Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Has Honda's run - run out?

11314161819381

Comments

  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    "Anti-Honda"? Interesting as a good chunk of the people that are complaining (like myself) are into the types of cars that Honda used to make. But it is just easier for a brand's lover to just write off any valid complaints as irrational, or just plain mean spirited. Not the case (except for your occasional "Big 3" flag waver who comes barging in.

    One of the top ten, reasonably priced cars I like is a Honda. It is just sold here as an Acura. The TSX is more like the honda of old to me.
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "V6 AND demand for reasonable cabin space appears to be a big reason the 1998 Accord had to grow by 3-4 inches."

    It doesn't really have anything to do with the V6, it has to do with fat Americans. The 97 Accord had a V6 that was wider than the V6 in the 98-03s. The 2002 V6 is IDENTICAL in physical size to the 2003. If it weren't for the different intake manifold, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference visually between the 2002 and 2003 V6s.....and even if the 2003 Accord isn't actually THAT much bigger than the 2002, it LOOKS a lot bigger. The 2003 looks like a porker compared to the 2002.

    "That said, Accord is still four inches shorter than Altima and may be 8-10 inches shorter than the Buicks you bring up often"

    I keep bringing them up? I just said that I think the tail lights look a little Buick-y.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    My my, the saffron-robed faithful are a bit touchy, aren't they?
    ;)

    robert, you seem to have a habit of not reading posts, or at least not completely. Twice you have followed comments of mine with virtually the same observations. Maybe it's a timing thing.

    Neither am I anti-honda. In fact, I am rather pro-honda if anything, based on their reign as the true Japanese motorsport innovator. But those who can't or won't allow themselves to see any deficiencies will doom not only the discussion, but eventually quite possibly the brand.

    Read more, defend less.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,067
    ...Buick-y doesn't/shouldn't mean bad. To me, it's a great attribute. I remember driving a Lexus LS430 and the ride reminded me of a Buick Park Avenue - not a bad thing at all.
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    No, I'm not saying that anything "Buick-y" is all bad, it's just that I'd prefer my Accords to not look "Buick-y" at all.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,575
    I'd say that cars like the Accord, Altima, and Camry, have pretty much "become" what the traditional domestic intermediates used to be, just with a more modern twist and 20+ years of improvement.

    IMO, what Honda has done, along with Toyota and Nissan, with their equivalent cars, is build a modern version of a 1978 or so Malibu. If you go back to that cars like the Accord, Altima, and Camry are really more like a Fairmont, Malibu, Century, Aspen/Volare, LeBaron/Diplomat, Granada, etc, than they are to any Accord or equivalent Datsun/Toyota of the time.

    And FWIW, I don't think 4 inches, or even 8-10 inches really makes much difference when you're dealing with cars of this size. Back in, say, 1980, the typical compact/intermediate (the lines were really blurred around that time, as they tend to be today), ranged anywhere from around 192" on up to 205-206".

    Nowadays, they're probably around 185-200", give or take.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    newcar31

    It may be optical illusion in your case, and probably because of higher cowl/shoulder design with the new Accord. I wouldn’t call the new one porker though. Somebody mentioned the new Accord looks narrow up front (which contradicts your statement). I was going to point out (in response) that the new Accord’s front has an aggressive muscular stance, especially from the front.

    I just said that I think the tail lights look a little Buick-y.

    At least I know now where you’re calling it Buicky. Accord has used full width tail lamps in earlier designs. By the same measure that you use to call it Buickish, wouldn’t it be appropriate to call Mazda6’s taillamp “Cavalierish”? I hope you see my point.

    This story existed, right here at Edmunds, almost seven years ago when 1998 Accord arrived. People thought the tail lamp looked Buicky. They couldn’t relate the design to an evolution of 1987 Prelude’s and jumped to conclusions.

    A styling element that Honda has used occasionally is to mirror/gel the shape of the headlamp to the tail lamp. This was true in 1996-2000 Civic, 1997-2000 CL, 1990-1993 Accords, 2004 TSX (look from the side), and true even in 2003-2004 Accord! The sag is also detached a little near the license plate (something that was true in its own ways, in 1992-1993 Accord). That basic design, coupled to 1998-2002 “full-width” tail lamp results in the shape that current Accord sedan has (Accord Coupe got the rear end style from Acuras from the late 90s).

    I have reservations against the overall shape of the tail lamp in the Accord, and the only issue I have got with the overall styling of the car, but that is far from being Buicky IMO.

    wale_bate1

    Neither am I anti-honda. In fact, I am rather pro-honda if anything, based on their reign as the true Japanese motorsport innovator.

    Let us not work on apologies, and discuss cars, and messages that you and I post (like I did above).
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    "I'd say that cars like the Accord, Altima, and Camry, have pretty much "become" what the traditional domestic intermediates used to be, just with a more modern twist and 20+ years of improvement."

    Yeah, I have to pretty much agree with that. That's about what I'd see them as in reference to the past.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    I'd prefer them to be the smaller, lighter packages they once were. I may be swimming upstream, but the Euro spec Accord and the Mazda 6 are about where I'd personally cap out my fam sedan search size-wise.

    Anything bigger starts to put you into Grand Prix territory, IMO.

    Of course, this is coming from a compact wagon driver after all, so grain of salt please!
    :-)
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    If you don't want to apologize, no one here's gonna make you...

    Andre/Kev: Yup. Pretty much bang on, I'd say.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    While we’re on the subject of having issues with Hondas becoming too big, consider this…

    Mazda3 Sedan (Civic Sedan dimension in parentheses)
    Length: 178.3 inch (175.4 inch)
    Width: 69.1 inch (67.5 inch)
    Height: 57.7 inch (56.7 inch)

    Would you bash Honda if it decided to increase the dimensions of the Civic? Or is it just the right size now, and Mazda3 is too fat?
    Comments?
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "wouldn’t it be appropriate to call Mazda6’s taillamp “Cavalierish”?"

    Yeah, they do resemble the older Cavalier's tail lights, and I never thought that those cars were un-attractive. They also resemble the Millenia's (one of the best looking sedans ever made IMO) tail lights too.

    "This story existed, right here at Edmunds, almost seven years ago when 1998 Accord arrived. People thought the tail lamp looked Buicky."

    There are always going to be some people who don't like a redesign of a certain car, BUT, I think the 2003 Accord redesign is different. I equate the 2003 Accord redesign to the 1996 Taurus redesign.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    but the Euro spec Accord and the Mazda 6 are about where I'd personally cap out my fam sedan search size-wise. Anything bigger starts to put you into Grand Prix territory, IMO

    Two inches make it too big, but 9 extra inches don’t? That’s kind of a bad excuse trying to set a baseline.

    In terms of size, it is usually the length that shows up more than width (about 70 inch) or height (about 57 inch). Here is why I find your statement amusing. Length of the cars in descending order…

    183 inch (TSX)
    187 inch (Mazda6)
    189 inch (Accord sedan)
    189 inch (Camry)
    193 inch (Altima)
    198 inch (Grand Prix sedan)

    If anything, Mazda6 and Accord are about the same size, while TSX is considerably short, and the Grand Prix is almost a minivan. Having a perspective might help. Numbers do it better than anything else.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    "They also resemble the Millenia's (one of the best looking sedans ever made IMO) tail lights too."

    Corolla is closer a match, than Millenia (a car I think looks good). BTW, if you notice resemblance between Accord sedan's taillamp and Buick's (which model?), do you see the same between the Accord and Mazda 929? I do.
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "BTW, if you notice resemblance between Accord sedan's taillamp and Buick's (which model?), do you see the same between the Accord and Mazda 929? I do."

    They don't look like a specific Buick, they just look Buick-y to me, but you don't agree, so I don't know how to expain it to you....and the Accord and 929? I don't see it.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    So I'm setting my upper limit at Mazda 6 and calling the TSX more of the ideal.

    That would be my opinion. Getting bigger than the 6, as I said, starts to put the car into another segement, IMO.

    Numbers can't tell the whole story, either. Only engineers operate that way! The current Accord looks substantially bigger than those number indicate. Do you have the rest of the dimensions? Maybe it's the height. Maybe it's the sizing of the greehouse and the total styling direction. Whatever it is, it seems a more ungainly and bulkier package than the 6 to me.

    Civic? I don't know from Civic sedans so no feeling whatsoever there. The 3 hatch is a knockout, IMO. The Si I'd prefer they leave alone, as I rather like that particular package.

    Anyway, again, it's not really about Honda v. Mazda or Buick or anyone else in particular, it's only about opinions on Honda.

    You seem to be taking this all very personally.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Consistency in arguments might hold the key to conclusions that we draw from posts. If Accord looks as large as Grand Prix to you, despite of being 9 inches shorter, but Mazda looks much smaller than the numbers prove, well, I couldnt argue against something based on perception.

    Since you ask, Accord sedan is just 2" longer, 1 inch wider, and has the same height as Mazda6. TSX is 4 inches shorter than Mazda6, same height and an inch narrower.

    My baseline for just the right size is 190 inch or less. But I may be going with TSX the next time around. That car appeals to me more than anything under-30K at this time.

    Back to Mazda3/Civic comparo, let us be straight and to the point... do you think it would be okay for Honda to increase the size, or would it make the car too large? Remember, we're discussing "size" so toss every thing else out for now.

    BTW, you might want to keep this on topic, and refrain from making this a "personal" exchange. Afterall, we're discussing opinions, for or against, and that is kinda personal, yours and mine and everybody elses. Let us just discuss cars.
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    Sorry, but I've had to deal with the occasional Park Avenue on plane trips, and its not even on the same planet as the LS. Buick is NOT the "American Lexus". Its not even the American Toyota. Lutz is full of crap. Cadillac is doing no damage to BMW, and Buick is doing even LESS to get any Lexus shoppers into their showrooms. A Raineer built on a Chevy Tahoe isnt going to cut it.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    "BTW, you might want to keep this on topic, and refrain from making this a "personal" exchange. Afterall, we're discussing opinions, for or against, and that is kinda personal, yours and mine and everybody elses. Let us just discuss cars...

    That's good advice, robert, I'm sure we'll both follow it.

    Straight to the point, I don't have an opinion on Civic other than liking the look and specs of the Si and feeling lukewarm over the sedan and cool indeed toward the coupe. Matter of fact, of those, I'd say the one that appears to need the trim job would be the coupe.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    I guess to sum up I tend to see Toyota creeping into the roll of 1980's GM (except with the quality that GM could only dream about). Adding divisions and making a lot of bland-mobiles (with the occasional exception that proves the rule). Doesn't bother me much, but now it seems Honda has really drifted into that same range.

    I think it hurts Honda two ways. 1) it alienates past fans and also people like me, who are not necessarily "fans" but tended to buy the types of cars Honda used to make. And more importantly from a business stand point 2) I don't think Honda can out "bland-mobile" Toyota. I think push come to shove, the majority of the "I want an incredibly reliable boring box with wheels" will choose the Toyota name of Honda (at least in my observations of this crowd). Plus just more competition with similar products.
This discussion has been closed.