Pricing and specifications for the 10th-generation Civic range have been revealed; the model has two new turbo petrol units and a hybrid is likely too

The 2017 Honda Civic will go on sale in Britain this March priced from £18,235.

At launch it comes with a choice of two new turbocharged petrol engines: a 1.0-litre three-cylinder with 127bhp and a 1.5-litre four-cylinder unit with 180bhp. Both are available with a six-speed manual gearbox or a CVT auto, and the smaller unit produces as little as 106g/km of CO2.

2017 Honda Civic Type R unveiled

The entry version of the 10th-generation Civic is the S. It comes with the 1.0-litre and is mated to the manual gearbox. The most expensive model, the Prestige, comes with the 1.5-litre and, when using the optional CVT 'box, is priced from £27,480.

Between these two trims are five more levels - SE, SR, EX, Sport and Sport Plus. Metallic paint is offered as an option on all specs, priced at £525.

Click here to read our review of the 2017 Honda Civic 1.5 VTEC Turbo Sport

The 10th-generation Civic has been created to “fight back”, according to Civic project boss Mitsuru Kiraya, who said at the Civic’s launch last year that the outgoing car is “too conservative for younger buyers”. He added: “Markets have changed since this generation, while rivals have improved their offerings.”

The car's image change appears to have helped it improve residual value estimates by 9% compared with the previous car. Industry expert CAP forecast that the new Civic will hold up to 37% of its value after 36 months and 60,000 miles.

The next Honda Civic Type R has been previewed in a concept. Click here for more

The five-door hatchback will be followed by a new Civic Tourer estate and Type R hot hatch. However, the saloon and three-door variants, built primarily for the US market, won’t be offered in the UK. The current estate accounts for 20% of Civic sales and the Type R, a halo product for the brand, makes up 4%.

Civic built in Britain

Like its predecessor, the new Civic will be built at Honda’s Swindon plant. The factory is the new global production hub for the Civic, with Honda confirming a £200 million investment in new production technologies and processes.

Previously, Swindon exported the hatch to Europe only. Now it will produce 40% of its Civic output for North America, 40% for Europe and 20% for the UK market.

These new processes include what Honda describes as a “high-efficiency joining technique”, where the entire inner frame is assembled first, followed by the outer frame and then the joints. This defies the conventional method of starting with body frame assembly.

Honda says the method contributes to the overall stiffness of the body. It claims the new Civic has 52% greater torsional stiffness than its predecessor while being 16kg lighter.

This is achieved with the new ‘unibody’ platform that uses front and rear bulkhead rings, which encircle the interior cabin space, as well as cross braces in front of the engine bay and between the bases of the A and B-pillars to create further platform rigidity.

The hatchback is 4497mm long, 1800mm wide and 1421mm tall, with a wheelbase of 2700mm. This makes it 130mm longer, 30mm wider and 20mm lower than the previous generation, with a 30mm longer wheelbase.

Engines for the new Civic

Alongside the two aforementioned petrol units, the old Civic's 118bhp 1.6-litre diesel option, which currently makes up 50% of UK sales, will be carried over but tuned to improve its power output and CO2 emissions.

A hybrid is also likely to arrive during the car's lifecycle with Kiraya confirming to Autocar that the new platform can accommodate such a powertrain. However, an all-electric Civic is not possible with this platform. "The platform was designed to have the possibility to incorporate electrification for hybrid," he said. "Full electric is not considered for this platform, just hybrid."

Honda has aimed for a simple and sleek cabin design, which incorporates a 7.0in touchscreen display on which you can access its second-generation Connect infotainment and connectivity systems, which integrate with both Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. There is also optional Garmin satellite navigation with free map updates for five years and different audio options, including a four-speaker, 160W system, an eight-speaker, 180W unit and a premium system with 11 speakers.

Interior space has improved, thanks to the longer wheelbase. Rear leg room has increased by a claimed 95mm and there’s more shoulder room in the front and rear. Boot space remains the same as before, at 478 litres, which is considerably more than the 360 litres of its Volkswagen Golf rival. Honda has ditched its socalled Magic Seats and instead reverted to a more traditional 60/40 rear seat split.

The Civic will have a host of safety systems fitted to all four trim levels. These include a Collision Mitigation Braking System, Forward Collision Warning, Lane Keeping Assist System, adaptive cruise control, traffic sign recognition and blindspot information.

Our Verdict

Honda Civic

The Honda Civic is an impressive achievement and a worthy rival to the Volkswagen Golf and Ford Focus, but it isn't quite up to class-leading standards

Join the debate

Comments
46

16 September 2016
but overall an improvement especially as they've dumped the rubbish 1.8 and underpowered 1.4 NA engines (mentioned this several times before). The only downsize if you forgive the pun is the size. Cars have been getting bigger for sometime now and this actually half an inch bigger than a mk1 Mondeo would you believe, although for some people it might actually be a benefit

 

Hydrogen cars just went POP

16 September 2016
xxxx wrote:

Cars have been getting bigger for sometime now and this actually half an inch bigger than a mk1 Mondeo would you believe, although for some people it might actually be a benefit

I agree and it's only 5cm shorter than the Peugeot 406 i had as family car when i was a child. It does make sense from the company's point of view, since the Accord is no longer sold in Europe, but not even self parking can solve issues like existing garage dimensions, small parking footprints and decreasing number of parking areas replaced by single or double yellow lines. The only solution is better interior packaging. Increasing wheelbase, decreasing overhangs and designing a small engine that has an electronic turbocharger. Design wise i do like the Civic but as has been for the last two generations, it appeals to some and alienates others.

16 September 2016
xxxx wrote:

Cars have been getting bigger for sometime now and this actually half an inch bigger than a mk1 Mondeo would you believe, although for some people it might actually be a benefit

I agree and it's only 5cm shorter than the Peugeot 406 i had as family car when i was a child. It does make sense from the company's point of view, since the Accord is no longer sold in Europe, but not even self parking can solve issues like existing garage dimensions, small parking footprints and decreasing number of parking areas replaced by single or double yellow lines. The only solution is better interior packaging. Increasing wheelbase, decreasing overhangs and designing a small engine that has an electronic turbocharger. Design wise i do like the Civic but as has been for the last two generations, it appeals to some and alienates others.

16 September 2016
3mocion wrote:
xxxx wrote:

Cars have been getting bigger for sometime now and this actually half an inch bigger than a mk1 Mondeo would you believe, although for some people it might actually be a benefit

I agree and it's only 5cm shorter than the Peugeot 406 i had as family car when i was a child. It does make sense from the company's point of view, since the Accord is no longer sold in Europe, but not even self parking can solve issues like existing garage dimensions, small parking footprints and decreasing number of parking areas replaced by single or double yellow lines. The only solution is better interior packaging. Increasing wheelbase, decreasing overhangs and designing a small engine that has an electronic turbocharger. Design wise i do like the Civic, but as has been for the last two generations, it's a design that appeals to some and alienates others.

16 September 2016
"Cars have been getting bigger for sometime now and this actually half an inch bigger than a mk1 Mondeo would you believe, although for some people it might actually be a benefit"

since 40% is for the US and 20% for uk, then each generation of the car has to increase in size in proportion to each overweight American and Brit!

DVB78

16 September 2016
xxxx wrote:

but overall an improvement especially as they've dumped the rubbish 1.8 and underpowered 1.4 NA engines (mentioned this several times before).

Look at some real world figures for downsized turbos vs their NA equivalents. The Mazda 3 2.0 120 achieves an average of 43.5 mpg in the real world compared to 43.0 mpg in the Focus 1.0 125 EcoBoost.

I had an Alfa with the 1.4 MultiAir 170 unit and it got me an average of 30-32 mpg (short journeys). Same journeys in my 2.0 198 Civic Type-R and i get 29-31mpg. From an engine much older (basic design circa 2001), generating more power and being much more pleasant to drive I'm only sacrificing 2-3 mpg.

These Engines were made for 1 reason - to pass the flawed NEDC Emissions tests. Even look at the 'official' figures for the Ford 1.5 EcoBoost unit. Same MPG and CO2 in the 150 and 182 guises? Yeah, because that's possible!

16 September 2016
Tim Kemp wrote:
xxxx wrote:

but overall an improvement especially as they've dumped the rubbish 1.8 and underpowered 1.4 NA engines (mentioned this several times before).

Look at some real world figures for downsized turbos vs their NA equivalents. The Mazda 3 2.0 120 achieves an average of 43.5 mpg in the real world compared to 43.0 mpg in the Focus 1.0 125 EcoBoost.

I had an Alfa with the 1.4 MultiAir 170 unit and it got me an average of 30-32 mpg (short journeys). Same journeys in my 2.0 198 Civic Type-R and i get 29-31mpg. From an engine much older (basic design circa 2001), generating more power and being much more pleasant to drive I'm only sacrificing 2-3 mpg.

These Engines were made for 1 reason - to pass the flawed NEDC Emissions tests. Even look at the 'official' figures for the Ford 1.5 EcoBoost unit. Same MPG and CO2 in the 150 and 182 guises? Yeah, because that's possible!

Father in laws has a A3 1.4 COD 140 hp and gets 52 mpg which beats the Mazda 2.0 on mpg, horse power, Torque. Therefore a smaller Turbo'd engine wins in both the real world (made up by figures) and the official stats. Back to the Honda old 1.4 NA engine, less than 50 combined mpg and a 0-60 time of 13.5 seconds some 5 seconds behind the 1.4 COD Audi A3, nuff said except it makes you wonder why Honda have taken so long!

 

Hydrogen cars just went POP

16 September 2016
Quote:

Father in laws has a A3 1.4 COD 140 hp and gets 52 mpg which beats the Mazda 2.0 on mpg, horse power, Torque. Therefore a smaller Turbo'd engine wins in both the real world (made up by figures) and the official stats. Back to the Honda old 1.4 NA engine, less than 50 combined mpg and a 0-60 time of 13.5 seconds some 5 seconds behind the 1.4 COD Audi A3, nuff said except it makes you wonder why Honda have taken so long!

COD tech is very good tech, not disputing that! But the general trend is that in the real world, Turbo engines fail to deliver on their claims of efficiency at their particular power output.

Using the same source that I did for the Mazda figures, (Honest John's real world MPG figures) the Audi 1.4 TFSI CoD averages at 47.5 for the 150ps model. Im going to use the Mazda 2.0 165ps to compare as the deficit in power is only 15ps vs 30ps for the 120ps model and it averages 41.5. So a win for the TFSI?? Well the official claim for the Audi is 59-62mpg making it achieve 78% of its official figure. Mazda's official figure is for 48.7, so it achieves 85% of that, plus it delivers 10% more power with only a 15% hit in economy. So I would deem that a victory for NA, but the CoD is very damned impressive!

Back to the Honda, the 1.4 NA is 100ps, the closest Audi unit in power with figures on HJ is the 1.2 TFSI, good for 105ps with a real world average of 40.5mpg (71% of its official figure). The 1.4 NA Honda manages to return 46.6 in the real world(90% of its official figure). So again, why is downsizing a good thing?

16 September 2016
Tim Kemp wrote:
Quote:

Father in laws has a A3 1.4 COD 140 hp and gets 52 mpg which beats the Mazda 2.0 on mpg, horse power, Torque. Therefore a smaller Turbo'd engine wins in both the real world (made up by figures) and the official stats. Back to the Honda old 1.4 NA engine, less than 50 combined mpg and a 0-60 time of 13.5 seconds some 5 seconds behind the 1.4 COD Audi A3, nuff said except it makes you wonder why Honda have taken so long!

COD tech is very good tech, not disputing that! But the general trend is that in the real world, Turbo engines fail to deliver on their claims of efficiency at their particular power output.

Using the same source that I did for the Mazda figures, (Honest John's real world MPG figures) the Audi 1.4 TFSI CoD averages at 47.5 for the 150ps model. Im going to use the Mazda 2.0 165ps to compare as the deficit in power is only 15ps vs 30ps for the 120ps model and it averages 41.5. So a win for the TFSI?? Well the official claim for the Audi is 59-62mpg making it achieve 78% of its official figure. Mazda's official figure is for 48.7, so it achieves 85% of that, plus it delivers 10% more power with only a 15% hit in economy. So I would deem that a victory for NA, but the CoD is very damned impressive!

Back to the Honda, the 1.4 NA is 100ps, the closest Audi unit in power with figures on HJ is the 1.2 TFSI, good for 105ps with a real world average of 40.5mpg (71% of its official figure). The 1.4 NA Honda manages to return 46.6 in the real world(90% of its official figure). So again, why is downsizing a good thing?

Honest John, any troll or fanboy can input unscientific tosh, last time I looked it didn't publish the number of contributers per car so it's meaningless, and as I said Father in law is getting 52 mpg, more than your quoted 165 hp Mazda, so a win for the 1.4 Turbo.

Back to the Honda 1.4 NA, in answer to "why is downsizing a good thing" (they're actually the same cc) it takes 13.5 to get to 60 yet still only gets 46 mpg (using your figures) as opposed to 47.5 mpg (using your figures again). So yes Turbo charging is a good thing!

 

Hydrogen cars just went POP

16 September 2016
Comparing a 1.4 NA to a 1.4T is like comparing a v6 to a v8.

As to your Honest John comments, your anecdotal evidence is no more scientific than the Honest John figures as it is purely anecdotal with no hard evidence at all so it is also completely meaningless.

The increase in MPG of the TFSI CoD unit is more down to the CoD tech than turbocharging.

And it is a 'downsized' motor because it has replaced (indirectly) a 2.0 FSI unit.

Pages

Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week

  • Lexus LC500
    Car review
    20 October 2017
    Futuristic Lexus LC coupé mixes the latest technology with an old-school atmospheric V8
  • Maserati Levante S GranSport
    First Drive
    20 October 2017
    Get ready to trade in your diesels: Maserati’s luxury SUV finally gets the engine it’s always needed
  • Jaguar XF Sportbrake TDV6
    First Drive
    19 October 2017
    The handsome Jaguar XF Sportbrake exhibits all the hallmarks that makes the saloon great, and with the silky smooth diesel V6 makes it a compelling choice
  • Volkswagen T-Roc TDI
    First Drive
    19 October 2017
    Volkswagen's new compact crossover has the looks, the engineering and the build quality to be a resounding success, but not with this diesel engine
  • BMW M550i
    First Drive
    19 October 2017
    The all-paw M550i is a fast, effortless mile-muncher, but there's a reason why it won't be sold in the UK