Talk:Honda Civic Hybrid

Basic information is wrong[edit]

The first section states: "Early models from 2001 to 2005 used a 5-speed manual transmission, but models since then feature a continuously variable automatic transmission.", this is not completely correct, the CVT automatic transmission was widely available and sold at least as far back as 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilke339 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermarket upgrades[edit]

Find specific relevant upgrades options for this specific vehicle. Right now the information is most relevant to the upgrades of a Toyota Prius. Include sources on the companies or organizations doing the upgrades and the types of options available.

Little information given on the 2006 model[edit]

All statistics given here are on the 2003-2005 model, and are thus outdated. The information should remain but it should be clear that's for the first generation, and a new list of stats for the 2006 model should be added. I'm too lazy to do it myself, but I did take a picture of my 2006 car that can be used:

CGameProgrammer 18:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked your photo to get rid of the distracting sign & telephone poles, and used that to replace the fair-use image in the infobox. Davepape 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even less information given on the 2008 model[edit]

If anyone can find information on the minor upgrades to the 2008 model, it would be appreciated. As of now I don't think any official information has been posted, and speculation is rare, but features such as the Tire Pressure Monitoring System and optional leather trim and heated seats are rumored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.126.220 (talk) 08:27, August 30, 2007 (UTC) I have just gotten a 2008 Civic hybrid. I have not observed it able to move on the electric motor only, although if the valve control can kill the compression on all cylinders, I don't see why it can't do that. If you take your foot off the brake, it will start the engine with the IMA motor. When coasting to a stop, at about 7 MPH, it will shut down the engine (if it feels like it) as long as you keep your foot fairly strongly on the brake. If you let almost all the way off the brake, it will restart.

The Prius, by way of their ingenious planetary transmission, can move forward and backward without the crankshaft turning. Since the Honda IMA is integral to the flywheel, there is no way the car can move without the crankshaft turning.

It DOES have a TPMS, says so in the owner's book.

If anyone wants anything else, I can try to figure it out. I have been trying to figure out if it has electric air conditioning. When sitting at a stop light with the engine off, something whirs and runs at varying speed. (Not the brake booster vacuum pump, which cycles when you use the brakes.) I haven't figured out if it is a cooling fan or an air cond. compressor, but it seems to keep the car cool for extended periods with the engine off. (I was doing some hypermiling with my last car, and the "cool" from the A/C went away real quick with the engine off.)

So, unlike the 2004, there is NO "econ" button, the auto-stop of the engine happens whenever the engine is warm, the IMA battery has reasonable charge, your foot is on the brake at less than ~7 MPH, and some other parameters that I haven't figured out yet are OK. It seems if the car has been left baking in the sun that the auto-stop won't activate until the car is cooled off, so it must have a passenger comfort criterion from the A/C system. I was sort of surprised by this, I drove for about 10 miles and 20 minutes before the auto-stop feature would work again. (Doesn't make sense if the A/C is really electrically operated.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.8.59 (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon (elson@pico-systems.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.8.59 (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge with Honda Civic[edit]

Although it's true that this COULD be merged with Honda Civic (as ApolloBoy note in the changelog), I see no benefit to doing so, and it would make the information on the hybrid model harder to find. rhaas 15:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would it be harder to find? You could just look for the section on the hybrid version on the Civic page's TOC, and there you'd go. --ApolloBoy 05:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not adding it to the Honda Civic page is simply stupid. This is, after all, a Honda Civic. Be it Hybrid or not, it's a Honda Civic. --Ramcosca 21:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough information here to warrant a separate page. Patken4 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Honda Civic Hybrid is indeed a Honda Civic, which is a Honda, which is an automobile, which is a vehicle. That doesn't mean it should be added to the articles on any of those, because they're less specific. CGameProgrammer 17:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

honestly, there should be a single sentence under honda civic which simply links to this independent page. likewise, one should find a single sentence under hybrid vehicles regarding the honda civic hybrid which links here. this would provide enough space to give detailed info on the car and make it easy to find. keep it independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.47.87 (talk • contribs)

By the way, that's already been done. Honda Civic says:

“

The hybrid version became available in 2003, which uses both a small (1.3 L) main gasoline engine and auxiliary electric motors.

”

--Tckma 05:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probable that people are interested in the Honda Civic hybrid not because it's a Honda Civic that happens to be a hybrid, but because it's a hybrid that happens to be Honda Civic. Keep it separate. Stev0 05:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, infact the only thing that makes it the same is the shaper of the vehicle, the internal i totally different from civic of the same year. on that ntoe , can someone advice me on where to put the civic hybrid internal picture?. i took that shot and was one of the first person to be able to drive it in australia. i got more photos of it if needed. please advice me on anythign if i did it wrong

I vote don't merge either. The Civic Hybrid is a distinct model, and not an option or a package on the regular Civic. I'm an owner, and everytime I have to select a model (on drop down menus, in databases, for insurance purposes etc.) it always comes out as a distinct model from the original Civic. 72.145.210.176 16:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote no merge. I own an '04 HCH and I looked at it because it is a hybrid, not because it is a Civic. While it is true that I picked the HCH over the Prius because the HCH looks like a normal Civic rather than something out of The Jetsons, it is likely that a Wikipedia user will look here because s/he is interested in specific types of hybrid cars, rather than specific types of Civics. --Tckma 04:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also vote don't merge. They're two different vehicles, two different specifications, two different prices.

Don't merge. I looked for hybrids, not for Hondas. I want to compare Hybrids, thus I'm interested in the hybrid only and do not want to dig details out of a Honda Civic page, which is otherwise also somewhat different (engine size, battery weight, mpg, etc.) Until hybrids become options on most cars, it is a hybrid first and a Honda second. - profschiler

From what I understand, the 2008 model is a carryover from 2007, and I think the addition of the TPS started with 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.48.99 (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also vote to not merge, for the same reasons others have given. Cazort (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of 30 September 2006[edit]

An anon added some comments to the article that were not encyclopedically written, but might be something others would want to address. I've moved the text from the article to here:

Above it says that the 2006 hybrid is based off the 2006 Civic

To me it looks as though the 2006 hybrid is stil based on previous platform - for a start the civic hybrid is still a saloon.

The new 2006 Civic is a hatchback with as an example interesting nose styling compared to the previous model.

(by User:88.109.123.168)

--Davepape 16:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments are speculation, and they happen to be wrong. The European Civic is much different, both outside and inside, from the US/Japanese Civic, and it's the latter that the hybrid is based off of. The hybrid is almost exactly identical to the regular Civic except in the hood. CGameProgrammer 04:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance question[edit]

I'm considering purchasing a 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid with 111,000 miles on it. That's nearly double the average mileage according to Kelley Blue Book. I'd like to hear from those who already own this car. How expensive are they to service and what problems have you experienced with them, if any. I have less than two days to make up my mind, so I hope I'm posting this properly. It appears that email addresses are not used so I guess I'll just bookmark this page and return frequently to check for a response. 63.93.64.61 05:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there fellow Honda Civic Hybrid potential buyer!!![edit]

I too am trying to buy a Honda Civic Hybrid. I am looking on eBay to purchase my vehicle, i think it is one of the better ways to get a Hybrid, especially at the price i have been watching cars sell for. For a Hybrid on eBay i can get a 60,000 mile car for around $10,000. At a dealer or anywhere else $10,000, will gat me the same car, but with 30,000 to 40,000 extra miles on it. And there is a constant stream of about 20 to 40 Civic Hybrid options at anytime. Now to the person above I do not know how much maintenance costs, although i hope someone answers your question. I am just adding an additional yet similar question, "how many miles can be put on a honda civic hybrid?". Now understandably the car has only been around for the last four years, but if anyone has put in the upper 100000 miles or 200000 miles on a hybrid lemme know. THANKS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.171.24.105 (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately both of the above posters are in the wrong place, this is an encyclopedia article not a message board. Fortunately I work in Honda service and am in a good pedantic mood so I can give you this tid bit. The IMA battery and motor system is warrantied for 10 years or 150,000 miles so for the first 150,000 maintenance is going to be very similar to a standard Civic. Beyond 150k you are on your own and I haven't seen nearly enough vehicles with this kind of mileage to comment. In the future I would ask these questions elsewhere. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Honda Civic Hybrid[edit]

I have a 2004 Civic Hybrid and the window sticker lists the mileage as 48 mpg (City) and 47 mpg (Highway). I was surprised to see the article list the 2006 upgrades as increasing the EPA estimates. The engine uses 0W-20 oil (not available anywhere except at the Honda dealer - at least that was my experience). The catalytic converter, engine/powertrain control module, transmission control module, battery assembly, DC-DC converter, motor control module, motor power inverter module, motor rotor and motor stator are warrantied for 8 years/80,000 miles - no more. The horsepower on the 2004 was listed as 93-hp.
Normal operation -
Starting the Civic hybrid's engine is normally done by the Integrated Motor Assist (IMA). If the IMA battery-pack charge is low, a separate 12-volt battery and starter motor are used. During acceleration, the IMA adds its power to the gasoline engine. the IMA display shows blue bars indicating current flow from the batteries. Cruising at a steady speed uses only the gasoline engine. If the IMA battery-pack needs charging, the IMA dispay will show green bars indicating charging. Braking is regenerative for the IMA battery-pack. When the brakes are applied, the Civic Hybrid's electric motor becomes a generator. If the ECON (Economy) button is selected, the engine will cut off automatically when the car comes to a stop. Releasing the brake pedal causes the engine to restart. This "idle-stop feature" will also cause the air conditioning to stop and the fan - radio, windshield wipers and lights continue to operate as normal. If defrost is selected, the idle-stop feature is overridden. --Hyowner (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons with Prius are no longer correct[edit]

The comparisons made with the Prius are based on the old model Prius. The new model has a 1800ltr petrol engine, and a more powerful electric motor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.177.208 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advert Tag[edit]

Is it time to remove the Advertisement tag?
1. I reviewed the original article at the time the advert tag was made. I found no particular information that can be labeled as advertisement.
2. The current article is much different from the article at that time as of May 30, 2008.North wiki (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to remove the tag.North wiki (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, this article is fine. Astack (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.North wiki (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit[edit]

I noticed the curb weight in the table for the second generation wasn't showing up. It was also out of date (e.g., showed manual transmission version weight when then section body clearly stated that the manual trans. wasn't made in the second generation). The weight I used was from the door panel of my 2010 civic hybrid. Astack (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you double check? I suspect your figure is GVWR. I used the weight of 2010 USDM Civic hybrid from its spec.(see here[1].)--North wiki (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Yes, you are right, the number I put was Gross Weight. 67.187.112.19 (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.112.19 (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Award[edit]

"Having an awards section without a corresponding criticism section is against WP:NPOV. Keep it neutral." I don't see how come an award section would violate WP:NPOV. Does it mean if I add that the subject is a recipient of Nobel prize, I would have to add some criticism at the same time for what you called NPOV? Sounds ridiculous. ---North wiki (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It gives the car praise without criticism as well. NPOV involves giving the car balanced coverage. Just because one or two organisations mounted praise on the car does not mean that all reviewers felt the same way. It's pretty standard practise, if you are going to include opinion it needs to be balanced, not one-sided. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misunderstanding of NPOV, I think. Does it mean if I add that the subject is a recipient of Nobel prize, I would have to add criticism at the same time? ---North wiki (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A biography about a person should outline their life. If they were criticised then that should be included if it is notable and verifiable. If they received the Nobel prize then that is notable.

The Civic Hybrid (current generation), was criticised for having rear drum brakes, a compromised luggage compartment and rear seats that don't fold down due to the battery [2]. It's more about having a prominent "award" section than the contents itself. This is not some pro-hybrid website, the objective (pun intended) is to be neutral. I made the same point on my talk page regarding the Lexus LS (a car that I am interested in).

An award is the recognition of what one person or organisation thinks; it is not necessarily emblematic of the option held by all reviewers. Some reviewers praise a car the point that the product sounds faultless, others will find much to say that is negative. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A biography about a person should outline their life. If they were criticised then that should be included if it is notable and verifiable. If they received the Nobel prize then that is notable." That just proves my point. If they were criticised then that should be included if it is notable and verifiable, not because they received the Nobel prize. Can't you see the difference? (See your first statement: Having an awards section without a corresponding criticism section is against WP:NPOV.. It's obvious that you shifted your argument.) BTW, the same can be said about Nobel prize, don't forget it is also determined by a committee, it can be controversial and obviously not agreed by every commentator. Lastly, be sure that the criticism reflects the view in major markets. ---North wiki (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent unsourced additions[edit]

I noticed that the major content additions made today have been added without citing sources in a rush to expand the article in wake of the merger proposal.

It is Wikipedia policy to cite all sources; unreferenced content can be removed at anytime by any editor, so it would be in the best interests of the editors of this page to ensure that all content is reliably sourced. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are sourced and cited. ---North wiki (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just found an awful lot that aren't "sourced and cited". OSX (talk • contributions) 05:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I added are sourced and referenced at the end. I doubt if you had bothered to looked into the references. Show me if there's any Wiki policy that every sentence has to be cited. I feel it's fine if the para. is written from one source, then the citation can be put at the end. I'm open to revision if there's any Wiki policy that's contrary to my understanding. ---North wiki (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Wikipedia:Citing sources. "inline citations [are required for] any material challenged or likely to be challenged", and I saw plenty of that. You have expanded the article based on WP:OR in wake of the merger proposal. Nothing wrong with expanding, but do it properly rather than the rushed job you've done based on (possibly unreliable) information from the top of your head. Some of the content is cited, but most of it isn't, hence why I have assisted you by placing [citation needed] tags throughout the text. From your above reaction, it appears that you are not able to differentiate sentences that are sourced from those that are unsourced. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and amended accordiingly. ---North wiki (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gas Mileage[edit]

I see the addition of the lawsuit over the gas mileage of the civic. Should that not also be place in the Gas Mileage section and not a new section since they are both related? If no one objects I can make the edits another day but did not want to combine them if many others are against it. --Sallynice (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine, but would suggest changing the section title to "Fuel economy and resulting legal issues" or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NEED CITATION — The section on legal issues contains this paragraph:

"Consumers who purchased or leased a 2003 through 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid had until April 19, 2013 to claim a cash payment and Rebate Certificate from the class action lawsuit settlement. However, the Settlement Administrator has already begun to review claims and began mailing checks last month to those with validated claims."

The statement "began mailing checks last month" is meaningless because there is no date for what is apparently a quote, but which is also not quoted.2620:149:5:1E04:F1AB:CB75:B857:6F31 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of Ownership Section[edit]

The cost of ownership section - the only one I looked at- is awful. The claim of an error made in Consumer Report's calculation of payback period is not supported whatsoever by the link provided. Seeing that the second part of the section has a dead link, I challenge both paragraphs and propose the whole section be deleted until claims inserted there can be supported with valid citations. 146.23.68.40 (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third Generation (2011- version)[edit]

The sentence "is proven to improve fuel economy by about 10% for Honda's hybrid vehicles in Japan" is complete POV. The ONE study conducted by Honda of Japan which reports the improved 10% fuel economy is marketing information until the study is duplicated by independent sources. Company reported features are NOT "proof" of anything. If you post something is "proven" you better provide citations to that "proof". It should be removed, or, in the alternative the sentence should be rewritten as: "Honda of Japan reported 10% improvement in fuel economy...", etc. 146.23.68.40 (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Hybrid, does it really use lean burn?[edit]

The difference in EPA MPG when comparing the 2005 Civic Hybrid (39/43) and the 2006 Civic Hybrid (40/45) (EPA 2008+ adjusted and CVT transmission on both) leads me to think that the 2005 and possibly earlier Civic Hybrids don't use lean burn, since the 2006+ ones do not, yet mileage is as good if not better. The article states in the 1st gen Hybrid section that it uses a lean-burn engine. Please verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.47.120 (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Honda Civic Hybrid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]