1.6 Civic VTi versus 1.6 Altis

**liwanag** · December 22nd, 2005 10:56 AM

civic!wala lang

**A121** · December 22nd, 2005 11:52 AM

Never mind what other people say, just get the car that puts a smile on your face

**niky** · December 22nd, 2005 04:23 PM

Errh.. .City vs. Altis? The Altis 1.8 AT has been tested at 10.8 seconds to 100 kmh. The City 1.5 CVT at 9 or so. The City 1.3 may be around 13 seconds or 14 seconds, while an AT Altis 1.6 is around 13 or 14 seconds also. But it does feel slow, partly because it has better insulation than the City.

**dragon21** · December 23rd, 2005 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by niky

Errh.. .City vs. Altis? The Altis 1.8 AT has been tested at 10.8 seconds to 100 kmh. The City 1.5 CVT at 9 or so. The City 1.3 may be around 13 seconds or 14 seconds, while an AT Altis 1.6 is around 13 or 14 seconds also. But it does feel slow, partly because it has better insulation than the City.

Sir, so indeed my butt feel

is relatively accurate...

My 1.5 City CVT really feels a lot faster than my AT Altis 1.6, even on long straight roads especially when the 7-spped mode is engaged. But, as I've previously mentioned, Altis drives better on heavy traffic at 0-20 kph.

**an0nim0us** · December 23rd, 2005 02:43 PM

Altis is not the type to be called 'performance' car as Hondas - Civic or City (Pardon my term 'performance' as we all know these cars are NOT performance cars, these are econoboxes hehe). IMHO, Altis seems to be the honest one here as it has no sporty undertones whatsoever. Honda Civic is fun to drive esp the manual, but i dont get the comfort level similar to an Altis. Even my kids prefer to ride on the Altis than their grandpa's CIVIC. Ironic that my Dad got the Civic and I got the Altis hehehe.

I think Civic appeals to youger people (unlike myself hahaha) who loves the fun part of driving. Drive safely all the time tho = )

Altis is more of the family car as mentioned many times here, you dont race it. Even if I want to, heck, where can I find a street here in MM where I can do pedal to the metal and see if it will run 9 to a hundred.

I dont know if this makes sense, in the Altis even by myself, I tend to drive more slowly and play mellow, even classical music same is true when in my bro's Camry. But when on the other cars, esp when alone, I get to drive faster and a bit more competitive

Is this what other Altis or Camry owners feel too?

**slamtaz** · December 23rd, 2005 03:35 PM

civic for me. tho none of my ride right now is either of this 2 sedan. i used to have a civic & used it heavily for more than 9 gruelling years in a very rough road environment (i.e. ever heard of victoria homes in muntinlupa) yet not once did it give me the slightest headache, just the usual regular maintenance with no underbody parts or major engine parts replaced (i.e. i even slept in it overnight once with the engine & a/c on & no problem at all). i call that true reliability!

**squala** · December 24th, 2005 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by niky

Errh.. .City vs. Altis? The Altis 1.8 AT has been tested at 10.8 seconds to 100 kmh. The City 1.5 CVT at 9 or so. The City 1.3 may be around 13 seconds or 14 seconds, while an AT Altis 1.6 is around 13 or 14 seconds also. But it does feel slow, partly because it has better insulation than the City.

9 seconds for a City? Are you sure about this? Its tallboy stance and goofy design doesn't make it look aerodynamic to begin with. I also read in an Autocar Magazine that the manual version of the same car does it in almost 11.

Going back to the topic, there's this issue in driving position. Having tested both cars, I have to say they do have higher seating than before. What I noticed though is that the Civic has a flatter dash following a slanted hood, so you tend to look down as you drive. This reminds me of the Space Wagon we used to have. The Altis, on the other hand, has a high dash to complement the tall seat position. Previous Corollas had a lower seat with a tall dash, so shorter drivers tend to complain.

In short, this is what I've come up with:

Altis
+
More useful torque
Looks better
More features for the money
Automatic gearbox shifting accurately and predictably
Solid suspension feel

-
Drooping nose
Stereo feeling lost in a dash that needs a better look
Still has a notchy manual shifter
Slightly busy ride
Could have used the pie-shaped tail lights of JDM version

Civic
+
Better passenger space than ever
Still slick stick
Can now be cambered unlike past Civics
mp3 player

-
Ugly rear without a doubt
Doesn't feel as sporty and intact as the previous model
Bouncy ride (especially when you change to lowering springs while retaining the stock shocks)
Pay more for airbag and ABS
Automatic version slow, seems to shift imprecisely, and guzzles gas (some say)

**niky** · December 24th, 2005 10:21 PM

The Civic 1.7 AT is supposed to be comparatively frugal, the 1.7 MT is a reputed mileage champ (1100+ kms on 50 liters in a Canadian test covering urban and highway travel, an hour circling the parking lot (after everyone else but the Corolla (900+ on one tank (andaming parentheseses!!!)) went home) and highway travel the next day).
The 2.0 is reputedly a guzzler in traffic, comparatively, as admitted by a Honda executive I talked to at the mileage challenge... but it's not any worse than other 2.0s. The Corollas, both 1.6 and 1.8 are relatively good on gas. It was the 1.8 that got 900+ km in the Canadian test, but that was MT.

I'm pretty sure the City/Jazz (probably Jazz) 1.5 CVT got around or under 9 seconds as tested by the TOVA (asia.vtec.net). The 2.0 AT Civic got around 8.6 secounds in their testing. As the guy uses testing gear, I'm inclined to believe him. However, these tests are dependent on both driver and conditions. Suffice to say, it's still possible for most drivers to get under 10 seconds with the 1.5 MT Jazz. Same goes for the 1.5 Vios.

The 1.8 Altis, on the other hand, is officially at 10.2, but records anywhere between 10.2 (power-braked on Drive with the handbrake up before launch... good way to kill an AT if you do it too often) and 10.8-11. It's supposedly 145 hp, but I'm betting it's closer to 130hp (Official US and ASEAN specs are 126hp). It's only here they're declaring 145 for this motor, which has a pretty weak bottom end even in its 180 hp Corolla T-Sport tune.

Launching on front-wheel drive cars is an art that not many testers can get right, and it's dependent on road conditions. For example, the Lynx RS has been tested to do 0-100 in 8.3 seconds here, but some American testers have gotten 8.5-8.7. The worst is edmunds.com, which got 9. Amongst our club members, one can get consistent 8.3s and one can't even go under 9.

**squala** · December 25th, 2005 07:06 PM

With what you said, that will make the Altis 1.6 slower than the Vios 1.5. If I got my data right, the Vios 1.5 does the quarter mile at roughly the same time as an AE101 Corolla GLi, both M/T. The VVTi probably makes the engine seem .1-liter larger in performance. Consequently, it would be a shame if the newer Corolla (with VVTi) is slower than the previous model (no VVTi).

**A121** · December 26th, 2005 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by squala

9 seconds for a City? Are you sure about this? Its tallboy stance and goofy design doesn't make it look aerodynamic to begin with. I also read in an Autocar Magazine that the manual version of the same car does it in almost 11.

sorry OT

err... I just tried this on Gran Turismo 4.

Honda Fit (City) 1.3 (91hp) vs. Toyota Vitz (Vios) 1.5 (107hp)

The Vitz started in front of the Fit. Both cars were set into A/T mode. The Fit is only available in CVT mode. The Fit was able to overtake the Vitz in no time. The CVT is really a good transmission.