Has Honda's run - run out?

newcar31

"But the looks of the current hatch certainly playe a role, I am convinced. If they had also offered a SI coupe this time around (same powertrain and seats as the hatch of course) I bet it would have outsold the hatch 5 to 1. And that Honda could have sold 15K per year."

Just curious, how did the 99-00 Civic Si do as far as sales?

Gee? Anon?

newcar31

"It would be so easy for Honda to make the K20A the next EX's standard engine, stilll get low 30's for combined mileage, and give the "fast" model 160 hp. But I think it is overall more important for them to bring the power level of the base models into the ballpark. To me, that says "130 hp". To hedge their bets for the future, 135 or 140 would be even better."

This is just my opinion of course, but here's what I'd like to see for the next Civic:

standard: 140 hp 1.8L

optional: 160 hp 2.4L

Edit:

Keep in mind that the Accord gets 26/34 mpg with the 2.4L, so the Civic should get very respectable mileage with the 2.4L and the 1.8L could be the economy champ.

gee35coupe

It's not the "how much horsepower should an economy car have" thread. I don't think we could hash this over any more.

varmint

"For a While Honda was the Number two manufacturer in Japan and sold more Accords in the US than anyone else sold sedans. Today that is not true."

Nissan was bigger than Honda up until they really hit the duldrums and nearly went bankrupt. Honda continued their steady growth at that time and surpassed them in volume sales (about the year 1999 or 2000, I think). But Nissan was never far behind.

So, I think what you've written there is a bit of a spin on the reality of the situation. Nissan vacated the second tier position. When they finally got back on track, they got back to where they were only a few years before.

To the best of my knowledge, the Accord has only been the absolute best seller once in the past decade. It nudged the Camry out of position for one year.

So, while your post makes it seem like Honda has lost some high and mighty rankings, the truth is Honda never really owned them in the first place.

"Lastly, from a enthusiasts perspective what made Honda decide to let the Sentra, Focus, Neon and Corolla XRS have all the spotlight?"

Now this is a valid question. With the introduction of the current Civic Si, Honda has allowed the others to leapfrog them in the cheap performance category. I think Honda underestimated the benchmarks they needed to shoot for.

To a certain extent, the sports car market has also changed greatly in the past few years. The domestic power coupes took a hit when the imports introduced cheap four-banger compacts. Now the cheap four banger compacts are taking a hit from the turbo, AWD cars. This can be seen with the decline of cars like the Eclipse, RSX, and Celica.

But what is thus far missing from the conversation is the fact that Honda is now the king of minivans, they have the hottest selling 30-40K premium sport sedan, the S2000 still makes waves, the CR-V is selling strong, the Pilot is selling strong, the MDX was a huge hit.

Have the sporty el-cheapo cars like the Civic Si taken a hit? Are they a bit neglected? Sure. I think so. But if we're talking about the company as a whole, Honda is doing better now than they ever have before.

robertsmx

It may be possible for Honda to offer 200 HP Civic with (serious) sport tuning but with decent list of standard features for $20K or less. But to do so, they may have to do it in sedan or coupe form (i.e. not having to import the HB from Europe).

In the base trims, fuel economy and low emissions have to be a priority. So, while we can hope for 140 HP or so, the reality is, fuel economy either needs to stay where they are or improve. Honda has proven that both are possible, but then, given that the current Civic already sets a high benchmark, the same may not be easy.

andre1969

the Accord and Camry didn't make it into the top selling spots until the re-skin of the first-gen Taurus started wearing a little thin, in the early 90's. And then when Ford went overly oval in '96, that ensured that the Accord and Camry would be the sole contenders for #1.

Back in the 80's though, the #1 spot was usually occupied by a Ford or GM product. While the imports had a steady rise in the 70's and 80's, they had to literally come from nowhere, so it was a long, long time before they were able to offer a top selling car. In fact, in 1985, only one Japanese model was in the top 10 selling car nameplates in the U.S. That was the Nissan Sentra. In contrast, Ford had the Tempo and Escort, while GM had the Caprice/Impala, Cavalier, Celebrity, Cutlass Ciera, Cutlass Supreme, Delta 88, and Century. It really was GM's world back then, although that world was about to change, very quickly.

robertsmx

I believe Accord was the top seller (overall sales) for couple of years (1989-90?). Does that mean Honda’s struggle started in 1991? ;-)

Back in 1990…
Honda Accord: 2.2/125-130 HP
Toyota Camry: 2.0/115 HP, 2.5/156 HP
Ford Taurus: 3.0/140-220 HP
Mazda 626: 2.2/110-145 HP
Nissan Stanza: 2.4/138 HP

And only once since then. I’m not sure about last couple of years, but discarding fleet sales (i.e. counting only sales by individuals), Accord has been the best selling car in America for over a decade. I’m sure a bump by 10% towards fleet sale would shoot it past Camry in overall sales, but production capacity and need may not warrant it.

talon95

"I’m sure a bump by 10% towards fleet sale would shoot it past Camry in overall sales, but production capacity and need may not warrant it."

And that's also part of the reason why the Accord's is so outstanding on the depreciation front... fleet sales are low profit and dilute the marketplace with lots of cheap versions of the car. Since the cars are sold cheap, they command low prices as trades or outright sales (as used).

Although even the ~10% that Toyota sells is hardly exceptional as a percentage of total sales... according to Automotive News, roughly 65% of Taurus sales in 2003 were fleet sales. A good friend who sold Fords until recently backed this up... the Taurus is practically a non-entity when it comes to retail sales.

nippononly

they have thrown, what, one commercial at the Taurus in the last five years? You never see advertising for it. It is almost as if they consciously gave up on it back in the late 90s.

I was Honda shopping this week: two different dealers, three different salesmen. ALL of them were talking up the fact that Honda has the best (slowest) depreciation of any competing make, especially because Honda does not sell to fleets. It was almost like three parrots trained to recite the same speech.

so andre, Malibu (or was it the Corsica or something like that back in the 80s?) never held the number one spot in the 80s? It is not like there are only three contenders here...

gee: got tired of the disputes over the powertrains for the next Civic, eh?! :-P
Can't say as I blame you too much. And nobody ever brought up the fact that adding standard content, eliminating the excessive hard interior plastics, and building them glitch-free and up to usual Honda standards could also reinvigorate sales. I am a big proponent of them bringing the five-door hatch here to give proper competition to the Matrix/Vibe twins.

As to Honda's run running out, they will need to worry when they no longer have a model in any segment that has been voted best in its class by both consumer and enthusiast mags. This is already the case for some other carmakers, but not for Honda, where Accord is a consistent award-winner (10 years plus) on both sides, as is Odyssey, and also Pilot. And Element continues to beat Honda's sales projections, while CRV continues to match them in its (fourth?) year.

robertsmx

I just learnt that Honda had a double-digit gain (17.7% overall, 19.2% increase in car and light truck) in sales (Japanese market) in July. A flurry of new products can certainly help.

andre1969

well once the Taurus came out, it was pretty much game over for GM. I forget what car was #1 in 1986, but that year I think the Celebrity sold about 400,000 units, while the Taurus was maybe in the mid 200K range? But the Taurus really took off for 1987, and GM never came close to it in immediate competition, until this year, where the Impala is finally selling close to Taurus figures.

The Chevy Corsica was a hot seller for a few years, but I don't know if it ever came close to toppling the Taurus. All of GM's former heavy hitters, however, faded from glory. The Cutlass Supreme was #4 in 1984, #9 in '85, and by 1987 was down to about 112,000 units. The Century dropped from around 260,000 units in 1985, down to about 180,000 units by 1987, and finished out the rest of the 80's and 90's (until being replaced by the W-body Century for '97) selling around 90-120,000 units annually. Downsizing to FWD ensured that the Delta 88 would never see the Top Ten again. The Cutlass Ciera remained a strong seller throughout the 80's, but wasn't nearly as strong a seller as the Taurus. And the Caprice saw sales gradually taper off, selling consistently, but in fewer numbers each year.

One smash hit that GM did have in the late 80's was the Pontiac Grand Am, but it still wasn't in the same league as the Taurus. Nothing Chrysler has offered since the Aries or Reliant K-car has approached 250,000 in sales, let alone the 400K that a Camry or Accord can pull down, or that a Taurus could in its heyday.

As far as sales go, the one car Chevy has been able to count on for all these years is one that's been the whipping boy for mediocrity for almost as long...the Chevy Cavalier!

nippononly

"(17.7% overall, 19.2% increase in car and light truck"
I guess poor sales of Asimo the Robot dragged down the overall, eh?! Is his name Asimo? I forget.

andre: GM just has its sales spread out over too many brands to ever grab the number one sales spot by nameplate, I think. Corsica, Celebrity, Caprice, I knew it was one of those 'C' names! But with Pontiac and Buick pulling sales away from the Chevys, no one nameplate will ever dominate the other big brands. If you took the strict rebadges today and added all their sales together, Camry and Accord might suddenly have a new contender for the title, or maybe they would be swept away on a GM wave! Will the Buick LaCrosse be strictly a rebadge of something else, or will it be unique? What about the new Grand Prix?

My faith in Accord is firmly renewed this week after helping friends buy a 4-cyl EX. This car blows Camry away unless you need a automotive pillow at the expense of all other considerations. Of course, Accord also costs more than Camry in real-world pricing for comparably equipped cars. Two years into the model cycle, Accord is by far the best drive among the Camry, Sonata, Accord, and Malibu (4-cyl for the Toyota/Honda, 6-cyl for the Hyundai/Chevy). We did not look at a Taurus. I insisted they try the Malibu even though they had relatives and friends with Chevy horror stories and insisted they would not buy the car even if they liked it more. After driving the Malibu I agreed with them, however, that the Accord was a much better package than the Malibu in all the little details, and also had a quieter ride, better ride control, and a smoother quieter engine.

I think Accord is on top of its game even if sales were slower this year than Honda would have liked. For '05, all trims of the Accord will have side airbags and front and rear side curtains. Even the $16K DX! Not one to sit on its laurels, is Honda...

boaz47

on this subject. It seems as if some have said Honda's success at becoming the number two seller in Japan was not due to Honda's efforts but to Nissan's failures? So then once Nissan got back in the game Honda was doomed to fall to third again? Second we are saying that Toyota has manipulated the sales of the Camry by fleet sales, the only way I buy my vehicles is by fleet by the way, but Honda is willing to shirk the goal of making profits by not selling to fleets? And Honda can be the king of mini-van without selling more mini vans than everyone else?

At least we seem to agree they have vacated the enthusiasts market for a more mainstream approach which is fine. But if you don't have to be number one in sales or number one in performance to be the leader how do we judge Honda's position? Honda advertises its racing heritage on Speed all the time. But one has to wonder where that has gone?

anonymousposts

Buying a car from a fleet manager at a dealership and a company selling a "fleet" of cars to rental companies are two different occurrences. Fleet sales are hardly profitable as the rental companies get significant discounts on the cars. If a company wants an Accord as a fleet car they must buy it from a dealer like anyone else.

Honda may not sell more minivans than anyone else but they are selling all they can build without resorting to the above-mentioned fleet sales like Ford and Daimler Chrysler.

Honda's racing heritage has gone nowhere ...

http://racing.honda.com/press/detail.aspx?id=2004081568917

Their market entries are usually at the head of the class in performance numbers as is the case with the Odyssey, Accord, Pilot, and S2000. The upcoming Odyssey and RL appear to be able to uphold this trend.

The Civic is not a race car. However, it is still competitive with the class entries in it's price range. If the .5 second difference between the Accord and the 6 is no big deal then why is the .5 second difference between the 3s and the Civic EX manual?

newcar31

"If the .5 second difference between the Accord and the 6 is no big deal then why is the .5 second difference between the 3s and the Civic EX manual?"

Where was there a comparison test with a Civic EX manual and a Mazda3s manual? I don't remember seeing one, and I read all the mags.

And that's .4 seconds BTW.

newcar31

What's the deal with you guys bringing Mazda up?

You've compared the Mazda 2.3L to the 98-02 Accord 2.3L. You call the Accord 2.3L "deliciously peaky" while complaining about lack of low end in the Mazda 2.3L?

anonymousposts

If you take the best published time for the Mazda3 which is 7.4 an the best published time for the Civic EX manual which is 7.9 you have a .5 second difference. There are no direct comparisons so it's fair to take the best times for each.

newcar31

"If you take the best published time for the Mazda3 which is 7.4 an the best published time for the Civic EX manual which is 7.9 you have a .5 second difference."

I know that number is for the 3s hatch. Is the Civic # for the coupe?

newcar31

"There are no direct comparisons so it's fair to take the best times for each."

Fair?

It's the only thing you can do, it's just not the most accurate.

anonymousposts

The 2.3 used in the 98-02 Accord wasn't slow from the line BUT the cam switch over when you hit VTEC made the engine scream like a child who has been denied Mcdonalds.

The 2.3L in the 6 isn't as smooth, nor is their the second personality effect you had in the Honda 2.3, and the manual transmission isn't quite as smooth.

In short, the difference between the Accord 2.3 and the 6 2.3 is like the difference between store brand vanilla ice cream and Breyers. The store brand vanilla ice cream is good but Breyers just goes down a little smoother and has a little more flavor.

grbeck

boaz: "Second we are saying that Toyota has manipulated the sales of the Camry by fleet sales, the only way I buy my vehicles is by fleet by the way, but Honda is willing to shirk the goal of making profits by not selling to fleets?"

Honda wants to MAINTAIN its profits by not selling to fleet customers. In the long run, heavy reliance on fleet sales to keep the plants running can result in a poor public image and less demand from retail customers.

Ford is trying to take the same route, as William Clay Ford, Jr., has stated that his goal is to improve profitability, even if it means accepting a smaller share of the market. Ford has been trying to reduce its reliance on fleet sales.

boaz47

In 2000 Honda was rated by JD powers ahead of Buick, Lincoln and Cadillac in dependability. Would we say that was a fair rating? Would we mostly agree? At the time I wouldn't say any in these forums would disagree with that assessment. However the same people same company rates Honda in 2004 behind Buick Lincoln and Cadillac in "dependability". Does this or does this not indicate a slide? If it doesn't what did it tell us in 2000? Three domestics now are rated more dependable than Honda by Name plate so what does that tell us about Honda? Could it be possible that Honda has stalled at least? As enthusiasts did any of us expect Honda to be rated below those three? Did any of us ever expect that Subaru and Dodge Neon would make cars that were faster on the street than anything Honda gave to the public?

Many have reasoned that these trends are not indicative of anything towards Honda. Maybe they aren't but there are some indicators that should cause us to reflect.

gee35coupe

That's still some heady company for a small company like Honda. And still better than like-level companies like Subaru and Nissan. I know I wouldn't mind coming in behind companies whose lowest price cars cost more than my most expensive one.

Dodge has been building the powerful-engine-in-a-small-economy-car combination since at least the late 80's. The Charger and Shelby GLH come to mind. Mazda built the 323 GTX, Subaru had the wierd looking XT and many Turbo variants of thier cars that were pretty quick. The Mirage Turbo and Cordia Turbo by Mitsubishi were plenty faster than the SI. If you were paying attention back in the late 80's and early 90's there have been several pocket rockets that have come and gone. Most importantly, the SI wasn't the fastest. But as the current Civic, it was one of the most well-rounded ones. Heck, the first SI had a beam axle rear suspension. Maybe we should reflect on the reality of the situation.

I've never complained about the peakiness of the mazda engine in the 6. I love the 6. It ain't no Accord of course. But the 6 is a very nice car. A recent post..gee35coupe "Mazda6 Sedan" Aug 6, 2004 1:39pm

As the owner if countless early Hondas, I have no problem with engines making power higher in the rev range. I know where the clutch and shifter are located and I will not hesitate to use them.

manbil7

I find all of this a bit amusing. Bickering over 0-60 times of a third of a second (which incidentally can be caused by variables like individual tire efficiency or internal driveline drag for all I care).

No -- I don't work for Honda. Just a longtime satisfied customer.

My first Honda was a 1979 CVCC civic hatchback. At the time -- to a new high-school graduate -- this was a car of your dreams. The fit and finish was awesome for it's price level.

I remember -- in some of the early Civics and Accords -- you had a solidness of feel (especially in the manual gearboxes) as well as tiny innovative touches (e.g. oil change indicators) that were simply unavailable in roughshod Mazdas of the day. To say nothing of the taste and thoughtfulness of interior materials.

Throughout the 80's, Mazdas (especially the lower end) had horrible bodywork and poor interiors.

Could the Mazda management (Toyo Kogyo) have changed their mindset ? Sure.

But they didn't because it was a cost decision. Mazdas had the worst reliability of all Japanese cars in the 70's and the 80's as well -- compared to Honda which was hovering near the top.

Only in the last decade have we seen Mazda improve quality but in lots of other countries (including Asia) some people still shy away from Mazdas because of their tarnished reputation.

An informed car buyer in Asia most definitely does not choose a Mazda over a Honda. A Mazda 2 therefore costs a whole lot less in Hong Kong or Oz than a comparable Honda Fit/Jazz. Look at the Mazda 2 here,

http://www.mazda.com.au/articles/images/m2_wallpaper05_1024.jpg

And look at the award-winning Honda Jazz,

http://www.honda.co.uk/newcars/images/gallery/1024_10408_10729_09- .jpg

http://www.honda.co.uk/cars/newcars/gallery.jsp?yearId=2004&m- odelId=10408&bodyId=10729&bodyDescription=5%20door&en- gineId=&badgeId=&transmissionId=&colourId=&colour- AllocationId=&wheelPartNo=

Think of what philosophies drove the design -- not just who produced it (which is still superior).

Same thing with the MPV/Odyssey.

This is the low end. I could go on and on and compare the Millennia to the Acura RL as well. But I won't.

In Mazda's defense I can say however they have made huge strides in 'perceptible' quality lately -- thanks to no small amount -- from economical and uniform quality parts suppliers in Korea and China. But that has happened to the car industry in general -- not just Mazda. Hyundai (nee KIA) has made huge strides too. GM/Ford sources all sorts of parts from China as well. Does that make them a credible competition to a Honda. I wouldn't think so.

In any case -- my two cents are -- that a car is more than the sum of its Chinese parts. It is a philosophy -- of how the interior should greet its driver, how the controls fall into place, how the textures greet all of your senses. Kind of how the BMW and Mercedes feel -- except the unreliable part of it. How the engine purrs, revs and reassures you. That is the larger Honda philosophy. It's not all psychological mumbo-jumbo.

The number of Honda innovations in Motorcycles alone outnumber by far anything from Toyo Kogyo (Mazda's parent Company). Not to speak of F1 racing innovations (where V-Tec came from) and the lowered double-wishbone civic suspension in the mid-80's -- to name just a few. There is technically no comparison.

Would I pay a few dollars more for Honda for what I get ? Sure I would.

If you're a price buyer -- you can ignore some of these qualities, but not all. And maybe buy Mazdas and Hyundais.

But if you're like me -- you'll keep buying Honda's and Acuras just for 'feel' and 'trust'. They haven't let me down -- yet.

newcar31

I've driven the Accord with the 2.3L and I don't agree with you.

The engines feel very similar except the Mazda 2.3L has more induction noise (and I like that).

newcar31

how did this turn into Mazda vs. Honda?

newcar31

"If you're a price buyer -- you can ignore some of these qualities, but not all. And maybe buy Mazdas and Hyundais."

Yeah, price is the only reason why one might buy a Mazda. Mazda3 is about the cheapest car you can get.

"But if you're like me -- you'll keep buying Honda's and Acuras just for 'feel' and 'trust'. They haven't let me down -- yet."

If we're like you? How? You're smart? If we were smart, we'd get a Honda?

newcar31

"An informed car buyer in Asia most definitely does not choose a Mazda over a Honda."

In Asia? What about in the US?

Do all "informed car buyers" in the US choose Honda over Mazda?

Sounds like you're saying that people are idiots if they don't buy a Honda.

npaladin2000

"Sounds like you're saying people are idiots if they don't buy a Honda."

That's the way many Honda owners think, it seems. But Honda owners will be happy to know that Mazda owners feel the same way in reverse.

There are actually quite a few similarities between Honda and Mazda, the biggest of which is an extremely devoted following.

manbil7

Being smart is part of it but I'm not boasting that smartness is a pre-requisite ;-)

But if you're thinking of intangible 'soft' qualities -- yes Hondas have them. Together with reliability.

Lately Hondas have become specialized (they don't compete in all car segments).

This argument is not about Mazda vs. Honda.

It's about differentiating Honda products and their qualities from other marques/brands. Even Japanese products like Mazda.

Honda is so far a profitable company (lately because of careful product positioning) and probably won't become a part of larger companies.

Mazda and Volvo are parts of Ford.

Saab is part of GM. Chrysler is a part of Daimler(MBZ).

Nissan is a part of Renault.

Most of these companies had to divest because of loss of profit which in turn may be related to poor sales, lack of innovation, unreliable products etc.

anonymousposts

The 6 just doesn't have that "fluid" feel of the Accord. The 6 has a nice suspension, the engine is OK, transmission is pretty good, and the interior could be worse. However, the Accord's parts just seem to work together better than those in 6.

boaz47

I have asked if falling behind Nissan in Japan was a sign that Honda is slowing down and the answer is, "no Honda never should have been a better seller than Nissan in the first place so that doesn't matter." When asked if falling out of first place in the Sedan market was a sign of Honda slowing down and the answer is, "no Honda wasn't in first place all that long so it doesn't matter." when questioned about the complaints the car magazines are now leveling at the Civic and its latest build quality the answer seems to be,"it doesn't matter because they are still better than Mazda."

There was a time when the Civic SI was considered the top of the class in Pocket rockets. That is no longer the case. There was a time the Accord was considered the top of the class in Sedans. They have lost that place to Camry. There was a time when Honda was rated above all of the domestics in dependability. Notice I didn't say Initial quality I said dependability. But it seems as if falling behind Buick doesn't matter as well.

What I guess people are saying is Honda should just keep doing what they are doing because they don't need to listen to enthusiasts or even consumer surveys. As long as Honda is doing better than Mazda they must be doing fine? I wonder if we would give GM the same advice? Or if we would be willing cut the number one auto maker that much slack?

To recap. Honda is no longer a better seller in Japan than Nissan. Nothing to worry about. Honda is no longer the best selling Sedan in the US. Nothing to worry about. Honda is not one of the top pocket rockets out of the Box. Nothing to worry about. Honda is no longer rated as dependable as three domestic products, Two from GM and one from Ford. Nothing to worry about? So when should Honda take a look at itself?

newcar31

"Being smart is part of it but I'm not boasting that smartness is a pre-requisite ;-)"

Really? And you think Honda invented variable valve timing and wishbone suspension.

"Mazda and Volvo are parts of Ford.

Saab is part of GM. Chrysler is a part of Daimler(MBZ).

Nissan is a part of Renault."

WOW!

I didn't know that.

gee35coupe

Honda isn't the second best to Nissan in Japan. Okay, but Honda makes most of it's money in the U.S. so this market is more inpoprtant. Additionally they have been growing in Europe. So as long as they continue to grow in the U.S. the "run" in doing fine. How's that?

The Accord is still the highest selling car to individuals and commands the highest residual than any other car. The Civic is the same in small cars. In fact the Pilot, Ody, Tl, TSX are very well respected vehicles here in the U.S. The "run" seems to be fine.

Honda isn't rated as dependable as three luxury tier domestic products. But where do the rank among the mid-level domestics and imports that they compete with? Why not compare a Civic to a STS? It's the same comparison.

Honda should take a look at itself when it's sales show a marked decrease in growth, the quality shows a market decrease its historic excellence, and when the market starts turning away from them in droves. Right now Honda is the most researched brand on any web site. They are a media darling, and they are aout to introduce several important products in the near future. Honda's "run" is fine.

What's the point of post 2432. If you have nothing to say.......

varmint

This is starting to sound like two kids in a playschool yard.

"I dare you to step over this line"

"Okay, now this line..."

"Now this line..."

We started with sales in Japan, then sales in sedans, then quality rankings... Each time they are addressed, another line is drawn in the sand.

First of all, the argument for the Accord is what they call a straw man. You've made a claim, that was never true in the first place, and managed to shoot it down. Bravo.

The same could be said of the comparison between Honda and Nissan in Japan. Nissan has lead Honda in sales for something like 20 years. But you've managed to focus on the 3 years when Nissan was weakest.

And, BTW, Nissan took the lead back with a very tiny margin at a time when Honda was lacking new product. In short, a weak moment for Honda. Now that Honda is bringing out new models, their sales are improving. If next week's news reports that Honda has earned 2nd place once more, will you be claiming that Nissan has lost their mojo?

The claim regarding JD Powers is probably your most convincing. Yes, it's true that Honda has slipped in their "ranking". (Though according to all measures, Honda (and others) are more reliable now than they were in the past. The industry average keeps going up.) So, Honda's ranking is not at the top. Incomplete, but true.

Your other measure seems to be how well one of Honda's several sporty cars seems to be selling. The Si is one car from a whole fleet.

So, while both the dependability ranking and micro-market of the Si might be true claims, they hardly equal the impressive gains Honda has made in other areas.

As has been mentioned before, Honda now sells the most highly rated minivan on the market. Five years ago, they had no discernible presence in the minivan market. The TL is now the best selling car in its class. Five years ago, it was an also-ran. The S2000 is still winning comparisons against brand new competitors. Five years ago, Honda was MIA from this segment. The CR-V, Pilot, MDX, and even the Element are some of the most respected and popular SUVs in our market. Eight years ago, Honda borrowed trucks from Izusu.

You're throwing Cindy Crawford out of the bed because she has a mole on her cheek. Please look at the bigger picture.

jgriff

On the surface Honda’s (& Acura) build quality appears to be good, maybe even better than in the past. I think that they have either cut corners or made some engineering errors when trying to design build transmissions to match their great engines.

I switched from ’01-Acura CL to ‘03-Mazda-6 (2.3), wanted the 6cyl. but could not really justified the extra dollars. The 6 was 8k cheaper than my CL, and has had fewer glitches in my 15k miles over 15 months. Both were first year models, both have had some 1st year issues. After 3-years the CL transmission almost left me stranded, I just happen to be in town when 2-3 gear when south.

At one time, I was thinking of getting a Pilot, but I just don’t believe they’ve got the tranny issues totally whipped. I could be wrong, but I can’t bring myself to chance another $30k.

One problem I have with Hondas & Acuras styling, is that the front & rear ends all look very similar, too much so. I can’t count the number of times people asked about my Honda coupe. The Element is the only vehicle that looks way different than the rest of the line-up. To me, it gets pretty hard to justified spend several grand extra for the Acura badge, and higher service fees, insurance, taxes etc. etc.

pzev

"For '05, all trims of the Accord will have side airbags and front and rear side curtains. Even the $16K DX! Not one to sit on its laurels, is Honda..."

Too bad they had airbag failures in crash tests. Honda will probably be able to keep the consumer thinking they're at the top of their game but the chinks in the armor are starting to show. No car company is perfect but it's getting to the point Honda doesn't even seem like anything special as far as "quality" goes.

npaladin2000

"For '05, all trims of the Accord will have side airbags and front and rear side curtains. Even the $16K DX! Not one to sit on its laurels, is Honda..."

Airbags..nice. Should help you live through those crashes you can't avoid because you can't get ABS on any model but the EX. Of course, then you'll have to buy another car, but Honda's happy about that so long as oyu buy a Honda, right?

robertsmx

ABS has been standard in all Accord trims since 2003. Now side airbags and side curtain airbags also become standard in every trim.

You must be talking about Civic. That car is supposed to have everything standard in all trims, probably with the redesign next year.

gee35coupe

Instead of throwing stones....How about a better choice. Gonna buy a Camry? Those the only two choices you have that scored a "good" in the side crash tests. And the Accord is otherwise still onr of the safest cars around. Anyone in the segment doing better?

It's easy to point out flaws but it gets much harder when you have to find someone who is producing a car that offers anything near the Accord at similar prices.

And the airbag problem looks to be a supplier issue, not a Honda design defect.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/recalls04/honda_airbag.html
Honda doesn't make the airbags. These folk do.
http://www.autoliv.com/

robertsmx

There was a time the Accord was considered the top of the class in Sedans. They have lost that place to Camry

Since we seem to be focusing on select cars/models, let us use your statement to get to the point.

Accord was launched in 1976, and became the success that it is now since the late 1980s. Over 15-16 years (1988 thru 2004), which specific period(s) are you pointing at?

anonymousposts

I love my Accord. I really don't care if it is marginally less reliable (which I don't think it is) than a 1990 Accord. Fact is, even a less reliable Honda still seems to be at the top of the reliability class.

You can't accuse the Accord of not being competitive in it's class. It has the best safety, 2 of the more powerful and efficient engines in the class, and excellent features for the price.

pzev

So what? Tell that to the person who gets t-boned and the airbag doesn't work like it's suppose to. And it's funny how you pass the blame on to anyone you can except Honda. The Camry had the same problem and of course all the Toyota fanboys were quick to point out that it's a supplier issue. People pay good money for their car and expect this stuff to work, stop making excuses.

And I'm sure if Honda was getting their transmissions from other sources you would be quick to point that out. But since that's not the case you jump to plan B and say how only 1 in a million will have the problem. Again tell that to the person who's transmission fails at highway speeds or leaves them stranded in the middle of nowhere. Honda is lucky to have such blind loyalty from its customers. Honda is more reliable than Ford and Mitsubishi. Now there's something to be proud of.

gee35coupe

I provided a link to show what the cause of the airbag failures was. They found that the bags were ripped and never fully inflated. That's not my explanation, it was the one released to the press. You have any other information on the subject? I'm not familiar with the Camry situation, but I do know in recent times Ford fired Firestone for tire failures, and GMC fired thier sliding window supplier for leaky windows. Most importantly it has been shown that Accords score a "good" in crash test with them. Obviously the airbags worked in that test. And again, instead of naming faults, how about a model that you can buy that's all-around better than the Accord?

By the way Hyundai was better in initial quality than darn near anyone. Gonna buy one? If Ford is so great, may I interest you in a Taurus of maybe even a Galant then. Once again, focusing on one aspect is misleading. That's a poor argument.

Let's see here...This could go on for days.
Accord vs....
Mazda6. It handles better and has 6/manual combo
Altima. Faster and also has 6/man combo
Galant. Cheaper
Taurus. Cheaper
Camry. Smoother ride and some like the interior

Blah blah blah...Every car concentrated on something to set them apart from the crowd. But what sets the Accord apart is that it seems to have been built to be near the best at everything. It's faster than most, handles as well as most, is safer than most, gets better gas mileage than most, is more dependable than most, less depreciation than most, and in my opinion it has a classier look than most. So like I said, you seem to be great at calling out faults, how about another automotive option out there that covers the whole spectrum as well as the Accord.

pzev

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/recalls04/toyota_camry.html

Well it depends what's important to the customer. The Accord may be pretty good overall but for some a cheaper price, better brakes, airbags that work, better handling, decent looks/wheels, etc. matter more than resale value and a higher percentage chance at having a reliable car. Slap a Ford badge on it and you guys would be heading for the hills.

The number of 2004 Civics I've seen is proof positive people are buying the Honda name and not what is the better car. I'll get flamed for saying it but the Civic wasn't much of a value right out of the gate for the 2001 model year, much less now. And with the 14" steel wheels it looks like a cheap tin can. The Accord steel wheels are also terrible and go well with the terrible taillights.

gee35coupe

Design was fine. If Ford built a car that matched the overall abilities of the Accord, I would take a look. So far they haven't.

The Civic is still one of the best small cars out there. Great crash tests, great economy, class leading resales, they even improved it's looks on the recent refresh. Luckily a safe tin-can with the Honda logo sells. Makes you wonder what the competition would have to build to compete huh?

boaz47

I think we have reached that point where nothing will change and all sides of the debate have been presented. I have been around long enough to have read the glowing reports of Honda's success when it became the number two selling vehicle in Japan. I agree it was quite and accomplishment and wondered at the time if Nissan wasn't slipping. I remember when the Accord was the number one selling Sedan in the US. I once again applauded the accomplishment as quite a success for a small company. I remember when the Civic was the number one pocket rocket to have for the young enthusiast. Once again I read with interest the tuner magazines as the almost drooled over the Si and the CRX. I like the S2000 and believe it is a fine car.

The difference is how we look at it. In the way I look at it Honda was once the best choice in Compact Sports sedans and coupes for the enthusiast. That no longer seems to be the case. I believe that Honda "earned" second place in Japanese car sales. I also believe Nissan earned the title back. I believe that Honda earned the position of best selling Sedan when they had it and that at one time they were more dependable then Buick. Once again that has changed in the eyes of the people that study such information.

That is simply my position. Your position seems to be that while these things are true it doesn't matter. Honda is a small company so it should never have been number two in Japan in the first place. Losing that position simply doesn't matter. Toyota is a bigger company so taking back first place in sedan sales is only natural, Honda could do nothing to stop it. Once again it simply doesn't matter. Buick, Cadillac, and Lincoln should be more dependable than Honda so when Honda was rated higher than the the two GM and one Ford product it wasn't Honda's dependability that put them there it was Buick, Cadillac and Lincoln's failure. So falling behind those three is only natural so Honda being ahead of them in 2000 and behind in 2004 simply doesn't matter.

There are others that indicate that Honda only has to be the best average vehicle to stay true to its core. And I agree Honda doesn't seem to do anything at the bottom of the pack. They are entitled to their opinion as well.

We will simply ride this merry-go-round for as long as we type at this point. I know it is hard to stay on top once you get there. I agree Honda hasn't fallen on its face. But I contend it isn't as dominate as it once was based on the reasons I have posted.

gee35coupe

Everything has two sides. The truth is in there somewhere. But if you look at the data itself and not the rankings, Honda seems to be doing just fine.

varmint

Yep, that's how I judge a car company. Everybody knows that steel wheels and taillights are the heart and soul of automotive excellence.

npaladin2000

"Makes you wonder what the competition would have to build to compete huh?"

It's called the Focus. Also known as the Mazda3.