on those but now I would choose a ’96 over a ’95). The 2001-2005 never impressed me but they seem good. One thing I have noticed on newer Hondas (Civic and Accords) are annoying suspension noises in cold weather. These noises seem to go away as the weather gets nicer. My friend’s ’07 Civic and my father’s 2013 Accord make similar noises only in cold weather. It seems to come from the rear suspension but on my father’s car, the dealership replaced components of the front suspension under warranty because of that noise just a few days ago. Unfortunately, he won’t be able to tell until next winter if what they fixed was the problem and by then, the part won’t be covered by the warranty!
My least favorite are the the 5th gen (1992-1995), and the 7th and 8th gen (2001-2011).
My favorites are the 3rd gen (1983-1987).
So I guess I have exactly the opposite opinion as Jim Grey. 🙂
I like the refresh of the current gen. And the next gen (2016) looks promising and there will once again be a hatchback bodystyle!
Jpcavanaugh:
Did you ever drive your MIL’s car? I had a 92 Integra with automatic and had a 98 Civic with automatic as a loaner for a few weeks when the Integra was getting an engine re-build. To drive “casually” that Civic with automatic wasn’t too bad but having owned several DX Civics I’d only buy a Civic (or at least a 5th, 6th or 7th gen Civic) that had automatic if it was an LX….the automatic seems to change the car’s character.
I have driven it a couple of times. It reminds me of the 88 Accord automatic that I married into. Certainly a pleasant cruiser, but to me, the real joy in a Honda was the stick shift version. And to me, the whole purpose in having a car that small is that it’s fun to drive.
+ 1
the real joy in a Honda was the stick shift version. And to me, the whole purpose in having a car that small is that it’s fun to drive.
My 85 Mazda GLC had that tossable charactor. It also was noisy, hard riding and had a lot of chassis flex.
The 98 Civic was a treat for it’s refinement: smoother, stronger and quieter engine, more rigid structure and more compliant suspension.
I’ve owned both 92-95 and 96-00 generations and in my mind there is no contest. The former was a nimble and tossable, refined, responsive, practical and pretty car, and the latter was simply a big disappointment. I found the 96-00 model to be inferior in every important way. Its responses had been numbed, it felt heavier, sluggish even, was ugly and appeared to have been decontented ruthlessly. I can’t really comment on the earlier generations as I’ve not had any experience other than my dad briefly owning an early 70’s EB hatch and being frightened by it’s intense desire to oxidise. The later generations lost my interest, although the 2005 model looked like a return to form.
I owned 2 Civics, in college I bought my 2nd car a 90 civic ex. The EX had the 108hp like the Si but I made a mistake & got an automatic, mom wanted a car she could drive if hers was broke down. It was a pretty burgundy & I loved the rear seat head rest, it made the car look more expensive. Although it was a pretty car it was the worst I owned, the motor with the auto had no gutty up. I put 100k miles on it in 3 yrs and traded it for a new 92 Acura Integra, this time with a 5 speed. Nice car but the seats suxed, I bought a 2010 civic LX and thought it would drive like the 90 Ex, boy was I wrong, I loved it. I bought it from enterprise car auction, it was very comfy, drove great. When shopping for my current DD I was going to get a 13 Honda civic si, loved it but wife didn’t, ended up with benz e350. I have passed Hondaness on to my sons.
Late to the party again! I’m sure all the former boy-racers liked the mid-90s Civics, but most of them either rusted away or wrapped themselves around trees or telephone poles or each other like Camaros and Mustangs of old!
A friend has a 2014 model. I found it about the size of a 1993 Accord, and he even let me drive it. Needless to say I was very impressed. So much so, I’m seriously thinking about buying a nice EX before I retire, selling my Impala LTZ within a year or sooner.
My vote on the best Civic is the newest one. It feels like it’s a good cruiser.
My son has a 2010 Civic Si coupe, arrest-me-red w/black interior and he loves it – manual tranny, of course. I like driving it, too – when he allows me! – a real thrill.
I agree Zackman, on the Accord comparison. I liken the 2012+ Civics as more or less having the interior room and performance of the 1994-1997 generation Accords, but with slightly less torque (only 1.8L vs 2.2L), and better fuel economy. However I prefer the Accord’s higher quality and simpler interior.
I regularly take my Civic on road trips, 10+ hour drives are handled with aplomb comfort wise. The interior room, in terms of being able to splay my knees out and elbow room, is truly incredible, feels almost midsize. It’s a bit more darty and less stable, and noiser than something like a Cruze or Focus, but it still feels perfectly composed at 80+ mph IMO, even with the engine spinning closer to 4krpm (with the stick shifts’s lower gearing).
So in this way the Civic is better than any predecessor. To the typical consumer, it was a step in the right direction. To the guys that grew up driving the “Golden Age” Civics, it’s a regression in more ways than one.
As much as I was told that my leased Galaxy Grey 2006 Civic EX sedan was the same size as my beloved 1993 Accord, the Accord always seemed bigger to me. And the Accord always felt heavier than the Civic, too. The Civic was a fine little car, but I absolutely HATED the emergency brake location. My knee hit that darned thing constantly, so much so that I turned the car in early and bought another used Accord. So do I really feel that the ’06 Civic was a great car? By all means, yes it was. It rode great, handled well, got awesome fuel economy and was very comfortable, aside from that stupid e-brake!
So when the question is asked as to which was the last great Civic, the current ones are still great cars. It is a matter of opinion as to what someone might think is the last “cool” Civic, or what they feel might be the “right sized” Civic. Great? Civics will always be great cars, no questions asked.
I had a 1989 Civic hatch. Acquired with 111k on the clock, still had the original timing belt. I drove it an easy 500 miles, changed the belt and water pump, and exercised that four speed hard for another 50k miles. One blown head gasket at 146k.
Some were the DX, some the EX, mine was the STandarD. No rear wiper, no cargo cover, no right hand door mirror. Loved that thing, loved my STD.
I’m VERY late here, but it’s interesting reading everyone’s opinions. They seem to vary almost as much as Civics themselves! I’ve owned two of the apparently more hallowed generations — I bought a 1990 Civic LX sedan new right out of college, and when it unfortunately got totaled in a flood in 1995, I bought a new Civic EX sedan. I liked the ’95 (especially since it had a 5-speed), but it always seemed a little cheapened and de-contented to me compared the ’90. I always thought the 4th gen sedan (1988-91) had almost perfect lines, and it was a marvel of space efficiency. It felt light and strong in the very best way.
The vintage car lover in me prefers the 3rd gen almost more, especially the hatchbacks. That would probably be my favorite as in, it’s the one I would be most interesting in owning now. A 1984-85 hatchback or sedan in mint original condition would be awesome!
As far as driving goodness or overall value, the latest generation probably wins, but I’m not all that familiar with them. One other thing that surprises me here is how little love, and even mentions, the 2001-2005 generation is getting. I always thought they were better looking than the (to me) disappointing 1996-2000 gens. The coupe, especially, still looks good today. Very nice proportions inside and out, and in some ways reminiscent of the 4th gen’s “just-right” looks. I’ve never driven the 2001-2005, so I can’t comment on that.
Finally, if we haven’t done it already, how about doing this same exercise with Accords. Which Accord was best?
Love the 1990-93 Accords. Superb build quality, sports car handling, good looks, reliable, economical – what more could you want?
I have owned a 97, 2003, 2010, 2011 Civic. The 1997 was best in fit & finish and what I would call a true Honda. The 03 was great mechanically-I took it to 145k miles with only replacing tires, oil, and front struts-until two deer took it out. I had interior trim issues with the 03, 10,11 and it seems the quality level is not the same as the 97.
The 2001 was revised from double wishbone front suspension supposedly for increased crash ratings.
Nice article on a local 1977 Civic, still in daily use.
http://driving.ca/honda/civic/auto-news/news/respect-your-elders-barely-used-1977-honda-civic-is-a-time-machine
I Own a 2000 Civic ex-g 5speed with 365000 km (225k miles).
Love everything about it and its everything I could ever want in a car, but it saddens me seeing that rust is getting to it (leaks oil and gas). Manoeuvrability, visibility, fit and finish and economy are top notch. I think when I have the money to replace it I will go with a 2013 honda fit sport as It appears to be the last modern day Honda but with true Honda DNA