Honda City hammered in review [Archive]

yorrick

01-04-2009, 10:32 AM

More comments and reviews
http://www.carsales.com.au/reviews/2008/small-passenger/honda/city/honda-city-7142
This was before the City had it's price confirmed. In Thailand, the City undercuts the Jazz in price. According to Autospeed, the City in Australia is matching with the Civic...

http://www.caradvice.com.au/24490/2009-honda-city-review-road-test/
A much more gentler review (4 out of 5 steering wheels). Again - pricing was an issue and general interior comfort.

http://carsguide.news.com.au/site/news-and-reviews/story/first_drive_honda_city/
Test drove in Thailand in October 2008. The comparisons with the City is against Yaris, Barina, Tiida.

It seems that Honda has goofed up with it's target market audience. If the City is supposed to replace the Jazz and go up against the Yaris, Accent, Mazda2 and Barina, then it's got a problem with pricing.
If it is supposed to go up against the Corolla, Civic, Mazda3 and so on, then it's got a problem with engine size, power delivery and value for money.

Worse still, the City is priced against the Jazz or Civic, it could well be the case where the City won't be taking any market share away from other maufacturers but itself - ie. A person laying money down on a Honda will pick between the Jazz, Civic or City. (A bit like Toyota with the Camry/Aurion series).

Simply put, get rid of the Jazz and price the City the same as the Jazz.

aaronng

01-04-2009, 11:16 AM

I don't blame the reviewers. Honda Australia must be smoking crack to price the City at the same level as the Civic. I know which one I would pick.

AznEmpress

01-04-2009, 02:02 PM

I think I'd say the City's in the market to vs the Corolla more than that of the Yaris and Jazz...

I have to agree that the pricing's a fair bit off but, each to their own I guess. I personally chose to purchase the City based on the cosmetic view of the car... that and it's possibility to be transformed into something beastly in the future (have you seen how much space is in the engine bay??!!? SR20 - maybe Baby ;) Lol...)

The interesting thing about it all is that, when talking about fuel consumption (re: AutoSpeed), I'm currently driving a new Honda Civic Hybrid, and after doing over 600kms, with approx 400kms at 110km/hr on the highway, the fuel consumption's at 6.8L/100km (at best) when it's touted at being 4.6L/100km... to that extent it's more about how the individual driver handles the car.
Ditto that for the lumber (seat) support - height and overall posture of the person driving would determine comfort.. guess I'm lucky I'm pretty small then. Lol..

aaronng

01-04-2009, 02:25 PM

The interesting thing about it all is that, when talking about fuel consumption (re: AutoSpeed), I'm currently driving a new Honda Civic Hybrid, and after doing over 600kms, with approx 400kms at 110km/hr on the highway, the fuel consumption's at 6.8L/100km (at best) when it's touted at being 4.6L/100km... to that extent it's more about how the individual driver handles the car.
Hybrids get their low fuel consumption from city driving. When you do highway driving, then fuel consumption is the same as a regular petrol engine car.

AznEmpress

01-04-2009, 02:30 PM

Hybrids get their low fuel consumption from city driving. When you do highway driving, then fuel consumption is the same as a regular petrol engine car.

Lol.. well then that's even worse - it was hitting 7.9L/100km driving on our standard streets... which, in hindsight, makes it worse than a 1.8L car??

aaronng

01-04-2009, 02:34 PM

Lol.. well then that's even worse - it was hitting 7.9L/100km driving on our standard streets... which, in hindsight, makes it worse than a 1.8L car??
That's better than an auto transmission 1.8L car. You have to use light to medium throttle so that you use the electric motors to take off, and then rely on the petrol engine only for cruising. So you're right in that driving habits affect it greatly because if you use aybe even 1/2 throttle when taking off, you could be engaging the petrol engine and not the electric motor.

yorrick

01-04-2009, 02:37 PM

I don't blame the reviewers. Honda Australia must be smoking crack to price the City at the same level as the Civic. I know which one I would pick.

A Toyota Vios? :p

AznEmpress

01-04-2009, 02:37 PM

You have to use light to medium throttle so that you use the electric motors to take off, and then rely on the petrol engine only for cruising.

The main catch to the Hybrid is that there's a time lapse due to the 'auto stop' function in the engine... I'm 'heavy footed' by nature :angel: so... 'normal' cars aren't really for me. Hence my thoughts already of an EC. Lol...

yorrick

01-04-2009, 02:40 PM

I think I'd say the City's in the market to vs the Corolla more than that of the Yaris and Jazz...

In Malaysia and Singapore, the Honda City is up against the Toyota Vios.
A bit like Jazz vs Yaris or Civic vs Corolla. The problem is City vs What??

The problem is that the City fits between the Jazz and Civic - which is the proverbial "in between two seats" on price, size and features.

yorrick

01-04-2009, 02:43 PM

The interesting thing about it all is that, when talking about fuel consumption (re: AutoSpeed), I'm currently driving a new Honda Civic Hybrid, and after doing over 600kms, with approx 400kms at 110km/hr on the highway, the fuel consumption's at 6.8L/100km (at best) when it's touted at being 4.6L/100km... to that extent it's more about how the individual driver handles the car.

Wandering off the topic of Honday City reviews...

Bear in mind that the Civic Hybrid, the electric motor is to assist the petrol motor. The Toyota Prius, the electric motor can run without the petrol motor. The specs of the electric motor on the Prius is almost as powerful as the petrol motor - that's why the car costs significantly more.

AznEmpress

01-04-2009, 02:50 PM

Bear in mind that the Civic Hybrid, the electric motor is to assist the petrol motor. The Toyota Prius, the electric motor can run without the petrol motor. The specs of the electric motor on the Prius is almost as powerful as the petrol motor - that's why the car costs significantly more.

Yea, it's like a $5k difference off the mark (plus on-roads, et al), but I really can't see how the electric 'assistance' assists what-so-ever in the Honda Civic Hybrid... apart from the lag time (see previous post). Then again, maybe that's just me :confused: :p

Lol... had my hands on a Prius before, it's really not that nice to drive... tho, I AM talking about when it first came out...

aaronng

01-04-2009, 02:51 PM

A Toyota Vios? :p

Toyota Vios is not in the list :p

I don't blame the reviewers. Honda Australia must be smoking crack to price the City at the same level as the Civic. I know which one I would pick.

aaronng

01-04-2009, 02:53 PM

The main catch to the Hybrid is that there's a time lapse due to the 'auto stop' function in the engine... I'm 'heavy footed' by nature :angel: so... 'normal' cars aren't really for me. Hence my thoughts already of an EC. Lol...

Yop, you need either an electric car, or a car with a reasonably sized engine. I get 10L/100km in the city, but 7L/100km on the freeway at 110km/h. So my big engine car is more fuel efficient than your Civic Hybrid if the both of us had to take the freeway to work everyday. :)

AznEmpress

01-04-2009, 02:54 PM

I get 10L/100km in the city, but 7L/100km on the freeway at 110km/h. So my big engine car is more fuel efficient than your Civic Hybrid if the both of us had to take the freeway to work everyday. :)

Lol... did you just admit to speeding ur way TO work? :zip:
Of course everything written in these forums is purely hypothetical :p

JOhnnyFD

01-04-2009, 03:08 PM

hehe.. and coz of the city's price tag.. its expected for the civic's price to go up now

MZ3

01-04-2009, 03:51 PM

Lol.. well then that's even worse - it was hitting 7.9L/100km driving on our standard streets... which, in hindsight, makes it worse than a 1.8L car??

Thats pretty shocking considering i get around 8.3L/100km from my auto Mazda 3 2.0L

aaronng

01-04-2009, 04:23 PM

Lol... did you just admit to speeding ur way TO work? :zip:
Of course everything written in these forums is purely hypothetical :p

Hypothetical. I said if we both have to take the freeway to work at 110km/h each day. I don't do 110km/h on the freeway to work, I do only 90km/h for a short while before I get into the suburban roads. I still get 9.3L/100km which is good for a 2.4L fat and heavy car. That includes my addiction of 7000rpm as well.

I got 7L/100km when I was travelling to Canberra and Melbourne. :)

AznEmpress

01-04-2009, 04:28 PM

Lol... gotta love hypotheticals :D

I wanna do a run from the Goldy all the way down via Coffs & Sydney... then bypass thru the ACT, 'round Melb to the Great Ocean Road and back up the Eastern Hwy. How long do u reckon that'd take? Lol... soooo far 'off topic' it's not funny :p

So that my post is 'City' related ;) - the City's awesome regardless of that one bad review :) (don't go Googling bad reviews on the City now pple! :angel: Lol...)

Riviera

01-04-2009, 06:45 PM

back on topic...

the new honda city is ugly and is a POS lol shouldnt be in a mid range between
civic and jazz...

thats my 2c... id rather a 5door hatch corrolla anyday...

thepope1986

01-04-2009, 07:33 PM

Lol... gotta love hypotheticals :D

I wanna do a run from the Goldy all the way down via Coffs & Sydney... then bypass thru the ACT, 'round Melb to the Great Ocean Road and back up the Eastern Hwy. How long do u reckon that'd take? Lol... soooo far 'off topic' it's not funny :p

In my legend i went from sunshine coast in Qld to Near melbourn with 3 tanks of fuel and around 19hours straight driving :P.

aaronng

01-04-2009, 08:18 PM

But as far as the write up goes about the city i have to agree with the writer. i work at a honda dealership and i usually cant wait to go for a test drive but when i get in a city it just feels crap. :thumbdwn: for the city
I wonder why did Honda Thailand go backwards. The previous gen City (that we didn't get) looked less "exciting" from the outside, but the build quality rivalled the Civic. Now it seems to be worse than the Jazz but more expensive.

clairegirl

02-04-2009, 07:00 AM

yorrick

02-04-2009, 09:47 AM

Fuel consumption wise, i thought the city would better but having said that, it's still pretty good. I managed to get my city to

Purely Suburban 7.6km/100kms
Highway/suburban 6.2/100kms

I have a heavy foot by nature too. Fuel consumption gets better after your car gets to know your driving habits better though (said the honda salesman)

Previous to the city I was driving my brothers Mazda 3 2.0L and it was horrible on petrol, i'de be spending 70 bucks a week. Whereas I can't say how much I use on the city yet but I filled it up the other day.... 32L! =) (still had a teeny tiny bit amount of petrol in there though)

This would be almost "expected" given the following
Kerb weight: City = 1,110kg vs Mazda3 = 1,230kg (extra 100kg)
Engine capacity: City = 1.5L vs Mazda3 = 2.0L (engine capacity would mean more fuel consumption)

I am surprised you could say that the Mazda3 would cost substantially more in fuel cost. If you drove very, very actively on a Mazda3, you'd be doing around 10-11L/100km - which would equate to an extra $3-$4 per 100km driven.

Then again, the Mazda3 is much more fun car to drive... :p

Judge_City

03-04-2009, 11:41 AM

Judge_City

03-04-2009, 11:42 AM

This would be almost "expected" given the following
Kerb weight: City = 1,110kg vs Mazda3 = 1,230kg (extra 100kg)
Engine capacity: City = 1.5L vs Mazda3 = 2.0L (engine capacity would mean more fuel consumption)

I am surprised you could say that the Mazda3 would cost substantially more in fuel cost. If you drove very, very actively on a Mazda3, you'd be doing around 10-11L/100km - which would equate to an extra $3-$4 per 100km driven.

Then again, the Mazda3 is much more fun car to drive... :p

Interesting to see how much this new gen Mazda 3 will be priced at!??! U know that was my only other option when considering the City, cos i wanted a "new model" car, and the fockers told me that it would be released mid year!, and now its april wtf?!?!?!?! still City is my homeboy... :cool:

bc143

03-04-2009, 06:21 PM

just off topic a bit the all new mazda 3 is in next month.
dunno what's wrong with the Honda dealer. they just put every price up for such economic environment ?? may be as suggest by someone here b4 the must be smoking crack in the office.
dun say city is bad but honda australia is the one to blame.wrong choice n wrong price.
BTW i love honda's car

aaronng

03-04-2009, 07:07 PM

I just thought i would mention that advertised fuel consumptions can never be matched, as those figures were achieved under controlled and test conditions. i.e. probably hours and days around a race track. lol. but the city is excellent with fuel consumption.
Fuel consumption will get better, past the 6000km mark too. As the engine is still adjusting until that time.

My car has an advertised 9.4L/100km. I get that with my daily commute to work which is 10 minutes freeway and 20 minutes suburb (60km/h limit and 2 school zones)

aaronng

03-04-2009, 07:10 PM

This would be almost "expected" given the following
Kerb weight: City = 1,110kg vs Mazda3 = 1,230kg (extra 100kg)
Engine capacity: City = 1.5L vs Mazda3 = 2.0L (engine capacity would mean more fuel consumption)

I am surprised you could say that the Mazda3 would cost substantially more in fuel cost. If you drove very, very actively on a Mazda3, you'd be doing around 10-11L/100km - which would equate to an extra $3-$4 per 100km driven.

Then again, the Mazda3 is much more fun car to drive... :p

What about the Accord Euro (CL9 version)?
Base model weighs 1395kg, and has a 2.4L engine. Yet I get 9.4L/100km combined fuel consumption (run to redline 7000rpm twice a day). In pure city driving, I get 10.5L/100km (redline twice a day) and pure freeway I get 7.0L/100km (over 800km with 2-3 times running to redline).

You can't generalise fuel consumption solely on engine capacity. You have engine efficiency, driving style and also gear ratios which affect the fuel consumption.

yorrick

03-04-2009, 09:06 PM

What about the Accord Euro (CL9 version)?
Base model weighs 1395kg, and has a 2.4L engine. Yet I get 9.4L/100km combined fuel consumption (run to redline 7000rpm twice a day). In pure city driving, I get 10.5L/100km (redline twice a day) and pure freeway I get 7.0L/100km (over 800km with 2-3 times running to redline).

You can't generalise fuel consumption solely on engine capacity. You have engine efficiency, driving style and also gear ratios which affect the fuel consumption.

I don't dispute the fuel efficiency of some cars over others. The discussion at hand was comparing an active driving of a Honda City versus Mazda3. I often get 9L/100km when I had the SP23 and seen consumption of 10-11L/100km when driven hard.

But the original poster stated that they had a 2.0L Mazda3 and the cost of fuel was "significantly higher" implying that it was up to 50% more in consumption compared to the Honda City.

yorrick

03-04-2009, 09:09 PM

Interesting to see how much this new gen Mazda 3 will be priced at!??! U know that was my only other option when considering the City, cos i wanted a "new model" car, and the fockers told me that it would be released mid year!, and now its april wtf?!?!?!?! still City is my homeboy... :cool:

The reason why the new Mazda3 is being released in April and not June is that they were selling so quickly that the old model stock ran out faster than expected. Haven't you noticed the biggest selling small vehicles lately? Mazda3 and Corolla have been #1 and #2 in the market (and Mazda3 outsold Commodores and Falcons in January 2009 ... if I recall correctly.)

The new Mazda3 prices have come out and they are very similar to the old series. I suppose they learnt from the Mazda6 debacle where they tried to jack up the prices by $2K to $3K across the models. Sales plummeted like an economic meltdown...
Details of new prices here ... http://www.mazda.com.au/Models/Current%20models/Mazda3/Prices.aspx

Saw a Honda City today and all I can say is that it's appeal rivals the Corolla which can be best described as "whitegoods on wheels". Almost looked like a Vios...

Rudy

03-04-2009, 11:33 PM

Shame about the new mazda 3, you can really see the Peugeot influence.

clairegirl

04-04-2009, 06:40 AM

clairegirl

04-04-2009, 06:55 AM

I am surprised you could say that the Mazda3 would cost substantially more in fuel cost. If you drove very, very actively on a Mazda3, you'd be doing around 10-11L/100km - which would equate to an extra $3-$4 per 100km driven.

That is substantially more! especially if you're my partner who drives 500+kms a week (work (carlingford), uni (north ryde), soccer training(homebush or city)/soccer games (could range from central coast to sydney city to anywhere in syd), my house (****), his house (dural)) thats averaging 15-20 bucks more that you would pay in the bowser a week. Equating to more than $780-$1040 a year... which you could use for a holiday overseas.

yorrick

04-04-2009, 07:03 AM

i think the new mazda 3 is goregeous! Very decently priced too! I could have just afforded it... but i know i would have regretted getting it vs the city.

Yorrick your talking about fuel consumption from a technical perspective, taking into consideration weight etc.. in terms of overall price i pay at the bowser... the city would win hands down.

The addage is true - you won't buy it if you can't afford it.
Mazda3 is a bit more expensive and the day to day cost is a bit more. But it's a hell of a lot more fun to drive than many other cars and looks good - that's why it sells!

Then again, we wouldn't be comparing the BMW X6 to a Audi Q5 given that it would easily buy 4-5 Citys... :)

clairegirl

04-04-2009, 09:38 AM

seeing as both of them were in my price range ... i did compare the two of them and rightly so i say :)

Judge_City

06-04-2009, 10:42 AM

My car has an advertised 9.4L/100km. I get that with my daily commute to work which is 10 minutes freeway and 20 minutes suburb (60km/h limit and 2 school zones)

Wow, lucky you! An anomaly. How long have you had your car!?

Judge_City

06-04-2009, 10:50 AM

The addage is true - you won't buy it if you can't afford it.
Mazda3 is a bit more expensive and the day to day cost is a bit more. But it's a hell of a lot more fun to drive than many other cars and looks good - that's why it sells!

... And by now we all know how much you like to enjoy your drive's...the city's warning beeps activate pass 120km, so forget about the 'redlines' :)

aaronng

06-04-2009, 11:26 AM

Wow, lucky you! An anomaly. How long have you had your car!?

Since 2004 August, so about 4.6 years.

Judge_City

06-04-2009, 11:33 AM

Since 2004 August, so about 4.6 years.

OK, so you have done more than 6K easy. Apparently, fuel consumption gets better after then - according to the Honda mechanic. ;)

aaronng

06-04-2009, 11:50 AM

OK, so you have done more than 6K easy. Apparently, fuel consumption gets better after then - according to the Honda mechanic. ;)

I used to keep a log of my fuel consumption, distance, liters filled and type/brand of petrol filled. I didn't see much change from the beginning until I stopped recording it down (2 years) for my style of driving.

EK1.6LCIV

06-04-2009, 02:35 PM

poor city :(

that price does hurt it a bit

~Sp33~

07-05-2009, 11:47 AM

That review seems more harsh then it actually is.

I haven't test driven one so i couldn't comment on that part, but the aesthetics seemed fine, the trunk entry, seating position etc all seemed excessively blown out of proportion in that article.

I'd take it with a grain of salt...

I'm eagerly awaiting Wheels magazine to test it.