Why I'm Choosing a Civic Over a Metro
 

Hi,

Well, I've been researching what car I'll be getting in a few weeks and I've come to a decision. For the longest time I was going to get a Geo or Chevy Metro, but after doing lots of research I've decided I'll be getting a 2001 or 2002 Honda Civic hatchback with an automatic transmission.

Here are the things I want in my next car:
-Safety: The Civic is safer than the Metro.
-Automatic Transmission: Both cars have automatic versions.
-Very Fuel Efficient: The Civic is more fuel efficient than the Metro, according to the EPA. (2001 & 2002 Civic hatchback = 30 city / 36 hwy, 1996-2001 Geo/Chevy Metro = 26 city / 31 hwy)
-Very Inexpensive: The Metro is less expensive than the Civic. This is the only thing I can see as a negative about the Civic, but one bonus will be that the Civic will have a higher resale value than the Metro if I ever decide to resell the Civic.
-Able to carry 4 occupants: Both cars can carry 4 occupants, but the Civic has more interior space than the Metro.
-Must be made after 1996 so a ScanGauge can be used with it.
-Must be familiar to mechanics if it ever needs to be worked on: The Civic has more mechanics that are familiar with it than the Metro, I assume.
-Must have good availability of parts if any repairs are needed: The Civic has more parts than the Metro, I assume.
-Must have good availability of aftermarket parts for modifications: The Civic has more aftermarket parts than the Metro, I assume.
-Must cost very little to insure: The Civic will cost less for me to insure than the Metro.

I've also owned two Civics in the past so it'll be like an old friend.

Am I missing anything here? What do you think?
Thanks
Wayneburg

Thanks for the advice. :D

Sounds like you made good decisions, based upon your requirements. It's my opinion that the advantages of a Civic are usually already priced into a Civic.

I agree. Get what you want. I hate automatics though.

I'd suggest a manual trans .. automatics sap a bit of power and manual is far more easier to drive in a eco way, say coasting on hills and stops. I know some people hate manuals and prefer autos , but just my $.02... err $.03.. inflation...

I would love to use a manual transmission, but I have physical limitations. Ah well, I'll do my part to save gas any way I can using an automatic.

I don't think the EM2/7th Gen Civic hatch came with an auto transmission.
The Si was the only hatchback variant of that Civic to come stateside and I am 90% sure it was limited to manual.

You're right. The civic hx did not come in hatchback. It was a coupe. Oops. It's still going to be mine. Oh yeeeeessssss. Miiiinnnneeee. :P

I can't believe the metro's ratings were that piss poor.

Well, now that I've been told the Civic HX was never a hatchback, I've had to do a little more research. So I'm going to go with the 1997 Civic hatchback which got 29 MPG city / 35 MPG hwy.

Well, actually I'll go for any of the following cars in the order they are listed:
1997 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.6 L 29 city / 35 hwy
2004 Scion xA Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.5 L 27 city / 34 hwy
2002 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.7 L 29 city / 35 hwy
2003 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.7 L 29 city / 34 hwy
2003 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.7 L 29 V-Tec 26 city / 34 hwy
1996 Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.3 L 26 city / 31 hwy
1997 Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.3 L 26 city / 31 hwy
1998 Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.3 L 26 city / 31 hwy
1999 Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.3 L 26 city / 31 hwy
2000 Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.3 L 26 city / 31 hwy
2001 Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.3 L 26 city / 31 hwy
2003 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.7 L 25 city / 34 hwy
1996 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.6 L 25 city / 33 hwy
1998 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.6 L 25 city / 33 hwy
1999 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.6 L 25 city / 33 hwy
2003 Toyota Celica Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.8 L 25 city / 33 hwy
2000 Honda Civic Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.6 L 25 city / 32 hwy
2002 Toyota Celica Hatchback Automatic 4 cyl, 1.8 L 25 city / 32 hwy
1996 Ford Aspire Hatchback Automatic 4cyl, 1.3 L 25 city / 31 hwy

The HX was a coupe produced up until 2005, equipped either with a manual or a CVT. It was rated 33/44 by 2005 standards. They are quite difficult to find. In addition to being rare, few people are willing to part with them.

Interesting fact: The HX has 2 more horsepower than other Civic models of the same year (except for the SI).

Is this is Civic in this video?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BV8yfpKUnmg

No, looks like a Daihatsu.

What physical limitation is holding you back from driving a manual?

Nothing. I would kill for a manual, but the deal I got on my car was too good to refuse.

Was directed to Wayneburg, wouldn't expect 40 mpg to come from an auto.

I'm guessing that the metro's are rated so poorly because of their 3 speed automatic transmissions. I think they also came in 4 speeds, but my friend's geo convt. has a 3 speed auto w/out O/D. which is really bad for the FE.

I will not be discussing that.

You can get 40 mpg from an auto, I've seen lots of people do it, :p

doesn't Daox have an auto yet he gets over around late 40's and 50's in mpg? (I don't know just guessing on the mpg's)

I averaged 35.5 on my auto Corolla, I hit 40 once and I think that was a miscalculation on my part.

My civic is a 5speed auto and I can hit above 40's. Wish you could go for the 8th gen civics. Gotta love the new transmissions coming out with 6speed!

A number of use are driving relatively new Civics with auto and beating 40mpg. :D My last tank averaged 43, and within a few weeks I'm pretty sure I can top 45 with a little route research and a few more mods.

I bet I can beat 40+ mpg in any Corolla that is running properly.

Citroen Saxo - very popular little car in Europe back in the late 90s early 00s.

Hello,

I thought it was a Mazda 323?

I had the same decision to make... Civic vs. Metro. The funny thing is that I went for the Metro for a lot of the same reasons (not safety of course). I know the new EPAs are poor for the Metro, but they are a load of crap too. I have tried to get my Metro down to the new EPAs and could not do it, sorry for the mpg sin, but I had to try. I went with Metro due to the simple construction methods, and how simple they are to work on. I am reminded of the TV commercial that says "after 36,000 mi you are the warranty". I had no problems at all doing a complete engine rebuilt with no advanced tools, and I am not a mechanic.

wayneburg, have you thought about a corolla/prizm? hard to beat toyota for reliability. tons spare parts. really cheap to buy.

my dad, sister, and a couple of my neighbors drive mid 90s models. they get between 30 and 38 mpg. 3 autos, two manuals. in the last ten years or so, the only repairs i can remember have been rust related (upstate ny salt)

they dont look as nice as an xa or a civic hatchback, but thats nothing some wheel skirts and a fastback cant fix.

I get about 30/32 in an 1987 automatic Tercel that's in pretty half ass shape which my mom drives half the time. (read: 2-3mpg lower when she drives)

its possible, but difficult to get 40 with the 3 speed auto. so yea, not a huge claim there. I'd like to see someone get 50 out of my car :turtle:

all the corola/prizms i've driven lately have had o/d i didn't realize they had made the three speed since the early 90's

40+ MPG in an automatic
 

I've got a '99 Ford Escort that's automatic. Best I've seen was 38-39 and all I did was go on a long trip and force myself to drive 60-ish mph (no cruise). Normally run 70-80 mph and get 30-32 MPG. I don't really practice any hypermiling techniques and don't yet have any FE mods. I think 40 MPG is definately do-able in this car with a little more effort, and without even having to go any slower.

My question is shouldn't an automatic be able to match the HIGHWAY MPG of a stick shift if you could modify the final gear ratio to match? I mean at constant highway speed, the torque converter should lock up. Then your FE would be all up to gear ratio's.

Pretty much. IF you have a lockup converter. It will still be heavier and have more parts moving and some pumping losses though, so not 100%.

I have a 1997 Civic CX hatchback. Love it. But, it doesn't get that great gas mileage. I live in Los Angeles and do about 80% "city" driving. I get around 25 mpg. This is before doing anything eco-wise though (I plan to do some mods).

Another problem with this model is the transmission. I had to have it replaced at only 95,000 miles, which seems ridiculous to me for such a "reliable" car. My Honda mechanic said it's very common to have to replace trannies in Honda's around this year. I totally trust my mechanic.

HHINLA

Weight reduction will be far more beneficial in a city environment (stop-n-go), aero is generally better for higher speeds (freeways). Not to say that aero isn't beneficial for city driving, but I would think you would notice a larger difference with weight reduction.

I had heard the automatic transmissions, particularly the CVT featured on the HX, were problematic for the 96-00 Civic but you are the first definitive source I've heard it from. But one benefit of driving a Civic, especially of that era is that everyone had one so a junkyard tranny can probably found for pretty cheap- on the inverse transmission labor on a FWD car isn't cheap.

Ive heard CVT trannies have had some issues. I havent heard about the standard autos though. My wifes 96 ex has 196,000 on its original 4 speed auto. On top of that i dont think the tranny fluid was changed for the first 150,000 miles, but i cant be sure, when i checked it around that time it was really bad looking. Ive been doing incremental changes and it shifts quite nicely still. She gets 30mpg without trying to drive eco, my dads dx got 38 mpg on the highway at 80mph. Great cars.


***add***
I know on V6 models for late 90's thru early 2000's did have tranny problems.
I believe 2004 and after is fixed. These had issues especially with 2nd gear and heavy city driving or towing. a trans cooler and regular fluid changes can keep those problems in check.

OK Im getting over 40 in my metro, lsi auto, I4 big block, I have 165/80/13 tires on it. The funny part is I could get over 50 if i didnt drive over 40. I do drive over 50 miles a day to work one way. I get basically the same results as metrompg as far as milage goes. The slower i go the better it gets. I have yet to drive slower and my milage not go up. The slowest i drove is 37 mph. But i got like 55 mpg for the trip.

also i have wondered why a guy who wouldnt be caught dead on anything but a harley on the weekend, would drive a honda car to work during the week

The 01 Civic lineup did not have any hatchbacks in the U.S.

The '02-'05 U.S. Civics had one hatchback model: the manual-trans Si. I drove one for two years, and rarely saw more than about 30 mpg...The Si is a sports model with very close-ratio gearing.

The 96-00 civics had great hatchbacks that were hundreds of lbs. lighter than the 01+ cars, and the 92-95s are excellent as well (especially the VX model).

For the record, I have an auto trans 00 civic hatch, and its a struggle to get 40mpg consitently for me. I tend to waver around 38.

cant go wrong with a civic man. the only thing to worry about is theft but anything past 2000 should be fine. the most frequently stolen are the civics from 1992-2000. im from the modesto ca area(#1 in vehicle thefts) where everyone who owns a civic in those generations HAS to be aware of that security issue. otherwise enjoy the better mpg and WAY bigger interior room. if you can though, grab a manual. that's the only thing i regret

America?s Most Stolen Cars - MSN Autos

parts for these generations of civic are easily interchangeable with each other and the acura integras(very sought after by rIcers).

just be careful

I have a 3 speed Corolla. Yes it is hard to get 40 mpg. I would have to go about 45-50 mph on the freeway. Probably not very safe, especially in Texas with all the enormous trucks.

I have had my Civic HCH II for a year now and have been very happy with it. I get 44 MPG no matter how I drive.

My only experience with the Metro was working on a friends about 10 years ago. I changed the spark plugs and noticed the interior windows had a sticky film. Further investigation of the cause was a leaking heater core.

So being I nice guy I offered to replace the core. Big mistake!

It turns out the heater core is inside the dash, requiring removal of most of the dashboard. Then found out that you need to drill out rivets to remove the housing!

The operation took about 6 hours, with a few cuts from the sharp dash parts.

Good news was that the woman who owned the car had Flu like symptoms for 6 months and doctors could not find the cause. After the heater core was replaced, her Flu like symptoms disappeared.

From that experience, I was a bit Jaded on the owning a Metro after seeing the difficulty of shade tree repairs.