Has Honda's run - run out?

ateixeira

There are reasons besides sales volume to have a sporty sedan model - you create a halo car, generate interesting in other models, and even get the car mags to report new performance results that look more favorable.

And it might just attract younger buyers, something both Honda and Toyota are worried about. If we looked it up I'd bet Mazda6 buyers are at least a few years younger on average.

Sources I read at the time did say the 2.7l was basically the same engine from that early Legend, yes.

-juice

robertsmx

To fit the 2.7/V6 (C27A), the Accord had to be stretched. So, 1995-1997 Accord V6 were longer than their four cylinder counterparts. With 1998 redesign, the larger chassis took care of using I-4 or V6 in the same body. This also allowed the cost to come down.

Curb weight is also dependent on equipment level. Accord EX and Accord EXV6 are heavier than Accord LX and Accord LXV6 (respectively). The EX and EXV6 are close, much of the weight resulting from the slightly heavier engine and chassis reinforcements (note that 1995 EX and EXV6 were only 88 lb apart).

ateixeira

I remember those long-nose V6s. I think they got a unique chrome grills, IIRC.

The V6 didn't come with a manual so we got a Mazda 626 ES 5spd. That thing became a money pit after 5 years so we dumped it.

Honda could have saved me the trouble if they sold one, and had we been happy we likely would have bought another (why switch if you're happy?).

Instead we switched to Subaru. So Honda lost several potential sales by not offering a manual.

-juice

andre1969

I looked up the stats on Edmund's, and unless they're wrong, they have both Accords listed at 106.9" in wheelbase and about 188" long overall. Did the V-6 models just have a bulkier nose, but then a correspondingly shorter bumper?

I realize that curb weights will vary by trim level, which is why for 1995, I listed all EX models, to try and minimize that factor.

Did the V-6 Accord in '95-97 also have a higher GVWR rating, in addition to curb weight?

ateixeira

All I noticed was a sort of bulge in the hood. Not really, it just has a taller hood, sort of.

-juice

frankcoopers

Honda is quickly becoming a truck company. The upcoming Honda SUT utility vehicle is a bad idea and reflects on the rather seemingly poor direction this once proud marque is taking.

Before 1994, you could not find a truck or SUV in a Honda showroom.

How sad that is no longer the case.

driftracer

Why? The Passport is a great vehicle, as is the CRV - even a company as big as Honda, with as many sales as with the Accord and Civic, can't just have cars alone and stay competitive.

They lost the Prelude, one of my favorite cars of all time, due to lagging sales - SUVs certainly played a part in people's choices over the Prelude.

nippononly

Prelude also lost sales in part because of the direction it took - big, heavier, very expensive.

And I think you meant Pilot, not Passport.

And Honda has to have a couple of crossovers and SUVs in the modern car market. Doesn't mean they can't possibly continue to make great cars as well.

Having said all that, the SUT IS a big mistake. It is a waste of time, thank goodness it is not a big waste of R&D money or manpower, being merely a slightly modified Pilot.

I am very surprised Subaru changed their minds earlier this year and decided not to pull the plug on the Baja for now. Sales = slow!

ateixeira

They're just selling what customers demand.

Plus those models are more profitable than $13k Civics. No way could Honda compete today with only cars.

-juice

ateixeira

This has potential. If you look at recent attemps the Avalanche was a good seller for GM, and it cost them relatively little to build.

Subaru's Baja has bombed but even that cost approximatly nothing in R&D money because it was a chopped Outback. But Subaru did not deliver on the promise of a mid-gate nor did it have a power upgrade ready at launch as the concept promised.

The SUT lacks a midgate, and that is a calculated risk Honds is taking. I think someone said very few Avalanche owners actually use that feature.

But the power is there and towing is supposedly rated higher than the Pilot, so utility could potentially be good as well. I also think they got the size right, Baja was too small.

It won't be a high volume model, but I think it'll meet their targets. isell - do you know what their sales forecasts are? Any deposits on these yet? Just curious.

-juice

nippononly

I read someplace that the SUT will be able to tow 5000 pounds when it comes out - is that true? If so, that is one big step in the right direction. But lack of a midgate is a step back.

It is still going to be much smaller than the full-size Avalanche. That will give it the public image of a boutique "truck". I think people who buy trucks want real trucks, not chopped unibody crossovers. I must confess I have never really understood why so many manufacturers have tried to sell SUVs with chopped backs and mini pick-up beds. Is there a lot of demand for this type of vehicle?

driftracer

No, I mean Passport - that's the vehicle the gentleman was referring to as starting to uncleanse the Honda mold back in 1994.

When I worked at a Honda store (F&I), the Pilot wasn't a glimmer in anyone's eye - not that we knew of, anyway.

nippononly

oh sorry - I missed the point there. I feel compelled to add that while my manager liked his Passport when it was new, it has been no end of problems for him from about year four on, and has soured Honda's good name in his mind forevermore.

If I had been him, I would have bought the Rodeo instead. Same truck, cheaper, and longer warranty.

driftracer

we sold both Honda and Isuzu - the Passports all but rotted on the vine, while with Isuzu's aggressive finance and lease incentives, we went through them like cordwood.

nvbanker

Yeah, and anyway, they're not a Truck company until they actually build a Truck - and a crossover or car based SUV with FWD ain't a truck. But what it is....there's not anything wrong with - just a different style car than what we all drove before, and keeps the company alive. They have to evolve with the times.

driftracer

I'm buying my wife a 1-ton Crew Cab this fall/winter - it'll be a Ford F-350 with a Powerstroke unless Honda comes out with something just like it - I'd have to look at the Honda version, for sure!

robertsmx

I doubt it will be offered with anything but AWD. And it is still a light truck with "pickup" utility. Just that it isn't using a ladder frame chassis.

grbeck

Hasn't the Avalanche's midgate been plagued by leaks? Maybe Honda wanted to avoid those potential problems.

From the spy photos, the Honda SUT looks like a shrunken Avalanche with a Pilot front. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering that the de-cladded Avalanche is one of the better looking trucks out there.

driftracer

has been plagued by water leaks - the whole "mid-gate" idea should have been thought through some more...

andre1969

is based on the Pilot, then it actually does have a ladder frame, or at least a reasonable facsimile of one! At least, it has a structure that runs the whole length and contains the suspensions and drivetrain, and is free-standing even without the body attached. Unlike a true unitized vehicle which, at best, is only going to have a small sub-frame in the back and a small one up front, that are independent of each other.

And I know you don't need ESP to figure this one out, but I just KNEW the Avalanche was going to have leak problems! I'm guessing that new GMC Envoy with the Studebaker-like sliding roof in back is going to be just as bad!

driftracer

I'm waiting to see the GMC XUV water leak and "my top won't roll back" cases come pouring in - doing primarily GM cases now, I've seen plenty of Avalanche water leaks and engine piston slap cases.

isellhondas

I know almost nothing about the SUT. Just speculation and what I read in these forums.

Honda is always very close mouthed about upcoming product.

robertsmx

Yep. While it may not have a "true" ladder frame chassis, it will likely have some arrangement along the lines (as it is in Pilot).

ateixeira

Keep something in mind, as much as people love Honda there will be growing pains as they are new to trucks. They're experts at building small-to-medium sized cars, mostly.

I wouldn't expect perfection out of the starting gate. But they will bring their unique perspective, as they always tend to do to new segments (magic 3rd row seat in Ody, for instance).

-juice

nippononly

that book "The End of Detroit", and if Maynard is to be believed, the second gen Odyssey almost came over with outward-opening rear doors like the first model, rather than sliding ones! Don't think it would have been anywhere near as popular as it has been in that case!

The book itself is written from a perspective that is too slanted for it to be really good. It is kind of more like a really long editorial. But there are some useful facts in there too...

ateixeira

Cool, I'm actually quoted in that book.

To be more accurate, I was originally mis-quoted. But when I called her about it, to her credit, she actually corrected it for the paper back version and is going to send me a free copy.

Are you reading the hard cover or paper back?

-juice

nippononly

it was a gift earlier this year. Paper is already out?

ateixeira

Maybe not yet, because I haven't received my copy. I hope I get it soon.

I would've paid for the hard cover edition if I had been quoted properly, instead I decided to wait for the correction, which should appear on the paper back version.

-juice

nippononly

spent an awful lot of time talking about Honda and Toyota (to the complete exclusion of other fine Japanese companies like Subie, I might add!) given that the title of the book includes the word "Detroit". But then, I am only half way through so far.

The only question the book raises concerning Honda's future is whether the emerging auto market, with its hyper-competitivity and rapidly changing tastes, is going to make Honda's go-slow-and-be-thorough approach to product development an undue hindrance to their success.

I personally think that always taking the long view and never shorting the future to improve the present is the best way to consistent growth and sales success. But this approach has led to Honda's noticeable tardiness in some areas, like bringing their own SUVs to the market, as just one example.

nvbanker

"Keep something in mind, as much as people love Honda there will be growing pains as they are new to trucks. I wouldn't expect perfection out of the starting gate."

And an excellent example of this is the Titan, while a worthy first effort, it has lots of first year issues, uncharacteristic of Nissan or Japan. (If Nissan is still Japanese, I have my doubts lately).

gee35coupe

I know what you mean...A French controlled, Japanese company that builds trucks in the U.S. Sounds wierd.

nvbanker

From what I'm reading and hearing, the Titan/Armada/QX-56 seem more European than Japanese in their mechanical issues, and I'm wondering if this is merely a "new model syndrome" issue, or if the Renault is rubbing off materially on the company. My old Infiniti is still bullet proof after 8 years, other than an oil leak. In 8 years, it hasn't had as many issues as my neighbor's Armada has had in 6 months.

grbeck

Renault still isn't known for quality, at least according to the British auto magazines I manage to read now and then. I'd be very nervous if I were a Nissan fan.

As for Honda - it may be slow in reacting to market trends, but once in the segment, it seems to do well, as shown by the Odyssey and Pilot. The market prospects of this new SUT, on the other hand, are still questionable. The vehicle seems to be neither fish nor fowl.

ateixeira

They do take their time, but then they nail it. They do innovate in each segment.

Nissan has gotten the product right, now it's time to re-content and get quality back up to snuff. It's worth the investment now that they have an interesting product line. They've already started re-contenting.

-juice

nvbanker

And, no question, Nissan was the first Asian company to wake up and design some cool looking product. I'll give them that.

I am very leery though of buying anything Nissan at the moment. I think their quality has taken a huge European hit. Even with Honda's trasmission issues, I would still trust them at this point.

ateixeira

Yes, now they have to follow-up those good designs with better quality materials. They have proven it's worth the investment.

I'd like to see cars with both.

-juice

nippononly

are like opposites - Honda has holes in its line-up where you could slot perhaps another sedan as well as a couple of sport models and a larger SUV (even, gasp, a pick-up??), while Nissan is tripping all over itself with duplication - Altima and Maxima are totally redundant - Xterra and Pathfinder have to be sucking sales away from each other.

The one commonality is that both Sentra and Civic have grown to the point where a smaller model would fit easily below them in the line.

ateixeira

Good points about the contrasts.

I also think Nissan has really gone out on a limb in terms of design, perhaps too far (have you seen a Quest?).

Meanwhile, Honda is ultra-conservative, perhaps too much so. But their material quality is much more consistent, and they tend to do more volume in each segment (except trucks).

-juice

nvbanker

Now, I actually like the Quest overall, because it is different. Ok, maybe the center instrument Pod is dumb, but the skylights are cool, and it looks very people friendly inside. Of course, I bought a Caravan and a Monterey, but I like the Quest.

ateixeira

Instrument layout is silly, gauges way too small, and some of the plastics are lower quality than the toys in a Happy Meal.

I think the Titan/Armada are better designs but they still have cheap plastics.

-juice

nippononly

really seem to like those car-length skylights in some of the new Nissans. I like 'em too, but the "pod" in the Quest is way too weird.

Give me "conservative"-looking Hondas any day compared to that!

logic1

I am not sure what you mean by not Japanese. Honda and Toyota are well known for reliability.

But after Honda and Toyota you have companies like Nissan, Mitsubishi, Isuzu, Mazda and Suzuki that have always been middle of the road or below in reliability. That is 5 to 2. Which is the more Japanese then?

On subject, the spy photos I've seen of the new Ody show something that makes the wack new GM Minivans look good. Is Honda about to cede its gains in the minivan market to Chrysler and Toyota?

ateixeira

I think you have a case of one company taking too many risks (Nissan) and the other perhaps not enough (Honda).

Interestingly Toyota tried a 3rd strategy - put all the funky styled cars under a different name - Scion. Sales are brisk, too.

-juice

driftracer

"middle of the road or below in reliability"

I'll respectfully, but strongly, disagree with your statement. That's not the case that I've seen through continual osmosis.

nippononly

"But after Honda and Toyota you have companies like Nissan, Mitsubishi, Isuzu, Mazda and Suzuki that have always been middle of the road or below in reliability. That is 5 to 2. Which is the more Japanese then?"

Wellllllll, excepting Nissan, all of the rest combined sell less each year in the U.S. than EITHER Honda OR Toyota. So given that it is likely people think of the vehicles they see most frequently when they think "Japanese", Toyota, Honda, and Nissan probably represent the face of Japan to the consumers of America. All the rest are niche players by comparison.

Toyota and Honda are slow and consistent builders. Nissan has of course been up and down due to financial difficulties. For now they are kicking butt in sales with horsepower and styling with flair, but the interiors have suffered and who knows how the long-term reliability might suffer. Time will tell.

ateixeira

Honda and Toyota are still independent.

Nissan is owned by Renault, and Carlos Ghosn has radically changed whatever culture there was in that company in the past.

Mitsubishi is in disarray, and they're independent either. You wonder if they'll even be around in 5 years.

Isuzu is basically already dead. They've basically moved out of the SIA plant and Subaru took over completely. They'll probably go on as a diesel and commercial truck supplier, but that's it.

Mazda is Ford owned. The 3 uses the Ford 2.3l engine and the 6 uses the Duratec derived from the Taurus. They're not indy by any stretch of the imagination, though.

GM owns the majority of Suzuki, and now they're selling GMDAT-built Korean cars for GM. Basically just another GM retail outlet.

Lastly, don't forget Subaru. GM owns 22% of parent company FHI, they're still forced to share the Impreza with Saab, and the upcoming 7 seater, too. They also sell an Opel Traviq clone in Japan.

Happily for this Subaru fan, they've managed to stay the most independent of companies partially owned by GM/Ford. Their first ads after GM acquired their 22% share compared the Legacy's crash tests to those of some dismal results of GM's own sedans. And Subaru refused to sell a TrailBlazer clone even though GM wanted them to (Saab got it instead).

With globalization, "Japanese" is hard to define. The US Accord is not a world car, it's different for us, designed and built here. Same with the Camry.

So even the purest Japanese companies have faced a global reality, that it's better to design and build cars where you sell them.

-juice

logic1

I am going by the published major reliability ratings such as JD Power and CR. Honda and Toyota dominate.

The other Japanese brands do not.

I do not dispute that the other Japanese brands are no longer independent. But weren't their own mis-steps the source of the loss of that independence?

And doesn't so many companies losing their independence suggest the Japanese car industry is not so much the juggernaut one may think if looking at only the first two?

driftracer

are a joke, given that they don't differentiate between a minor issue and a major one, and there's no way to police how many or the type of consumer who is being polled. If only the angry people respond, you'll have few positive responses, right?

Statistics are for folks who can't talk to real people and get real answers - I'm NOT a fan of stats, if you can't tell...

alfox

The decision process IMO should include several pieces, including stats. Absolutely NONE of the information the average consumer can gather about a vehicle is a valid litmus test, but none of it should be ignored.

Manufacturer's website/brochure information contains a lot of fact burried inside a lot of spin. Edmunds and their ilk include another valuable piece. The ratings of reputable orginizations like CR and JDP tell a lot - if you take the trouble to understand what the data represents and what it means (and doesn/t mean.)

Owners are another source of valuable information, but just like ratings they tend to be dominated by the zealots (who have a need to self-justify their purchase) and the angry (with buyer's remorse.) There are others with accurate balanced opinions (like you and me... ) but owners' stories are annecdotal and not necessarily representative of the car's entire production run.

YMMV!

driftracer