1993 Honda Civic Reviews - Page 11 of 13

1993 Honda Civic LX 2.0 from North America

Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 2.0 Manual
Performance marks 5 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 3 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 2 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.4 / 10
Distance when acquired90000 miles
Most recent distance128000 miles
Previous carHonda Civic

Summary:

A decent beginner car

Faults:

The alternator and starter went all at once last year.

The windows fog up in any weather besides summer sunshine, especially in rain or early morning dew.

Not sure what the reason is, but it "putts", almost feels like there is something blocking the fuel from fully flowing through.

Also the siding between the doors just fell off this summer.

General Comments:

It's a good car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 5th October, 2002

1993 Honda Civic CX 1.5 SOHC 70 hp from North America

Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 1.5 SOHC 70 hp Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 4 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 4 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.8 / 10
Distance when acquired40000 miles
Most recent distance103000 miles
Previous carHonda Civic

Summary:

Must be modified for performance, otherwise is a waste of great potential.

Faults:

Clutch is jerking in first gear. First problem I have had since buying the car. I am going to replace the CX motor with a 1.8 DOHC VTEC Integra Type R motor. Brake light bulbs keep blowing up.

General Comments:

This little hatchback may not be much in it's factory form, but here in the United States, it is the car of choice when it comes to import tuning and modifying. It has the BEST POTENTIAL to be a serious sports car when modified, the parts are easily found at any performance shop, and the best thing is most of it's parts are interchangeable with other model Honda's (or Acura here in the U.S.) from different years, newer or older. Another thing is the performance parts cost cheaper than the factory parts. A factory hood weighs about 30 pounds and costs about 600 dollars. A much better looking carbon fibre hood weighs about 5 pounds and costs about 300 dollars. Better performance for a lower price.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 27th August, 2002

5th Jun 2003, 17:18

A sports car? Um, hello...it's a Civic... made for mileage... leave it be.

24th Jul 2003, 22:07

Surely if you intended to sport out your little Civic, would it not be best to purchase a Civic that is not the bottom or base model? This would save you lots of money with regards to uprating suspension parts. Also the bigger engine would be more potent when modified.

1993 Honda Civic CX 1.7 turbo from North America

Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 1.7 turbo Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.8 / 10
Distance when acquired145222 miles
Most recent distance0 miles
Previous carToyota Landcruiser

Summary:

Cheap, powerful, and worth the money

Faults:

Bought the car for 50 US dollars without the engine, oil seized the engine at 146222 miles.

General Comments:

Very nice car, goes 0-60 in 4.6 seconds.

With this engine I achieve 34MPG at any RPM.

The horsepower is great, 294HP, this car really sounds like a low RPM for 4 gears at 150MPH!

The interior is OK, not the best though compared to my Rover 825SL.

The car has very good handling, especially at high speeds.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 13th July, 2002

23rd Apr 2007, 16:55

What kind of engine did you put inside of it??

1993 Honda Civic VTi 1.6 V-TEC DOHC from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.6 V-TEC DOHC Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.6 / 10
Distance when acquired54000 miles
Most recent distance76000 miles
Previous carFord Escort

Summary:

Screaming V-tec Hot-Hatch

Faults:

Faulty ABS controller at 55000 (replaced by the dealer).

Cracked manifold at 60000.

General Comments:

Wow! This car is a serious hot hatch. Forget your GTi's and RS turbos, this car is much quicker. 0-60 (mph) comes up in 7.0 sec and will do 135+ (mph).

The car will rev to a 8000rpm red line (or 8500rpm before the limiter cuts in). It sounds superb, especially when the the Vtec system takes over at 5700 rpm.

The handling is also pretty good with double wishbones all round and the strut brace up-front, keeps the car flat through the bends.

The engine is superb. Some people complain that the car lacks torque, but if you know how to drive the car and use the gearing correctly, dropping a gear and nailing the throttle beats having torque any day.

Drive the car below 4000 rpm and it will return 35mpg and 40+ on the motorway.

The car is also very reliable. My car was off the road (working away) for 3 months and when I returned it was covered in 2 ft of snow, but it started first time and was running perfectly.

Going to the dealer for parts and servicing is a little costly, but a full Honda service history will give you a good selling on price.

The only down side is the insurance for the car. It falls into Group 15 and being only 21, it does cost a bit, but it's most definitely worth it.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 17th December, 2001

10th Jun 2003, 21:04

A person Wrote: I'm sure your Honda is a good car. But your figures are wrong and exaggerated.

For a start, the VTi variant used a 1.5L VTEC engine, not the B16A (1.6L) which was reserved for the SiR.

Secondly, there is no way the car will get to 100 km/h in 7 seconds. For example, the brand new Subaru WRX 2 Litre 4WD turbo does it in 6.8 seconds. The civic is front wheel drive, and a lack of grip alone will prohibit you from launching at 8000 rpm.

There IS a lack of low end torque. The small displacement of the engine alone supports this fact. However, it can be helped by investing in a VTEC controller. This device remaps the ECU in the Civic, and engages the 3rd stage of VTEC (the real power zone) lower down in the rev range.

I'm really sorry, but you don't know what your going on about. I expect that you don't live in the UK. The UKDM VTi does indeed have the 1.6 (1595cc) DOHC 16v VTEC B16A engine. You are correct in saying that there is a 1.5 VTi and a 1.5 VEi also.

Yes, the 0-100Km/h time is around 7 seconds. It achieves this because it weighs 1050kg's and has 160bhp. It is only 2 wheel drive and has no propshaft (cos it's an FF car) which means that you'll lose 25 of power to transmission losses. This gives the UKDM VTi 115bhp/tonne at the wheels. The UKDM 2003 WRX has 215bhp and weighs in at 1430kg's. It is 4 wheel drive and as such loses about 30% of its power through transmission losses. This means the UKDM Subaru WRX has 105bhp/tonne at the wheels. This means that the two cars performance's would be VERY similar and the extra grip of the WRX, would be almost offset by the increased power of the VTi.

People go on about lack of torque on Honda engines. Compare them to other engines of equal displacement from other manufacturers. Honda torque values will be highest. The b16a engine only has 2 stages of VTEC. Low cam and High cam (where the pin slots through the rockers to allow the High lobe profile of the cam to be followed). A VTEC controller can alter the engagment of the High cam, but it is best not to alter it by too much, because don't you think that Honda chose the near enough optimum switch over point?

Average review marks: 7.7 / 10, based on 51 reviews