Instrumented Test
Here’s a casebook illustration of why alternative technologies such as hybrids and electrics are having a rough go in the marketplace: traditional automobiles just keep getting better, too, sometimes by sharing the same “advances” pioneered by their supposed betters. In the HF trim level tested here, Honda offers a low-cost/high-mpg Civic appealing to frugal-minded car-shoppers who might otherwise land in a smaller B-segment hatch (such as Honda’s own Fit) or a hybrid. By scratching off its equipment list hefty hardware such as a glass moonroof, power adjustable heated seats, and climate control while making a few judicious changes (notably adding underbody panels to reduce drag and using low-mass, low-drag aluminum wheels), the HF gets both improved fuel economy and a sticker price of only $20,730.
That’s pretty much a fixed figure, too. Those who’d prefer to ladle on options are invited to choose a different Civic model, including the Hybrid, which can be had with add-ons such as navigation and a full leather interior. Those solely concerned with their personal carbon footprints are presumably impressed by the Hybrid’s 45-mpg EPA combined rating (up 1 mpg from the one we tested a year ago). We recorded 38 mpg in that one, versus 33 in this HF and 28 mpg in an all-the-toys 2014 EX-L with the same drivetrain.
The frugal-minded are notorious for actually doing the math before they write the first check and the cheapest (no leather, no navigation) Hybrid is $25,425 while an EX-L with nav is just $305 below that. You can buy a lot of gasoline for nearly $5000, causing our penny-pincher to consider the HF.
If our miser drives more like the EPA and less like we do at Car and Driver, the case is even more convincing because the HF’s 35-mpg EPA combined rating is up 2 mpg for 2014. It managed this by adopting the continuously variable transmission (CVT) that also replaces a five-speed automatic in most of the rest of the range.
For 2013, only the Hybrid had a CVT. We didn’t think highly of this new CVT when the 2014 Civic sedan placed fourth, ahead of only the Toyota Corolla, in a five-way comparison test. We wish the HF offered a manual transmission (our miserly friends agree, still harboring the illusion that they can manage the engine more efficiently than a pricey, electronically controlled CVT). But it doesn’t, and our low regard for CVTs is subjective while the benefits easily pencil out. The Civic HF saw its EPA fuel-economy rating rise from 29/41 mpg city/highway to 31/41, giving it an overall 35 versus the 33 for the 2013 example we tested with the old five-speed automatic. As mentioned, we saw 33 mpg in our test, which is actually 1 mpg worse than we got with the five-speed, probably a side effect of our continuously booting the gas pedal in search of livelier response. Where the old five-speed automatic had a low-ratio first gear to generate a quick launch, the CVT has a more leisurely character when the light turns green.
The HF shares the 143-hp 1.8-liter VTEC four-cylinder with the more plushly trimmed EX-L sedan we tested with this transmission. But here are some more numbers that pencil out in this model’s frugal favor: at 2693 pounds, it’s 20 lighter than its 2013 equivalent and 180 lighter than the last hybrid we tested. Carrying 178 fewer pounds than the EX-L onto our test track, the HF got to 60 mph in 8.3 seconds, the best time we’ve recorded for a non-Si Civic sedan.
Unfortunately, the HF’s fuel-miser mission puts the base model’s front-disc/rear-drum brake setup behind those lightweight wheels and wraps them in the same low-friction/low-traction Bridgestone Ecopia tires that serve the Hybrid. It managed only 0.76 g of skidpad roadholding and took 189 feet to stop from 70 mph. With grippier Michelin rubber and four-wheel discs, the EX-L made a much better showing (0.85 g and 165 feet).
Entertainment on a twisty road is not the mission here, though. Low operating costs and lots of car for the money have a certain old-school appeal that makes this HF more Henry Ford than Henrik Fisker. We’ll note that the latter person is a lot of fun while the former, well, he was better at getting his sums right.
