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?

1177178180182183381

Comments

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Going back to the future...

    newcar does have a point here: in its day, the '92 Civic EX was a fast car in its segment.

    I don’t think so. 1992-1995 Civic EX was a reasonably quick car in its day, but it was never at the top of the power game. Consider these top engines from the early 1990s (cars with less power than Civic highlighted in italics):

    Chevrolet Cavalier: 3.1/V6 (140 HP/185 lb.ft)
    Dodge Neon (1995): 2.0-liter (150 HP/135 lb.-ft)
    Ford Escort: 1.8-liter (127 HP/114 lb.-ft)
    Honda Civic: 1.6-liter (125 HP/106 lb.-ft)
    Mazda Protégé: 1.8-liter (125 HP/125 lb.-ft)
    Nissan Sentra: 2.0-liter (140 HP/133 lb.-ft)
    Saturn SL2: 1.9-liter (124 HP/122 lb.-ft)
    Toyota Corolla: 1.6-liter (130 HP/105 lb.-ft)
    VW Golf: 2.0-liter (134 HP/133 lb.-ft)

    Saturn SL2 had 1 HP less, but likely made up for it in the low-mid range. The story, compared to the competition, is not much different today. Some cars have changed names/transformed, but the mainstream Civic hasn't changed position in this regard.

    Fast forwarding to the present...
    Corolla XRS is expected to appeal to a buyer that Civic Si goes after, albeit with 4-doors. I see XRS as more of a replacement to Celica than anything else.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    some of those are SLIGHTLY (I emphasize slightly) misleading. The 140 hp Sentra was a two-door sport coupe selling at a high price in its segment. The Corolla never had 130 hp until the current generation. However, while I don't remember exact numbers, it is likely there was already a 125 hp DX by 1992. And I don't know about that Golf, but maybe that was a GTI variant? Certainly the Jetta, by far the volume seller of the two and the real competitor for the Civic, had some piddly little engine making about 100 hp, if memory serves.

    With those adjustments, you can see that the Civic EX was right at the top of the power range in its segment back then, with the exception of the Chevy that had an available V-6 (exclusive then, gone now?).

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • carguy58carguy58 Posts: 2,303
    should have more horsepower. I would guess Honda would make the next generation Civic with 140 HP.I am a both a Honda and Mazda fan so I'm like in the middle of the argument here. When Nissan came out with the new Altima with all that HP Honda matched it. When everybody was whining the the last generation Acura TL was bland in appearence compared to the Germans Honda went back and executed a beautiful 04 TL. When Honda got beat by Toyota with the 92-96 Camry they went back and made a great 1998 Accord to match Camry. The only thing Honda didn't do to match their competition is take a chance with the exterior of the current Accord to match Mazda or Nissan in the looks department. Honda is good at responding to other automakers challanges. We will see if Honda responds to the challenge with the 06 Civic. The styling needs to have a lots of pizzaz. I can't say that enough. The interior has to use better plastics than the current model. Honda cannot abandon the tuner crowd. Like I said before I am not a tuner myself but that was part of the 92-95 and 96-00 Civic audience and Honda kinda forgot about the turner crowd with the current Civic.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,594
    had a 1994 Civic that I'm almost positive was an EX. It was just about fully-loaded and cost about $16K. However, it wasn't a high performance car, it was just the top trim level of a volume line.

    In contrast, some of those other cars like the Neon with the 150 hp engine, the Cavalier with the 3.1 V-6, etc, those were high performance models, such as the Neon R/T and the Cavalier Z-24. The majority of Cavaliers just came with the pre-Ecotech 2.2 boat-anchor that was derived from the old Cav 2.0 of the 80's. And the vast majority of Neons had the SOHC 132 hp 2.0. Now for a base engine, that really was at the head of the pack back in 1995, but fast forward 10 years, and the Neon is heavier and bigger, and stuck with the SAME engine!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I don't see why the Civic Si should be excluded, nor do I agree that the hybrid should be counted out.

    The Si is how Honda chose to chase the performance buyer. If you want to argue that you think they chose the wrong body style, fine, but they haven't overlooked the segment completely as is being implied.

    And the hybrid? C'mon, that's the most attention-getting segment nowadays, ignoring that is ignoring the most important accomplishment Honda has made with the Civic.

    I'll concede that if you ignore the most important Civic and you also ignore the highest performing one, then ... well, how significant can whatever statement that follows really be?

    -juice
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I think Honda has more concern with product overlap than Mazda. A hot Civic sedan would not doubt put a dent in TSX sales, and the Acura is a far more profitable model.

    So perhaps Honda's strategy to keep the sedan out of the performance market is deliberate. Instead they let the hybrid create a green halo, and let the TSX rake in the big bucks.

    -juice
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    if your friend's Civic had a moonroof, it was an EX.

    and carguy's remarks reminded me of one other thing I would really like Honda to be a leader on (among the Japanese): a MAJOR reduction in hard plastics in the car's interior. People talk about the "quality" of plastics, things like texturing, etc. For me, it is much more important how much of it is soft-touch or better yet padded. If the places I rest my elbows are rock-hard, it doesn't leave a good impression, even if those plastics are "high quality" rock hard surfaces. Same with the places I have to touch or rest things on. The inside of the current Civic, while no torture chamber, could use a lot of work in this respect.

    Yes, VWs have major mechanical problem areas. But their interiors put most of the major Japanese players DEEPLY to shame, and they sell for more money too. Raise the price if you must, Honda (and Toyota, and Nissan, and Mazda, and Subaru), but the inside is where we spend most of our time - make it more pleasant. The Civic could do with taking some cues from the Accord, and then go another 10%.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "I would guess Honda would make the next generation Civic with 140 HP.I am a both a Honda and Mazda fan so I'm like in the middle of the argument here."

    Hey, I'm a Honda fan too. I've owned two of them. If I didn't like Hondas, I wouldn't care, and I wouldn't be posting in here. You don't see me in any of the Kia or Isuzu forums.

    I think there are two reasons why people in here see me as anti-Honda.

    1. I am critical of some of Hondas latest offerings.

    2. I currently own a Mazda.

    I have two issues with the current Hondas.

    1. I don't like the way the Accord sedan looks.

    2. I think the EX Civic needs more power.

    That does not mean that I don't think the Civic Hybrid is great or the Si Civic stinks, although, I don't like the way the Si Civic looks either.

    "When Nissan came out with the new Altima with all that HP Honda matched it."

    YUP!!!

    Nobody expected a 240 hp Accord. Nobody "needs" a 240 hp Accord. Nobody is complaining about the Accord having 240 hp either. Oh yeah, the 240 hp Accord still gets good gas mileage.
  • carguy58carguy58 Posts: 2,303
    Responding to your post about the Accord being compact its kinda weird the Accord used to compete with the Ford Tarus for Number 1 sales crown in the late 80's/early 90's. The Tarus was a mid-size car and yet the Accord from 1990-1992(I think) was the top selling car in America. Imagine that a car being called a compact beating a mid-size car for number 1 sales crown.

    I consider a 1990 Accord(4th generation Accord)was mid-size by my standards. The first 3 generation of Accord's were compacts no doubt.
  • driftracerdriftracer Posts: 2,692
    people don't drive and feel cars like they used to - they research, and compare a few lines in an internet article, plus the prospective vehicle's specs, and make a decision - they may do a quick 'round the block, but it's a given that there's not a night and day difference between ANY of the premium import mid-sizers or compacts.

    When you have Nissan advertising a 245 hp Altima, you HAVE to have a 240 hp Accord - people wouldn't look at it, save for Honda purists, otherwise.

    And I don't know about you, since I'm not a point A to B commuter, but if I got an Accord, I'd want 240 hp instead of 125 - I DRIVE may cars and enjoy power, not just the thrill I get from a boring commute.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,594
    the Accord did vie with the Taurus for #1 sales back then, but still, they were two totally different cars. One was a midsized car and one was a compact. Actually, I think the '90 Accord was the first to even be considered compact...before that I believe they were classified as subcompacts! I know the '85 and earlier models were subcompacts, but the '86-89 was kind of borderline between sub- and compact.

    But back then, the Taurus relied mainly on V-6 engines and automatic trannies, whereas the Accord was 4-cyl all the way, and manual trannies were much more common.
  • carguy58carguy58 Posts: 2,303
    "1. I am critical of Honda's latest offerings."

    As you can see I am too.

    "2.) I currently own a Mazda."
     
    I understand your point about you owning a Mazda. I used to get busted on too by a Honda owner when I had my 626. He has to poke fun at me all the time. I left the Mazda brand because they had nothing I wanted back then. If they had the 6 back then I would be driving that but they didn't have it back then.

    "I have two issues with the current Hondas."

    1.) I don't like the way the Accord Sedan looks.

    Neither do I.

    "2.) I think the Civic EX needs more power."

    I could see what your saying but like I said before there is other stuff in the next Civic that Honda has to do as well to match the competition.

    About the Accord getting 240 HP I don't need an Accord with a V6 because I don't have a family. If I had a family and we had to go on long trips I could use the V6. The 4cyl would be more than good enough for me right now.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    in today's Accord, manual tranny is still somewhat common. And it has 160 hp now, in a 3200-pound car. Not too bad, more than enough for me in a car I am going to commute in. But there will always be the V-6 crowd, god bless 'em.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Don't forget there are plenty of aftermarket moonroofs. I own two. So it could have been an LX with one of those.

    Honda's 2.4l is pretty peppy, in fact it outruns some of the outdated V6s in some competitors.

    I think these big 4 bangers have pretty much made small V6s obsolete, especially with all the balance shafts.

    -juice
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    100 posts about power and nuthin' on weight. Nuthin' on gearing. And very little on actual performance.

    Seems to me that the Civic has *forced* many of the others in this segment to up the ante in horsepower because Honda left them no where else to compete.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    No, not the TSX. The RSX.

    The TSX sells well because it offers an upscale and stylish alternative to the ordinary family sedan. The performance is good, but those focused on max performance will pay about the same price for a G35 coupe or sedan.

    Despite the four-door similarity, there's not much overlap between the Civic and TSX. A performance Civic would encroach on the RSX's territory (regardless of the door count). That's probably why the Si didn't get a more aggressive engine.
  • I know I could do a search and find my answer, but what the heck. I have a 1999 CRV with 102K on it. I got it used. Had no real problems on it. I do need to get a new set of tires. Currently I have the stock version on. I am not sure if they are the original ones. I live in Maryland. So we can get some snow, but lately a lot of sleet and rain. So what is the best brand to buy? Thanks for the help.
  • driftracerdriftracer Posts: 2,692
    checking www.tirerack.com, they have a warehouse in Delaware, so you'd get the tires quickly - they're the cheapest around by a long shot.

    As far as the actual tires to buy, Tire Rack offers consumer reviews on just about every tire listed, so it's easy to get a real review from another CRV owner, probably in your climate zone.

    The Yokohama Avid T4 is a great all around tire, as is the Continental Touring Contact AS and Pirelli Scorpion STR.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Here's a better place to do some research.

    ateixeira "Honda CR-V" Dec 1, 2004 11:12am!make=Honda&model=CR-V&ed_makeindex=.ee94ff9

    I've got a 1999 CR-V (also 102K miles) with Aquatred IIIs under it. Not a bad tire.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,594
    on my Intrepid, but I dunno if they're T4's or not. They were just cheap tires with a long treadwear rating. I think they were only $250 for 4, including shipping. Had 'em on for about 2 years now, and I've been happy with 'em.
This discussion has been closed.