|
Re the Civic, 2011 is two models ago. The 2012 model is significantly different and better than the 2011 one at not much more cost. Also it has a rear wiper. Visibility is not as good as a SUV but is not as bad as some say (usually non owners). The mirrors provide a complete rear and three quarters view with no blind spots. You will forget the spoiler after the first few minutes.
Edited by catsdad on 22/02/2019 at 17:20
|
|
Catsdad, I understand that there is an oil consumption issue that affects some of the 2012 9th Gen civics. I don't think there is clarity yet on the VIN range that is affected or the extent of model years. I understand that both 2012 and 2013 cars are susceptible.
That's the reason I'm thinking of sticking with the older generation car.
A couple of folks on this forum (was it you?) also reported that their 9th Gen civic was beginning to suffer from this issue.
|
eustace, yes it was me who flagged up the possible Civic oil issue. I am still monitoring it as I've only done 1500 miles since I found mine at minimum and topped it up with 750 ml. Its still well above minimum so its hard to say what the rate of loss is but it may not to be as bad as I initially feared.
Googling shows there have been periodic worldwide issues with Honda oil consumption, not just the 9th gen Civic. However the 2012 Civic oil consumption does come up in a number of searches. Having said that I wonder if its only an issue with a small percentage of cars. Its not a universal experience and I only became aware of it when I searched specifically for it. I think if it were a widespread issue in such a common car it would be much better known.
So, until I know how much oil I am losing over a decent distance I wouldn't want to claim I have excessive oil consumption. If/ when I do I will smile wrily at the frequent Civic recommendations on this site! Until then I will reserve judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
Couple of points. Firstly regarding the SX4 S-Cross. According to the figures on this website, it's power to weight ratio is 102bhp per ton, whereas the 1.8 Civic has 105bhp per ton. It may have 20bhp less than the Civic, but it is some 150kg lighter. Very few people factor in the weight of a car when they make assumptions about how quick or otherwise any given car is. I'm not saying that the Suzuki will be comfortable and refined on the motorway (Suzuki's tend not to be very refined, and with a 1.6 n/a motor coupled to a 5 speed box, it will be revving quite high), but it has more than sufficient power to move its mass. This brings me on to my next point, your querying whether the Suzuki's engine is enough "for a car of this size". Just to be clear, the SX4 S-Cross isn't a big car, it is nearly 8cm shorter and 4cm narrower than a Focus hatchback.
Regarding the safety, the notion that a bigger car is going to be better than a smaller car, simply because it's bigger, is a far too simplistic and misinformed assumption. How safe the car performs in an accident depends on how well it has been designed. For example, the current shape Honda Jazz scores higher in the Euroncap crash test ratings than the (27cm longer and 9cm wider) SX4 S-Cross. Not by much granted, but it illustrates my point. The Dacia Duster is slightly bigger still than the Suzuki but scores quite poorly, much more so than the Jazz.
Finally, given your concerns about safety, might i suggest that if there is to be a newer and (potentially) safer car in the household, your wife should have it?. Given she is doing the school run, which presumably means children are involved(?), and given it was her car which got written off. If the Focus estate has been taking you to and from work all these years with no issues, what has happened to it to make it no longer fit for that purpose?. (Yes, i know, none of my business, but i just felt i should put it out there!)
|
Couple of points. Firstly regarding the SX4 S-Cross. According to the figures on this website, it's power to weight ratio is 102bhp per ton, whereas the 1.8 Civic has 105bhp per ton. It may have 20bhp less than the Civic, but it is some 150kg lighter. Very few people factor in the weight of a car when they make assumptions about how quick or otherwise any given car is. I'm not saying that the Suzuki will be comfortable and refined on the motorway (Suzuki's tend not to be very refined, and with a 1.6 n/a motor coupled to a 5 speed box, it will be revving quite high), but it has more than sufficient power to move its mass. This brings me on to my next point, your querying whether the Suzuki's engine is enough "for a car of this size". Just to be clear, the SX4 S-Cross isn't a big car, it is nearly 8cm shorter and 4cm narrower than a Focus hatchback.
Regarding the safety, the notion that a bigger car is going to be better than a smaller car, simply because it's bigger, is a far too simplistic and misinformed assumption. How safe the car performs in an accident depends on how well it has been designed. For example, the current shape Honda Jazz scores higher in the Euroncap crash test ratings than the (27cm longer and 9cm wider) SX4 S-Cross. Not by much granted, but it illustrates my point. The Dacia Duster is slightly bigger still than the Suzuki but scores quite poorly, much more so than the Jazz.
Finally, given your concerns about safety, might i suggest that if there is to be a newer and (potentially) safer car in the household, your wife should have it?. Given she is doing the school run, which presumably means children are involved(?), and given it was her car which got written off. If the Focus estate has been taking you to and from work all these years with no issues, what has happened to it to make it no longer fit for that purpose?. (Yes, i know, none of my business, but i just felt i should put it out there!)
Thanks, BBD! Good points.
Regarding size vs safety, the Euro NCAP tests are done against cars in the same class.
If a smaller car (say Yaris) collides with a larger car (say Avensis) with the same safety features, I would think that the sheer weight and momentum of the bigger car, will cause a lot more damage to the smaller car.
I just saw your message, after posting my update about the SX4 test drive.
You are right about it's smaller size. I went with my wife and kids for a test drive. My wife doesn't think the car can become the main family car for long journeys. The car felt too small. It may be ok as a commuter car for me.
But if we are buying a much newer and more expensive car, we would expect that car to become the family car in due course, when the focus gets more older.
Regarding why my wife gets the focus; it is as safe a car as any. It is the Gen 2.5 focus with ESP, and is EuroCap 5 star rated. Has all the safety features. I specifically bough that gen of the focus to get the version with ESP.
Also my wife prefers to drive it, as she is familiar with it, rather than acclimatizing to a new car. Also it's fuel economy is not great for it to be a daily longer distance commuter.
Hope the reasons stack up... :-)
Edited by Avant on 23/02/2019 at 00:38
|
Regarding size vs safety, the Euro NCAP tests are done against cars in the same class.
No, they aren't. The cars are fired into an offset concrete block, or for the side impact tests, a concrete block is fired into the side of the car. Cars are not crashed into other cars of the same size(?), that would be utterly meaningless!
If a smaller car (say Yaris) collides with a larger car (say Avensis) with the same safety features, I would think that the sheer weight and momentum of the bigger car, will cause a lot more damage to the smaller car.
Not neccessarily. Is a small cage weaker than a bigger one?, depends on how it is designed and what guage or strength of metal is used, it could just as easily be stronger. As an example, a number of years ago, back when the Renault Modus was new (so circa 2004 or shortly after), because of the fact the Modus was the 1st properly small car to be awarded the then top 5 stars in the Euroncap crash test, the motoring programme 5th Gear set up a head-on collision between the Modus and a Volvo estate. I can't remember which Volvo, but i think it was a 940, so we are talking about a massive boxy Swedish estate, which once upon a time, would have been considered a very safe family car. The difference in size was huge, the Modus could almost have parked on the Volvo's bonnet!. But in the crash, the Modus simply bounced off the Volvo. The structure did exactly what it was designed to do, crumple by a certain amount to absorb and dissapate the force of the impact. The front door on the Modus could be opened using the handle, and the sensors of the dummy concluded no broken bones or any serious trauma. The front of the Volvo by contrast, was ruined. The door couldn't be opened and while the dummy sensors revealed the driver not to be seriously hurt, he had suffered two broken ankles and numerous minor injuries.
Edited by badbusdriver on 22/02/2019 at 20:09
|
Regarding size vs safety, the Euro NCAP tests are done against cars in the same class.
No, they aren't. The cars are fired into an offset concrete block, or for the side impact tests, a concrete block is fired into the side of the car. Cars are not crashed into other cars of the same size(?), that would be utterly meaningless!
My understanding was that the EuroNCAP ratings were awarded by category.
Hence what constitutes as a 5 star rating in a super mini category, wont constitute as a 5 star rating in a larger category.
If a smaller car (say Yaris) collides with a larger car (say Avensis) with the same safety features, I would think that the sheer weight and momentum of the bigger car, will cause a lot more damage to the smaller car.
Not neccessarily. Is a small cage weaker than a bigger one?, depends on how it is designed and what guage or strength of metal is used, it could just as easily be stronger. As an example, a number of years ago, back when the Renault Modus was new (so circa 2004 or shortly after), because of the fact the Modus was the 1st properly small car to be awarded the then top 5 stars in the Euroncap crash test, the motoring programme 5th Gear set up a head-on collision between the Modus and a Volvo estate. I can't remember which Volvo, but i think it was a 940, so we are talking about a massive boxy Swedish estate, which once upon a time, would have been considered a very safe family car. The difference in size was huge, the Modus could almost have parked on the Volvo's bonnet!. But in the crash, the Modus simply bounced off the Volvo. The structure did exactly what it was designed to do, crumple by a certain amount to absorb and dissapate the force of the impact. The front door on the Modus could be opened using the handle, and the sensors of the dummy concluded no broken bones or any serious trauma. The front of the Volvo by contrast, was ruined. The door couldn't be opened and while the dummy sensors revealed the driver not to be seriously hurt, he had suffered two broken ankles and numerous minor injuries.
All other factors being same, such as safety equipment and crumple zone design, I would assume that the heavier car would be safer.
Also my issue with superminis is their lack of protection from a rear end collision, due to lack of rear depth / crumple zone...
|
|
|
|
Re the Civic, 2011 is two models ago. The 2012 model is significantly different and better than the 2011 one at not much more cost. Also it has a rear wiper. Visibility is not as good as a SUV but is not as bad as some say (usually non owners). The mirrors provide a complete rear and three quarters view with no blind spots. You will forget the spoiler after the first few minutes.
I did test drive an 8th generation Civic. I did not find the spoiler to be as bad as I feared.
It looked like a very thin strip running accros the rear window. It is much more prominent and noticeable on the 9th generation, where it has been made bigger to house the wiper and it's motor.
I'm thinking that applying something like Rain-X on the rear window, should mitigate the absence of the rear wiper...
|
|
|
|
|
SLO76, I did try driving the Auris. However I did for some reason find it quite underwhelming, compared to the Civic. Also the car is much smaller.
And the rear window, while it looks big, a large portion of it has been made unusable, because Toyota has made it opaque. The view in the rear view mirror is quite limited. Looks like Toyota's method of persuading people to go for the top spec models, with the reversing camera.
However the Auris is still a standby choice, if other options don't pan out.
Also as mentioned in the other post, I am at this point trying to avoid GDI engines. Hence that rules out most other newer cars, including the Mazdas.
|
|
No need to worry about GDi, this technology has been refined and there’s no carbon buildup issues on newer models like the Mazda Skyactiv. They use multi-hole injectors to improve fuel delivery and burn which doesn’t allow this previous issue which was very common on the Mitsubishi GDi motors from the 90’s and early VAG FSi motors.
|
No need to worry about GDi, this technology has been refined and there’s no carbon buildup issues on newer models like the Mazda Skyactiv. They use multi-hole injectors to improve fuel delivery and burn which doesn’t allow this previous issue which was very common on the Mitsubishi GDi motors from the 90’s and early VAG FSi motors.
There have been some sporadic reports about carbon build up on GDI engines.
See link below, for example.
www.cx3forum.com/forum/engines-technical-discussio...l
I know these issues are quite rare as of now. But I would still prefer to give it another couple of years, before I take a positive decision.
The fact that Toyota has chosen to take an approach that uses a combination of port and direct injection to avoid carbon build up, suggests that the way to avoid the build up on GDI engines may not be absolute.
Toyota also I understand had issues with carbon build-up, on some of the earlier Lexus engines, in the U.S.
|
“There have been some sporadic reports about carbon build up on GDI engines.”
Not in the UK. Your link relates to the US market where the variable quality of fuel may be causing issues we simply don’t see over here.
I agree regarding the idiocy of the Avensis parking brake but the rear calippers, discs and pads were all replaced on mine not long before I bought it and the receipt was no dearer than I’d expect on any car. Sticking calippers being quite a common issue on Japanese cars for some reason. Adding unnecessary complexity will add cost at some point but so far it’s been flawless. You can be certain you’ll hear it here when or if it does go haywire as I do intend on keeping this until it dies, it’s just too useful. It’ll serve as second car when we upgrade.
Edited by SLO76 on 22/02/2019 at 23:57
|
|
|
|
|
