(First Posted October 1, 2013) How often does a truly revolutionary car appear? Let’s disqualify uranium powered flying cars on the cover of Popular Science and other quirky eccentrics from consideration, but focus on mass production cars that profoundly and permanently changed the autosphere. Narrow the field further to the small-size end of the US market post WWII, and the number of candidates is all of…two. The VW Beetle completely turned the US car market (and careless drivers) on its head, both in its technical specifications and in creating a mass small-car market. The Beetle had a brilliant twenty-year run, and just as it was running out of compression, it handed the baton to that other revolutionary, the Honda Civic.
The Civic appeared here in 1973, and immediately recreated the VW cult phenomena of the mid-fifties: drivers waving to each other. That was only diluted (like the Beetle’s) when rampant Civic-mania made waving tedious. It didn’t take long for that to happen, arriving as it did on the cusp of the first energy crisis. The Civic was an instant hit: forty miles per gallon, a $2150 price tag ($11k adjusted), and a blast to drive. The thin-skinned Civic weighed barely 1500 pounds, which made it feel a ton livelier than its 52 hp 1200 cc engine would suggest. Don’t think I’m exaggerating either: Ford’s new 1975 “compact” Granada weighed 2000 lbs more and sported 75 horses from a 3.3 liter six. The Civic was the Mini Cooper of that slothful era.
Its super-compact FWD two-box hatchback package was revolutionary in these parts. OK, that wasn’t exactly new in Europe, and a gaggle of Minis, Austin 1100s and Simcas 1204s had made their way stateside. But none of them were significant sellers, and all of them had weaknesses that kept the concept out of the mainstream. The Civic finally put FWD two-box cars up and down Main Street, Anytown, USA. And not just for its innovative design, but the way it all worked together. The Civic was truly greater than the sum of its tiny parts.
While the baby Honda broke some serious new ground in the US, its revolutionary impact was perhaps even greater in Japan. Even more conservative than the US, the small car sector there was totally dominated by conventional RWD three-box sedans. The Civic was as radical in its design as was Honda’s aspirations to build a popular, cheap mass-produced car. Up to that point, Honda was strictly a low-volume producer of niche four-wheeled vehicles: the sporty kei N600; the sports cars series 500 – 800; and the brilliant but prohibitively expensive 1300.
The Civic’s name announced its intentions: to be an everyman’s car, a Japanese Volkswagen. And Honda was certainly not encumbered by the inertia and tooling that kept Toyota building RWD Corollas until 1987. Four wheel independent strut suspension, smooth and rev-happy 1200cc OHC alloy four engine, slick-shifting transmission, hatchback, ultra-lightweight construction, and attention to detail defined the formula. And if that weren’t enough, Honda gave a slap in the face to the industry big guys with the CVCC (compound vortex combustion chamber) engine that appeared two years later in 1974.
The EPA standards for ’75–’76 called for a 90% reduction in smog-forming exhaust components. The Big Three had managed some delays, because they needed time to ramp up the catalytic converters they needed to meet this standard. And here comes Honda with the first engine to meet the standard, and without any catalyst. Since the CVCC could run on cheaper leaded gas, its fuel costs were unbeatable.
The Civic hooked a large swath of Americans to a whole new automotive dimension: Japanese reliability crossed with European-style driving fun. One literally wears these diminutive Civics like a snug yet reasonably-comfortable pair of pants. The sparse dash design is brilliantly clean, handsome and timeless compared to the typical Detroit mid-seventies wood-grained-vinyl Baroque dashboard confabulations. And everything works just so on the Civic, like just about every Honda since. This is it, the prototype of the Honda way; the formula for the company’s lasting success.
I assume these early Civics must have certain weak spots other than their cancer-attracting thin sheet metal, but none that I’m particularly aware of. In 1977, a co-worker in LA had one of these, an early small-bumpered ’73 1200. He had taken it back to the Midwest for just a year or so, and was already fighting the curse. He actually stripped the interior of his four year old Civic in a heroic effort to track down and attack the sources of the rot. I suspect it was only a delaying tactic at best, because once they started to go, it was inevitably terminal. Yet none of the examples in Eugene show any signs of visible rust. Salt is obviously the enemy, not rain.
Do you perceive an aura of death surrounding this particular Civic? It was palpable when I found it washed up like flotsam on a busy corner. It sat there for weeks, forlorn, abandoned and unlocked, and every time I passed it I started mentally composing its obituary. And not just for this one, but for all gen1 Civics, because this is the first and only one I’d found since starting Curbside Classics.
Sure enough, after about a month of sitting there, it was gone; undoubtedly to the great impound yard by the River Styx. But Lo! Lazarus arises, proclaiming: “the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”. It was suddenly back on the street, and shortly thereafter I started running into more gen1 Civics. Did this black Messiah release the souls of other Civics in its trip to the underworld?
At last count, there are about a half-dozen of these revolutionaries still at work in Eugene. For someone documenting the disappearance of endangered auto species, this is akin to the reappearance of the passenger pigeon.
Well, Eugene is home to numerous old revolutionaries of many stripes from the early seventies. And they often stay undercover until they’re exposed. But these old Civics deserve immortality, not the wrecking yard. Please put an air cleaner on this one, and keep these little old Hondas on the road, alongside all those Beetles. They’re a living history lesson in the American revolution.
One more point of evidence the Civic was the VW’s spiritual successor:
The Pontiac dealer where my mother bought her 74 Luxury LeMans started selling Honda right about that time (Don Ayres in Fort Wayne, Indiana). The salesman lived near us, and on a couple of occasions when the car needed warranty service, he would come by the house and take the Pontiac, leaving a bright yellow Civic for Mom to use for the day.
I was not driving yet, but my mother had a lot of fun driving that Civic. A couple of years later, I cracked up the Pontiac, and we got a 76 Civic wagon with the Honda Matic transmission which we kept for a couple of weeks while the LeMans was getting put back together. That one I did get to drive, and it was a lot of fun.
Most Japanese cars from the 70s do little for me, but I have a real soft spot for the early Civic.
The Civic was the first popular Japanese car that was engineered differently from Toyotas and Datsuns. Mazdas had Wankels, and Subarus had Boxers which were their stake to success, but Honda took a supremely reengineered FWD econobox into the Market first, and struck bigger success than Mazda had ever found.
No one was really ready for a competing product for the Civic. Literally everyone else was making due with old rear drive mini sporty cars with the build quality of a Folgers coffee can. Vegas looked good, as did Pintos – but they came from another design era from the Civic. You never wanted to be in the back seat of an econobox before the Civic showed Americans they could keep their legs and heads sitting in the back of their cars.
The Golf played into the Civic success as well by validating the FWD-transverse mounted econobox style with the new VW. If you wanted the new VW with Japanese build quality, you bought a Civic. Better, the Civic was cheaper by far, than the VW.
Other Japanese products were just old fashioned, compared to the Civic. Corollas were already boring, Datsuns looked like ugly Japanese toy robots on wheels, and Chrysler offered Mitsubishi or Hillman products that had the build quality of an American vehicle at the time. Anyone want a Hillman Avenger, a.k.a. Plymouth Cricket, or a Mitsubishi, a.k.a. Dodge Colt?
Actually, I’d love to find a Cricket in working/restorable order. Just for the sake of being different. If I couldn’t find it Plymouth badged, I’d settle for the Hillman original.
Yes, it seems that Pontiac dealers were often the early sellers of Hondas. In our area, it was Larry Hopkins Pontiac of Sunnyvale, CA, that sold Hondas. Of course, the Pontiac franchise is long gone now and it is Larry Hopkins Honda, a stand-alone Honda shop, for many years now.
Around here, it was GM dealers – particularly Oldsmobile dealers. One of the major Honda franchises in the Harrisburg area originally sold Oldsmobiles.
In the DFW area it seems that most of the early Honda dealers were also GM dealers – Taylor Pontiac, Freeman Oldsmobile, David McDavid Pontiac, Bill McDavid Pontiac, Frank Kent Cadillac, and Vandergriff Chevrolet. Of these dealers, all but Taylor are still in business and have free standing Honda stores in addition to their GM stores. We have purchased one Honda and two Acura’s from Vandergriff and have had excellent service from all three automobiles. I don’t know what Honda’s secret is, but with proper maintenance their cars just seem to “go and go and go” – kind of like the “Energizer Bunny!”
In 1979 I bought a beautiful yellow civic. It wasn’t the dark yellow that is more common but a very pretty bright yellow. I got lots of comments on that car and its colour.
It is interesting how the Civic CVCC 5spd got up to 47mpg, but the Civic 1200 with the 2speed Hondamatic only makes 23city/30hwy.
A college friend had one and it was a little screamer around town. Fun little car.
Did your friend’s car have the Honda Matic? It was a 2 speed affair with a torque converter and a fairly tall low gear. I suspect it was a lot like an early manual shift Powerglide (though it did not use planetary gears like the PG and most other automatics).
The thing was so slow, that the car almost made you floor the gas pedal to keep up with traffic. For such a small car, the tranny made the car feel a bit like a speedboat with a small outboard motor in the way that the application of full throttle first gave you noise, then some forward motion (though not so much of it as you might like). Eventually, a manual shift into high was for cruising. Any need for real acceleration while at city speeds absolutely required a downshift. I loved the Civic, hated the HondaMatic.
No, he had the manual. Oh, and the car was yellow which everyone knows adds at least 5hp (but still less than red)!
After driving a buddy’s Hondamatic-equipped Civic in high school, it’s easy to understand why the difference in fuel economy: It was like driving a five-speed, but only using second and fourth gears. You often felt as thought you were alternating between revving and lugging the engine.
Being in the right gear at the right time does wonders for fuel economy, which is why – all other things being equal – more gears (or a CVT) seems to be so popular these days.
how is that “interesting?” more forward gears have generally always brought an increase in fuel economy numbers. Nowadays automatics and manuals typically have the same number of forward gears so the difference in fuel economy is little to none.
It is interesting to me in that the spread between ratings for the manual vs. auto is HUGE.
The classic recipe for an inexpensive sports car in the fifties and sixties was 1500 pounds, 52hp, 40mpg, and better handling than a sedan. What’s interesting to me is that Honda didn’t market the Civic as a sports car.
“They’re a living history lesson in the American revolution.”
No less an authority on the subject than the Smithsonian Museum of American History agrees completely. They have a Honda Civic on permanent display in their “America on the Move” exhibit.
http://amhistory.si.edu/onthemove/collection/object_28.html
My best memory of the Civic was the EPA-congressional hearings. All three Detroit manufacturers were there, unanimous in their testimony that an engine that could run under the proposed standards was just not possible.
And, after they were done, the reps from Honda came in and said, “We’ve already done it.” This was a major point in the downhill slide of the Big Three.
You are kind of having a case of remembering the parts you want to remember. Fact is Ford was fully aware of the CVCC’s ability to meet the short term CO emissions standards since they participated in it’s development. It was more of a case that an engine that could meet the proposed standards would cause a significant increase in price. The fact is that the CVCC system cost more to implement than adding a Cat to an existing engine.
“Since they participated in its development”
Please verify with some outside sources that Ford participated in the development of Honda’s CVCC system.
Believe me I’ve looked for sources on the internet about it. I learned of it when while doing a project for my Power Mechanics class in Junior High. I’ve looked for information in PS and PM but I must have read it in a car magazine that is not currently available online.
However in a snipet I found of the book “The Honda Myth” ISBN-13: 9781932234268 there is mention of the fact that they had “decided to begin licensing CVCC technology to automakers all over the world. Taking a long term perspective, Honda judged that responding to a proposal from Ford would give them an edge in negotiations…… ”
Unfortunately the snipet ends there and I’m not going to shell out the money to purchase the book to be able to quote the rest of it here.
Not nearly good enough for support of the statement that you have been making repeatedly for years. Sorry….
If you research it, you’ll find that you’ve got it backwards. Honda had already produced the first generation CVCC before Ford proposed a partnership.
Ford was trying to get what it could from Honda, as Honda was ahead of the game in developing an engine that could comply with emissions regulations without a cat. I know that you hate to give the Japanese credit where it is due, but try giving it a shot, if only for the sake of accuracy.
Now, now, Paul, let’s not let the lack of supporting facts get in the way of a good conspiracy. The only reason Honda can sell cars in the USA is the fact Japanese spies and American fifth columnists are poisoning your drinking water. Of course, the conspiracy is perpetrated by the anti-Christ Kenyan who runs your country.
When you get your news from Rush, there really isn’t any need to go anywhere else.
@PCH no where do I deny that Honda produced the first test engines using the CVCC moniker themselves. Once they had some running engines they actively looked to license that technology. Once they were out promoting this fact and after they had inked a licensing agreement with Toyota was when Ford approached them. The majority of mfgs just went for a simple licensing agreement while Ford being the leader in research regarding stratified charge engines took a different approach. From what I read back in the day instead of a relatively small upfront licensing payment with royalties to be paid on engines produced with that technology Ford offered a much larger up front payment and to share what it had learned about the concept of a stratified charge engine during its R&D.
I don’t remember Ford ever participating with Honda in the development of the CVCC engine, but I do remember reading in Popular Science in the late 1960s, I think, about a “stratified charge” engine being developed and tested by Ford that promised greatly increased fuel mileage (as in big cars like Lincolns getting better than 20 mpg routinely, not just under special conditions). I think it involved fuel injection, rather than a carburetor. I could be wrong after all these years! The article also mentioned that the exhaust from this new engine smelled odd.
When that 1300 cc CVCC engine from Honda came out, it was a game changer–fantastic fuel mileage, good emissions characteristics, and with a carburetor and pretty straightforward design. When I had a 1977 Accord with the 1600 cc engine, I don’t remember much in the way of emissions control hardware, and the engine was easy to maintain and keep in tune. I did have to get the timing belt replaced while I had the car, and did have to replace the driver’s seat (the hardware for the seat back broke). Here in Tucson, though, the spectre of rust never appeared. I finally got rid of the car when it started to burn oil and wouldn’t pass emissions tests. I was ready for a change by then.
See Ford PROCO Programmed Combustion engine
https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=217922
That Civic ad got me thinking: what was the last car to include the “Unleaded Gas Only” warning on the instrument panel? I’m almost positive my 1988 Ciera had it, but I bet it survived for a while after that, certainly until they ran out of parts with the label.
Way way way after that, I still saw them on a few cars into the early 2000’s
Most Fords had that up until 2004 or so(Mustangs for sure). I actually didn’t realize newer cars stopped printing that reminder 😛
I’m not so impressed with this car; you see, I bought a new ’76 with a CVCC. Looking back, I think Honda should have by-passed the CVCC and gone to a catalytic converter right from the get-go like almost everyone else. It probably would’ve cleaned up the mazed of hoses under the hood to some extent, improved the driveability, and most importantly, would’ve eliminated that troublesome CVCC head and gasket. To me, the CVCC head was nothing more than a great marketing tool, it failed to deliver on a practical level (recalls, etc.). The ’76 Civic we had was also equipped with a Hondamatic, which I came to realize was a better choice than the manual transmissions if only because it too wasn’t so trouble prone as the manuals.
I’m with you on this. The 1200 was the enthusiasts’ choice and the CVCC was a complex approach to not using a cat. The 1200 had shockingly good performance. Maybe 0-60 in 13 seconds. A buddy had one with a aftermarket carb and tubular exhaust manifold and some 185s on 13″ rims. I think Koni dampers were on that car too. The mods really elevated the performance and it always got the nod of approval from roadrace/solo/rally types.
Little known fact is that Ford helped fund and develop the CVCC engine as they had started work on their own version they called PROCO and when they got wind of Honda’s work they decided to join forces. In the end Ford decided that the CVCC was a dead end as it did manage to meet CO standards w/o a Cat it hurt the NOx numbers and there was no way to make it meet those upcoming standards without adding a Cat. The only advantage was the fact that the engine could run on regular gas, the added complexity of the 3bbl carb, the extra valve, the pre-combustion chamber and vacuum computer did not result in savings vs a Cat. It also wouldn’t work with fuel injection, and there was already writing all the wall that said that was where things were going to have to go in the long term. So they walked away from the project but kept close enough ties to Honda to ink a deal to put a Honda designed and built power train in the first FWD Escort. Of course once Hank II got wind of that he axed that deal.
As far as the head gasket issue the 1200 was just as prone to eat its head gasket as the CVCC.
Eric. You’ve made the statement that “Ford helped fund and develop the CVCC engine” a number of times. I’m not buying it; please provide some hard evidence.
The Ford PROCO relied on a very expensive mechanical direct fuel injection system, one of the reasons it was abandoned.
In doing a bit of research, I can’t find any evidence that Ford and Honda worked together on the CVCC. Ford’s PROCO dates back to 1958, and they tried hard to bring it to production, but according to some engineers that worked on it right up to the end (1978), it had serious issues with part-throttle response.
As far as I can tell, there are some very fundamental differences in concept between PROCO and CVCC. PROCO has only two valves, a combustion chamber in the bowl of the piston, and depends on a modified diesel direct injection system to work.
Honda’s CVCC is quite different, in that it uses a third valve and a separate pre-combustion chamber and partition in the cylinder head to isolate the initial (non-lean) charge, the flames of which then shoot through the partition to ignite the lean mixture in the rest of the head. The key thing also is that it could use a carb, unlike the PROCO which had to use expensive direct injection.
They almost couldn’t be more different in approaches to designing a stratified charge engine.
Also, would you please cite a credible source for your oft-repeated contention that Ford had a deal with Honda to supply engines for the ’81 Escort? I’m having a hard time swallowing that one too.
Here’s a cross section of the Ford PROCO head:
And here’s the Honda CVCC. Totally different approaches, totally different solutions. No similarities at all. I’m calling you out on your statement. Put up or don’t repeat it again 🙂
Here’s a forum thread where former Ford engineers discuss the limitations of the the PROCO: http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/21381-information-wanted-on-ford-proco-engine/
“That mechanical pump was ridiculously expensive and so was that dual plane distributor.”
Here’s a quote in regard to the Honda CVCC: “It was only “similar” (to the Honda CVCC) in the concept of lighting a “rich” mixture that burned “lean”. Physically they were totally different”
The really big difference between the two is that the Honda CVCC was production viable and worked well, whereas the PROCO never got there, even after 20 years of development by Ford.
I sense a deliberate attempt by you to diminish Honda’s original and very successful engineering work in bringing a viable stratified charge engine to the market. Don’t be such an obvious Ford shill, please.
http://world.honda.com/history/challenge/1972introducingthecvcc/text06/
http://www.914.qc.ca/cvcc.html
If I understood correctly what I read in those two websites, other automakers including Ford and Toyota had already worked with the principle behind the CVCC system, but only Honda was successful in their attempts. Also the other milestone for Honda and the CVCC system was that their system didn’t need fuel injection to work.
After Honda success with it system, Toyota was the first company to license it and then others did the same including Ford. It also says on one of the sites that only two companies could meet the 1975 requirements, Mazda and Honda.
Paul, you really can’t let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy. It’s all the rage down there these days.
I seem to recall something about the Honda engine in Escorts deal too. It may have been in of Iaccoca’s books, or one of the other 2 Ford history books I read, one by David Halberstam and the other by Robert Lacey.
The PROCO was certainly viable from a production ready stand point, its downfall was the expense of the mechanical fuel injection and the large expenditure that would be required to implement it across all their engine families, a problem with the CVCC design as well for all the companies that initially purchased licenses. The fact is that to meet emissions requirements the catalytic converter was a more cost effective way to go. As mentioned many companies purchased licenses to use the CVCC technology but didn’t put it into production.
Plus EFI was just around the corner and Ford was at work on that too and strapping their CFI system on an existing 2bbl manifold was far cheaper than all the new parts that were required for PROCO or their version of the pre-chamber stratified charge engine. The reality as predicted in the New Scientist article I linked below was that the CVCC was not a long term solution with a relatively short shelf life.
Meanwhile using direct injection to produce a stratified charge engine has made a comeback, is in production today, looks like it will stay and likely become the norm.
I think this quote from Wikipedia may help with the confusion about Ford and Honda engines in a Ford car:
‘ In 1973 and 1974, as it became clear that the American car market would begin to favor smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, Ford’s then-President Lee Iacocca was highly interested in buying powertrains from Honda Motor Company as a way to minimize the cost of developing a small Ford car for the North American market, such as a modified version of Ford of Europe’s Ford Fiesta. The plan was scuttled by Henry Ford II, who stated: “No car with my name on the hood is going to have a Jap engine inside.” ‘
That same story also appears in Iacocca, Lido’s first book.
Being “highly interested” is not the same as “having inked a deal” (as Eric put it.
The reason I’m dubious is that Honda was absolutely slammed trying to keep up with the exploding demand for its Civic. Keep in mind, Honda had no large car factories, and was only building a modest number of N360/600s and a handful of the sports cars (S600).
I’ve read accounts about how insane it was at Honda for all through the seventies to attempt to keep up with demand, and how they were constantly supply-constrained.
It’s certainly possible that Iacocca was interested in the idea of using Honda engines, but did it ever go past that stage? Because Honda itself announced publicly that it could not supply CVCC engines to anybody due to capacity constraints, and that was one of the reasons they were willing to license the technology.
I find it very hard to imagine Honda agreeing to build the engines for the Escort, which was to be built in very large numbers (hundreds of thousands per year).
I wasn’t there, but I suspect this whole incident has been blown out of proportion. If I had to guess, the subject came up between Lee and Hank, and it never went any further. But if someone has better info based on fact, I’d be happy to hear it.
I’m strictly going from memory (as I don’t remember where I heard/read/saw this any longer), but I believe there was even a prototype car made with a Honda engine in it. I believe that’s what prompted the quote about “no car with my name on the hood…”
I thought it was the Escort that was supposed to get the Honda motor, but the Wiki entry mentions the Fiesta. But I’m glad to see others remember the Escort as the recipient, too.
At least the Alzheimer’s hasn’t started totally yet…
“Being ‘highly interested’ is not the same as ‘having inked a deal'”
There was an arrangement between Ford and Honda. But it occurred after Honda had already invented the first generation CVCC motor.
VanBuren is getting a lot of the details confused. I don’t think that he can accept the fact that Ford had something to learn from Honda.
In his book, The Reckoning, David Halberstam tells the story of Lee Iacocca meeting with Soichiro Honda in Japan. Iacocca presented Honda with a brand-new Mustang II, which had just debuted.
Honda was an admirer of Henry Ford I. He and Iacocca supposedly outlined an agreement that called for Ford to buy Honda engines and install them in a new Ford-designed subcompact. As I recall, however, Iacocca left Japan WITHOUT any signed contracts. He had a proposal from Honda, but that was it.
Iacocca returned to Dearborn and pitched the idea, but Henry Ford II squashed that plan. But nowhere does it say that Ford helped Honda develop the CVCC system. That system had already been developed by that point.
I dont remember rust being a problem on my brothers 77 when he bought it new, I just remember the dashboard melting in the opressive texas summer heat. Made for a funny sight you could reshape it like clay as the radio controls sagged. But it ran for many many years through 2 more brothers, never made it to me.
@txfiat being in Texas had everything to do with not remembering the rust. In the salt belt the early Civics were suddenly everywhere, then 4 years later they were suddenly all gone.
They rusted so fast you could see the sheet metal turning into iron oxide, munching along under the still shiny paint. In that regard they were no better than the VW beetle.
Thin-skinned indeed…
An acquaintance of mine purchased a new Gen 1 Civic in 1974.
A few weeks later, she drove out of a blind intersection only to be struck from the right by a motorcycle. The motorcycle came through the right side door. She suffered a broken right arm, and her nearly new Civic was scrapped by the insurance company.
The motorcycle driver sustained a few bruises and scratches, but was otherwise OK. Only damage to his motorcycle was a bent front fork and a flat tire.
Aside from this fragility, and a tendency to rust (where road salt is used), it was indeed a brilliant design.
They didn’t rust only where they put salt on the roads, finding a rusty first gen Civic was not that uncommon in the PNW when they were fairly new. In fact they had recalls for the front fender rust.
I had a similar experience but with a bicycle – had a 76 Civic Wagon during a military tour in Hawaii – great little island car; cheap to run, reliable. But turned in to a driveway on day and a gal on a bicycle struck the passenger side door – it literally caved in – I was able to pop it back out but from then on I kept having visions of an F-250 broadsiding me……..
I sold it shortly afterward.
My parents bought one of the first ones here in Vancouver, so I remember the waving thing. My tastes were much more broughamy and I found the Civic noisy and cramped. I also recall going to our cabin with it the first time and it being able to make it back up the steep gravel driveway down to the water. I think they finally had to drive it up in reverse. Our Caprice Estate wagon had no problem with the grade, but then had a lot more roadhugging weight.
These were so much fun, light and chuckable into corners, a peppy engine that tried hard, a clutch and shifter like butter. Nothing like it anymore.
I like the line in the ad, “an engine that delivers a disarming amount of scoot”.
When these were fairly new I seriously considered opening a Honda only shop as they were so profitable and people really loved them. There were a few companies that were starting to offer remanufactured Beetles at the time and I was pretty sure that there would be a market for remanufactured Civics. I already had a couple of customers who had ones that I had rebuilt the mechanicals completely (OK I did put “low mile” imported from Japan engine and transmissions in them) and once you knew what you were doing, and made your special wrenches, most of the work was pretty easy.
The Civic has nearly doubled its weight in the past 40 years.
Accord-ing to Honda (pun intended, of course!), fully-loaded 2013 Civic Si tips the scales at 2,992 lbs.
This reminds me of a conversation my BIL and I had over the weekend. He owned a 1985 Civic wagon, certainly a lot larger than this car. According to figures, my 2007 Honda Fit is larger than his Civic wagon in every dimension, and is significantly heavier.
Significantly safer too.
Yeah, I was going to chime in on that one too. An significantly roomier as well.
These are the good old days.
Gone in 60 months…That is, the bodywork in a maritime climate.
Just like its countless competitors from Renault, Peugeot, Citroën, Simca and Fiat in the seventies. I’ll bet the small French hatchbacks even used less fuel and if I recall correctly the small budget (German) Fords and Opels had better rust proofing.
The Beetle was already hopelessly outdated around 1970. It wasn’t hippie-cult either.
For that we had the Citroën 2CV.
Ah, memories… When I was a teenager in Montreal, my father bought a two-year-old ’75 Civic as a winter car, to preserve his beloved Rover 2000TC. I remember:
– It had the great luxury (to a 16-year-old) of an aftermarket tachometer.
– In 4th gear, it would do 15mph/1000rpm exactly: 4000rpm at 60, 5000rpm at 75, and it hit the redline at 6000 at 90.
– It got me my first speeding ticket: racing a friend who was driving his mother’s ’78 Civic down Côte-des-Neiges Road in Montreal. Sorry, Dad.
– I used it to teach my younger brother how to do hill-starts when he had his learner’s permit. The clutch survived, somehow.
– You’re not exaggerating about the rust… by the end of its life the lower door hinge supports had degenerated to the point where you basically had to throw the doors at the car to close them.
– The engine, however, was surprisingly tough. It eventually started burning a lot of oil, and my stepmother forgot to check it one week so it ran dry. We added a couple of litres of cheap oil and it started right up – but the main bearings had suffered, so it made terminal noises if you took it over 3000rpm. We drove it around the city like that for another year or so – I think it was eventually junked in 1983, which was a pretty impressive lifespan.
These were great cars at the time and much loved by the throngs of fresh high-school and university grads that bought them. At an inflation adjusted $11,000, they were a screaming deal. So what if the car only lasted five or six years, it was cheap driving in a very fun little car and the Civic’s competitors were no better in this regard.. What is more, most of the owners of these little cars went out and bought new Honda cars, much larger and more profitable ones, too. The Civic has been the most popular car in Canuckistan for years and is always in the top 10 in the USA, too.
That’s succcess.
I have to align myself with the folks who weren’t all that impressed by these cars. I know they were a hit on the coasts, but in the snowy, rusty midwest they were a tad bit “meh”. I know plenty of folks who were crazy about them as they were good drivers, but several years in regular service and the flaws were visible. Not only the aforementioned rust issues, but the transmissions you couldn’t “rock” in snow drifts, once the emissions controls tubing aged a bit, they were a freakin’ nightmare to decipher and the propensity of CVCC’s to pop head gaskets.
By the time I was in high school (mid to late 70’s) there were plenty of these cars in the parking lot and we were all learning their habits, good and bad. Compared to the contemporary small cars we had at the time (Dart, Nova, Maverick, Vega, Pinto, Gremlin, B210, Corolla, Rabbits, 128’s even) it was a sprinter among them. But the “thin” construction and the lack of torque (c’mon, I was 16!) was a big turnoff. I never felt safe in one of those, the low seating position combined with the tiny size. The fuel economy was great, especially in 1979 when fuel prices spiked again…
I’ve said this before, if you were to ask me which car was more significant (in light of my experiences growing up) the Rabbit would win by a huge margin. More dealerships, a better reputation (at least initially, a lot of goodwill from those old Beetles) and a seemingly equally fun and a more durable daily driver.
I just wonder, did the first Civic have any competitors at all in North America ?
I mean REAL competitors. Price-wise, size-wise, fuel-efficiency wise and displacement-wise. (You know what I mean)
The only real competitors I remember here on the left coast were the utterly conventional Corolla and Datsun 1200. Not in technology, but by the more pragmatic measures stated above.
When I was growing up a neighbour had one of these under a shelter in the back yard. It is still there!
I am curious why they did the hatchback and non-hatchback versions if anyone knows?
The first time I ran across a sedan version I was quite perplexed as for the most part it looked almost identical to the hatchback version. It was a bit inconvenient to use with the way the opening was so low to the ground and the fact that the lid didn’t open 180 degrees. My guess is that they were hedging their bets as the hatchback revolution was still in its infancy in the US when they started on the design. Plus that layout was basically the same as they had used on the N600.
My first car was a 1977 CVCC hatchback. It was a great car – fun to drive, reliable and economical. I wouldn’t mind having it again.
Saw one of these recently in the process of being restored at a local shop near one of my firm’s offices on Long Island.
Grew up in the back seat of a lightly used ’84 hatchback (replaced my parents ’82 Chevette which was an unmitigated disaster) and later a second ’91 (which, not having vinyl seats like the ’84, was somewhat more comfortable). My parents, but particularly my mother, were devoted to such cars; when she finally caved and bought a Camry 4-door in 1998, it had a manual transmission and she tried to order it without a/c. Now she’s got a Prius. Old habits die hard.
My response was a counter-rebellion, any chance I got to ride in my grandfathers’ ’86 and ’88 Mercury Grand Marquises, I took. And my first car was an ’87 Crown Victoria.
Like the Prius I will admit these are revolutionary, efficient, well-made, reliable, cars. And the hatchbacks were peppy as all get out.
But I don’t like them. I’m one of those people who LACKS the “sensory perception to want more out of driving than working the pedals and steering”. In fact if you offered me the lifetime option of driving myself a ’75 DeVille or Continental or BEING DRIVEN in a Fleetwood 75, it’d be a really tough call.
🙂
Lets get some facts straight. Yes when the EPA asked if Honda could supply engines for GM was in the 1972-1973 time period. At that point they said that no they could not as they were had enough on their plate at the time. At that point the CVCC engine was not production ready. They did not say that they could supply some engines just that they did not have the capacity to supply enough engines for all of GM. In fact they still had problems meeting emissions and fuel economy targets. None the less at the request of the EPA they converted a Chevy 350 with CVCC heads and intake. Here is the EPA report on the tests they conducted on the CVCC 350 http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/9100X44I.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=Prior%20to%201976&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A\ZYFILES\INDEX%20DATA\70THRU75\TXT0000016\9100X44I.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h|-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p|f&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1 Note the drop in fuel economy vs the standard 350 and an increase in NOx emissions.
While the CVCC was touted as having inherently low emissions the fact is that the US spec models were actually equipped with an exhaust manifold that was indeed a form of thermal reactor. They used steel liners in the exhaust port and manifold to keep up the temp to levels to keep oxidation continuing in the exhaust manifold. This report by The Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions notes the use of lean-thermal reactor on the CVCC engine on page 66. http://books.google.com/books?id=SForAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA189&dq=epa+cvcc+proco+tccs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jXBLUrC2EcGCjALSpYGQDA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=CVCC%20engine%20lean-thermal%20reactor&f=false On page 65 you’ll see a diagram of Ford’s Divided Chamber version of a stratified charge engine in addition to the PROCO and Texaco’s TCCS system.
In this report that appeared in the New Scientist the author explores the various stratified charge engines that were in development at the time of writing. http://books.google.com/books?id=fHCwRYUmr70C&pg=PA334&dq=proco+cvcc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HA9LUrevPM-GyQG2u4GIBA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=proco%20cvcc&f=false Note “But the economy of the Honda engine (CVCC) turned out to be worse than expected, and air pollution levels are higher as well.” and supporting that fuel economy issue and the superiority of the (much more expensive) PROCO engine is tests done by the EPA ” According to the EPA data, the thermal effeciency of various engines on the emissions cycle …..were Mazda rotary 7.5%, Honda CVCC 8.5%, conventional gasoline 10%, PROCO 11% and sterling engine 13%.”
Sorry about the length of the link to the EPA test of the CVCC 350, I guess you’ll have to copy and paste or just google EPA CVCC 350 and that should get you there.
Ah, the Texaco TCCS. I was getting that confused with the Ford PROCO from my memory. Thanks.
After attending the HUGE Japanese Classic Car Show in Long Beach, CA, this weekend, for the 4th time, I can safely say that however superior Honda might have been in the ’70s, collectors go for Datsun and Toyota in exponentially higher numbers than Honda. Even Mazda had a higher turnout at the show. But, this very nice looking, very stock 1979 Civic Hatchback did make it. I love the color!
Just a note that not only Civics fell to the rust bug…I had ’76 and ’77 Accords that both rusted badly…the ’77 had the beginings of rust holes through the tops of the front fenders when it was only 9 months old! Great cars, wonderful engineering but either they bought their steel from Italy and/or didn’t treat it at all for rust prevention…
It’s clear that we never got the 4-door Civic hatchback due to import restraints. Correct?
I’d expect it might’ve had more to do with it and the wagon appealing to exactly the same buyers.
I came real close to replacing my 62 bug with a new 78 Civic. If I had used my head, I could have done it, instead of spending all my money on Scientology. Never helped me one bit !! But that’s another story. Well , I now own a 2003 Civic 4 door, and I’m happy with it. Not as cute as the 1st Civics of the 70s, but roomier.
I bought a 2-year-old second-gen (1980) Civic in ’82. About the same styling, but somewhat larger inside. Must have been heavier, it had NO guts. I got my ass kicked by Vegas.
The ’80 1300 all-aluminum CVCC did not use a catalytic converter. I believe the 1500 iron block/aluminum head CVCC did need a cat.
I was driving down the Interstate at about 70 mph (far in excess of the hateful “55” speed limit, in fifth gear. The engine died, smoke rolled out the hood vents. I discovered the next day that #3 connecting rod punched through the block at the oil filter. To this day, it’s the only broken (four pieces!) connecting rod I’ve ever held in my hand that still had the rod bolts intact. All the main bearings looked new, as did #1, 2, and 4 rod bearings. The #3 rod bearing was burnt blue, spun, and about 1/4 totally gone. What was left was sharp enough to shave with.
This happened at ~58K miles, in ’85. I was extremely impressed, but not favorably.
After slapping in a rebuilt junkyard engine, I drove it for another decade-plus, but the entire car was on a downward spiral. The exhaust pipe was a double-wall deal, and at some point the inner pipe separated and began to rattle. I tried to get a replacement exhaust put on by Midas, but they refused. They told my wife that “Unleaded Fuel Only” on the fuel gauge meant that they’d have to install a catalyst. Morons.
Never bought another Honda, never went back to Midas.
The fenders rusted terribly. Heater quit heating. I finally sold it for $300 to a guy who called me a month later to bitch that the valve cover (!!!) had rusted through and it was leaking oil. I had to buy it back from him (and scrap it) to shut him up.
My regular drivers are a 1970 600 Sedan and a1979 1200 with a traditional hot rod style built engine and a1980 5spd. Very fun to drive and very fast. It is also very reliable.
I have been driving civics since1979 (600s since 1977) I and my brother have automotive repair shop in Washougal Wash. I am an expert in 70s and 80s Honda,s We have lots of used parts from1970 thru1983 civics, accords, 79 to 82 prelude. B&B Automotive 360-835-5191
Purchased a new Civic hatchback in Oct. 1973. I was a senior at Lakewood NJ. The common comment at the time was “Honda makes great motorcycles but they will never be a major car company”.
Not a car comment – Lakewood H.S.? Did you know any of the Lakewood/T.R. chicken farmers? My great uncle had a farm on Cox Cro Road and my grandfather’s farm was at the corner of Bay and Hooper, under the J.C. Penneys at the Ocean County Mall.
(Cousin Harry had a model A in ’49, and Dad learned to drive on a Ford pickup in 1960)
Yep. Go Piners!
I bought an ’86 Civic Si that still had a lot of first-gen DNA. My favorite feature (among many) was the low flat dashboard, which made the small front cabin seem enormous and made for great visibility. I still think that was probably the best all-around car that I’ve ever owned.
Every decade has a vehicle that people seem to associate most closely. The sixties had the Beetle. In the eighties, it was the Chrysler minivan. The nineties, the Ford Explorer. 2000s got the Toyota Prius.
For the seventies, my money is on the Honda Civic. The gas crisis really put the zap on US consumers’ heads and, suddenly, the Civic was the de facto car to have. When it turned out to be pretty decently screwed together (thin sheet metal not withstanding) with solid driving dynamics and comfort, that’s all she wrote, and Honda was on its way to being a dominant player in the automotive world.
I get the impression that the Civic was basically a Fiat 127 built to be reliable. And it sold like crazy in countries where Fiat was a minor player, like the US and Australia.
The first one I saw was bought by an elderly gentleman who traded his beloved Mini on one. It was the ‘sedan’ with the separate boot lid. I could never figure out why they didn’t follow the Mini’s lead of hinging the boot at the bottom – it would certainly have made loading easier.
The Civic being a Japanese Fiat 127 would certainly fit. The Japanese way has traditionally been to take an existing design and improve the hell out of it for production. Generally speaking, their products haven’t been particularly original, other than in the respect that they’re very well built and engineered.
These Hondas sold fairly well here they were assembled by the same mob that did BL cars Rovers Triumphs Jaguars Austins and Morri Mini and sold via the same dealers, those same customers who had become FWD devoteees via BMC/BL just carried on as normal but learned to contend with major rust problems instead of mechanical issues, there are very very few early Hondas left alive here but early BMC 1100s and 1300s & Minis are still quite common so its quite hard to tell who built the best mousetrap in this class.
In 1972,my Friend worked at a Chevy dealership that sold Honda’s I test drove a Z600 Coupe. The price was 1967 out the door including tax. It had a 50000 warranty from Quaker State, which required that you use their products.
One year later I bought a used 1972 Z600. I was related to the General Manger of a Honda equipment dealer who did not sell 600’s but did sell cars beginning with the Civic. All Honda dealers added stiff “market adjustments” and mandatory accessories such as pinstripes and very expensive radios. Extras were added to VW’s by the local distributor; MidVo. The $2150 became $2500 plus.
This went on for years; and was really nasty when the first Accords came out in 1976. I drove 4 plus hours in a snow storm to get a 1977 Accord at list price.
I remember those days. The dealer acted as though he was doing the customer a favor by selling the car at sticker price, and not requiring the purchase of $200 mud flaps and $100 floor mats.
And in 2019 prices, those are $953.75 and $476.87
I drove a 75 Civic with the Hondamatic once, it felt mostly familiar, but smaller since I was daily driving the family’s 77 Accord at the time. The most memorable thing was that the engine sounded almost exactly like a VW Beetle.
The other memorable moment was showing one to my son in 2014. He was astonished at how small the original Civic was compared the current rather large Civic.
CVCC = compound vortex controlled combustion
It’s too bad Honda didn’t include a GT version for the enthusiasts. I posted a review of an article in Playboy here at CC where Brock Yates did basically that.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/vintage-reviews/vintage-brock-yates-playboy-mods-a-1976-honda-civic-or-a-hot-hatch-japanese-style/
vroom
The Civic came in second on this profoundly prescient R&T test of econoboxes in 1975. The Rabbit was first. Of course the Rabbit was a reliability disaster as later documented in their long term test reports, but the two front runners shared the 2 box hatch with FWD soon to be omnipresent in this segment.