12th Jul 2009, 13:28
"Overall, the Civic is a big disappointment as one reads such good things about it."
Heaven help you. Hopefully your Civic will last out the lease (as long as it is not longer than 3 years). My family fell for ad hype and biased magazine reports as well. Our Civic started (literally) falling apart just after the puny warranty expired. The problems were many and expensive. The build quality was far worse than any domestic we ever owned. At 99,000 miles this worthless boat anchor was sold to a junk dealer. We have never bought another Japanese car. Our domestics are in warranty longer than our Honda even LASTED.
26th Jul 2009, 08:43
You can't find comfort in Civic because it's a sporty car. If you want a family car, go buy Ford Focus. A Civic is for driving experience.
8th Sep 2009, 20:22
If you want to compare something with your Camry, try an Accord and you will get what you are looking for... If you had a Corolla, then you would have the right subject to compare the Civic too.
9th Sep 2009, 13:45
A Civic is for the "driving experience"? Silly me, and here I thought it was just an economy car.
24th Sep 2009, 03:51
Ford Focus is the best choice in this segment, it combines both comfort and driving excitement.
24th Sep 2009, 15:27
"Ford Focus is the best choice in this segment, it combines both comfort and driving excitement."
I disagree. I traded in my Focus for a Civic. The Civic handles much better than the Focus did, and it IS more comfortable.
29th Sep 2009, 11:43
Last time I checked, these two cars were in the same category. I have driven both and they are pretty similar overall. The Focus is actually more comfortable as it is more upright and spacious. I wouldn't say the "driving experience" was all that hot with the Civic. The Accord is a much better all around driver than the Civic.
19th Nov 2009, 10:56
The Focus is not even close to being the best choice for this segment.
There are at least a half dozen cars either better than or as good as the Focus.
27th Nov 2009, 18:30
We owned a Focus. Never a single repair. We owned a Civic. Very uncomfortable and nothing BUT repairs. USA Today says even the Kia Forte is a better choice than the Civic.
28th Nov 2009, 12:22
I owned a Focus, and while it was for the most part reliable, it got annoying that I had to replace the pads and rotors every 25,000 miles. My Civic rides better, gets twice the gas mileage, and hasn't needed a single repair thus far.
28th Nov 2009, 21:48
Methinks the brake shop did a number on you. As a mechanic I KNOW that 99% of people who are told that they need brakes DON'T. The dealers and shops just tell you that to get your money. NO CAR should need brakes and rotors at 25,000 miles... EVER... unless you are involved in rallying or LeMans style racing (and I doubt that you are).
Unless the rotors are warped, there is no reason to EVER replace them. The earliest I've ever replaced the brake PADS (not rotors) was 70,000 miles. I've NEVER replaced rotors except on one Dodge that came from the factory with warped rotors. My wife's SUV has 80,000 miles on it. A couple of months back I pulled all the wheels and gave the car a very thorough bumper to bumper inspection. It has the original pads and they appear to be about 50 to 60% worn down. I generally get around 100,000 to 120,000 miles out of brake pads. Our imports required them sooner than domestics, but NO CAR should ever need them before 30,000 even in the worst of conditions unless the owner drives with his foot on the pedal. At times a pebble will get lodged in the caliper and cause a slight noise. Brake shops LOVE these cases because they can charge you hundreds of dollars for doing NOTHING but removing the pebble and telling you thy replaced your brakes. Incidentally, my last brake job took me 15 minutes and cost me a whopping $17. Learn a little about cars and you can save enough in repairs to buy a new one.
29th Nov 2009, 12:04
How nice of you to think so. However, I'm an automotive mechanic who does all his own work on his vehicles. I think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to cars.
30th Nov 2009, 19:18
"I generally get around 100,000 to 120,000 miles out of brake pads."
I don't know WHERE you get this! I been working on cars for more than 20 yrs. And I have come across many different vehicles that my aunts/ uncles, my mom etc owned for YEARS or MANY miles. NEVER have I EVER seen the "life" of a car without replacing the front pads! WHERE do you get that?
I DID however seen REAR brakes last THAT LONG (my 97 Mitsubishi Mirage went from 85k to 181k never replaced rear), BUT NOT, and I repeat, NOT FRONT pads? Front pads typically last around 50k miles if the pads are good quality, NOT 120k! And you're right, the ONLY time brake rotors EVER need replacing is if you wear the pads to the metal for an excess amount of time.
OH and I HATE IT when I take the rotors to turn them, for them to tell me. "It's TOO thin" When it's NOT! And notice that when I get pads at Autozone, they last only 10k to 20k. Whats up with that?? I know it was NOT me cause I had a car where I got 40k on one set of pads, I bought new pads, I got only 20k, got another, gave me 20k. I guess if we want long life, get factory pads!
Oh one other thing. My sister had an 01 Civic one time. She had to replace the pads every 10k miles, YES 10k miles. And on a 98 Civic she had before this one gave her 40k on the first set. GEE, CHEAP materials.
1st Dec 2009, 15:55
Well, I get it from REALITY. We live in a rural suburb, don't drive a lot in traffic and don't ride our brakes. That doesn't put much wear on the brakes. Now we DID have to replace brakes MUCH more often on our imports, which is typical as they have very tiny brake pads compared to domestics, but the only domestic that ever required pads before 100,000 miles was a Pontiac Grand Am. I had to replace the front pads at 70,000 miles and frankly I was VERY disappointed. We've gotten almost that much out of some imports.
My wife, whom I love dearly and want to be VERY safe, is currently out shopping in her GM SUV. It has over 80,000 miles and has never had ANYTHING done to it except tires and one battery. I checked her brake pads a few months back and they appeared to have 30-40% wear left. I don't anticipate replacing them until AT LEAST 110,000 miles.
I think HUGE numbers of people are duped into early brake pad replacements by unscrupulous shops who use scare tactics on them. Also, I have NEVER had the rotors turned on ANY vehicle. There is no NEED to (unless they are somehow damaged) and it makes them thinner and far more prone to warping. If you note when you buy the brake pads, turning the rotors is ONLY recommended if they are DAMAGED. In 99.99% of cases a light sanding will be all that is needed. This can be done with the rotors ON the car and will save the trouble and expense of having to remove them and have a shop turn them.
As a mechanic and a person who cares about people, I strongly encourage people to learn basic auto maintenance procedures. Even my wife can replace a set of brake pads while dinner is cooking in the oven. If you make yourself aware of basic automotive stuff, you can feel far more secure and not be misled by shops trying to scare you into repairs you don't need.