my original point was that cars have advantages to many people, that is all. yeah, you can't stuff two tons of stuff in most of them and haul a 10,000 pound boat behind them, but they do handle better, park easier, drive quieter, fuel up less, etc etc. Ask me how practical it is for me to try and park an F-250 diesel downtown in San Francisco every day. I am not even sure it would clear the roof in parking structures in the city! As I said before, different strokes for different folks.
Oh yeah, and you don't have to climb UP into an Accord! :-)
Can you imagine if Honda subbed out the IRS at the rear of the SUT for a live axle and leaf springs instead? That would truly make me fall out of my seat...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
OK, you got me there. I would not want to drive a F250 CrewCab in downtown San Francisco. My real wish is for smaller vehicles that get great mileage, not just so-so mileage like the Accord. Honda has lost ground on mileage over the last 20 years. I drove a great little CRX for a while and it ran great and got better mileage than anything Honda sells except the hybrids. I don't consider that progress.
You can't do anything about mileage when the public laughs at sub-2500lb cars now.
But Honda can do something about their current pattern... their drive to dull their cars out, experiment with truckish vehicles no one asked for, and blend into the background.
The 2005 RSX (no more semicircles under the front and rear lights) looks more elegant but rather generic. The only thing giving me hope that Honda will keep its character is the RSX-S's 8100rpm redline. But we can't get that in something more practical like the Civic hatch...
Oh yeah, and you don't have to climb UP into an Accord! :-)
Actually it is much easier to get into and out of my Suburban than our LS400 or Mazda 626. Maybe for short people small cars are easier, that I can't say.
for some trucks being easier to get into and out of than cars. I'm 6'3" though, so maybe it is a tall people's thang!
A few years ago though, my uncle went into the hospital for an operation. When it was time to pick him up, he was in a lot of pain. He made it clear that he wanted us to pick him up in his '97 Silverado. Not my Intrepid. Not my grandmother's '85 LeSabre, or any car. In the truck, he could practically just step in, where any car, he'd have to stoop down, which would put him in some serious pain.
He also has an '03 Corolla, that he bought about a year after that operation. It's actually pretty comfortable for a small car, but he still much prefers the seating position and comfort of his pickup. The 'Rolla uses about half as much fuel though, so on his 130 mile a day round trip work commute, that makes up for a little sacrifice in comfort!
Exactly. My Explorers and Mountaineers are MUCH easier to get in and out of than my Infiniti. They're even a little easier than the Navigator - because of the "climb up" thing, which is a reality in the bigger trucks. But the step in and out of smaller trucks and SUVs is really the easiest way to go, and I think contributes a lot to their popularity. So the SUT, Pilot & CRV are probably assured success, as my Civic was the WORST for getting out of - especially with a bad left knee.... Age has something to contribute to this phenomenon also, I believe.
for comfort and ease of entry that has made the more upright seating position so popular today. While some have suggested that no one has asked for the more truck like vehicles from Honda the buying statistics of Americans say quite the reverse. SUVs and Trucks account for more sales than cars. Even if you tried to discount crossovers it must be remembered they are trying to emulate a truck using a car as a base.
It isn't just with cars it is with most everything we Americans buy into. We want ease and comfort. Shopping malls make shopping easier. Remote controls make our in home entertainment systems easier. Only the throw backs, romantics and a few stubborn people want to do things themselves. Not that I don't applaud the throw backs, romantics and stubborn people but they are fighting a losing battle.
Much like NVbanker I got a much better reaction with my SUV when picking up relatives from the airport than I did if I was just picking up one when I had my Prelude. Small cars most often mean dropping down to the seat to get in and climbing up to get out. When at family gatherings my PT is a far more popular ride to a restaurant than my Cousins Accord and only the younger family members end up in one of the Civics.
Yeah, the best thing the PT has going for it is the ease of entry and comfort, IMO. I am always pleasantly surprised. For example further, I know an elderly couple who just traded their Continental for a PT. I asked them what the heck they were doing, and they said, "It's so much easier to get in and out of, and it's comfortable".
I've never ridden in an Odyssey, CR-V or Pilot but I imagine the seating is better suited to entry and exit than the Accord & Civic. I thought it was just me liking PUs & Suburbans all these years for the ease of getting in & out, and of course practicality.
No, it's not just you, gagrice - it's more like half of North America and I think it's the one thing most responsible for the popularity of SUVs. Now, new cars are coming out tall as well, like the Ford 500. We need to face facts - the car is evolving again.....
It looks like it when you are on the highways in CA for sure. I get into debates on the Anti-SUV thread all the time. They hate to accept the facts about SUV expansionism in our society. It may be a good thing as 2003 was the safest year on our highways in 29 years.
when they report the sales mix of cars and light trucks, is that just purely based on the EPA definition of a truck? As in, the Forester wagon and Legacy sedan are trucks, as is the PT Cruiser?
Or are they referring to actual trucks?
The reason I ask is, I think it may be not so much that consumer tastes are shifting significantly towards trucks, but rather the fact that automakers are getting better and better at building cars that are classified as such, even models like the Legacy that quite blatantly are not.
SUVs may have peaked after all, although I think that car-based crossovers will replace them in popularity and will grow in size as a consequence.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
All of the Car, Truck & SUV categories are muddy in my opinion. Calling a PT Cruiser an SUV is a real stretch. I guess the main thing is each person picks the vehicle that best suits his or her needs, and the automaker can call it what they want. As a Suburban driver I think of a CR-V as a Wannabe SUV. And an Escalade as a Suburban for people with more money than good sense. I do love that Pearl White paint on the Escalade.....
how they got the PT rated but the Legacy is still a sedan. I understand the new Forester may be a SUV. It is every bit as much a SUV as a CR-V but still whatever method they use tall vehicles are gaining the lions share of the market. I realize this is almost a slap in the face of the small car guys. They still have quite a selection but the have been preaching the demise of the SUV from before some have been calling for the end of Rap. Every year we read the SUVs and light trucks are gaining and Coupes, small cars and big cars are losing. For the last two years SUVs and light trucks have been at more than 50 percent of the market. Mid sized sedans still are more than holding their own but manufacturers are racing to turn sedans into tall sedans and then into a car based SUV. I don't know why we love the upright driving position like we do but I know for me it is more comfortable to see out of the vehicle sitting up rather than reclining.
I would think Honda sees this trend as much as anyone. Half of the vehicles Honda makes are SUVs. Now if they could just get into the light truck market how could they lose? There is one belief Americans seem to have hard wired into their DNA, "bigger is better". we pay lip service to the small is all you "need" but just look at the Civic and the Accord. How big are they compared to when they were first released? And even the Corolla is a lot bigger than the first one I ever saw. And today I think the are taller.
the new Outback sedan is EPA-rated as a light truck - it was a big "scandal" earlier this year. And there is a reason Subaru wanted that rating for that model - it is only available as the H-6, which gets lousy mileage relatively speaking. Surely, if the Outback sedan is now a "truck", then the wagon models must be as well. And I think the next Forester is to be a truck as well - that is what has been anticipated. The PT is definitely rated as a truck. And it is basically a Neon with a hatch and a high roof!.
Speaking of Neon, I see that the SRT-4 "stage 2" is now out, with 265 hp and still FWD, if you can believe it. While this car is priced a little higher than the WRX and certainly a lot higher than any of the Civics, maybe Honda and Subaru both had better get on the ball if they want to compete with sport models - the bar has been raised (it has been raised a lot, and quickly, of late!)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
what is in the pipeline from Honda but I have to wonder if they don't believe this factory sport hot rod phase isn't a fluke. Toyota hasn't played in this game for a number of years so maybe Honda doesn't see the need? It just may be Honda has been caught up a bit by the market share monster. For a small company they have a pretty good market share and that can start to influence your car designs. I am not saying they are frozen by market share but they do seem to be playing it safe with the Civic and the Accord. It almost looks as if they would rather wait to see if these new small pocket rockets are truly here to stay and then they might get in the game. However I would think any response to these hot cars would come from their Acura line. Only speculation on my part.
that Car & Driver put out a few months ago, concerning the classification of the PT Cruiser and, get this...the MAGNUM, as trucks!
The only reason the PT Cruiser is classified as a truck is because you can remove the back seats and get a flat load floor. Evidently, that's one of the criteria for qualifying as a truck...having a flat bed/load floor. Nevermind the fact that most SUVs, when you remove the back seat, DON'T have a flat load floor, because there's still the hump over the rear axle!
Supposedly the new Outback, even the sedan, can be qualified as a truck because it has enough ground clearance to qualify.
But now the stupid part...the Magnum qualifies for truck status because the back seats fold flat to give you a flat load floor. Something that just about every station wagon ever produced is capable of doing!
"While this car is priced a little higher than the WRX"
Base price, WRX w/5-speed: $24,795
Base price, SRT-4: $20,995
I'd say it's $3,800 LESS!
Add the $1500 or so to do Stage 2, and you've got a serious screamer - the '04 model has a Quaife limited slip diff, so it's not squirrely like the '03.
As an owner of a Turbo PT with Stage 1 and Stage 2 kits installed, performance is incredible. I have a few other mods and have dynoed the car at 278 hp and 312 ft lbs of torque - at the wheels...
SUT with the capabilities delivering 50+ mpg would be exceptional! But I don’t see it happening any time soon, if at all. And even if it did, compact/midsize cars offer different kind of practicality, usefulness and convenience than do pickup trucks. For me, it would be a car, another reason I don’t see a point in your sales comparison between F150 and Accord/Camry. They compete in different class, have different appeal and the extent of competition within their class is very different too. This isn’t the 1960s when Impala was selling close to a million units every year.
But speaking of practicality and usefulness, my 1000-mile weekend trip provided me the same old experience. Based on raw count (on-the-road), except for couple of RV trailers being towed by pickups, there were more minivans towing anything than pickup trucks. And we spend time discussing payload and towing capacities of pickup trucks.
My real wish is for smaller vehicles that get great mileage, not just so-so mileage like the Accord. Honda has lost ground on mileage over the last 20 years. I drove a great little CRX for a while and it ran great and got better mileage than anything Honda sells except the hybrids. I don't consider that progress. Progress is multi-dimensional. Cars today are larger, heavier, safer and more powerful. And yet some (if not all), either meet or beat their older counterparts. How is that not progress?
I would go for a smaller and light car (Jazz/Fit would be very interesting option to me) for my commute and around town driving. But, it comes with its own drawbacks. I need reasonably sized trunk space, and room for 3-4 adults to take road trips that I do. That’s where practicality and usefulness of Accord comes into play. Now, it gets me only 31-33 mpg on freeway (depending on my mood) unlike CRX or (potentially) Fit that could get 40+ mpg, but like everything else, I must deal with compromise. Today, I’m curious to see if Accord Hybrid delivers what it promises to. And if it does, there we go!
Durability may matter. My Civic had a wonderful engine & running gear, but was pathetically thin in the sheet metal, and not very stiff. When you jacked it up to change a tire, you had to make sure the doors were either open or closed the way you wanted them, because the body flexed so much, you couldn't open or close them with a jack under the car. Admittedly, it was an 89, and I'm sure they've stiffened them up since then, but I still have that image in my head of it being a great car, but a tin can. Not a good image for a truck. And, I'm lazy. I won't check out engineering stats, and I have lots of company. As much as I love cars, I do get lost in the deep details of engineering....
it's more like half of North America and I think it's the one thing most responsible for the popularity of SUVs. Now, new cars are coming out tall as well, like the Ford 500. We need to face facts - the car is evolving again.....
I keep hearing that we’re evolving too! America has been gaining too much fat, so as vehicles become larger, we’re managing to match the proportions as well. Or does it work the other way around?
I may be in the minority (in more ways than one), but I still feel better in a low, more cockpit style environment. But, some cars haven’t been kind to my head during ingress and exit though (andre’s mention of his Intrepid reminded me of such an occurrence).
I don't know why we love the upright driving position like we do but I know for me it is more comfortable to see out of the vehicle sitting up rather than reclining. In case of my (1998) Accord, with the low dash, I could recline and still see the road to the same extent that I could sitting more upright. OTOH, I’m not sure if I would be comfortable doing the same here.
It is hard to tell what is in the pipeline from Honda but I have to wonder if they don't believe this factory sport hot rod phase isn't a fluke. Toyota hasn't played in this game for a number of years so maybe Honda doesn't see the need? It just may be Honda has been caught up a bit by the market share monster. I think so too. At this time, Honda seems to be focusing more on establishing a balance between car and light truck sales to match the proportions in the US market. Honda didn’t care about one half of the market segment until mid-90s. Even then, the Odyssey was basically an Accord wagon, and the SUVs were borrowed from Isuzu in exchange for Odyssey (rebadged as Oasis) and Domani (a variant of Civic). Arrival and success of CR-V changed the direction.
The SUT may be the end of the light truck lineup expansion (although “Acura RDX” is expected to be added in the near future), and some of the focus could get back to cars.
1989 is a long way to go back. There are reasons why Civic is no longer a 2000 lb. car. And the SUT won’t weigh 2500 lb. If there were something I would like to see Honda do, is shed some weight. But then, I don’t have to design and claim to have the safest vehicle on the road. The new Odyssey is (supposedly) in 4600-4700 lb. range! Imagine that in a Honda from the 1980s.
that the main reason cars are getting more upright and porky today is because the population is aging. Upright cars with bigger, taller door openings are simply easier to get into and out of for anybody.
And the cars have definitely evolved. Some small cars nowadays, like my uncle's '03 Corolla, probably has bigger door openings than some full-sized cars of days gone by.
4600-4700 lb?! Heck, imagine any car weighing that much back in the 80's! My grandma's '85 LeSabre, last of the big RWD ones, only weighed around 3500-3600 lb, from the sources I've read. And the first-gen Odyssey only had a GVWR of around 4600 lb! What's the GVWR of the new Odyssey, around 6000? If they can get it over 6000, then it qualifies for a nice business depreciation writeoff!
""While this car is priced a little higher than the WRX"
Base price, WRX w/5-speed: $24,795
Base price, SRT-4: $20,995
I'd say it's $3,800 LESS!"
Sorry, didn't mean to misinform, I was just basing that comment on the review I read, in which the car they drove stickered at $26,xxx. Are you sure the stage 2 can be had for $22,5? If so, that just makes my point all the more.
Of course, boaz is spot on - these "factory hot rods" may just be a fad, quickly here and gone. The SVT Focus was already discontinued and its sales were way slower than Ford had hoped. How is the SRT-4 selling?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The SRT doesn't have power rear windows, it's not AWD, and most importantly it shares too many styling cues inside and out with the Neon. IMO the Subby is worth $3800 more.
every major import or tuner magazione is doing a project on one.
My Stage 1 cost $395, Stage 2 cost $1200 - I did the work, but factor in $300-400 for labor otherwise.
You'd pay less than MSRP for an SRT-4 (no rebates, though), then add $2k for the upgrades (cheaper if you don't do Stage 1 first, like I did), and you're around $22,500...
well, in reality you could get a WRX for $22,5, and you are right that it is a more "complete" car than the SRT. But it is now down 40 hp on the SRT stage 2. Different strokes for different folks once again, but the broader point I was trying to make is that these cars are in the same ballpark and the power available among competitors is rising rapidly. The Cobalt SS will have 200 hp to start, 230 hp a year later if the rumors are true and that comes to fruition, and that will cost less. Which begs the question, how much is AWD really worth to the buying public? I would certainly prefer it on anything over 200 hp if my choice is otherwise a front driver.
Anyway, the other half of "Honda and Subie" is Honda, also the subject of this thread. And they just discontinued their highest-powered Civic, which was only at 160 hp anyway. This leaves their highest-powered small car at 127 hp (not counting the niche-model S2000), dead last in this segment, I am pretty sure. I am not one to advocate horsepower wars, and I like Honda's approach to sportiness of making cars lighter as much as increasing power, but I do think Honda has to make a much much bigger jump with the next Civic than they did with this one (in content also).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I wouldn’t be surprised. If Civic were to be revised along the lines of Accord, it will be on top of its game, again.
Honda needs to redefine the Civic lineup and provide for a choice of engines. DX and LX could continue to appeal to the people with civic-sense. Perhaps a new generation of K-series motor with 1.7-1.8-liter displacement could do it. EX could use the K20A with 150-160 HP for people who want more power. And then, take the LX, add sport suspension/alloy wheels, K20A with 170-200 HP and call it “Si”.
I don’t think there is a need to go all out in terms of horsepower, to go for a 275 HP Civic, just to match/beat what Dodge is offering.
The Civic is getting the 2.0L RSX/Si engine in other parts of the world so it's highly plausible the 06 Civic will get a version of this engine. Today the Civic is underpowered but that was not the case when it was introduced in 2001. At that time the Protege had 130, the Corolla had 130, Cavalier had 150 I think, etc. It's just all other models have had a redesign since the Civic was introduced. Aside from the HP rating the Civic is still competitive with the newer models in a lot of areas.
I don't think Honda would base the new Si on the LX model. All SI's as far back as I can remember came with a sunroof .. which has only been available on EX models in the past (the exception being the Accord SE's from 1997 and 2002).
Civic has its strength, but those aspects are often lost in a world of "glamor". That is why I think Honda needs to take a three pronged approach. DX/LX as the traditional Civic, EX as a powerful (for its class/purpose) premium model, and Si as a sport model (with most power).
I would prefer to see “Si” have basic content to have a lower starting price point. It doesn’t need moon roof (adds 20-25 lb. reduces headroom by couple of inches and adds cost). It can be an option. Even if it costs as much as EX (or slightly more) with addition of powerful engine and sport tuned chassis, it would do well.
Of the 8 cars tested, the Civic was the second slowest in 0-60, although it redeemed itself in the quarter mile, so maybe it was starting to catch up?
I like Nissan's idea of putting the bigger Altima 2.5 4 cyl in the lighter Sentra body, which is an almost muscle car-esque thing to do! Unfortunately it also sinks the car's fuel economy.
I wonder if the Accord's bigger 2.4 would fit under the hood of the Civic?
Also, while the Corolla in that test only had 3 more hp, it managed to get from 0-60 a full second quicker (9.5 versus 10.5). However, it also had 11 more ft-lb of torque, and peak torque at a lower rpm, so maybe it as a better torque curve?
Overall, looking at the numbers, the Corolla seemed to me to be the best blend all around, nicely balancing performance, economy, and handling. Edmund's picked the Civic as their winner, though.
in 2001, the Civic DX/LX made 115 hp, and the "sporty, up-powered" EX made 127, which was still less than the 130 made by the base Protege and Corolla, which had only one available engine. Comapring apples to apples, you really need to look at the base versions, where the Honda's 115 begins to look a little small. The only car in their range at that time was the Lancer at 120. Everything else was at lest 10% higher-powered.
Now was the Civic 10% lighter than everything else except Corolla? Yes. Which is why the Corolla ripped up the competition in C&D's small car comparo last year ("showed its taillights to everything else"), because it weighed the same as the Civic and had almost 15% more power.
But the field has progressed a lot, and rather than just matching the current Corolla, I think the next Civic should aim for more like 145, keeping weight low as usual at Honda. It could be powered by a K20A detuned for increased fuel efficiency and make that rating pretty easily, I would think.
oh yeah...and in that case I wouldn't mind seeing an EX with the 2.4 from the Accord making 170 hp, and an SI with the same engine from the TSX (the same 2.4 but with VVT on both intake and exhaust) making 200 hp.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
weighs in at 2,400 lbs and has a 2.4, soon to be a very built 2.4. It's spirited in stock form, but I certainly wouldn't say that it's too big a motor or overpowered by any means.
PT actually sneaks in due to removeable seats that makes it an MPV, I believe. So it's a minivan in their eyes, not an SUV. But those are grouped together.
All Legacys are cars, FWIW. The Outbacks are not trucks due to substantially raised clearance, new rear bumpers for a good angle of departure, and a few other tweaks.
The Outback sedan sneaks in, and honestly I thought that was absurd, but 93% of Outbacks are wagons anyway.
The base H4 engine that goes in most Outbacks gets 22/28 or 23/28 depending upon the tranny, very efficient actually.
Funny thing is the Forester is more of an SUV but it's registered as a car. I think that strategy backfired for Subaru, they could not offer tinted windows like the RAV4 and CR-V offer, for instance, and they missed an opportunity to earn CAFE credits like the others did.
You can bet the next Forester will be registered as a truck.
Magnum is a truck, too. PT. Pacifica. This is what customers want, they're just giving it to them. CR-V and Element and Pilot too, FWIW.
if the 1.7 and the 2.4 are totally different blocks, I imagine that could make a noticeable difference in weight? Still, as long as they're not going to additional cylinders, I don't think a slightly larger 4-cyl block would add too much weight.
I suggested that a long time ago. I think it's a really good idea. The Accord gets very good MPG numbers with the 2.4L, I don't see what the problem would be with the Civic. More than a few compact cars have big 4 cyls now, it's time for the Civic to get one too.
And as far as the weight issue is concerned, the Mazda3 handles the weight of a 2.3L just fine so why would a 2.4L be too heavy for the Civic?
K24A will probably add just a few pounds but more importantly could introduce too much torque steer (see: Sentra). This is assuming that the extra long stroke (in the K24A) wouldn’t be an issue for the low and small hood of the Civic.
K20A is a potent engine, and 160 HP/140 lb.-ft would be plenty in Civic EX. Honda could even throw in 5-speed automatic with it (a drive train combo in Thai market Civic). With manual transmission, that would be good for good automag 0-60 runs (in low 7 seconds).
K20A would be better than K24A on mileage as well, and more so if Honda chooses to use the i-VTEC-I version (currently used only in JDM Honda Stream). Handling can be tweaked, but Civic has to continue to balance ride and handling qualities for its mainstream models. While K24A can returns 26/34 mpg on Accord (beats Mazda3 w/2.3), I doubt the same engine would do much better. And that would be taking back a few steps from the current 32/38 mpg rating. But then, there will be the DX/LX to care of the Civic-sense anyway. Still, I vote for K20A.
It would also make for a better choice for a screaming Si/Si-R.
The issue is more balance than weight. FWD cars will always be front heavy. The better FWDs are usually have the better front/rear weight ratios.
Mazda probably desinged the 3 frame with the 2.3 ltr in mind. If Honda could put a 2.4 in the Civic and not skewer the ratio, then it probably ought to try.
Civic's hood may be a little too low K24A (if K20A ends up being a tight squeeze). Check out these two pictures: Honda Civic Mazda3
Mazda3 has a bulging hood line, probably to accomodate a largish engine. Perhaps Civic will grow with the next generation, and then it could use K24A. But then, many of us will quibble about the new found dimensions. IMO, K24A is better suited to heavier sedans. Civic doesn't need to make noise in the wrong sense, it is an established product. It just needs to keep up, not beat the competition down.
Comments
Oh yeah, and you don't have to climb UP into an Accord! :-)
Can you imagine if Honda subbed out the IRS at the rear of the SUT for a live axle and leaf springs instead? That would truly make me fall out of my seat...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That's true, Nippon - you have to climb up OUT of the damn thing!
But Honda can do something about their current pattern... their drive to dull their cars out, experiment with truckish vehicles no one asked for, and blend into the background.
The 2005 RSX (no more semicircles under the front and rear lights) looks more elegant but rather generic. The only thing giving me hope that Honda will keep its character is the RSX-S's 8100rpm redline. But we can't get that in something more practical like the Civic hatch...
Actually it is much easier to get into and out of my Suburban than our LS400 or Mazda 626. Maybe for short people small cars are easier, that I can't say.
A few years ago though, my uncle went into the hospital for an operation. When it was time to pick him up, he was in a lot of pain. He made it clear that he wanted us to pick him up in his '97 Silverado. Not my Intrepid. Not my grandmother's '85 LeSabre, or any car. In the truck, he could practically just step in, where any car, he'd have to stoop down, which would put him in some serious pain.
He also has an '03 Corolla, that he bought about a year after that operation. It's actually pretty comfortable for a small car, but he still much prefers the seating position and comfort of his pickup. The 'Rolla uses about half as much fuel though, so on his 130 mile a day round trip work commute, that makes up for a little sacrifice in comfort!
It isn't just with cars it is with most everything we Americans buy into. We want ease and comfort. Shopping malls make shopping easier. Remote controls make our in home entertainment systems easier. Only the throw backs, romantics and a few stubborn people want to do things themselves. Not that I don't applaud the throw backs, romantics and stubborn people but they are fighting a losing battle.
Much like NVbanker I got a much better reaction with my SUV when picking up relatives from the airport than I did if I was just picking up one when I had my Prelude. Small cars most often mean dropping down to the seat to get in and climbing up to get out. When at family gatherings my PT is a far more popular ride to a restaurant than my Cousins Accord and only the younger family members end up in one of the Civics.
Or are they referring to actual trucks?
The reason I ask is, I think it may be not so much that consumer tastes are shifting significantly towards trucks, but rather the fact that automakers are getting better and better at building cars that are classified as such, even models like the Legacy that quite blatantly are not.
SUVs may have peaked after all, although I think that car-based crossovers will replace them in popularity and will grow in size as a consequence.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You can try to figure what is what...
http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svsuv.asp
I would think Honda sees this trend as much as anyone. Half of the vehicles Honda makes are SUVs. Now if they could just get into the light truck market how could they lose? There is one belief Americans seem to have hard wired into their DNA, "bigger is better". we pay lip service to the small is all you "need" but just look at the Civic and the Accord. How big are they compared to when they were first released? And even the Corolla is a lot bigger than the first one I ever saw. And today I think the are taller.
Speaking of Neon, I see that the SRT-4 "stage 2" is now out, with 265 hp and still FWD, if you can believe it. While this car is priced a little higher than the WRX and certainly a lot higher than any of the Civics, maybe Honda and Subaru both had better get on the ball if they want to compete with sport models - the bar has been raised (it has been raised a lot, and quickly, of late!)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The only reason the PT Cruiser is classified as a truck is because you can remove the back seats and get a flat load floor. Evidently, that's one of the criteria for qualifying as a truck...having a flat bed/load floor. Nevermind the fact that most SUVs, when you remove the back seat, DON'T have a flat load floor, because there's still the hump over the rear axle!
Supposedly the new Outback, even the sedan, can be qualified as a truck because it has enough ground clearance to qualify.
But now the stupid part...the Magnum qualifies for truck status because the back seats fold flat to give you a flat load floor. Something that just about every station wagon ever produced is capable of doing!
Base price, WRX w/5-speed: $24,795
Base price, SRT-4: $20,995
I'd say it's $3,800 LESS!
Add the $1500 or so to do Stage 2, and you've got a serious screamer - the '04 model has a Quaife limited slip diff, so it's not squirrely like the '03.
As an owner of a Turbo PT with Stage 1 and Stage 2 kits installed, performance is incredible. I have a few other mods and have dynoed the car at 278 hp and 312 ft lbs of torque - at the wheels...
We've got grudge night up here at N.E. dragway on Wednesday nights :> The Mustangs there won't know what hit them!
I can take a shot today and e-mail it to you if you drop me a line.
The Bottom Line: If the SUT has similar towing (~5000 lb) and payload capacity (~1400) as Avalanche and Explorer SportTrac, what else would matter?
But speaking of practicality and usefulness, my 1000-mile weekend trip provided me the same old experience. Based on raw count (on-the-road), except for couple of RV trailers being towed by pickups, there were more minivans towing anything than pickup trucks. And we spend time discussing payload and towing capacities of pickup trucks.
My real wish is for smaller vehicles that get great mileage, not just so-so mileage like the Accord. Honda has lost ground on mileage over the last 20 years. I drove a great little CRX for a while and it ran great and got better mileage than anything Honda sells except the hybrids. I don't consider that progress.
Progress is multi-dimensional. Cars today are larger, heavier, safer and more powerful. And yet some (if not all), either meet or beat their older counterparts. How is that not progress?
I would go for a smaller and light car (Jazz/Fit would be very interesting option to me) for my commute and around town driving. But, it comes with its own drawbacks. I need reasonably sized trunk space, and room for 3-4 adults to take road trips that I do. That’s where practicality and usefulness of Accord comes into play. Now, it gets me only 31-33 mpg on freeway (depending on my mood) unlike CRX or (potentially) Fit that could get 40+ mpg, but like everything else, I must deal with compromise. Today, I’m curious to see if Accord Hybrid delivers what it promises to. And if it does, there we go!
And, I'm lazy. I won't check out engineering stats, and I have lots of company. As much as I love cars, I do get lost in the deep details of engineering....
I keep hearing that we’re evolving too! America has been gaining too much fat, so as vehicles become larger, we’re managing to match the proportions as well. Or does it work the other way around?
I may be in the minority (in more ways than one), but I still feel better in a low, more cockpit style environment. But, some cars haven’t been kind to my head during ingress and exit though (andre’s mention of his Intrepid reminded me of such an occurrence).
I don't know why we love the upright driving position like we do but I know for me it is more comfortable to see out of the vehicle sitting up rather than reclining.
In case of my (1998) Accord, with the low dash, I could recline and still see the road to the same extent that I could sitting more upright. OTOH, I’m not sure if I would be comfortable doing the same here.
It is hard to tell what is in the pipeline from Honda but I have to wonder if they don't believe this factory sport hot rod phase isn't a fluke. Toyota hasn't played in this game for a number of years so maybe Honda doesn't see the need? It just may be Honda has been caught up a bit by the market share monster.
I think so too. At this time, Honda seems to be focusing more on establishing a balance between car and light truck sales to match the proportions in the US market. Honda didn’t care about one half of the market segment until mid-90s. Even then, the Odyssey was basically an Accord wagon, and the SUVs were borrowed from Isuzu in exchange for Odyssey (rebadged as Oasis) and Domani (a variant of Civic). Arrival and success of CR-V changed the direction.
The SUT may be the end of the light truck lineup expansion (although “Acura RDX” is expected to be added in the near future), and some of the focus could get back to cars.
And the cars have definitely evolved. Some small cars nowadays, like my uncle's '03 Corolla, probably has bigger door openings than some full-sized cars of days gone by.
4600-4700 lb?! Heck, imagine any car weighing that much back in the 80's! My grandma's '85 LeSabre, last of the big RWD ones, only weighed around 3500-3600 lb, from the sources I've read. And the first-gen Odyssey only had a GVWR of around 4600 lb! What's the GVWR of the new Odyssey, around 6000? If they can get it over 6000, then it qualifies for a nice business depreciation writeoff!
Base price, WRX w/5-speed: $24,795
Base price, SRT-4: $20,995
I'd say it's $3,800 LESS!"
Sorry, didn't mean to misinform, I was just basing that comment on the review I read, in which the car they drove stickered at $26,xxx. Are you sure the stage 2 can be had for $22,5? If so, that just makes my point all the more.
Of course, boaz is spot on - these "factory hot rods" may just be a fad, quickly here and gone. The SVT Focus was already discontinued and its sales were way slower than Ford had hoped. How is the SRT-4 selling?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My Stage 1 cost $395, Stage 2 cost $1200 - I did the work, but factor in $300-400 for labor otherwise.
You'd pay less than MSRP for an SRT-4 (no rebates, though), then add $2k for the upgrades (cheaper if you don't do Stage 1 first, like I did), and you're around $22,500...
Anyway, the other half of "Honda and Subie" is Honda, also the subject of this thread. And they just discontinued their highest-powered Civic, which was only at 160 hp anyway. This leaves their highest-powered small car at 127 hp (not counting the niche-model S2000), dead last in this segment, I am pretty sure. I am not one to advocate horsepower wars, and I like Honda's approach to sportiness of making cars lighter as much as increasing power, but I do think Honda has to make a much much bigger jump with the next Civic than they did with this one (in content also).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Honda needs to redefine the Civic lineup and provide for a choice of engines. DX and LX could continue to appeal to the people with civic-sense. Perhaps a new generation of K-series motor with 1.7-1.8-liter displacement could do it. EX could use the K20A with 150-160 HP for people who want more power. And then, take the LX, add sport suspension/alloy wheels, K20A with 170-200 HP and call it “Si”.
I don’t think there is a need to go all out in terms of horsepower, to go for a 275 HP Civic, just to match/beat what Dodge is offering.
I would prefer to see “Si” have basic content to have a lower starting price point. It doesn’t need moon roof (adds 20-25 lb. reduces headroom by couple of inches and adds cost). It can be an option. Even if it costs as much as EX (or slightly more) with addition of powerful engine and sport tuned chassis, it would do well.
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/100022/page019- .html
Of the 8 cars tested, the Civic was the second slowest in 0-60, although it redeemed itself in the quarter mile, so maybe it was starting to catch up?
I like Nissan's idea of putting the bigger Altima 2.5 4 cyl in the lighter Sentra body, which is an almost muscle car-esque thing to do! Unfortunately it also sinks the car's fuel economy.
I wonder if the Accord's bigger 2.4 would fit under the hood of the Civic?
Also, while the Corolla in that test only had 3 more hp, it managed to get from 0-60 a full second quicker (9.5 versus 10.5). However, it also had 11 more ft-lb of torque, and peak torque at a lower rpm, so maybe it as a better torque curve?
Overall, looking at the numbers, the Corolla seemed to me to be the best blend all around, nicely balancing performance, economy, and handling. Edmund's picked the Civic as their winner, though.
Now was the Civic 10% lighter than everything else except Corolla? Yes. Which is why the Corolla ripped up the competition in C&D's small car comparo last year ("showed its taillights to everything else"), because it weighed the same as the Civic and had almost 15% more power.
But the field has progressed a lot, and rather than just matching the current Corolla, I think the next Civic should aim for more like 145, keeping weight low as usual at Honda. It could be powered by a K20A detuned for increased fuel efficiency and make that rating pretty easily, I would think.
oh yeah...and in that case I wouldn't mind seeing an EX with the 2.4 from the Accord making 170 hp, and an SI with the same engine from the TSX (the same 2.4 but with VVT on both intake and exhaust) making 200 hp.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
All Legacys are cars, FWIW. The Outbacks are not trucks due to substantially raised clearance, new rear bumpers for a good angle of departure, and a few other tweaks.
The Outback sedan sneaks in, and honestly I thought that was absurd, but 93% of Outbacks are wagons anyway.
The base H4 engine that goes in most Outbacks gets 22/28 or 23/28 depending upon the tranny, very efficient actually.
Funny thing is the Forester is more of an SUV but it's registered as a car. I think that strategy backfired for Subaru, they could not offer tinted windows like the RAV4 and CR-V offer, for instance, and they missed an opportunity to earn CAFE credits like the others did.
You can bet the next Forester will be registered as a truck.
Magnum is a truck, too. PT. Pacifica. This is what customers want, they're just giving it to them. CR-V and Element and Pilot too, FWIW.
-juice
And as far as the weight issue is concerned, the Mazda3 handles the weight of a 2.3L just fine so why would a 2.4L be too heavy for the Civic?
K20A is a potent engine, and 160 HP/140 lb.-ft would be plenty in Civic EX. Honda could even throw in 5-speed automatic with it (a drive train combo in Thai market Civic). With manual transmission, that would be good for good automag 0-60 runs (in low 7 seconds).
K20A would be better than K24A on mileage as well, and more so if Honda chooses to use the i-VTEC-I version (currently used only in JDM Honda Stream). Handling can be tweaked, but Civic has to continue to balance ride and handling qualities for its mainstream models. While K24A can returns 26/34 mpg on Accord (beats Mazda3 w/2.3), I doubt the same engine would do much better. And that would be taking back a few steps from the current 32/38 mpg rating. But then, there will be the DX/LX to care of the Civic-sense anyway. Still, I vote for K20A.
It would also make for a better choice for a screaming Si/Si-R.
RSX, OTOH, could move to K24A.
Mazda probably desinged the 3 frame with the 2.3 ltr in mind. If Honda could put a 2.4 in the Civic and not skewer the ratio, then it probably ought to try.
Honda Civic
Mazda3
Mazda3 has a bulging hood line, probably to accomodate a largish engine. Perhaps Civic will grow with the next generation, and then it could use K24A. But then, many of us will quibble about the new found dimensions. IMO, K24A is better suited to heavier sedans. Civic doesn't need to make noise in the wrong sense, it is an established product. It just needs to keep up, not beat the competition down.