I wanna hear everyone's opinion on which is better a civic or eclipse and why?

 

reliability = civic

speed = eclipse (assuming it's the GST or GSX)

overall = civic (not even a contest, eclipses are well known for being garbage and breaking down constantly).... hell, even the old turbos burned oil off the lot new :P

i forgot to mention i had a 1991 eagle talon AWD turbo...... stupid fast car when it had mods, but i spent more repairing it almost, then buying my 2005 civic...... AKA not worth it.

 

I know this is a civic forum and most r goin 2 say civic duh but I like 2 here ur reasons why, thanks.

I'm also deciding on which to get by the way. I also want 2 turbo it , I can't find a civic for under 3 k without 200k miles.

 

If you're buying old, go for the civic. Honestly. The 2.0 dohc in the plymouth laser/eagle talon/ mits eclipse were somewhat reliable, the 2.0 turbo were hella fast. But in the end, they were crap. The older civics get way better gas mileage, and the d series engines are reliable. Their killers are mostly timing belts, and they're slow.

If you're buying new, like 2008 new, go for the eclipse. I'd rather have a 08 eclipse with the 10 year 160000 km warranty other than the honda 5 year 100000 km warranty. Civics and eclipses both have good resale value. Eclipses are gorgeous on the inside. I was looking at an 07 and it was soo nice. I don't necessarily like the new civics.

Honestly, I've heard tons of horror stories about the plymouth laser, eagle talon, and mistubishi eclipse. When I was in the market for a car, I went to my grandpas friend (he's a mechanic) and he told me to stay away from those cars. He's had to fix too many of them.I took my civic to him, and after he looked at it, he told me it was worth buying and make sure I bought it. I left a down payment on it and bought it the very next day. If you're buying old, go for the honda. If it's new, go for the mitsubishi.

 

edit.. woops, double post... lol

 

I don't know tons of background. But, I don't know anyone that had to get rid of a honda unless it was junked by themselves. (going around corners at 90). But, I do know 2 eclipse owners, and it seems like whenever I talk to them, they need money to fix the eclipse. But those are older ones. I don't know about the new ones.

Also, I just bought an 08 Civic. And in response to the warranties. It's like Tommy Boy wisely said, "He puts the warranty on the box because what he knows is that he sold you a guaranteed P.O.S." So the bigger the warranty, the more likely it is to fail.(at least that is a cynical point of view). And I am about to pick my new car up tomorrow, and I don't even care about the warranty, because I know my Honda will be reliable. (especially after my 1999 Saturn SC2 threw a rod after only 105k, that thing was a P.O.S.)

 

I'm definatly goin for the older vehicles. I'm thinking about a 92 civic hatch I think the vx model not sure. Any comments about that model. the only ones i've found in my price range have 200k miles are they still reliable with that many miles.

 

Also, if you can haggle, you can get an SI Civic for about the same as the lowest Eclipse. I'de rather have 190 HP than the 162 HP 2.4 Liter MIVEC.

 

92? The hell yes go with a Civic. Some might commit you for buying an eclipse even close to that old. Unless you were just buying it for the chasis

 

I havea 99 civic sedan and a 96 eclipse non turbo. Honestly I have not had to put very much money in the eclipseJust simple stuff like the egr valve and the iacv. It does leak a little oil though. But other than that it is a great car. It is the one I chose to drive over the sedan. I let my wife drive the civic. The civic is a good car as well. Right now it is stock and has a little pep. Not as much as the eclipse though. The civic is more comfortable for the family so we drive that when we all ride together. To me they are both great cars just depends on your taste. You can upgrade both cars equally and make both of them very quick. I do not regret getting either car.