impossible to beat imo! i'm 6'5 and have an 89 hatch for exactly the
same reasons as you, bikes & all! plus, if you live/work in a big city,
having something old & ugly is a huge positive against theft &
vandalism. it's also interesting in the dating dept. if a potential
date looks at my car & starts getting an attitude, i already know she's
not my type.
jim beam wrote:
| tomb wrote:
|| For pure economical reasons, an older (but well-maintained) Civic
|| would be really hard to beat.
| impossible to beat imo! i'm 6'5 and have an 89 hatch for exactly the
| same reasons as you, bikes & all! plus, if you live/work in a big
| city, having something old & ugly is a huge positive against theft &
Good point, too. Even thought I don't necessarily think it's ugly - but that
might be an acquired taste ;)
| it's also interesting in the dating dept. if a potential
| date looks at my car & starts getting an attitude, i already know
| she's not my type.
Excellent point, too! :)
It appears that lots and lots of people must agree with you. I see lots
more Civics than Accords in the town where I live. It's my guess that if
gas prices remain high--that small cars (including Civics) will be more
common that SUVs in the coming years. I have several friends that live
over 40 miles from where they work--it's easy to understand why my friends
and other people that have to drive over 40 miles per day would be more
likely to buy a Civic than an Accord.
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
I drive 29 miles daily each way to and from work, plus a 300-mile trek to
the home office 2-4 times monthly, and my 2003 Civic EX is a dream for this
duty. Depending on a/c usage (I live in Central FL), I get 35-38 mpg in
mixed driving, and at 36,000 miles have had no unscheduled maintenance after
the first month (faulty seat rail on the dirvers' side).
Despite the extra luxury, I can't believe an Accord would be better.
Of course, I still pine away for the 1990 Civic LX I traded in for the new
one -- bought it new and drove it 13 years and 185,000 miles with the
original clutch still working beautifully.
I have the Accord, my daughter has a Civic. Both are good cars and you
can't go wrong either way. Go with what you budget will allow. There is no
sense spending more then one can afford, as it won't do you any good if you
can't afford to go anywhere with it.
The Civic will be no cheaper to "maintain" but will do a little better on F.E.
than the Accord. At the sacrifice of ride quality, noise and features. The
Civic LX trim level suits my family drivers just fine. Currently enjoying 25
MPG (all in town, LA traffic) with a 2005 Civic Coupe LX.
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...
The Accords just don't get the MPG of the Civic's and the 2001 and above
Civic's are pretty roomy. I just got 41.6 mpg out of my 2002 Civic lx 5sp
and that was 70 % Highway -30% city driving!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.