If factor out fleet sales on the Camry and the Corolla (which typically run about 15% of volume), the Accord and Civic will usually have higher sales numbers to retail customers.
Toyota has a much larger vehicle lineup than Honda does, however.
I would have bought a Camry if you could get a loaded one with a stick AND NAV AND leather. But you can't so I didn't. If we didn't already have an Accord, that would have been an option. Really didn't want a V6 so the TL was out too.
My only point is that these two particular cars aren't positioned to reach the same audiences, which explains the disparity between them.
From the automaker's standpoint, it's a logical approach, but it just didn't happen to match your needs in this specific case. TMC isn't going to sell a lot of manual transmission Camrys in the US, so they aren't going to build too many of them. While I happen to prefer a manual myself, I also recognize that sticks have become a niche product here, and that only certain cars benefit by promoting them.
In any case, I'd bet that trying to unload a Camry with an MT would be tough. (Your typical Camry buyer probably wouldn't know what to do with one...)
Then not allow someone to order one fully equipped. You can get an Accord EX-L NAV. There is no Toyota FWD sedan that you can get in the leather/manual combination from the factory. That's a glaring omission. IMHO. I'd hate to think I was the only one left who likes leather with his manual tranny.
There is no Toyota FWD sedan that you can get in the leather/manual combination from the factory.That's a glaring omission. IMHO.
But virtually nobody wants a manual transmission car. So why load it up with options when there won't be many takers in the first place?
If TMC could make money selling Camry sticks to Americans, it would be building a lot of them. But Americans don't particularly like manual transmissions, so there isn't much point in building cars that will sit on the lot.
The main purposes of having a stick in cars like these are to give the car a lower base price and possibly a better EPA rating. But with so few buyers, it would cost more than it would earn trying to serve this small number of people with costly option packages.
The situation is different with the TSX, which slots more neatly as a cheaper alternative to the near-luxury class (3-series, A4, C-class, IS, etc.), where there is a bit more demand for manuals. And since the TSX is really made for foreign markets that demand MT's, it isn't difficult for Honda to build more of them for us.
Honda sales are up slightly for the month of June.
Acura sales are down for June and the YTD. (The aged MDX and downward spiral of the RL.)
Honda sales are up YTD. In fact, Honda and Acura combined have increased market share by 7.1% over last year. They now have an 8.9% share of the market. This represents a higher growth rate (for this year) than Nissan, Hyundai, or Mazda.
But yet we have them. When I went looking at Camrys, the dealer says he had only seen 4 of them.
Also, I already have an Accord, a car which has no "sport model" but is available with a manual tranny with both engines. I thought the Camry SE was supposed to be the "anti-Accord". Anyway though, I thought it was odd you can get a stick SE but not one with any real luxury options like heated seats and leather and stuff. Oh well.
The main purposes of having a stick in cars like these are to give the car a lower base price and possibly a better EPA rating.
In the case of the Accord V6 6MT, the price is the same as an automatic. I believe the reason for having such a car, in spite of appealing to a small percentage of buyers, is to gain alot of hype from the car mags. With a 0-60 of less than 6 secs, the Accord gained a ton of respect in the one area it previously didn't dominate: speed.
But Americans don't particularly like manual transmissions, so there isn't much point in building cars that will sit on the lot.
And, as if to completely contradict your point, Honda only offers this combo in the top Accord trim. No such thing as a 6MT and unheated cloth seats. Go figure.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I believe the reason for having such a car, in spite of appealing to a small percentage of buyers, is to gain alot of hype from the car mags.
In the case of that car, that's certainly another reason, I agree.
And, as if to completely contradict your point, Honda only offers this combo in the top Accord trim. No such thing as a 6MT and unheated cloth seats. Go figure.
The Accord positions itself somewhat differently from the Camry, with a segment of its buyer pool looking for a reliable, useful car that still has some performance pretensions. I would expect a larger segment of Accord buyers to demand an MT than I would for a Camry.
The Camry is a sensible-shoes sort of purchase, aimed toward buyers who would have otherwise bought a Chevy or Ford sedan during an earlier era. I'd bet that fewer of these buyers would be interested in an MT. The Camry sells dependability, utility, comfort and more recently, style, not performance.
I would even go so far as to say that applies to the Corolla/Civic, as well.
Yep, I would say that the distinction is even greater in the case of the Civic vs. Corolla. The Corolla is the ultimate appliance-on-wheels, while the Civic is a prime car of choice among the ricer-tuner set. The Civic serves the same purpose for a lot of kids today that those small-block pony cars used to fulfill before the OPEC crisis, and there are an abundance of aftermarket providers who target the boy racer crowd, with the encouragement of Honda itself.
It's funny how the detractors tend to blur these cars together (all of the "Camcord" comments), when the two cars actually target overlapping but somewhat different segments of the marketplace. GM should take a page from this book, and learn how to compete by offering not just bland second-rate knock-offs of the real thing, but by providing a car with meaningful differences that aren't quite fulfilled by either of these market leaders. Dodge has taken this approach with the Caliber, and so far, it seems to be working.
I'm guilty of using the term "camcord" in the past. But no longer. Really, the V6 6-speed is the only thing that changed my tune. So I think this combo probably did just what Honda planned and changed their image in the minds of some nonbelievers.
As far as Chevy (i throw Ford in here, too), I absolutely agree that they need to stop trying to out-Honda and out-toyota those companies. They need to find their own path. That's the only way.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
not really. the statement was that MORE honda buyers want sporty. Not that NO toyota buyers do. Have you ever seen an XRS in a pocket-rocket magazine comparison? I haven't. Yet the Civic Si is involved in comparisons more times than I can count. Just goes to show you that even when Toyota makes a feeble attempt at attracting the sport-compact crowd, it fails miserably.
They certainly weren't always this way. The Supra is still one of the top import sportscar icons. Toy needs to recapture that spirit. If they come through with a new Supra that is at least as good as the last generation sold here, they may do just that.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
They certainly weren't always this way. The Supra is still one of the top import sportscar icons. Toy needs to recapture that spirit. If they come through with a new Supra that is at least as good as the last generation sold here, they may do just that.
TMC seems to have made a deliberate effort in North America to push sporting pretensions upward toward Lexus, and to deemphasize them within the Toyota badge. (This was, in part, due to the sharp decline of the personal coupe market in the US that saw the exit of the Prelude, Celica, RX-7 and Z car.)
I would agree that this has been a mistake, one that Nissan has corrected with the reintroduction of the Z, which has proven to be a hit car that also paid dividends by reviving its brand image. Even if it never made much money from selling them, the use of an affordable variant of the Supra as a brand builder would probably be quite helpful to Toyota, particularly in competing with Honda and the other transplants, by creating an added aura of sex appeal that it now lacks.
did make it to a pocket rocket comparo way back when it was first introduced. It scored near the top, I believe. They complimented it for having the best interior and driveability of the group, IIRC. I don't think it had the best performance numbers in any of the categories (I'm pretty sure there were an SRT-4 and a WRX in the same group), but got good points for being an all-rounder.
That car's engine is like Honda's VTEC from the early 90s - there's not much going on until you get the tach way up high. So it would be a real dog with an automatic.
It is rare that my local dealer doesn't have a few stick shift Accords in stock, and I have even noticed a few 6MTs from time to time (he has one now), something which pleasantly surprises me. :-)
I do wish they offered the 6MT without leather. I hate leather, and it would probably make it about $1500 more affordable. Given the prices are the same and if I had to settle for leather, I would probably go with a TSX before I would get an Accord 6MT.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If they hadn't totally muffed up the taillights. I one of those that thinks the original 03-04's were the best ones. We love our 04 EX-L and I'd buy another one in a heartbeat.
If they hadn't totally muffed up the taillights. I one of those that thinks the original 03-04's were the best ones. We love our 04 EX-L and I'd buy another one in a heartbeat.
Its funny how something so simple has become such a sore spot. I'm on the other side of that argument. I hated the previous design's taillights and was SO glad they changed them when they intro'd the 6MT in the sedan. Those were my 2 exact reasons for not buying an Accord previously (although I considered the coupe in spite of its lack of doors for my needs).
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Has anyone actually tried to get a Corolla XRS recently? I talked to a dealer a few months ago and they weren't even interested in taking an order for one. I wound up getting a Corolla base model CE for run-around town usage and it is exactly what socala4 stated it is - an appliance on wheels. Honda can make some fun out of low horsepower cars, unlike Toyota. The hearsay about supercharger availability for the 1.8 L Toyota engine from the dealership is also mostly crap when it comes to new models. I've checked three Toyota dealerships and none of them have EVER installed a TRD supercharger on a 1.8 L Corolla. Honda's run has definitely not run out. Losing the Integra / RSX model line next year is not a good decision IMO, however, perhaps 130 hp, 1750 lb CRX with 0.9 g cornering capability and a price tag around $17,000 will come out in 2008.
happened to park today next to another Accord (03 or '04). EX sedan (mines an EX-L). Best part? Both were 5 speeds! So at least I don't have the only one in town.
I completely understand why you are debating me on this, but snap back into reality. Don't tell me that you actually believe the EPA estimates on a window sticker. You have to read the real tests.
EPA estimates gas mileage is based on power to weight ratios, and in a facility where they run cars, sort off like a dyno. In the facility there is no wind resistance, even running surfaces, and no weight in/on the vehicle. Conditions are perfect...
If you read the tests..... like at edmunds... The 2007 Camry V6 does not get better avg. gas than the Accord. They observed 20.4 mpg for the Camry
And 21.4 for the Accord. They both were tested under the same conditions on the same day. That's where i'm getting my info from.....
And don't give me that horsepower [non-permissible content removed]..... 3.5 Bigger Engine 268 more horsepower 248 more ft-lbs torque can do 60 in 6.5 secs Has comparable weight to the Accord
But the Accord has: 3.0 244 horsepower 211 ft-lbs can do 60 in 5.9 secs
So you are the one who should be checking your facts....
qbrozen: I like the TSX better because it's more nimble - it's a smaller, very agile car when compared to the Accord V-6. Its fuel economy numbers suck - it needs direct injection. All these 4-cylinder engines need to get dual VVT and direct injection, we need some fuel economy improvements...
john500: Corolla XRSs are all over the place around here, mostly sitting on dealer lots. I don't think it's been very popular, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets dropped at the redo.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I like the TSX better because it's more nimble - it's a smaller, very agile car when compared to the Accord V-6.
Out of the box, yes. Nice thing is, the Accord V6 is actually only about 110 lbs heavier. Its so marginal that the weight of the driver, or a passenger, or a full gas tank could make them almost dead even in weight. Sure, that 110 lbs is probably in the nose, where you don't want it. But, all in all, I think the Accord's power would win out on a road course.
Frankly, the handling does leave something to be desired. But I'm coming from a couple of rear drive cars of late, so I think I'm getting more critical. Although my accord is a lease, I have it for 3 years, so I'm pondering changing out some suspension bits for those from the TL, namely the swaybars. I hear that makes a world of difference.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
we're supposed to agree? when was that memo passed around?
actually, I've found alot to agree with lately. socal and I agreed on the whole honda/stickshift thing. nipponly and i agreed the TSX is more nimble.
hey, its the little things you have to revel in.
I'm still waiting for someone to say "Honda's run has run out". I mean, who the heck started this thing anyway? Just where is the discussion? Seems to me nobody is really making any real controversial statements at all.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I agree, this thread hasn't really produced any proof but I think it was started when the the Accord got its controversial makeover and the Civic was nowhere near as successful as the new model. So is it pretty much decided that Honda is back on track?
If anything, they are stronger than they were when this thread appeared?
I believe this thread got started because Honda appeared unstoppable for a while back in the late 1990's through roughly 2002. They had the Ody, the CR-V, the 3.2TL, and the MDX all looking like super stars.
Around 2002-2003, they went from being super stars to merely being a strong performers. Nissan's machismo-oriented designs were stealing the limelight and they became the flavor of the month.
Honda has been growing at a steady pace the whole time, but that fact was drown out by the noise over the Civic and Accord. Rumors of Honda's death have been greatly exaggerated. . . or something like that.
every Accord on the lot at my local dealer right now. And still the salesmen stand around glumly. But they still can't keep Civics or Fits in stock, and the Odysseys seem to move out pretty smartly. Ridgeline = slow sales. Element = slower sales. The CRVs, vans, and little cars are keeping them in business!
I wonder if Honda will ever feel the dealers' pain enough to offer a small cash incentive on the Accord. It still has two years to go, you realize. Seems like there are promotional leases on just about every configuration of the Accord now, and that doesn't seem to be doing much to move the metal.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
There are dealer incentives on the accord, which is why they can go below invoice, as you've seen advertised.
and that doesn't seem to be doing much to move the metal
hmmm... isn't the Accord still the #2 car in the country? I'm not sure how much more they COULD move at any price. That's like hitting a 400-ft homerun and someone saying "gee, too bad it wasn't 410." Its STILL a homerun!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
But as Nippononly said, it doesn't look good for Accord to keep up the sales numbers with a lackluster design and TWO more years to go! The redesign can't come soon enough IMO.
I'm still not understanding. They are on the same cycle they've always been on and the Accord is always one of the top sellers in its category. Do you honestly think it will lose ground? I don't. And, IMHO, this is the best Accord to date. Its got the most style and most power. Far from "lackluster" (compared to past accords, that is).
Are you sure its got 2 years to go? I was under the impression that '08 would be a redesign. Honda works on a 4-year schedule, no?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I think we'll be seeing a new Accord bow within the next 12 months... They can't afford to stretch this model to a 5 year cycle. I think we'll be getting something pretty special this next go around as well.
The last Accord was '98-'02, which is five years. I don't think Honda can afford to do 4-year model cycles like it used to. Which is OK. As are Accord sales, but it's a bit of a shock to see the Accord be the bargain basement model with the loud neon-pink "$4000 off!" stickers on them at Honda dealers. I can't recall a time ever when that has been the case for the Accord.
Changing market, sign of the times perhaps? Could be.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I wonder if Honda will ever feel the dealers' pain enough to offer a small cash incentive on the Accord.
Last time I checked, they were. A few months ago, it was $500 per car. With the end of the model year upon us, I would imagine that the amount is now higher than that.
(I haven't looked this up lately, but check this website under "marketing incentives", and many of the factory-to-dealer programs will be shown there.)
I can't speak to the marketing practices of a particular dealer, but I've watched Accords sell with these discounts every year. Whether they are advertised that way or not is a different story (and irrelevant, really).
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
We bought a Pilot below invoice early this year. Back in '98, we bought a new Civic for just over.
There are dealers in Atlanta that will basically sell any Honda at invoice, so everyone else is forced to deal a little more. A Toyota dealer here in Birmingham does the same. It seems like 5-10 years ago some people were paying invoice and some were paying MSRP based upon how much information they had.
I think the rules of the marketplace have changed more than anything else.
yes, but manufacturer-to-dealer incentives are invisible to customers, and the dealers don't always pass them on so readily. I was thinking of a small cash incentive, the anathema that Hondaphiles so object to. Hey, Toyotas have good resale too, and Toyota regularly uses small cash rebates to customers as their models get old and ready for replacement. The only debate there is whether Accord is old enough to warrant such an approach.
Anyway, I am not of the opinion that Honda cares much about the "pain" of its dealers, especially since there are other models that are still hot and prop up the bottom line very nicely. Any pain the dealers are feeling is minor.
Hey, it would be nice if Honda could pump out some more Fits. Dealers are putting all kinds of silly stuff on those cars to pump up the profits, in addition to the small profit they make selling it at list. I saw a base Fit with an $1195 "protection package" added on that consisted of nothing more than those lip and door-edge mouldings. Whoa, rip-off alert.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I saw a base Fit with an $1195 "protection package" added on that consisted of nothing more than those lip and door-edge mouldings.
Nice, there was probably $1 of scotchguard sprayed on seats and $10 paint sealant applied as well. The price is nice. Even "Toyoguard" packages courtesy of SET are priced less.
For June, Honda set its own record last month by a whopping 33 cars. And have the strongest first-half year on record.
They are up on the year as a whole by a bit less than 50k cars (7%). The Accord specifically is down 1% (but was up 1% for the month of June compared to June '06).
I'm having a hard time reading Toyota's numbers, but it looks like, on the whole, they are up about 10% on the year (also their best first-half ever). The Camry, specifically, was up 10% in June (obviously due to the redesign), but down 1% on the year. Toyota did have a very good June. Up 20% compared to June last year (believe it or not, this was led by the Corolla, and not the new Camry).
So, yes, overall, Toyota is having a pretty good year compared to everyone else. But 7% higher for Honda is certainly nothing to sneeze at.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Hopefully Honda will someday bring a version of this little 7-seater to the USA shores.
It’s often said that real genius is never appreciated until it’s gone. Take Honda’s Stream as an example. The original flopped in the UK, but just as the old model has been killed off, the market for car-like people carriers has gone through the roof with the launch of Ford’s S-MAX.
Now there’s a new-look Stream, but has it got what it takes to show Ford’s pretender how it’s done?
Where its predecessor looked awkward from some angles, the new Stream has a chiselled appearance inspired by the firm’s latest Civic and Accord.
Inside, the cabin layout is first-rate. Three rows of seats are mounted on a low, flat floor allowing adults to sit com-fortably in any of the Honda’s seven chairs. So impressive is the third row that even six-footers can travel long distances without feeling cramped.
Comments
Toyota has a much larger vehicle lineup than Honda does, however.
From the automaker's standpoint, it's a logical approach, but it just didn't happen to match your needs in this specific case. TMC isn't going to sell a lot of manual transmission Camrys in the US, so they aren't going to build too many of them. While I happen to prefer a manual myself, I also recognize that sticks have become a niche product here, and that only certain cars benefit by promoting them.
In any case, I'd bet that trying to unload a Camry with an MT would be tough. (Your typical Camry buyer probably wouldn't know what to do with one...)
But virtually nobody wants a manual transmission car. So why load it up with options when there won't be many takers in the first place?
If TMC could make money selling Camry sticks to Americans, it would be building a lot of them. But Americans don't particularly like manual transmissions, so there isn't much point in building cars that will sit on the lot.
The main purposes of having a stick in cars like these are to give the car a lower base price and possibly a better EPA rating. But with so few buyers, it would cost more than it would earn trying to serve this small number of people with costly option packages.
The situation is different with the TSX, which slots more neatly as a cheaper alternative to the near-luxury class (3-series, A4, C-class, IS, etc.), where there is a bit more demand for manuals. And since the TSX is really made for foreign markets that demand MT's, it isn't difficult for Honda to build more of them for us.
Acura sales are down for June and the YTD. (The aged MDX and downward spiral of the RL.)
Honda sales are up YTD. In fact, Honda and Acura combined have increased market share by 7.1% over last year. They now have an 8.9% share of the market. This represents a higher growth rate (for this year) than Nissan, Hyundai, or Mazda.
Also, I already have an Accord, a car which has no "sport model" but is available with a manual tranny with both engines. I thought the Camry SE was supposed to be the "anti-Accord". Anyway though, I thought it was odd you can get a stick SE but not one with any real luxury options like heated seats and leather and stuff. Oh well.
In the case of the Accord V6 6MT, the price is the same as an automatic. I believe the reason for having such a car, in spite of appealing to a small percentage of buyers, is to gain alot of hype from the car mags. With a 0-60 of less than 6 secs, the Accord gained a ton of respect in the one area it previously didn't dominate: speed.
But Americans don't particularly like manual transmissions, so there isn't much point in building cars that will sit on the lot.
And, as if to completely contradict your point, Honda only offers this combo in the top Accord trim. No such thing as a 6MT and unheated cloth seats. Go figure.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
In the case of that car, that's certainly another reason, I agree.
And, as if to completely contradict your point, Honda only offers this combo in the top Accord trim. No such thing as a 6MT and unheated cloth seats. Go figure.
The Accord positions itself somewhat differently from the Camry, with a segment of its buyer pool looking for a reliable, useful car that still has some performance pretensions. I would expect a larger segment of Accord buyers to demand an MT than I would for a Camry.
The Camry is a sensible-shoes sort of purchase, aimed toward buyers who would have otherwise bought a Chevy or Ford sedan during an earlier era. I'd bet that fewer of these buyers would be interested in an MT. The Camry sells dependability, utility, comfort and more recently, style, not performance.
I can buy that. I would even go so far as to say that applies to the Corolla/Civic, as well.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Yep, I would say that the distinction is even greater in the case of the Civic vs. Corolla. The Corolla is the ultimate appliance-on-wheels, while the Civic is a prime car of choice among the ricer-tuner set. The Civic serves the same purpose for a lot of kids today that those small-block pony cars used to fulfill before the OPEC crisis, and there are an abundance of aftermarket providers who target the boy racer crowd, with the encouragement of Honda itself.
It's funny how the detractors tend to blur these cars together (all of the "Camcord" comments), when the two cars actually target overlapping but somewhat different segments of the marketplace. GM should take a page from this book, and learn how to compete by offering not just bland second-rate knock-offs of the real thing, but by providing a car with meaningful differences that aren't quite fulfilled by either of these market leaders. Dodge has taken this approach with the Caliber, and so far, it seems to be working.
As far as Chevy (i throw Ford in here, too), I absolutely agree that they need to stop trying to out-Honda and out-toyota those companies. They need to find their own path. That's the only way.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
They certainly weren't always this way. The Supra is still one of the top import sportscar icons. Toy needs to recapture that spirit. If they come through with a new Supra that is at least as good as the last generation sold here, they may do just that.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
TMC seems to have made a deliberate effort in North America to push sporting pretensions upward toward Lexus, and to deemphasize them within the Toyota badge. (This was, in part, due to the sharp decline of the personal coupe market in the US that saw the exit of the Prelude, Celica, RX-7 and Z car.)
I would agree that this has been a mistake, one that Nissan has corrected with the reintroduction of the Z, which has proven to be a hit car that also paid dividends by reviving its brand image. Even if it never made much money from selling them, the use of an affordable variant of the Supra as a brand builder would probably be quite helpful to Toyota, particularly in competing with Honda and the other transplants, by creating an added aura of sex appeal that it now lacks.
That car's engine is like Honda's VTEC from the early 90s - there's not much going on until you get the tach way up high. So it would be a real dog with an automatic.
It is rare that my local dealer doesn't have a few stick shift Accords in stock, and I have even noticed a few 6MTs from time to time (he has one now), something which pleasantly surprises me. :-)
I do wish they offered the 6MT without leather. I hate leather, and it would probably make it about $1500 more affordable. Given the prices are the same and if I had to settle for leather, I would probably go with a TSX before I would get an Accord 6MT.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
yikes. Not me. I got the V6 6MT for performance. The TSX's 4-banger just doesn't do it for me.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Its funny how something so simple has become such a sore spot. I'm on the other side of that argument. I hated the previous design's taillights and was SO glad they changed them when they intro'd the 6MT in the sedan. Those were my 2 exact reasons for not buying an Accord previously (although I considered the coupe in spite of its lack of doors for my needs).
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
You have to read the real tests.
EPA estimates gas mileage is based on power to weight ratios, and in a facility where they run cars, sort off like a dyno. In the facility there is no wind resistance, even running surfaces, and no weight in/on the vehicle. Conditions are perfect...
If you read the tests..... like at edmunds...
The 2007 Camry V6 does not get better avg. gas than the Accord. They observed 20.4 mpg for the Camry
And 21.4 for the Accord.
They both were tested under the same conditions on the same day. That's where i'm getting my info from.....
And don't give me that horsepower [non-permissible content removed].....
3.5 Bigger Engine
268 more horsepower
248 more ft-lbs torque
can do 60 in 6.5 secs
Has comparable weight to the Accord
But the Accord has:
3.0
244 horsepower
211 ft-lbs
can do 60 in 5.9 secs
So you are the one who should be checking your facts....
qbrozen: I like the TSX better because it's more nimble - it's a smaller, very agile car when compared to the Accord V-6. Its fuel economy numbers suck - it needs direct injection. All these 4-cylinder engines need to get dual VVT and direct injection, we need some fuel economy improvements...
john500: Corolla XRSs are all over the place around here, mostly sitting on dealer lots. I don't think it's been very popular, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets dropped at the redo.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Out of the box, yes. Nice thing is, the Accord V6 is actually only about 110 lbs heavier. Its so marginal that the weight of the driver, or a passenger, or a full gas tank could make them almost dead even in weight. Sure, that 110 lbs is probably in the nose, where you don't want it. But, all in all, I think the Accord's power would win out on a road course.
Frankly, the handling does leave something to be desired. But I'm coming from a couple of rear drive cars of late, so I think I'm getting more critical. Although my accord is a lease, I have it for 3 years, so I'm pondering changing out some suspension bits for those from the TL, namely the swaybars. I hear that makes a world of difference.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
-juice
actually, I've found alot to agree with lately. socal and I agreed on the whole honda/stickshift thing. nipponly and i agreed the TSX is more nimble.
hey, its the little things you have to revel in.
I'm still waiting for someone to say "Honda's run has run out". I mean, who the heck started this thing anyway? Just where is the discussion? Seems to me nobody is really making any real controversial statements at all.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I agree, this thread hasn't really produced any proof but I think it was started when the the Accord got its controversial makeover and the Civic was nowhere near as successful as the new model. So is it pretty much decided that Honda is back on track?
If anything, they are stronger than they were when this thread appeared?
Around 2002-2003, they went from being super stars to merely being a strong performers. Nissan's machismo-oriented designs were stealing the limelight and they became the flavor of the month.
Honda has been growing at a steady pace the whole time, but that fact was drown out by the noise over the Civic and Accord. Rumors of Honda's death have been greatly exaggerated. . . or something like that.
Rocky
-juice
I wonder if Honda will ever feel the dealers' pain enough to offer a small cash incentive on the Accord. It still has two years to go, you realize. Seems like there are promotional leases on just about every configuration of the Accord now, and that doesn't seem to be doing much to move the metal.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
and that doesn't seem to be doing much to move the metal
hmmm... isn't the Accord still the #2 car in the country? I'm not sure how much more they COULD move at any price. That's like hitting a 400-ft homerun and someone saying "gee, too bad it wasn't 410." Its STILL a homerun!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Thanx
Rocky
Are you sure its got 2 years to go? I was under the impression that '08 would be a redesign. Honda works on a 4-year schedule, no?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Changing market, sign of the times perhaps? Could be.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Last time I checked, they were. A few months ago, it was $500 per car. With the end of the model year upon us, I would imagine that the amount is now higher than that.
(I haven't looked this up lately, but check this website under "marketing incentives", and many of the factory-to-dealer programs will be shown there.)
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
There are dealers in Atlanta that will basically sell any Honda at invoice, so everyone else is forced to deal a little more. A Toyota dealer here in Birmingham does the same. It seems like 5-10 years ago some people were paying invoice and some were paying MSRP based upon how much information they had.
I think the rules of the marketplace have changed more than anything else.
Anyway, I am not of the opinion that Honda cares much about the "pain" of its dealers, especially since there are other models that are still hot and prop up the bottom line very nicely. Any pain the dealers are feeling is minor.
Hey, it would be nice if Honda could pump out some more Fits. Dealers are putting all kinds of silly stuff on those cars to pump up the profits, in addition to the small profit they make selling it at list. I saw a base Fit with an $1195 "protection package" added on that consisted of nothing more than those lip and door-edge mouldings. Whoa, rip-off alert.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Rocky
Nice, there was probably $1 of scotchguard sprayed on seats and $10 paint sealant applied as well. The price is nice. Even "Toyoguard" packages courtesy of SET are priced less.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
http://corporate.honda.com/press/list.aspx
If you check it frequently, you will know sooner than anyone all about the new pricing and possible type-S variant.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Rocky
P.S. It was released yesterday at some autoshow in PA
-juice
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
No numbers for July yet.
For June, Honda set its own record last month by a whopping 33 cars.
They are up on the year as a whole by a bit less than 50k cars (7%). The Accord specifically is down 1% (but was up 1% for the month of June compared to June '06).
I'm having a hard time reading Toyota's numbers, but it looks like, on the whole, they are up about 10% on the year (also their best first-half ever). The Camry, specifically, was up 10% in June (obviously due to the redesign), but down 1% on the year. Toyota did have a very good June. Up 20% compared to June last year (believe it or not, this was led by the Corolla, and not the new Camry).
So, yes, overall, Toyota is having a pretty good year compared to everyone else. But 7% higher for Honda is certainly nothing to sneeze at.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Hopefully Honda will someday bring a version of this little 7-seater to the USA shores.
It’s often said that real genius is never appreciated until it’s gone. Take Honda’s Stream as an example. The original flopped in the UK, but just as the old model has been killed off, the market for car-like people carriers has gone through the roof with the launch of Ford’s S-MAX.
Now there’s a new-look Stream, but has it got what it takes to show Ford’s pretender how it’s done?
Where its predecessor looked awkward from some angles, the new Stream has a chiselled appearance inspired by the firm’s latest Civic and Accord.
Inside, the cabin layout is first-rate. Three rows of seats are mounted on a low, flat floor allowing adults to sit com-fortably in any of the Honda’s seven chairs. So impressive is the third row that even six-footers can travel long distances without feeling cramped.