Has Honda's run - run out?

seminole_kev · May 2004

"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.

newcar31 · May 2004

"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_bate1 · May 2004

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.

lemko · May 2004

...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.

newcar31 · May 2004

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.

andre1969 · May 2004

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.

robertsmx · May 2004

newcar31

It may be optical illusion in your case, and probably because of higher cowl/shoulder design with the new Accord. I wouldnt 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 Accords 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 youre calling it Buicky. Accord has used full width tail lamps in earlier designs. By the same measure that you use to call it Buickish, wouldnt it be appropriate to call Mazda6s 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 couldnt relate the design to an evolution of 1987 Preludes 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_kev · May 2004

"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_bate1 · May 2004

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_bate1 · May 2004

If you don't want to apologize, no one here's gonna make you...

Andre/Kev: Yup. Pretty much bang on, I'd say.

robertsmx · May 2004

While were 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?

newcar31 · May 2004

"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.

robertsmx · May 2004

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 dont? Thats 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.

robertsmx · May 2004

"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.

newcar31 · May 2004

"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_bate1 · May 2004

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.

robertsmx · May 2004

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.

lexusguy · May 2004

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_bate1 · May 2004

"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_kev · May 2004

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.

anythngbutgm · May 2004

My wife and I own an 02 Accord and recently, my sister bought an 04. Both of them are 4's, mine with a stick, hers, auto. Gonna have to say, I still prefer the 6th generation to the 7th. In my eyes, it actually retains some of the old Honda traits with the lower cowl, lower roofline, more planted apperance, if not more edgier lines. The 04 went a bit Camry-like in apperarance, more rounded, bigger greenhouse, noticably higher beltline. Driving, or even riding in it, it feels huge!!! It's still very likable, and quite nimble, but closer to an Acura RL than a Prelude.

Looks are subjective, of course, I've grown to like the back end, and the low profile deckwing makes it look better proprtioned, but I don't think I would step up to this generation Accord, and I've had 6 of them!

A few things have made the Accord better than any previous though. When we got ours, our friends and relatives were complimenting on the size of the back seat, how roomy it was. Well, the 04 is like riding around in your living room, it's so much roomier. Also the dash layout is a bit classier and the stereo is better sounding as well. I think in the end, the looks will age pretty well, as the usually do. Heck, I bought a 98 when they first came out and shopped different dealers. 3 out of 4 of them stated very clearly there dislike for that generation (sedan) comparing it to a Sable or a Buick!!!

wale_bate1 · May 2004

Don't you wonder how Acura fits into the overall picture. Or does it?

Though I respect Honda for sticking to it's principles and philosophies (mostly) a la Subaru, and refusing to offer RWD and V8 sedans in the near- to lux segment, have they shot themselves in the toe? I guess this is parallel to the truck discussion...

That's not an unfair assessment above, IMO, BTW.

andre1969 · May 2004

Traditionally, one of the styling cues of a Buick was long, horizontal, full-width taillights., so that might be where the Buick reference comes in.

Also, the Accord gets bigger, roomier, and more comfortable with every redesign, and Buicks traditionally were big, roomy, comfy cars. You can probably blame the Toyota Camry more than any other car for the Accord's ever-increasing size. When it came on the market for 1983, it was downright massive compared to the Accord. When the Accord went bigger for '86, the Camry trumped it again in '87. Then in '90 the Accord grew again, only to see the Camry go midsized for '92. The Accord's '94 restyle was a bit curious, as it really didn't seem to emerge any larger overall than the '90-93. IIRC, the '94-97 Accord did take a lot of flak at the time, although I'll admit I like 'em. Especially the '96-97 models, that had the slight grille change with the chrome border.

But anyway, the Camry grew again in '97, and the Accord followed for '98. And most recently, the Camry ballooned again for '02, and the Accord matched it for '03.

These things are firmly midsized cars now, too. According to www.fuelecnoomy.gov, here are the interior volumes, listed as passenger cabin/trunk capacity, in cubic feet...

2004 Honda Accord: 103/14
2004 Toyota Camry: 102/17
2004 Nissan Altima: 103/16
2004 Mazda6: 96/15
2004 Acura TSX: 91/13

Now, here's a rundown of a few midsize/fullsize cars of today:

2004 Ford Taurus: 104/17 (believe it or not, the EPA classifies this as full-sized!
2004 Chevy Impala: 105/18
2004 Dodge Intrepid: 104/18
2004 Chevy Malibu: 101/15
2004 Buick Century: 102/17
2004 Pontiac Grand Prix: 97/16
2004 Dodge Strtatus: 94/16
2004 Saturn L-series: 97/18

And, FWIW, back around 1980, the intermediate with the most interior volume would've been the Chevy Malibu, rated at 102/17. An Aspen/Volare/Diplomat/LeBaron would've been around 99/16, and a Fairmont/Zephyr around 97/16. The Granada/Monarch, in their final year in '80, would've probably been around 95/15, if that.

seminole_kev · May 2004

now if the TSX had been RWD, I'd have waited on the lot for the first one of the truck. Even still I like it as FWD, but RWD would have really made one hell of a car.

I don't like the styling of the new TL, but it is a really good car in its class and still a hell of a deal. The rest of the lineup doesn't do anything for me. MDX (ehhh, I'd rather have the Lexus RX330 in the classs), the RL is forgetable, the RSX for somereason just doesn't click with me (I really like the older Integras). Does Acura still sell the Trooper version, whatever it was called?

Acura is rebounding though in my opinion compared to even just a few years ago. Just sell the new RL replacement as a "Legend" replace the RSX with something sexier and call it an "Integra" and I think they can skate around the RWD issue with most people by going the AWD route.

Still would like to see Acura go up against the LS430 and S-Class, but that might be awhile off. Oh, and I think the Honda S2000 should have been sold as an Acura and the NSX put to sleep along time ago.

Really weird how Acura really fell of the game after owning the premium, Japanese import game.

alpha01 · May 2004

The 1997 Camry really didnt grow appreciably in exterior size over the 92-96 generation. We're talking a max of 3 to 4 tenths of an inch in length, width, and height. The only marginally significant change was a 2 inch increase in wheel base, which helped in part to achieve improved interior dimensions.

~alpha

seminole_kev · May 2004

My father had a roughly 1992 or 1993 Camry and for some reason that model looked bigger to me than the 1997 Camry replacement. Think it looked (relatively) sleeker so it made the newer one not look as big.

anythngbutgm · May 2004

Kind of started the whole Acura "letter" designation. Gone from the lineup in 2000, when Acura was ramping up for the MDX. As much as noone like the SLX and the Trooper for that matter, I gotta say that was the strongest offering Isuzu had since the original Rodeo. Talked my wife's mother in to one back in 2001 (Dad was a GM freak, so Isuzu was part of the family) Tough truck. That thing would take us through the deepest trails in the White Mountains, without breaking a sweat. Sure it wasn't the most powerful (205hp? 3.5l) but the grunt was sure there. I believe it just turned something like 70,000 miles and no complaints or problems. It was kind of an underdog compared to the newer offerings that came out like the Toyota L.C. Durango, Expedition, and even one of my other favorites, the Mitsu Montero.

Sad to say, I believe GM themselves are to blame for Isuzu's demise. And off topic, I believe Saab as well.

robertsmx · May 2004

Accord didn't grow in 2003. It has stayed put with the dimensions adopted with the 1998 Accord and rightfully so. I believe only the wheelbase (sedan only) was extended and that seems to have added fraction of an inch to the legroom on the inside while taking away a fraction from the trunk.

Honda couldn't have managed to sell Accords at 400K units/year pace in America without increasing its size from 1994-97 levels. Thats a fact, regardless of whether some like it, or not.

robertsmx · May 2004

"SLX... Kind of started the whole Acura "letter" designation"

Not really. It started with NSX (it arrived as "Acura" in 1990 as 1991 model). If we go far enough in history to Honda's first car... it followed an alphanumeric designation... S500, "S" for Sport and 500 for the engine displacement.

andre1969 · May 2004

sorry, I accidentally posted that other message prematurely, before I could get the interior volumes listed in. But anyway, it's there if ya wanna see it.

As for the Camry from '96-97, that's right, I'd forgotten that it didn't grow much, if at all. I just checked interior volumes, and both had 97 cubic feet of interior volume...the '97 actually lost a foot of trunk space, down from 15 to 14! They round these things off though, so it might've been less. For instance, one might've been 14.5 and one might've been 14.4!

Maybe that was one redesign that actually followed Honda's lead, as that Accord didn't seem to grow much from '93-94?

wale_bate1 · May 2004

I've driven the TL, and as far as FWD goes, they don't come any better, IMO. That's a kudo to Honda engineering: they've made FWD as inconspicuous for routine and even somewhat spirited driving as it can possibly be.

I'm not however looking forward to the possibility of ending up in the market, in two years, and being faced with giving up RWD to stay in a compact sport wagon. Not liking it at all. Making Audi look better every day. [sigh]

I think they should cave frankly. Give in and transfer the racing acumen to a RWD sport-lux sedan with the emphasis clearly on sport. Toyota doesn't have it but for compacts, and Infinti couldn't be that hard to smack around.

I know what you mean about the segment. Hell, they invented the [non-permissible content removed]-lux game here in the States. I bought one of the 1G Legend sedans. They were game on, even if it did look like "an Accord on steroids" (Car and Driver).

user777 · May 2004

I'm one of those engineers that purchases based on functionality, utility and value. Still, these utilitarian vehicles - they've got to look asthetically pleasing to me. i tend to prefer a straight line and angled look - I'm realizing there's something about the rounding trend that just bothers me.

Call me square.

So - to shift gears slightly - does anyone think this roundness trend is going a bit far?

I'm one of those people that falls into the group that prefers the styling of the older model accords...my '94 accord to the 04s...I think the late-90s/early 00s looked good, probably better than my '94, but the 04s are rather rounded and not as visually pretty.

That said, I preferred the appearence of the '95 corolla i had to the present year corolla model. for example, what they did with the trunk lid doesn't appeal to me.

The Toyota Sienna...I think the back-end looks a tad bit like the ODY, so I like that 'cause its got angled lines, but I don't like the side profile, nor the front. I still think the ODY looks better.

And the new MPV looks better from the back, but the front?

The Nissans like the Murano and the Quest. Woa.

Roundness in a VW bug? Sure, but in the Audi and the Passats and the Jettas? I like the appearence of the '85 Jetta GLI I had over this rounded stuff.

OK, maybe I need a Ferrari...

Perhaps if Honda keeps the roundness in check, they will retain / grow market share.

saugatak · May 2004

I agree with you. I think Honda should have bit the bullet too and started making RWD and v8s. The v8 would have helped their truck sales (I don't think a v8 is necessary in car sales, but why not provide it as an option) and the lux/performance market demands RWD.

I think Honda has hit a ceiling with their current business plan (FWD, I4 and V6 only). How many more Accords or Civic's can they sell given that both are already market leaders? The CR-V, Pilot and MDX are already doing well and the competition in this market segment is hot, so how much more profit can be squeezed out of this market segment? How much more decontenting can they do to generate more profits without losing ground to the Koreans and Mazda who are coming on strong?

Honda is completely absent in the performance and truck markets and that is a big mistake, especially with respect to the performance market. BMW is selling Civics with a straight 6 and 50-50 weight balance for nearly $40k fully optioned out. Why doesn't Honda just make some RWD platforms, shove in a straight 6, and eat BMW's lunch?

I'm curious to see how the SH-AWD does, but I haven't seen anything yet to convince me that it's going to offer the one huge advantage of a RWD car, and that is 50-50 weight balance. Also, AWD and performance just don't go together IMO. The extra drivetrain often adds 400 pounds and that is a serious detractor of performance.

I am not against FWD. In fact, most cars I've owned have been FWD and when I lived in the Northeast, I would not buy a RWD car because they suck in snow unless you go through the hassle of snow tires. But now that I'm in So Cal, I don't have to worry about that and I'm looking for a RWD offering from Honda and it ain't there.

nvbanker · May 2004

The one thing that could turn this whole scenerio around for Honda could be a sudden demand for small cars again, which would be oil driven. Having lived through the early 70's, when new Buick Electras were sitting on lots rusting in the rain because the only market for them was as boat anchors, reminds me again that we all could be looking for a quality 4 cylinder car again someday. And guess who will be invested in the right market then? Meantime, they do seem a little out of step with the current times, don't they?

wale_bate1 · May 2004

Meantime, they do, IMO.

With all their racing experience, you'd think RWD sport an absolute no-brainer. I mean the TL is wonderful as is, but imagine it with a small-block V8 around four liters and RWD. Better yet, don't. Don't want drool-shorted keyboards out there.

I'm not sure I can say they'd be able to out BMW BMW without breathing hard. And if they did, my take is they would have to price right around the same points. But certainly they should be able to get very, very close.

alpha01 · May 2004

Theres a manufacturer truly WORTHY of a "Has xxx's run - run out". Shame on you, Chris Bangle. Those Bangle cars, 5,6,7. TRULY UGLY, to the point that its distinctly hurt sales, and dynamically... well the BRAND NEW 5 series failed to make this forums coveted Ten Best list, even though the outgoing model had MANY iterations on it until the end.

Honda is hardly in the dire straights that BMW seems to be facing.

Here's to the next 3 series...

~alpha

seminole_kev · May 2004

how about a RWD TSX with a Honda designed and built straight six... or a Honda S2000 coupe and convertible with a Honda straight six and a restyle sold as an Acura.

Yowza that would be fun for me. Modern day Jag Mk II and E-type. Drool..............

nvbanker · May 2004

BMW & Honda seem to be the generally accepted kings of engine engineering, don't they? Honda has stubbornly hung onto their niche, as has BMW. Neither makes trucks, however, BMW does make high end performers, where Honda sort of does, if you can handle a V-6 and FWD, so they're not very earnest about it.

I give them credit for doing what they do well, rather than trying to do everything (Like GM) and doing it poorly. But there are some cracks, it appears, in the execution.

biggie2 · May 2004

An oil driven market wouldnt turn to small 4 cylinder vehicles, it would turn to hybrids...

logic1 · May 2004

The mileage is about the same as hybrids and manufacturers use less resources and energy making one diesel engine than making a gas engine, an electric engine, and batteries.

nvbanker · May 2004

Maybe, but hybrids are expensive now, and marginally effective. The only way to really cut your gasoline bill is to get a 4 banging Honda or something.

nvbanker · May 2004

I like the Diesel solution better than Hybrid. Frankly, I don't trust hybrid technology for the long run yet.

grbeck · May 2004

Honda recently introduced a diesel engine for the European Accord. The engine received great reviews in Car.

newcar31: The Focus that I tested did not have the PZEV engine. The engine had just been released on a nationwide basis, and the dealer did not have any in stock.

harrychezt · May 2004

1) Honda is not doomed.
2) Hyundai has been recommended, in 2002, for Sonata and Santa Fe.(comment made about long term) 1995-present Sonatas ARE recommended by CR, as are all 4 years of Santa fe models. I posted the news on autoweek.com, and other sites, yet people refused to read it, and ignored it,so ya wanna read it, go there.

Buy what you like, because I do.
PS< Honda Element is making saels to the older gorup, btu they lost a sale to my father-in-law. He tried 3 times in 6 months to get them to knock off a grand or so, and they said"MSRP", and he said'Used Jeep Laredo", and left the lot. He said he may wait to repalce his S-10 next year for the American Made Sante Fe. He knows they'll knock a few grand off msrp, as long as you argue.

DAV
1983-1994
USNR-USCG

lexusguy · May 2004

"I'm curious to see how the SH-AWD does, but I haven't seen anything yet to convince me that it's going to offer the one huge advantage of a RWD car, and that is 50-50 weight balance. Also, AWD and performance just don't go together IMO. The extra drivetrain often adds 400 pounds and that is a serious detractor of performance."

AWD and performance dont go together? WHAT? Let me drop some names on you. 911 Turbo. Lancer Evolution. WRX STi. Skyline GT-R. Audi RS4. Audi RS6. What do all those cars have in common? They can all hit 60mph in 5 seconds or less. They handle like their on rails. And oh yeah, they're all AWD. The 450hp Euro spec bi-turbo RS4 would absolutely mop the floor with our M3.

lil302000 · May 2004

As some on the board claim a like equipped Accord is priced just a few hundred dollars more than the cheapest compition in it's class. We all know that is the class leader in most aspects and yet it sales are slipping? I guess Hondas problems must be worse than I thought. Some ones not telling the truth Lucy.

lexusguy · May 2004

I didnt get the impression that Accord sales are slipping at all. Some people seem to equate a reduction in net profit as loss of sales. Thats not what happened.

robertsmx · May 2004

AHM sold 2K less units of Accord in April than it did last year. But, AHM sold 2.5K more units of TSX and TL this April compared to last.

Honda has realized this shift in sales, and is in the process of moving production of some Accords to East Liberty (Ohio) from Marysville (Ohio) to make room for production of more TLs. Production of 2004 Accords may have been reduced for that reason, and that the 2005 models will be out soon. Production Capacity and Inventory Turnaround would be better indicators of slip, if any.

That said, matching and beating all time record sales every year, and suddenly not doing it, isnt an indication of failure especially if there is little incentive to go with it, and the car changes a little. And, Hondas net sales and net income rose last year (I have posted the numbers earlier). It was the operating income that went down, and Honda blames Yen-Dollar exchange rate for that.

alpha01 · May 2004

"Production Capacity and Inventory Turnaround would be better indicators of slip, if any."

and

"That said, matching and beating all time record sales every year, and suddenly not doing it, isnt an indication of failure especially if there is little incentive to go with it, and the car changes a little. And, Hondas net sales and net income rose last year (I have posted the numbers earlier)."

Excellent points, and I couldnt agree more. Id rather see sales off by 9% while maintaining high margins on those sales than see sales increase by 9% and lose margin due to rebates, financing, extended warranties, etc.... which have snowball effects on resale, perception etc. Toyota has me concerned with this situation in relation to the Camry, but has smartly introduced a Camry "Standard" model to mitigate said effects and the 2005 refresh will significantly improve the car as well.

Sales arent everything.

~alpha

saugatak · May 2004

How good would those cars you mentioned be if they were RWD and had lost 300 pounds?

Having drive a 330i and 330xi, I can assure you the 330i is a much more fun car to drive.

Also, now that I live in sunny CA, I don't need AWD and I'd prefer to lose the weight of the extra AWD drivetrain and (1) get better performance, (2) save gas money and (3) lower the risk of repairs due to increased complexity of AWD drivetrain.

Can an AWD be made sporty? Yes, but is the equivalet RWD version of that AWD car even more sporty? Hell yeah. That is why in the sport/performance market it is not FWD or AWD, but RWD which rules.

Has Honda's run - run out?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles