2016 redesigned Honda Civic - wow!

[dud]

We own an 8th gen Civic and have been very happy with the car, both performance and aesthetically. The new Civic looks good, except for the ass end. The Crosstour rear is one of those "what were they thinking?" Designs. Unfortunately, it looks like it birthed a Civic?

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I thought you had a mustang. Did you give that up or get a second car?

I sold it. Was between jobs at the time of sale. Once I got another job I wanted another car so I looked at the civic and bought it.

 

[996GT2]

The rear end design is most likely for improved aerodynamics. It's a Kammback design much like the Prius. Without that ugly rear end the car probably wouldn't be able to manage 42 mpg.

 

[Herr Kutz]

I sold it. Was between jobs at the time of sale. Once I got another job I wanted another car so I looked at the civic and bought it.

Ah okay.

I test drove a touring a while back (first week or two the 16s were on the lot) and I didn't come away too impressed. I really like the interior and could get over the exterior, but the ride was hella loud and I had to mash the pedal to make the thing move. It had the absolute worst throttle in a vehicle that I've ever driven. You would think they could tune the input to make it a bit more sensitive, but I suppose they are trying to keep you out of boost.

 

[tsupersonic]

The rear end design is most likely for improved aerodynamics. It's a Kammback design much like the Prius. Without that ugly rear end the car probably wouldn't be able to manage 42 mpg.

It's not difficult to achieve a high MPG rating when you have 1) a turbocharged engine 2) CVT 3) a car that weighs less than 2900 lbs. The CoD dropped 12% over the outgoing last gen. Civic, which is significant. It was 0.31 for the last gen.

 

[ThatsABigOne]

Really dislike the rear section of the car. It just looks convoluted and awkward. Let's see if the hatchback looks better. As currently, a loaded Civic is a better value than a Honda Accord. It's faster, almost just as roomy, has more tech, and has better mileage.

 

[reallyscrued]

Is Chris Bangle now working with Honda and Toyota?

Nope, but the designs of Chris Bangle are going to be emulated for decades to come.

 

[Yuriman]

The rear end design is most likely for improved aerodynamics. It's a Kammback design much like the Prius. Without that ugly rear end the car probably wouldn't be able to manage 42 mpg.

^ This.

You're looking at the future shape of all cars that will be even remotely competitive in terms of fuel economy.

Civic overlaid with the VW XL1, a "no compromises" design for maximum economy, matching the peak of the roof and bottom of the car:

Civic over Honda's own Insight:

The taper at the rear is 100% dictated by aerodynamics.

 

[Imp]

Wonder what the A-pillar is like. Drove a 2010 Civic for a year or two, hated the A-pillar's size and angle.

 

[RLGL]

I have a '13 Civic and love it. I would have to test drive a '16 due to the transmission change

 

[Bubbleawsome]

I want to see the new civic hybrid. If this managed to add 2 mpg the hybrid might be able to break 50mpg. Not really that different, but good for marketing.

 

[Yuriman]

I want to see the new civic hybrid. If this managed to add 2 mpg the hybrid might be able to break 50mpg. Not really that different, but good for marketing.

50mpg EPA or real world? I just picked up a 1st-gen 5MT Civic hybrid a few days ago for a song as a 2nd car and averaged 57mpg on my way home, just driving the speed limit. It seems to consistently deliver 50-60mpg, even with the weather being significantly below freezing and with winter tires on it.

I think it was rated 51 highway, though that might've changed with the new EPA ratings system.

 

[Bubbleawsome]

50mpg EPA or real world? I just picked up a 1st-gen 5MT Civic hybrid a few days ago for a song as a 2nd car and averaged 57mpg on my way home, just driving the speed limit. It seems to consistently deliver 50-60mpg, even with the weather being significantly below freezing and with winter tires on it.

I think it was rated 51 highway, though that might've changed with the new EPA ratings system.

EPA, as that is what you advertise.

 

[Yuriman]

50 is a nice round number, but it's not the first time Honda has sold a 50mpg+ car... nor the second, nor the third.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/

The CRX HF got an Environmental Protection Agency-estimated 57 mpg gallon in highway driving.

^ Granted, the benchmark has changed.

The Civic VX (92-95?) is still rated 50mpg highway, even with the new cycle. It was originally rated 51 combined, 56 highway.

 

[LTC8K6]

Emissions and safety regs have changed a lot too since those high mileage Hondas were built.

 

[Bubbleawsome]

I'm not saying 50mpg is new, or even that impressive, just that it would be nice for Honda if the civic hybrid hit it.

 

[Demo24]

I think the front looks strange but I actually like the back. However, it sure has gotten large this generation. I'm just curious how loud it is on the highway.

 

[Sulaco]

I'm sorry--that's worth a 'wow'??

That rear end is just... :thumbsdown:

It looks downright busy. Not feeling it at all.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'm sorry--that's worth a 'wow'??

That rear end is just... :thumbsdown:

It looks downright busy. Not feeling it at all.

I saw one on the freeway yesterday on our way up to Los Angeles and my wife commented on how bad it looked. That car just doesn't look good from any angle. Absolutely horrible.

 

[exar333]

I don't know, I personally think the front looks waaaaayyy too busy.

Agree.

Looks like a small Camry actually, more Toyota-like than Honda IMHO.

 

[Kaido]

I saw one on the freeway yesterday on our way up to Los Angeles and my wife commented on how bad it looked. That car just doesn't look good from any angle. Absolutely horrible.

I feel that way about the new Fit, they totally ruined the design, inside & out. It's the opposite of the new Civic...very photogenic, but I don't like it in person. Plus they ruined one of the best features of the car (the cupholders) & the CVT is pretty meh.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I think the front looks strange but I actually like the back. However, it sure has gotten large this generation. I'm just curious how loud it is on the highway.

It is okay to good on the road noise front. If you're used to a huge car then it probably isn't going to impress you on road noise. It is a compact car and that's what I compared it to when I bought mine. I test drove all the small cars available. The civic blew them away in ride quality and interior. The looks are subjective but to me I like it.

 

[SparkyJJO]

The rear end design is most likely for improved aerodynamics. It's a Kammback design much like the Prius. Without that ugly rear end the car probably wouldn't be able to manage 42 mpg.

I understand the general shape, but I'm more referring to the absolutely hideous layout of the back end (lights, lines, etc). They could have easily kept the general shape without going full ugly.

 

[jdoggg12]

I understand the general shape, but I'm more referring to the absolutely hideous layout of the back end (lights, lines, etc). They could have easily kept the general shape without going full ugly.

From what I've seen, it's a couple of factors:

Look at most mainstream cars that are designed for the masses. They're watered down intentionally as to not look so "new fangled" This often results in a borderline vanilla/ugly look.

Beautiful is very subjective. There's no way to test a new styling motif without testing it first. Sometimes it hits. Sometimes it misses. A lot of people like the look of this new rear end. A lot don't. I'm betting on a mild refresh for next year.

 

[HitAnyKey]

The term Butt ugly wouldn't be out of place here.

Probably go drive a Turbo one just to see how it handles. But I can honestly say I would probably not buy one with current styling. Needs more fluidity.