Serious Dillemma: Is '16 worth $3500-4000 more than '15

[takemorepills]

My co-worker, who retired a few years ago, showed up to work one day with a new 2012 Accord EX-L. He had just traded in his Lincoln for it. I asked him if it was a rental car, he said he bought it. Then I was like, "you know the 2013 is coming out next week, right?" He was surprised, but he's the kind of non-car guy who doesn't research things, but would have liked the 2013+ more. The next day he came into work he was already talking about his trade-in strategy. Unfortunately, the dealer he bought his car from didn't really cut him any kind of deal on the 2012, and didn't bother to tell him about the 2013's coming in the next week. So he was fairly upside-down in the 2012. He eventually traded-up to the 2013 but got hosed a bit.

I'd wait and get the CivicX. Even if you have to pay a little more than the outgoing CivicIX, I can see that the CivicX will be a great car even when you keep it as long as you did your 2006. And enjoy your damaged 2006 a little longer, you can pretty much park that bad boy anywhere you want and people probably won't mess with you in traffic either!

Sponsored

 

[2006civic]

Thanks for the posts. The one thing that confuses me a bit is the sentiment, "Don't worry about the CVT..that's just a problem on bigger cars". Didn't we just have a recall on 143,000 '14 and '15 Civics last month for CVT issues?!! It was the naysayers classic "told you so" moment, it seems to me. Sees like that also might be an argument against the 15. But on the other hand, the 15 has the same war horse engine as my current car, so I count that in its favor, when considering dependability.

 

[takemorepills]

Thanks for the posts. The one thing that confuses me a bit is the sentiment, "Don't worry about the CVT..that's just a problem on bigger cars". Didn't we just have a recall on 143,000 '14 and '15 Civics last month for CVT issues?!! It was the naysayers classic "told you so" moment, it seems to me. Sees like that also might be an argument against the 15. But on the other hand, the 15 has the same war horse engine as my current car, so I count that in its favor, when considering dependability.

Well, the base 2.0 is also a "war horse" as it is a revised K20, which has been around for 14 years or so. It's the 1.5T that the USDM has no experience with.

As for the CVT....who knows?? There will be a lot of people who go off of assumption and hyperbole about how the CVT will be fine. My opinion is more middle of the fence. Honda has had more bad luck with CVT's than good luck. This is a fact that everyone wants to argue about. It's like arguing about German cars with German car enthusiasts...you can bring up a fact that nearly every German car made has not been a shining beacon of reliability, and they will just argue that this new model will be better. Fast forward 5 years, the new model was NOT better, but they keep claiming it's gonna be better with each new generation...and it never is. As for my feelings about Honda CVT's, I wouldn't mind one being in my wife's Honda. I think it is possible they are getting better. But it wouldn't surprise me if the CVT crapped out (unlikely), or more likely developed odd driveability issues. Honda is all in on this CVT thing. So if the CVT's do become defective, Honda's reputation will definitely be on the line. I like to think Honda will take care of you in that case! Basically, I wouldn't want to bet for or against the new Honda CVT's. But I wouldn't trust someone who would just blindly state that the new CVT's are perfect.

 

[2006civic]

I just don't understand...for one or two miles per gallon over the regular automatic they are risking their biggest asset..reliability. It's the only reason I would even entertain the thought of another brand.

 

[mjones5]

the one thing the mechanic (not a dealership mechanic) did warn about is the cost of repair on CVTs - it can be 10,000 whereas before it was 4,000. He has been working on Hondas for 30 years and has a stellar reputation. hos bad experiences were with the CVT's made in the 90's - that does not mean he is right - and he hopes the new CVTs are good.

 

[2006civic]

Not to mention, needing to replace the fluid more often. So basically, the tiny fuel saved will probably be overtaken by the cost to maintain the transmission. So where's the benefit to the consumer?

 

[Design]

If it were me, I'd get the '15 for these reasons:

1. Outgoing year of the 9th Gen platform. All bugs and defects were resolved by this year. The 16s will have some mild hiccups (all new models do).
2. Price. There's very little demand for the 15s right now. 18 OTD is a steal. The one disadvantage is not getting Apple Carplay/Android Auto. But aftermarket units like Pioneer are just as good.
3. Cost of ownership. Unless getting the 2.0, both Direct Injection and turbo platforms are more expensive to operate.

That said, the 16s can be had through fleet dealers for 1K or more below MSRP. Here's a quick readout I did for the Dallas market:
http://www.civicx.com/threads/what-...ar-texas-inventory-spreadsheet.671/#post-7108

 

[takemorepills]

I just don't understand...for one or two miles per gallon over the regular automatic they are risking their biggest asset..reliability. It's the only reason I would even entertain the thought of another brand.

the one thing the mechanic (not a dealership mechanic) did warn about is the cost of repair on CVTs - it can be 10,000 whereas before it was 4,000. He has been working on Hondas for 30 years and has a stellar reputation. hos bad experiences were with the CVT's made in the 90's - that does not mean he is right - and he hopes the new CVTs are good.

So I just read an article on the Subaru website concerning the WRX CVT, which BTW has been very reliable so far aside from a rare occurrence of defect. (I am cross shopping Si to WRX Premium) An owner noticed a small leak on his CVT trans. Subaru agreed that a seal was bad, BUT, due to the complexity of modern CVT's the manufacturers have adopted a "non serviceable" designation for the entire CVT. It turned out his rear output shaft seal was leaking, you would assume they could just replace it, right?? Nope. Subaru gave him an entirely new CVT and sent the leaky one back for evaluation. I find that weird. But, even weirder is the statement a Subaru tech made...that the CVT core assembly (that must mean the gearbox minus the bellhousing and output tailshaft) was only $1200 from Subaru!! If this is true, maybe there's a secondary REAL reason CVT is being so embraced???? Because a CVT is even cheaper than a manual trans?? Don't flame me on this one, I find it hard to believe also, but then again, I don't know any facts about CVT repair and pricing.
But that would work in favor of the manufacturers:
-cheaper to repair
-no debate, CVT's just get better MPG's
-hey, if the public is used to paying $1,000-$1,500 more for an AT, but the CVT is actually cheaper than a traditional AT, why not just continue charging the customer an extra $1,000-$1,500??? That much more profit margin!!

Here's the WRX thread I am referencing: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2755580

But anyways, yeah Honda has had issues with CVT's. The Civic HX CVT of the late 90's, all versions of Civic Hybrid CVT's, and this latest recall on the current CivicIX CVT. Pretty much just leaves the Accord and CR-V as the only CVT's Honda makes that haven't had widespread issues. There are plenty of complaints online about the Accord and CR-V CVT's...but nothing so bad as to have a recall, yet. I dunno, don't follow the CVT too much. That's a wifey transmission as far as I am concerned!

 

[mjones5]

and Honda has said the CVT in the new Civc is built for the Civic and is different from other Honda CVTs - did I read that right ?

 

[administrator]

This alone would convince me towards 2016

 

[mjones5]

just gorgeous - no words

 

[takemorepills]

and Honda has said the CVT in the new Civc is built for the Civic and is different from other Honda CVTs - did I read that right ?

That's what I have heard also.

The CVT wouldn't stop me from buying a CivicX. Maybe just get the dealer to throw in an extended powertrain warranty??

 

[M1160]

If it were me, I'd get the '15 for these reasons:

1. Outgoing year of the 9th Gen platform. All bugs and defects were resolved by this year. The 16s will have some mild hiccups (all new models do).
2. Price. There's very little demand for the 15s right now. 18 OTD is a steal. The one disadvantage is not getting Apple Carplay/Android Auto. But aftermarket units like Pioneer are just as good.
3. Cost of ownership. Unless getting the 2.0, both Direct Injection and turbo platforms are more expensive to operate.

That said, the 16s can be had through fleet dealers for 1K or more below MSRP. Here's a quick readout I did for the Dallas market:
http://www.civicx.com/threads/what-...ar-texas-inventory-spreadsheet.671/#post-7108

I agree with all your points but one disadvantage is no Apple Carplay? I'd say many of the new features, new powertrain and redesign are all disadvantages. It's class leading in so many ways now and only a few hundred (base) more expensive. Yes you will get better deals for the 15 but it is already long in the tooth. In a year or two that thing is going to feel ancient. Not only will you see a ton of new Civics around but the competition is going to respond.

 

[Design]

It's going to depend on the OP's end game. The 9th Gen is a SOLID platform. Especially the '15. It's a simple design with a very low cost of ownership. If refinement and features are worth the extra 3.5K, higher cost of ownership, and occasional unscheduled visits to the dealer; the 16 is a compelling platform. It's not going to break the bank... but the new motor/turbo/CVT are expected to have some mild hiccups.

CN: Can't really go wrong either way.

 

[2006civic]

I have an android, but since I am going to get the LX (if I get the 15) the Android Auto isn't really a factor.

Sponsored