1990/2003 Honda Civics – Twins separated by 13 years
(first posted 12/2/2015) On the surface, these two vehicles have a lot in common. Both represent Honda’s finest North American front-wheel-drive small cars from their respective eras; both are in silver/grey paint; both manual transmissions with inline-four engines; both three-door hatchback body style. But upon closer inspection, the differences become apparent.
Let’s start with the 1990 version. Now a quarter century old and a genuine Curbside Classic, this fourth-generation Civic features a wheelbase of 98.4”, placing it in the sub-compact class. All Civics from this era featured double-wishbone suspension up front with a multi-link trailing arm at the back. With this example being a DX model, standard features are the 92 hp D15B2 16V SOHC engine, 5 speed manual transmission, and cloth seats. The base model had only 70 hp and a four speed transmission along with vinyl seats. Power steering, air conditioning, and passenger door mirror were not selected on this particular DX, but were available at additional cost. (To get power windows, locks, larger brakes, or more power, buyers had to step up to the LX, EX, or Si models). All of this adds up to a Miata-like curb weight of 2165 pounds. Suddenly that 92 hp doesn’t sound so unreasonable, at least by 1990 standards.
1990 Honda Civic DX – Front
As compared to other circa 1990 sub-compacts, the Civic comes off as utilitarian, even spartan. On this particular car, the stock front seats were so thinly padded and unsupportive the owner swapped them out for Mercury Cougar buckets. The headliner is vinyl, not the typical “mouse fur” found in Detroit products, which may be a feature rather than a bug, depending on your perspective. Cabin insulation is noticeably lacking, especially at highway speed. Neither driver nor passenger can forget their chosen mode of transportation is a small, slow car, especially surrounded by the SUVs that were about to capture the heart of the American motoring public in the early nineties.
1990 Honda Civic DX – Interior (OEM seats and ThunderCats floormats shown)
Slide behind the wheel of this not-quite-hot hatch, and you are nearly as close to the ground as you would be in a Corvette. The amount of glass is incredible to modern eyes, and you can easily see around the skinny A- and B- pillars. The controls are within easy reach, and all gauges are simple to read at a glance. If you have a passenger in the front, you are nearly shoulder to shoulder, but it doesn’t feel cramped. There is plenty of leg and thigh room, even with the plusher bucket seats. Once rolling, engine noise is tolerable, and the shifter feels tight. Push the car to its limits, and you begin to understand the mantra of driving a slow car fast. Even with 13-inch tall skinny tires, you feel very connected to the road through the manual steering. Passing another vehicle does take some forethought, but 70 mph comes at about 3600 RPM, right in the powerband for torque. Thanks to low rolling resistance and a fairly aerodynamic wedge shape, fuel economy comes in at a real-world 40 mpg.
1990 Honda Civic DX – Rear
Now let’s compare the younger sibling. The 2003 Civic Si was built in Swindon, England and imported for the U.S. and Canadian markets. This seventh generation Civic has a 103.1” wheelbase, making it a Compact-class auto. With the increase in size came a stiffer chassis structure. When compared to the previous generation Si models, torsional rigidity was up by 95 percent. Curb weight was up considerably to 2744, but still svelte compared to the 2016 Civic’s 3002 pounds. When it came to suspension, this hot hatch was a letdown for enthusiasts compared to the previous Si models. The EP3 generation (2002-2005) switched to MacPherson struts for the front suspension. However, the new K20A3 iVTEC engine (shared with the Acura RSX) was rated at 160 hp and 132 lb-ft of torque, thus providing a wider power band as compared to its predecessor, though performance metrics were essentially the same. Like the 1990 model, this one also features a five speed manual transmission. However, here the clutch is hydraulic, and the shifter is dash-mounted.
2003 Honda Civic Si – Front
Given the stiff competition for front-wheel-drive performance cars, this generation of Civic Si gets no love even from Honda fanboys, especially compared to the praise heaped upon the sixth-gen models. The EP3’s less responsive handling (due to the previously mentioned MacPherson struts), increased weight, and lack of a limited slip differential were certainly a detriment. Styling was somewhat questionable, as the hatchback did not share much resemblance to the same generation sedan or coupe.
2003 Honda Civic Si – Interior
Getting into the 2003 Civic, everything feels far more familiar to the 2015 driver. The seating position and floor height are higher. The console is wider and fills the space between the front floorwells and seats. Turn the key and the dash illuminates with OBD II warning lights, which wink off one by one. Engine noise seems more refined, though the shifter isn’t quite as notchy. There’s quite a bit more interior room all around, though the windshield is at a steeper angle. Out on the road, the ride is less firm, with more suspension travel.
As in the older car, highway speed is still close to 3600 RPM, making the driver wish for a sixth gear. The car handles well, and takes corners better than it should, but with that higher center of gravity as compared to the older Civic, it doesn’t quite inspire the same slot-car feel. Passing in this car is simple and fun, and probably the best thing about the driving experience; drop two gears and stomp on the accelerator. That’s it. No planning ahead, no drafting that semi truck, no maintaining a rolling inertia. More power does come at a price though. The more modern Civic averages 31 mpg, higher than the EPA estimate of 28, but woefully short of its older brethren.
2003 Honda Civic Si – Rear
Comparing these two Civics shows one of Honda’s oft-acknowledged strengths; that of evolutionary change rather than the revolution hinted at in the article’s title. They aren’t setting out to tear down the world and rebuild it, and they certainly aren’t going to risk alienating their customer base with one of the nation’s best-selling nameplates. Each generation gets a bit bigger, a bit more power, and hopefully a bit more refined.
1990/2003 Honda Civics – Side by Side
As with Dickens’ tale, the outcome isn’t always what we expect. While the newer Si sport model would seem to be superior in every way (except fuel economy), isn’t it interesting that the older DX econo-box engages the driver more thoroughly?
These looked good, and may have had the benefit of additional torque compared to the 1999-2000 Si, but dropping the redline from 8000 RPM to 6800 RPM made them lose the essential character that performance Honda fans had come to expect from VTEC Hondas.
I know I enjoyed my 2000 Si much more than the later ones, even though I preferred the hatchback body style. The engine from the Type-R or RSX Type-S would have solved the issue.
WHAT??? A Honda that doesn’t turn at least 8000 RPM’s? I had a tachometer on my ’88 ZB 50 Honda, that I built out to 110cc’s. It would run 12,000 RPM’s all day. OHC 4 stroke.
I dont know if we get the same spec in the newer Civics or not but following one recently was a revelation we both pulled out into an overtaking lave to get past a truck he accelerated reasonably swiftly at first but halfway past I had to brake in my 90hp diesel to avoid ramming him, those things dont have much guts when push comes to shove it seem it just ran out of breath at 95kmh, Ive driven the earlier version pictured and for what it was it seemed to go ok in town but once highway speeds were reached there wasnt much left typical Japanese econobox built around a 100kmh speed limit and not really designed to accelerate from there good handling but not great for a FWD hatch.
Sadly, the LAST hatchback Civic(EP3), us unfortunate Americans ever got…. While the rest of the world continued(s) to get it.
I guess we’re not worthy, as in the words of Wayne and Garth. Lol
Seriously, not really a fan of those weird dash mounted shifters, too odd… Even though the vintage Hondas like the S600 had them.
Also, WHY are the sides of the 2003 so high sided compared to the older EF? It looks like a cruise ship. Has society gotten that obese and bloated, that average cars don’t look low profile anymore?
Also, that gen of Civic hatchback can easily be mistaken for a Golf, from a afar. I have driven a friend’s gold 2003 Si… It drives nice, but the EF like all older Hondas is a lot less numb, and more fun to drive.
I think the 2003 Si, was more geared toward European tastes… Afterall, aren’t the 2006+ Civic Si hatches and Type Rs manufactured in the UK?
I figure not enough buyers don’t want hatches in this class anymore. You get a Fit if you want a hatch.
Interestingly, the only Civic I can find on Honda’s Japan site is a hatchback, the very mean-looking Type R:
http://www.honda.co.jp/CIVICTYPE-R
It is interesting though how many sedans look like hatchbacks now, such as the Fusion and the Chrysler 200. Remember when Chrysler gave you hatchbacks like the Lancer and the Shadow, but cleverly disquised them as sedans. I liked that better
Skoda still does that with their large Superb, it can open as a normal trunk lid or as a hatchback. The BMW GT’s also do this but are a fastback rather than sedan shape to start with.
There are plans for a ’16 Civic Hatch so we shall see.
In 2006, Civic hatchbacks stopped being sold in Japan and the US. We got two and four door sedans while Japan only got the four door sedan. The European hatchbacks have been lesser cars since then, lacking even independent rear suspension. The 2002-2005 Civic Si hatchback was a variation of the European Type R of the same years, but with a lower state of tune. It had independent rear suspension, unlike the odd looking hatchbacks that followed it over there. The Civic was dropped in Japan after the 8th generation model.
Honda has zigged-zagged with both front struts & IRS; the 3rd-gen had some sort of rear beam axle. I’m not sure IRS is a big deal in a FWD car; no one blamed VW for that twist-beam thing on the 1st-gen Golf. Neither are rear disc brakes very important, either; how much fade resistance do you need with 60/40 weight distribution?
Remember, these are mass-market cars that have to be profitable & please the average motorist, not die-hard enthusiasts who Must Have Everything.
Mazda seems to do a solid trade in hatches with the 3, I see as many hatches as sedans around here.
The 90 Civic is why we love old cars. Honda coming out of nowhere and within 20 years taking directly on the world’s best subcompact the Golf. Not with a copycat car but reflecting a different vision and different abilities. The motorcycles gave Honda ideas on how to put together a fantastic small displacement manual transmission combinations. On styling, what a simple but powerful mantra of when updating, lower the hoodline. I am sure the small engines helped with that, but that mantra also directly led to the advanced, compact suspensions.
I assume by the nineties, Honda had felt they had taken the lower hoodline as far as it could go. Their automatics needed work and were getting more common, V6s were required and late arriving. When the 90 Accord and the 92 Civic debuted with higher hoodlines and greater size, I bet I was not the only to notice and be disappointed. We have seen this in a lot of the cars we have talked about lately, when you stray from what you do best, you often loose your way and forget who you are.
Very well stated, John. All of this.
’90 Accord? Higher hoodlines? Have you actually driven a ’90 to ’93? Sure, it was a bit higher than the compact 2nd-gen cars or the wedge-profile 3rd-gen, but that is still an extremely airy car with a low cowl and fantastic visibility all around.
If Honda could be said to have lost the plot with the Accord I’d argue it was when they dropped the V6 into the 5th-gen cars in the mid-late 90’s. On that car it was just a slight nose stretch, but it paved the way for the car to keep getting bigger and heavier until it reached its logical conclusion with the oversized 8th-gen car in 2008.
A friend had a ’90 Civic hatch in stripper trim right out of college, in that typical early ’90s light blue metallic with perforated vinyl seats and not even A/C (which she later had installed as a dealer option). What I recall about driving that car was the impression of having the best visibility I’ve ever experienced in a passenger vehicle. The low cowl, sloped hood and HUGE windshield gave an unobstructed panoramic view of the road. Except for the low seating position it felt like driving a cab-over vehicle or flat-front van. I remember commenting that as a passenger I felt like I was watching the road on a giant movie screen.
I owned a 1990 Civic LX – a white sedan with blue interior and 5- speed. What a great car – decent performance from the revvy engine, precise gearshift, and fine handling. Terrific visibility, too. While the materials were econo-car class, everything was put together with a jewel-like quality. Being a sedan on a slightly longer wheelbase made for smoother and quieter cruising than the hatchback.
In nearly 15 years and 250K miles of decently-maintained ownership (including frequent bashing around construction sites) virtually nothing broke, stopped working, or fell off. If there was a weak point for the car, it was a tendency to wear out its CV joints every few years, but that might be attributed to hard use. The only other unscheduled repairs were for a resistor block, a clutch pedal ignition switch, and an engine pulley.
You make a great point about when austere materials are very well put together, they don’t feel austere at all. It was the same with my wife’s 1994 Geo Prism, very austere with few features, but felt and looked a little like a little Lexus inside. Unfortunately this hasn’t held with her current Prius C, which has many more features, but lacks the quality.
I never warmed up to the styling of the early 2000’s Civic SI. They were rare to spot on the roads here in Canada and were imported from the UK if I remember correctly, resulting in a too high msrp.
Great article, CycloneCobra – thank you. Seeing these two cars side-by-side shows just how on-point Honda styling and packaging was in the late-80s.
Those 2002-2005 Civic Si hatchbacks were quite rare here. I remember seeing several of them (all silver) around the time they came out, but haven’t seen one in quite some time. They never really did it for me and I forgot how horrible their interiors were. I’d much rather take the Acura RSX with the same engine.
On that note, I am mostly pleased with the new 2016 Civic, the coupe especially. It’s much improved over its predecessor, with a far more refined, less goofy interior, and a much more substantial appearance inside and out. Where I take issue is with the sedan’s roofline.
I get that the fastback improves aerodynamics (and honestly, all “sedans” will probably reach the point of these rooflines in a few years) but it just doesn’t look as graceful as other “fastback sedans” and looks too much like the Crosstour we all hoped to forget.
And of course, the fact that the larger engine is only available with a CVT. Hopefully when the Si model arrives, it will have a traditional automatic in addition to the expected manual.
Even back in ’06 when the Civic sedan’s wedge-shaped forward two-thirds went all blobby I thought it was time to go the Prius’ way to a fastback hatch and leave the trunked sedan behind.
With this generation, they’ve done that visually keeping the fixed rear window and parcel shelf, leaving the trunk as a back-twisting tunnel. Yeah, good luck with that, I’ll wait for a real hatchback.
The Si-only EP3 hatchback always struck me as the sort of bad compromise GM always used to argue themselves into. For mainstream success it needed more doors and an automatic option, while performance buyers were holding out for the true Type-R.
It looks like Honda’s going to be bringing in a five-door hatch and a Type R with this generation once the sedan and coupe are rolled out.
“stock front seats were so thinly padded and unsupportive”
My sisters rolled through a pair of civics each in the late’70-early90’s. My wife and I were both driving Accords when we met (Gen1 mine, Gen2 hers). There is so much I love about the Hondas and yet…..
When I sold my Accord a persistent low grade backache I had had for as long as I had owned the car cleared up. Among the cars I test drove when I replaced my Accord were a couple of Acuras. Same back problems. When we were last in the market for a car I so wanted to get a Fit. Being ~20 years since my last drive in a Honda I hoped for a change. Nope, 10 minutes into the test drive I felt my back starting to seize up. I guess a change in the seating design from the early ’70s to today is too much to expect.
With all the Honda products I’ve driven and ridden in the common denominators are things I hate (the seats) and things I love (pretty much everything else). As there are now more cars with Honda like capability, and the seats my body needs, I have pretty much written off Honda.
David, I total relate to the back pain, every Honda/Acura I owned left me with back pain, hated the cars on long trips. Just bought my son a 12 Accord v6 coupe, it doesn’t appear to be too bad.
The Hondas I’ve owned were grievously short on lumbar support for my tastes, although I’ve had the same complaint about a bunch of other modern cars. To my exasperation, my current car (not a Honda) actually has an adjustable driver’s side lumbar support and still isn’t enough even cranked all the way forward. I finally gave up and got one of those lower back cushions with an elastic band you stretch around the seat back, which made longer drives vastly more endurable.
In 1989 I was looking for a car to replace my 82 J2000 and shopped the Escort GT (I could barely get my legs under the steering wheel) and the Civic. I wanted a hatchback like the one pictured but tge dealers were (still) asking ABOVE sticker. Then the salesman showed me a 4 door sedan….at a couple hundred UNDER sticker. The icing on the cake was that it was a beautiful cream/yellow.
I haven’t driven a Civic newer than a 99 but did seriously consider replacing my 97 with a newer
model. What stopped me? I’m getting to the age where getting into and out of small, low to the ground cars is literally a pain.
BTW, according to Car&Driver, the 2016 Civic model will be available as a hatchback as well as a sedan and 2 door coupe. As I understand it, there is even a wagon available in some markets….though NOT the U.S.
A lot of the comments made yesterday about the BMW company also can be leveled at Honda, in my opinion.
Interesting comparison and certainly a lot have been eg the wishbones to struts.
On the size front, this model was significantly smaller than its competition so it is hard to begrudge the growth in size, but also leaves these as a great pseudo-CRX.
Friends had a 5-door hatch version of the 2003-era Civic and they were able to move a double bed in it!
I prefer the 1990 Civic over the 2003 Civic.
I don’t think I’ve ever driven a 4th gen Civic, but owned a 2nd gen and have spent many hours both behind the wheel and as a passenger in 3rd gen hatchbacks and wagons. I think the 4th gen in Si form was the pinnacle of Civic-ness: light, simple, reliable but still exceptionally sporty, and the best styling of the bunch. I may be in the minority but I thought the real world power of the 1500 cc Civics was excellent. Light weight, good gearing, and a sensible powerband made these cars very easy to drive fast (with the 5 speed). I crossed the Sierra passes in California, between 8500 and 9500 feet above sea level, in various Civics at speeds well above the limit, and by the standards of the time these were lively cars. The comparison with the EP3 is interesting; by the time those came out I was in a different automotive space, and as they were never very popular I didn’t know much about them. But the unusual styling and practical shape, combined with (to me) real horsepower, and rarity, created at least superficial appeal.
The 2016 Civic is huge! Saw one in the flesh and it’s gi-normous.
An ’88-’91 hatch can fit inside it.
OTOH, these ‘big’ compacts get good MPG, at least. And, how safe were these old Civics? Who would want to get broadsided by a drunk driver in a pickup in the tiny 1980’s one?
Seems like they’re finally catching up with the old Civics, being rated at or above 40mpg hwy. I also hear, however, that Honda CVTs have been giving trouble.
Though I have never driven either of these Civics, they both are highly appealing to me. I don’t think the 1990 Civic (or any small car from 25 years ago) protects the occupants in a crash the way the newer models do. So I will admire it from afar. Last week I saw the new Civic sedans at our local auto show, they’re HUGE. I know I’m in the very small minority, but I like the EP3 and outgoing Civic sedan much better.
My ’75 Alfetta got t-boned (on the track) by a 1st gen Civic. The Alfa was seriously bent to the point of being a write-off and I suspect the Civic was a goner also. However while we were both a little shaken up, neither of us was hurt. 5 point harnesses (in otherwise showroom stock cars) may have helped.
These cars remind me why I don’t like Honda.
I can forgive the 1990’s terrible interior. I mean, it at least is a stripper-spec car that could return great mileage and was allegedly fun to drive (I’ve never driven one, hence the allegation rather than statement of fact).
The 2003, though? Dreadful. Not a space in which I’d care to spend much time. Sure, these cars might go for 200,000 or 300,000 miles, but honestly, if my life ever becomes so devoid of joy and zest that I consign myself to spending that much time in such a car, I’d hope my friends or family would do me the favor of putting a bullet into my brain. Every time I’ve been in a Civic of this vintage, I find it an absolutely depressing space.
And then there’s Honda’s alleged build quality. I say alleged because I, in 2006, bought a brand-new Honda Element EX-P, which I drove for eight years and 144,000 miles. Having gone from a 1998 Mercury Mystique LS (that’s a car for another post, a FoMoCo Deadly Sin I’d say!) to the Element to my current 2014 Ford Fiesta ST, I cannot for the life of me figure out where people get the idea that Hondas have such great build quality. The bezel around the dash-mounted shifter (I loved that shifter’s location! The rubber-band notchy feel, though, I don’t miss.) bulged and popped loose within a couple months of purchase, and it would never stay put when I popped it back in. The bezel around the radio was so misaligned that one side was over 1/8 inch higher than the radio but the other was 1/8 inch deeper than the radio. The center cupholder/brake surround “console” popped out in year two. I fudged in a clip and let gravity help hold it in place.
The worst was the steering wheel, though. It had two silver plastic pieces that surrounded the center airbag. Those pieces did not match alignment compared to the rest of the surrounding components. I could feel the sharp edge of the left side with my hand (I often rest my hands on top of the top airbag spokes in pretty much every car). The right side had a slight gap, but at least was aligned so that I couldn’t feel the sharp plastic edge.
Seriously, the single most touched thing in the car and I could feel the edges? Ludicrous.
Then there were the mechanicals. VTEC solenoid failed at 83k, but it was after 100k it really started trying to die. It went through eight coil packs in less than two years. It ate two window regulators in two years.
I have a number of friends with Hondas. I had a Honda. I just don’t understand why people think they’re so great. They’re good enough, but nothing about them strikes me as being any better than any other car out there. Obviously I liked my Element if I kept it as long as I did, but going from that to a Fiesta, I don’t see huge differences in the build quality (My Fiesta ST’s build problems were exterior instead of interior, but apparently neither Ohioans nor Mexicans know how to properly fasten all the bits).
The last of the ’03ish vintage I was in was running round just fine with 280,000 miles on it. A quick ride across town was enough to make me want out of it.
Sorry, I just don’t get the Civic (or even the Honda) love.
There is a website called Car Complaints.com that is a real eye opener. As someone who has owned 3 Hondas and 1 Acura, I can agree with that website that Honda quality started slipping badly after about 2000. (One reason why I was reluctant to replace my 97 Civic with a newer Honda product.)
However, I never experienced the kinds of MECHANICAL problems you did, and my last 2 Hondas went over 250,000 before I traded them….on the original engines, transmissions, and clutches.
My 97 did have the same “quality” glitches as your Element as far as the radio mounting and the airbag cover, but I considered them to be minor.
BTW, holding the airbag cover while driving is extremely dangerous and not at all recommended.
I’ve heard that about the airbag, but that’s just such a comfortable place to rest my hands.
What’s funny about the Element is that it wasn’t all that stuff I mentioned that told me it was time. It was the front wheel hubs that were starting to howl a bit and the air conditioning failing that convinced me it was time.
Big fan of the ’90 Civic hatch, having owned a base model back when our first son was born. Very tossable, and easily got low-40s on the highway. If I could buy one new today, I’d do it in a heartbeat. Pic is from after we sold it to my brother at 160K miles, who then proceeded to rear-end an Expedition. Those headlights are off an S10. He ran it another 80K before selling it for the same amount we sold it him.
We also owned an ’89 DX for about a year, but sold it when we found out we were expecting.
It was the best of cars, it was the worst of cars…. 🙂
My wife had a 7th gen (2001) Civic sedan when I met her. It was a good car, and I think I’m glad the stick wasn’t that wonky dashboard mounted type. I still see these Civic sedans frequently on the road, and most of them seem to be painted silver like hers was.
The hatch looks so different from her sedan I didn’t realize they were the same generation. Never really thought about it much though, since I can’t remember the last time I saw the hatchback version in person. I think I’m just as likely to see a 3rd gen Civic hatch on the road today, and most of those have succumbed to age and the tin worm in my neck of the woods.
My current DD is the bigger cousin to the ’90 Civic. Two months ago, I purchased a ’90 Integra LS sedan/5MT.
One owner car, always dealer serviced. 114k miles (!). $2500, plus a one-way ticket to Seattle and drove it home.
It took me a while to warm up to it, but now that I have, I can see why these were perceived as good cars.
I owned 1 of these Integras about 7 years ago, they are nearly bullet-proof. My biggest “problem” was the main relay (a common Honda problem). The other problem area was the plastics. Most of the plastic parts on these cars are pretty brittle by now so use car when doing any work on the car.
Oh, and the fabric on the door panels was pulling away from the door panels. Just inject some glue under the fabric.
I had a new 90 Honda Civic EX sedan. It had the same motor as the SI hatchback. It was burgundy and beautiful & I dealer installed factory fog lights. I really loved the backseat adjustable headrest, gave car a rich look but I made the awful mistake of getting the automatic instead of 5 speed, my mom had an 86 Accord LXi that I wanted but she decided to keep and she asked that I get the auto in case the Accord was down & she’d be able to drive the Civic. Because of the auto it was the worse car I owned, terribly slow. Timing belt went at 70k miles but no engine damage, drove the car for 2 years & traded for A 92 Acura Integra.
That was one thing about pre mid nineties Hondas, stick to the manual. The engines really were not appropriate for automatics and the Hondamatic was no prize.
Their late ’80s and early ’90s transmissions were intended to be more mechanically efficient, which in some respects they were, but at the cost of smoothness. The fact that the smaller engines didn’t have much in the way of torque obviously didn’t help, but even the bigger fours and V-6s were much better with manual.
Not so sure about efficiency either. Comparing an 93 2.2 Accord auto four speed, 1993 EPA numbers 22 city 28 highway. 93 2.2 Corsica auto three speed , 1993 EPA numbers 23 city 31 highway. The two cars are the same size and weigh within 100 pounds of each other. Maybe the Accord was geared super short, but it looks like Honda wasn’t getting much efficiency out of their autos. I don’t know if the Honda auto was soaking less horsepower from the engine.
The Civic is harder to compare since the domestics subcompacts had much larger engines, no doubt partially to offer autos.
22 city 28 highway? For a ’93? Balderdash. I know the ratings were “revised” down, but for the 8 years that car was in our family, it achieved low 30’s on the highway without fail.
And that car was in fact an automatic. Not the smoothest trans I’ve ever experienced, but it wasn’t bad at all.
a buddy of mine was a Honda fanatic from way back. his first I believe he said was an 83. I had lots of drive time in both his 91 and the 2004 that replaced it. I “got” the Honda message with the 91. I am a big car fan and was really shocked at how well built and solid the 91 felt. he had somewhere over 400,000km when a screwed up oil change killed it. first time I drove the 04 I couldn’t believe it was a civic. tinny, noisy and felt to me like a domestic econobox from the 80’s. his wife had a 99-00 corolla at the same time and it felt like ten times the car. the corolla was the only non Honda product they had owned (it was inherited) but it must have been an eye opener as after that he bought a kia when the corolla was wrecked and has said he has no plans to buy another Honda.
I have been out in a nephews 2010 civic and it seems even further afield from the Hondas of old. it just seems like another generic econobox.
was it just me or did it seem that you used to know you were in something special in a Honda?
I bought a 89 Civic brand new. Had gotten into a wreck with my 85 CRX Si, and traded it in, as it wasn’t quite right after that accident.
That Civic ran to 200K, and I sold it, original clutch, to a close friend. He drove it for another 40 thousand, but the evil rust worm was its demise.
No better car have I owned. Easily 40+MPG on the highway, a nd just under 40MPG around town.
A blast to drive, and probably the best driver to car connection I have ever experienced in a car.
I love my 06 Civic EX Coupe. I had leather seats put in it, and fog lights on the front. The car only has 57K on it, but has been absolutely reliable. I have had no issues other than routine maintenance. I’ll keep it till it, or I fall apart.
I think that during the 80s and 90s the foreign car manufacturers were trying to prove they were capable car makers. My 1st car was an 82 Nissan Stanza hatch back, that car was very comfortable, could take long trips in it without back pain. My buddy had an 82 Accord coupe & it was comfy also but the seats in our 86 Accord sucked.
A good friend in high school had a sedan of this generation, a white LX with blue interior. While not exactly a ball of fire, it was a good car that felt exceptionally solid and well put together. That was the first Honda I’d spent any time in, and it opened my eyes to “Honda magic”. Later I ended up owning a ’91 Accord, which helped confirm how much they were doing right at the time. That one was in the family until 2008 when it was written off after a rear-end collision.
The 2003? Now those cars just never did it for me. The sedan of that generation looked kind of frumpy compared to the models both before and after–tall beltline, tall greenhouse, just didn’t work in my eye. But these hatches were far worse–it looked like a 2-door MPV in 5/6 scale. I don’t find them attractive in the slightest. The oddball interior is equally bad. I’m sure they drive well, but I just can’t get past the looks. The 8th-gen cars were much more agreeable in the looks department, and while some thought the interior/dash odd, I rather liked it.
The late 80’s to late 90’s were definitely “Peak Honda” in many regards though. My neighbor has a pair of Civics from that era–a teal ’93 Si 5-speed hatchback and a red ’99 LX automatic hatchback. He has owned the ’99 from new, and purchased the ’93 a couple of years ago when he noticed an unmolested Si for sale. It only has a little over 100K on it and is basically immaculate–really great-looking car.
My wife’s 91 Civic LX and 84 Volvo DL together circa 2006. I liked both of them. They are long gone now. The Civic in 08 and the Volvo in 11. The Civic literally started falling apart in one month, the Volvo’s well known wiring issues did it in. I wouldn’t hesitate to buy another set if I could find a good one at the right price.
I will contend that neither of these cars are hatchbacks. They’re both shooting breaks.
I had a white ’90 Civic SI bought new. They all had the Hi-Po 109 hp motor, five speed trans, Recaro type seats, and moonroof. Mine did not have a/c. As a hatchback it was the most versatile vehicle, I would fold the rear seats down, then move the passengers seat forward, and lay the seatback down. I carried a house full of interior doors in two trips! It could cruise at 80 mph. and I always got a minimum pf 36 mpg. At the double nickel I recorded 42 mpg. The interior was simple but built with quality. The handling was great. My favorite car ever.
2003 is just about when cars still looked good, before they uglied-up and stayed there for what feels like forever.
I love that ’90 model, but the ’03 is just modern enough with some obvious a-pillar beefiness, usable windows and a handsome look.
Evil angry insectoid origami fashion was still around the corner then.
My mom looked at buying a new Civic a couple months ago. She couldn’t believe the size, which was essentially, in our minds, that of a mid-sized sedan. She seemed dwarfed by it. She expected it would be similar to what she imagined; a small, manageable vehicle with good visibility. She seemed lost in the new model.
As there were no Fits available at the dealer, I directed her to an Encore GX, which she loves.
I currently have a 2021 Civic EX with the 1.5L turbo and-blaaah-CVT. It is a capable sedan, but if I could find a ’88 Civic, like my first FOUR wheeled Honda was, I’d buy it in a instant.
Ours was a base ’88 3 dr HB with the 4 spd. We added A/C and AM-FM stereo at the dealer. I really liked that lil Civic to put it mildly. That generation, in particular a Si, is still my overall favorite largely because of its appearance! My ’21 is so over worked but under done it “offends” my delicate retired Designer eyes…… 🙂 The clean, lean shape of the ’88 generation is timeless!! If only my ’88 had not rusted at both rear wheel openings…. 🙁 DFO
Personally, I prefer the simpleness of the 90 version
There’s one of those 4th generation Civics still running around locally. So much nicer than the last few generations of Civic and, as mentioned, very glassy. The next one on was the last good looking Civic for me, all downhill after that.
I had 3 1984 thru 1987 Civics: an ’84 Civic S, ’87 CRX SI and a ’85 Civic SI.
As long as you kept the front tires aired up the car didn’t steer hard at all.
Each year was peppier than the year before.
The air conditioners were just barely adequate for the prolonged summers here in Hot & Humid New Orleans.
True, they all could had used more sound insulation and a taller 5th gear for interstate cruising; but I don’t recall any huge irritations on any of ’em.
Today’s new Hondas leave me cold inside. Blahhhhhhh!
1990 – Low and wide – Soooo charming
2003 – Too tall, too fat – bloated frog, fat pig
I had a 04 Civic Si EP3 Hatch. It was a fun little car, but it was NOT a Si. It had the 160 HP base RSX engine. It needed the 200 HP RSX Type-S engine to be a true Si. The earlier Si’s were great. Honda redesigned the Civic line in the US for 2000 and dropped the hatchback. US buyers wanted it back. But you can’t just make a hatchback out of coupe. So they brought over the EP3 which was a totally different car. I can’t tell you how many times people ordered parts for the wrong car when I brought it in for service. Now, to make it worse, they did not offer an automatic transmission in the US. So the buyers who wanted a little hatchback didn’t buy it. The Si buyers were disappointed with the performance so they didn’t buy it. What they should have done is sold the 160hp car with an automatic transmission for the small hatchback buyers. Then sell the 200hp car with the 5-speed for the Si people. Win win. Also, the dash mounted shifter was great. You got your hand back on the wheel in half the time. You just couldn’t rest your hand there while driving, which people say you should not do anyway. I drove that little car for 200K miles. Then I test drove a new 2010 Si coupe and it was no comparison. I just wish the 2010 was a hatchback. I sold the 04 to my nephew and bought the 10. I still have it. Honda had all the right parts, they just didn’t put them together right in those years.