Civic a "Best Car to get to 200,000" says Consumer Reports

[Slickone]

As bad as they are, Apple is worse than any of these car companies. You'd think they invented the world. They show all these "new" features that Android has had for years. Then the cool aid drinkers go camp out all night to get them. Which reminds me of these...

LOL

Sponsored

 

[Billy4202]

As bad as they are, Apple is worse than any of these car companies. You'd think they invented the world. They show all these "new" features that Android has had for years. Then the cool aid drinkers go camp out all night to get them. Which reminds me of these...

LOL

"Wow, Apple Pay! Beat that Google!"

They did...in 2011. lol its hilarious watching everyone drop another $800 each time Apple puts an 's' at the end of their phones.

 

[kidboise]

I have faith that the entire new civic line will be reliable enough to reach 200,000 with basic maintenance. That being said, I'd probably feel better doing it in an LX (no sensing), a manual, and dat good old K20. I'm sure any civic would be fine, but if my life depended on it, base model 6MT all day long.

 

[Balto]

200k is not even hard to reach. My Mustang had 201k on original engine/trans/diff/driveshaft and it still ran good. Didn't burn oil, passed CA smog. My Honda insight has 350k and still going good.

 

[kidboise]

200k is not even hard to reach. My Mustang had 201k on original engine/trans/diff/driveshaft and it still ran good. Didn't burn oil, passed CA smog. My Honda insight has 350k and still going good.

Exactly. Bought a salvaged 2003 accord I4 with 156K a few years back. Got a very good deal on it. It's now at 209K and all it's needed is brake pads, oil and tires. Runs like new. Original clutch, too.

 

[TheWalkman]

Ironically, comparatively few cars can make it to 200K without serious effort. Much of it has to do with powertrain design. VW and Subaru both suffer from ring issues that make operating their turbo fours impractical beyond 150-180K. It's also why both Honda and Toyota have been the long holdouts when it comes to turbocharging. Not to mention, they tend to "overbuild" their powertrains on their mainstream models.

These metrics should be no surprise to us.

While Subaru's metric may look more favorable, keep in mind that nearly half of these include the NA Impreza (vs. WRX/STI).

Compared to that of a typical Honda. Though I wouldn't be surprised if this starts to slip as more turbocharged models are introduced.

Design,

Interesting. Where did you find this analysis?

 

[benjaminh]

Ironically, comparatively few cars can make it to 200K without serious effort. Much of it has to do with powertrain design. VW and Subaru both suffer from ring issues that make operating their turbo fours impractical beyond 150-180K. It's also why both Honda and Toyota have been the long holdouts when it comes to turbocharging. Not to mention, they tend to "overbuild" their powertrains on their mainstream models.

These metrics should be no surprise to us.

While Subaru's metric may look more favorable, keep in mind that nearly half of these include the NA Impreza (vs. WRX/STI).

Compared to that of a typical Honda. Though I wouldn't be surprised if this starts to slip as more turbocharged models are introduced.

Fascinating charts. Thanks for posting these. If I'm reading the one for the Audi correctly, most A3s don't make it to 150k, let alone 200k.

The idea some have that "any car these days will make it to 200k" seems disproved by these charts. Even getting to that point with a Honda takes careful maintenance and some luck. But your odds are much higher with a Honda than with most brands.

The tricky thing to guess about is the new turbo. Honda clearly put a lot of engineering into the turbo to make it long-lasting. But carbon buildup and other issues are still likely to make even a Honda turbo less likely to make it to 200k. I think to prevent carbon build up turbo owners should drive on the freeway at least once week. Short stop and go drives are where carbon buildup is most likely to happen.

Here's a Ford repair guy talking about how carbon can build up in Ecoboost engines....

 

[Design]

To be fair, Ford has done a decent job of addressing the carb buildup issue in their early EcoBoost motors. It was primarily a timing issue in which the valves would close prior to contaminants evacuating the intake manifold. These days, they seem to be limited to low mileage cars or those that run poor quality fuel.

The graphs were pulled from http://longtermqualityindex.com. It's a site that tracks the condition of all trade-ins among dealerships (both high and low volume). I like it because it's one of the few sites that tracks reliability well beyond the typical 5yr/60K threshold. The only data this doesn't collect is people that keep a car until it's no longer salvageable. But otherwise the data speaks for itself.

There are others that collect this type of info with similar themes. But the above resource seems to be the most comprehensive.

 

[benjaminh]

This has been posted elsewhere, but it's interesting stuff. Yuji Matsumochi, Chief Powertrain Engineer for the 2016 Civic, talks about the 1.5T:

 

[Design]

That is one of the better videos about the 1.5T. What I've found most interesting is around the 13 minute mark, where they talk about fueling. On DI motors, the weakest link is usually the injectors and/or HPFP. But Honda appears to have designed the system to support up to 3000 PSI (which is a good thing).

 

[thaseint]

Very nice video above.

Something I didn't see mentioned and I haven't seen a good answer for is that with the Earth Dreams engines (which are relatively new) and rely on GDI, how has Honda planned to deal with the inherent issue of carbon deposits on the intake valves, especially for owners that use non-Top Tier gasoline and are generally bad with maintenance?

This is something that has plagued VAG engines for over a decade now and other manufacturers that have gone GDI.

 

[Design]

I briefly mention that above. It's more to do with the valve timing. That and valves temps need to remain above 400* to burn off deposits. Beyond good quality gas, simply changing the oil as recommended can reduce recirculation of byproducts from the PCV back into the IM. It won't eliminate all buildup. But compared to the 2.0s from VW and Subaru, it should take much longer for deposits to accumulate to the point that they adversely impact performance (or so we hope). Why other manufacturers can't figure this out is beyond me.

Also worth mentioning; Hondas are more or less "idiot proof" with their maintenance minders. And they tend to calibrate their oil life sensors on the conservative side.

 

[Slickone]

This consumer reports list is only looking at the number over 200K and not a ratio of those vs. ones sold, correct? If so, it's mainly just going to be a list of the highest selling cars.

In other words, if:
Honda sells 5 cars and 4 went over 200K
Toyota sells 8 cars and 5 went over 200K
Honda would be the better choice.

But if CR is only counting the number, Toyota would rater higher since it had 5 vs. Honda's 4.

 

[Gavnzdad]

Also worth mentioning; Hondas are more or less "idiot proof" with their maintenance minders.

Nothing is "idiot proof" unfortunately. Why else would they need a owners manual that explained what the change oil or get fuel light means.

 

[Billy4202]

Nothing is "idiot proof" unfortunately. Why else would they need a owners manual that explained what the change oil or get fuel light means.

True. Not talking Civics or Hondas in general, I've known a few idiots who thought all they had to do was just put gas in their car. Engine seized up? Bald tires that have no traction? No worries!

Sponsored