By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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.