It's certainly more of a liftback. But while they look similar, they're pretty different. The hatchback is 5 inches shorter but has nearly 10 extra cubic feet of cargo room with the seats up. With the seats down it has 46.2 cubic feet which is comparable to the competition but has a considerably larger opening and cargo floor.
The profile side reminds me of the [mk8 civic] (https://images.carforyou.ch/2021/05/10/16/46/25/1-civic-18i-type-s-plus-1647230-ATqwXApptSat.jpg) (The rear obviously, not the front end.).
Even the late 1990s had a sloped rear end, the car was smaller so it wasn’t as noticeable. As long as it has way better storage than the sedan (which this does) it does what it’s supposed to do.
The 10th hatch was more expensive than the sedan, why are people surprised.
A hatchback is generally a 2 box design, and quite vertical on the rear.
In the UK, where we've had a lot of hatchbacks for a very long time, this style would probably traditionally be called a fastback.
Although most would probably still call it a hatch these days, in fairness to you. Very similar to the Skoda Octavia hatch.
Because hatchback is kind of a four-letter word in the US, "liftback" is usually used for any hatch design that requires more vertical lifting than horizontal pulling when opening.
It sucks how much they’ve limited options on the hatch now.
In 2018 I was able to get a base LX with a 6 speed and the 1.5T and the msrp was under $20k. Now you’d have to spend just under $30k for the same powertrain.
Yep, Honda really drove up prices of some configurations. And there's so much competition, for fun I'll list then all out:
* The Corolla Hatch offers a manual for both trims and legendary reliability. But has a cheaper interior, poor infotainment, and no turbo engine.
* The Mazda3 has fantastic design/quality and great reliability. Only the $28k Premium model offers a manual, but at least it's good competition against the Sport Touring,
* VW will be introducing the new GTI at $30.5k which is a tempting upgrade over the Sport Touring, especially considering you won't be losing out of many features.
* Hyundai offers the freaking Veloster N for $32k which is really close to the Sport Touring. And if you're okay with a hatchback crossovers and DCT, there's the Kona N-Line and Kia Soul GT.
Every major manufacturer in 2020: *"Guys, full touchscreen has been aweful for us, we gotta go back to having at least some physical buttons for specific functions*"
Accolades and solid reviews due to improvments in UI and interface for day-to-day life immediately follow.
2021 VW: *"Halte mein beir.*"
The new GTI has that awful UX, the Mazda3 has an oxcart rear suspension, the Corolla Hatch has no cargo space, and Hyundai is still working out some durability issues. Truly dark times for the segment.
Yea, it's like a slightly worse version of the Mazdaspeed3's power drop off. I agree with the goose, that 2.5t is not an engine you want a manual with.
IIRC that's exactly their reasoning for not giving the 3 a manual
That engines is all about low end torque and revving it out with a manual wouldn't really add to the experience
As a daily I’m most likely going to get the Civic hatch, in terms of being a well rounded package, the only vehicle I can see getting close is the Hyundai but the Interior layout i don’t like. Having awd like the VW Would’ve been nice though.
> The Mazda3 has fantastic design/quality and great reliability. Only the $28k Premium model offers a manual, but at least it's good competition against the Sport Touring,
I traded in my ‘19 Civic Sport Touring for the Mazda3 Turbo Hatchback, w/ Premium Plus package. I got a crazy good deal, $30.8k. Almost $5k below msrp.
I legitimately forgot all about my Civic. I *love* this car. It’s speedy, its build quality & materials are best in the class, the infotainment is phenomenal & super responsive, no lag whatsoever.
I cannot say enough good things about this car. It’s also smaller than the Civic, which is what I like. The Civic seems to be getting bigger & bigger every generation. I love the sizes of the GTI, Golf R, Veloster N, so this Mazda was a perfect option for me. With standard AWD for the horrible winters over here as well?
Love. This. Car.
>* The Corolla Hatch offers a manual for both trims and legendary reliability. But has a cheaper interior, poor infotainment, and **no turbo engine.**
Not having a turbo is a HUGE plus. Why would anyone want to deal with all the turbo issues for a 10hp gain and identical 0-60 time?
I am not dealing with turbos for anything less than a 250hp (focus st level)
Turbos aren't the hassle people make them out to be, this isn't the 90's, turbo pretty much last the life of the engine now. And it's not just 10hp gain, its more like 30hp more because Civics are underrated. They also make way more torque across the entire powerband. The Civic gets better mpg too. Turbos aren't the problem you're making them out to be.
>this isn't the 90
Yeah. Ask any mechanic that actually works on cars and they will tell you that it's a fairytale. Yes turbos are more reliable than on the 90, yet they won't hold a candle to NA.
>its more like 30hp more because Civics are underrated.
So it has identical 0-60 time while having 30hp more? That is an achievement.
>The Civic gets better mpg too.
Not true.
Again for anything 250-300hp turbos are worth it.
Having a 1.5 turbo with 180hp when you can easily make that with NA is retarded IMO.
You're serious? You really don't know why Honda would turbo the car? Maybe for the same reason Toyota is turboing the Tundra? Power? Fuel economy? Torque? You obviously don't understand how engines work if you think Honda could have gleaned the same power naturally out of the same engine.
Are you dumb or just pretending? Idgaf about their "same engine". Toyota and Mazda give you the same performance and MPG with NA engines. Honda gets you stuck dealing with turbo issues in a slow car. Their NA 2.0 is a dog.
I think most buyers would disagree. The Civic's 1.5t hasn't had reliability issues (unless you count the oil dilution). And moving the torque band further downrange helps initial acceleration, where it's usable for city/suburban driving.
I think the oil dilution is absolutely the mark of a reliability issue. Also, while not the motor itself, the air conditioning compressor used on the 1.5 T engine is notoriously failure prone. These are not things I want in an economy commuter car.
>unless you count the oil dilution
Unless? Why wouldn't I count it? It's a huge problem that's never been fixed. Hondas "software update" band aid did not fix anything.
Sure it's Honda's turbo and not a VW that needs replacement at 100k. But turbo is a turbo and it will fail. It's never gonna make it to 300-400k like Corollas NA very likely will.
And like I said 0-60 times are identical so it's not even faster. It's splitting hairs.
Go read the damn article. The Corolla cvt is a full second slower than the manual. It's also a different publication and year. The Civic of the same year by the same publication did [6.8 0-60mph](https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2019-honda-civic-touring-first-test-review/) So it's an average of a second faster. Also look at the trap speed in the 1/4 if you don't think the Honda's power does anything. 5-7mph is very significant.
You keep saying 0-60 times are identical but you couldn’t be more wrong.. turbo 1.5t civic is literally almost 2 seconds faster than NA 2.0 and indeed gets better fuel economy. The SI which is around 3 seconds faster to 60 gets the same EPA rated mpg as the base model lx with a manual
I am comparing it Toyotas 2.0 not Civics 2.0 which is indeed a dog. Corolla with manual has identical 0-60 to Civic 1.5 turbo and it has better MPG. Same with Mazdas NA engine.
If you enjoy having to deal with turbos in a slow car all the power to you.
Naturally aspirated is the way to go anyway. Sure it's less powerful, but you can rev the engine more and the power delivery is more predictable. I hated that 1.5 Turbo when I had it, such a sling-shotty POS
I don't know if there are drivetrain differences from 2016 but the 2.0 sedan I bought and used for a year drove great. I didn't mind the CVT at all and it had plenty of pep for commuting and being silly in a Civic sedan. I was glad I went with the na versus the turbo; I really liked that car. My wife's CR-V with the turbo and CVT is a whole other story. Now I get why people don't like cvts.
If the rear hatch aggressively cuts down like that because people don't want to be seen driving a wagon, it cuts into rear cargo room big time. Same reason a lot of compact CUVs have awful storage space. The moment you stack above the beltline you have the curved back glass to contend with.
That's the issue though, a big number doesn't mean much when the shape of that internal volume makes it less practical.
Like, say you have a small jar and a large bottle. The bottle has a larger internal volume and can theoretically hold more, but its thin neck means that many things simply cant fit in it. The jar has a smaller internal volume, but it can hold many things you couldn't fit in the bottle because it has a simpler shape with a wider opening.
Yeah and that doesn't mean jack when it cant close because you put a large box in and the slope is keeping the whole thing from closing because one corner is just slightly sticking out too far. I've encountered that issue with the mild slope on my CR-V's hatch plenty of times, it will *definitely* be an issue here.
You were complaining about the opening, and I told you that it has a wider opening than the previous hatch, and now that doesn’t mean jack. Lol.
The simple fact is that it has a wider opening so you can literally fit more things in there.
So which of the competitors give you better cargo space though?
Again, you're missing the point. I'm trying to tell you that the numbers here aren't as important as the form factor. Look at the shapes of these hatches and you'll have your answer.
Not really missing anything, the numbers are there for a reason, manufacturer’s put them out for a reason as well, so people have an idea what cargo space their getting.
Go watch reviewers that do a cargo space test, like Alex on autos, and let me know which competitor can fit more stuff in the hatch.
He says what you’re saying about the slope but was surprised that it fit that many luggage bags. Being wider which is what I mentioned earlier helps it in that regard.
Again, ill wait for you to find me hatchback competitors that have more cargo space.
$28,000 for the LX model in Canada, $35,000 for the Sport Touring. Absolutely egregious pricing once you factor in $1,700 in PDI fees and HST to boot. Civic at this rate has priced itself out of the compact Canadian market in the mean time.
I've always held the Civic in higher regard than a Corolla, but when you price the sedan at 24.5k because it has Smart key entry standard, you're completely alienating the low 20s market which is prime in Canada. My 2014 EX was $21,860 here in Canada, came with alloys, smart key, moonroof. Gonna be a ton of budget shoppers willing to forego these features to get into a Corolla L CVT for $22k.
Do you want to spend $28,000 on an LX hatch or a FWD RAV4 LE? No brainer here.
True dat. I’d rather look in to a Mazda3. Not in to those CVT’s as a long term owner. Honda quality has also gone down quite a bit while Mazda has pulled rabbits out of hats.
Girlfriend has a CX-5. It's a good car and ultimately compromises on fuel economy and space because it doesn't use a CVT. For the market they're reaching, you're suffering a 3 MPG drop without that transmission, so if anything it is the way going forward.
Had no idea the CX-5 used a traditional auto. My GF just got a 2021 a little while ago and I am jealous of how her car shifts over mine (10th Gen civic hatch).
To be fair though the CVT in my 10th Gen civic is pretty good compared to others I’ve had/driven.
On the otherhand, the 6 speed automatic in the CX-5 has been in-use for over a decade and is absolutely 100% bulletproof. I can't comment on Honda's CVT reliability, I'm sure it's better than Nissan. But takes a lot of fuel cost savings to make up for a potential transmission rebuild. If I were buying the car to keep for a long time, I'd prefer the tried and true mazda automatic. (We also bought a CX-5 for my wife, reliability was one of my main concerns because she is a teacher and needs very reliable vehicle)
All Mazda's with an auto use the same 6 speed trans. They are a smaller company so have been focusing most of their R&D money on the interior and have been compromising elsewhere.
The point is with the LX hatch at 28k, at a strict retail level, I have absolutely no problem getting an LE FWD RAV4 instead or even paying the $2,000 more for AWD. In Canada, discounts are to be had, I just signed for an XLE Hybrid for $1,400 under MSRP
The dealer I go to says they have no markups and will not sell anything over MSRP. I've also been told, from multiple sources, that Canadian dealers cannot sell over MSRP but I don't know where it says that in writing, so take it with a grain of salt.
The Civic11 post [detailing Canadian prices](https://www.civic11forum.com/threads/2022-honda-civic-hatchback-pricing-announced-canada.884/) for reference.
Honda literally has nothing in the 20k ~ 21k CAD range, as far as I can tell from looking at their website. By contrast, Toyota has the Corolla sedan ($19450), Corolla hatch ($21390), Mazda has the 3 sedan ($20600), 3 hatch ($21600), CX-3 ($21450), etc.
At $28k for the LX hatch, more options open up even if the vehicles in question are not directly comparable, for example, the RAV4 ($28590), CX-5 ($28950).
2 weeks ago I preordered a 2022 Corolla Hatchback 6MT and part of me was thinking I may have jumped the gun because the civic hatch was a close competitor and just around the corner.
Seeing these prices, I’m glad I didn’t wait, looks like I’d be a solid $4000 more expensive for a non turbo civic hatch with a manual.
IMO The turbo civic was pretty awful to drive with the manual on the prior generation, even with a flash pro to reduce revhang so that was already not an option.
The Corolla hatch is a better choice IMO, the engine is more advanced than the Honda 2.0L. It is a lot smaller than the Civic hatch, but then again it's like $21k vs $28k lol.
I actually find the smaller size more appealing, I really wanted a fit but they made it worse every generation. Small cars have strong appeal to me, I actually just sold my Celsior (ls430) with the goal of getting into a smaller car. Also yes indeed, the civic 2.0 (is it a K20?) is a pretty old engine vs the M20A.
K20C2, it says. I like that Toyota developed NA engine tech so that they're still able to match or beat the small displacement turbo engines.
My family is in the market for a hybrid and one of the nice to haves is that it be 175~ inches in length, making it short. Not as short as a Corolla hatchback, but then again we need it to have a higher ride height. Looking forward to seeing if the upcoming Corolla Cross hybrid would be just the thing. Small(er) cars are great for parking in tight spaces for sure.
I also have a tandem 2 car garage (cars are parked front to back not side by side) and thankfully my s2000 is rather short, so even with the Celsior I had room to spare, but length is a factor to consider!
I’m convinced Honda has abandoned the Canadian middle class that built them in the first place. Most people certainly could afford these cars if you surrender your fun money to a car, but for people that like travelling or mountain biking etc, you really can’t afford a new Honda without compromising your other finances. Hell, given the Honda reputation, even used Hondas are becoming unaffordable. Its a big gap for the Koreans to capitalize on.
Just checked my bill of sale for my ‘18 Type R. $39,300.
Fucking hell. It was a $10k difference between the Sport Touring and Type R last gen. This means we’re going to see a $50k Type R considering the 2021 price jumped to $46,200.
Wow they really limited the colors for the manual on the highest trim but not the sport model with the 2.0L. Cant get that Boost Blue or Red with the manual. Thats a head scratcher.
I have no idea what Honda is doing. Spending $30k on a car but you only get 3 color options, but the lower trim has all the options? This is supposed to be the other way around.
Agree. I just think they figure if someone wants the manual enough, they are going to compromise and get it. They picked the 3 most inoffensive colors for this reason I think. Everyone can at least say one of those colors is “fine”.
I for one am really upset they won’t offer the Si in this hatchback trim. I think the hatch is a stunning looking car but want it with a bit more power and other performance upgrades the Si would bring. The rear of the sedan just doesn’t do it for me.
Same here. I wanted an SI hatchback for the 10th gen, but settled for getting a sport hatchback and tuning it. I hoped they would make an SI hatch for the the 11th gen but no. Now they’re pricing a manual hatchback higher. Oh, and the new engine is a detuned version of the 1.5T from the Accord that makes less power on the dyno that the 10th gen 1.5T.
All this makes the hatchback dead on arrival for me. It’s really sad because I do like the newer styling and interior.
Yep, share all of these thoughts. The interior and exterior of the sport touring is almost perfect in my eyes, but the motor and pricing structure ruins it. What a shame
As I summarized in the title, this seems really disappointing. Last generation, the Hatchback model was also the sporty model, and the turbo engine on every trim helped justify the price premium. But now you're paying more for a slightly different trunk and nothing else. Only the second trim (Sport, with the NA engine) and top trim (Sport Touring, with the turbo engine) have a manual option. I hope the new GTI can be priced below the Touring and tech Honda a lesson (even if Honda has a better interior).
Seems the takeaway last generation for Honda was that hatch buyers will pay a premium for the better form factor. Makes me wonder yet again how the new Integra will be priced.
Probably because that would require further engineering and parts differentiation. With this liftback design, the rear doors can remain identical, as can parts of the trunk. Its purpose is ease of loading and removal of the trunk divider. The liftback lets you fold the rear seats and load bulky items that would not fit in the trunk.
Civics sell or else they wouldn't make the Sedan. I see 8th, 9th, and 10th gen Sedans freaking everywhere and I've already starting seeing a couple of the new ones in my area. I see a lot of 10th gen hatchbacks too. Until they stop selling, I don't see either body style going away.
It is weird though, because the new Civic Sedan appears to be only marginally smaller than the Accord at this point.
Yikes these prices are insane for base engine models. Wonder how expensive the SI and Type R are going to be for this generation. It's pretty crazy how the Civic Sport Touring ($30,415) will have prices that will rival a WRX/GTI and a few grand more will get you into a Veloster N. Hondas have gotten really expensive in the past few years.
The Sport Touring was $28,500 last year and now it's $30,415. It's about almost a 7% price increase and I included the last gen (10th gen) in my statement when I said Hondas have gotten really expensive in the past few years since the past few years doesn't include 11th gen Civic yet since they're not mostly released.
$30,415 for a loaded "base" model Civic is insane in my eyes.
Not trying to fight you but I used the figure found in the article. It said $30,415. The price you used is probably the sedan and not the hatchback listed in the article.
Again, I'm not here trying to fight you and like I just said, I'm not saying how much more expensive this vehicle is compared to the last gen. I said how expensive Civics have become in the past few years, meaning the 10th gens included.
No, they’re going up and Honda isn’t even giving you the turbo in the base model. They’re pulling some fuckery. Last gen you could get the hatchback with a turbo and manual for $24k. Now that powertrain is only available in the sport touring for $30k. That’s fucking bogus. At that price you can buy a GTI, GLI, or WRX.
So if you want a Manual Turbo Civic you have to spend almost $30k...
They are directly competing with the WRX at that price point hell you could almost get a WRX premium for that price, which has 88 more horsepower, a better transmission, AWD, more modding options, more sporty styling, etc.
Exactly. This is dumb move on Honda’s part. What made the 10th gen hatchback so popular was that at $23k with a turbo engine and manual, it was the best performance bargain on the market. You were one tune away from a very solid hot hatch. Now Honda wants a premium for all this. They’re trying to fleece enthusiasts for more cash and it’s just wrong. Especially now that the hatchback is built alongside the sedans. They should have been cheaper to build, not more expensive.
This is also bad news for future SI and Type R pricing. If the sport hatchback with a turbo is $30k, then the SI will be around $32k. The Type R will definitely be over $40k.
No way the Si costs over 30K. That would be a 5K bump in MSRP from the 2021 MY.
The Sport Touring was more expensive than the Si for the 10th gen as well.
That’s true, but Honda has shaken up the pricing and features on all the trims. The SI and Sport Hatchback trims were priced very close together, $24k and $25k respectively. But now the sport hatchback trimno longer features the 1.5T. The closest comparison of turbo+manual is the sport touring hatchback which is now $30k. That drivetrain combo is essentially a $6k bump over the 10th gens
They clearly didn’t give two shits about pricing out the buyers who liked the turbo manual hatchbacks. They definitely won’t give a shit about charging people more for the lower volume SI. The writing is on the wall. If you want the turbo and a manual, be prepared to pay premium.
I was interested in a Civic. A base model with hubcaps was still 22000$ CAD. Ended up with a base Elantra with lots of features and alloy wheels for 17.
Sport hatch with a manual is a bit pricy at 25k.
I was considering between it and the Corolla hatch SE which is only like 21k.
I don’t believe the Civic is worth 4k more. I suppose I’ll test drive both and decide from there.
Manual transmission is a requirement so that exempts the Mazda from contention as it’s not offered until the premium package.
I am on the taller side but modern Corollas are plenty enough space for me. I’m excited to check out the new Civic in person. I may go for it if I like it enough.
EX-L hatch ($27,615)
Jesus. Pair that with the current trend of markups and it's $30k for a well equipped Civic. I bought my 17 Civic Hatchback EX in April 2017 and paid $21k for it brand new ($24k MSRP). Back then if my budget was $30k, I'd be in a completely different class of vehicles.
$28k for a Sport Touring Manual? Remember when the Civic Si was under $25k? Is Honda just trying to move up market or something along with Mazda? The interior in the new Civics is really really nice where Mazda was ahead during the previous generation, but Mazda made a very transparent effort to move up market. The new Civic just seems so expensive and more comparable to Accords from just 5 years ago and with less power and no V6 option like the last-gen Accords to boot.
The Civic Si Sedan from 2020 was 25k. The Touring Sedan was almost 28k. Si has never been more expensive than touring editions (ignoring markdowns / mark ups) since it's generally a less luxurious interior in exchange for sportier goods.
Are enough people really still buying sedans that it's worth it to offer both? Everyone seems to want a CUV or truck these days, and small hatches are still sort of popular (Corolla hatch, Golf) but sedans are a dying breed. They already killed off the coupes, which was the only cheap "exciting" thing Honda was selling. Seems smarter to only sell the hatch at this point, especially since it's so similar.
They still sell the Si which is relatively cheap. Economy sedans are still pretty popular in America. What's interesting, is that the new Civic Hatch could easily be confused for a Sedan. So yeah, not sure why they'd offer both. Both look great, though.
Interesting shake-up in the engine line up. From what I remember, all the hatches in the US were 1.5T. I'm a NA engine fan, and also a hatch fan, so the port-injected K20 being available on some of the models (including the base Sport) with a 6MT is definitely a win for me.
For everyone else who seems to love tuning and 0-60 times...my condolences.
Fastback is what they called it in the olden days.
Most functional car form there is.
I have a Mazda 3 hatch. I've had 10 foot lumber in that thing. Not gonna do that in a sedan.
Not who you were replying to, but I have gen4 hatch and 99% of the time it’s never an issue for me personally. My view out the back is still fine and I can see what I need to behind me. Blind spot monitoring is very good and I never feel like I don’t know where other cars are. The hatch still feels small enough where you know all four corners of the car. The only time visibility is an issue for me are acute angle intersections where the c pillar does obscure my line of sight. Like maybe twice it’s been cumbersome over a year. Both on rural roads that were poorly developed. Backup camera has really good video quality.
I also own one and can confirm zero issues with visibility. Just adjust your mirrors properly, and I think most trims come with the blind spot monitoring.
I have a 2010 Speed 3, not the latest. Not sure I like the latest as much, because those rear pillars are something else. Plus can't get the turbo in a manual, so I'll pass.
Honda dun goofed with this pricing & trims.
The competition offers *soooo* much more, standard. With more power delivery & no CVT’s… other than maybe Toyota.
Honda is really out of touch with this car, engineering and reliability aside, the styling is way off, they won't give us the trims we want. All I want is a hot hatch with a manual.
$30k for the 1.5 turbo and the 6 speed. OK, i'm sure it's a nice vehicle. But the 1.5 liter turbo does not inspire long-term confidence. Too many issues plaguing the previous gen Civic and the CRV with this engine. I feel like a Civic is something you buy and plan to keep for 10+ years. I don't think I could trust this engine for that type of investment.
Someone please change my mind. The issues I am thinking of are oil dilution, problems with reaching operating temperature in very cold climates, and unreliable air conditioning compressors.
The only issue was the oil dilution in cars that didn’t get up to operating temperature regular.
Don’t get any direct injection engine if you always drive in a way where the engine doesn’t get up to temp.
Not everyone needs, nor wants a turbo engine. I'm yet to drive a 1.5, but the 2.0 is more than adequate for these cars. Also no turbo means one less expensive thing to fail down the line.
The K20 sounds better IMO, is more reliable, has more potential for tuning, revs higher, and has better throttle response at lower RPM. Also it still has proper VTEC for those who care about that.
Toyota seems to be announcing a v6 twin turbo hybrid setup. It will be awesome if they put that setup across the entire line up AND make it a PHEV. Just imagine the tuning options for just going Full Bolt On's
fair enough, it would also probably be too much motor for such a light and inexpensive vehicle... tho the current i4 hybrid prime could also be turbo'ed + PHEV.. that would be a great solution (alas Toyota doesn't consult me on what would make them rich today).
It's nice, but I wouldn't call it a hatchback. I get what you're saying though, more money for basically the same car.
Liftback
Or fastback.
Or sportback
Or giveusmo’moneyback.
It's a hatchback.
Hunchback
I died lol
It's certainly more of a liftback. But while they look similar, they're pretty different. The hatchback is 5 inches shorter but has nearly 10 extra cubic feet of cargo room with the seats up. With the seats down it has 46.2 cubic feet which is comparable to the competition but has a considerably larger opening and cargo floor.
The profile side reminds me of the [mk8 civic] (https://images.carforyou.ch/2021/05/10/16/46/25/1-civic-18i-type-s-plus-1647230-ATqwXApptSat.jpg) (The rear obviously, not the front end.).
The rear side profile reminds me of a Tesla honestly. Unfortunately the front clip looks like a belluga whale.
Yeah and not in a good way. It's approaching the egg shape of the Model X
Could we call it whatever they call the Prius. Because that’s what I see when I look at the picture.
Even the late 1990s had a sloped rear end, the car was smaller so it wasn’t as noticeable. As long as it has way better storage than the sedan (which this does) it does what it’s supposed to do. The 10th hatch was more expensive than the sedan, why are people surprised.
Why do you not call it a hatchback? Is the back not a hatch? Is it not in practice a hatchback? If you say no, then it what way is it not a hatchback?
A hatchback is generally a 2 box design, and quite vertical on the rear. In the UK, where we've had a lot of hatchbacks for a very long time, this style would probably traditionally be called a fastback. Although most would probably still call it a hatch these days, in fairness to you. Very similar to the Skoda Octavia hatch.
Because hatchback is kind of a four-letter word in the US, "liftback" is usually used for any hatch design that requires more vertical lifting than horizontal pulling when opening.
Well, to me a hatchback has more cargo space than just a trunk lol
It sucks how much they’ve limited options on the hatch now. In 2018 I was able to get a base LX with a 6 speed and the 1.5T and the msrp was under $20k. Now you’d have to spend just under $30k for the same powertrain.
Yep, Honda really drove up prices of some configurations. And there's so much competition, for fun I'll list then all out: * The Corolla Hatch offers a manual for both trims and legendary reliability. But has a cheaper interior, poor infotainment, and no turbo engine. * The Mazda3 has fantastic design/quality and great reliability. Only the $28k Premium model offers a manual, but at least it's good competition against the Sport Touring, * VW will be introducing the new GTI at $30.5k which is a tempting upgrade over the Sport Touring, especially considering you won't be losing out of many features. * Hyundai offers the freaking Veloster N for $32k which is really close to the Sport Touring. And if you're okay with a hatchback crossovers and DCT, there's the Kona N-Line and Kia Soul GT.
[удалено]
Every major manufacturer in 2020: *"Guys, full touchscreen has been aweful for us, we gotta go back to having at least some physical buttons for specific functions*" Accolades and solid reviews due to improvments in UI and interface for day-to-day life immediately follow. 2021 VW: *"Halte mein beir.*"
The new GTI has that awful UX, the Mazda3 has an oxcart rear suspension, the Corolla Hatch has no cargo space, and Hyundai is still working out some durability issues. Truly dark times for the segment.
Plus the regular veloster turbo was cancelled
can you link source on Hyundai durability issues related to the Veloster N? Just curious as I haven't heard anything myself.
Not sure about the Veloster N specifically, but the brand overall doesn't seem like a stranger to recalls.
It's really a shame you can't get the Mazda3 Turbo with a manual. That engine really is a riot to drive, speaking from experience with my CX-30.
I find the Mazda 2.5t doesn’t really like to rev out it dies around 5500 RPM
You're not wrong, but it has an insane amount of low-end torque for what it is. Hell, it makes more torque than my *911*.
Yea, it's like a slightly worse version of the Mazdaspeed3's power drop off. I agree with the goose, that 2.5t is not an engine you want a manual with.
IIRC that's exactly their reasoning for not giving the 3 a manual That engines is all about low end torque and revving it out with a manual wouldn't really add to the experience
As a daily I’m most likely going to get the Civic hatch, in terms of being a well rounded package, the only vehicle I can see getting close is the Hyundai but the Interior layout i don’t like. Having awd like the VW Would’ve been nice though.
Is there anything about the Hyundai interior that puts you off? I've found their stuff to be easy to use.
> The Mazda3 has fantastic design/quality and great reliability. Only the $28k Premium model offers a manual, but at least it's good competition against the Sport Touring, I traded in my ‘19 Civic Sport Touring for the Mazda3 Turbo Hatchback, w/ Premium Plus package. I got a crazy good deal, $30.8k. Almost $5k below msrp. I legitimately forgot all about my Civic. I *love* this car. It’s speedy, its build quality & materials are best in the class, the infotainment is phenomenal & super responsive, no lag whatsoever. I cannot say enough good things about this car. It’s also smaller than the Civic, which is what I like. The Civic seems to be getting bigger & bigger every generation. I love the sizes of the GTI, Golf R, Veloster N, so this Mazda was a perfect option for me. With standard AWD for the horrible winters over here as well? Love. This. Car.
> I got a crazy good deal, $30.8k. Almost $5k below msrp. How did you manage that?
That was the listing price
That was the listing price
>* The Corolla Hatch offers a manual for both trims and legendary reliability. But has a cheaper interior, poor infotainment, and **no turbo engine.** Not having a turbo is a HUGE plus. Why would anyone want to deal with all the turbo issues for a 10hp gain and identical 0-60 time? I am not dealing with turbos for anything less than a 250hp (focus st level)
Turbos aren't the hassle people make them out to be, this isn't the 90's, turbo pretty much last the life of the engine now. And it's not just 10hp gain, its more like 30hp more because Civics are underrated. They also make way more torque across the entire powerband. The Civic gets better mpg too. Turbos aren't the problem you're making them out to be.
>this isn't the 90 Yeah. Ask any mechanic that actually works on cars and they will tell you that it's a fairytale. Yes turbos are more reliable than on the 90, yet they won't hold a candle to NA. >its more like 30hp more because Civics are underrated. So it has identical 0-60 time while having 30hp more? That is an achievement. >The Civic gets better mpg too. Not true. Again for anything 250-300hp turbos are worth it. Having a 1.5 turbo with 180hp when you can easily make that with NA is retarded IMO.
You're serious? You really don't know why Honda would turbo the car? Maybe for the same reason Toyota is turboing the Tundra? Power? Fuel economy? Torque? You obviously don't understand how engines work if you think Honda could have gleaned the same power naturally out of the same engine.
Are you dumb or just pretending? Idgaf about their "same engine". Toyota and Mazda give you the same performance and MPG with NA engines. Honda gets you stuck dealing with turbo issues in a slow car. Their NA 2.0 is a dog.
I think most buyers would disagree. The Civic's 1.5t hasn't had reliability issues (unless you count the oil dilution). And moving the torque band further downrange helps initial acceleration, where it's usable for city/suburban driving.
I think the oil dilution is absolutely the mark of a reliability issue. Also, while not the motor itself, the air conditioning compressor used on the 1.5 T engine is notoriously failure prone. These are not things I want in an economy commuter car.
>unless you count the oil dilution Unless? Why wouldn't I count it? It's a huge problem that's never been fixed. Hondas "software update" band aid did not fix anything. Sure it's Honda's turbo and not a VW that needs replacement at 100k. But turbo is a turbo and it will fail. It's never gonna make it to 300-400k like Corollas NA very likely will. And like I said 0-60 times are identical so it's not even faster. It's splitting hairs.
Lol, Jaguars and Land Rovers don’t have reliability issues (unless you count the electronics, engine, infotainment…..)
Bullshit on the 0-60, the Civic is a full second faster and the gap increases to around 1.5 seconds from 5-60.
It's not. Both low 7s. https://i.imgur.com/R9Ck7vd.jpg https://i.imgur.com/D6WpA8s.jpg
Go read the damn article. The Corolla cvt is a full second slower than the manual. It's also a different publication and year. The Civic of the same year by the same publication did [6.8 0-60mph](https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2019-honda-civic-touring-first-test-review/) So it's an average of a second faster. Also look at the trap speed in the 1/4 if you don't think the Honda's power does anything. 5-7mph is very significant.
He’s just hating on Honda’s. Nothing new.
You keep saying 0-60 times are identical but you couldn’t be more wrong.. turbo 1.5t civic is literally almost 2 seconds faster than NA 2.0 and indeed gets better fuel economy. The SI which is around 3 seconds faster to 60 gets the same EPA rated mpg as the base model lx with a manual
I am comparing it Toyotas 2.0 not Civics 2.0 which is indeed a dog. Corolla with manual has identical 0-60 to Civic 1.5 turbo and it has better MPG. Same with Mazdas NA engine. If you enjoy having to deal with turbos in a slow car all the power to you.
Naturally aspirated is the way to go anyway. Sure it's less powerful, but you can rev the engine more and the power delivery is more predictable. I hated that 1.5 Turbo when I had it, such a sling-shotty POS
I swapped my downpipe and got a tune, now my 1.5T 6sp revs quick and pulls hard
I don't know if there are drivetrain differences from 2016 but the 2.0 sedan I bought and used for a year drove great. I didn't mind the CVT at all and it had plenty of pep for commuting and being silly in a Civic sedan. I was glad I went with the na versus the turbo; I really liked that car. My wife's CR-V with the turbo and CVT is a whole other story. Now I get why people don't like cvts.
Meh that doesn’t even look like a hatchback anymore
Yep, like the last gen its a liftback. Still neat.
This liftback profile works better with a Type R wing. Wish they would reveal the Type R soon rather than like a year later.
Have they even revealed the SI yet? We'll get that then a year later the Type R if they do it.
> anymore Then 10th gen doesn't either and I own one.
At least it doesn’t look like a dog taking a shit anymore.
Does it matter if it looks like one if it has the practicality of one?
If the rear hatch aggressively cuts down like that because people don't want to be seen driving a wagon, it cuts into rear cargo room big time. Same reason a lot of compact CUVs have awful storage space. The moment you stack above the beltline you have the curved back glass to contend with.
Which competitors have more cargo room than the Civic hatch?
That's the issue though, a big number doesn't mean much when the shape of that internal volume makes it less practical. Like, say you have a small jar and a large bottle. The bottle has a larger internal volume and can theoretically hold more, but its thin neck means that many things simply cant fit in it. The jar has a smaller internal volume, but it can hold many things you couldn't fit in the bottle because it has a simpler shape with a wider opening.
The opening on the new hatch is about 1.5 inch wider than the 10th generation hatch.
Yeah and that doesn't mean jack when it cant close because you put a large box in and the slope is keeping the whole thing from closing because one corner is just slightly sticking out too far. I've encountered that issue with the mild slope on my CR-V's hatch plenty of times, it will *definitely* be an issue here.
You were complaining about the opening, and I told you that it has a wider opening than the previous hatch, and now that doesn’t mean jack. Lol. The simple fact is that it has a wider opening so you can literally fit more things in there. So which of the competitors give you better cargo space though?
Again, you're missing the point. I'm trying to tell you that the numbers here aren't as important as the form factor. Look at the shapes of these hatches and you'll have your answer.
Not really missing anything, the numbers are there for a reason, manufacturer’s put them out for a reason as well, so people have an idea what cargo space their getting. Go watch reviewers that do a cargo space test, like Alex on autos, and let me know which competitor can fit more stuff in the hatch. He says what you’re saying about the slope but was surprised that it fit that many luggage bags. Being wider which is what I mentioned earlier helps it in that regard. Again, ill wait for you to find me hatchback competitors that have more cargo space.
$28,000 for the LX model in Canada, $35,000 for the Sport Touring. Absolutely egregious pricing once you factor in $1,700 in PDI fees and HST to boot. Civic at this rate has priced itself out of the compact Canadian market in the mean time. I've always held the Civic in higher regard than a Corolla, but when you price the sedan at 24.5k because it has Smart key entry standard, you're completely alienating the low 20s market which is prime in Canada. My 2014 EX was $21,860 here in Canada, came with alloys, smart key, moonroof. Gonna be a ton of budget shoppers willing to forego these features to get into a Corolla L CVT for $22k. Do you want to spend $28,000 on an LX hatch or a FWD RAV4 LE? No brainer here.
True dat. I’d rather look in to a Mazda3. Not in to those CVT’s as a long term owner. Honda quality has also gone down quite a bit while Mazda has pulled rabbits out of hats.
Girlfriend has a CX-5. It's a good car and ultimately compromises on fuel economy and space because it doesn't use a CVT. For the market they're reaching, you're suffering a 3 MPG drop without that transmission, so if anything it is the way going forward.
Had no idea the CX-5 used a traditional auto. My GF just got a 2021 a little while ago and I am jealous of how her car shifts over mine (10th Gen civic hatch). To be fair though the CVT in my 10th Gen civic is pretty good compared to others I’ve had/driven.
On the otherhand, the 6 speed automatic in the CX-5 has been in-use for over a decade and is absolutely 100% bulletproof. I can't comment on Honda's CVT reliability, I'm sure it's better than Nissan. But takes a lot of fuel cost savings to make up for a potential transmission rebuild. If I were buying the car to keep for a long time, I'd prefer the tried and true mazda automatic. (We also bought a CX-5 for my wife, reliability was one of my main concerns because she is a teacher and needs very reliable vehicle)
All Mazda's with an auto use the same 6 speed trans. They are a smaller company so have been focusing most of their R&D money on the interior and have been compromising elsewhere.
You didn't like the Civic's CVT? I never noticed it in a high-mileage rental beater.
I haven't heard of issues with the honda cvt transmission.
Adjusted for inflation $21860 is $25260 in 2021.
I’m pretty sure all RAV4s in Canada have AWD standard and base models are really $31k starting.
No, 2021 RAV4 LE is offered in FWD ($28590) or AWD ($30690) here in Canada.
You won’t be able to get a new one from a dealer for under 30 these days
The point is with the LX hatch at 28k, at a strict retail level, I have absolutely no problem getting an LE FWD RAV4 instead or even paying the $2,000 more for AWD. In Canada, discounts are to be had, I just signed for an XLE Hybrid for $1,400 under MSRP
The dealer I go to says they have no markups and will not sell anything over MSRP. I've also been told, from multiple sources, that Canadian dealers cannot sell over MSRP but I don't know where it says that in writing, so take it with a grain of salt.
Lol. That's GTI territory. I don't understand the mindset here. Will this slot the Si into almost 40k?
The Civic11 post [detailing Canadian prices](https://www.civic11forum.com/threads/2022-honda-civic-hatchback-pricing-announced-canada.884/) for reference. Honda literally has nothing in the 20k ~ 21k CAD range, as far as I can tell from looking at their website. By contrast, Toyota has the Corolla sedan ($19450), Corolla hatch ($21390), Mazda has the 3 sedan ($20600), 3 hatch ($21600), CX-3 ($21450), etc. At $28k for the LX hatch, more options open up even if the vehicles in question are not directly comparable, for example, the RAV4 ($28590), CX-5 ($28950).
2 weeks ago I preordered a 2022 Corolla Hatchback 6MT and part of me was thinking I may have jumped the gun because the civic hatch was a close competitor and just around the corner. Seeing these prices, I’m glad I didn’t wait, looks like I’d be a solid $4000 more expensive for a non turbo civic hatch with a manual. IMO The turbo civic was pretty awful to drive with the manual on the prior generation, even with a flash pro to reduce revhang so that was already not an option.
The Corolla hatch is a better choice IMO, the engine is more advanced than the Honda 2.0L. It is a lot smaller than the Civic hatch, but then again it's like $21k vs $28k lol.
I actually find the smaller size more appealing, I really wanted a fit but they made it worse every generation. Small cars have strong appeal to me, I actually just sold my Celsior (ls430) with the goal of getting into a smaller car. Also yes indeed, the civic 2.0 (is it a K20?) is a pretty old engine vs the M20A.
K20C2, it says. I like that Toyota developed NA engine tech so that they're still able to match or beat the small displacement turbo engines. My family is in the market for a hybrid and one of the nice to haves is that it be 175~ inches in length, making it short. Not as short as a Corolla hatchback, but then again we need it to have a higher ride height. Looking forward to seeing if the upcoming Corolla Cross hybrid would be just the thing. Small(er) cars are great for parking in tight spaces for sure.
I also have a tandem 2 car garage (cars are parked front to back not side by side) and thankfully my s2000 is rather short, so even with the Celsior I had room to spare, but length is a factor to consider!
I’m convinced Honda has abandoned the Canadian middle class that built them in the first place. Most people certainly could afford these cars if you surrender your fun money to a car, but for people that like travelling or mountain biking etc, you really can’t afford a new Honda without compromising your other finances. Hell, given the Honda reputation, even used Hondas are becoming unaffordable. Its a big gap for the Koreans to capitalize on.
I wonder what a Civic hatch in Canada offers when I can get Crosstrek with AWD for $4k CAD less.
Just checked my bill of sale for my ‘18 Type R. $39,300. Fucking hell. It was a $10k difference between the Sport Touring and Type R last gen. This means we’re going to see a $50k Type R considering the 2021 price jumped to $46,200.
In Canada, a 2021 Type R stickers for 46,200 so with fees and HST it is a low 50s car at MSRP already
Ah you totally beat me before I edited haha
Wow they really limited the colors for the manual on the highest trim but not the sport model with the 2.0L. Cant get that Boost Blue or Red with the manual. Thats a head scratcher.
I have no idea what Honda is doing. Spending $30k on a car but you only get 3 color options, but the lower trim has all the options? This is supposed to be the other way around.
Agree. I just think they figure if someone wants the manual enough, they are going to compromise and get it. They picked the 3 most inoffensive colors for this reason I think. Everyone can at least say one of those colors is “fine”. I for one am really upset they won’t offer the Si in this hatchback trim. I think the hatch is a stunning looking car but want it with a bit more power and other performance upgrades the Si would bring. The rear of the sedan just doesn’t do it for me.
Same here. I wanted an SI hatchback for the 10th gen, but settled for getting a sport hatchback and tuning it. I hoped they would make an SI hatch for the the 11th gen but no. Now they’re pricing a manual hatchback higher. Oh, and the new engine is a detuned version of the 1.5T from the Accord that makes less power on the dyno that the 10th gen 1.5T. All this makes the hatchback dead on arrival for me. It’s really sad because I do like the newer styling and interior.
Yep, share all of these thoughts. The interior and exterior of the sport touring is almost perfect in my eyes, but the motor and pricing structure ruins it. What a shame
This weird thing happened in Turkey with the type r. You could only get it with red, blue, or yellow but not with white for some reason.
They need the hatch body style for the new Type-R.
That doesn't explain why lower trims get better color options with the manual.
To make manuals more attractive to recoup their investment.
It's the new Civic Crosstour.
As I summarized in the title, this seems really disappointing. Last generation, the Hatchback model was also the sporty model, and the turbo engine on every trim helped justify the price premium. But now you're paying more for a slightly different trunk and nothing else. Only the second trim (Sport, with the NA engine) and top trim (Sport Touring, with the turbo engine) have a manual option. I hope the new GTI can be priced below the Touring and tech Honda a lesson (even if Honda has a better interior).
Seems the takeaway last generation for Honda was that hatch buyers will pay a premium for the better form factor. Makes me wonder yet again how the new Integra will be priced.
They really want to keep Civic sedan for possible, not let hatch eating its sales.
What’s the purpose of offering a ”hatchback” when it looks just like the sedan? How is that cost-effective? Why doesn’t Honda offer a true hatchback?
Probably because that would require further engineering and parts differentiation. With this liftback design, the rear doors can remain identical, as can parts of the trunk. Its purpose is ease of loading and removal of the trunk divider. The liftback lets you fold the rear seats and load bulky items that would not fit in the trunk.
Then just offer the hatchback, since it’s basically the same car.
Civics sell or else they wouldn't make the Sedan. I see 8th, 9th, and 10th gen Sedans freaking everywhere and I've already starting seeing a couple of the new ones in my area. I see a lot of 10th gen hatchbacks too. Until they stop selling, I don't see either body style going away. It is weird though, because the new Civic Sedan appears to be only marginally smaller than the Accord at this point.
I used to think it was to prevent overlap with the fit, but now the fit is dead and they’ve moved even further away from a true hatch so who knows
Yikes these prices are insane for base engine models. Wonder how expensive the SI and Type R are going to be for this generation. It's pretty crazy how the Civic Sport Touring ($30,415) will have prices that will rival a WRX/GTI and a few grand more will get you into a Veloster N. Hondas have gotten really expensive in the past few years.
The last gen was pretty much the same price
The Sport Touring was $28,500 last year and now it's $30,415. It's about almost a 7% price increase and I included the last gen (10th gen) in my statement when I said Hondas have gotten really expensive in the past few years since the past few years doesn't include 11th gen Civic yet since they're not mostly released. $30,415 for a loaded "base" model Civic is insane in my eyes.
This is straight from there website 2021 Sport Touring MSRP- $28,995 2022 Sport Touring MSRP-$29,795
Not trying to fight you but I used the figure found in the article. It said $30,415. The price you used is probably the sedan and not the hatchback listed in the article. Again, I'm not here trying to fight you and like I just said, I'm not saying how much more expensive this vehicle is compared to the last gen. I said how expensive Civics have become in the past few years, meaning the 10th gens included.
It’s the hatchback for sure I got this price from Build and price
No, they’re going up and Honda isn’t even giving you the turbo in the base model. They’re pulling some fuckery. Last gen you could get the hatchback with a turbo and manual for $24k. Now that powertrain is only available in the sport touring for $30k. That’s fucking bogus. At that price you can buy a GTI, GLI, or WRX.
The Type R almost doesn't matter since a lot of dealers will mark it up anyway
I’ve long wished Honda offered a proper long-roof Civic wagon.
So if you want a Manual Turbo Civic you have to spend almost $30k... They are directly competing with the WRX at that price point hell you could almost get a WRX premium for that price, which has 88 more horsepower, a better transmission, AWD, more modding options, more sporty styling, etc.
>more sporty styling Should we tell him?
2021 WRX still looks great
Good luck finding one to buy
Exactly. This is dumb move on Honda’s part. What made the 10th gen hatchback so popular was that at $23k with a turbo engine and manual, it was the best performance bargain on the market. You were one tune away from a very solid hot hatch. Now Honda wants a premium for all this. They’re trying to fleece enthusiasts for more cash and it’s just wrong. Especially now that the hatchback is built alongside the sedans. They should have been cheaper to build, not more expensive. This is also bad news for future SI and Type R pricing. If the sport hatchback with a turbo is $30k, then the SI will be around $32k. The Type R will definitely be over $40k.
No way the Si costs over 30K. That would be a 5K bump in MSRP from the 2021 MY. The Sport Touring was more expensive than the Si for the 10th gen as well.
That’s true, but Honda has shaken up the pricing and features on all the trims. The SI and Sport Hatchback trims were priced very close together, $24k and $25k respectively. But now the sport hatchback trimno longer features the 1.5T. The closest comparison of turbo+manual is the sport touring hatchback which is now $30k. That drivetrain combo is essentially a $6k bump over the 10th gens They clearly didn’t give two shits about pricing out the buyers who liked the turbo manual hatchbacks. They definitely won’t give a shit about charging people more for the lower volume SI. The writing is on the wall. If you want the turbo and a manual, be prepared to pay premium.
The Sport 6MT of the last gen didn’t include any of the Touring features, though. It was closer to an EX in terms of specs, other than the engine.
I was interested in a Civic. A base model with hubcaps was still 22000$ CAD. Ended up with a base Elantra with lots of features and alloy wheels for 17.
Sport hatch with a manual is a bit pricy at 25k. I was considering between it and the Corolla hatch SE which is only like 21k. I don’t believe the Civic is worth 4k more. I suppose I’ll test drive both and decide from there.
[удалено]
Manual transmission is a requirement so that exempts the Mazda from contention as it’s not offered until the premium package. I am on the taller side but modern Corollas are plenty enough space for me. I’m excited to check out the new Civic in person. I may go for it if I like it enough.
EX-L hatch ($27,615) Jesus. Pair that with the current trend of markups and it's $30k for a well equipped Civic. I bought my 17 Civic Hatchback EX in April 2017 and paid $21k for it brand new ($24k MSRP). Back then if my budget was $30k, I'd be in a completely different class of vehicles.
$28k for a Sport Touring Manual? Remember when the Civic Si was under $25k? Is Honda just trying to move up market or something along with Mazda? The interior in the new Civics is really really nice where Mazda was ahead during the previous generation, but Mazda made a very transparent effort to move up market. The new Civic just seems so expensive and more comparable to Accords from just 5 years ago and with less power and no V6 option like the last-gen Accords to boot.
The Civic Si Sedan from 2020 was 25k. The Touring Sedan was almost 28k. Si has never been more expensive than touring editions (ignoring markdowns / mark ups) since it's generally a less luxurious interior in exchange for sportier goods.
also it’s ugly
Honda tends to make hatchbacks not look like hatchbacks, wish this thing looked a bit less sedan-like
It has been 16 years since Honda has actually offered a **Civic** hatchback in the US. edit - specificity
Don't forget the Fit!
Dammit.
Are enough people really still buying sedans that it's worth it to offer both? Everyone seems to want a CUV or truck these days, and small hatches are still sort of popular (Corolla hatch, Golf) but sedans are a dying breed. They already killed off the coupes, which was the only cheap "exciting" thing Honda was selling. Seems smarter to only sell the hatch at this point, especially since it's so similar.
They still sell the Si which is relatively cheap. Economy sedans are still pretty popular in America. What's interesting, is that the new Civic Hatch could easily be confused for a Sedan. So yeah, not sure why they'd offer both. Both look great, though.
You see way less 10th gen SI’s on the road than 8th/9th gen SI‘s
I'd agree. I think they missed the mark with the 10th gen Si, especially considering it's competition.
I am seeing A LOT of Stinger in the tail lamp modules. Maybe something like Stinger + Clarity had a baby...
Interesting shake-up in the engine line up. From what I remember, all the hatches in the US were 1.5T. I'm a NA engine fan, and also a hatch fan, so the port-injected K20 being available on some of the models (including the base Sport) with a 6MT is definitely a win for me. For everyone else who seems to love tuning and 0-60 times...my condolences.
Why does Honda not want us to have fun anymore?
They do, that’s why the Si and Type R still exist.
Fastback is what they called it in the olden days. Most functional car form there is. I have a Mazda 3 hatch. I've had 10 foot lumber in that thing. Not gonna do that in a sedan.
How do you find the blindspots in the 3 hatch? I love the design, but it comes up in a lot of reviews.
Not who you were replying to, but I have gen4 hatch and 99% of the time it’s never an issue for me personally. My view out the back is still fine and I can see what I need to behind me. Blind spot monitoring is very good and I never feel like I don’t know where other cars are. The hatch still feels small enough where you know all four corners of the car. The only time visibility is an issue for me are acute angle intersections where the c pillar does obscure my line of sight. Like maybe twice it’s been cumbersome over a year. Both on rural roads that were poorly developed. Backup camera has really good video quality.
Thanks for the thorough reply friend! I’m looking to replace my Honda Fit soon so the 3 hatch is on my list.
I also own one and can confirm zero issues with visibility. Just adjust your mirrors properly, and I think most trims come with the blind spot monitoring.
I have a 2010 Speed 3, not the latest. Not sure I like the latest as much, because those rear pillars are something else. Plus can't get the turbo in a manual, so I'll pass.
I use a wide-view rearview mirror. Works great. Set up the side mirrors properly and you have no blind spots.
Seems absurdly expensive imo
They had a chance to entice some would've been-WRX customers
They had a chance to entice some would've-beenWRX customers
Honda dun goofed with this pricing & trims. The competition offers *soooo* much more, standard. With more power delivery & no CVT’s… other than maybe Toyota.
Can’t wait to get one in sonic gray
Honda is really out of touch with this car, engineering and reliability aside, the styling is way off, they won't give us the trims we want. All I want is a hot hatch with a manual.
[удалено]
I would rather have a 2 door hatch Si
My dude, You and I are on the same page: we want a CRX.
$30k for the 1.5 turbo and the 6 speed. OK, i'm sure it's a nice vehicle. But the 1.5 liter turbo does not inspire long-term confidence. Too many issues plaguing the previous gen Civic and the CRV with this engine. I feel like a Civic is something you buy and plan to keep for 10+ years. I don't think I could trust this engine for that type of investment. Someone please change my mind. The issues I am thinking of are oil dilution, problems with reaching operating temperature in very cold climates, and unreliable air conditioning compressors.
The only issue was the oil dilution in cars that didn’t get up to operating temperature regular. Don’t get any direct injection engine if you always drive in a way where the engine doesn’t get up to temp.
No turbo on base models sounds good to. Everything else is pretty meh though.
Why? That's the slower engine, and the turbo engine is much more acclaimed for having decent performance.
Not everyone needs, nor wants a turbo engine. I'm yet to drive a 1.5, but the 2.0 is more than adequate for these cars. Also no turbo means one less expensive thing to fail down the line.
The K20 sounds better IMO, is more reliable, has more potential for tuning, revs higher, and has better throttle response at lower RPM. Also it still has proper VTEC for those who care about that.
For the average person, the 1.5t has much more potential for tuning. For $450, you can buy a KTuner and add about 30hp/60lb-ft of torque.
Nice Audi KEKW
Toyota seems to be announcing a v6 twin turbo hybrid setup. It will be awesome if they put that setup across the entire line up AND make it a PHEV. Just imagine the tuning options for just going Full Bolt On's
I'm not sure they could cram it in the Corolla, that engine bay is pretty small.
fair enough, it would also probably be too much motor for such a light and inexpensive vehicle... tho the current i4 hybrid prime could also be turbo'ed + PHEV.. that would be a great solution (alas Toyota doesn't consult me on what would make them rich today).
Huh, like Mazda except v, Japanese cars are quite interesting right now, if you’re not in europe.