Has Honda's run - run out?

kernick

you: The 3.5-liter V-6 with i-VTEC offers 240 bhp, yet still offers 21 MPG city, 30 MPG highway with a five-speed automatic, also very impressive for such a powerful engine.

me: wow! Nearly as impressive as my 2001 Firebird's pushrod 5.7l with 4-spd. auto - having a conservative 325hp; w/EPA 17 and 26mpg. Actual mpg on the interstate is about 28mpg @75mph.

kernick

you: One thing that always got to me with Honda, is that they always toute the cleanest engines, etc etc. They point out they were first to get ULEV certified.

me: Remember 1 thing when company's talk about emissions - MASS BALANCE. A gallon of gasoline contains 8 lb of mainly C, H, and O in various length hydrocarbon lengths.
Those 8 lb of C, H, and O, mixed with the N2 and O2 of air come out, in SOME FORM of molecule. So to only consider certain emissions in ranking something ULEV or SULEV is misleading.
If the fuel:air ration is the same, and vehicles use 25mpg, then both cars emit the SAME AMOUNT to drive the same distance. The only difference is what you want to consider "good or bad" emissions. Water or O2 are the only good emissions I see; and neither of those use up any of the C. As far as I know there isn't anything good you're going to do with the C - CO (carbon monoxide) or CO2 (carbon dioxide), unburned hydrocarbons. Hopefully little benzene.

you: But anyways, the power wars are great More stuff for us

me: I agree. Enjoy life.

newcar31

"It's a transposition of the 240 hp Accord argument into your need for more power in the Civic."

Transposition? Or, gross exaggeration.

I suggested a 160 hp Civic EX.

nippononly

Ha! LOL!

Good point. :-)

I for one do not consider the V-6 mileage of the Accord to be all that impressive. It is exceeded by other V-6s in the segment (although not Camry, from another company proclaiming itself to be "green"), even if they are not quite as fast. OTOH, more than 2/3 of Camrys and Accords are sold as four-cylinders, and in the California-emissions states those 4-cyl automatics are all PZEVs. So they do have a one-up there.

carguy58

"The Accord responded to an HP war in the mid-size sedan class because the Altima was making a dent in Accord sales/profitably for the first time in history.

I disagree. Honda took the HP war as a challange. They didn't have to respond to an HP war with Nissan but they did. The 02 Altima came out when the 98-02 Accord was on its last legs. The Accord was still the better packaged car in 01-02. The reason the Altima is doing sell well is because its a sporty looking car with a roomy interior. Also, the 03 Accord exterior styling I think turned off alot people. Next generation Accord has to look alot sportier that the current model in my opinion. Honda cannot rely on a niche car like the TSX for profits. The Accord is their biggest seller in their line-up so in my opinion they have to concentrate on the next generation being a little sporty in the exterior department as well as being a well-packaged car as it always has been.

As for the Civic HP is not a selling point for the Civic. I don't think it ever has been really. We are talking about a compact car here. When has HP ever been a selling point for a compact car? The Civic always sold because its gets great fuel mileadge, its well built and put together, cheap to run and maintain, reliable and was big with the tunrer crowd in the 90's. With that said Honda will probably up the HP in the upcoming but I don't think its going to be by that much. The Civic's competition like Corolla, and 3. The 3 has more HP, better interior, probably as good as reliability as the Civic(that is once the A/C issues get worked out which I hope they do.) Weaknesses of 3: less gas mileadge than Civic, questionable resale value. Strengeths of Corolla: roomy interior, better interior than Civic. Weakness: awakward dirving position. Strengths of current Civic: a great history of reliability, great fuel miledadge. Weaknesses: exterior syling is way too understated, loss of whishbone suspension.

carguy58

"The 3S is the in the segment and attacks it from a premium price/content angle. The back seat feels small to me, though. Does it have a flat floor like the Civic. And adress the A/C issue quickly because Civic buyers put reliability first.

On the falt floor does the rest of the competition have a flat floor? No. On the A/C issue I'm sure Mazda will correct it. As long as the A/C issue doesn't run through the whole model cycle of the 3 they will be alright.

"I like the Mazda 3s 5 door)pratical, tourquey, nav available) and the Subaru Outback Sport(pratical tourquey. AWD) in the small car segment, but the big sellers are Civic and Corolla, so they must know what they're doing."

Uhh Honda and Toyota are more mass market than Mazda and Subie. The only thing I don't like about the 3 is the option packages. I heard in order to get the sport package you have to buy other things with it.

andre1969

that the V-6 Accord was still one of more fuel-efficient V-6es in its class? It's rated 21/30, right? Well, no V-6 Mopar is rated that high. The only one close would be the 2.7 V-6, which I think is around 21/29 nowadays, but has nowhere near the power. The Chevy Impala is 21/32 with the 3.4, but the Honda V-6 would blow that one away. And the 3.8 is around 20/29, IIRC. Now the Malibu 3.5, at 23/32, is pretty good, but then again it's not as powerful as the Accord V-6.

The Altima 3.5 used to be rated at a relatively guzzling 19/26, but it got a new tranny recently, which improves it considerably, to 20/30. No Taurus V-6 gets 21/30, and none of them are as fast as the Accord. The Mazda6 V-6 only gets 20/27, and from what I've seen in tests, is actually slower than a Duratech Taurus.

I'd say overall, the Accord V-6 gives about the best balance of power and economy, unless there are some models I missed.

stickguy

gearing has a lot to do with the MPG numbers. Some cars are also paper tigers that only put up the #s on the window sticker, not in real life.

gee35coupe

to the 3.5 in the Ody is a bit misleading. We are talking about a brick shaped minivan vs. sporty coupe. The Trailblazer ain't getting that kind of mileage with it's 5.3L and the Equinox barely competes with it's 185hp V6. In fact you can compare most directly by comparing output and mileage with the VUE and NOX. The Honda V6 in the Vue outclasses the NOX's engine in every aspect.

newcar31

Yeah, that is kind of misleading.

A better comparison would be the NSX vs. the Vette.

The NSX is rated EPA rated at 17/24 mpg and the Vette is rated at 18/28 mpg despite having almost twice the displacement, 110 more hp, and 175 more lbs-ft of torque! Holy crap! Some pushrod motors aren't that bad, and some VTEC motors aren't that impressive efficiency-wise.

Clearly, the Equinox's V6 isn't the best example of a pushrod motor.

andre1969

for a better example of a pushrod engine, I think the GM truck V-8's are pretty good, as is the Mopar Hemi. And even the 3.5 that's used in the Malibu/G6 is supposed to be pretty good.

carguy58

"No Taurus V-6 gets 21/30 and none of them are as fast as the Accord. The Mazda 6 only gets 20/27 and from what I've seen in tests, is actually slower than a Duratech Tarus."

I have a new car mag showing all the data for new 05 models in there. The new Ford 500 only gets 18/25 city/hwy mileadge and only makes 200 horsepower. My opinion is the 500's engine is way behind powertrains from Honda and Nissan. As for the Mazda 6's mileadge its not bad. The 98-02 626 made 20/26 city/hwy which was a 2.5 Liter Mazda V-6 under the hood which made 170 HP. The Modefied Duratech V-6 in the Mazda 6 recorded a gain of 50 horsepower to 220 and netted a 1 hwy mpg improvement over 02 626 HP and highway fuel mileadge. Not bad these days especially when you consider the scare cty/hwy mileadge that these big SUV's make nowadays.

stickguy

thats the MPG for the AWD version. The comparable FWD version gets something like 21/29.

Also, the 500 really is a full size car to some extent, especially based on interior and trunk space. It also weighs a bit more than the Accord/Camry (while being bigger).

kernick

you: to the 3.5 in the Ody is a bit misleading. We are talking about a brick shaped minivan vs. sporty coupe.

The person was talking about the V-6 Accord, not an Ody. The Accord is a decent car, but nothing exceptional. The Honda V-Tec engines make good power for their displacement, but do so at the expense of requiring higher revs. Higher revs mean more go-go juice. An Accord owner isn't going to get 21/30 mpg if he's doing some mixed driving and into the throttle.
It also is interesting how many people here on the Edmund's forums love to quote the max. hp of a vehicle and never consider torque, or how much torque and hp is available at any given engine rpm. If you can steer with the throttle, and you don't want to do that with a FWD, your engine has sufficient torque.
Having a high, flat torque curve - across the entire rpm range is what is really desireable.

avs007

No need to argue about fuel economy. If anyone gave a rats patooty about fuel economy when looking at the accord, they'd opt either for the four banger, or the hybrid.

My wife has a TL, that has better fuel economy on paper than my Pontiac GTP, but in real world driving, my GTP runs circles around the TL in both performance, interior room, and fuel economy. On a similar token, my G35 is rated as having the same fuel economy as the GTP, but is getting really crappy fuel economy relative to what the EPA says it should get. But than again, I didn't buy the G35 expecting it to be a gas miser. I got it, because it can run circles around all my other cars.

Now I'm guessing the fuel economy is the way it is, because of gearing. The GTP and the TL both loft at about 2000rpm at 70mph, while my G35 is closer to 3000rpm at the same speed.

My wife's TL needs to swing the tack past 5000 RPM if you want to put the hammer down and pass somebody.

The GTP has so much torque, just popping out of overdrive is sufficient to pass someone on the freeway.

The G35... It's just too much fun nailing 7000rpm with the tach to worry about fuel economy

nippononly

tonight - went over to the dealer to eyeball the 300 in person. They had a nice Touring right out front. 3.5 V-6, 250 hp, have heard it is decently fast even without the hemi, bet it could keep up with the Accord V-6, rated 19/27 in a car that weighs more than 20% more, if memory serves. This is definitely my vote-getter for best-looking new model this year.

A lot of these V-6 midsizers (is the 300 full size? probably) get very similar mileage, and all of them are only going to do you a little better than a paltry 20 mpg or so week in and week out in going-to-work and off-to-the-grocery-store driving. Of course, the Accord hybrid can change all that for you, and all you need is the $30K price of admission...

and yes, I DO give a rats patooty about fuel economy, and yes, I WOULD skip the V-6 entirely! :-P

andre1969

anywhere between 7.5-8.5 seconds for the 300 and Magnum with the 3.5 V-6. Mainly depends on who's doing the testing I guess, plus other variances such as weather, elevation, differences in the indivdual cars, etc.

Now I think that's decent for a car of that bulk, and still being stuck with a 4-speed automatic, but I'm sure the Accord V-6 would still come in quicker. And yeah, the 300 is rated as full-size by the EPA. I think the interior is 106 cubic feet, which is slightly bigger than an Intrepid or 300M, yet slightly smaller than a Concorde. Trunk's just under 16 cubic feet, which is just a touch smaller than the 300M's was, and about 2-3 cubic feet less than an Intrepid or Concorde.

Also, I'm not totally unconvinced that people who buy cars with bigger engines aren't still somewhat concerned with fuel economy. It's just not as high on their list. In fact, with me, part of the allure of the Accord V-6 was that it gave you a good blend of power AND economy. The Altima gave you the power, but really didn't deliver on the economy until 2005. The Camry really didn't give you the power, although they're getting closer, now that they bumped up the 3.0, and offer the 3.3. And at GM, you needed a supercharger to get that kind of power, which sank the economy.

kernick

you: Also, I'm not totally unconvinced that people who buy cars with bigger engines aren't still somewhat concerned with fuel economy. It's just not as high on their list.

me: Exactly. Unless you don't need to work for a living, you have some concern for fuel economy, if only because it affects your wallet. But is it #1 on the list or #4 or #10; each individual makes his choice.
As I said I have a 5.7l, and I'm concerned about economy. I drive such that I can regularly get 24 mpg in some mixed driving. I'm sure I can also drive such that I get 17 mpg - it's all in the revs.

Now the EPA fuel economy numbers don't consider sporty driving. If you buy a V-6 Accord, TL, G-35, or any car that makes high revs to get high power, and you drive it that way, you aren't going to get "sticker mpg".

Just remember that though a car may have 240hp that's EPA rated for 30mpg, you can't utilize them both at the same time. In fact it is torque that people feel as power, and displacement or a blower that gives you that. High hp is never utilized unless you have somewhere to drive at higher speeds than our speed limits.

avs007

Are you sure the 300 is EPA Full Size, if the interior volume is 103 cubic ft? I only ask, because the Pontiac Grand Prix has 114 cubic ft of interior volume, but is classified Mid Size.

And Superchargers don't automatically mean you get worse fuel economy. If you noticed, I was comparing my wife's TL to my GTP (which is supercharged) and my G35.

I drive pretty spiritedly, regardless of which car I drive. And like I said, in the TL, than means I rev it to at LEAST 5000RPM all the time, because I need the VTEC to kick in, for the engine to develop power suitable to my tastes when I drive on the freeweay.

My GTP on the other hand, I don't need to wind it out to redline. In fact, usually I only need 4500RPM in those same situations.

Everyone I know thinks I drive aggressively. (Usually because I bark the tires at least weekly. Sometimes at hairy intersections, I really smoke up the tires with the TL/GTP)

With that in mind, I've been getting the mileage I stated before, with the Supercharged V6 on top, followed by the TL, and trailed by the G35. Now by no means, am I saying any of these cars are guzzlers, as the G35 is still netting me 21mpg.

I guess I didn't mean to be so harsh when I said nobody gives a rats patooty about fuel economy when skipping past the 4 banger into the V6's and such. It just depends how high it is on your priority, and what your idea of fuel economy is. I wasn't getting a stick, because I wanted my wife to be able to drive the car. At the time I was comparing th GTO and G35. Performance was my main priority, followed by luxury ameneties. Fuel economy mattered in so much that I was skeptical about the prospect of getting the 16mpg the GTO was rated at with the auto, so the G35 looked that much better. (To me, anything >= 20mpg will make me a happy camper) That just made the icing on the cake to reinforce my decision, since the G35 just seemed like a nicer car to me.

With that said, I have friends with the 6 speed GTO and Vette, that are getting good/better fuel economy, and they have V8s. (See previous comments on RPM and gearing).

Sometimes I just wonder how the EPA tests fuel economy, as I've never gotten the G35 even close to what the EPA said I should get. The TL gets pretty close. The GTP tho, if I don't drive too wildly, I have actually exceeded the EPA, by getting 31mpg on the freeway.

andre1969

on the EPA's website, and for some reason their numbers got scrambled up. They list the 300 as having 103 cubic feet of interior volume, and 24 cubic feet of trunk space. I remember when they first listed it though, it was around 105-106 on the interior, and 16 on the trunk. Unless they went back and re-calculated, maybe? However, there's no way in hell the car has a 24 cubic foot trunk! Even the biggest mastodons of days gone by, for the most part, only topped out at around 20-22 cubic feet of trunk.

According to the EPA website, the current Grand Prix has 97 cubic feet of interior room, and 16 cubic feet of trunk. So the combined volume is 113-114 cubic feet. They round numbers, so the actual figure could vary a bit. At 120 cubic feet, that's where they classify it as a full-size.

gee35coupe

Well above 30 mpg in some cases. And my dad owns a TL-S and got 35mpg on a recent cross country vacation. Hondas are known for outperforming EPA estimates. I haven't seen any recent tests of the Grand Prix but they wouldn't matter anyway because GM doesn't make a single product that I would spend my money on. Except for maybe the Vette and they even messed that up with the new open headlights.

As far as the 5.7L in a family sedan the size of the Accord. Try the numbers on the $43K Cadillac CT-S. So there's still no apples to apples comparison since it would be pretty difficult to hang that much mass over the front wheels in a FWD car. I'm sure the other penalties in weight and crash test safety preclude that happening.

newcar31

"Hondas are known for outperforming EPA estimates."

Any vehicle can outperform EPA estimates. It depends on how you drive it and driving conditions. I'm not aware of any data besides anecdotes from Edmunds that shows that Hondas outperform EPA estimates more so that any other vehicle.

"As far as the 5.7L in a family sedan the size of the Accord. Try the numbers on the $43K Cadillac CT-S. So there's still no apples to apples comparison since it would be pretty difficult to hang that much mass over the front wheels in a FWD car."

According to GM, the 5.3L V8 (a version of the 5.7L) that's going into the Grand Prix is lighter than the 3.8L V6.

avs007

As far as the 5.7L in a family sedan the size of the Accord. Try the numbers on the $43K Cadillac CT-S. So there's still no apples to apples comparison since it would be pretty difficult to hang that much mass over the front wheels in a FWD car. I'm sure the other penalties in weight and crash test safety preclude that happening.


Not necessarily. The new Pontiac Grand Prix GXP has an all new, all aluminum 5.3 Litre V8 in it. According to GM, this V8 is actually lighter than the Supercharged 3800 that it replaces. It also features such things as cylinder deactivation and such. The LS1/LS2 already get pretty good fuel economy, I'm sure the LS7 will follow suit. Especially with cylinder deactivation, and the new upcoming 6 speed automatic transaxle that will be arriving.

As for crash worthiness... I remember the 00' Caddy STS was a front driver and had a Northstar V8 in it, and it scored extremely well in the frontal offset crash test.

raychuang00

I think what we need to watch is whether Honda will switch to direct fuel injection for their gasoline-fuelled engines within the next 24 months. I think with the switch to low-sulfur gasoline in the USA by September 2006, Honda will make the switch, especially since we can use better-quality catalytic converters to reduce NOx emissions without worries about sulfur compounds in the exhaust corroding the converter.

The result will be 5-10% better fuel economy than current engines, which means adding 2-5 mpg compared to now. It also makes it possible to use true stratified combustion on a 50-state legal engine.

robertsmx

Honda’s answer to DI may be in the form of “i-VTEC I” engine. As of now, there is only one engine in production (the K20B in Japanese market Honda Stream). Not all trims of Honda Stream get it at this time, only the “Absolute” does. The technology is claimed to improve fuel economy by 10-15%, as it does within the Stream lineup in Japan.

K20A in RSX is rated 27 mpg in city, a 10-12% improvement could put it at 30 mpg. Not bad for a 155-160 HP engine. K20B has a potential to be fitted in the next Civic EX! Civic already gets it in some Asian markets (Malaysia & Thailand, I believe).

robertsmx

The Honda V-Tec engines make good power for their displacement, but do so at the expense of requiring higher revs.

“Higher” is relative. What are you comparing it to? There are just a few other 3.0/V6 engines we could compare the Accord’s V6 to:
Honda: 240 HP @ 6250 rpm (Accord)
Mazda: 220 HP @ 6300 rpm (Mazda6)
Ford: 203 HP @ 5750 rpm (Five Hundred)

Mazda6’s engine revs higher but doesn’t produce more power. Five Hundred’s engine revs lower but it isn’t producing more power than Accord’s V6 at “that” rpm either (Accord’s V6 produces 220 HP at just 5500 rpm).

So, I’m not sure what “expense” you’re talking about. Nissan gets it done at lower rpm (5800 rpm) in Altima, but that car is using larger displacement to start with (comparable to 3.5/V6 used in Odyssey where the Honda gets 255 HP at 5500 rpm).

An Accord owner isn't going to get 21/30 mpg if he's doing some mixed driving and into the throttle.

This would apply to any car. Now that 5.7/V8 has been thrown into the discussion, although that engine gets rated at 19/28 mpg or something like that with skip-shift transmission (lower without it, as is evident in CTS-V), C&D ends up getting average mileage in the teens.

Every car will deliver mileage based on driving style (sometimes overridden by gearing). There is no magic involved. The only way to compare fuel economy and power in the same sentence is to have an understanding of BSFC, not EPA estimates.

ateixeira

Subaru is a niche manufacturer, but I don't think Mazda is. They are mass market. They're is most of the volume segments and the only niche car they sell is the RX8.

Even my Miata is very much a mainstream roadster, you might say it defined the segment. 3 is small, 6 is mid-size, MPV a standard van (FWD/V6), Tribute a mainstream compact SUV.

They used to be more quirky, with a 4WD van and a tiny 1.8l V6 in the MX-3, but they have definitely moved towards the mainstream.

Subaru is still AWD-only and sells more wagons than sedans. They don't have a single in-line or even V-shaped engine, not one. So I think they qualify.

-juice

robertsmx

Mazda can still be considered a niche player, solely based on its sales volume. As of November 2004, Mazda had sold a total of 243,016 vehicles (includes light trucks). Honda’s Civic, by itself, accounts for 282,237 units.

Subaru is a smaller player than Mazda, and although I don’t have a YTD number for it, Subaru sold a total of 13.8K units compared to Mazda’s 17.6K units in November.

ateixeira

Depends upon your perspective. I see small players like Porsche, Saab, and Volvo that way, but not Mazda. Mostly because their products are very mainstream (except the RX8).

Subaru will be close to 200k in sales. But they are #1 in AWD passenger cars and also #1 in station wagons.

Now *that* is a niche player.

Mitsubishi, Hyundai, even Suzuki to some extent, may not be as huge as Honda but I still see them as mainstream makes. They're just smaller than Toyota and Honda.

-juice

nippononly

http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/sales-tbl12e_20041202.htm

this gives a market report for this year, showing that as of the end of November Mazda is only a half point ahead of Subaru in market share. Subaru could definitely still be called "quirky" in a sense, with all its engines boxers and all its models AWD. But if Subaru is a niche manufacturer, then Mazda is too. Kia and BMW BOTH sell more vehicles each year than Mazda.

Same chart, by the way, shows Honda with a VERY healthy market share advantage over Nissan, even though Nissan is a full-line manufacturer and Honda isn't. Nissan has been spreading itself too thin IMO, and I am just waiting for the crash to come. Maybe, maybe not...

When you consider how many gaps there are in the Honda line-up (no real trucks, no pick-up at all, nothing bigger than an Accord or smaller than a Civic), the fact that it has 2/3 as much market share as Toyota is pretty impressive, I think.

kernick

you: “Higher” is relative. What are you comparing it to?

me: if the technology/design of an engine is the same, and the displacement varies, the smaller engine will have to run faster to produce the same hp as the larger displacement engine. And higher rpm's and friction cause inefficiencies.

Although not as extreme as a race car engine which lasts maybe 1-2 races, and gets 2 mpg, the higher rpm's an engine has to use shortens its life, compared to what it could have been. So I'm sure we could all listen to everyone tell of their friends who got 200K miles on an engine and really pushed the car up to 7K rpm's regularly, the fact is that they could have gotten more miles by keeping the revs. lower. And better mileage.

So if you haven't figured it out, IMO it is better to buy a car that has the power level you want without having to rev the engines to redline. Higher engine speeds do not do anything positive for the life of oil, or life of the engine.

robertsmx

True. Honda would be considered a niche player if we compared sales volume to GM's (not necessarily profits but thats another story).

In the Japanese market, 1989 and 2003 sales trend of the big six:

Toyota: Down from 2.3 million to 1.7 million (high: 2.5m in 1990)
Nissan: Down from 1.3 million to 825K (high: 1.4m in 1990)
Honda: Up from 668K to 735K (high: 902K in 2002)
Suzuki: Up from 511K to 628K (high: 628K in 2003)
Mitsubishi: Down from 665K to 454K (high: 823K in 1995)
Mazda: Down from 484K to 278K (high: 592K in 1990)

Not sure where Subaru lies in this list.

In the USA, Subaru has smaller range probably, but sales aren't too far off Mazda's.

ateixeira

Niche to me means they compete in a non-mainstream segments.

It does not mean the same as "low volume".

Suzuki sells low volume but they are very much mainstream. I would not consider them a niche manufacturer.

-juice

varmint

I think the distinction Juice is making is one between:

1. niche manufacturers
&
2. manufacturers of niche products

I agree that Mazda makes/sells mainstream products, placing them in category number 1 rather than 2. Honda would certainly fall into this category, as well.

Subaru makes products that (here in the US) are low volume niches by class. So, there is a difference.

robertsmx

Nissan versus Honda has been an interesting story, not only in Japan (where they are currently flip-flopping for number 2 position) but also in the USA. Honda was a smaller player and still has a limited product line up and does quite well with it (perhaps a reason it does so). Sales trend of the two companies in the USA (overall sales) every ten years:

Honda
1983: 401,072
1993: 716,546
2003: 1,349,847

Nissan
1983: 659,257
1993: 688,009
2003: 794,784

varmint

Even Datsun was doing better than Nissan in the early days.

robertsmx

I'm sure Renault would like to have a talk with you. :-)

nippononly

the key to success is having a really great minicar that sells in bucketloads. Suzuki is the king of the minicars I believe, with Daihatsu (owned by Toyota but not carrying the Toyota brand name) always vying with it for the top spot, and Nissan always close behind, occasionally ahead.

Subaru used to sell the Justy for this segment, I forget if they still do. That model sure didn't make it here! :-P

ateixeira

Thanks varmint.

I actually looked up niche and got this:

A focused, targetable part of a market.

I see that as opposed to "mass market", which was actually listed as an antonym.

Niches are the fringes where noone else competes, i.e. unique and yes quirky products.

Saab is. Subaru is. Porsche is. Think Citroen or Lotus, following the beat of a different drummer than everyone else.

Honda, Toyota, Mazda, Suzuki, and Mitsubishi are mass market, at least in this country. Wouldn't matter to me if they sold 2 cars or 2 million.

-juice

nippononly

"Honda would certainly fall into this category, as well."

An 8%+ market share and being fifth on the list of manufacturer groups by sales classifies them as "niche"? They may not be huge, but I wouldn't call Honda niche either. Even if niche means being on the edge of the market - every one of Honda's models except the Insight and the S2000 (and the NSX) is totally mainstream!

varmint

"But if Subaru is a niche manufacturer, then Mazda is too."

Anybody know what kind of business Subaru does over in the euro markets? I recall seeing something last year about Mazda doing about as well as Honda overseas. But I've never seen anything to suggest that Subaru is pulling in big numbers over there.

ateixeira

C'mon, now. Accord is the definition of mass market. ;-)

-juice

andre1969

who had a Justy. I changed her valve cover gasket for her once. I remember riding in it one time when she took me out to lunch in it. Scared me senseless, having a seating position that close to the front of the car!

varmint

"An 8%+ market share and being fifth on the list of manufacturer groups by sales classifies them as "niche"?

Sorry, you're right. I was thinking in terms of product when I wrote that. Honda and Mazda both sell vehicles in mainstream segments with few products that would be considered niche players. But you're right about Honda's volume.

ateixeira

Subaru does well in Australia and Canada. And in certain regions of the US (snow belt, NE).

-juice

nippononly

Subaru IS niche, mainly known for thre super-fast Impreza models that until recently we did not get here. But they do offer several of the models there that they sell here. However, the Outback is not the decade-defining phenomenon there that it was here.

ateixeira

I don't want to hijack the thread but Justy is long gone. In Europe GM got them to sell Suzuki clones since GM owns Suzuki. In Japan they now sell an R1 and R2 minicar, both are unique to Subaru and yes very much quirky. What else would you expect? ;-)

ateixeira

Between 1990 and 1994, Subaru decided to try to compete head-on with Honda (and Toyota). Let's face it, they got clobbered. They bled red ink and sold just 100k cars at huge losses.

In 1995 they went AWD only, all the time. No more in-line engines, just boxers. They focused on wagons instead of sedans.

Sounds crazy in the mass market, but they carved out a niche for themselves and sales have double since they decided not to sell FWD mainstream mass market sedans.

See what I mean? That's niche.

Honda goes for the meat of each segment, and once in a while offers a Type R or Type S variant to keep things interesting.

-juice

robertsmx

They carved out a niche in a market that had just started to grow in the early 90s. And having AWD made more sense than going head on with the more established rivals.

A similar logic can be applied for Mazda, although to a lesser extent since it is still a brand that Ford would like to use for more than one reason. It is about product consolidation. Mazda3 would continue to appeal to people who wouldn’t want to get into Focus, and can play as a vehicle with narrower appeal than vehicles like Civic and Corolla. The same would apply for Mazda6, or Mazda MPV. Mazda to Ford is what Isuzu could have been to GM.

robertsmx

You: The Honda V-Tec engines make good power for their displacement, but do so at the expense of requiring higher revs.
Me: “Higher” is relative. What are you comparing it to?
You: if the technology/design of an engine is the same, and the displacement varies, the smaller engine will have to run faster to produce the same hp as the larger displacement engine.

I don’t see a correlation between your statements. Did you mean to compare a Honda VTEC to another Honda VTEC with different displacement?

So if you haven't figured it out, IMO it is better to buy a car that has the power level you want without having to rev the engines to redline.

I have figured it out well. If 200 HP is good enough power level is good for you, Accord V6 will deliver it to you at just 5000 rpm. You would have to rev higher to get the same from Malibu’s 3.5/V6 (5600 rpm) and Ford’s 3.0/V6 (5750 rpm).