Should my next new car be the Honda Civic Hatchback?

I actually don't mind the look of the new Civic. In fact, I prefer it over the Mazda3.

The Mazda3 I believe is due for a major refresh within the next few years. I think the Honda lane watch monitoring sounds like a good idea. However, I haven't driven the Honda. If it takes premium gas (which I doubt) that would be ridiculously stupid. I am glad to see Mazda incorporate blind spot metering as standard equipment because it definitely needs it, despite some fanboys saying it is unnecessary. All you have to do is adjust your mirrors they say, but perhaps they don't see the missing blind spot, I can not adjust the mirrors in the latest generation of Mazda3 to give me full view without the need for an additional mirror attached to the side mirrors.
 
We just purchased the Mazda 3 Touring over the Civic Hatchback EX for our 16 year old son. My son loved the Civic Hatch sport model but personally, I hated the lack of safety features, the need for premium fuel, and the small display. The step up for the Civic was the EX with the Honda sense package, which was nice but has a stupid camera instead of blind spot warning and really cheap and ugly wheels. The price was also ~$3000 over the Mazda 3 touring, which has blind spot monitoring, smart city brake support, rear traffic warning and much nicer wheels. In addition, Nav was a cheap $170 add on (can be had for $100 on ebay) and the ride was smoother with less of a racer boy feel. Much more refined, which he did not care about but we did!

We ended up with the 2.0, which is good enough for a 16 year old and you can still find versions made in Japan (versus Mexico). The 2.5 touring is only about $1500 more and also comes with a sun roof and I would recommend that car highly.

Also, for us, the Mazda was ~$100/month cheaper to insure versus the Honda. The Honda is a very nice car and the 1.5T is just fantastic. The CVT is, for the most part, un-noticible until the higher RPM range when it drones. Also, Honda's space utilization is very good with lots of places for things and the rear hatch area is very nice as well. Both good cars but the Mazda can be had much cheaper and is basically just as good if not better.
 
Last edited:
I went with my daughter, recently to test drive 4 cars:
Toyota Corolla
Honda Civic non-turbo
Mazda 3 2.0
Subaru Impreza 2.0 Sport

Her previous car (since she was in high school) was the 2002 Mazda Protg ES, so that's what she was comparing to the new cars.

The Toyota's steering and handling were what turned her off during that test drive. I think the quietness and ride smoothness was a better than that of the Honda and Mazda.

She did say that the Mazda 3 touring was the most fun to drive. Something about the Honda EX just didn't feel right to her. It was fairly sporty but the seat didn't fit here small stature well. The blind spot camera attached to the side view mirror was unique but I'm not sure how useful it would be without having more driving experience in that car.

The Suburu Impreza Sport (second highest trim level) seemed to have the best combination of handling, smooth ride, and quietness. The CVT transmission sort of mimics a multi-gear transmission, and like the Honda, does moan during hard acceleration.

My daughter ended up with the Subaru, partially because she knows so many people who have newer Mazda 3s. She wanted a car that was different, both inside and out, and that is what she got. Consumer Reports does rate the Impreza at the top of its class, so I don't blame my daughter for choosing as she did. Keep in mind that if handling and fun factor are at the top of your list, Mazda rules.

We do know two younger people (20s) who recently bought new Honda Civics but they did not compare as extensively as we did. They are similar to iPhone buyers - go with the crowd, rather than compare the competition.
 
The turbo does req High test fuel, trust me. Yes, forgot about that CVT, its garbage and I have no idea why its on a car other than something made in North Korea.
 
In addition, Nav was a cheap $170 add on (can be had for $100 on ebay) and the ride was smoother with less of a racer boy feel. Much more refined, which he did not care about but we did! .
I think you may have pissed away $170 and instead bought a Garmin with lifetime maps. Not only is Mazda Nav all but crap thanks to it's lack of updates as Mazda promised, but as I understand it, your product must be registered with the dealer, through Mazda; otherwise, you won't be able to update the maps. Every time you connect to Mazda Toolbox to update the Navigation, it checks your vehicle VIN and your SDCard serial if you are in fact a registered and authorized owner of the SDCard.
 
The turbo does req High test fuel, trust me. Yes, forgot about that CVT, its garbage and I have no idea why its on a car other than something made in North Korea.
If I was a teen, I might go for a turbo...but not any more. It's not only expensive to fix but, you can't legally drive fast in Vancouver these days any ways lol due to heavy traffic. Interesting comment though on the CVT. A tranny is very expensive to repair. Historically, I know Honda's AT sucked.
 
I
The Suburu Impreza Sport (second highest trim level) seemed to have the best combination of handling, smooth ride, and quietness. The CVT transmission sort of mimics a multi-gear transmission, and like the Honda, does moan during hard acceleration.

My daughter ended up with the Subaru, partially because she knows so many people who have newer Mazda 3s. She wanted a car that was different, both inside and out, and that is what she got. Consumer Reports does rate the Impreza at the top of its class, so I don't blame my daughter for choosing as she did. Keep in mind that if handling and fun factor are at the top of your list, Mazda rules.

We do know two younger people (20s) who recently bought new Honda Civics but they did not compare as extensively as we did. They are similar to iPhone buyers - go with the crowd, rather than compare the competition.
Because CR recommended Subaru, that's enough for me to dismiss them, lol. As far as comparing the Civic with an iPhone, I disagree. The iPhone simply works and Apple has a warranty and service only second to Costco. Most recently, it was revealed that many loyal Android users (who can afford to) are ditching Android for the iPhone. I would not even compare the Civic to a Samsung. Personally, I feel Samsung makes better hardware than Apple, but there is no synergy between their software and hardware. If anything, the Civic might be better compared to the Google Pixel, Oppo, or Huawei: an overpriced smartphone who's hardware isn't as good as the competition. However, there are more people who stick with Honda because of branding, much like VW enthusiasts.
 
I've been getting Consumer Reports for more than 20 years and I can't think of a time when their ratings were way off base. In 2001 I bought a new Corvette coupe with Z51 suspension package. CR (as well as most auto magazines) praised the Corvette's performance but rated them "much worse than average" regarding reliability. During my 13 years of owning that car, every single category that CR identified as being troublesome gave me trouble. I knew there'd be issues because of CR and the various Corvette forums, but this was not the only vehicle that mimicked what was published by CR. They have been spot-on.

For many years now, CR has rated iphones at number 4-6 in an order of best to worst phones. Motorola and Samsung phones have often been at or near the top, easily besting the iphone. In fact, quite a few comparisons in various web sites have rated the Galaxy phones ahead of the iphone. Apple has been playing catchup with Samsung for years. Even Microsoft's Lumia 950 has a better camera, facial recognition, replaceable battery, dual SIM card slots, and more RAM compared to the iphone.

Those who automatically think that the iphone is better integrated with al programs have never had to sync their phone with a company's Outlook email system. Both Blackberry and Nokia/Microsoft phones work with company software far better than Apple phones.

So yes, there certainly is similarity between Honda buyers and Apple buyers. Neither car or phone is more reliable than all competition. Neither is higher-performing in every way compared to all competition. Mazda, like Microsoft, sells the fewest products, yet this is in no way indicative of which competitive product is superior.

And by the way, I have both Garmin and Mazda NAVs. The Garmin is not only not superior, but it is a pain to have to install and remove all the time, fr fear that it will be stolen when left sitting on the dash. I'll take the Mazda NAV, any day.
 
Last edited:
I think you may have pissed away $170 and instead bought a Garmin with lifetime maps. Not only is Mazda Nav all but crap thanks to it's lack of updates as Mazda promised, but as I understand it, your product must be registered with the dealer, through Mazda; otherwise, you won't be able to update the maps. Every time you connect to Mazda Toolbox to update the Navigation, it checks your vehicle VIN and your SDCard serial if you are in fact a registered and authorized owner of the SDCard.

Actually it works great and my son really likes it. I like how it tells him the current speed limit and the cross street information. I hate Nav units and will take this anytime! Also, no worries for updating the SD system. Lots of information on how to get around the Mazda issue.
 
The turbo does req High test fuel, trust me. Yes, forgot about that CVT, its garbage and I have no idea why its on a car other than something made in North Korea.

Actually, the South Korean cars still have multi-speed auto transmissions. I believe Honda, Toyota, Subaru, and Nissan all have CVT transmissions.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the South Korean cars still have multi-speed auto transmissions. I believe Honda, Toyota, Subaru, and Nissan all have CVT transmissions.

One of the reasons why I looked at Mazdas when I needed to get a new car last month.... My previous car, 2012 Nissan Sentra, needed the CVT transsmission replaced twice. Thank God it was under warranty. The warranty expired this summer and I decided to get rid of it. I know all car manufacturers are moving to CVT and some people like it but after owning 2 cars with them I hope Mazda keeps making cars with the older transmissions for a long time.
 
On paper the Honda is certainly a quality car, good power, good economy, roomy etc.

I just can't get over the styling personally. Looks like it was designed by 14 year old gamers who are in to anime.

If all you're looking for is a capable, reliable A-B appliance, get a Corolla.
 
although the CVT in the civic seemed decent, and the car drives quite well, if I am looking for an automatic I would choose the Mazda. if I am looking for a manual, I think I would go for the civic 1.5T, but the 2.5L in the mazda is a very sweet engine...
 
although the CVT in the civic seemed decent, and the car drives quite well, if I am looking for an automatic I would choose the Mazda. if I am looking for a manual, I think I would go for the civic 1.5T, but the 2.5L in the mazda is a very sweet engine...

Actually the manual in th civic is terrible- bad shifter feel,and a terribly soft and unsporty clutch.
 
Honda is specifically known to make some of the best manual transmissions. I'd need to see it to believe it, but either way both vehicles offer their own compelling features and have shortcomings that make one seem better then the other.

Without driving both of them, (OP) you can't just decide which one suits you better by reading other people's opinions on the internet.

Mazda may not be as reliable as Honda, but keep in mind that the Honda is turbocharged and has a CVT, so I wouldn't be too concerned about which one will be more reliable over the other. It's close.

With that being said, the 2.5L and transmission in our Mazda seems to he holding up well. The car is very solid and feels well built.
 
I just can't get over the styling personally. Looks like it was designed by 14 year old gamers who are in to anime.

If all you're looking for is a capable, reliable A-B appliance, get a Corolla.

Agreed on the styling. It's grown on me to the point where I wouldn't mind owning it, but the Mazda is simply the more handsome looking car between the two.

I can see where you're coming from when you recommend the Corolla, but I would not go so far to call it capable. It makes barely 120hp and the handling is totally soft and uninspired. It may be capable (compared to your below-average compact) on the highway and during relaxed city driving, but that's just about it.

If OP is looking at a Honda or Mazda, the Corolla is certainly not on his list.
 
Honda is specifically known to make some of the best manual transmissions. I'd need to see it to believe it, but either way both vehicles offer their own compelling features and have shortcomings that make one seem better then the other.

Without driving both of them, (OP) you can't just decide which one suits you better by reading other people's opinions on the internet.

Mazda may not be as reliable as Honda, but keep in mind that the Honda is turbocharged and has a CVT, so I wouldn't be too concerned about which one will be more reliable over the other. It's close.

With that being said, the 2.5L and transmission in our Mazda seems to he holding up well. The car is very solid and feels well built.
Are we comparing the 2.5 L vs the very popular 2.0 L? Mazda3 first generations were quite reliable from what I understand, much more so than Honda.

While I do like the styling of the new Honda Civic, my gut tells me the reliability factor wouldn't be very high with the turbo. I too heard the Honda's manual transmissions are quite reliable. With the AT? Not so much. My next car will not be a turbo and it will be an automatic. That much is 100% certain.

I think with Mazda partnering with Toyota or vice versa regarding their infotainment system, I am personally leaning away from both. However, something might blow my mind and get me to re-evaluate everything over again.
 
Are we comparing the 2.5 L vs the very popular 2.0 L? Mazda3 first generations were quite reliable from what I understand, much more so than Honda.

While I do like the styling of the new Honda Civic, my gut tells me the reliability factor wouldn't be very high with the turbo. I too heard the Honda's manual transmissions are quite reliable. With the AT? Not so much. My next car will not be a turbo and it will be an automatic. That much is 100% certain.

I think with Mazda partnering with Toyota or vice versa regarding their infotainment system, I am personally leaning away from both. However, something might blow my mind and get me to re-evaluate everything over again.

All in all, comparing the older mazdas, they were not quite as reliable as Honda.

The 2L engine is slow and uninspiring. I would not buy a Mazda 3 unless it has the 2.5L engine which gets almost the same fuel economy and much more useable torque during daily driving. We have the 2.5L engine and it is a great motor.

The new Honda is a turbo and CVT, so I think now its only going to be roughly as reliable as Mazda. Dont forget that its still a Honda, so even though it has a turbo engine now it will still last. I agree with you on the CVT though which Id avoid.

Mazda and Toyota paired together to focus on hybrid technology and thats not going to have any effect on either brands anytime soon, so Im not sure why you mentioned that. Even if it did have some sort of effect, it would be a good one because Toyota makes some of the most reliable and we built vehicles on the market. Im sure they could teach Mazda a thing or two which is a much smaller company by comparison.

Your most reliable bet would be to opt for a manual, but since youre looking for an auto I would choose the Mazda, which has a very well designed and fun auto. Both the 2L and 2.5L are reliable, but the larger engine is much better overall in the real world and should last longer because you do not need to rev it as hard to make useable torque.
 
When I was recently looking at used Honda Civics (2002-2008 range), I noticed some common issues with many of them.
1. The head liner material would sag and droop, over the years.
2. Various trim pieces would loosen.
3. The paint's clear coat is very susceptible to being destroyed by exposure to the sun's UV rays.

By comparison, Mazda 3s of that same time period did not have nearly as many issues, it seems.

Earlier Hondas seem to have been more reliable as far as body hardware and paint but there was a period when their quality went downhill. The same applies to other manufacturers' cars, like Nissan's.
So no, you really can't say that Hondas in general are more reliable than Mazdas.

Also, many Proteges with 1.6 - 2.0 liter engines have over 250,000 miles on them. The size of the engine is not always a determining factor when comparing reliability.
 
When I was recently looking at used Honda Civics (2002-2008 range), I noticed some common issues with many of them.
1. The head liner material would sag and droop, over the years.
2. Various trim pieces would loosen.
3. The paint's clear coat is very susceptible to being destroyed by exposure to the sun's UV rays.

By comparison, Mazda 3s of that same time period did not have nearly as many issues, it seems.

Earlier Hondas seem to have been more reliable as far as body hardware and paint but there was a period when their quality went downhill. The same applies to other manufacturers' cars, like Nissan's.
So no, you really can't say that Hondas in general are more reliable than Mazdas.

Also, many Proteges with 1.6 - 2.0 liter engines have over 250,000 miles on them. The size of the engine is not always a determining factor when comparing reliability.

Agreed, the older civics had some appalling build quality concerns. But the drivetrain and suspension was a bit more durable then mazdas and they look to be in better condition then the old mazdas on the road (the most durable seems to be the corolla) I will say that the civics engine is terrible compared to the Mazda in terms of output and power delivery while not being much more reliable. I will say that the Honda also has a slightly better transmission while both have good clutches.

And its subjective whether the larger displacement motor is more reliable or not, its probably the same but I never said that the smaller displacement engines like in the protege would be any less reliable. Those were great motors and very ahead of their time in terms of power delivery.

In terms of driving dynamics, nothing beats the protege except maybe the integra and it was also very well built except for the body panels and poor paint which allowed rust.
 
Back