-September 2024 Special Lease Deals-

2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here

2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here

2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here

Can Honda get its mojo back?

1235711

Comments

  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    I think the jury is still out on the new Civic

    It is? It got a tackier interior and no substantial improvements except fuel economy, and even with the new higher EPA figures it is still not at the head of the compact pack.


    I guess I just don't understand how Honda can be so clueless. They hit home runs for 20-30 years, now the next model gets tackier at a time when Hyundai/Kia and Ford are coming on strong? It doesn't make any sense.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    edited May 2011
    To clarify, I'd like to see a couple of tests of the Civic, plus a couple of comparison tests with competing models, before judging. Haven't seen these yet.

    One thing that I read that was disappointing about the 2012 Civic is that one of the negatives on the previous generations of Civics, road noise, hasn't been addressed. This has been a long standing criticism of Civics, albeit not a major one, but why the heck didn't Honda finally fix it? To a lesser extent, Accords also allow more road noise to enter the cabin than they should.

    I understand that sound insulation adds weight, which, in turn, hurts fuel economy. Maybe Honda doesn't think the tradeoff would be worthwhile.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    I understand that sound insulation adds weight, which, in turn, hurts fuel economy

    Well they are going to have to try something radically new then, because they are one of the lightest of the compact group, and they are still in like fourth place for fuel economy.

    And you would think the low weight would contribute to better handling, but how could you even tell with steering that numb? And even not factoring that in, the handling is sloppy. I know, I drove one. It was unimpressive before, it is worse now.

    I am trying to find a dealer with an SI in stock, to see if they also made that one worse.

    What's really unbelievable is that THIS is the result of waiting an extra year and going back to the drawing board as they claim they did. What the heck was it GOING to be??

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    edited May 2011
    I didn't know you had driven a 2012 Civic. Your comments are indeed disappointing. The next thing we'll have to keep an eye on is Civic sales, once the company recovers from the devastating natural disaster.

    I rented a Fiesta for several days in Arizona last month, and was very impressed. Its performance and driving dynamics exceeded my expectations.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    edited May 2011
    "What the heck was it GOING to be??"

    Larger.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,805
    if the new Civic is finally big enough for me to consider? I liked the previous Civic, although I found it a bit tight inside. I could drive it if I had to, but probably wouldn't like it over long distances, or on a long-term basis. But the new one, with 42" of front legroom and 56.6" of shoulder room up front, sounds downright midsized! FWIW, that's actually slightly wider inside than my old '68 Dart or '89 Gran Fury. Might've been wider than my '82 Cutlass and '86 Monte Carlo, as well.

    The 2011 Civic, in comparison, only has 53.7" of shoulder room, but 42.2" of legroom. So, technically, the older one had more legroom, but I've found that those numbers don't always seem to jive up. My 2000 Intrepid had 42.2" of legroom, but it felt roomier than the 2006-11 Civic. And the replacement Magnum/Charger/300 were only rated at something 41.8 inches, yet legroom felt better in them than it did in my Intrepid! :confuse:

    However, I'm really not that crazy about a small car with sloppy handling. And I've always thought Hondas were supposed to handle somewhat sporty. Maybe not quite as sporty as a Nissan or Mazda, but moreso than a Toyota at least.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 51,295
    I sat in one, and while I did not feel cramped, I was not overwhelmed by how roomy it was. Given your height and taste in rides, I am not thinking you will be happy with it!

    one of my biggest gripes in the front seat. The lack of lumbar adjustment is one issue (common problem on Honda's, even ones that do adjust, is your range is from "too much" to "way too much"), But mostly, the infernal ratchet lever height adjustment.

    I like to sit with the front cushion elevated for thigh support. But I don't like to sit on the floor, all laid back. And those single lever seats tend to pitch you forward when you raise it (always reminded me of one of those old people recliners with the motor to dump you out of the chair!)

    the driver's seat was actually the primary reason I ended up with the Accord in 2005. I really went in to check out the (then new model) 2006 Civic!

    in the good old days, even cheaper cars (protege, elantra) had seperate front/rear height adjuster knobs, which worked great. recently, they all switched to single levers.

    there are very few cars that I can be satisifed with that don't have power seats at this point.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Member Posts: 4,277
    edited May 2011
    While my S2k was in for a routine service. Dealer had a couple of them left, and I counted 5 of them that had sold tags awaiting Saturday pickup.

    Anyways, I actually liked it quite a bit. In sport mode especially, it drives like a Civic. The gearbox was a big step down from my S2k or other hondas like the Si tho, and one thing that annoyed me was there is no lockout for reverse... :sick: So basically, if you are not careful going from 5th to 6th, there is a chance you can go into reverse. I can't figure out why companies like Honda bother re-doing one of the best gearboxes in history...

    But other notable positives are the seats and the interior room. My wife likened the space to her old Mercedes C-class koupe, the seats go back enough to fit her long legs while the gearbox and steering wheel still fell right in place. Me, the shorter frame that I am was able to move the seats forward and still found the shifter and steering placement perfect with just a few tweaks. One thing that also surprised me was the visibility out the back. At first, I thought it was going to be terrible and the transparent glass panel on the back was going to be blocked by the rear deck. But not so. I was able to see just fine out the back and the transparent panel was very helpful when backing out of a parking spot.

    I didn't really get a good idea of the mileage, but I kep[t it in Sport mode the entire time so it was not optimal. That's probably where I would keep it anyways :D

    All in all, a very tight, zippy car with plenty of that old Honda charm IMO. If I didn't have to deal with the harsh N.E. winters, I would definitely drive one.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited May 2011
    Honda's adding a second shift to produce the 2012 Honda Civic sedan and the Honda Civic Natural Gas.

    Honda To Add 1,000 Jobs At Indiana Civic Plant (AutoObserver)
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    This might have been an even more disappointing update than the '08 Accord.

    I don't know that anything could have been as big a disappointment as the 2008 Accord.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,805
    I don't know that anything could have been as big a disappointment as the 2008 Accord.

    I guess I must really go against the grain, because I kinda like the 2008+ Accord!

    I wonder if that's an omen for Honda...if Andre likes it, then the mass market won't? :P
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    I think the current generation Accord has been selling well, in terms of market share. From what I've read, the next generation will be a little smaller, for improved fuel economy.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    They've sold well enough so the market is with you, Andre!

    Maybe the new one will look like a 2000 Park Avenue.....

    I just think the current Accord doesn't feel like a Honda at all. More like a Toyota.

    I found it funny at the mid-cycle refresh they added that red reflector across the top of the trunk. It literally looks like lipstick on a pig. Amazingly, though, it looks better that way.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,805
    Maybe the new one will look like a 2000 Park Avenue.....

    Just as long as it doesn't handle like one! I drove my '79 5th Ave today, and I swear, I feel more at home behind the wheel of that thing than I do my Park Ave. Even though it's about 14" longer, and on a ~5" longer wheelbase, it just feels more manageable. Leave it to GM to make a car feel bigger than it really is!

    I just think the current Accord doesn't feel like a Honda at all. More like a Toyota.

    Did the 2002-2006 Camry tend to sell better than the 2003-2007 Accord? If so, then maybe Honda tried to do that, to go after an older crowd? I think the main reason I'm drawn a bit to the 2008+ Accord is that I like its proportions. It seems like the hood, roof, and decklid are all proportioned well, with respect to each other, and the headlights seem properly sized. I'm glad to see that Honda, and the otehrs, have started to move away from that oversized startled-deer-in-the-headlghts look.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    Yeah, Camry was selling better.

    I think Honda thinks I'm older than I do. The calendar agrees with them unfortunately.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    The Civic placed second best in a Motor Trend comparison of eight compacts.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Who won? Tell me it wasn't the Elantra.

    Actually I bet it wasn't, I bet first place went to the Focus.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,805
    Okay, I won't tell you it was the Elantra (I also won't tell you that it wasn't)...but, the Focus came in 5th!
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Heck, the Focus should have beaten the Elantra on looks alone. The Elantra looks like they smeared a real car, or maybe like a car after it has melted.

    And the Civic? Looks exactly like it has for the last six years, despite the so-called redesign. I swear the average consumer would have no idea this car has been updated at all, just walking around it. Then they would get in and sit down and sadly wonder who took out the nice interior materials from the earlier years.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Honda is still the target to beat.

    "In a deft move intended to strike the heart of Honda Civic sales, Hyundai will unveil its future Elantra coupe late this fall at the 2011 Los Angeles Auto Show."

    Inside Line
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Member Posts: 4,277
    They haven't been on sale for very long and I spotted 4 of them on my way to dinner last night. 3 coupes and one sedan.

    Too early to tell... But as a data point, I still have seen a half a dozen Snuzes and they came out 6 months ago! The new Corollas tho, for some reason are popping up everywhere, along with the Elantras. New Focus are rare although I did see a pair of wagons which looked pretty cool. But I digress... :D
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    Automobile Magazine compared six compacts, and ranked the Civic third. This indicates that the former front runner in its class is losing ground. One gets the impression, though, that all six are excellent cars, and that they're closer than they were in prior years. To a large extent, it comes down to which attributes a buyer values the most, and the proximity and reputation of the dealer.
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Member Posts: 4,277
    "Six Cars Everyone Wants But No One Can Get"

    Here are the six vehicles that emerged...:

    • 2011 Ford Explorer

    • 2011 Honda Civic – The Honda Civic stayed relatively consistent in year-over-year sales with an increase of just over seven percent, ranking as the No. 5 overall most purchased vehicle in April 2011.
    Consumer Interest Ranking: 23
    Day Supply: 23 days
    MSRP: $15,805


    • 2011 Hyundai Elantra

    • 2011 Hyundai Sonata.

    • 2011 Kia Sorento

    • 2011 Toyota Prius
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,364
    I too feel like Honda is losing its grip a bit, esp. when it comes to styling. They used to be leaders in elegant and near cutting edge design and engineering, but model after model has been a bit off on styling, particularly the TL and the Odyssey. I have to say that the more I've seen the Odyssey on the road the more I've come to like it.

    There have been lots of people ragging on the current generation Accord, and I have to say that overall I don't agree. I own a loaded 08 EXL, and it's by far the best car I've ever owned. But, I have to say that the styling is only so so. I like it from the side, and I'm now fully used to it for the front and back, but it just doesn't have the sleek feel I used to expect from Honda.

    But for me, in terms of the engineering and build quality, my 08 Accord is so far beyond the 02 Accord we used to have that it still amazes me. Where the 02 sometimes felt a little tinny, the doors on our 08 close like a bank vault.

    The handling on the 08, I have to admit, is a bit sloppier than the 02. In terms of room inside, the 08 definitely feels like it has more, even though our 08 has a moonroof which robs some headroom.

    In terms of MPG the cars are the same. And given that the 08 is larger and weighs c. 200 lbs more and has a more powerful and larger engine, that seems pretty impressive.

    But given all that, I am looking forward to a slimmed down 2013 Accord....
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2024 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (offspring)
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I think Honda is lucky that Toyota has made so many bad moves recently because I believe it has provided cover for Honda's cheapening and mistakes in product. But cover doesn't usually last forever.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,805
    Thanks for posting your comparison of your '08 Accord to your '02. I'll admit, I used to put the '98-02 on a bit of a pedestal, mainly because I liked the way it looked, both inside and out. But, a couple years ago, I got a chance to drive one, which belonged to a coworker. It was a loaded V-6 model with leather and a sunroof. Well, after getting used to better and better cars, suddenly, that old Accord didn't seem so hot. For one thing, it was cramped inside. The EPA actually classified that generation as a midsized car (the current one is actually "full size" if you don't get a sunroof!) but it felt cramped to me. And while there was less hard plastic inside than your typical new car, the soft-touch stuff just didn't seem so high quality. And neither did the leather. And yeah, it did feel a bit tinny.

    I'm actually impressed that the '08 only weighs 200 lb more, considering how much bigger it feels.

    On a similar note, a few months ago, I rode in my coworker's Camry, which is a '97-99 model. And honestly, I thought it kinda sucked. Now granted, it's had over a decade to age, but again, it just shows how much better cars have gotten, and how, once you take off the "rose tinted glasses", those older models that we look fondly on aren't so hot. My Mom and stepdad still have a '99 Altima. I drove it about a month ago, and it doesn't seem like any great shakes either. Now, it does have around 330,000 miles on it, and I'm impressed at how well it's held up. But overall, it feels like a cheap, yet well-built car. If that makes sense. Well-built in that it's lasted all those miles and is still pretty tight and rattle-free, but it still feels a bit tinny, and the interior is nothing to brag about.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    I think Honda is lucky that Toyota has made so many bad moves recently because I believe it has provided cover for Honda's cheapening and mistakes in product. But cover doesn't usually last forever.

    Honda should be worrying about Hyundai. They are the scrappy upstart (like Honda used to be) and cars like the Sonata and Elantra are going to eat Honda's lunch if they are not careful. Like Toyota, Honda's excellent reputation is carrying them, probably a bit out of proportion to the quality of Honda's latest offerings. But that isn't going to last forever. I also hope to see a slightly smaller and better-styled new Accord. Isn't the CRV also due for a redesign?
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Honda should be worrying about Hyundai

    You're right. But if history holds, they too will step in it at some point in time. I expect it will be sooner than it took Toyota because they are growing so quickly.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,364
    edited June 2011
    Andre: There are lots of exceptions and asterisks, but overall in most ways a lot of new cars are much better than the cars of even 10 years ago. And my guess is that the future will continue to bring significant improvements.

    OK. Anyone care for a guessing game of what the next generation Accord, which is due a bit more than a year from now, will be in terms of dimensions, weight, performance, etc.? Make your guesses and preferences for the 2013 Accord...

    Here for reference are some stats on the current gen base model (LX) Accord:
    Width: 72.7 in.
    Height: 58.1 in.
    Length: 194.1 in.
    Wheel base: 110.2 in.
    Cargo capacity: 14.7 cu.ft.
    EPA interior volume: 120.7 cu.ft.
    Curb weight: 3217 lbs.
    Base engine size: 2.4 L
    Cam type: Double overhead cam (DOHC)
    Valve timing: Variable
    Horsepower: 177 hp @ 6500 rpm
    EPA mileage est. (cty/hwy): 23/33 mpg
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2024 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (offspring)
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,364
    edited June 2011
    It seems certain because of high gas prices and increased CAFE regulations that the next model Accord will need to be significantly more efficient. I'd say they are probably aiming for a c. 15% increase in mpg for the next gen to meet CAFE requirements going all the way to the end of the generation's 5 year life span. In other words, it not only needs to meet the requirements for 2013 but 2017. What that means, I think, is that they would like the 2013 Accord to get EPA mpg of c. 26 city and 36 highway.

    Translation: The Accord needs to get smaller and lighter. This will allow it to get a smaller but more advanced engine and higher mpg.

    My great but somewhat bloated Accord is clearly going to be the largest ever made. I think it's smaller from here on out.

    But smaller can be better.

    Here are my guesses:
    width: 72 (cutting 7/10th of an inch there)
    Height: 57.8 (lost 1/4th of an inch there--a little bit swoopier and more aerodynamic)
    length: 190 (4 inches gone there--taking it down to the length of the new Sonata)
    weight: 3100 (120 pound diet)
    cargo: 14.7 (no change there)
    interior vol: 120 still--to stay in the "large" category and compete with Sonata
    engine 2.2
    horsepower: 190
    epa: 26/36

    Just guesses, I know...
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2024 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (offspring)
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Member Posts: 4,277
    Translation: The Accord needs to get smaller and lighter. This will allow it to get a smaller but more advanced engine and higher mpg.

    I don't see the next Accord getting smaller. Lighter, yes, as we witnessed a 150lb drop in Civic weight. But size-wise, the reason for the Accord being bigger over the years is because Honda doesn't have the luxury of an Avalon, Maxima or Taurus above to compete for those class of vehicles.

    What I mean is, there is a meat and potatoes class of car which is consistently the largest portion of car sales every month. The midisze sedan. The Camry, the Altima, and previously for years, the Taurus were all top sellers along with the Accord for Honda. All of them have gotten larger as well but those companies kept the size small enough to not impede on their next class of Avalons for Toyota, Maxima's for Nissan, etc.

    Honda tried to strike a balance, in a way (gutsy, smooth, but not strained, 4 cylinders to keep up with the lighter competition for instance) but size-wise I believe they went for the larger size to appease the American Appetite for larger cars.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,364
    But how to they meet the CAFE of 2017 with the current jumbo Accord? I don't think it'll shrink drastically, just a little as I show in my guestimates. But I'd bet real money that the 9 gen Accord will be smaller than the 8th gen in pretty much all dimensions--except interior. I think they'll try to shrink the car while maintaining most of the current interior room and remaining (just barely) in the "large" car category.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2024 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (offspring)
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,805
    All of them have gotten larger as well but those companies kept the size small enough to not impede on their next class of Avalons for Toyota, Maxima's for Nissan, etc.

    The current generation of Altima and Camry are actually a bit smaller inside than their forebears. In the case of the Altima, it dropped from 103 cubic feet of interior volume and a 16 cubic foot trunk, to 101 and 15. I got these numbers from the EPA website. Now keep in mind that they round off, so the old Altima could have actually been 102.5 and 15.5, while the new one could be 101.4 and 15.4, so in theory the differences could be marginal. However, the new Altima does feel a bit smaller inside to me. Still adequate, though.

    In the case of the Camry, it went from 102/17 to 101/15.

    Surprisingly, the Maxima actually shrunk up quite a bit with the latest redesign. The older style was rated 104/16, while the new one has been trimmed to 96/14. I think Nissan's trying to return the Maxima to its sportier roots for its flagship sedan, and make it feel a bit more premium, whereas Toyota's going the more traditional route and making the Avalon bigger, and roomier than a Camry.

    So, Honda was the only one to take the Accord up a notch. The current model is rated 106/15, while the 2003-07 was rated 103/14.

    I never realized how much a sunroof can take out of those interior measurements, though. In the current Accord, it knocks passenger volume down from 106 to 101 cubic feet. In the '03-07 model, it takes it from 102.7 to 97.7 cubic feet.

    In the Camry, the sunroof drops interior volume a bit less drastically, from 101.4 cubic feet to 99.7. I found these numbers googling around on the internet. It's not hard with Hondas and Toyotas, since some of their trim levels come with a standard sunroof and some don't. On cars where the sunroof is a separate option, it's harder to track down how much it reduces interior volume.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,364
    andre: great analysis of those numbers. The Accord is the largest in the segment. And I think it'll shrink down to the level of the Sonata--or maybe even a shade smaller.

    I hope they don't go with the swoopy rear roof of the Sonata and so many cars today. That kind of design robs rear headroom and usually has bad visibility.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2024 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (offspring)
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,364
    Andre: I've noticed over the years that you're amazing with the numbers and history. It's fine and understandable if you don't have the time, inclination, or numbers at hand, but if there's chance of getting the basic stats on the Accord for the last 25 years--since the introduction of the all new 1986 Accord sedan, I think that would be interesting. What I'm hoping we can get is just what each generation was in terms of length, width, weight, and engine size.

    So 4 numbers for the 1986 4-door Accord (LX model), 4 for the 1990, 1994, 1998, 2003, and 2008. If not, that's fine, but I'd be interested to see those numbers...

    I'm wondering if the next gen 2013 Accord might get back a little closer to the 2003 generation--at least in terms of size, but perhaps with sligthly lighter weight.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2024 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (offspring)
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,805
    edited June 2011
    1986 Accord:
    177.8" long
    66.5" wide
    2421 lb (DX sedan), 2482 lb (LX sedan), 2568 lb (LX-i sedan...I guess this one morphed into the EX, eventually?)
    2.0 4-cyl engine with 98-110 hp

    1990 Accord:
    184.8" long
    67.9" wide
    2737 lb (DX sedan), 2857 (LX), 2923 (EX)
    2.2 4-cyl engine with 125-130 hp

    1994 Accord:
    184.0" long
    70.1" wide
    2800 lb (Edmund's lists this weight for all 3 trim levels, which is probably a misprint)
    2.2 4-cyl engine with 130-145 hp

    1998 Accord:
    188.8" long
    70.3" wide
    2888 lb (DX sedan), 2987 (LX)3020 lb (EX)
    2.3 4-cyl engine with 135-150 hp

    2003 Accord:
    189.5" long
    71.5" wide
    3049 lb (DX sedan), 3053 (LX) 3109 lb (EX)
    2.4 4-cyl engine with 160 hp

    2008 Accord:
    194.1" long
    72.7" wide
    3230 lb (LX sedan), 3349 lb (EX)
    2.5 4-cyl engine with 177-190 hp

    It looks like the biggest size jump occurred in 1990, when the car added 300+ lb in weight and 7" in length. I always thought the 1994 looked a lot smaller, even though the actual difference was less than an inch. However, the '94 was a few inches wider, so that might've helped give it a chubbier look.

    I'm also surprised at how little difference there is in length between the '98 and '03 Accord, as the '03 seems a lot bigger, and a lot more comfy, to me. IMO, the '03 Accord was the first Accord to actually feel "midsized" to me, although the EPA classified the '08 as an intermediate as well. The '90 and '94 were compacts, and the '86 was actually a subcompact! Now, with the '08 nudging into full-sized territory, I wonder if the Accord is the only nameplate to actually span all four size classes?
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    Interesting looking at how the LX is always heavier than the DX and the EX is heaviest of all. I'm assuming the difference is the AC in the LX and the sunroof in the EX.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,805
    I'm assuming the difference is the AC in the LX and the sunroof in the EX.

    Yeah, I was thinking that, as well. And I'm guessing that a/c was finally made standard on the DX for 2003, which would explain why there was only a few pounds difference by that time?
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 51,295
    walked down 1 row in my lot at work this afternoon. In the space of about 20 cars, 5 were new style accords.

    One was parked next to a late mazda 626 (last style before becoming the supersized 6). man, it dwarfed the mazda. height, and huge butt. Looked like a new taurus next to an escort.

    also, for interior room, height is a waste to me. As long as you have enough, another couple of inches, while it adds to the stated volume, is of no practical value. If you ain't hitting the roof with your head, you got enough.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,805
    edited June 2011
    also, for interior room, height is a waste to me. As long as you have enough, another couple of inches, while it adds to the stated volume, is of no practical value. If you ain't hitting the roof with your head, you got enough.

    That's the way I feel. And even worse, sometimes they'll make the passenger cabin taller, but also raise the height of the seat. So, the stated headroom number is higher, but there's a chance you might actually have LESS useable room!

    Also, I've always wondered where they measure front headroom at? With the seat all the way back? Most cars don't have flat roofs these days, so the position of the seat can make a world of difference. For instance, with my old Dodge Intrepid, the further you put the seat back, the more headroom you had. So, at 6'3" and having the seat all the way back and a little reclined, I had plenty of headroom. But I have a great-aunt who used to have an Intrepid, and ultimately got rid of it because it messed her hair up! She was only about 5'8", but sat fairly far forward and with the seat upright. And she always had her hair done up, kinda like Betty White on "Mama's Family" which I'm sure required a bit more headroom!
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    It's so weird that the difference between the '07 and the '08 in how it drives is so huge - like stepping from an athletic midsizer to a whale with no road or steering feel - given how similar many of the stats are.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,364
    Thanks. That's fascinating. Am I right in thinking that the 1986 Accord LXi is about the same size and weight as a 2012 Civic LX?

    I was driving around in my 08 Accord today doing errands. I still really like the car, but it is big. And you see them everywhere, so it has certainly been a big success for Honda.

    The greater height inside is nice imho--because even someone who is 5' 10" like me still has plenty of headroom even with the moonroof. I think someone 6' 2" would probably even be fine. I don't think that would have been true with an Accord from the 90s with a moonroof, but I'm not sure.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2024 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (offspring)
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    Man, when I was at the chiropractor the other day in the lot was one of those 626s with a stick to boot. If it had a for sale sign on it.....
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,805
    Thanks. That's fascinating. Am I right in thinking that the 1986 Accord LXi is about the same size and weight as a 2012 Civic LX?

    Well, for comparison, here's the stats for the '12 Civic LX:
    177.3" long
    69.0" wide
    2641 lb
    1.8L 4-cyl with 140 hp.

    So, about as long, but I have a feeling that extra 2+ inches of width will make the car feel a lot bulkier. The new Civic is pretty roomy inside as well. The EPA rates it at 95 cubic feet of passenger volume, which is more than the '90 or '94 Accords, which I think had 94. The '86 Accord only had 89. The Civic comes up short in trunk space though, around 12-13, depending on who's doing the rounding off. The '86 and '90 Accords were rated at 14 cubic feet according to the EPA, and 13 for the '94.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,364
    edited June 2011
    Thanks. I'm desiring that new 2012 Civic si 2.4. Yowza on the power to weight ratio on that one. And the close ratio six speed manual sounds really sweet. When I was in my early 20s I always liked the 1986-89 Accords. This would be my chance to get something even better....But no, no, my two cars are already more than fine....I probably have at least another 5 years before I'm back in the market for a new car.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2024 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (offspring)
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,364
    edited June 2011
    has anyone looked at the stats on the 2012 Civic Si sedan?

    I just looked at the prices and I was amazed. If I'm reading the Honda site correctly, for $23455 you can get a 2012 Civic EXL Navi. And for $23905 (just $450 more!) you get the Si Navi Sedan with the 2.4 201hp Acura TSX engine, a 360 watt 7 speaker stereo (compared to the 160 watt 6 speaker on the EXL), special exterior, special interior, sport suspension, 6 speed manual, limited slip differential......

    All of that for $450....? Jeeze I want one! That sounds like Honda mojo to me, for the admittedly very, very small performance market...

    By the way, I'd like mine in Alpine White....Red just seems like bait for a ticket if you ever go even slightly over the speed limit.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2024 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (offspring)
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Of course, the EX-L NAV has an automatic and leather everything, which substantially adds to the value of the EX-L NAV for some - not me, as I would pay not to have the automatic, and don't care either way between cloth and leather.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,805
    I finally noticed one on the road yesterday. I've probably seen them before, but it didn't register in my mind because, let's face it, it doesn't exactly stand out in a crowd. For some reason, the overall shape of it makes me think of a 2nd-generation Dodge Neon, especially towards the rear.

    I am kinda curious to see what one is like to drive.
Sign In or Register to comment.