Who's better? Saturn SL2 or Honda Civic EX Sedan? (97)
W Hou
(I am buying a 97 Saturn SL2, then I came across Honda Civic 4D EX Sedan...)
(all models are automatic here)
First of all, is Civic EX Sedan still considered a subcompact??
Length/weight/height/legroom/headroom/shoulder room -wise, Civic EX is almost
the same as Saturn SL2:
97 Honda Civic EX 4D Sedan 97 Saturn SL2 4D Sedan
Weight 2568 2419
Wheelbase 103.2 102.4
Length 175.1 176.9
Width 67.1 66.7
Height 54.7 53.8
Cargo Vol 11.9 12.1
Fuel (gal) 11.9 12.2
Head Room(F/R) 38.2/36.2 39.3/38.0
Leg Room (Fr/Rr) 42.7/34.1 42.5/32.8
Shldr Room (Fr/Rr) 52.4/51.8 54.3/53.5
Hip Room (Fr/Rr) 50.0/49.3 50.7/51.6
Engine 1.6L I4 1.9L I4
Valves 16 16
Horsepower 127 @ 6600 124 @ 5600
Torque 107 @ 5500 122 @ 4800
I guess it is the engine size, since Civic EX has 1.6liter engine while SL2
has a 1.9 or 2.4liter. I am a bit confused here, who's more powerful here? EX
has 127hp with 1.6liter, and SL2 with 1.9liter only got 124...
Price-feature side, Civic EX is definately a winner over SL2, IMHO.
With similiar features equipped as Civic EX (power lock/win, remote keyless,
moonroof, ABS,air etc), SL2 would be about $17,500, while Civic EX listed as
$16480 MSRP.
Bottom line: 97 Civic EX is a better deal than Saturn SL2.
Comments?
Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Will
John C. Toman
Where did you get those numbers?
Here's the numbers I came up with (putting options on the Saturn to
equip it like the Honda):
1997 Honda Civic EX MSRP: $17280 (Excludes $395 destination charge)
This number comes from www.edmunds.com.
This is for a Civic EX with no options.
1997 Saturn SL2 (equipped like Civic EX): $16190 (Excludes $400 dest)
This number comes from www.saturncars.com.
This is for a base SL2 ($12495) with option package 1 ($2305),
ABS ($695), and power moonroof ($695).
If the Civic is a better value than that would not be based on price,
but on the relative perceptions of the two cars (i.e. you think the
Honda will be more reliable than the Saturn, or you think the Honda is
more refined). Price very clearly favors the Saturn SL2.
--
John C. Toman
Texas Instruments, Advanced C3I Systems, San Diego
Bill Chi Shun Ho, Ph.D.
W Hou wrote:
>
> I guess it is the engine size, since Civic EX has 1.6liter engine while SL2
> has a 1.9 or 2.4liter. I am a bit confused here, who's more powerful here? EX
> has 127hp with 1.6liter, and SL2 with 1.9liter only got 124...
They are not running at the same rotor speed (5600 vs. 6600) for the
power described. So you don't need to push the SL2 engine that hard for
the same power.
> Price-feature side, Civic EX is definately a winner over SL2, IMHO.
> With similiar features equipped as Civic EX (power lock/win, remote keyless,
> moonroof, ABS,air etc), SL2 would be about $17,500, while Civic EX listed as
> $16480 MSRP.
Does the price of Civic include cruise control, alloy wheels, security
system, and dual airbags too?
> Bottom line: 97 Civic EX is a better deal than Saturn SL2.
If it does include everything mentioned above, then Honda
Civic is cheaper than SL2 to buy. But to own it (including maintanence
cost and insurance), SL2 may be cheaper in a long run. Compare the
insurance qoute and extension warranty cost too.
--
Bill Chi Shun Ho, Ph.D.
The University of Dallas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
http://xenopus.swmed.edu/bill1.htm
<mailto:h...@utsw.swmed.edu> or <mailto:bil...@CyberRamp.net>
David Masten
In article <55o5eb$p...@news.usf.edu>, h...@monty.marine.usf.edu (W Hou) wrote:
>(I am buying a 97 Saturn SL2, then I came across Honda Civic 4D EX Sedan...)
>(all models are automatic here)
>
>First of all, is Civic EX Sedan still considered a subcompact??
Yes, while the Saturn is considered a "Compact". These are according to the
EPA definitions. However, I don't think they mean much. I suggest getting in
the car and seeing how it fits you and your needs.
>Engine 1.6L I4 1.9L I4
>Valves 16 16
>Horsepower 127 @ 6600 124 @ 5600
>Torque 107 @ 5500 122 @ 4800
>
>I guess it is the engine size, since Civic EX has 1.6liter engine while SL2
>has a 1.9 or 2.4liter.
I'm confused by the above line. The SL2 has a 1.9 liter engine.
>I am a bit confused here, who's more powerful here? EX
>has 127hp with 1.6liter, and SL2 with 1.9liter only got 124...
Honda is very adept at making hp out of small engines. Conversely, the torque
does suffer compared to the bigger SL2 engine. With an automatic, you might
prefer the extra torque. Again, drive em and see.
>Price-feature side, Civic EX is definately a winner over SL2, IMHO.
>With similiar features equipped as Civic EX (power lock/win, remote keyless,
>moonroof, ABS,air etc), SL2 would be about $17,500, while Civic EX listed as
>$16480 MSRP.
Plus, the Civic is available at discounts. So the difference can be an *extra*
$1K or so less.
>Bottom line: 97 Civic EX is a better deal than Saturn SL2.
>Comments?
I think so too. I think the base model Saturns are very good deals. But once
you pile on all the options, they become relatively expensive cars that have
all the features, and pretty good performance, but are still a little rough
around the edges (noise, material quality) for the price. And factor in that
they sell at retail, and they become less attractive still. On the positive,
the resale is top-notch (somewhat misleading as one should compare resale to
bought price not *retail* price, which is one and the same for the Saturn, but
not its competitors). Oh, Honda resales are pretty damn high too.
Again, drive both and decide which you prefer. And I'd throw in the Integra LS
4-door into the competition also. You can probably get it for near the SL2
price.
Mark Brindle
W Hou (h...@monty.marine.usf.edu) wrote:
: (I am buying a 97 Saturn SL2, then I came across Honda Civic 4D EX Sedan...)
: (all models are automatic here)
:
: First of all, is Civic EX Sedan still considered a subcompact??
Yes, I believe they're both subcompacts. The official US-EPA size
class appears on the official (government-mandated) window sticker.
You can get a complete list (i.e., for all cars sold in the US) of
size classifications, passenger cabin volumes, trunk capacities,
and fuel mileage ratings in the EPA "1997 Fuel Mileage Guide" --
available free at most (all?) new car showrooms.
However, the two are (numerically) so close to the same size that
the published values won't tell you much -- you'll have to decide
for yourself which one "feel most comfortable". Depending on your
tastes/anatomy, you might *strongly* prefer one over the other.
<snip -- list of size specs>
: I guess it is the engine size, since Civic EX has 1.6liter engine while SL2
: has a 1.9 or 2.4liter. I am a bit confused here, who's more powerful here?
: EX has 127hp with 1.6liter, and SL2 with 1.9liter only got 124...
The Civic is *slightly* more powerful (but it's also *slightly*
heavier). Again, the numbers are too close to predict a winner.
I don't have any first-hand experience with either of the '97's,
but I test drove both '94 models (with manual transmissions) --
and GREATLY prefered the Civic EX. Obviously, many other folks
did the same thing and reached exactly the opposite conclusion.
In the past year or so, one of the car rags (Road&Track, I think)
did a direct comparison of those two cars (and about 4 others);
as I recall, they ranked Civic EX #2 (close behind Mazda Protege).
The Saturn SL2 finished back in the pack (around 4th out of six?).
Any Mazda dealer will *happily* give you a reprint of the article.
: Price-feature side, Civic EX is definately a winner over SL2, IMHO.
: With similiar features equipped as Civic EX (power lock/win, remote keyless,
: moonroof, ABS,air etc), SL2 would be about $17,500, while Civic EX listed as
: $16480 MSRP.
Huh? WWW.edmunds.com shows the '97 Civic EX 4Dr/AT with an MSRP
of $17675 (incl freight), and a dealer invoice of $15898 -- your
figure is for the EX/5-sp (not including freight). OTOH, I'd
expect the EX/auto "street price" to be a little under $16,500.
Of course, Saturn dealers get full MSRP -- so any way you slice
it, the Civic will cost *much* less than the SL2.
: Bottom line: 97 Civic EX is a better deal than Saturn SL2.
That would be *my* choice. OTOH, Saturn sells almost as many
cars as Civic -- so *lots* of folks seem to think otherwise.
: Comments?
Honda makes possibly the *very best* manual transmissions ever
created; if you've ever considered learning (or returning to)
manual trannies, the Civic 5-sp is an EXCELLENT place to start.
For $800 *less* you get better gas mileage, better performance,
better reliability, and *more fun*!
good luck,
Mark
Fast Refresh/15
On 6 Nov 1996 01:20:42 GMT, bri...@lf.hp.com (Mark Brindle) wrote:
>In the past year or so, one of the car rags (Road&Track, I think)
>did a direct comparison of those two cars (and about 4 others);
>as I recall, they ranked Civic EX #2 (close behind Mazda Protege).
>The Saturn SL2 finished back in the pack (around 4th out of six?).
>Any Mazda dealer will *happily* give you a reprint of the article.
Wasn't the Saturn redesigned since that test ran? I think that was
comparing '95 models.
>: Price-feature side, Civic EX is definately a winner over SL2, IMHO.
>: With similiar features equipped as Civic EX (power lock/win, remote keyless,
>: moonroof, ABS,air etc), SL2 would be about $17,500, while Civic EX listed as
>: $16480 MSRP.
>
>Huh? WWW.edmunds.com shows the '97 Civic EX 4Dr/AT with an MSRP
>of $17675 (incl freight), and a dealer invoice of $15898 -- your
>figure is for the EX/5-sp (not including freight). OTOH, I'd
>expect the EX/auto "street price" to be a little under $16,500.
>Of course, Saturn dealers get full MSRP -- so any way you slice
>it, the Civic will cost *much* less than the SL2.
Unless you have a trade-in... Saturn dealers can haggle on trades.
>: Bottom line: 97 Civic EX is a better deal than Saturn SL2.
>
>That would be *my* choice. OTOH, Saturn sells almost as many
>cars as Civic -- so *lots* of folks seem to think otherwise.
To me it looks more like a difference in styling. Both cars have
very good reliability, very good resale, similar size.
I'd just drive both and buy the one you like the best to drive.
>Honda makes possibly the *very best* manual transmissions ever
>created; if you've ever considered learning (or returning to)
>manual trannies, the Civic 5-sp is an EXCELLENT place to start.
>For $800 *less* you get better gas mileage, better performance,
>better reliability, and *more fun*!
Not to mention with those itty bitty engines, especially in the
Civic, the auto's are slugs to drive.
E. V. Noel
I was deciding between the very same cars when I bought my
new car last March. Even with the help of Auto-by-Tel I
was not able to get a price for the Honda EX that made it
any cheaper than the Saturn. Civic EX's are just extremely
popular where I live.
Two things ultimately made my decision for me:
- Honda dealers around here are known to
be jerks.
- The Honda has (don't know about the '97)
the butt-ugliest "Flasher" light switch.
All fakey-plastic-chrome plated and
stuck right in the middle of the dash.
Looks just like my 74-yr old dad's Buick.
Blech.
I got the Saturn.
Lloyd R. Parker
Mark Brindle (bri...@lf.hp.com) wrote:
: W Hou (h...@monty.marine.usf.edu) wrote:
: : (I am buying a 97 Saturn SL2, then I came across Honda Civic 4D EX Sedan...)
: : (all models are automatic here)
: :
: : First of all, is Civic EX Sedan still considered a subcompact??
:
: Yes, I believe they're both subcompacts.
Actually, the sedan is a compact, but the coupe and hatchback are still
subcompacts, so the entire line is listed as a subcompact. But if you
look at the volume figures in the EPA Guide, the sedan falls into the
range called compact.
Mark Brindle
Bill Chi Shun Ho, Ph.D. (bil...@cyberramp.net) wrote:
: W Hou wrote:
: > I guess it is the engine size, since Civic EX has 1.6liter engine while SL2
: > has a 1.9 or 2.4liter. I am a bit confused here, who's more powerful here? EX
: > has 127hp with 1.6liter, and SL2 with 1.9liter only got 124...
: They are not running at the same rotor speed (5600 vs. 6600) for the
: power described. So you don't need to push the SL2 engine that hard for
: the same power.
When comparing different engine designs, how "hard" an engine is
being "pushed" doesn't correlate well with rpm. A short-stroke
engine turning 6000 rpm may be *much* less "distressed" than a
long-stroke engine at 4000 rpm. For example, a GM 6-71 diesel at
2000 rpm is being "pushed harder" than an Integra GS-R at 7000.
Short of analyzing stroke, piston speed, piston weight, crank
stiffness, etc., etc., etc. the only way to compare is simply
to drive both cars. I can assure you that at any specific rpm,
the Civic engine will be suffering "less stress" that the SL2.
Please note that this is *not* a "slam" against Saturn; I'm
only saying these two engines are very *different* -- I'm not
claiming that either one is "better".
regards,
Mark
Thomas Wynsen
I have a Saturn and an Acura Integra. I would highly reccomend the
Integra over the Saturn if you have the extra cash. My Integra has been a
Great car. I am already seeing many small problems in the new Saturn that
never or juist recenlty appearded in the Integra. Go for the Honda. BTW,
Acura is made by Honda Motor Corp.
Mark Brindle
Fast Refresh/15 (she...@visi.com) wrote:
: On 6 Nov 1996 01:20:42 GMT, bri...@lf.hp.com (Mark Brindle) wrote:
: >In the past year or so, one of the car rags (Road&Track, I think)
: >did a direct comparison of those two cars (and about 4 others);
: >as I recall, they ranked Civic EX #2 (close behind Mazda Protege).
: >The Saturn SL2 finished back in the pack (around 4th out of six?).
: >Any Mazda dealer will *happily* give you a reprint of the article.
: Wasn't the Saturn redesigned since that test ran? I think that was
: comparing '95 models.
I dunno, could be -- I'd advise reading the article *before*
signing the check.
: >Huh? WWW.edmunds.com shows the '97 Civic EX 4Dr/AT with an MSRP
: >of $17675 (incl freight), and a dealer invoice of $15898 -- your
: >figure is for the EX/5-sp (not including freight). OTOH, I'd
: >expect the EX/auto "street price" to be a little under $16,500.
: >Of course, Saturn dealers get full MSRP -- so any way you slice
: >it, the Civic will cost *much* less than the SL2.
: Unless you have a trade-in... Saturn dealers can haggle on trades.
Honda dealers can haggle on trades, too -- but I seriously doubt
that *any* dealer will *ever* give you more than "auction price"
for a used car. It's almost always best to sell it yourself.
regards,
Mark
Alain Southiere
In <327ff51c...@news.visi.com>, she...@visi.com (Fast Refresh/15) writes:
>On 6 Nov 1996 01:20:42 GMT, bri...@lf.hp.com (Mark Brindle) wrote:
>>Honda makes possibly the *very best* manual transmissions ever
>>created; if you've ever considered learning (or returning to)
>>manual trannies, the Civic 5-sp is an EXCELLENT place to start.
>>For $800 *less* you get better gas mileage, better performance,
>>better reliability, and *more fun*!
>
> Not to mention with those itty bitty engines, especially in the
>Civic, the auto's are slugs to drive.
Dunno about the Civic, but the the automatic Saturn is far from beeing
a slug. In performance mode, the Saturn auto tranny is one of the best
around. Noone beleives me that the automatic tranny can switch over
redline when driving a little more agressively, until they see it with their
own eyes, that is :-)
Some bigger (and more expensive) cars probably gave better auto
trannies than the Saturn, but as far as sub-compact goes, the automatic
Sx2 are hard to beat. Even my father, who drove cars everyday for work
for the last 20 years (a lot of different sub-compact autos) was rather
impressed with the Saturn auto tranny.
---
Alain Southiere | If fifty million people
Software developper | say a stupid thing, it is
als...@cam.org | still a stupid thing.
http://www.cam.org/~alsouth | - Anatole France
Dennis Z Kuo
Mark Brindle (bri...@lf.hp.com) wrote:
: Fast Refresh/15 (she...@visi.com) wrote:
: : >did a direct comparison of those two cars (and about 4 others);
: : >as I recall, they ranked Civic EX #2 (close behind Mazda Protege).
: : >The Saturn SL2 finished back in the pack (around 4th out of six?).
: : >Any Mazda dealer will *happily* give you a reprint of the article.
: : Wasn't the Saturn redesigned since that test ran? I think that was
: : comparing '95 models.
: I dunno, could be -- I'd advise reading the article *before*
: signing the check.
I think you guys are referring to the C/D $16,000 sedan comparo in the
2/96 issue. Those were definitely '96 models. The SL2 finished sixth
out of eighth, the Civic LX second, the Protege ES first.
--
Dennis Kuo | University of Pennsylvania
ku...@mail.med.upenn.edu | School of Medicine, Class of '97
"A bear in his natural habitat...a Studebaker."--Fozzie Bear
home page occasionally running at http://mail.med.upenn.edu/~kuod
Bentley
Mark Brindle (bri...@lf.hp.com) said something like:
: Honda makes possibly the *very best* manual transmissions ever
: created;
A small addition to your excellent post: Honda makes the *best* linked
manual transmission. It's feel, smoothness, and forgivingnes (to coin a
phrase) are, imho, better than many direct trannys -- but not all. And,
after time, those linkages have no choice but to stretch and wear. By the
time my old CRX Si reached 100,000 miles, the amount of play in the
gearshift had increased noticeably. This would not have been the case in a
RWD direct shift (not that there are many left).
And your point about learning on a Honda manual makes sense on the
surface; a slick transmission and a light clutch help the newbie driver
gain confidence. However, they might well be spoiled by this combination,
and when the young driver moves onto less forgiving cars, could well be in
for an unpleasant surprise. I, for instance, learned to shift in a 1966
VW, whos balky links made gear selection haphazard at best, and whose
53bhp engine made starting on hills an excercise in podal coordination.
Since then, virtually ever manual I've driven has been easy...
Scott Haas
W Hou (h...@monty.marine.usf.edu) wrote:
: (I am buying a 97 Saturn SL2, then I came across Honda Civic 4D EX Sedan...)
: (all models are automatic here)
When I bought my Civic 1 year ago this month, the Saturn was the only car I hadn't eliminated from my list. Then I started hearing things like: The Saturn 1.9l engine drinks oil, the plastic body panels rattle because they're not securely fastened to the space frame and they crack when hit in cold weather by other vehicle doors. Also, I'm real picky about how things look - and I just didn't like the way the Saturn's dash looked at night. The Civic's gauges are backlit (which IMHO looks very classy) - the Saturn's gauges are frontlit (which IMHO looks very cheap).
Finally (this may sway your final decision), a car mag recently tested 6 cars priced under (or at) $15,000. The test included (if I remember correctly) a Honda Civic, a Ford Escort, a Chrysler Cirrus, a Saturn SL1, a Pontiac Grand Am and a Chevrolet Cavalier and I think they finished in that order (with the Civic in 1st place).
My family has owned Honda cars since the early 1980s. My father has owned 2 Honda Accords (a 1983 and a 1985), my mother has owned 1 Honda Civic and 2 Honda Accords (a 1981, a 1988 and a 1996), my brother has owned 2 Honda Accords (a 1987 and a 1994) and my wife and I own 2 1995 Honda Civics. Not one of those cars gave any of us problems.
Honda makes good cars. I think you'd be happier with the Civic over the Saturn.
HTH
:SSH
Thomas Rockwell
Bentley wrote:
>
> And your point about learning on a Honda manual makes sense on the
> surface; a slick transmission and a light clutch help the newbie driver
> gain confidence. However, they might well be spoiled by this combination,
> and when the young driver moves onto less forgiving cars, could well be in
> for an unpleasant surprise. I, for instance, learned to shift in a 1966
> VW, whos balky links made gear selection haphazard at best, and whose
> 53bhp engine made starting on hills an excercise in podal coordination.
> Since then, virtually ever manual I've driven has been easy...
Stange concept of learning you have Bentley. I suggest you open a
teen driving school. Start all the new drivers out in F1 cars in a
snowstorm. Once they learn to handle that they will be able to
drive anything :-)
Tom
Gordon Forrest
In article <55op5a$i...@hpavua.lf.hp.com>,
bri...@lf.hp.com (Mark Brindle) wrote:
>W Hou (h...@monty.marine.usf.edu) wrote:
>: (I am buying a 97 Saturn SL2, then I came across Honda Civic 4D EX Sedan...)
>: (all models are automatic here)
>:
>: First of all, is Civic EX Sedan still considered a subcompact??
>
>Yes, I believe they're both subcompacts. The official US-EPA size
>class appears on the official (government-mandated) window sticker.
>You can get a complete list (i.e., for all cars sold in the US) of
>size classifications, passenger cabin volumes, trunk capacities,
>and fuel mileage ratings in the EPA "1997 Fuel Mileage Guide" --
>available free at most (all?) new car showrooms.
>
>However, the two are (numerically) so close to the same size that
>the published values won't tell you much -- you'll have to decide
>for yourself which one "feel most comfortable". Depending on your
>tastes/anatomy, you might *strongly* prefer one over the other.
>
><snip -- list of size specs>
>
>: I guess it is the engine size, since Civic EX has 1.6liter engine while SL2
>: has a 1.9 or 2.4liter. I am a bit confused here, who's more powerful here?
>: EX has 127hp with 1.6liter, and SL2 with 1.9liter only got 124...
>
>The Civic is *slightly* more powerful (but it's also *slightly*
>heavier). Again, the numbers are too close to predict a winner.
>
>I don't have any first-hand experience with either of the '97's,
>but I test drove both '94 models (with manual transmissions) --
>and GREATLY prefered the Civic EX. Obviously, many other folks
>did the same thing and reached exactly the opposite conclusion.
>
>In the past year or so, one of the car rags (Road&Track, I think)
>did a direct comparison of those two cars (and about 4 others);
>as I recall, they ranked Civic EX #2 (close behind Mazda Protege).
>The Saturn SL2 finished back in the pack (around 4th out of six?).
>Any Mazda dealer will *happily* give you a reprint of the article.
>
>
>: Price-feature side, Civic EX is definately a winner over SL2, IMHO.
>: With similiar features equipped as Civic EX (power lock/win, remote keyless,
>: moonroof, ABS,air etc), SL2 would be about $17,500, while Civic EX listed as
>: $16480 MSRP.
>
>Huh? WWW.edmunds.com shows the '97 Civic EX 4Dr/AT with an MSRP
>of $17675 (incl freight), and a dealer invoice of $15898 -- your
>figure is for the EX/5-sp (not including freight). OTOH, I'd
>expect the EX/auto "street price" to be a little under $16,500.
>Of course, Saturn dealers get full MSRP -- so any way you slice
>it, the Civic will cost *much* less than the SL2.
>
>
>: Bottom line: 97 Civic EX is a better deal than Saturn SL2.
>
>That would be *my* choice. OTOH, Saturn sells almost as many
>cars as Civic -- so *lots* of folks seem to think otherwise.
>
>
>: Comments?
>
>Honda makes possibly the *very best* manual transmissions ever
>created; if you've ever considered learning (or returning to)
>manual trannies, the Civic 5-sp is an EXCELLENT place to start.
>For $800 *less* you get better gas mileage, better performance,
>better reliability, and *more fun*!
>
>good luck,
>
>Mark
I went through the same evaluation last July and August. I purchased a '96 Civic EX sedan
with 5-speed, CD player and floor mats for $16,350. The Saturn is a nice car, and a good
value with more options available like traction control and alloy wheels at a reasonable
price; however, our local dealer could not find a car with the options I wanted. The Civic
EX comes with everything (except alloys, of course; a stupid omission by Honda in my opinion)
and despite the popularity of the car, my local dealer was able to get me one within two weeks
of making the purchase decision. The Honda feels a little bigger inside too, and what's with
the strange "eyebrow" on the Saturn's dashboard on the passenger side?
My 2 cents worth...
...Gordon, near Boston
Bentley
Bill Chi Shun Ho, Ph.D. (bil...@cyberramp.net) said something like:
: > Bottom line: 97 Civic EX is a better deal than Saturn SL2.
: cost and insurance), SL2 may be cheaper in a long run. Compare the
: insurance qoute and extension warranty cost too.
And not to forget resale. Hondas have an enviable reputation in this
category, but basically NOBODY beats Saturn. One could easily recoup a
small difference in initial cost two years down the road.
ron...@eden.com
In article <55t2nj$d...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu>, p...@cs.buffalo.edu
says...
>
>Mazda *Protege*?!?!?! Did they redesign this car in the last 2-3 years?
>I drove all three while shopping in late 1993-1994, and Protege couldn't
They did a complete redesign for the 1995? (correct me if I'm wrong
Mazda-philes out there) model year. It's now pretty nice, with a 122
(according to R&T) hp engine optional. I drove one, and thought it was very
nice for it's class. Not as fast as a good Neon, but definitely able to merge
with little difficulty.
Ron O'Neill
Xiao-Long Li
In article <55o5eb$p...@news.usf.edu>, W Hou <h...@monty.marine.usf.edu> wrote:
>(I am buying a 97 Saturn SL2, then I came across Honda Civic 4D EX Sedan...)
>(all models are automatic here)
>First of all, is Civic EX Sedan still considered a subcompact??
Yes. They are classified by EPA figures.
>
>Engine 1.6L I4 1.9L I4
>Valves 16 16
>Horsepower 127 @ 6600 124 @ 5600
>Torque 107 @ 5500 122 @ 4800
>
>I guess it is the engine size, since Civic EX has 1.6liter engine while SL2
>has a 1.9 or 2.4liter. I am a bit confused here, who's more powerful here? EX
>has 127hp with 1.6liter, and SL2 with 1.9liter only got 124...
That is only 3 hp difference. However if you look at it carefully,
Saturn is much more powerful. @ 5600 rpm, Saturn already reaches 124 hp,
but civic doesn't even come close. Beside, when you talk about power,
torque is very very important. Saturn has 122 ft-lb of torque @ 4800
which is also much lower than civic's 5500 rpm and therefore it is more
useful.
>Price-feature side, Civic EX is definately a winner over SL2, IMHO.
>With similiar features equipped as Civic EX (power lock/win, remote keyless,
>moonroof, ABS,air etc), SL2 would be about $17,500, while Civic EX listed as
>$16480 MSRP.
>Bottom line: 97 Civic EX is a better deal than Saturn SL2.
No, have you ever looked at all the features? Saturn has Traction control
that Civic don't even offer. Beside, the SL2 comes with Alloy wheel and
security system. Also, Sl2's AC is much better than Civic's.
Did you say that you are looking at automatic trasmission? SL2 use "fuzzy
logic" in its transmission which is probably the BEST in its class.
Just my thought.
I am very happy with my loaded 96 Green SL2.
--
Xiao-Long Li (Shaw) :) (Undergraduate, EE & ME)
School of Electrical Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering
Internet: gt6...@prism.gatech.edu Mailbox: 336374, Georgia Tech Station
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332-1675
Xiao-Long Li
In article <55sm6l$1n...@node2.frontiernet.net>,
David Masten <mas...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Thanks for clearing that up. I recall that issue. GM's cars finished 6th,
>7th, 8th (I think it was Saturn, Geo (ne-Corolla) Prizm, Grand Am, in that
>order). The other cars in it, aside the above, were the Stratus, Contour (4
>cyl), and Sentra? Interesting to see the Civics, et al, be considered
>competition for cars that are often considered in the Accord class. But truth
>is, the Civic has grown quite a bit and (like most of its direct competitors)
>isn't the cheap econobox many still consider it.
But Civic was in the bottom Four in performance!
John C. Toman
In my post a couple of days ago comparing Honda and Saturn prices, I
forgot to add the price of the automatic transmission to the Saturn.
This has been pointed out to me, and I apologize for the error.
Here are the corrected prices:
Honda Civic EX Sedan MSRP: $17280 (info from www.edmunds.com)
Saturn SL2 Sedan MSRP: $17030 (info from www.saturncars.com)
The $250 difference in price is not significant, and is probably more
than done away with when you bargain. Our local Honda dealers, though,
seem to like to add extra markup to the MSRP. This being said, we have
both types of cars in the family (although our 2 97 Saturns are SL1s and
the Civic EX and Civic DX are coupes, not sedans). Here's our
experience:
- The Civic is a little quieter
- Handling is very similar
- Insurance on Saturns is less
- If you maintain your own car, you will find Saturn parts less costly
- If you are tall, you will appreciate the extra headroom in the Saturn,
both front and rear (this is a large factor for me personally -- I
am forced to recline the seat to drive a Civic)
- Resale value will slightly favor the Honda
- Saturn stereo systems sound better than those in the Hondas
- Our reliability with both types of cars has been excellent
- There is a significant difference in the buying experience between
Hondas and Saturns that favors the Saturn
The Honda history in the family dates to 1980s, Saturns to 1992. We have
had very few problems with either brand. Either car is a good choice.
Mark Brindle
Bentley (ben...@access2.digex.net) wrote:
: And not to forget resale. Hondas have an enviable reputation in this
: category, but basically NOBODY beats Saturn. One could easily recoup a
: small difference in initial cost two years down the road.
I'm not so sure about that. Most publications that report resale
values state them as a percentage of MSRP; of course, the *true*
"retained value" must be stated as % of *what you actually paid*.
Since Saturns sell at full MSRP while most other mass-market cars
sell at 10%-15% discounts, published figures typically understate
retained values (of non-Saturns) by 5%-8%.
And please don't forget about interest and time-value-of-money;
that "extra $1000" that you're planning to "recoup" in two years
is gonna cost you $120 in interest -- and possibly *much* more in
lost ROI. (Take a look at stock-index funds over the past 2 yr!)
Even ignoring ROI, you'll lose another $50-$100 to inflation.
You can think of cars as a "necessary evil" or as "entertainment",
but no matter how you cut it, *any* car is a *horrible* investment.
...and I love 'em,
Mark
Mark Brindle
P.C. Kilinskas (p...@cs.buffalo.edu) wrote:
: On 6 Nov 1996 01:20:42 GMT, bri...@lf.hp.com (Mark Brindle) wrote:
: >In the past year or so, one of the car rags (Road&Track, I think)
: >did a direct comparison of those two cars (and about 4 others);
: >as I recall, they ranked Civic EX #2 (close behind Mazda Protege).
: >The Saturn SL2 finished back in the pack (around 4th out of six?).
: >Any Mazda dealer will *happily* give you a reprint of the article.
: Mazda *Protege*?!?!?! Did they redesign this car in the last 2-3 years?
Yep, they were totally redesigned for '95 (or maybe '96?).
: I drove all three while shopping in late 1993-1994, and Protege couldn't
: even come close to the Civic EX or the Saturn SL2. (Personally, I
: preferred the Saturn, even though the Civic was lower priced for the
: same features; the Saturn seemed better thought out, and had better
: acceleration and visibility, and handling equal to the Civic).
I guess that's why they make chocolate AND vanilla. I helped my
daughter shop for a new car in '94 and she absolutely *hated* the
SL2. We both thought the '94 Protege LX/5-sp was the most fun to
drive, but it had those stupid electric seat belts and no ABS --
so she got a Civic EX 4dr/5sp (for $thousands$ less than the SL2).
: I still remember during my test drive that tiny Protege engine whirring
: pathetically at 4500rpm while I tried to merge onto the freeway. Maybe
: things have changed.
Funny, *I* remember the Protege *singing joyfully* at 6500+ rpm
on the freeway ramps. I sure hope they haven't changed *that*.
Saturn had more low-end torque, but it was *not* a happy camper
above 4000 rpm -- and neither was the Saturn sales droid.
...rpms are our friends,
Mark
Dennis Z Kuo
P.C. Kilinskas (p...@cs.buffalo.edu) wrote:
: Mazda *Protege*?!?!?! Did they redesign this car in the last 2-3 years?
: even come close to the Civic EX or the Saturn SL2. (Personally, I
: preferred the Saturn, even though the Civic was lower priced for the
: same features; the Saturn seemed better thought out, and had better
: remember during my test drive that tiny Protege engine whirring pathetically
: at 4500rpm while I tried to merge onto the freeway. Maybe things have
: changed.
All of those cars have been redesigned since you saw them--Protege in
'95, Saturn in '95, and Civic in '96. The Protege, by the way, also
received a price cut last year--the '95s were way overpriced, IMO.
There's also a new front end this year, which I think makes the car look
a little nicer. I always thought the new Protege looked kind of funny,
even though it's supposedly a much improved car. I kind of liked the old
one despite the nasty motorized seatbelts--although in '94 it was kind of
getting late into its life cycle.
Viral V. Dave
One can't negotiate when buying a new SL2, ... but when ya start talking
about the EX it's a whole new story. Now, for those that don't bargain,
god help ya not get ripped off buying an import. But for those that do,
buying the Civic has to be better economically than the SL2. Option for
option ... etc......
aight then lata
[\]|_|||<
P.C. Kilinskas
On 6 Nov 1996 01:20:42 GMT, bri...@lf.hp.com (Mark Brindle) wrote:
>In the past year or so, one of the car rags (Road&Track, I think)
>did a direct comparison of those two cars (and about 4 others);
>as I recall, they ranked Civic EX #2 (close behind Mazda Protege).
>The Saturn SL2 finished back in the pack (around 4th out of six?).
>Any Mazda dealer will *happily* give you a reprint of the article.
Mazda *Protege*?!?!?! Did they redesign this car in the last 2-3 years?
I drove all three while shopping in late 1993-1994, and Protege couldn't
even come close to the Civic EX or the Saturn SL2. (Personally, I
preferred the Saturn, even though the Civic was lower priced for the
same features; the Saturn seemed better thought out, and had better
acceleration and visibility, and handling equal to the Civic). I still
remember during my test drive that tiny Protege engine whirring pathetically
at 4500rpm while I tried to merge onto the freeway. Maybe things have
changed.
Phil
--
p...@cs.buffalo.edu
David Masten
In article <55sl1s$g...@netnews.upenn.edu>, ku...@mail.med.upenn.edu (Dennis Z Kuo) wrote:
>Mark Brindle (bri...@lf.hp.com) wrote:
>: Fast Refresh/15 (she...@visi.com) wrote:
>: : >as I recall, they ranked Civic EX #2 (close behind Mazda Protege).
>: : >The Saturn SL2 finished back in the pack (around 4th out of six?).
>: : >Any Mazda dealer will *happily* give you a reprint of the article.
>
>: : comparing '95 models.
>I think you guys are referring to the C/D $16,000 sedan comparo in the
>2/96 issue. Those were definitely '96 models. The SL2 finished sixth
>out of eighth, the Civic LX second, the Protege ES first.
Thanks for clearing that up. I recall that issue. GM's cars finished 6th,
David Masten
In article <55snnv$o...@news3.digex.net>, ben...@access2.digex.net (Bentley) wrote:
>Mark Brindle (bri...@lf.hp.com) said something like:
>: created;
>By the
>time my old CRX Si reached 100,000 miles, the amount of play in the
>gearshift had increased noticeably.
FWIW: Prelude, 130K miles. It isn't quite as perfect as it was new, but it
still is a damn sight better than most of the new cars I've driven (save Hondas
:-))
>And your point about learning on a Honda manual makes sense on the
>surface; a slick transmission and a light clutch help the newbie driver
>gain confidence. However, they might well be spoiled by this combination,
>and when the young driver moves onto less forgiving cars, could well be in
>for an unpleasant surprise. I, for instance, learned to shift in a 1966
>VW, whos balky links made gear selection haphazard at best, and whose
>53bhp engine made starting on hills an excercise in podal coordination.
>Since then, virtually ever manual I've driven has been easy...
I learned on a '78 Ford Fiesta, my first car. The clutch had a very stiff
spring, almost digital. Learning was a chore. The Prelude (car three) was a
godsend. I find it hard to replace it with a $20K car that may be better in
most regards, but has a clunky shifter in comparison. Oh, I still love the
Lude's steering.
David Masten
In article <55so04$o...@news3.digex.net>, ben...@access2.digex.net (Bentley) wrote:
>Bill Chi Shun Ho, Ph.D. (bil...@cyberramp.net) said something like:
>And not to forget resale. Hondas have an enviable reputation in this
>category, but basically NOBODY beats Saturn. One could easily recoup a
>small difference in initial cost two years down the road.
Well, I don't know. It depends how much below list you get the Honda for.
Saturns do have great resale, but part is an illusion due to the way resale is
usually looked at (used wholesale or retail vs new retail). If one did it by
used value vs new *actual* price, every other car comes up a few notches,
except Saturn. I recently looked at the resale of some Civics against the
Saturns and concluded that the Civic actually came out superior.
But yes, the Saturn does have excellent resale.
Fast Refresh/15
On 7 Nov 1996 13:21:03 GMT, ben...@access2.digex.net (Bentley) wrote:
>And your point about learning on a Honda manual makes sense on the
>surface; a slick transmission and a light clutch help the newbie driver
>gain confidence. However, they might well be spoiled by this combination,
>and when the young driver moves onto less forgiving cars, could well be in
>for an unpleasant surprise. I, for instance, learned to shift in a 1966
>VW, whos balky links made gear selection haphazard at best, and whose
>53bhp engine made starting on hills an excercise in podal coordination.
>Since then, virtually ever manual I've driven has been easy...
Hmm, I learned how to drive stick on an '83 Ford Escort 4 speed.
The Escort was much more forgiving than the Integra.
Steve
However the Integra is still much more fun to drive. :)
Fast Refresh/15
On Fri, 08 Nov 96 01:48:01 GMT, mas...@frontiernet.net (David Masten)
wrote:
Basically I agree. Although my experience has been that Honda does
not discount... or at least plays the "we don't discount" game very
well.
Numerous reports in this newsgroup also indicate that Honda has a
short supply of Civics and dealerships are actually trying to price
them above MSRP.
I don't think it's safe to generalize on this in this particular
case.
Paul B. Miller
I learned to drive a stick on VW Golf in Downtown Paris. I learned
fast. Now I bave a 93 Nissan Sentra, whose manual transmission sounds
similar to what you Honda guys are describing: silky smooth with a
light clutch. When I went back to Paris and drove my mother in law's
Golf again, it was like driving a truck, and I downloaded from fifth to
second on the highway!
How can anybody go back to an automatic anyway?
Dennis Z Kuo
Xiao-Long Li (gt6...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
: In article <55sm6l$1n...@node2.frontiernet.net>,
: David Masten <mas...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
: >Thanks for clearing that up. I recall that issue. GM's cars finished 6th,
: >order). The other cars in it, aside the above, were the Stratus, Contour (4
: >cyl), and Sentra? Interesting to see the Civics, et al, be considered
: >competition for cars that are often considered in the Accord class. But truth
: >is, the Civic has grown quite a bit and (like most of its direct competitors)
: >isn't the cheap econobox many still consider it.
: But Civic was in the bottom Four in performance!
Look closely...that was the Civic LX that they tested, which has 106 hp,
gets 33 mpg in the city, and scooted from 0-60 on 9.4 seconds, which
isn't exactly asking for a whole lot of patience. But this guy is asking
about the Civic EX.
Frank Rouse
In article <55t2nj$d...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
You obviously did not drive the dohc 125 bhp version. That car will
eat a civic ex. I have been very happy with my 93 Protege and have had
no trouble outrunning the civic ex's I meet.
In all fairness the car is not badged at all to look like a fast car.
I usually can get a jump on any car at a light just because they don't
consider the car a threat.
Cheers
#include <std.disclaimer> "Somebody has to do something, and it's
Frank Rouse just incredible pathetic it has to be us."
email fro...@nortel.ca Research Triangle Park, NC - Jerry Garcia
Joseph Koral
Frank Rouse wrote:
> I have have had no trouble outrunning the civic ex's I meet.
I'm confused. How do you know every Civic EX you meet on the road is
trying to race you? Or is it just in your imagination? When another
car accelerates spritedly, do you assume he was racing, and since you're
ahead of him, you won?
> I usually can get a jump on any car at a light just because they don't
> consider the car a threat.
Huh? Now I'm really confused. I don't consider *any* car at any light
a "threat" to me. Whether it's a Protege or a Porsche next to me at a
light, I don't rate the car with some "threat" factor and accelerate
accordingly. Do you really go around on public roads thinking you're
racing every car at every stop light?
How long have you had your license? You have the mentality of a 16 year
old.
- joseph
John W Gregory
In article <32837A...@tiac.net>, Joseph Koral <jko...@tiac.net> wrote:
>Huh? Now I'm really confused. I don't consider *any* car at any light
>a "threat" to me. Whether it's a Protege or a Porsche next to me at a
>light, I don't rate the car with some "threat" factor and accelerate
>accordingly.
You obviously need to step away from your computer and get out more.
For most of us here in the real world, each brief pause at a traffic
signal is a life-or-death struggle to assert our utter superiority
as human beings. Mano-a-mano combat, whether for a mate or for
first dibs on the next open parking space that will be grabbed ahead
of you if you're not first off the line when that light turns green,
is the rule of the world. Believe otherwise, and you settle for my
leftovers.
8v) for the humor-impaired.
--
John W. Gregory ash...@skypoint.com URL=http://www.skypoint.com/~ashbury
Thought for today:
Does the name... Pavlov... ring a bell?
Mark Brindle
Dennis Z Kuo (ku...@mail.med.upenn.edu) wrote:
: I always thought the new Protege looked kind of funny,
: even though it's supposedly a much improved car. I kind of liked the old
: one despite the nasty motorized seatbelts--although in '94 it was kind of
: getting late into its life cycle.
Yep, IMO the old Protege was one of the best looking small cars
ever -- kinda reminds me of the beautiful old Alfa-Romeo sedans.
regards,
Mark
P.C. Kilinskas
In article <55vm55$b...@brtph500.bnr.ca>, Frank Rouse <fro...@bnr.ca> wrote:
> You obviously did not drive the dohc 125 bhp version. That car will
>no trouble outrunning the civic ex's I meet.
>
>consider the car a threat.
What I drove was the base model, so what you say makes sense to me.
IMHO, the low-end torque of a 124hp Saturn SL2 makes it the
fastest off the line in its class, though. Observing how fast you can
outrun other models is no substitute for actually driving them yourself,
though; you have no idea how much the other driver was pushing his Civic
EX.
Phil
--
p...@cs.buffalo.edu
Mark Brindle
Dennis Z Kuo (ku...@mail.med.upenn.edu) wrote:
: : But Civic was in the bottom Four in performance!
: Look closely...that was the Civic LX that they tested, which has 106 hp,
: gets 33 mpg in the city, and scooted from 0-60 on 9.4 seconds, which
: isn't exactly asking for a whole lot of patience. But this guy is asking
: about the Civic EX.
In that case, I'd expect the Civic EX performance to be slightly
better than the Protege's -- very similar peak horsepower hp, but
I think Civic is a bit lighter (and probably has flatter torque).
Mark
Joseph Koral
John W Gregory wrote:
> You obviously need to step away from your computer and get out more.
> For most of us here in the real world, each brief pause at a traffic
> signal is a life-or-death struggle to assert our utter superiority
> as human beings. Mano-a-mano combat, whether for a mate or for
> first dibs on the next open parking space that will be grabbed ahead
> of you if you're not first off the line when that light turns green,
> is the rule of the world. Believe otherwise, and you settle for my
> leftovers.
Very good! *Now* I understand.
- joseph
Mark Brindle
Xiao-Long Li (gt6...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
: That is only 3 hp difference. However if you look at it carefully,
: Saturn is much more powerful. @ 5600 rpm, Saturn already reaches 124 hp,
: but civic doesn't even come close. Beside, when you talk about power,
: torque is very very important. Saturn has 122 ft-lb of torque @ 4800
: which is also much lower than civic's 5500 rpm and therefore it is more
: useful.
This is true only if both cars have identical gear ratios. They don't.
When comparing cars with similar (peak) power ratings, absolute torque
values and absolute rpms are meaningless -- what *is* important is the
*shape* of the torque-vs-rpm curve. The car with the "flatter" torque
curve will always deliver more "useful power" (unless the manufacturer
has screwed-up badly on gear selection).
While I haven't seen either torque curve, it's a *very* safe bet that
the Civic's is flatter -- because the *entire point* of a VTEC engine
is to flatten the torque-vs-rpm curve by varying valve-timing.
...just drive 'em,
Mark
Bentley
: Fast Refresh/15 wrote:
: > >53bhp engine made starting on hills an excercise in podal coordination.
: > >Since then, virtually ever manual I've driven has been easy...
: >
: > Hmm, I learned how to drive stick on an '83 Ford Escort 4 speed.
: >
: > The Escort was much more forgiving than the Integra.
"Fast Refresh," your post didn't make it to my newsreader, so I'm replying
to a reply. (Digex's news is majorly hosed lately). What do you mean by
"forgiving?" The clutch? Or an imprecise gear change (getting it
not-quite-completely in the gate)? What year Integra do you have? I've
driven several examples of each generation (and even owned one) and, if
anything, have found the trannies to be even tigher than more pedestrian
Honda's. And I have some experience with early Escorts, and simply can't
believe someone is making a comparison... Perhaps your's is worn or
defective? Did you buy it new (the car, not the tranny :) ?
Xiao-Long Li
In article <5609bc$q...@hpavua.lf.hp.com>,
Mark Brindle <bri...@lf.hp.com> wrote:
>This is true only if both cars have identical gear ratios. They don't.
>When comparing cars with similar (peak) power ratings, absolute torque
>values and absolute rpms are meaningless -- what *is* important is the
>*shape* of the torque-vs-rpm curve. The car with the "flatter" torque
>curve will always deliver more "useful power" (unless the manufacturer
>has screwed-up badly on gear selection).
yes. "flatter" torque usually mean that Max torques comes in at a really
usefully rpm range. However, if you look at the data carefully, then
you should see that Saturn has a Max Torque of 122 at 4800rpm and Civic
has a Max torque of 107@5500 rpm. That is a hugh difference. Beside,
Saturn has a useful torque of 114@ 2400 rpm. that is still more Torque
than Civic's Max torque. Okay, it is true that Gear ratios plays a big
difference. But there won't be hugh difference. So, when you test 0-60,
usually the car with more low-end torque wins. (assumming that they have
similar weight and gear ratios)
>While I haven't seen either torque curve, it's a *very* safe bet that
>the Civic's is flatter -- because the *entire point* of a VTEC engine
>is to flatten the torque-vs-rpm curve by varying valve-timing.
No, If you look at both their Torque rating at different RPMs, then you
will find out.
BTW, I have driven Civic Ex [AT&MT] and Saturn SL2 [AT&MT] before I bought
my SL2.
4tune8
Xiao-Long Li wrote:
> >While I haven't seen either torque curve, it's a *very* safe bet that
> >the Civic's is flatter -- because the *entire point* of a VTEC engine
> >is to flatten the torque-vs-rpm curve by varying valve-timing.
> No, If you look at both their Torque rating at different RPMs, then you
> will find out.
> BTW, I have driven Civic Ex [AT&MT] and Saturn SL2 [AT&MT] before I bought
> my SL2.
I think you all are missing one of the most pertinant points of this
discussion - the stigma of driving a Uranus, er Saturn! I have grown to
hate Saturn drivers, because evertime I see one, the driver is doing
5mph under the speed limit in the left lane, making left turns from the
right lane (and vice-versa), not noticing traffic light changes, waiting
for 500 feet of clearance before starting a left turn, and other
annoying or dangerous practices, blithly unaware of the rest of the
world. It's like they just don't get it, they want to be part of the
moterhead mentality without investing the time to actually learn
anything about the hobby. I'd turn down a free Saturn, I'd be too
embarrassed to drive or even sell one (and admit that I once owned it.)
No flames please, this is all my humble opinion, the view from my little
corner of the world, and it may not jibe with your perspective...
--
___________________________________________________
| GENERIC GENERIC GENERIC GENERIC GENERIC GENERIC |
|___________________________________________________|
Ellen Prince
In article <328632...@badger1.net>, 4tune8 <4tu...@badger1.net> wrote:
<snip>
>I think you all are missing one of the most pertinant points of this
>discussion - the stigma of driving a Uranus, er Saturn! I have grown to
>hate Saturn drivers, because evertime I see one, the driver is doing
>5mph under the speed limit in the left lane, making left turns from the
>right lane (and vice-versa), not noticing traffic light changes, waiting
>for 500 feet of clearance before starting a left turn, and other
>annoying or dangerous practices, blithly unaware of the rest of the
>world. It's like they just don't get it, they want to be part of the
>moterhead mentality without investing the time to actually learn
>anything about the hobby. I'd turn down a free Saturn, I'd be too
>embarrassed to drive or even sell one (and admit that I once owned it.)
>
>No flames please, this is all my humble opinion, the view from my little
>corner of the world, and it may not jibe with your perspective...
Not meant as a flame but -- that's like saying you won't use the Internet
because there are a lot of idiots posting.
I never understood why companies spend so much money advertising the 'image' of
their product as opposed to its quality, but now I'm getting the picture...
Mike Chytracek
: (I am buying a 97 Saturn SL2, then I came across Honda Civic 4D EX Sedan...)
: (all models are automatic here)
(1) Go so a dealer where they have several used Civics and Saturns.
(2) Drive a Saturn with 100,000 miles (Good luck finding one)
Ok. Just drive a used Saturn...
(3) Drive a CIVIC with 100,000+ miles on it.
You should be able to find plenty because former Honda owners
have no problem buying used Honda's with 100,000+ on them.
They all know they last longer than that. Hence- Dealers
don't ship them immediately to the auction because they
know they can move them. (Unless they are ratty inside from
lack of care)
If that doesn't sell you a Honda, nothing will. Buy into the
'we'll suck your ass to sell you a car mentality' that Saturn sells.
Saturn doesn't sell cars, it sells image.
That's good marketing. But you're not buying jeans or purfume.
You're buying the second most expensive thing most people will buy in
a lifetime...
PS. Bring earplugs when you drive the Saturn.
Just my humble opinion. Oh and as for resale value. Take this for
what's it worth. A leasing companies survival depends on knowing future
values of vehicles before it leases them. Compare a Civic with a
comparable MSRP (Must me as close as possible to get an accurate measure)
Saturn on a lease. The Civic is usually 30-50 bucks cheaper than the
Saturn. Why.. higher residual value.
Proof on command if needed.
MC
Joe and Sandy Zell
> In article <55t2nj$d...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
> P.C. Kilinskas <p...@cs.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> >Mazda *Protege*?!?!?! Did they redesign this car in the last 2-3 years?
> >I drove all three while shopping in late 1993-1994, and Protege couldn't
> >even come close to the Civic EX or the Saturn SL2. (Personally, I
> >preferred the Saturn, even though the Civic was lower priced for the
> >same features; the Saturn seemed better thought out, and had better
> >acceleration and visibility, and handling equal to the Civic). I still
> >remember during my test drive that tiny Protege engine whirring pathetically
> >at 4500rpm while I tried to merge onto the freeway. Maybe things have
> >changed.
> >
> >Phil
> >--
> >p...@cs.buffalo.edu
Yes, they did, in '95. The first Protege I drove was the SOHC one, and
it was pretty weak. But the ES model (DOHC, 124 hp) is great. That's
what I drive now. I test drove an SL2 a few times, and it was good, but
I think the Protege is much better. It has about the same hp as the
SL2, don't know about the torque though. In a review Road and Track did
last year, the Civic was a bit faster to 60 because it could stay in 2nd
gear while the Protege had to go to third.
Curtis Martin
please use an independent financing institution so as to eliminate those
pesky factory subsidy issues. Seems that when a manufacturer wants to get
cars on the road they often inflate the residual so as to get a lower
payment. But then I assume that you already knew that. As a consumer,
this is great as long as you don't actually want to convert to a buy at
any time during or at the end of your contract. As a Sales Consultant, I
can't tell you all how frustrating this can be at times when a competitor
has the ability to tip the table in their direction by using incentivised
leases, but I do understand that this is how everyone else does play the
game. I will also admit that the Civic is a great car and in reality the
number one reason that Saturn exists. I can't say that Saturn has
eclipsed Honda yet, but I am proud to be part of an American Car company
that is trying to do just that. Saturn does sell cars, and yes Saturn
does sell image. I am proud of both.
Fay Curtis
Just a note re Saturn - be sure to carry comprehensive, the windshields
are astronomical if you ever break one!
--
Fay Curtis
Webmistress
http://www.the-grizz.com
It's a dog's world!
Mark Brindle
Xiao-Long Li (gt6...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
: Mark Brindle <bri...@lf.hp.com> wrote:
MB: This is true only if both cars have identical gear ratios. They don't.
MB: When comparing cars with similar (peak) power ratings, absolute torque
MB: values and absolute rpms are meaningless -- what *is* important is the
MB: *shape* of the torque-vs-rpm curve. The car with the "flatter" torque
MB: curve will always deliver more "useful power" (unless the manufacturer
MB: has screwed-up badly on gear selection).
XL: yes. "flatter" torque usually mean that Max torques comes in at a
XL: really usefully rpm range.
No, "flatter" means... well, "more flat". Replot torque-vs-rpm
using "% redline" as the X-axis and "% max torque" as the Y-axis.
For any reasonable automobile engine, the curve with the larger
area will have the "flatter" torque characteristic.
XL: However, if you look at the data carefully, then you should see
XL: that Saturn has a Max Torque of 122 at 4800rpm and Civic has a
XL: Max torque of 107@5500 rpm. That is a hugh difference.
I'd hardly call a 14% difference "huge" -- a 14% difference in
gear ratios will yield identical torque *AT THE DRIVE WHEELS*.
Also note that both are generating nearly identical horsepower
at peak torque (i.e., 111.5 hp for Saturn, 112.1 hp for Civic);
so, a 14% gear-ratio adjustment yields a nearly perfect match.
XL: Beside, Saturn has a useful torque of 114@ 2400 rpm. that
XL: is still more Torque than Civic's Max torque. Okay, it is
XL: true that Gear ratios plays a big difference. But there
XL: won't be hugh difference.
A 14% difference in gear ratios "plays a difference" of 14% --
no more, no less. With appropriate gearing, there's virtually
no difference whatsoever between the number you've presented.
This one can only be decided at the drag strip!
XL: So, when you test 0-60, usually the car with more low-end
XL: torque wins. (assumming that they have similar weight and
XL: gear ratios)
Most of the cars I've driven won't reach 60 mph until nearly
redline in 2nd gear -- and some won't quite reach 60 without
shifting into 3rd. Thus, 0-60 ETs are reasonable indicators
of "useful power" -- integrated over the *entire* rpm range.
If you don't wind-it-out to redline in both 1st and 2nd, you
*WILL* lose the 0-60 run against *any* car of similar hp/wt.
And *why* on earth would you assume similar gear ratios? If
SL2 and Civic EX *do* have similar gear ratios, you can only
assume that one company or the other hired some exceptionally
stupid engineers. Since that hardly seems likely, I'll go out
on a limb and *guess* that Honda's engineers selected overall
gear ratios about 14% lower than Saturn's engineers used.
...have you hugged an engineer today?
Mark
davs...@ix.netcom.com
4tune8 <4tu...@badger1.net> wrote:
>Xiao-Long Li wrote:
>> >While I haven't seen either torque curve, it's a *very* safe bet that
>> >the Civic's is flatter -- because the *entire point* of a VTEC engine
>> >is to flatten the torque-vs-rpm curve by varying valve-timing.
>> No, If you look at both their Torque rating at different RPMs, then you
>> will find out.
>> BTW, I have driven Civic Ex [AT&MT] and Saturn SL2 [AT&MT] before I bought
>> my SL2.
>I think you all are missing one of the most pertinant points of this
>discussion - the stigma of driving a Uranus, er Saturn! I have grown to
>hate Saturn drivers, because evertime I see one, the driver is doing
>5mph under the speed limit in the left lane, making left turns from the
>right lane (and vice-versa), not noticing traffic light changes, waiting
>for 500 feet of clearance before starting a left turn, and other
>annoying or dangerous practices, blithly unaware of the rest of the
>world. It's like they just don't get it, they want to be part of the
>moterhead mentality without investing the time to actually learn
>anything about the hobby. I'd turn down a free Saturn, I'd be too
>embarrassed to drive or even sell one (and admit that I once owned it.)
>No flames please, this is all my humble opinion, the view from my little
>corner of the world, and it may not jibe with your perspective...
>--
> ___________________________________________________
>| GENERIC GENERIC GENERIC GENERIC GENERIC GENERIC |
>|___________________________________________________|
Let's see, you slander virtually every reader of this news group with
your bizarre stereotypes, and then you request "no flames please". You
must be a prime jerk. IMHO. BTW, I'm confident that those of us who
drive Saturn Cars would be embarrassed to have you among our number.
Oh, no flames please, it's just my humble opinion
Craig Bates
In article <328632...@badger1.net>, 4tu...@badger1.net wrote:
>I think you all are missing one of the most pertinant points of this
>discussion - the stigma of driving a Uranus, er Saturn! I have grown to
>hate Saturn drivers, because evertime I see one, the driver is doing
>5mph under the speed limit in the left lane, making left turns from the
>right lane (and vice-versa), not noticing traffic light changes, waiting
>for 500 feet of clearance before starting a left turn, and other
>annoying or dangerous practices, blithly unaware of the rest of the
>world. It's like they just don't get it, they want to be part of the
>moterhead mentality without investing the time to actually learn
>anything about the hobby. I'd turn down a free Saturn, I'd be too
>embarrassed to drive or even sell one (and admit that I once owned it.)
>
>No flames please, this is all my humble opinion, the view from my little
>corner of the world, and it may not jibe with your perspective...
That is interesting that this is what you have observed. That is the opposite
of what I see around where I live. The Saturn drivers are hauling ass in the
left lane and moving in and out of traffic with ease. Of course, I live in a
college town so that might bias the sample somewhat. However, I haven't seen
behavior like you mention at all. There are much bigger groups of people who
drive other types of cars that do stuff like that.
Also, I think the fact that you drive a Saturn makes people think you are
cooler. They frequently ask about my car, and lots of people want one.
People always want to ride with me.
Craig
Darren Byrd
In article <567ltg$2j...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>, cba...@psu.edu says...
I agree I goto a small school of roughly 12,000 people. Every weekend
more than half go home to Houston or Dallas. Everytime I've gone home
The left lane is full of nothing but Saturns (Including my 97 SC2)
zooming by all the other traffic. Its mostly the Sx2's I see zooming. I
think there are two distinct types of Saturn drivers also Sx1's and
Sx2's.
Darren
3 time Saturn owner
1997 Saturn SC2
Mike Chytracek
Ok. Here's the facts. All residuals are current as of 11/11/96 as well
are the money factors. Money down and a trade can skew these numbers
as I'm sure you know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used a SL2 4dr Automatic A/C and power everything MSRP $16,345.00
And a Civic LX 4d Auto A/C power everything MSRP $15,845.00
Then Added a Cassette for (At Max allowable Hard Add) 300.00
-------
MSRP $16,145
This was as close as I could get to matching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Manhattan Money Factor .00350
Saturn residuals Term in Mos 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Residuals % 70 66 63 60 55 52 49
Civic residuals Residuals % 72 68 65 61 59 55 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I figured a 24 Month Lease, 12,000 Mile / Year. NO MONEY DOWN.
Saturn 352.16
Civic 321.07 These are at MSRP
the Civic can actually Lease for 291.90 (Hmm. $61 Difference!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gecal's Factor was .00379 for Saturn and .00339 for Honda
GeCal Likes Honda's :^)
24 Mos / 12,000 Miles per year. NO MONEY DOWN.
Gaps were similiar I used 24 Mos. 69 % for Saturn
76 % for Civic
Saturn $353.10
Civic $307.55 AT MSRP A $46 Difference
Civic actual Lease cost $274.00 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The two largest Lease Companies.
One thing you also have to understand is the reason Saturns have
retained most of their value is because on the NEW market, people
pay STICKER. This allows the dealers selling USED SATURNS sell them
at outrageously high prices and still retain a large enough gap
from the new ones. It's a GM product for God's sake. What makes them
different from other GM cars. Same parts from same plants.
Victor A. Mercado
: Also, I think the fact that you drive a Saturn makes people think you are
: People always want to ride with me.
:
: Craig
out i thought they were plastic looking pieces of %&^$ but they have
evolved well... I think it was the saturn coupe that turned me around... I
used to pass by one everyday or so.. I think it was the second
modification to the coupe.. I still think the original coup and sedan
are/were butt ugly.. this current model sedan is great.. If i was gonna
purchase a car on that level it'd be the saturn sedan.. it looks much
better than the unfortunatley badly styled new civic, the toyota Corrola
(spelling?) , the escort (blah!!), sentra (worst styling)
I see someone driving a saturn and i think the person is buying a car
because of the practicality and the nice look.. they're not trying to
"look cool" .. so they do..
do you know what i mean???
P.C. Kilinskas
>I have grown to
>hate Saturn drivers, because evertime I see one, the driver is doing
>5mph under the speed limit in the left lane, making left turns from the
This would be similar to hating posters from badger1.net, just because
every post I've seen from that domain (all 1 of them) has been mindless
drivel.
Karen Chiu
4tune8 wrote:
>
> Xiao-Long Li wrote:
> > >While I haven't seen either torque curve, it's a *very* safe bet that
> > >the Civic's is flatter -- because the *entire point* of a VTEC engine
> > >is to flatten the torque-vs-rpm curve by varying valve-timing.
> > No, If you look at both their Torque rating at different RPMs, then you
> > will find out.
> > BTW, I have driven Civic Ex [AT&MT] and Saturn SL2 [AT&MT] before I bought
> > my SL2.
>
> hate Saturn drivers, because evertime I see one, the driver is doing
> 5mph under the speed limit in the left lane, making left turns from the
> for 500 feet of clearance before starting a left turn, and other
> annoying or dangerous practices, blithly unaware of the rest of the
> world. It's like they just don't get it, they want to be part of the
> moterhead mentality without investing the time to actually learn
> anything about the hobby. I'd turn down a free Saturn, I'd be too
> embarrassed to drive or even sell one (and admit that I once owned it.)
>
> No flames please, this is all my humble opinion, the view from my little
> corner of the world, and it may not jibe with your perspective...
I hate to say it, but you're absolutely correct. Everytime I see
a Saturn my defensive driving alarm goes off. I've talked a lot
of people out of buying Saturns, and they always come back later
to thank me for saving them.
Alain Southiere
>While I haven't seen either torque curve, it's a *very* safe bet that
>the Civic's is flatter -- because the *entire point* of a VTEC engine
>is to flatten the torque-vs-rpm curve by varying valve-timing.
You can find the torque-power curve for Saturns (through 1994) at
http://www.ishare.com/Saturn/features/power.html. The curves for
the Sx2 should be quite similar (from 1995, the Sx1 has a more powerfull
engine).
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find similar information for the
Civics.
>....just drive 'em,
Yep, that's the best way to evaluate a car.
---
Alain Southiere | If fifty million people
Software developper | say a stupid thing, it is
als...@cam.org | still a stupid thing.
http://www.cam.org/~alsouth | - Anatole France
David Masten
In article <56alds$8...@flood.xnet.com>, mik...@flood.xnet.com (Mike Chytracek) wrote:
>
>Ok. Here's the facts. All residuals are current as of 11/11/96 as well
>are the money factors. Money down and a trade can skew these numbers
>as I'm sure you know.
Thanx for the info. Nice to see some data.
>One thing you also have to understand is the reason Saturns have
>retained most of their value is because on the NEW market, people
>pay STICKER. This allows the dealers selling USED SATURNS sell them
>at outrageously high prices and still retain a large enough gap
>from the new ones.
As an aside, shouldn't that mean that owners selling the cars should see that
benefit too? Question is: do they? Or is somehow, the dealer, and their
mystical marketting magic, the sole beneficiary? I wonder if the difference in
resale between dealers and owners is bigger, smaller, or same with Saturns. I
dare anyone to show me data on *that* :-)
> It's a GM product for God's sake. What makes them
>different from other GM cars. Same parts from same plants.
Well, it is the only GM car that uses the 1.9, developed for the Saturn. They
may be the only GM car using plastic panels soon (if not already?). I can't
comment on other parts. BTW, BMW uses some GM automatic transmissions. And
Delphi, part of, and the main parts supplier to GM, also sells to other
companies. In fact, about 1/3 of their sales are outside GM. So those same
parts from same plants might be in your car too!
Craig Bates
In article <328968...@worldnet.att.net>, chiu-...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>I hate to say it, but you're absolutely correct. Everytime I see
>a Saturn my defensive driving alarm goes off. I've talked a lot
>of people out of buying Saturns, and they always come back later
>to thank me for saving them.
Where do you people drive? You and that guy from badger.net or whatever must
be in some evil parallel universe. I have consistently seen exactly the
opposite behavior from Saturn drivers from what you observe. You are probably
seeing the same person every day on the road who does stupid stuff. Are you
sure that your aren't mixing Neons up with Saturns? I have seen some sort of
consistently annoying driving behavior from Neon drivers. They think they are
driving some sort of sports car and do things like nearly wipe out on curves,
etc. Not that all Neon drivers are annoying people who can't drive. It could
be that I just notice them because the cars don't blend into the normal soup
of frustrated commuters like those anonymous Civics do. The same could be why
you seem to see lots of stupid Saturn drivers.
This thread has the potential to degenerate even more -- how about the traits
of different sexes and races when it comes to driving? Where is this going to
stop? I could mention some definite trends when it comes to certain kinds of
drivers and stupid stuff (I am a volunteer EMT, I have seen PLENTY of foolish
driving by other people) but that would be counter-productive. Incidentally,
I can't remember the last time that a Saturn driver didn't pull over to the
right for the ambulance. I have seen plenty of Civic drivers ignore us. What
does that mean? Probably nothing at all. Does it mean that Civic drivers
can't drive worth a damn? Probably not. Once certain people start to figure
that out we won't have these silly discussion anymore.
Craig
Kamki Shek
Read the Car and Driver, Hot Rod, Magazines.....
The Honda Civic EX outscore Saturn SL2 in all different area....
U can only see street racers modify Civic EX not Saturn.
U cannot determine a car by just comparing the size of the cylinder or the
horsepower of it. U have to actually test it on the road.
A HKS modified CIVIC EX can achieve 175 hp (estimate) and had a skippad of
0.9 (top of the class) CIVIC is a performance car and Saturn is for daily
transportation...
Kamki Shek
VISIT THIS HOMEPAGE PLEASE,
Share your pride and joy of the Acura's Legend!!
Come and Comment your excitment and disappointment.
"The unofficial Homepage"
Victor A. Mercado
Kamki Shek (kqs...@is2.nyu.edu) wrote:
: Read the Car and Driver, Hot Rod, Magazines.....
The civic is a little SHIT-BOX... calling it a performance car is
rediculous.... don't get me wrong.. both car are okay but when you start
talk about it as a performance car... a civc is a econobox; strangley
enough these are the car you seem with most modifications.. this is
because people who purchase it as a "performance" car spend their money
and time trying to turn it into something it's not.. YOu don't see this
with saturn coupes (or other saturns).. this give you a hint at the higher
intelligence of saturn owners.. I'm niether a saturn owner nor a civic
owner..
Fast Refresh/15
On 17 Nov 1996 05:54:59 GMT, "Kamki Shek" <kqs...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Read the Car and Driver, Hot Rod, Magazines.....
>
>The Honda Civic EX outscore Saturn SL2 in all different area....
>U can only see street racers modify Civic EX not Saturn.
>
>U cannot determine a car by just comparing the size of the cylinder or the
>horsepower of it. U have to actually test it on the road.
>
>A HKS modified CIVIC EX can achieve 175 hp (estimate) and had a skippad of
>0.9 (top of the class) CIVIC is a performance car and Saturn is for daily
>transportation...
Sigh... If you want performance buy a Dodge Neon ACR package, it'll
cost you thousands less and give you far better performance.
Calling the Civic a performance car is kind of silly, really.
I wouldn't even call my Integra a performance car, yet I think there
is no argument as to what performs better. An Integra LS or a Civic
EX.
At any rate, the discussion was about family transportation.
Michael Cox
> In article <55t2nj$d...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
> P.C. Kilinskas <p...@cs.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> >Mazda *Protege*?!?!?! Did they redesign this car in the last 2-3 years?
> >I drove all three while shopping in late 1993-1994, and Protege couldn't
> >even come close to the Civic EX or the Saturn SL2.
Yes, the redesigned Protege came out in '95. It's like a miniature 626
(have you seen the '97 Escorts? Still built on the same platform.)
I was tempted by the '95 Protege, but the price with the extras I wanted
was a bit steep at the time. (I took the Saturn SC1 instead.)
All in all, Mazda seems to be building the best quality cars of any
"full-line" maker, but the prices reflect it.
MC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Music, Coffee and Baseball | "There's a thin line between
Home Page: | 'politically incorrect' and
http://www.accessone.com/~michaelc | just plain antisocial." -Me
mich...@accessone.com
Chris Mauritz
In rec.autos.makers.saturn Fast Refresh/15 <she...@visi.com> wrote:
:) On 17 Nov 1996 05:54:59 GMT, "Kamki Shek" <kqs...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote:
:) >Read the Car and Driver, Hot Rod, Magazines.....
:) >
:) >The Honda Civic EX outscore Saturn SL2 in all different area....
:) >U can only see street racers modify Civic EX not Saturn.
I guess there's no accounting for taste. :) Though much of this
is probably due to the unavailability of performance parts for
Saturn engines. Fortunately, this is changing. I've been trading
email with a Saturn mechanic who has dyno-ed a turbo-charged 1.9l
twincam Saturn engine at 219bhp @ 5900rpm and I believe he was getting
170-180 ft/lbs of torque. We're talking 0-60 in the low 6's and
1/4 mile times in the low 12's. Yow! :-)
:) >U cannot determine a car by just comparing the size of the cylinder or the
:) >horsepower of it. U have to actually test it on the road.
:) >
:) >A HKS modified CIVIC EX can achieve 175 hp (estimate) and had a skippad of
:) >0.9 (top of the class) CIVIC is a performance car and Saturn is for daily
:) >transportation...
The Saturn SC2 does .9g on the skidpad out of the factory, and that's
with the less-than-optimal Firestone tires. Further, if I wanted to
spend $1.5-2k on engine modifications, I could easily have a 200hp
power plant and an engine with far more torque.
:) Sigh... If you want performance buy a Dodge Neon ACR package, it'll
:) cost you thousands less and give you far better performance.
Yes, that is a nice package.
:) Calling the Civic a performance car is kind of silly, really.
I agree completely.
:) At any rate, the discussion was about family transportation.
In which case any one of the above mentioned vehicles will serve
nicely.
Regards,
Chris
--
Christopher Mauritz | For info on internet access:
ri...@interactive.net | finger/mail in...@interactive.net OR
IBS Interactive, Inc. | http://www.interactive.net/
Ron Adams
Chris Mauritz wrote:
> :) All in all, Mazda seems to be building the best quality cars of any
> :) "full-line" maker, but the prices reflect it.
>
> Well, things like this are so subjective. I actually like Mazda's
> RX-7, but I feel they're a bit behind the feature/styling curve
> on their other models. *shrug*
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
I would have to disagree slightly with the both of you.
As a Mazda 626 owner, I can tell you that they do *not* build the best
quality cars of any full-line maker. I do not dislike my car at all,
but it's quality is not quite equal to the offerings from Toyota &
Honda. Also, I don't think their prices are worse than Honda or
Toyota. You can get a 626 with a V6 and a stick for the price of a
4-cylinder Accord EX, so the prices aren't bad.
Secondly, I don't think that Mazda is behind the feature/styling
curve. I think the shape of the Millenia is beautiful. Also one of the
better appointed cars in it's class. I'd rank the "S" model right up
with the ES300. The Protege is the roomiest car in its class.
I think Mazda represents a strong value in the new car market. They
have fresh ideas, and although they are not the top-selling make, they
are definitely worth taking a look at.
--
Ron Adams
American Internet Corporation
http://www.amerinternet.com
mailto:r...@amerinternet.com
Jason Mansfield Roth
>One thing you also have to understand is the reason Saturns have
>retained most of their value is because on the NEW market, people
>pay STICKER. This allows the dealers selling USED SATURNS sell them
>at outrageously high prices and still retain a large enough gap
>different from other GM cars. Same parts from same plants.
I won't argue the first part much (although Saturn's high resale is no
less well explained by the well-documented _quality_ of the vehicle, as
well as by its well-evidenced consumer appeal; Oldsmobile tried a
no-haggle policy, with little success); but the last line is simply an
announcement of ignorance.
Saturn shares a quitre low percentage of parts with other GM products.
That number, unfortunately, is rising, but the engine, transmission, and
body/chassis are all Saturn-unique. A Delco radio does not offend me. In
addition to parts sources, they are put together (on paper and in the
factory) by Saturn employess who, whether you buy the ad campaign or no,
have shown themnselves to be atypical relative to GM employees as a
whole. Saturn is not studied at business schools becauise of a clever ad
campaign. Saturn has succeeded at building a car that is, at the least,
comparable to Honda and Toyota (and I believe that the differences are
mostly subjective ones, not ones to which an absolute value can be
attached; I _hate_ high-revving Honda engines, and don't mind the Saturn
Twin-Cam at all); at the same time, Saturn has created a corporate and
consumer environment that makes people happy. Like it or not, that's
part of the "free-market". Remember when the Big Three were attacked as
impersonal and evil corporations? Why should that be held against them
then, but Saturn's positive culture somehow considered "cheating," and
not a reflection of the product.
JMR
93 SL2, blue-green
"I never gave anyone hell -- I just told 'em the truth, and they thought
it was hell."
"What's the use of a good house if you don't have a decent planet to put
it on?"
Jason Mansfield Roth
>> discussion - the stigma of driving a Uranus, er Saturn! I have grown to
>> hate Saturn drivers, because evertime I see one, the driver is doing
>> 5mph under the speed limit in the left lane, making left turns from the
>> right lane (and vice-versa), not noticing traffic light changes, waiting
>> for 500 feet of clearance before starting a left turn, and other
>> annoying or dangerous practices, blithly unaware of the rest of the
>> world. It's like they just don't get it, they want to be part of the
>> moterhead mentality without investing the time to actually learn
>> anything about the hobby. I'd turn down a free Saturn, I'd be too
>> embarrassed to drive or even sell one (and admit that I once owned it.)
>>
>> No flames please, this is all my humble opinion, the view from my little
>> corner of the world, and it may not jibe with your perspective...
>
>a Saturn my defensive driving alarm goes off. I've talked a lot
>of people out of buying Saturns, and they always come back later
>to thank me for saving them.
Funny, that's exactly what I've noticed of Hondas.... But I guess you
two must hold the scientific facts in hand, and I must be a fool....
Passing slow Hondas on the right,
Jason in his SL2
Cat Stanton
Now Victor, that's a little harsh, don'tchya think?
My own experience: I bought a 91 Saturn after my 83 Honda Civic
started burning oil horrendously.
Having been both a Saturn owner and a Honda owner, I can state with
assurance that I'll never own another Honda again, while I might
purchase another Saturn one day. My next car will probably be
neither, simply because I won't buy a Honda, and Saturn doesn't
make a convertible automobile.
I was very impressed at what I could buy from Saturn in 1991 for
just over $10k. My car's retail value hovers in the $5-$6k range
right now. Not bad after 5 years and 64,000 miles.
What are my overriding memories of driving a Civic? Cursing at it
when the ignition switch died. Adding a quart of oil each week.
Pushing the pedal to the floor and just sitting there waiting for
it to decide it will go. Bitching at it, threatening to have it
smooshed into a 1x1' metal block because it never started reliably.
Joyously selling it for $1500.
In all fairness, the Civic was indeed eight years old, but it was
a bucket of bolts when I bought it three years earlier, and my current
car, at the same "age" has held up much better.
I was not impressed by Honda and very impressed by Saturn, but your
mileage can and will vary. My Torque Monster does circles around other
cars daily.
And to the person who said all Saturn drivers were molasses-like slugs
and slow, and he'd be embarrassed to drive one: Please put your money
where your mouth is and send me e-mail so I can give you instructions for
reimbursing me for the multiple speeding tickets I've gotten in my Saturn.
Zippy, but unfortunately not always too observant,
Cat (Owner of the Torque Monster)
Cat ------------------------------------------- |\ _,,,--,,_ ,) -------
Visit My Townhouse on the Internet At: /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
http://www.feline.org/feline/ |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
c...@rumpleteazer.feline.org -----DoD #6996----'---''(_/--' (_/-' -----F.Lee--
All unsolicited e-mail advertisements to my mailbox will be assessed a $500 fee
Chris Mauritz
In rec.autos.makers.saturn Michael Cox <mich...@accessone.com> wrote:
:) > In article <55t2nj$d...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
:) > P.C. Kilinskas <p...@cs.buffalo.edu> wrote:
:) > >Mazda *Protege*?!?!?! Did they redesign this car in the last 2-3 years?
:) > >I drove all three while shopping in late 1993-1994, and Protege couldn't
:) > >even come close to the Civic EX or the Saturn SL2.
:) Yes, the redesigned Protege came out in '95. It's like a miniature 626
:) (have you seen the '97 Escorts? Still built on the same platform.)
:) I was tempted by the '95 Protege, but the price with the extras I wanted
:) was a bit steep at the time. (I took the Saturn SC1 instead.)
Yes, that is often the problem with the lower end economy cars (be
it Japanese or American). You really get zinged on the add-ons.
:) All in all, Mazda seems to be building the best quality cars of any
:) "full-line" maker, but the prices reflect it.
Well, things like this are so subjective. I actually like Mazda's
RX-7, but I feel they're a bit behind the feature/styling curve
on their other models. *shrug*
Regards,
Chris
Aardwolf
Cat Stanton wrote:
> I was not impressed by Honda and very impressed by Saturn, but your
> mileage can and will vary. My Torque Monster does circles around other
> cars daily.
After 1983 (or was it '84) the Civic improved noticeably upon redesign.
Before that they were underpowered shitboxes that rusted if left out in a
heavy dew overnight. I see nothing wrong with the current Civic or the
Saturn (although the original styling was much better, looking like a
rather handsome mini-Cutlass instead of a plastic toy). However calling a
Civic a performance car or a Saturn (or virtually any 4cyl car for that
matter) a "torque monster" is ludicrous. Get a grip. If you want to see a
real "torque monster" look at an old example of Detroit Iron from
twenty-thirty years ago with a bonecrushing high-output big-block
V8--some of those put out 450-500+ lbs-ft NET!
No offense intended, BTW.
Aardwolf.
LUKE FERRELL
Oh yeah, and I forgot:
I know several people, including myself, who have Sats and I have never
heard of any panels breaking because of the cold.
Plus: relatively low insurance compared to others in the class, plus
really good milage (better than the EPA listing, IME), and they are fun to
drive. The complaints about the somewhat noisy engine are valid, but many
other aspects of the cars are excellent. IMHO they are a nice balance of
overall good quality, fair pricing, and overall cost-to-own.
luke
LUKE FERRELL
Scott Haas <sco...@meaddata.com> wrote in article
<55st62$c...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>...
> W Hou (h...@monty.marine.usf.edu) wrote:
> : (I am buying a 97 Saturn SL2, then I came across Honda Civic 4D EX
Sedan...)
> : (all models are automatic here)
>
> When I bought my Civic 1 year ago this month, the Saturn was the only car
I hadn't eliminated from my list. Then I started hearing things like: The
Saturn 1.9l engine drinks oil, the plastic body panels rattle because
they're not securely fastened to the space frame and they crack when hit in
cold weather by other vehicle doors. Also, I'm ...>
> Finally (this may sway your final decision), a car mag recently tested 6
cars priced under (or at) $15,000. The test included (if I remember
correctly) a Honda Civic, a Ford Escort, a Chrysler Cirrus, a Saturn SL1, a
Pontiac Grand Am and a Chevrolet ...>
> HTH
>
>
IMHO, the SL1 comparison in that mag is NOT appropriate. Although the SL1
is probably OK, the comparison should have included the SL2 instead, which
is a much better deal, even though it is a bit less inexpensive. HTH's
comments about Hondas ARE valid, and the Saturns are also good cars which
are good deals. :)
luke
David Masten
In article <E12nC...@news.interactive.net>, ri...@onyx.interactive.net (Chris Mauritz) wrote:
>In rec.autos.makers.saturn Fast Refresh/15 <she...@visi.com> wrote:
>:) On 17 Nov 1996 05:54:59 GMT, "Kamki Shek" <kqs...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>:) CIVIC is a performance car and Saturn is for daily transportation...
If this is an accurate quote, I hope you understand that not all Honda
owners believe this drivel.
>The Saturn SC2 does .9g on the skidpad out of the factory, and that's
>with the less-than-optimal Firestone tires.
OTOH, I think that is very optimistic. C&D last reported the previous gen
at .84 ("coupes de grace, March 95). R&T just tested the new one (Dec) at a
disappointing 0.79! Their numbers do tend to be lower than C&D's.
>:) Sigh... If you want performance buy a Dodge Neon ACR package, it'll
>:) cost you thousands less and give you far better performance.
>
>Yes, that is a nice package.
I've been impressed by them in autox. But don't know how they do as daily
drivers. Heck, given that one of the country's top ACR autox'ers drives a
CRX Si to work instead...
D
Joseph Koral
Jason Mansfield Roth wrote:
> Funny, that's exactly what I've noticed of Hondas.... But I guess you
> two must hold the scientific facts in hand, and I must be a fool....
>
> Passing slow Hondas on the right,
> Jason in his SL2
Here's my scientific data from my commute this morning:
- Blew by an SC2 going about 60 in a 65 mph zone. (I was traveling
about 80 mph).
- Got blown away by an SL2 which had to be going 85+ mph.
Conclusion: It's silly to try and sterotype drivers by the make/model of
their car. For every generalization, there will be many exceptions.
- joseph
(Driving neither a Honda, nor a Saturn)
Spyral Fox
In article <56quna$r...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mas...@frontiernet.net
(David Masten) wrote:
= In article <E12nC...@news.interactive.net>, ri...@onyx.interactive.net
(Chris Mauritz) wrote:
[...]
= >:) CIVIC is a performance car and Saturn is for daily transportation...
=
= If this is an accurate quote, I hope you understand that not all Honda
= owners believe this drivel.
[...]
I should hope not. The cars both have different strengths and weaknesses,
and I'm very happy with my Civic (I bought in in March and have now
driven it 13,700+ miles). My Civic (an EX sedan, fwiw) *is* a economy
car, not a performance car, and I use it while making the rounds during my
work day. It has enough performance that I don't get squished on any
on-ramps, but I'm not going to take it to the track.
- - -Adina
"What makes you think I'd do as you say? Ani l'dodi."
4tune8
Michael Cox wrote:
>
> All in all, Mazda seems to be building the best quality cars of any
>
few years, but every mazda I have ever known has self-destructed 5 years
after it was made; little things just keep breaking on them, nickle and
diming the owner to death...
A former RX-7 lover, and current Honda (go COG!) fanatic.
David Masten
In article <3291CC...@realworldcorp.com>, Joseph Koral <jko...@realworldcorp.com>
<328968...@worldnet.att.net> <4mYD9ju00...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Here's my scientific data from my commute this morning:
>
>- Blew by an SC2 going about 60 in a 65 mph zone. (I was traveling
>about 80 mph).
>
>- Got blown away by an SL2 which had to be going 85+ mph.
>
>Conclusion: It's silly to try and sterotype drivers by the make/model of
>their car. For every generalization, there will be many exceptions.
Silly boy. The correct conclusion is that SC2 drivers are all whimpy
wannabees and the SL2 drivers are all maniacs :-)
Yes, this type of generalization is just pure BS. Oh, IMHO.
WHAT?
In article <328f5149...@news.visi.com>, she...@visi.com (Fast Refresh/15) writes:
> On 17 Nov 1996 05:54:59 GMT, "Kamki Shek" <kqs...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>transportation...
175 hp? how bout getting a Viper GTS or RT/10... then get 450hp and
490 ft./lbs. of torque.
This is stock.. w/ the Blower package, you could get into the Mid-600s in
power.. and over 720 in torque.
>
> Sigh... If you want performance buy a Dodge Neon ACR package, it'll
> cost you thousands less and give you far better performance.
Definitely right.
>
> Calling the Civic a performance car is kind of silly, really.
Very....
>
> I wouldn't even call my Integra a performance car, yet I think there
> is no argument as to what performs better. An Integra LS or a Civic
> EX.
>
>
Aardwolf
LUKE FERRELL wrote:
>
> Oh yeah, and I forgot:
>
> I know several people, including myself, who have Sats and I have never
> heard of any panels breaking because of the cold.
Cold will stiffen any body material. Enough to crack it? Doubtful. Maybe if
hit by another car in real cold winter weather, but it's liable to crack if
hit hard enough by another car anyway, just as metal would dent or
crumple. Trucks in Siberia, in extremely cold weather of perhaps -20F
actual air temp or colder, sometimes even break such heavy-gauge steel
components as driveshafts, axles or even frames!
Aardwolf.
Joel Corley
Aardwolf wrote:
>
> LUKE FERRELL wrote:
> >
> > Oh yeah, and I forgot:
> >
> > I know several people, including myself, who have Sats and I have never
> > heard of any panels breaking because of the cold.
>
> Cold will stiffen any body material. Enough to crack it? Doubtful. Maybe if
I wouldn't doubt it. Plastics have thermal coefficients that are a
lot different from the rigid steel frame of the door. *Extreme* cold
could stretch the plastic tightly. In addition, the plastic would
become brittle (less flexible).
It would be nice to hear from a materials expert on this subject
to see what he thinks. Does any reader know one?
The real question seems to be not will the panels break; but how
cold does it have to get? (Obviously the question would have to
be more precise ... specifying the force of the impact, etc.)
Joel
Fast Refresh/15
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:21:14 -0600, Joel Corley <jo...@daldd.sc.ti.com>
wrote:
>Aardwolf wrote:
>> Cold will stiffen any body material. Enough to crack it? Doubtful. Maybe if
>
>I wouldn't doubt it. Plastics have thermal coefficients that are a
>lot different from the rigid steel frame of the door. *Extreme* cold
>could stretch the plastic tightly. In addition, the plastic would
>become brittle (less flexible).
>
>It would be nice to hear from a materials expert on this subject
>to see what he thinks. Does any reader know one?
>
>The real question seems to be not will the panels break; but how
>cold does it have to get? (Obviously the question would have to
>be more precise ... specifying the force of the impact, etc.)
What puzzles me on this urban legend is that the people who raise it
never seem to question the amount of plastic which is in their own
cars and why they don't break.
The entire front shroud and rear bumper cover on my Integra are
plastic.
The entire dashboard is made of plastic, etc...
These pieces never seen to crack just because it get's cold, why
should the plastic in the Saturn be any different?
David Masten
> These pieces never seen to crack just because it get's cold, why
>should the plastic in the Saturn be any different?
Different plastic?
Different stresses placed on it (very thin in the direction of expected
compression forces)?
bill walters
4tune8 (4tu...@badger1.net) wrote:
: Michael Cox wrote:
: >
: > All in all, Mazda seems to be building the best quality cars of any
: > "full-line" maker, but the prices reflect it.
: >
: Well, it is possible that they have changed their quaility in the past
: few years, but every mazda I have ever known has self-destructed 5 years
: after it was made; little things just keep breaking on them, nickle and
: diming the owner to death...
Funny. Sounds like my 83 Accord
--
======================================== \|/ ____ \|/
| Bill Walters | @~/ ., \~0
| e-mail: wwal...@unlinfo.unl.edu | /_( \__/ )_\
Digital Quartz
> What puzzles me on this urban legend is that the people who raise it
> never seem to question the amount of plastic which is in their own
> cars and why they don't break.
>
> The entire front shroud and rear bumper cover on my Integra are
> plastic.
>
> The entire dashboard is made of plastic, etc...
>
> should the plastic in the Saturn be any different?
A Fiero is made entirely out of plastic body pannels, that's why they
always look so 'new'. How many cracked Fiero's have you seen driving
around?
--
Digital Quartz - qua...@ftn.net \O
------------------------------------------------------- |-
Call Binaric Dreams BBS (819) 595-4595 >\
http://www.ftn.net/~quartz/bindrem/index.html
GAT d- s+: a?--- C++++ >UL++++ P+ L>+++++ E? W+++ N+ o? K? w !O M- V?
PS+
!PE Y+>++ PGP>+ t++* 5+ X+ R+ tv-->--- b+ DI? D+ G e-*>+++++ h!>++ r++
y?
Karen Chiu
bill walters wrote:
> : Michael Cox wrote:
> : >
> : > All in all, Mazda seems to be building the best quality cars of any
> : > "full-line" maker, but the prices reflect it.
> : >
> : Well, it is possible that they have changed their quaility in the past
> : few years, but every mazda I have ever known has self-destructed 5 years
> : after it was made; little things just keep breaking on them, nickle and
> : diming the owner to death...
>
Unfortunately they have not changed. Mazda continues the old Japanese
paradigm
of 5 year cars. Honda and Toyota changed this in the 1990's, but in the
70's
and 80's the Honda's and Toyota's also were building 5 year cars. The
reason is
that in Japan it gets more and more expensive to register older cars
because
the government tries to get people to not keep old cars. This is the
opposite
of the U.S.
Mazdas are agressively priced, and if you don't plan on keeping the car
for more
than 3-5 years then they may be a good deal.
Beth
Karen Chiu wrote:
>
> bill walters wrote:
> > : Michael Cox wrote:
> > : >
> > : > All in all, Mazda seems to be building the best quality cars of any
> > : > "full-line" maker, but the prices reflect it.
> > : >
> > : Well, it is possible that they have changed their quaility in the past
> > : few years, but every mazda I have ever known has self-destructed 5 years
> > : after it was made; little things just keep breaking on them, nickle and diming the owner to death...
the little nameplate on the trunklid...everything about a Mazda is a
Ford in disguise... notice the similarities btwn Escort, Protege,
Ranger, B100; Probe, MX6 mystere, Contour/Mystique and 626...
Dan Vandeputte
The MX-6 is Mazda, the 626 is Mazda, and so it the Protege. The Pickup
and Navajo are rebadged Ford's though.
-Dan
"Eventually the winds of judgment will be stirred
A throne of white the book of life referred
See death and hell give up their dead
As the books are being read
A record of each life speaks for itself
Immortality there is a price that must be paid
Indispensable laws that cannot be disobeyed
Circumstantial gravity a weight of great vitality
A warning to us all [be aware]"
from "Consequence" by Cirlce of Dust
Life must go on.................I forget why
Fast Refresh/15
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 18:45:30 -0800, Beth <E_Ch...@tuna.stmarys.ca>
wrote:
>Karen Chiu wrote:
>>
>> bill walters wrote:
>> > : Michael Cox wrote:
>> > : >
>> > : > All in all, Mazda seems to be building the best quality cars of any
>> > : > "full-line" maker, but the prices reflect it.
>> > : >
>> > : Well, it is possible that they have changed their quaility in the past
>> > : few years, but every mazda I have ever known has self-destructed 5 years
>> > : after it was made; little things just keep breaking on them, nickle and diming the owner to death...
>Doesn't this all attribute to the fact that Mazda is only a Mazda by
>the little nameplate on the trunklid...everything about a Mazda is a
>Ford in disguise... notice the similarities btwn Escort, Protege,
>Ranger, B100; Probe, MX6 mystere, Contour/Mystique and 626...
Actually ever since Ford started investing in Mazda, the quality of
both companies cars has improved.
y0h...@acs.tamu.edu
Just some information. If you want to know whether a made in Japan HONDA
cars are better than made in US HONDA, go to http://acs.tamu.edu/~y0h8797/usjpmade.txt.
I collected argument from HONDA group. They also talked about which model
of HONDA is made where, which may not interest you.
My comment on the titled argument is, read the repair history statistics (or
whatever is called) in Consumer Reports. Don't be misled by perfect
advertisement (like Saturn's) or any car magazine's _new_ car reports. When
talking about quality, why read reports on NEW cars? American engineers are
just as competent as Japanese or German engineers, or probably Indian or
Chinese engineers. But quality control makes huge difference. Can anybody say
American auto workers have on average higher education than Japanese workers?
I didn't do a research on this. But I have my guess unless somebody tells me
hard-core data.
Yong
Lloyd R. Parker
Beth (E_Ch...@tuna.stmarys.ca) wrote:
: Doesn't this all attribute to the fact that Mazda is only a Mazda by
: Ford in disguise... notice the similarities btwn Escort, Protege,
: Ranger, B100; Probe, MX6 mystere, Contour/Mystique and 626...
In a couple of cases, you've got cause and effect reversed. Mazda
designed the Protege; Ford adapted it for the Escort/Tracer. Mazda
designed the MX-6; Ford adapted it for the Probe. True, the Mazda pickup
is a Ford Ranger. The Navajo is no longer sold; it was a Ford Explorer.
The Contour and Mystique have absolutely nothing to do with Mazda. They
share a development with Ford of Europe. Nothing at all in common with
the 626.
core...@nervosa.sf.ca.us
On 20 Nov 96 17:29:00 +0800, ccs95...@dlsu.edu.ph (WHAT?) wrote:
>>>A HKS modified CIVIC EX can achieve 175 hp (estimate) and had a skippad of
>>>0.9 (top of the class) CIVIC is a performance car and Saturn is for daily
>>>transportation...
>175 hp? how bout getting a Viper GTS or RT/10... then get 450hp and
>490 ft./lbs. of torque.
Better yet, spend 100k on a Porsche 911 Turbo and drop 400 hp and 400
lbs/ft. of torque to the ground AND still look nice.
>
>This is stock.. w/ the Blower package, you could get into the Mid-600s in
>power.. and over 720 in torque.
And for what it's worth, one doesn't need 600 damn hp and 720 lbs/ft.
of torque to have fun. And the key here should be avoiding the police,
and having fun. Somehow cruising through the mountains in a nice Honda
Civic EX sounds funner than leaving rubber deposits at every stop.
Daryl Mark Krzewinski
y0h...@acs.tamu.edu recently wrote this:
One thing is for sure, I'm not too impressed with the quality of
made-in-Japan steel. My friend's `87 Civic Si (assembled in Japan) was
a rust bucket within 16 months of new. The transmission syncros were
shot by 90,000 miles. The body integrity was so bad that by 50,000
miles both doors were difficult to close because of "sagging" between
the wheels. The steel in the roof was seperating because of rust
(trying to lift out the removable sunroof was tough). The windshield
leaked all the time. Emergency brake was shot by 70,000 miles.
After six years the car leaked gas in about a dozen different places.
The transmission wouldn't shift. The engine burned oil profusely. The
driver's seatback was collapsed. The trunk hatch rattled so loud on
the highway it drowned out the radio. The roof liner was hanging down
in our faces. The engine sounded terrible (I've never heard valves
clacking that loud). The HVAC panel had fallen out because the
attachment points were actually rotted through; so he left it hang.
The car was deemed terminal a year ago and junked.
Of course, I realize this is only one car, but isn't that the point?
When any auto industry churns out umpteen-thousand cars a year, some
are bound to be lemons. The Japanese are no different. They are far
from perfect, and far from flawlessly assembled.
And no, you can't convince me that the average Japanese worker is
better educated than the average American worker. I have excellent
exposure to this realm, being an American-born and educated (through
college) man married to a Japanese-born and educated (through college)
woman, I've never seen the stellar differences in the education system
so many keep waving around. In fact, she seems to have so little
knowledge of her own country's history it makes our minimal social
education requirements seem quite impressive by comparison. Also a
trivial fact, but it makes my point.
Daryl
===============================================================================
Rockwell Automation
Allen-Bradley Company
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daryl M. Krzewinski Distributed I/O Engineering
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control and Information Group E-mail: Daryl.Kr...@AB.com
Mayfield Heights, Ohio Phone: 216.646.3960
===============================================================================
Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of A-B, myself, or anyone else
for that matter.
Mark Brindle
Karen Chiu (chiu-...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Unfortunately they have not changed. Mazda continues the old Japanese
: paradigm of 5 year cars. Honda and Toyota changed this in the 1990's
<snip>
: Mazdas are agressively priced, and if you don't plan on keeping the
: car for more than 3-5 years then they may be a good deal.
Strange, I've had over 500,000 miles of the *opposite* experience with
my last 4 cars (2 Hondas, 2 Mazdas) -- the Mazdas (even turbo Mazdas)
have held up *much* better than the Hondas. My daily driver is an '89
MX6 GT with 160,000 miles -- still solid as a rock, and it will *still*
blow away any stock Honda ever made (well, except an NSX or motorcycle).
If you wanna pay too much for a car, be my guest -- but *please* try
to find a better rationalization than that old "5-year car" myth.
regards,
Mark
Mark Brindle
Beth (E_Ch...@tuna.stmarys.ca) wrote:
: Doesn't this all attribute to the fact that Mazda is only a Mazda by
: the little nameplate on the trunklid...everything about a Mazda is a
: Ford in disguise... notice the similarities btwn Escort, Protege,
: Ranger, B100; Probe, MX6 mystere, Contour/Mystique and 626...
Hmm... Please name *one* similarity between Contour and 626...
...OK, they're both sedans,
Mark
~
mob...@smart.net
On 18 Nov 1996 15:08:28 -0500, c...@va.pubnix.com (Cat Stanton) wrote:
>vam...@is.nyu.edu (Victor A. Mercado) writes:
>> The civic is a little SHIT-BOX...
>
>Now Victor, that's a little harsh, don'tchya think?
>
>My own experience: I bought a 91 Saturn after my 83 Honda Civic
>started burning oil horrendously.
>
>Having been both a Saturn owner and a Honda owner, I can state with
>assurance that I'll never own another Honda again, while I might
>purchase another Saturn one day. My next car will probably be
>neither, simply because I won't buy a Honda, and Saturn doesn't
>make a convertible automobile.
If your Honda started to burn oil, it probably needed valve stem seals
(which cost a few bucks). I have Acura and Saturn.. There is no
doubt the Honda is a better designed vehicle.
>I was very impressed at what I could buy from Saturn in 1991 for
>just over $10k. My car's retail value hovers in the $5-$6k range
>right now. Not bad after 5 years and 64,000 miles.
Honda resale values are better..
>What are my overriding memories of driving a Civic? Cursing at it
>when the ignition switch died. Adding a quart of oil each week.
>Pushing the pedal to the floor and just sitting there waiting for
>it to decide it will go. Bitching at it, threatening to have it
>smooshed into a 1x1' metal block because it never started reliably.
>Joyously selling it for $1500.
Sounds like poor or non-existant maintenance killed your Honda.
>In all fairness, the Civic was indeed eight years old, but it was
>a bucket of bolts when I bought it three years earlier, and my current
>car, at the same "age" has held up much better.
Maintenance does tell.
>I was not impressed by Honda and very impressed by Saturn, but your
>mileage can and will vary. My Torque Monster does circles around other
>cars daily.
I like both, but I am not self deluded to the point of thinking the
Saturn can match the Honda in any way except being larger.
>And to the person who said all Saturn drivers were molasses-like slugs
>and slow, and he'd be embarrassed to drive one: Please put your money
>where your mouth is and send me e-mail so I can give you instructions for
>reimbursing me for the multiple speeding tickets I've gotten in my Saturn.
Sorry but everything you have mentioned so far indicates your problems
were likely self inflicted, and not indicative of any qualities of
either vehicle.
Fast Refresh/15
I think where the confusion sets in is that the Contour offers
similar engine options as the Probe/626/MX-6. That is the 2.0L I4,
and the 2.4L V6.
However the Contour usually completely different engines from the
Mazda based cars.
mob...@smart.net
On 26 Nov 1996 05:47:54 GMT, y0h...@acs.tamu.edu wrote:
>Just some information. If you want to know whether a made in Japan HONDA
>cars are better than made in US HONDA, go to http://acs.tamu.edu/~y0h8797/usjpmade.txt.
>I collected argument from HONDA group. They also talked about which model
>of HONDA is made where, which may not interest you.
>
>My comment on the titled argument is, read the repair history statistics (or
>whatever is called) in Consumer Reports. Don't be misled by perfect
>advertisement (like Saturn's) or any car magazine's _new_ car reports. When
>talking about quality, why read reports on NEW cars? American engineers are
>just as competent as Japanese or German engineers, or probably Indian or
>Chinese engineers.
While the engineers MAY be roughly equivalent, the quality of
production is not.. Neither is the quality of design or comfort. I
have had my Saturn for 30K miles, and still don't care for the
imprecise steering, the poor ergonomics, the lousy terrible shifter
(the mechanism has broken once already) and a sticking throttle pedal
that makes smooth driving harder.
These types of problems never affected any of my Hondas or Acuras.
The design of the interiors of US made cars in general needs a lot of
study and improvement.
>But quality control makes huge difference. Can anybody say
>American auto workers have on average higher education than Japanese workers?
It isn't the auto worker, but the inspectors and the procedures of
inspection where the non-US car makers have a superior setup. The US
makers simply refuse to put the emphasis on quality that the
foreigners do.. and that shows in the internal audits as well as in
the 5 year durability reports from CU and others.
Like computers, an automobile factory works on the GIGO principle.