Ty M

I have a '94 Ex coupe, D16Z6 5spd. I'm ready to get rid of this car. I'm getting rid of this car. BUT I've seen the light of the little Hondas. When my car works well it makes Priuses look wasteful. Anywho...

My question is: I'm looking for something in a hatch of the same vintage or maybe a little newer. I've found a '93 DX hatch for a good price but it's an auto. How terribly disappointed am I going to be with this trans as far as acceleration, mileage, and reliablility? How long do the autos usually go before needing a rebuild (I know with GM truck transmissions you can pinpoint to within 5K of where they're gonna blow)?

I looked up for the P20 in my current car that 5th is .702 ratio and the final drive is 4.250. The same source told me that the final for a 92-95 hatch is 3.888 but didn't have any info on autos. Does anyone know what the 4th gear ratio is on an '93 DX hatch auto trans?

Thanks,
Ty

Matt93eg

Do yourself a favor and STAY AWAY from that hatch with the auto tranny. You will regret it and be wanting to do an auto to manual conversion. So don't do it. The automatics take all the fun out of driving, add excess weight to the car over the 5-spd and are quite a bit slower stock for stock. Plus doing any kind of upgrades with the auto is just pointless and big upgrades such as Boost will usually cause the tranny to take a dump very quick.

As far as reliability, I have seen some be fine and some not. We replaced the auto tranny in my younger bros 95 civic like 3 times, both my parents 94 civics are autos and have been fine as well as the auto tranny in there 98 CR-V.

But, I will say it again, buy a car that is already a manual. Discussion closed and I am sure most people will back me on this.

BrandonR

I don't think the OP is exactly asking a auto vs. manual which is better question, more along is the auto trans any good. All the auto to manual swaps i've done, the auto trans was still fine and good. If the trans is taken care of it should be fine. Mileage shouldnt be any less than the coupe baseing that on the hatch is lighter. Might drop off a tad. I bought my hatch auto and converted it. But to the OP, if you decide on the auto hatch, you can always swap to 5spd is you want or the trans gives out. Which isn't common in my experience.

Matt93eg

Ok?? And in my response I basically said the auto tranny is "no" good. It sucks for driving, and it sucks for performance. What else needs to be said on the subject? Nothing IMO. It makes no sense to get an auto now if you even think there's the "slightest" chance you will want a manual later. Unless you just want to cruise and have the ease of use of an auto tranny there is no reason "NOT" to get a 5-spd.

And the OP clearly asked "How terribly disappointed am I going to be with this trans as far as acceleration, mileage, and reliablility?" And the auto tranny "is" a "disappointment".

BrandonR

The auto trans is great for driving. Especially in alot of stop & go situations. The auto trans wasn't ever designed for racing and such lol. Yes acceleration is slower, but there are pros of the auto over a manual. Thats why I said what I said. I was simply stating the auto isn't something that should turn you away from a car. Especially if everything else is good. I agree with you Matt, I don't like the auto. But you can't have a single mind set that the auto is never good. My apologies if I seemed like I was attacking you.

Matt93eg

Nah man, I apologize, I more less attacked you because of your opinion. That's on me. I am a bit biased towards Manual trannys...I agree that in a sense its more "relaxing" to drive an automatic, you get stopped at a red light on a steep hill..no problem..just let off the brake and hit the gas and off you go. No having to worry about a clutch pedal and all. But I love my manual. I would just hate to see the OP jump and grab up that auto hatch because its a good deal, only to turn around a bit later and use the money he saved to buy all the parts for the manual swap.

So I guess for me the end result would be:

If you don't care about loosing power and acceleration and shifting gears, and don't want to mod the car, the auto is the way to go.

If you care about power, acceleration, like hammering gears, go for the manual.

I should have been a bit more "flexible" with my answer.

BrandonR

It's all good man lol.

Ty M

Thanks for the responses, y'all!

I am really looking more towards reliability and economy than performance. The manual has a bit more zip but the auto is nice here in hill country. It'd be easier for my gf to drive an auto, too, if she ever needed to. The drivability aspect is pretty much a draw, IMHO.

Reliability of the auto was my main concern. Like I mentioned in the OP, GM's 4L60E transmission in suburbans, tahoes, and 1500 pickups like to fail within 5,000 miles of 165k. I didn't know if there was a similar correlation in Hondas. Anybody noticed any trends of this type? It's nice to know that there are a lot of autos around left over from auto to manual swaps.

I would guess economy will be close to the same if the hatch is lighter and geared a bit higher (and has the 1.5). But I would prefer the manual in this respect just to eek out the every bit of advantage.

Edit: I guess I should mention that the car that I'm looking at has 205K on it. Is there anything else that tends to go bad after a lot of miles? I've seen a scattering of head gaskets at various mileage intervals...

Thanks,
Ty

BrandonR

I would see if the previous owner has any paperwork for past maintence. If not then I would just check oil (look for milky residue, may indicate a headgasket problem), coolant (Look for discoloration), and trans fluid color. (Red is good, brown and burnt smelling is bad.) and TEST DRIVE. lol. My Z6 has 200,456 miles and runs great and does not burn oil. 200K isn't bad if your using it as a DD, it's all in the maintence how long it will last. Best of luck!

Matt93eg

X2! Oil changes at the proper intervals as well as other routine maintenance goes a LOOONG way.

Ty M

What is the oil change interval on these cars? I bought an operator's manual from Honda that says that the oil should be changed every 7500miles!? I looked at the color at 5000 and said screw that and have changed it every 3-4K since. Granted I was using conventional oil but that's what the book spec's.

Matt93eg

Yeah the manual says 7500 miles but that's BS on Honda IMO. I change mine every 3,000 miles.

BrandonR

I use pennzoil full synthetic and change it ever 5K on the dot. I'm lowering that number though since I have a job as delivery driver @ dominos lol. Really 3-4K on conventional I'd say is good, and no more than 5-7K on full synthetic. Obviously the harder you push your car the shorter interval you should use.

NOFX

The manual EX coupe is going to be quite a bit peppier than the auto DX hatch.

The EX is heavier, has higher horsepower and more options by far.

The DX will be lighter since it has fewer options and is a hatch but it will also have lower horsepower. That auto transmission will be heavier and in particular will really kill acceleration.

I remember test driving an automatic '96-'98 Civic sedan. I was still not convinced I wanted at Honda and that car didn't do anything to help. Then I drove a manual '97 EX coupe and was sold. I bought the car right away.

It was just a world of a difference.

I'm not so lazy that it bothers me to drive manual in city traffic, in a traffic jam or up and down hills. I guess it's never been a problem for me. I will not want to drive an automatic until it's medically necessary for me to do so. I admit I'm a bit bias about it, but I don't think that discounts my opinion.

I've managed to get 41 mpg in my '98 EX coupe, fully loaded with more than just stock options and no weight reduction.

It's by no means a fast or even quick car, but it gets me places and it's fun to drive. Interestingly enough my daily is quicker, has more torque and gets worse gas mileage but it's not nearly as fun to drive as my Civic.

So I believe you'll be very disappointed with acceleration on the automatic car.

As far as gas mileage, it's known automatics get worse gas mileage than manual transmissions. If you look on fueleconomy.gov you'll see it says:

1994 Honda Civic - 1.6L VTEC
City: 25
Hwy: 32
Combined: 28

1993Honda Civic - 1.5L
City: 26
Hwy: 35
Combined: 29

If you look at the real life gas mileage numbers though, you'll see the average (from 5 drivers) for the EX is 35.2mpg (32-38mpg) and the DX is 30.4mpg (24-42mpg).

So gas mileage appears to be a possible toss up. Really you should be able to pull DX gas mileage numbers with an EX easily and probably visa versa.

So onto reliability.

I've heard Honda's weak point on their cars are the transmissions. I've heard this for both automatic and manual transmissions though.

I don't know what the normal problems for automatics might be off hand, but the manual D-series (which come in all '92-'00 Civics besides the '99-'00 Si) transmissions often have issues with the input shaft bearing. It's a cheap bearing to buy, about $20, but it's a pain to replace. If you're not familiar with internal transmission work then doing this could totally disable your vehicle for a long time.

Luckily you can often find a used, but good, D-series manual transmission for fairly cheap. I'd say no more than $200, tops. I bought mine for $40, though it does have a tiny bit of third gear grind (common). Performance hasn't been affected.

Meanwhile the automatic transmissions, if they fail, can be very expensive to fix or replace. Finding a replacement is going to set you back more than the typical manual transmissions. I just don't believe they're as common on the used market as the manual versions are.

Both transmissions are pretty easy to pull, but automatic transmissions are heavier and therefore the actual dropping and lifting can be more trouble than doing the same on a manual transmission.

My friend dropped my tiny manual transmission on his chest and dragged it out from under the car. The he tossed the new one back on in a similar fashion.

So reliability might be pretty close, but in the event of failure the auto is going to cost significantly more either way.

As far as the car being auto could make it easier just in case your girlfriend needs to drive the car, buying a manual could also give you a chance to teach her and her a chance to learn how to drive a manual transmission vehicle, which could be even more beneficial to her in the long run.

If I ever have children they're going to be required to be able to drive a manual transmission before they are allowed to get their driver's license. Because Mom says so.

NOFX

I should also add that while the EX you currently own might not be "the one", you might still find enjoyment in another Civic. I'd suggest you look into other EXes (coupe or sedan) or possibly an Si (hatch). And that's skipping over the '96-'00 Civics, which are similar to their older siblings, but a tad bit bigger. The engine choices are all the same generally (besides the HX 1.6L SOHC VTEC-E and GX 1.6L SOHC VTEC compressed natural gas). Plus all '96-'00 Civics in the US have 1.6L engines. No 1.5L engines were available for the US market for those years.

newtron63h

just a couple facts to start off with.

manual transmissions have been around longer than automatics.

if you were to disassemble both the manual and the automatic found in a 92-95 civic, there would be approximately TWICE the number of parts in the auto as the manual.

automatics rely on hydraulic pressure to make gear changes, manuals rely on you moving the shifter to make gear changes.

i personally HATE automatics. the only one i EVER plan on owning is in a 06 Jeep Liberty CRD and thats only because they only offered the diesel with an automatic.

automatics are VERY complicated and there are alot more moving parts than on a manual. they take the fun out of driving, they USUALLY get worse mileage because of the way a torque converter works. they are usually slower than the same car with a manual. there are ALOT more parts that wear in an automatic than a manual........so i stay away from them.

some facts and opinions for ya.

Vindicator9000

I hate automatics in Hondas as much as the next guy, but I think they have their place. My wife won't have a manual, but loves her Hondas. So we've had 2 automatic Hondas. My beater 3rd car (94 Jeep Cherokee) is automatic, and in those the auto is as reliable or more so than the manuals.

OP: In my experience, well maintained Honda automatics are not much less reliable than the manuals. I've owned 2, one in a 96 Accord, and one in a 99 AWD CRV.

I recommend drain/fills on the fluid once every year or 15-20K miles, and NEVER power flush it. It should run 200K+ with no rebuild.

newtron63h

oh and some personal experience for you. i was driving my dads 95 isuzu trooper with 175hp and weighing like 4500lbs. a guy from HS is in his 97 EX sedan with an automatic. i had just left a light and was in 3rd gear, he wanted to rtace so when he said go i left it in 3rd and floored it, his car downshifted and i still beat him by about 3 carlengths in a 1/4mileish. CRAZY SLOW. i drove that car another time and my 90 Jetta GLi felt like a rocket compared to his.

so, they are slower, you get worse mileage, and they are less reliable than manuals,assuming proper maintenance they are usually fine, but most ppl completely ignore/forget/dont know that the transmission needs to be serviced too.