Honda Civic RS Modulo vs. Mazda 3 Speed vs. Everest Trend

**babkalakal** · March 29th, 2017 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by jut703

Where do you use the power? Just curious because I've seen quite a lot of Civic RS on the road but their driving is just the same as the 1.8E. Hindi mabilis magovertake, mabagal lang sa highway. So parang 99% of the time hindi nasusulit yung 173 hp.

The 141 hp of the 1.8 is sufficient even for full loads unless you overtake a lot, which I don't see anyway. Mas mabilis pa magdrive yung mga nakadiesel SUV/pickup feeling lagi sports car pag nasa provincial highway.

Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

There are still places where you can use that extra power. I agree the 1.8 will serve you well 99% of the time but thats just it for me okay lang to have that extra power for overtaking or merging especially nga sa provincial highway. Also the occassional trackday or early sunday morning run if you are into that sort of things.

**jut703** · March 29th, 2017 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by babkalakal

There are still places where you can use that extra power. I agree the 1.8 will serve you well 99% of the time but thats just it for me okay lang to have that extra power for overtaking or merging especially nga sa provincial highway. Also the occassional trackday or early sunday morning run if you are into that sort of things.

Where are those places? I've been to virtually the entire Luzon and my puny little 1.6 engine has been sufficient for overtaking.

Track days, out of say a thousand RS Civics, I'm pretty sure less than 20 would ever bring their car to the track.

I get it, hypothetically the power is nice. But in my years of driving I've realized that most people don't really need nor use that power. Of course Honda doesn't want people to realize that, but the truth is majority of these turbo Civics will just be driven in traffic crawls and at a moderate pace on the highway.

I make the same case for the 1.6 and 2.0 Altis because the profile of most Altis buyers aren't people who need the extra 21 hp. For the Mazda 3, I think the 2.0 is worth it because I'm really not a big fan of the 1.5. And the Mazda 3 is the type of car you really flog on the mountain roads so for the purpose alone, the extra 50 hp gain is useful. Not to mention that the 2-liter Mazda has more to offer than just the extra power.

Although again, most people who buy these cars don't even push their cars to their limits. At the end of the day though, it's their money so if they're happy with their TOTL compact that costs 200-300k more than the midrange variant, then well and good.

Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

**dr. d** · March 29th, 2017 11:24 AM

"bragging rights."
"i have more horses than you" syndrome.

**babkalakal** · March 29th, 2017 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by dr. d

"bragging rights."
"i have more horses than you" syndrome.

Sir with 173hp you can hardly brag at all especially with your garden variety suvs making more power than that. Also bragging leads you nowhere there is always that car out there with more power than you. Disclaimer: i don't currently own a civic pero i am intrigued by its package.

**Egan101** · March 29th, 2017 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by babkalakal

Sir with 173hp you can hardly brag at all especially with your garden variety suvs making more power than that. Also bragging leads you nowhere there is always that car out there with more power than you. Disclaimer: i don't currently own a civic pero i am intrigued by its package.

The Civic RS do has some bragging rights as its combination of light chassis (1300kg) and a turbo engine is the quickest among the usual compact cars. It can do around 7+ seconds on a 0-100kmh sprint, a bit quicker than the more powerful yet heavier Focus Ecoboost (180hp, 8+ seconds 0-100kmh). It's true that some diesel PPVs have more powerful engines but their heavy chassis make them not as quick as petrol compacts. Most of these diesel PPVs can't even do 10 seconds on a 0-100kmh sprint. A Fiesta Ecoboost can even outclass most of them on a sprint.

I have to see though how the Civic RS does against a performance-oriented CUV on a sprint. I have to ask my brother-in-law if he wants me to take a spirited drive of his Civic RS so that I can compare it against my Forester XT.

**babkalakal** · March 29th, 2017 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Egan101

The Civic RS do has some bragging rights as its combination of light chassis (1300kg) and a turbo engine is the quickest among the usual compact cars. It can do around 7+ seconds on a 0-100kmh sprint, a bit quicker than the more powerful yet heavier Focus Ecoboost (180hp, 8+ seconds 0-100kmh). It's true that some diesel PPVs have more powerful engines but their heavy chassis make them not as quick as petrol compacts. Most of these diesel PPVs can't even do 10 seconds on a 0-100kmh sprint. A Fiesta Ecoboost can even outclass most of them on a sprint.

I have to see though how the Civic RS does against a performance-oriented CUV on a sprint. I have to ask my brother-in-law if he wants me to take a spirited drive of his Civic RS so that I can compare it against my Forester XT.

Would be interesting to see that. Though just from pure guessing I'd wager the forester maybe putting a little more power to the ground than just the spec sheet would say.

**babkalakal** · March 29th, 2017 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by jut703

Where are those places? I've been to virtually the entire Luzon and my puny little 1.6 engine has been sufficient for overtaking.

Track days, out of say a thousand RS Civics, I'm pretty sure less than 20 would ever bring their car to the track.

I get it, hypothetically the power is nice. But in my years of driving I've realized that most people don't really need nor use that power. Of course Honda doesn't want people to realize that, but the truth is majority of these turbo Civics will just be driven in traffic crawls and at a moderate pace on the highway.

I make the same case for the 1.6 and 2.0 Altis because the profile of most Altis buyers aren't people who need the extra 21 hp. For the Mazda 3, I think the 2.0 is worth it because I'm really not a big fan of the 1.5. And the Mazda 3 is the type of car you really flog on the mountain roads so for the purpose alone, the extra 50 hp gain is useful. Not to mention that the 2-liter Mazda has more to offer than just the extra power.

Although again, most people who buy these cars don't even push their cars to their limits. At the end of the day though, it's their money so if they're happy with their TOTL compact that costs 200-300k more than the midrange variant, then well and good.

Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

True true! But you see I guess most or majority of us are car guys here or gear heads and that what satisfies us may not necessarily appeal to what is more practical of what is just enough. I myself and my wife daily drive suvs and for the most part it serves us very well but I will probably never get rid of my sunday car because for that 1% of the time I get to drive it be it in the highway or the track which i will admit are thrills that i will never find for myself in an suv. Don't get me wrong there are things that an suv is superior its just that i am i guess a sports car guy at heart in the same way that some are 4x4 enthusiasts.