Has Honda's run - run out?

robertsmx

You focused on specifics, including Accord when compared to Camry over the years, so I assumed you knew something I didn’t. Anyway, if you want to talk on overall success level, we can do that too! Just continue whatever discussion you start.

Let us look at the entry-level sport compact market. I wouldn’t say that Honda’s is not ignoring this segment, especially with demise of CRX (that was back in 1992), and a half hearted approach to the 2002 Civic Si. But, that is it!

Back in the mid-90s, people were saying the same about Honda’s focus in light truck market. Remember, this was also the time when most Japanese companies were struggling due to sagging economy. Honda started out slowly, but surely. After the initial fix involving exchange of vehicles with Isuzu and a half hearted approach to minivan (basically a larger Accord wagon), a few years later, every product that Honda has launched (1997 CR-V, 1999 Odyssey, 2000 MDX, 2002 Pilot and 2003 Element) has been selling at or above sales target. So what if the company didn’t focus on selling 15K units of Civic Si?

The priority had to be diversified lineup. Honda continues to have holes, but the lineup is far more balanced today than it ever was. This was necessary. With limited resources, and without taking a major risk, a small company can do only so much. Putting things into perspective always help. Yes, while we talk about Toyota and Honda in the same sentence a lot, we should not forget that Honda probably wouldn’t exist today if Toyota had not given a contract to Mr. Soichiro Honda in the mid-40s to supply bushings for its trucks. Humble beginnings, but not so humble present.

gee35coupe

by factory Hondas. The original SI had 91 hp and a beam axle.

Even 1989, the heyday of pocket rockets the Civic Si had 108 hp. Far from some of the contemporaries like the 323 GTX and Shelby GLH Turbo.
http://www.roadraceengineering.com/323BuyersGuide.htm
http://www.xmission.com/~dempsey/shelby/sheldod2.htm
Still even you guys admit it was a classic even though it didn't have eye popping numbers. Must be that durn Honda badge influencing even the Honda haters.

driftracer

4-wheel independent suspension, 4-wheel discs, manual, and the MR-2 engine - what a kick.

gee35coupe

And they were awesome cars. No one makes that kind of car anymore. But then again a loaded one with EVERYTHING could get close to $20k even in 1987. That car was special. The seats with everyting adjustable along with the soft touch velour on everything...I could go on for days.

birdman579

The Civic is no longer the best small car out there, the new champion is the Mazda3. Every review from Car & Driver to Consumer Reports rates the 3 as the best small car. Honda used to have the fuel economy race won, Consumer Reports rates the 3 as the car with the best fuel economy of any car ever tested with a gasoline engine. Volvo was involved in the chassis work so the safety is outstanding, not to mention 8 airbags are available on all models. I've had several friends and myself shop for a small car recently and most were comparing the 3 to the Civic. The 3 is by far the winner. Honda dealers are giving Civics away because of the 3, one Honda dealer said, "the 3 is killing us." If you don't believe me, go drive both of these cars back-to-back and you'll never buy a Civic. The only other question mark is reliability, the previous 3, the Protege, was class leading in reliability. Yeah, even better than the famed Civic, check Consumer Reports.

gee35coupe

Consumer Reports must have been driving the cars differently then. The EPA rates the Civic EX better than the Mazda3. Not to mention the Civic HX does even better. What models have they tested?
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2004/honda/civic/100344075/specs.html?- tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Honda*

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2004/mazda/mazda3/100364212/specs.html- ?tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Mazda*

The Civic has been rated a pretty durn safe car too. Even without the aid of the available air bags. 5 stars on front impact vs. 4 stars for the Mazda3.

I don't see how the 3 can be "killing" the Civic when the 3 isn't selling much better than the Protege. In fact they sold fewer Mazda3's in July.
http://media.ford.com/mazda/article_display.cfm?article_id=18915
http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2001?mid=2004080349485&mime=asc

So far it looks like the Mazda3 is just like the Mazda6. It's a great handling car that people just ignore. The Corolla, 300C, and Scion tC all prove that people will buy even a new product if they like it. The Corolla doubled it's numbers on the redesign, and they can't build enough 300C's or tC's.

carlisimo

I personally love the 3, but it's quality ratings are pretty poor (just look at the edmunds review, which loves everything else about it).

What does remain great about the Civic is that you can get in and drive right away. I hardly ever drive a Civic (or any Honda) but when I do, all the buttons are in the first places I look for them and I feel just right in the driver's seat.

motownusa

Mazda was never considered a worthy competitor against Toyota or Honda. They still remain the industry benchmark in terms of quality and reliability. The "fun to drive" factor in Mazda comes at the expense of a stiff, choppy uncomfortable ride. The 3 is basically a rebadged Ford Focus with some engine tweak.

npaladin2000

HEAVY engine tweaks...new valvetrain and headers, new intake, I think the exhaust is different too. Plus the 2.3 engine block is now only available on the Focus ST, whereas with the 3 you can get it on a hatch. AND the interior is COMPLETELY different...PLUS no Focus is available with Nav and Xenon headlights. And incidentally, the ride with 15 inch wheels is pretty good...it gets harder as you go up in wheel size up to 17 of course, but I find even the 17s to have a wonderful balance between sharp handling and ride comfort. As one mag put it: "Firm, but never harsh."

As to Consumer Reports, they tested the Mazda3i. And their statement was that it got the best mileage of any conventionally powered gasoline vehicle they've tested, thereby excluding diesels and hybrids. That means Mazda's 2.0l 148 HP engine got better mileage than Honda's 1.7l 127 HP engine as well as Toyota's 1.8l 130 HP engine, just to make things clear. And since they use the same testing method on each car, the results are repeatable, and therefore valid, no matter how much you might dislike CR. And we all know the EPA's mileage guesstimation formula has nothing to do with the real world, especially since it hasn't been updated in many years. How often do you hit EPA in the real world, hmm?

It's true that the 3 has made Honda quite afraid. Before it came out, how often would you see the lease deals you're seeing on Civics this past year? They used to sell themselves pretty much. Now not only are they advertising them quite a bit more, they're advertising them with DISCOUNTS. Since when does the best small/economy car out there need discounts and lease deals to sell, hmm? Must not be the best anymore.

What you Honda faithful have to realize is that IT'S OK TO NOT BE THE BEST ANYMORE! The crown has passed. That just means Honda has to put out a much better car to try and regain that mantle. You guys saying you don't want a "much better car" coming out of Honda? Competition is a GOOD thing, especially for us car drivers. Be HAPPY someone can finally challenge Honda, because ALL of us will benefit with better cars to buy!

Incidentally, Edmunds currently has TMV for the Civic EX listed at almost invoice without factoring in factory-to-dealer cash, whigh is currently $400. The Mazda3 is TMV-ing (Ooh, a new verb!) $300 short of MSRP, which is about $1200 over invoice.

andre1969

"Best small car", is really a subjective thing. Just because some magazine says it scored the best in all their tests, doesn't mean it's going to be the best choice for everybody out there. We're all different, and have different needs and wants in a vehicle. So IMO, nobody can really say the Civic is the "Best small car". For instance, I can't even fit comfortably in a Civic. It might be a reliable, fuel efficient little car, but if I don't fit in it, it's useless to me. If I were shopping for a car in this class, the top contenders would probably be a Corolla/Matrix, Mazda3, or, believe it or not, a Neon!

so the bottom line is...the best small car out there is...the one that suits your needs the best. Just don't expect it to be the best car for everybody else.

talon95

"Since when does the best small/economy car out there need discounts and lease deals to sell, hmm?"

Could it be largely because of the severely depressed automobile market, hmm?

After all, Mazda is already offering 0% or 4.9% financing on the 3. So even the newest of the new, highly touted, very buzzworthy, newly crowned "best small car" needs a little help to stimulate sales.

npaladin2000

The 0% is for 24 months only. The 4.9% if for 60 months. And I got a better rate through my credit union...most credit unions and banks offer a rate under 5%. So basically, those "special offers" are token if anything.

Incidentally, Honda has the same 0% deal...they're also offering 3.9% for 60 months. Guess the Civic needs MORE help? They're also offering cash to dealer applicable anywhere. Mazda only offers a grad rebate, and they've always offerend that. The amounts are $100 away from each other; not a very significant difference. So we're back where we started. Now you know why I didn't bother mentioning financing or rebates in the equation before.

andre1969

and 0.9, 1.9, etc rates were a really nice thing when they first started, back when the cheapest you could probably get otherwise would have been around 7-7.25 at the credit union. But nowadays, my credit union is offering 3.75%, and I'm sure other great rates can be easily found.

anonymousposts

"PLUS no Focus is available with Nav and Xenon headlights"

You also can't get a $22,300 Focus. Or a $22,300 Civic. A manual transmission Mazda3 with the leather, side airbag package, moonroof, and NAV has an invoice price of $20,500. That is severely approaching the territory of the 6/Accord. In fact, if you give up NAV you can get an Accord EX-L for only $1000 more than the 3s with NAV. An Accord with NAV is only $2000 more. For that marginal difference I will take the Accord with more room, better engine, better gas mileage, better safety, and more features.

The "distressed merchandise" Civic has 1.9% for 36, 2.9% for 48, and 3.9% for 60. not significantly lower than the 4.9% offered by Mazda.

talon95

"The 0% is for 24 months only. The 4.9% if for 60 months. And I got a better rate through my credit union...most credit unions and banks offer a rate under 5%. So basically, those "special offers" are token if anything."

Well, you brought up incentives in the first place... if they're not really meaningful, then let's not discuss them at all. Neither company is offering direct to consumer rebates, which is what most people think of when they think "meaningful" automotive incentives. And if Honda is offering better financing rates, I guess since they're meaningless, that doesn't say anything.

There's no real evidence that Civic needs much "help". Regarding the CR ratings, the brand new "state-of-the-art" 3 beat the 4 year old Civic by only the slimmest of margins. Regardless of the age of its design and competitors that are supposedly "scaring" Honda, the Civic is still the top selling car in its class, with YTD sales up 3.5% over last year. The Civic hardly needs sales help when Honda is selling approx. 4 Civics for every Mazda 3 that Mazda is selling.

While it's true that "best-selling" doesn't automatically mean "best", Civic is still among the top-rated cars in its class as well as being the top seller. So rather than being on its deathbed, it shows continued strength in the face of stiffer competition.

But I do agree that stiffer competition is good for everyone. The rumors that are beginning to surface regarding the 2006 Civic redesign suggest a renewed emphasis on handling and steering quality, along with 2.0L i-VTEC engines with 150+ horsepower and class leading fuel economy (for conventional gasoline engines). So this market segment will continue to get more and more interesting.

seminole_kev

..I do agree that the class of the bunch right now is the Mazda 3. Best all around performer, looks nice inside and out, and has the option of a regular sedan or a useful 5-door hatch.

I'd put the Civic, Corolla/Matrix, and Focus a tick below as good cars that aren't quite as well rounded in my opinion. You can't go wrong with buying them, but just that the Mazda 3 is better.

Also, and I may have mentioned this in the past, but this is where Honda's Civic has a potential problem. It used to have the sportier economy car thing nailed down. You wanted a economy car with a little bit of fun, you went Civic. Now that is taken (talking regular models, not Si, SVT, etc..) by the Mazda 3 and Focus. Reliability is still the Corolla's strong suit. So no where does the Civic stand? Well it will still sell pretty well on name recognition, but that will only last so long. The next Civic needs to regain the class lead, and I'm hopeful it will jump back over the Mazda 3....for not too much money ;-)

robertsmx

How often do you hit EPA in the real world, hmm?

Never! I usually do 1-2 mpg better than EPA ratings in both cars that I own (Accord and Civic).

Before it came out, how often would you see the lease deals you're seeing on Civics this past year? They used to sell themselves pretty much.

They still are. But when a model sticks around for 3+ years, marketing push is needed. It is true today, and it was true back in 2000 when I got my Civic. And yes, back then, Focus was “killing it” (as some like to say it). Focus was an instant success and the darling of the media, but where is it now? Civic was never at the top, but that’s one car that consistently stays near the top. And that’s the key. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Civic sales dip a little next year (they are up this year) as Honda prepares for its redesign. Five years between redesigns is a long time especially in a competitive market segment.

pzev

"You also can't get a $22,300 Focus. Or a $22,300 Civic. A manual transmission Mazda3 with the leather, side airbag package, moonroof, and NAV has an invoice price of $20,500. That is severely approaching the territory of the 6/Accord. In fact, if you give up NAV you can get an Accord EX-L for only $1000 more than the 3s with NAV. An Accord with NAV is only $2000 more. For that marginal difference I will take the Accord with more room, better engine, better gas mileage, better safety, and more features."

More twisted facts from the Honda faithful. I'd really like to hear where you get this $2,000 difference from.

Mazda3s + Moonroof/6CD + side airbags/ABS = $18,305

Honda Accord EX Manual w/side air bags = $22,000

Difference is $3695

I intentionally left off the leather version since it has a power seat and heated seats, neither of which the Mazda3 has. Why? Because the Mazda3 is not in the same category as the Accord as you like to make people believe.

These two versions have equipment very close to each other. I guess you enjoy adding Xenons, Navigation systems, etc. to the Mazda3 to make the price look higher. Should we compare TSX MSRP to an LX 4-cyl Accord? Of course not, the equipment is different.

And if the Mazda3 now is in the same class price wise as the Accord based on MSRP pricing, I guess the rental car special known as the Focus is now in the same category as the Accord as well. Look at the Focus pricing and compare to a similarly equipped Mazda3, almost exact same pricing. ONLY when you add the Xenons and Navigation does the price leap frog the Focus. Good luck convincing anyone that the Focus is in the same category as the Accord.

Wait, what's this? A loaded Cavalier tops out at $20,300. Just imagine if it had xenons and a navigation system available. It would now compete with the Accord.

I don't know about you guys but the Mazda3 at $3500 cheaper is the much better buy.

andre1969

one day a few years back when I saw a brand-new Civic sedan in a shopping center parking lot with the MSRP sticker still in the window. It was a current-gen, but I can't remember the year now. Anyway, that sucker had a window sticker of something like $19,000. And it wasn't even leather!

How did the Mazda3 and Focus start getting lumped in with the Accord? The Accord is Mazda6/Taurus territory.

varmint

Well, my wife spent a week with a new Mazda 3. She had 323 before our TL and I had an MX6 before our CR-V. So, we're both familiar with Mazda products, though both were dated vehicles.

Anyway, we both came away quite impressed with the 3. It's zippy. Much better than the Foci that I've driven in the past. Were we shopping small sedans right now, it would be a tough call between the 3 and Civic.

The 3 is definitely more sporty. And it has a nice long list of features. Some things about it bugged me (trunk opening stinks, they've wasted money on stupid radio displays, switchblanks are disguised as buttons...).

But the Civic is refined and comfortable. Everything in the cockpit makes sense and the ride is better than the 3. I have my beefs with the Civic (wish the 2.0L was available in the coupe, it's getting dated, etc.), but it's still a jack of all trades.

I'd probably go with the 3, but my wife still prefers the Civic.

npaladin2000

I think one of the Honda Faithful decided that the Civic really COULDN'T stand up to a Mazda3, so next step was to convince the world it really competes with Accord.

Now I'll admit the Accord is a very nice car (just not quite to my personal tastes) but when you need to throw a midsize car in a higher price range out there to compete with a lower priced compact....well, forgive me whilst I snicker. He. He.

03accordman

The Mazda3 is a better buy than an Accord EX? This is the biggest joke I have heard in the last few weeks. How you can compare those two cars amazes me, they are two different classes. And BTW, make sure you live in an area where AC is not needed, coz most Mazda3 owners are complaining about very bad AC eprformance, and Mazda isn't even owning up

anonymousposts

Someone else made that point that the 3 could be had with Xenons and NAV which aren't available on the Focus or the Civic. My point was that you can't get a Focus or Civic up to the $22,500 price tag of the 3s. And if you do get the 3s with NAV and Xenons you are pretty darn close to the price territory of larger, nicer cars. Nothing twisted about it.

I took my numbers straight from www.carsdirect.com using my Atlanta area zip code. Even if you take the non-leather, non-nav, non-Xenon 3 you have a carsdirect price of $18,100. An Accord EX 5-speed with side curtains is $19,500. Invoice to invoice the difference is still only $2600. Not a significant difference considering the above-mentioned advantages the Accord has over the 3. You can go MSRP to MSRP if you want but only the uninformed pay MSRP for ANY car these days let alone a 3 or an Accord.

If you look at what are probably the best selling versions of each car the price difference becomes even smaller;

2004 Accord LX auto with SAB: $18,100
2004 3i sedan auto with SAB/ABS & Power package: $17,300

For now it seems that the 3 is too close in price to larger/nicer cars. This will probably change with the inevitable 0.0% and cash rebates that are soon to come for the 3.

"I intentionally left off the leather version since it has a power seat and heated seats, neither of which the Mazda3 has. Why? Because the Mazda3 is not in the same category as the
Accord as you like to make people believe."

That was my point. If you equip the 3 with leather, roof, xenons, etc you have a Civic-sized car with an Accord/6/Altima price tag. It's almost the same price as the Accord EX-L but it's nowhere near as nice, safe, efficient, etc.

npaladin2000

Per Honda's website:

EX Automatic Transmission with Front Side Airbags
$18,460.00

Destination & Handling:
$515.00

Exterior Accessories (installation not included)
FOG LIGHTS $339.00
15" SPLIT 5-SPOKE ALLOY WHEELS $876.00
CHROME EXHAUST FINISHER $29.00
FOGLIGHT SWITCH $15.00

Total Before Tax and Installation: $20,234

Buying a Mazda3s with a bigger engine and more stuff for the same price: Priceless

anonymousposts

Why are you using MSRP when almost no one (at least with common sense and/or an internet connection) pays MSRP these days. You can't say in one breath "the Civic is a sales dud so it is heavily discounted" and then turn around in another breath and say "the Civic is a bad deal at MSRP".

The Civic EX comes standard with alloys BTW.

Maybe this is a discussion that is more suitable for here ....

nippononly "Mazda: Does it have a good future in US?" Aug 30, 2004 12:15pm

npaladin2000

You were saying that the prices of the Mazda3 really make it compete with the Accord. I'm showing you that a similarly optioned Civic (actually lower optioned...the 3 gets a 6 CD changer, larger 16 inch wheels, etc) MSRPs that high too. Equipped comparably, as I mentioned, the Mazda3s sedan MSRPs at $19,205. So they DO compete directly with each other in both price and class. It just so happens Mazda has a couple of options available for it that the Civic doesn't have available. Those extra options over an above what the Civic offers are what drive the price up beyond that of the Civic.

By the logic you were offering before, Civic also competes with Accord. But that's only natural..ALL cars compete with all other cars to some degree.

seminole_kev

the Civic and Mazda do compete both in price and equipment. You can add a few more bells and whistles to the 3 than the Civic, but from top to bottom the 3 competes in price with the Civic.

Excepting the fact that the 3 doesn't offer a direct Si competitor and that the Civic doesn't offer a 5-door hatch.

nippononly

Alas, Civic EX comes standard with alloy wheels. You can add anything you want as an accessory, such as a differently-designed alloy rim, but is that really apples to apples?

Comparing MSRPs increases the price differential between cars, too. Right now, look at MSRP then drop $2K minimum to buy a Civic.

There is an awful lot of price warring going on in here. The loaded Mazda3s comes up to a high price because it offers three crucial things none of the rest of the class has: NAV, leather, and HIDs. Take them out and it is comparably priced to all its competitors. For what is tolerable to accept as the leader in its class at present. And of course, the Civic is four years old, the Mazda is one. The '06 better leapfrog the Mazda3, that is for sure. I think it will.

What was all that stuff earlier about the Accord's steel wheels? They are 15" steel rims just like the wheel cover option on just about everything else out there.

anonymousposts

Using "real world" prices the 3i with SAB/ABS and power equipment is about $1,000 more than a Civic EX. If you can say that the 3 is worth $1,000 more than the Civic am I not allowed to say that the Accord is worth $1,000 more than a 3? Especially considering you get a lot more for your extra $1,000 with the Accord than you get with the 3 as compared to the Civic.

robertsmx

Most people bashing Civic seem to be clueless about the strengths of the car, and why it sells. And before they start to think… people buy Civic because it is a Honda, they need to realize it was Civic who made Honda what it is today! Civic isn’t just another car that Honda will dump as it moves on. This is a car that carries a bulk of sales for the company. So, if you’re really “worried” about Civic, you’re really worried about Honda. But that goes on to say how nice Mazda fans really are! ;-)

Given all the comparisons et al in progress here, I thought about pulling comparison tests from the past. First I went for the oldest comparison available at Edmunds (that included an Edmunds favorite… Protégé). Well, in 2000, Civic was near the bottom. Well, I knew Civic usually doesn’t finish at top, so being in the last year of the 5-year design cycle couldn’t have hurt. So, let us include the most recent comparison.

Found one! This time, to my surprise, Civic ended up on top! What was up with that? I know… it still manages to offer a balance between fun to drive, reliability and economy factors. That said, I hope the Mazda3 fad doesn’t die until redesigned Civic comes around.

mz3ct

look at those incentives and they are not for everybody - 0% for 24 months only on MZ3...ohhhh - no cash back yet. Mazda3 is holding up very well in this economy.

mz3ct

I AM A CONVERT AND LOVE IT...I got rid of my Accord 95 V-6 (2.7l 175hp) for a 3 hatch 5 months ago. I agree completely - the 3 can easily compete with Accord...and win. I got leather, ABS, etc. and it looks, feels, rides nicer than my "top of the line" Accord did (given there was 9 years on the Accord). I WILL NEVER buy another Honda again...the 3 has just raised the bar so much that even the most diehard Honda guy must admit it. BTW my AC performance is fine - not super but fine. Accordman03 - sorry my friend Honda is on its way out. Even without the 3, Honda is bland and undefined in looks and drive. I love my 3 so much and have 2 KIDS under 3 with 2 seats in back - it's bigger than my Accord was. I would also compare with Passat - leather version only. The MAZDA 3 is a CLASS BUSTER - everybody else above and below should look out! I will always have a spot in my heart for my Honda..but it's getting smaller each day...

mz3ct

the Mazda 3 fad dies out, eh...isn't that what somebody said about the Nissan Murano or Highlander cross-over craze?? Not going anywhere...I drove past 2 MZ3 sedans today and was in amazement how good and big it looks - and I was driving in my 3 5-door! I love it - with the exception of the Volvo s60, Porsche 911, Lexus 330, and BMW-x3, I think the Mazda 3 is the best looking car on the road for any money. The thing is - you could drive almost as fast and handle almost as well (except Porsche) in the $19,000 3. I love flying by "luxury" sport cars these days knowing I saved 20k. The MZ3 is borderline sports car...it is everything to a Mazda person and misunderstood by the rest.

nippononly

is a very nice car, regardless of price. It was a close call for me going with the RSX over the 3. The little things make the difference, but then again the RSX is a 10% more expensive car, so there should be little things about it that are better. At $20K, there are better buys out there than the Mazda3. At $17K, the solid meat of Civic's range, there aren't.

But once again, we find ourselves picking on the Civic. Is it possibly their most important model? Yes. But, it is also only one model among more than a half dozen. Honda's fortunes depend on all of them.

mz3ct: I have no argument with you liking your new Mazda3 more than your old Accord, but the Accord probably had more space than your new car, right? Also, in its day, it was probably a darn sight better car for you than the Protege that was its Mazda3 contemporary, right? Or, put another way, comparing new car to new car and looking at the Accord V-6 now versus the Mazda3 now, you might find the Accord to measure up very substantially, right? Each class of car offers unique challenges to making a really great car in that class, and it is hard for today's Accord V-6 to compete with the MY 2013 Mazda3, so for an apples to apples comparison, you really should compare today's Accord with the Mazda6, and today's Mazda3 with today's Civic. (and yesterday's Accord V-6 with yesterday's Protege, or 626 V-6 for that matter!)

ateixeira

The Best Small Car is the one that moves out of the left lane when I flash-to-pass.

;-)

-juice

talon95

"Mazda3 is holding up very well in this economy."

As is the Civic... no cash back either, and still the top selling car in its class, still ranking at or near the top in just about every comparison, sales up since last year, and outselling the Mazda 3 4 units to 1. An unquestionably strong performance by a 4th year design in a difficult economy.

ateixeira

Honda had a lot of momentum, though.

I'd like to see sales for both compared to the previous generation at this point in its life cycle, corrected for seasonal sales and inflation.

<crickets chirping>

Anyone?

<more crickets>

Rats.

-juice

talon95

And so far, they seem to be maintaining the momentum just fine... the introduction of the 3 notwithstanding.

Ultimately, I don't think the 3 will have much overall effect on Civic sales, especially if the rumors of Honda reemphasizing the sport in the next generation are true.

robertsmx

1991 232,690
1992 219,228 - Redesign (worst sales since 1985)
1993 255,579
1994 267,023
1995 289,435
1996 286,350 - Redesign
1997 321,144
1998 335,110 - Best ever sales in Civic's history
1999 318,309
2000 324,528
2001 331,780 - Redesign
2002 313,159
2003 299,672
2004 328,215 - Projected based on sales thru July

Last ten years have been the best years in Civic's long history going back to 1973 when 32,575 units of CVCC were sold. In 1975, CVCC/Civic hit the 100K plus mark.

npaladin2000

"As is the Civic... no cash back either, and still the top selling car in its class, still ranking at or near the top in just about every comparison, sales up since last year, and outselling the Mazda 3 4 units to 1. An unquestionably strong performance by a 4th year design in a difficult economy."

Honda has NEVER done cash back directly to the consumer...it's not part of their corporate policy. What they DO do is cash back support to the dealer...and according to Edmunds, they've got it right now. $400 cash to dealer support, which the dealer has the option of passing on to the consumer. Basically, it works similarly to a rebate only it's a bit more hidden.

What would be interesting is finding out how strong Honda's sales are in relation to their production: what percentage of the ones their building have been sold. Right now Mazda is selling pretty much every 3 that they've built, and had to create an additional production line in a second factory to handle the high demand for the car.

newcar31

"1992 219,228 - Redesign (worst sales since 1985)"

I wouldn't have guessed that. I really liked the 92-95' Civics, that was my favorite Civic generation.

gee35coupe

They have built 215,000 Civics in two factories and Honda says they have sold 191,000 so far. Looks like they have right around a 30 day supply on the ground right now. By they way this is just the U.S. supply. There are other factories building Civics.

talon95

"What would be interesting is finding out how strong Honda's sales are in relation to their production: what percentage of the ones their building have been sold. Right now Mazda is selling pretty much every 3 that they've built, and had to create an additional production line in a second factory to handle the high demand for the car."

According to Automotive News, as of 8/1, Honda had a 34 day supply of Civics, while Mazda had a 50 day supply of Mazda 3s. Pretty good for the Civic. But a 50 day supply of Mazda 3s is a bit high to qualify for "selling pretty much every 3 that they've built". It's only slightly below the industry average of 55 days. OTOH, really hot cars like the Acura TL and the Chrysler 300 have only 21 and 23 days available respectively. Now that's selling pretty much every one they can make.

So it seems like Mazda is keeping up with demand. With 50 days worth on hand, there's no apparent problem with supply.

grbeck

Earlier in this thread, posters suggested that Honda introduced low-interest financing in response to the success of the Mazda3. I remember seeing advertisements for low-interest financing on the Civic when I bought my Prelude in March 2002. That was before the Mazda3 hit the market.

The Mazda3 is a great car, and I hope that Honda is paying attention to its success. But it hasn't sent the Civic reeling just yet.

driftracer

started incentivized, factory supported financing back in 1999 - I was an F&I manager at a Honda store in 1998-1999, and I remember being in total shock (along with the other managers)...this just wasn't something Honda did!

I'm glad to see that to date, that's all they've done. They've stayed strong in the market, where even marques like Saturn and their one price, no rebates, no finance help attitude has gone away, and now you get a Saturn SL1 with about the same incentives as a Cavalier...

Last time I checked it was $3k "downpayment assistance" - gotta love that politically correct Saturn camp, can't call it a rebate - plus 0% interest.

I worked at a Saturn store for a couple of months before I transferred to the group's GMC/Pontiac store - I totally hated working at a Saturn store. We had a 50 or so entry sheet of politically correct "conversions" that we had to learn and demonstrate before we could talk to a "guest". We couldn't ask for the sale. We couldn't push, not even a little...

We couldn't say "buried", "upside down", or "flipped" - our "guest" had "negative equity".

Team members (other salespeople) weren't fired, they were "deselected".

Shoot me in the head...

nippononly

you serious about that "deselected" thing?! No way!

Most of the other stuff you mentioned is how Saturn got the customer-friendly rep it still has today. Most car salespeople I have dealt with were extremely high-pressure, fairly obnoxious, and would say anything at all to make a sale that was more advantageous to them, regardless of the truth or untruth of it. So that has come to be what I expect of them. Which is why I went to Saturn all those years ago, and was absolutely dumbfounded at how pleasant the car sales experience could be.

Then of course, the car was a pile.

Participated last week at every stage of a friend's buying an Accord. Pursuant to the paragraph I just wrote, every single one of the old tricks came out of the salesman's bag. Lies, deceit, and trickery. We just slogged ahead through all of it. They pretty much knew what they wanted in a vehicle, I knew what they should pay and how to get the price. Which is what we eventually did. Honda salespeople are perhaps a touch worse than the others not because they are less professional, but merely because they are harder to negotiate with - they think Hondas are all worth 20% over MSRP. Oh, the shock on their faces the last couple of years trying to sell those Civic SIs!

driftracer

is the price you pay for buying a car in a Barnes & Noble Starbucks atmosphere...

This same dealer group I worked for has a Honda store - it was the same period of time that Honda debuted the V6 in the Accord...we got BUNCHES of people looking at the Saturns, then walking next door to the high pressure side and buying a Honda...

And yes, "deselected" was a common term, especially when you weren't "considerate for your fellow Saturn team members" and were late for a "team meeting".

I prefer getting whacked by the GSM after rolling in late, but being able to ask for the sale, and saying things like "you aren't going to let $10 a month get in the way of you getting a new car, are you?"...

03accordman

Congrats on your new car, and wish you many years of happy driving. If you love your car, nothing else matters.

Coming back to your post, you are comparing a 1995 Accord to a 2003/4 Mazda3. Even then, I believe the Accord woudl have had more space, though I can't say for sure, since that Accord you referred to was a decade old car.

The discussion here was whether we could compare a 2004 Accord to a 2004 Mazda3, not ANY Accord of ANY vintage. If you do compare the current models, there is a vast difference everywhere, as espected in a car that is a class higher. If you do want to go back years, you should compare a 10-15 year Accord to a 10-15 year Mazda 323/Protege, and see what I mean.

As for Honda on its way out, well, its a matter of opinion, but its doing pretty well in the market. Just look at the sales of the Accord, Civic, Odyssey, Pilot and all Acuras excluding the RL which is getting a much needed redesign.

That said, feature/content wise the Mazda3 has raised the bar over other COMAPCT cars, and I am sure Honda will respond, so would reserve my judgement till the new Civic comes out.

And really, there is no comparison between a Mazda3 and a V6 Accord, any which way you want, maybe except for handling which is expected due also to the fact that the 3 is much smaller.

motownusa

shown by Mazda owners is rather funny. When your product is being outsold by nearly 7 to 1 by the competition and you still claim your product is superior is sort of ridiculous. The sales figure pretty much says it all

alfox

Wouldn't that be a Superiority Complex?