Has Honda's run - run out?

ericnaz1

After 20 days in the shop for repairs on my 2002 Accord EXV6 coupe..Honda has decided that the solution to my problems is to deny that they exist. Worst V6 engine I have ever seen...Idles like a John Deer Tractor after 20K miles and they say its normal even though they have adjusted the engine mounts, adjusted the valves (which were very tight---anyone know what that means?), then replaced all the engine and transmission mounts. The car still rocks up and down like a hobby horse when its cold...and idles rough. Other issues have been a transmission fluid leak, gas gauge broke, driver's seat frame rocked, door seal separated, multiple interior panels came loose, distorted or cracked..and rattles from not being properly assembled at the factory, brakes squeal like a pig,and the list goes on. Its a rolling pile of crap. Customer service is the worst..especially if you deal with the 1-800 number....they don;t even return your calls. Thanks....but i'm headed to toyota or lexus next time

iluvgmproducts

Honda has trouble selling cars because they make some of the most Un-aesthetically pleasing (ugly) cars on the road.

nippononly

That sounds awful, I am sorry.

Remember to get a second opinion on the big stuff - there are more than a few lousy dealers out there, who might be ignorant of TSBs on the car, or might not be willing to go to bat for you and make things right.

talon95

I had posted a detailed response to your message, but decided that continued debate on this is pointless, so I deleted it. The bottom line is obviously that you feel that some of my assumptions are weak or faulty, and I feel the same about some of yours. And our positions aren't likely to change. So I think we're at a point of agreeing to disagree.

bottgers

......they continue to make at GM, it isn't likely their slide will end anytime soon.

talon95

There's absolutely no excuse for the dealer or Honda to treat you so poorly. I'm happy to say that my 2003 EX V6 sedan has been exemplary... I'm saying that not to show skepticism about your complaints, but to assure you that Honda can and absolutely should do much better. Assuming your state has a fairly standard lemon law, it sounds like you may qualify. Maybe that will stir up a more acceptable response from these people.

Hope this situation is resolved to your satisfaction, and soon.

anonymousposts

Honda's run is still running .. at least in our driveway. We have owned plenty of cars. Everything from a $500 89 Civic wagon to a 2000 Silverado to a 97 RAV4 to a 91 300ZX, etc. But out of the 30 cars or so that we have owned the majority of them have been Hondas. As long as they build cars that WE like we will keep buying them.

talon95

There's absolutely no excuse for the dealer or Honda to treat you so poorly. I'm happy to say that my 2003 EX V6 sedan has been exemplary... I'm saying that not to show skepticism about your complaints, but to assure you that Honda can and absolutely should do much better. Assuming your state has a fairly standard lemon law, it sounds like you may qualify. Maybe that will stir up a more acceptable response from these people.

Hope this situation is resolved to your satisfaction, and soon.

grbeck

talon95: No problem. We can agree to disagree.

iluvgm: The Honda competitors produced by GM are hardly aesthetic triumphs. The Cavalier? The Grand Am? The Grand Prix? The Impala? The Malibu? The Saturn L-Series? The Ion?

I rest my case...

lexusguy

Funny, I dont recall Honda ever having to resort to 0-0-0 and $4000 cash back to sell anything, EVER. I'm surprised you used Pontiac as your reasoning for gorgeous GM styling. Grand Am, Grand Prix, Bonneville, Montana, AZTEK!!! Pontiac has made some of the ugliest cars ever to walk the earth. The Aztek has become the modern day Edsel as the butt of all styling jokes. The "new" even though they are not new at all, Grand Prix and such arent any better, they just removed the plastic on the sides, after the entire automotive press begged them too for years.

justin

PONTIAC? huh? the last good looking car they made was the last generation Fiero.

they had such a huge opportunity with the GTO, and it basically looks like a bigger Civic Coupe from the mid 90's.

for American cars, Chrysler sets the standard, styling wise, with Ford a close second. GM MIGHT get props if the Soltice comes out okay. but those new Caddy's are AWFUL!

nine51

As the old saying goes...beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To each his own. One person barfs at the sight of an Aztek, another one buys it and loves it to death. Even Roseanne Barr had a husband (actually several).

but.... the Aztek is still ugly ;>

alpha01

It blows my mind that we are STILL talking about styling?

Ahem...."Has Honda's run - run OUT?"

Its also useful to cite valid, objective facts when constructing an argument.

~alpha

nvbanker

The way I see it, there are two factors affecting Honda's drop in sales; 1) they stubbornly refuse to do trucks. Perhaps they are right, because getting in the game this late, they would probably produce several years of dependable, but inferior FWD product compared to the competition, who have had decades of experience. and 2) they have decontented the Civic and uglied up the Accord significantly from previous offerings. I'm not saying Honda is bad at all, my Civic was amazing. I'm just saying, they have limited themselves, and appear to be making some turns that aren't turning out to be beneficial at this point.

ron_m

I don't recall Honda/Acura or Toyota/Lexus resorting to the types of sales tactics that the so-called 'Big 3' have had to for a prolonged period of time now either; just to try and stay in business. The types of sales incentives that the 'Big 3' are relying on clearly tell me where their futures lie. Things really and truly do not look very promising for the 'Big 3'. Especially when you consider the problems that they are having with their pension payout sums.

Regarding the Aztek, I think that it looks like a trash dumpster on wheels. I'd be ashamed to drive it to a metal crushing plant myself.

Admittedly, I do prefer some of the Accord body styles prior to the current generation's exterior appearance. However, I would drive a new Accord and be proud of it too! The Honda Accord, throughout the car's life, has to be one of the greatest sales success stories in automobile history. Honda has obviously done many things right with all of the various flavors of the Accord in order for these cars to always be so wildly popular with motorists throughout the entire world.

One of the reasons that Honda doesn't appear to be doing as well these days is due to the transmission woes that several people have reported experiencing with certain Odyssey, Pilot and Acura MDX vehicles over the course of the last four model years. Several Accord and Acura TL owners have experienced other types of transmission problems that are well documented as well. But overall, Honda as a manufacturer still gets excellent quality ratings in various surveys.
Honda certainly isn't alone when it comes to automatic transmission problems. GM has had more than their fair share of automatic transmission problems over the last few years too. Sedans, SUVs and pickup trucks have been affected at GM.

In summary, I would say that Honda may have hit a bump in the road recently, but I certainly wouldn't count them out yet. In fact, I feel as though they will be one of the major players for many, many years to come. And it appears as though Hyundai will be right up there with Honda AND Toyota in the quality arena.

R.M.

nvbanker

That may all be true - but where will their place in the pecking order settle out? 3rd? 4th? 5th? Behind Hyundai? Or will they recapture #2?

ron_m

At this point in time it is difficult to predict whether or not Honda can recapture their current number two initial quality ranking. By individual nameplate, Lexus has been ranked number one for about eight years running now. Toyota as an individual nameplate was recently surpassed by Hyundai. But by manufacturer, Toyota/Lexus/Scion was still ranked number one in initial build quality. I'm sure that Toyota's Lexus luxury brand brought their numbers up dramatically.

Ron

lexusguy

Lexus is the platinum standard of initial quality. Their '04 SC hit a record for best IQ ever. However, most Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans, Acuras, etc, are just fine in the 1-3 year period that IQ measures. Its long term that Honda has continued to be very strong in, something that Hyundai still has a lot of work left to do in.

bottgers

All this talk of the Civics and Accords in any way, shape, or form being inferior to their predisessors is just ridiculous! The new models are superior in every way, especially styling.

norne

Honds sells lot of vehicles because of their quality and reliability repuation and not because they make the best looking vehicles on the market.

honda does make few nice stylish vehicles like cr-v, odyssey, and pilot. The last generation accord coupe looks way way better. Honda designers messed up the new accord.

bottgers--yup i find the element one ugly beast on the road.

lexusguy

Its very much up to the individual. Personally I think the new Accord coupe looks good, better than the Solara coupe, and the interior is a MAJOR step foward from the previous car. The front end I think could stand to be stretched and lowered a bit. Its a little to stubby looking for my tastes. Also, the rear could stand to copy the CLK just a bit less.

saugatak

I think nvbanker isright and Honda is falling a little for the reasons stated by many but am going to summarize here:

1. Ugly Styling/Decontenting - The new Accord Sedan is ugly, front and rear IMO and the opinion of just about everyone else I know. The Accord Couple is still OK. The Civic used to be the best small car in its class, now the Mazda 6 and Corolla are sharper looking and with the Civic losing its double wishbone suspension, it's been decontented.

Reasons why Honda did this? I think they deliberately made the Hondas a little uglier and decontented in order to achieve greater separation from the Acura brand. Whereas Acura is now achieving a distinctive brand look (triangular front wedge plus BMW character lines), the look of the Hondas are all over the place. Also, Honda may have figured that with the strength of their brand, they could get away with decontenting and ugly. Big mistake in this competitive market.

2. Transmissions - One of Honda's biggest selling points was their ironclad reliability and that took a big hit with the transmission problems they had. People bring up the Toyota sludge fiasco but that affected one line of cars. Honda's had transmission problems across mutliple car lines and it's only in 2003 when they did complete redesign have those problems been solved (hopefully).

3. Lack of breadth in lineup - No trucks means no big SUVs means no fat profits in this market segment. Also lack of RWD is hurting them among the enthusiast market which may not be as large, but are willing to pay premiums for superior handling (notice the outrageous prices charged by BMW for 330). Honda may be able to overcome lack of RWD with their new SH-AWD, in which case this won't be a liability. Still, I think it was a strategic mistake of Honda to stick with a pure FWD lineup with I4s and V6's only b/c they're ignoring a huge and profitable market segment.

merc1

That styling theory is pretty wild. The decontenting was done due to cost - no doubt.

M

saugatak

Don't disregard it. The A team can only work on so many cars at a time and they clearly had the A team going on the Acuras.

I'm sure cost was a reason, but look how close the Pilot is to the MDX and the Accord to the TL. You have to differentiate them somehow in order to get people to fork over for the premiums.

My cheap gene says go for the Accord but it's so ugly and unfortunately I can't drive with beer goggles on.

merc1

I hear what you're saying for sure, but I just don't think Honda would set out to take what were already styling-less cars and try to make them even worse. It's all speculation anyway, no argument from me.

M

seminole_kev

Bottgers - "All this talk of the Civics and Accords in any way, shape, or form being inferior to their predisessors is just ridiculous! The new models are superior in every way, especially styling."

Bot - I don't think you're being very objective here, especially in the Civic's case. Add to the fact that its competition has become much, much better as well.

Add to my list from before (which I've pasted below) Not as much power as many of its rivals. Can't believe I forgot that. Needs more power.

 If you want a good handling economy car (previously the Civic's domain) you've got the Focus and Mazda 3 which beat it in spades in the handling catagory.

"But those cars are unreliable pieces of junk!" some biased ones will say. Well then the reliability reputation in this class is still held by the Corolla, and it has a much nicer interior to boot.

The Civic doesn't really stand out in styling, although the refresh of it helped the coupe out in my opinion. So the styling angle can be filled by other cars as well.

The Civic doesn't hold it over the other cars on price either. Tends to be more expensive than the most of the class.

Also, the Civic isn't available in 5-door hatch or wagon styles (although much of the rest of the class isn't either), but one more section of the small car market it isn't filling.

And, to top it off, the premier Civic Si was rolled out way over priced and out classed by competitors.

All this sounds like I might hate the current Civic, but I don't. It just doesn't stand out in this market and doesn't do anything really well. Just kind of "average" all around. Luckily it still has the "Honda Civic" badge or sales would be much worse in my opinion

talon95

"People bring up the Toyota sludge fiasco but that affected one line of cars."

That's not true... the sludge problem affected the Camry, ES300, Sienna and RX300. And the official "fix" they provided is a workaround, since the problem is due to an integral part of the engine design... they can't just replace a part to fix it.

Honda may not be perfect, but the competition is hardly perfect either. Let's not lose sight of that in our zeal to criticize Honda.

anonymousposts

"now the Mazda 6 and Corolla are sharper looking and with the Civic losing its double wishbone suspension, it's been decontented"

Looks are subjective. I find the Mazda3 to be a bit busy looking and while higher trim Corollas are nice the base models are ungainly. I happen to like the 04 Civic refresh. As for the double wishbones .. it was a nice bragging right for the Civic but no other car in it's class has this feature. Heck, some of the cars don't even have a fully-independent suspension (Sentra, Corolla, Jetta) so you can't criticize Honda too much for decontenting because it could be alot worse.

" People bring up the Toyota sludge fiasco but that affected one line of cars."

Like someone said, there were several Toyota models affected across several years of production. And alot of people had to pay for new engines even though they only had 20,000 miles and they were under warranty. Those problems aside, what is going to be more reliable than a Honda or Toyota?

fjm1

Has Honda hit the wall?

Nah. The big H and A will be going strong for decades to come.

I do think they are resting on their laurels just a tad though. I owned, briefly, a 2003 Accord EX V6. Styling aside, good car. Had some build issues though like rattles and a faulty brake vacuum booster (that was a scary moment).

The service dept. left alot to be desired. Neighbors and friends have mentioned this as well.

The question is, who is going to compete with Honda, creating that inevitable raising of the bar? Certainly not the domestics. Nissan and Toyota fill different demographic targets. As far as I can tell, it's Honda that's setting the benchmarks for everyone else to meet.

So, in summation, Honda has not run out.

seminole_kev

honestly I'd have the Corolla as more reliable than the Civic, just from my personal experience and observations. Hardly scientific, but I think, on the average, the Corolla is more reliable than a Civic.

As far as who's competing with Honda? I'd say Mazda is poised to run with Honda, at least the Honda I knew.

I think the issue is that Honda used to be the "sportier" car while Toyota was the "reliable commuter". Now that Honda has moved away from the "sportier" side of the house (save for the S2000) they are bumping into the Toyota crowd. I don't think they have that niche that they used to fill so well. You know "everyday car that is still somewhat fun to drive". Mazda seems to be pulling that off well right now (at least in my opinion). I think Honda is getting stuck somewhat between to sides. Add on to that some questionable styling and I think you can see some of the trouble for Honda.

I don't think Honda's on the way out into the dumps, just that they need to get back on pace.

isellhondas

And interesting reading...

Styling is so subjective it's really silly to even be talking about it here. What one person likes someone else won't. Same with colors.

Honda continues to rule in terms of reliability and resale values.

Still, Honda, like any company needs to remember..." Yesterday's hits won't win today's ball games".

Sales aren't that dismal either.

ponytrekker

I agree.

However, Honda is not competitive cost-wise, as when compared to other manufacturers' products that have significant incentives or lease support. It costs essentially a few bucks more to lease a BMW 3 series as it does to lease an Accord.

anonymousposts

That's because the BMW 3-series is in it's 6th year with a new model right around the corner. BMW wants those old ones off the lot before the new ones hit therefore they are providing lease support to sell them.

norrmanndo

The quality of all makes has improved improved so much that at this point it shouldn't be a major factor in sales in my opinion. But consumer reports needs to have a reason to exist so they nit-pick to the point of being ridiculous. After driving GM and Chrysler in the 70s I had to switch to Toyota, and Honda. I tried a Subaru and had a lot of problems with it. I had two Toyotas and a Honda. Then inherited a Mazda 626 from my Father. Consumer reports rated it lower, but I had fewer problems with it than my Corolla. My next vehicle was a Mazda also. It was less money, almost indistinguishable quality, better options, more attractive and zoom, zoom. I recently purchased a Chrysler again. We'll see how that goes.

robertsmx

bottgers: All this talk of the Civics and Accords in any way, shape, or form being inferior to their predisessors is just ridiculous! The new models are superior in every way, especially styling.

I second that. I own 1998 Accord and 2000 Civic, and IMO, both cars improved (especially the Accord) in just about every way. Could Honda have done better? Sure. The tail lamps in both cars could have been, and I prefer the low cowl design of 1998-02 Accord compared to 2003+ Accord. But, in the end, I would take the new Accord over the old in a heartbeat.

Lexusguy: Also, the rear could stand to copy the CLK just a bit less.

I’m surprised that not many people associate Accord Coupe’s rear styling to older Acuras. It clearly inherits the rear end styling from first generation Acura TL and 2001-2003 CL down to as small detail as a subtle crease that runs across the trunk lid between the tail lamps.

I have been noticing an Acura/Honda styling trend that the stylists look at 8-10 year old Acura/Honda and come up with an evolved style.

anonymousposts

We have owned the last 4 generations of Civics and 3 of the last 4 generations of the Accord. Sure the older Hondas had more soft touch materials inside but both cars have improved in almost every other aspect.

robertsmx

Ugly Styling/Decontenting - The new Accord Sedan is ugly, front and rear IMO and the opinion of just about everyone else I know. The Accord Couple is still OK. The Civic used to be the best small car in its class, now the Mazda 6 and Corolla are sharper looking and with the Civic losing its double wishbone suspension, it's been decontented.

I don’t think Accord is ugly. In fact, it is one of the better-looking sedans on the road today. It is not flashy, and doesn’t try to be. Many seem to call it boring.

The amusing part about this de-contenting argument is that nobody points fingers at Toyota for dumping independent rear suspension in Corolla in favor of torsion beam axle, and nobody else gets blasted for using MacPherson Struts front suspension but Honda! And going back in history, Civic didn’t always have four-wheel double wishbone suspension until early 90s.

Regarding styling, Corolla looks alright, but no better than Civic. I had heard good things about Mazda3’s styling, but in person, it looks like a car with stubby rear end, and has, at times, reminded me of Geo Metro from the rear (with Cavalier tail lamps).

So, we can argue about styling and decontenting all day. But without a perspective it would get nowhere. Is Honda struggling to sell cars? May be a good way to look at it would be to see if Honda’s inventory turnaround has gone up drastically, because based on sales numbers, and considering the incentives (compared to the “refreshed” competition), the sales aren’t really down much.

The funny thing about all this is, that Civic is still considered a benchmark car in its segment, and rightfully so. Nothing flashy about it, but it does the little things so well. And in fourth or fifth year of a model, lower sales are bound to happen. We expect Honda to sell 300+ K units of Civic every year, forgetting that there haven’t been many times that has happened. Civic’s sales usually hover around 250-300K units, which is where it is right now.

I think it was a strategic mistake of Honda to stick with a pure FWD lineup with I4s and V6's only b/c they're ignoring a huge and profitable market segment.

I disagree. A business strategy is not about focusing on a small segment of the market. Instead, sell as many units, with as little incentives, and have a quick inventory turn around. If anything, it is Honda’s strength to have consolidated global platforms to a level that few can match. Everybody else is trying to get there. Honda upped the ante with its flexible manufacturing process, which would be the next things others are going to target.

Let us look at Honda’s major platforms today,
Global Sub Compact (Jazz). It uses a “Corolla-like” MacPherson Struts front and torsion beam-axle rear suspension. This is similar to the platform Civic/CRX used until the early 90s.
Global Compact (Civic, RSX/Integra, CRV, Element). MacPherson Struts front, and 3-link (Reactive link) double wishbone rear suspension. Honda used to have unequal length double wishbone front suspension (in Civic and Integra) until 2001.
Global Midsize (Accord, TSX, TL, upcoming RL). Unequal length double wishbone front, and 5-link (Watt-link) double wishbone rear suspension.
Global Light Truck (Odyssey, Pilot and MDX). MacPherson Struts front, and 4-link independent rear suspension.

Current RL is on its own platform (a big part of it being too expensive for what it offers), and NSX and S2000 also use their own platforms. While the sports cars may continue to be, RL moving to the global midsize platform is a nice thing IMO. It has just the right ingredients, and excess power via FWD is being addressed with a sophisticated AWD system. That is a fine business strategy.

newcar31

"and nobody else gets blasted for using MacPherson Struts front suspension but Honda!"

Obviously, the reason why Honda gets blasted is because they used to brag about their wishbone suspensions being superior. If Honda had been using Macpherson struts all along in the Civic, they wouldn't have gotten blasted.

boaz47

But why would the auto mags complain about the decontenting of the new Civics if each generation was an improvement? Does decontenting have any effect at all?

robertsmx

I'm sure cost was a reason, but look how close the Pilot is to the MDX and the Accord to the TL. You have to differentiate them somehow in order to get people to fork over for the premiums.

If people can look past platform that is being shared (that is the purpose of a platform, isn’t it), Accord/TL or Pilot/MDX becomes a non-issue.

Stylingwise, Accord and TL or Pilot and MDX share just about nothing in common. With “Acura”, it is clear that AHM is going for sport luxury (MDX being more powerful, sportier and more luxurious than Pilot, just the difference between TL and Accord). One nice thing about Acura-Honda marketing is, that the premium is really the difference you expect considering the feature content and the cars themselves. It is not that Acura is charging $5K for gadgets and additional $5K as a “premium”.

IMO, Accord could easily pass for a near luxury sedan, and it does! In Japanese market, American Accord is sold as Honda Inspire. Just because one could get a stripped Accord DX for $17K doesn’t mean it loses a meaning. That model comes for less, because it is virtually stripped of the stuff.

seminole_kev: Not as much power as many of its rivals. Can't believe I forgot that. Needs more power.

Power was never Civic’s selling point. If Honda decided that it had to be, it would put a lot of the competition to shame. But, Civic has been marketed with a different philosophy, one that stands out. There is a reason the car was called “Civic” in the first place. It happens to have just enough power, just enough features, and just enough sales.

That being said, personally, I would love to see Honda use 2.0 liter I-4 (160 HP) in Civic EX, and throw in 190-200 HP version of the same in the Si (Si-R in Canada), while the DX/LX/HX/Hybrid continue to be the “Civic” Civics.

The funny thing about driving dynamics and sales failure et al is, that we’re worried about 0.9% drop in sales of Civic compared to last year (unit sales up by a grand, but owing to an extra selling day, the DSR comes out as “drop”), but could care less about 20-25% drop in Focus’ sales (down from 60K to 48K thru first three months), keeping in mind the “enthusiast appeal”.

The Civic doesn't hold it over the other cars on price either. Tends to be more expensive than the most of the class.
But, per Intellichoice, consistently ends up being on top with lowest cost of ownership in the long term. Most people focus on MSRP, little on how the expenses stack up in 4-6 years.

Also, the Civic isn't available in 5-door hatch or wagon styles (although much of the rest of the class isn't either), but one more section of the small car market it isn't filling.

I agree. Civic should be offered as a 5-door hatchback, with 2.0 liter I-4.

And, to top it off, the premier Civic Si was rolled out way over priced and out classed by competitors.

Not necessarily outclassed in everything. The Si engine, shifter and interior are much more refined than the rest of the competition. What the Si lacks is bragging rights (in terms of engine output), stickier tires and brakes. Honda probably assumed this car would appeal to AEM crowd, and IMO should. The Honda K20A has potential to deliver far more than the engines in older Civics offered. Instead of a “nice and refined” interior, Honda should have tried to make compromises and offered a lower “starting” price tag. Better yet, offer an automatic transmission as well to “sell more”.

lil302000

That is the bottom line for business and families. You can not argue that Honda does not make a quality car. But Honda has become a higher priced quality car, they seem to have forgotten the path that led them to the top. Honda is now sitting where the big three was in the 80s when they displaced them. Honda started by making high quality cars at an affordable price, but now the quality is there but the price is high. They now have to deal with cars that cost eight thousand dollars less and are starting to get more reliable. Honda beats these cars on paper, but Honda does not send the kids to collage. I think that if Honda sits and does not make some changes then they will be facing a threat from Korea.

wale_bate1

Interesting reading.

Amazing to watch the ballooning over the years.

My Dad bought a 5-speed hatch in about '77. Nifty little car in the context of what was else was around. Nimble and quick and comfy and a lot fun to drive, and you really didn't feel like you were compromising very much at all. Sometimes I'd go hang out at the hospital (there was this nurse at the 3NW station...) while he did hid rounds, and it was surprising to see new Accords pop up in the physician's lot regularly.

Nowadays the Civic is certainly larger than that Accord was, and the Accord is much bigger than the '87 Legend I bought new. Makes you wonder if Honda shouldn't have already embarked on a small or youth (hate that label; inaccurate as hell) car a la Toyota's Scion, perhaps in a attempt to get back to real small-car glory.

Just thinkin' on a Monday here...

anonymousposts

The price is high compared to what? Lower-tier family sedans that do not offer the safety, technology, or refinement that the Accord does? That's like saying a Benz is too expensive compared to the Accord. Show me one sedan with comparable features, safety, and performance that can be had for $8,000 less than the Accord.

robertsmx

seminole_kev:
Hardly scientific, but I think, on the average, the Corolla is more reliable than a Civic.
I have owned only Toyotas (three) and Hondas (three). And based on my experiences, Hondas have been near flawless. I have put more miles on the Hondas as well. But in the end, it is hard to debate on reliability ground between the two companies. Corolla has always served an older crowd, while Civic appeals to younger bunch (Civic sedan buyers are about 6 years younger on average, Civic coupe buyers are in their upper 20s). That might also create significant differences as could finding a Corolla in a rental car lot.

As far as who's competing with Honda? I'd say Mazda is poised to run with Honda, at least the Honda I knew.

I doubt that. Mazda is owned by Ford for a reason. If you have kept up with “the competition”, the threat always comes, and passes by. Flashy designs don’t last. Look at VW. Drastic changes in the late 90s create a lot of appeal, now VW is back, struggling. Focus was supposedly a big threat to Civic when it replaced the lowly Escort. What happened? Consistency is the key to success. So, we shall see. Honda ain’t going to stay put and watch. Civic redesign is due next year, and the company sure seems to know how to hit the right nerve even with subtle changes.

Now that Honda has moved away from the "sportier" side of the house (save for the S2000) they are bumping into the Toyota crowd.

I disagree. Accord is nothing like Camry. Accord was never pretended to be a sport sedan, or as cushy as the Camry is. I saw more similarities between the two until 1992. Accord maintained the flavor past that, Camry didn’t. Civic is still sportier of the two (one of the reasons Toyota tries hard to offer a sportier Corolla, in looks and sometimes in chassis set up). Honda has always taken the middle ground, one of the reasons you won’t see Honda cars being marked as “harsh riding” as is typically mentioned of Mazda and Nissan competition in comparisons. And you won’t say people calling Accord or Civic a boat or being too numb either. Honda has stuck with the old formula IMO.

ponytrekker:
It costs essentially a few bucks more to lease a BMW 3 series as it does to lease an Accord.
That’s probably because you’re comparing a stripped 3-series (about $29K?) to a fully loaded Accord EXV6 (about $28K with NAV).

robertsmx

Back in 1998, right here at the Townhall, we had a debate going along the lines. The new Intrepid, and the new Chryslers in general, were so much improved that they were a viable alternative to the high quality Japanese cars. They were head turners too! A few years down the road, those cars have been dropped from the line up.

While the 300C sounds promising, I would refrain from putting my bets on it. At least, for a few years.

fjm1

wale-bate: I like your thinking! A new, smaller civic that is truely entry level. Honda would have the edge in reliability over the Koreans in that segment.

BMW is doing the same thing as Toyota w/Scion brand....only much uglier

robertsmx

There is no denying that double wishbone should be the choice, and Honda had the right to brag about it, while they offered it. Now, they brag about the change in another way (improved safety).

In the end, I worry about the logic that is used against Civic using Macpherson struts up front (while it continues to use double wishbone rear). Be it magazines, or individuals.

anonymousposts

wishbones up front or not we love the way our 03 Si rides. We also had a couple of 2000 Si's and loved them to death as well.

lil302000

To the cost of sending two girls to collage and having a teenaged son at home. As I said all the specs on paper don't pay for collage and maintaining a family. Honda might just be finding out that their target market is changing due to lower cost alternatives. Will Honda lose the loyal Honda buyer? I don't think so, they are to good for that. I do see them losing new buyers to lower prices, more finance opportunities, longer warranties, and improved quality. Trust me I would have bought an Accord if it would have been in the budget, but it was not.

newcar31

"In the end, I worry about the logic that is used against Civic using Macpherson struts up front (while it continues to use double wishbone rear). Be it magazines, or individuals."

Why? You give people something good and different with respect to the competition, then you take it away....and you're surprised and puzzled that Honda was criticized and you question the logic of people who are criticizing them?

My double wishbone 92 Integra rode better than my brother's 2002 Civic EX BTW.