6th Gen Honda Civic

Hey guys,

I've been driving BMWs for my entire life, so am used to all of my cars requiring frequent maintenance. I started my own business last year, which required me to sell off all of my toys - '76 2002, '88 M5, '02 330ci. I currently drive a 2000 328i, but it's time for me to put the car hobby on hold for a while and I'd really like to make the move to something that doesn't require tons of maintenance and doesn't tempt me to modify. Money must go elsewhere these days.

Sadly, my budget is around 3,000. I'm intrigued by the 6th gen. Honda Civics due to their reliability ratings and sportier ride than their Toyota counterpart. How much of an exaggeration is it when people say you can just change the oil, brakes, and timing belt and just drive these things? With a history of BMW ownership, it's just really hard for me to believe that anything can be that trouble-free.

Thanks for the help!

I'm pretty sure this wasn't your intention but I think you just scared me out of the 3 series I've always wanted!

I've owned about 10 Hondas from '82 to '03. In my experience I have done very little outside of changing the oil, brakes, timing belt (&water pump!). There have been a few other items over the years but nothing major. They really are that reliable! It should be noted though that the older ones were more fun to drive than the newer ones. Go for it, you won't regret it and if you do you'll sell it for what you have in it.

Those and Panther platforms (CVic, Marquis, Town Car) seem to be the real deal as far as longevity of the big parts with bare minimum of trouble goes.

Current ride is a 96 Hatchback. In the past I had a 96 sedan and 98 sedan. All faultless.

I have owned quite a few Hondas, they can be low on maintenance, and economical, if you can find one that is not riced out, otherwise they become a handful. I ran the other direction of Honda because of the stigma of ricers and they have become a target for theft. In addition finding a decent one for a low price is hard to come by in the rust belt. The weaknesses are rust, on my 98, my front fenders were both completely rusted through and so were my rear qtrs which are the weak points. Going from a BMW to a Civic will be hard, because they are not sporty, unless you modify them, and the gear box is no where near as smooth as a BMW. I made the switch to Kia because they are reliable but not as desired (theft wise), and handle the same and nowadays look a lot like the civics.

trigun7469 wrote: I have owned quite a few Hondas, they can be low on maintenance, and economical, if you can find one that is not riced out, otherwise they become a handful...

Had a '95 (5th gen, not too different from the 6th except cosmetics and OBD level) that was a testimony to why you should avoid ex-ricer Civics. The rice stuff had been removed except for a set of pink lug nuts and a fake Mugen front spoiler, but the car was an unmitigated nightmare that left me stranded more times in one year than any other car I've owned. What looked like a clean, low mileage car turned out to have been pieced together after a couple wrecks. Among other problems, the brakes on one side turned out to be an inch larger than on the other. I ended up replacing it with an E36 BMW where the previous owner had a good stack of maintenance records that has been much better.

The experience kind of soured me on Hondas - although this could be as much a "don't buy one from a ricer" cautionary tale.

This is why I would ask $3k for mine with 165k miles. All adult owned (originally purchased by college professor). Inch-thick folder of maintenance receipts. South Carolina car so no rust.

DaveEstey wrote: Current ride is a 96 Hatchback. In the past I had a 96 sedan and 98 sedan. All faultless.

I sold this car to Dave. I drove it for 6 years and did tired, brakes, oil, and gas changes mostly. The car required a timing belt around 100k, a set of cv axles, and a radiator as the big maint items during that time frame. All were Age and mileage appropriate replacements. The car being 12-15 years old at the time. I miss that little car.

Parts are cheap and easy to get. They are also fairly simple to Work on. I'm only aware of a Few special tools for the car and I needed none during my ownership.

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:

Yup. Great car. I just did the brakes all around for less than $100 including performance pads for the front. Averages 40mpg.

I did put new shifter bushings in it, which really tightened up the shifter. $9 part and 20 minutes.

In reply to DaveEstey:

So is it for sale Dave?

Thanks for all of the replies guys.

My wife drives a 2000 Civic Si--yes, one of the Electron Blue ones. We bought it new, and it just turned 100,000 miles. Knock on wood, to date the only problem has been a bum window regulator and a couple of dead batteries. A few years back we replaced the T-belt, water pump, etc., with genuine Honda parts.

I got into Hondas because I was into British sports cars and needed a car that was always dependable. My first one was a new '75 Civic CVCC and I'm on number six, not counting bikes, and I have NEVER had to take one in for a repair other than self inflicted modifications. After the first, all were used. Shop wisely.

75 Civic hatch

78 Accord hatch

81 Civic hatch

90 Acura Legend coupe

04 CRV

04 Civic Si hatch - drive till I die

I own a CRX Si from 1988, the older brother of the Civic. 160k miles on the clock and it hasn't missed a beat. I've driven it reasonably hard for the 30k miles I've owned it. I changed tranny fluid, disks, pads, standard maintenance stuff. I even took it to the local track for a wintercross. Not a single problem. The car is an absolute beast. The clutch is starting to go, but thats a standard-wear item and its about time for a new one anyway.

If you keep them oiled, they really do run forever.

I have an 8th gen (2007) that may dad used as his commuter car for 6 years racking up 180k miles. All he did was change the tires, oil, and brake pads. I've been using it as my daily driver since April and have had zero issues. My previous Honda experience was as a driver for a pharmacy. We trashed those late 90s hatchbacks and they kept asking for more. My kids will share a Honda when they are driving age.

Buy an Accord. Seriously. Much better interior, better ride, better power, bigger/better brakes(with ABS available on most), better rear suspension design, cheaper/easier to find parts and can compete in STF. 98-02's with a 4cyl/5-speed are the way to go. Easy 5 lug conversion using V6 parts, since thr 4x114.3 pattern can be a pain for aftermarket wheels. The 90-97's are great too, but the front hub over rotor brakes are a pain, you dont get the excellent F23(best f series block/head, flows better than all b/d heads as cast, porting can make over 300cfm intake), and the rear suspension isnt as good as the 98-02's, but still better than Civic/teg. You can find NICE Accords for your ballpark price, much nicer than a comparably priced Civic,and you're getting a LOT more car for the money. Ive had multiple Civics, Accords, and Integras. The Integra is a good 'tweener, but they're just as hard to find un-riced as the Civics and insurance is more than either. I love my current 97 accord LX 5-speed coupe, but i wish i would've held out for a 98-02 for multiple reasons. I picked mine up for $1500 and its very clean. More of a tank/cockroach car than the civics, and sold twice as many.

jamestr wrote: In reply to DaveEstey: So is it for sale Dave? Thanks for all of the replies guys.

dave would be a moron to sell that car. It was originally from south carolina, So there is no/little rust.

Similar cars have returned to the earth in the North East.

jamestr wrote: In reply to DaveEstey: So is it for sale Dave?

Nope! I'm going to run it until it dies, give it a heart transplant and keep running it. It's so cheap to run that it keeps plenty of money in the RX7 fund. My employees drive nicer cars, but they don't drive better cars.

Non-rusty 6th gens are like hens teeth up here.

DaveEstey wrote:

jamestr wrote: In reply to DaveEstey: So is it for sale Dave?

Nope! I'm going to run it until it dies, give it a heart transplant and keep running it. It's so cheap to run that it keeps plenty of money in the RX7 fund. My employees drive nicer cars, but they don't drive better cars. Non-rusty 6th gens are like hens teeth up here.

So our Si is probably worth a fortune, huh? I really do enjoy that car.

In reply to David S. Wallens:

Honda fans are pretty sure that there are NO clean 6th gen Si's left in the world, so yes.

The Accords aren't anywhere near as fun to drive stock as the Civics are they?

Desmond wrote: I own a CRX Si from 1988, the older brother of the Civic.

???

jamestr wrote: The Accords aren't anywhere near as fun to drive stock as the Civics are they?

A shock swap and rear sway bar REALLY improves the car. the early 90's Accord are really entertaining, if a little spartan, but still a nicer place to spend time than a late 90's Civic. My 96 Civic EX coupe had the worst built/feeling interior of any Honda i've ever been in, it was terrible. Definitely a low point for Honda, IMO. I dont get why they're so popular. An Integra or, hell, a 92-95 Civic is a way nicer car.

Really, try an Accord with a 5-speed. Great chassis and engine hidden under the factory suburbia softening.

If you do seek out an accord, go for a third gen, 1986-1989. A clean one will run around two grand. When they designed that car, they were trying to make a FWD 3 series. Very nice interiors for the time period. Dead reliable if you keep the fluids fresh. Find an LXi or an SEi. Those are the fuel injectied models. In 88 and 89, there was a coupe, for the whole run there were both sedans and hatchbacks. The SE-i is an 89 only trim line.

I've owned 7 or 8 of these cars throughout the years.

beans wrote: Buy an Accord. Seriously... 98-02's with a 4cyl/5-speed are the way to go. i wish i would've held out for a 98-02 for multiple reasons.

Not intending to threadjack, but I've been contemplating an Accord as there's another baby on the way, and I'd like my DD to be able to carry the whole family in a pinch (rear facing car seats in a 328 'vert are a royal pain). Could you elaborate on what specifically the '98-'02s have going for them?

In reply to beans:

Why are the 4 cyls better than the 6 cyls?

I had a 91 accord 2 Dr 4 cyls 5 speed. I hated it. It got worse gas mileage than thw z28 cruising at 70, and I spent more money keeping it running than the camaro. it was supposed to be the reliable beater.