Yep, '91 Escort used the Protoge chassis, exact wheelbase and track.
The Escort GT even used the 1.8l Mazda engine, a derivative of that engine is still used today in the Miata. The base Escort used the Ford 1.9l of the day.
Mine was good mechanically, but I had pieces of interior trim falling off with alarming regularity. It was a fun, cheap car, but it was cheap.
The 626 from 1993 and on used the Ford CD4E tranny (also used in the Contour) for the 4 cylinder automatic models only. The V6 had a Mazda tranny.
Those are AWFUL. If your uncle wants to *give* you his 626 and it has the CD4E, run, don't walk, you will pay $2000-6000 every 2 years for tranny service.
I think CD4E stands for Can Destroy 4 times your Earnings.
Mazda got smart and now uses JATCO to supply most their trannys, including the 6.
"Recently, CR rated the Protege as being more reliable than the Civic. I believe it was for the 2001 model year"
You can show one year where the Protege was slightly better than the Civic? I looked at both from 95-02 and the Civic has 8 clear circles (which means a 5-9.3% chance of a problem) and nothing below that. The Protege has 20 clear circles and 8 half-black circles. To me that would indicate that historically the Civic is more reliable. Especially if you consider the number of Civics sold compared to the Protege. Meaning, with more units sold there are more opportunities for problems.
"They aren't eager to make that V8 or RWD platform for their "luxury" division so instead reskin Accords, add more options, and charge a premium"
The 05 RL is AWD. And with 300HP coming from it's 3.5L V6 a V8 isn't necessary considering it's price and the competition it will have in it's price range. It is the first North American application of real-time traffic, the unique SH-AWD system, it has the ACE structure, etc. The RL is eons better than the one it is replacing and is a car that, at this point, Mazda could only dream of producing.
It amazes me how all of you are stuck on downing the Civic. Is it because the Civic is Honda's only "weakness" because it is going into it's last year? Honestly, if you do think the Civic is Honda's weakness then Honda is doing pretty darn well considering the Civic is still one of the highest-selling compacts, one of the safest, and one of the most fuel-efficient.
You can talk about Honda's run running out all day long but I am extremely curious to see if Mazda's will ever begin.
Get a grip on reality folks. If Honda had the resources of Toyota they would be cranking out the SUVs and V8 cars as fast as they could make them.
Let us discuss this having a grip on reality thing. One, you have tried to mask the comment made earlier about Honda being the only automaker who doesn’t seem to oppose stricter regulations to fuel economy and emissions. Why?
Two, you don’t have to worry about resources. Honda has enough to bring jet engines to the market, so what is the big deal with an automotive V8? They’ve been emphasizing so much on development and feasibility of fuel cell technology, and you think they lack resources for V8 and SUV development? Yes, Honda has less resource than the old guns, but you need to look at where the focus is.
Finally, what do you think a Honda V8 would be like? I can bet the emphasis will still be on class leading fuel economy and emissions. You see it with four bangers, you see it with six cylinder engines, so why wouldn’t you see it with V8?
They aren't eager to make that V8 or RWD platform for their "luxury" division so instead reskin Accords, add more options, and charge a premium.
Comments like these amuse me. They aren’t eager to make a V8 apparently because they have enough room to grow without it. How many V8 engines does Mazda make? RWD hasn’t been proven to be a necessity. And the way market seems to be shaping up, AWD looks more promising! Last I heard, the new Mercedes S-Class might have AWD standard!
Let us now address the issue of platform, rather an understanding of it. This article makes for a good reading.
Going back to the Accord, RL is more than just a re-skin. I have always wonder if the perception would be different if RL was launched first and Honda advertised Accord as being based off RL. For the clueless, this direction would work better than the other way around.
Why did they decide to go with the V6 hybrid Accord instead of a 4-cyl hybrid Accord? Because they figure Americans care about power more than saving some MPG, so give them what they want.
You seem very authoritative in answering the question on Honda’s behalf. I can only guess, and here is how. Adoption of hybrid technology is meant to improve fuel economy by 30-40%, or may be more. Accord four-cylinder is already fuel efficient, and while it could benefit more from it, putting several economy compact cars to shame from a 255 HP V6 powering a midsize sedan is to address the issues that many have raised over the years hybrids have been around. You want fuel economy, go Civic or Prius. You want performance with improved fuel economy, go Accord.
It is also about providing choices. Hybrid technology is still in its infancy, and it has a lot more to prove, and Accord Hybrid is another step in that direction. And yes, Honda is in business of making money. That is no secret either.
One will have to be really misinformed/uninformed or stubborn to not acknowledge Honda as a leader in fuel economy/emissions efforts. And it is not just the cars, Honda has been revising its practices in the places that produce the vehicles as well! On of the magazines (I believe C&D) had an article on it.
"It amazes me how all of you are stuck on downing the Civic."
Not very amazing to me. It's Honda's weakest offering in the lineup and something different from Honda...."a loser".
"Is it because the Civic is Honda's only "weakness" because it is going into it's last year?"
No, not because it's going into it's last year. See the Car and Driver comparo. That was a 2002 model and they called it a loser and it hasn't changed significantly since then. New headlights and alloy wheels don't address the things that C&D was complaining about.
"Especially if you consider the number of Civics sold compared to the Protege. Meaning, with more units sold there are more opportunities for problems."
That has nothing to do with the ratings. CR uses a percentage to calculate ratings.
"The first year Civic dropped to Average in CR, Mazda might have been ahead temporarily, but they didn't sustain it."
Really? I'm going to have to check CR again because I swear the Protege got the highest rating possible. Have they rated the Mazda3 yet?
Honda obviously fixed the isses that C&D complained about. At least well enough that it won Edmund's test a year later.
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/100022/page015- .html "Refinement, build quality and a well-trimmed interior were the most often cited reasons for the Civic's first-place finish. If you're looking for an inexpensive sedan that doesn't look or feel that way, the Civic is the one."
"That has nothing to do with the ratings. CR uses a percentage to calculate ratings"
Again, my point is that if quality is equal and one model outsells the other the model that outsells the other will have more lemons. Therefore, unless we know the sample size is identical, there would be more Civic lemons than Protege lemons even if quality was equal.
"Again, my point is that if quality is equal and one model outsells the other the model that outsells the other will have more lemons."
Yes, and CR knows this, that's why they go by percentage.
"Therefore, unless we know the sample size is identical, there would be more Civic lemons than Protege lemons even if quality was equal."
That's why CR uses a percentage of vehicles sold. Otherwise, lower volumn models would have an advantage. You were trying to make the point that since the Civic sells more, it would have more lemons, and that would be reflected in CR's ratings. I'm saying, no, you're wrong because CR uses percentage of vehicles sold.
Not very amazing to me. It's Honda's weakest offering in the lineup and something different from Honda...."a loser".
Golly, some of you folks just can't get enough of that line. That's, what?, the 50th time we've read that in the last week?
I've gotta wonder. If the Civic is such a loser, and it sells at a faster pace than the Mazda 3, what does that make the Mazda3? What's less than a loser? Is the 3 a "sub-loser"?
Let's take a little poll... Which word best describes the 3?
1. Dud 2. Clinker 3. Fiasco 4. Washout
How about my personal favorite, "miscarriage"?
Or maybe it's just about time that we retired that sad little "loser" quote.
The larger the sample, the more accurate the rating. As well as having more surveys about lemons, they would also have more surveys about flawless vehicles. These flawless vehicles would bring the percentages back up.
The smaller the sample, the greater potential for a few odd surveys to skew the results.
"Golly, some of you folks just can't get enough of that line. That's, what?, the 50th time we've read that in the last week?"
Golly, if the Honda folks are going to bring up C&D comparison tests, you have to take the bad with the good. Can't talk about the Accord winning if you can't talk about the Civic losing at the same time.
"I've gotta wonder. If the Civic is such a loser, and it sells at a faster pace than the Mazda 3, what does that make the Mazda3? What's less than a loser? Is the 3 a "sub-loser"?"
When in doubt, bring up sales. Being a loser never stopped certain cars from selling. Being a winner never stopped certain cars from not selling. Besides, the loser comment was refering to a comparison test, not a sales competetion.
"The larger the sample, the more accurate the rating."
That's true, but that's not the point anonymousposts was trying to make.
I like Car and Driver and I respect them more than Edmunds when it comes to automotive journalism.
I'm happy with the Mazda6's second place finish. They liked the Mazda6 in that comparison a heckuva lot more than they liked the Civic in it's comparison test. They never called the 6 a "loser". "Loser" is a pretty strong word, especially coming from a mag that has historically loved Hondas.
Even the loser from Honda placed fourth. While that is pretty disappointing for a Honda it was still not the worst car in the test like some of you are making it out to be. If it were the Mazda that came in fourth you all would say they were paid off, biased, or just plain dumb. Honda did upgrade the Civic interior for 2003, not in design but in materials used. Those changes were enough to catapult it to first place in Edmund's small car test.
We shall see how Honda responds to the new competition. If it's anything like how they responded to the Sienna then expect big changes for the 06 Civic.
4th is better than last. Ideally, the Civic would have been first but C&D had some legitimate complaints. It appears that Honda corrected most of the complaints that C&D had.
So is the statement that was this was something new from Honda.
What we have here is a case of he said/she said. C&D said one thing years ago. Edmunds said another. I mentioned sales because it illustrates that an awful lot of he and she buyers have voted in favor of the Edmunds version of events.
"What we have here is a case of he said/she said. C&D said one thing years ago. Edmunds said another. I mentioned sales because it illustrates that an awful lot of he and she buyers have voted in favor of the Edmunds version of events."
How many of those Civic buyers read both comparos?
How many people bought Civics in 2002 after Car and Driver called it a "loser"?
I'll bet the Car and Driver comparo had no effect at all on sales of the Civic. I'll bet the Edmunds comparo didn't affect sales either.
Some have been trashing the Civic needlessly. It's only the best small car (in all qualities) that all small Japanese cars aspire to. :-)
Like the Accord is the medium sized that all wannabe Korean and Japanese cars aspire to. :-)
Has anyone seen pics of the 2005 Sonata? Can you say 2004 Accord Copy? Except they screwed up the interior and the Hood (Too Korean). Before Trashing the Civic, keep in mind that the CR-V, the new EDIX/FR-V and the TSX were all developed from the Civic chassis. These are all excellent cars (especially the TSX which gives any BMW3 a run for its money.
The only negative about the Civic IMHO is the premium pricing, but that is a dealer greed prerogative. They sell well and fly out the dealership -- so obviously the laws of supply and demand set in to charge premiums. I doubt they'll come up with a Honda test-drive program (like GM has) :-))
All other qualities of the Civic are exemplary --
1. ride 2. handling 3. lack of NVH, rattles and squeaks 4. Smooth, smooth, smooth 5. Fit and finish 6. Styling 7. Interior
I find it funny that some folks just get angry with a Honda dealer for the premium pricing, dash out angrily to buy Mazdas, Hyundais, Suzukis etc.-- and then realize two months down the road that they're stuck with with that 'POS' for the next four years (If it makes it that long :-) )and then angrily keep trashing Hondas in internet forums like this for the next ten years. Some of these people haven't even driven a Civic!!!
To these people I say -- next time...make a wise decision and don't dupe yourself. Go buy a Honda.
Like I said -- I've been driving Civics since 1979. I know these cars. I've kept some Civics for six or more years -- made good money from the low depreciation -- and then went on to buy ACURAs that kept their values even better!
Try that with your average Japanese car. Last time I heard -- the local Infiniti dealership was trying to undercut pricing to sell cars. This is unheard of, in the luxury car market.
Or they try to change models like the Korean brands every other year. How else would the cars sell? Yes they get REAL generous on the equipment level. But that's not why you buy a car. You have to live with this thing for the next four years. Let's keep that in mind.
The Civic (typically due to Honda Corporate Fuel economy Policy) -- comes in GX and HX flavors as well. The former is an NGV vehicle, the latter is a fuel economy leader without the benefit of a HYBRID (I believe 50 MPG Highway still). Next year, the smaller Honda Jazz will do 60 MPG Highway. In Europe, the European Accord (Acura TSX here in the USA) comes with a smooth diesel (yes a _smooth_ diesel -- I've driven one). It's the 2.2 ICT-DI (gets 92 MPG), review here,
Where are these models (GX, HX) from Mazda?? Come on....
There is a trend here (fuel economy and other innovations). Other Japanese brands (even Toyota in spite of its size and prowess) will (for the near future) be second to Honda and will have products that are at least one generation removed from a Honda product.
They don't shoehorn a V8 in a HONDA (even the Pilot/MDX) just because it will fit. Honda philosophy has always been to under-size its engines. Which makes sense because (again the 80/20 rule) 80% of the time you're only using 20% of the engine's power. I cringe on the SoCal freeways when I see some overfed twit driving an H2. Ten MPG for carrying that one clueless dweeb! Meanwhile Greenland keeps getting smaller and smaller.
In any case -- I wish Mazda the best with its new 3. It is well designed and standard equipment is indeed generous. But the pieces don't actually make up something whole for me.
I was watching an HD Broadcast last week on DishNet and they were showing the Tokyo 2004 Motorshow highlights. There was a segment on Honda's new massive crash-test center (Incidentally you can get admission for watching the car-crashes when they do test there). In Europe they have new legislation that says that if you hit a pedestrian, there can be only so much damage to the person' knee, ankle, body etc. So the New Fit/Jazz/Civic bumpers are already compliant with the Euro legislation.
This is partly the reason for building the crash-testing facility. See here as well,
Point is -- Honda is trying to niche market itself as a safe intelligent person's car.
In Japan -- Honda has pioneered innovations so far ahead of other car companies -- there is no comparison at all. The Fit (same size as the Mazda2) offers smartcard ignition and pushbutton starting a la the US market S2000 and the MBZ C320. That's a car smaller than the Civic!!
In the Japanese market the Honda Inspire (equivalent to US Accord) comes with optional collision avoidance radar as well as sensors and warning tone enunciators to keep the car in-lane. How about Mazda??
Honda's 3.5l V6 is going into a Saturn Vue this year I hear. Saturn wanted to bring more smoothness into the powertrain, so they turned to Honda.
The S2000 makes 240 horses from a 2.0 litre engine. Enough said.
Anyhow -- without frothing up ad-infinitum, I ask Honda detractors to be informed. Go to any one of the Honda websites in the US or Europe, read up the industry rags. Then come here and argue. Then the argument will some value and polish to it. Come to the argument with at least some accurate information...
"I've gotta wonder. If the Civic is such a loser, and it sells at a faster pace than the Mazda 3, what does that make the Mazda3?"
A lower volume vehicle that's harder to get because it's in high demand. Kinda the way the Civic used to be. They don't sell Civics faster, they sell MORE of them. That's purely an issue of amount of production capacity combined with number of retail outlets. What I DON'T hear about is Honda increasing production of the Civic to meet the suprisingly high demand for the car. I DO hear that about the Mazda3. What does THAT tell you?
By the way they build Civic in 2 factories to keep up with demand from North America. So yes, they have increased production. And they have to import Japanese-built Accords during peak demand times.
The thread hasn't run out. But the let's only bash the Civic and not talk about how it relates to Hondas "run" has.
Smart move. I wouldn't touch an automatic transmission equipped Honda with a 10-foot pole. I especially like how back in the days Honda came out and said the problem had been found and 2003 Acura TL's would have the fix. And then guess what? That's right, recall on automatic transmissions on 2003 Acura TL. To add insult to injury it even included 2004 models. If you want an automatic in your car then skip Honda. With only a 3 year powertrain warranty I wouldn't risk it.
npaladin2000: "A lower volume vehicle that's harder to get because it's in high demand. Kinda the way the Civic used to be. "
And if Mazda could produce 300,000+ Mazda3s, would the inventory supply be as low, and would there be no need for direct-to-the-customer rebates?
They don't sell Civics faster, they sell MORE of them. That's purely an issue of amount of production capacity combined with number of retail outlets.
I'm sure that Mazda - and any other car maker - would love to have a car line that has a 50-day supply at current sales rates and still moves about 300,000 units per year.
Incidentally, if the Civic sales are "purely an issue of amount of production capacity combined with number of retail outlets," then the Chevy Cavalier should be the best-selling small car in America, as it has plenty of production capacity and more retail outlets than any other brand of small car.
But it hasn't quite worked out that way, now has it?
What I DON'T hear about is Honda increasing production of the Civic to meet the suprisingly high demand for the car. I DO hear that about the Mazda3. What does THAT tell you?
It tells me that Honda, drawing on its past experience of selling Civics, has been able to closely match production capacity with demand.
Honda doesn't have to increase production to meet demand, as it properly forecast needed capacity from day one, based on over two decades of selling Civics in the United States.
The Mazda3 was an all-new design with a new nameplate, sold by a brand that has had its shares of ups and downs in the American market. Ford may have wanted to play it safe, as past Mazdas did not set the world on fire with their sales.
How many times has a company been criticized - on this board, and in the regular media - for being over-optimistic about a vehicle's sales prospects? Ford was conservative with the Mazda3, and now finds itself in the happy position of having to increase production to meet demand for the car.
For that I take my hat off to Ford and Mazda. The 3 is a great car.
Considering that the current Civic is in the final year of its design cycle, I'd say that Mazda (and Ford) would LOVE to have the Mazda3 enjoy the sames sales rate and inventory supply when it reaches the end of its design cycle.
"I especially like how back in the days Honda came out and said the problem had been found and 2003 Acura TL's would have the fix. And then guess what? That's right, recall on automatic transmissions on 2003 Acura TL."
Well, Honda didn't lie... the recall on the 2003 models was for a different issue. The earlier tranny issues dealt primarily with the torque converter and if the problem manifested itself, the torque converter or transmission had to be replaced. I had the transmission replacement done on my last Accord, a 2000 V6, very early on and it worked great from that point on.
The new recall involves inspecting second gear for signs of overheating and if it shows none, installing an oil jet kit to improve lubrication of second gear. It's a minor mod and the inspection and modification take less than 2 hours.
Having owned an Accord from each generation, I can say that the gen 7 transmission is functionally an incredible improvement over the gen 6. Far more responsive and smoother shifting. And as Honda has come forward with the recall, I have no qualms about their backing up the transmissions in the future.
Regarding a new Pilot, a different fix has been incorporated into the production line, so as long as you go with a late 2004 or 2005, the issue is already handled.
the European Accord (Acura TSX here in the USA) comes with a smooth diesel (yes a _smooth_ diesel -- I've driven one). It's the 2.2 ICT-DI (gets 92 MPG), review here,
You make a very good case for Honda. If they do decide to bring their diesel engine to these shores I would be inclined to forgive them for the 1978 Accord. I did go look at the Acura MDX. I like the looks better than any of the other wannabe Japanese SUVs. However I get real mixed reviews from owners here on the forum. It seems there are some real issues that Acura is not addressing. I think I would pass on the MDX until it is getting a clean bill of health.
"Well, Honda didn't lie... the recall on the 2003 models was for a different issue."
Well I guess Honda owners can sleep easy tonight knowing it wasn't just one issue, but two different ones.
"I had the transmission replacement done on my last Accord, a 2000 V6, very early on and it worked great from that point on."
The fact you even got it replaced once is too much. And I've read posts on Edmunds where someone had went through 2 and more transmissions, with failures still happening, not to mention posts on other websites. Edmunds makes up a small percentage of car owners yet there's quite a few owners reporting transmission replacements. Bottomline, it's no wonder people are questioning Honda "quality" these days.
And of course there's always the normal things that can go wrong and are reported by owners. Honda is above average no question, but they are not in the same league as Toyota. The US mutters Toyota and Honda in the same breath when it comes to reliability, Honda is more on par with Nissan and some Mazdas, Subarus, etc.
That's why I posted the lemon cases out of Hawaii. The numbers clearly show Toyota is a step above (by the way, anyone with other states lemon cases who want larger numbers feel free to post it, this is the only one I can find, I would be more than interested to see the numbers from other states). We all know people buy Hondas based on reliability, but yet they won't touch a Mazda, Nissan, Subaru, etc. This alone is what keeps Honda afloat and if they keep it up the way they're going they'll be in trouble. People are catching on to VW's and other European cars. These owners that buy based on reliability should be buying Toyota. And at least Toyota and Nissan have a 5 year powertrain warranty.
Must be the perfect car for you. No one has ever said Toyota wasn't awesome. I don't think anyone can argue anything against Toyota except they don't make "exciting" cars any more. I used to be strictly Toyota til the demise of the MR2.
The Corolla is no Civic and the Camry is no Accord. They have staked out places in the market and stick with them.
"It seems there are some real issues that Acura is not addressing. I think I would pass on the MDX until it is getting a clean bill of health."
Again, another smart move. If the consumer wants these companies to clean up their act and give them the best car possible then refuse to buy it until they get their quality control in order. Having blind loyalty to Honda and buying their cars regardless is not smart. VW is suffering and maybe, just maybe it'll be enough so they get their act together.
And by the way, that 92 mpg is misleading, that's imperial not US gallons. It translates into something like 76 mpg. Even then that's misleading. Go to European Honda sites and compare the fuel consumption numbers to other diesels and you'll see it's nothing all that special. It's more like 52 on the highway and 36 in the city. Real world mileage may be different. Those are certainly good numbers though for such a heavy car. I hope they offer it in the future.
"Well I guess Honda owners can sleep easy tonight knowing it wasn't just one issue, but two different ones."
Yes, the major one that affected between 1.5 - 2.0% of Hondas/Acuras and that required a transmission replacement apparently is solved.
The second recall is one that takes action to prevent a possible future failure under VERY specific circumstances. With Honda dealing with this as a recall, the number of vehicles expected to be affected is very low.
Guess I'll sleep easier tonight knowing that a simple modification now will help prevent serious problems down the road.
"Edmunds makes up a small percentage of car owners yet there's quite a few owners reporting transmission replacements."
Statistically, that's meaningless. We have no way of determining how representative this so-called "quite a few owners" is of the total population of Honda owners. Not to mention the fact that your average "non-enthusiast" Honda owner is unlikely to visit Edmunds unless he or she encounters a problem. So I propose that there's just as likely "quite a few owners" with problem-free Hondas who aren't represented here. At any rate, observational "data" gained from watching posts on Edmunds proves absolutely nothing.
"The US mutters Toyota and Honda in the same breath when it comes to reliability, Honda is more on par with Nissan and some Mazdas, Subarus, etc."
Well for one thing, I recall that driftracer reported that the number of lemon law cases regarding Hondas in the area that he covers is almost nil. So the Hawaii figures fall far short of representing a comprehensive view.
And I guess your little post from Hawaii nullifies all of the work done by Consumer Reports and JD Power, who rank Honda equal to Toyota and, at least in the case of JDP, well above Nissan and Mazda.
One report from the state of Hawaii vs. the huge survey efforts by CR and JDP across the entire US? Sorry, not even close.
"These owners that buy based on reliability should be buying Toyota. And at least Toyota and Nissan have a 5 year powertrain warranty."
Since you're so prone to crucify Honda for its transmission problems, you should be just as inclined to crucify Toyota for its engine sludge problems. You can rail on Honda all you want (in fact, it seems that you are), but the fact of the matter is that all auto manufacturers face some major issues from time to time. And that includes those ranked highly for reliability, such as Honda and Toyota.
Uh, I would say the Focus is FAR from perfect there PZEV. The most recalled vehicle since the Citation? Things like wheels falling off, gas line fractures. Ugly stuff that had killed it's reputation before it even hit the lots. Ford could only dream of having a "Loser" like a Civic.
Now I'm not going to side with anyone on the whole Honda/Mazda war, because I like both companies, and I believe the 3 has really raised the bar on the compact front, but I think the next Civic is going to take the next step further. And as much as people in here would like to believe Honda is going the way of Yugo, your dreaming. The bar is still very high on the quality/reliabilty front, Automakers are attacking JD powers ratings with a vengence. People want a car that's built well, gets good economy, and stays out of the shop. From a personal experience, I know 11 people who own V6 Honda's (one of which is mine), only one has had the tranny issue. Guy with an 04' Ody that had a wine in reverse. So as a precaution, they replaced it. Brought the car in, day after he was on his way, no questions asked, no charge. Much better experience than with the Trailblazer he had before, snapped an A-arm in the suspension while cruising on the highway about 70mph. Dealer told him it was the Boston roads that caused it, not the vehicle... Fought with them for 3 weeks before they fixed it. They flipped the bill, he paid for 3 weeks with a Cavalier rental.
I've had 4 Accords, a CRV and now an MDX myself. All have been perfect. Would I trust Mazda on the same level? Yes, they just don't have the model portfolio that Honda/Acura have. I think they'll get there if Ford lets them.
One report from the state of Hawaii vs. the huge survey efforts by CR and JDP across the entire US? Sorry, not even close.
What I found most interesting is that GM went from a high of 30% market share in Hawaii to 9.5% in 2003. Toyota and Honda both increased market share over the 6 year period. It tells me that the public is interested in reliability over other aspects of vehicle ownership. I did notice that Mazda had more than it's share of problems. I know Hawaii is a very small market, I imagine owners there have the same problems as anywhere. Maybe more dealer problems because there is no competition.
Honda has been singing that same song & dance for years now. First that found the problem in the '01 CL, opps no now it is fixed on the '02, but just limited to the CL,,,opps now the CLS TL, Odessey may be included, etc. etc. so on and so forth.
Frankly I don't care how big or small the transmission glitch is. The fact is that it has been on-going for 4-5 years now [NOT GOOD]. And has cause me to me very gun-shy of Honda AT. I would have felt better if it has all been taken care of back in 2001. But since it wasn't, and many have had repeat issues, I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about Honda/Acura V6-AT products.
How does Honda keep flying under the radar, and not overly tarnish their reputation??
How does Honda keep flying under the radar, and not overly tarnish their reputation??
Because most reasonable people know these are cars and that no automaker is perfect. These"problems" are not widespread enough to effect most reliability surveys, and Honda also extends warranty coverage on issues that it finds to be inherent in its products. What more can they do? Heck, even Lexus has a couple recalls this year on the LS. No one builds em better than Lexus.
I know Honda won me over when they helped me get out of a 1998 Civic EX that had a paint/bodywork problem. You earn/keep customers that way.
"Frankly I don't care how big or small the transmission glitch is. The fact is that it has been on-going for 4-5 years now [NOT GOOD]."
But the real fact is that it's not ongoing... the recall is a completely different issue from the earlier transmission problem. And unlike with the earlier problem, the recall is a means of preventing a problem from occurring at all. With the previous problem, there were no preventative steps that could be taken... if a transmission was going to fail, it would show symptoms of the failure and have to be replaced.
Interpret it as you may... I'm not trying to talk into anything. If it makes you uncomfortable, by all means do yourself and all of us a favor and buy something else. But from what I've seen and experienced myself, I'm not worried about the transmission design or Honda's commitment to stand behind it.
However, if a lengthy ongoing issue is something that scares you, I'd avoid Toyota V6s as well. The same design issue that lead to engine failures due to sludge buildup affected both 4-cyl and V6 designs over 6 model years... although the 4-cyl design has been discontinued, current Toyota V6 engines are of the same design family as the affected engines.
Seems that at first, Toyota denied any responsibility at all, blaming the issue on owners who didn't change their oil often enough. However, when they finally started to see the problem in cars where the owners had proof of following the recommended oil change interval, not to mention the beating their reputation for reliability was beginning to take on the Internet and in the press, they backed down and started covering some engine failures. They even made a design change to help prevent future problems (although some experts believe that it only made the problem less likely, rather than solving it completely). Despite all of this, they still maintain that any problems are the owner's fault.
However, based on the existence of the linked petition, it seems that they're still trying to give people the runaround...
At least with the earlier transmission problems, Honda finally extended the warranty on most models that were potentially affected. They could have followed Toyota's example and continue to jerk their owners around, but they didn't. For the record, the transmission on my 2000 Accord was one of the first ones replaced, and Honda and the dealership were extremely cooperative. No Toyota-style "try to blame the owner" runaround.
So I strongly disagree with pzev that Toyota reliability is better than Honda's. Just like Honda, they generally deserve their reputation for reliability, but they're far from perfect. If you consider the Honda AT issues a debacle, the Toyota sludge issue is a debacle of equal severity, and Toyota has been far less inclined to support their customers than Honda has been. Anyway, he says that my transmission should never have failed in the first place... if that's the case, I think it's safe to say that the Toyota V6 engines that failed shouldn't have done so in the first place, either.
"They don't sell Civics faster, they sell MORE of them. That's purely an issue of amount of production capacity combined with number of retail outlets."
I guess you weren't following the thread earlier (understandable given the pace).
Recent report show that the Civic has a 30 day supply on hand. The Mazda 3 has a 50 day supply. The Civic sits on the lots for less time, and they sell more units. Time over distance (in this case units sold) equals speed. The Civic covers more sales over a shorter amount of time.
Also, the number of outlets for Honda is not a great deal more than Mazda. Mazda has more than 850, while Honda has a bit more than 900. Compare that with Ford (over 4,000 retailers), and the difference isn't all that great. At least, not enough to make up for the faster sales rate of the Civic.
"Recent report show that the Civic has a 30 day supply on hand. The Mazda 3 has a 50 day supply. The Civic sits on the lots for less time, and they sell more units. Time over distance (in this case units sold) equals speed. The Civic covers more sales over a shorter amount of time.
Also, the number of outlets for Honda is not a great deal more than Mazda. Mazda has more than 850, while Honda has a bit more than 900. Compare that with Ford (over 4,000 retailers), and the difference isn't all that great. At least, not enough to make up for the faster sales rate of the Civic."
Couple of responses to that. Number one, the supply of Civics has much less further to travel, because they're mainly built here, while ALL Mazda3s are built in Hiroshima, Japan. That means longer transit time, because a certain percentage of the supply is going to be on the water at any given time (that's actually been some of the problem with supply of the 3, they take so long to get here). Mazda may have a 50 day supply BUILT, but it's not in the dealers' hands. They NEED that 50 day supply because delivery takes 2 months plus from the factory.
Now, in response to that number of retail outlets you gave: have you factored in that Honda delers are largely stand-alone, whereas Mazda dealers are largely NOT standalone? That's going to mean that Honda's actual dealership infrastructure total is going to be a lot larger. Basically each Honda dealership is 1 dealership. But each Mazda dealership is more like half a dealership (Though here they're halved with Mitsubishi and VW, not exactly the most desirable of brands).
Comments
The Escort GT even used the 1.8l Mazda engine, a derivative of that engine is still used today in the Miata. The base Escort used the Ford 1.9l of the day.
Mine was good mechanically, but I had pieces of interior trim falling off with alarming regularity. It was a fun, cheap car, but it was cheap.
-juice
Those are AWFUL. If your uncle wants to *give* you his 626 and it has the CD4E, run, don't walk, you will pay $2000-6000 every 2 years for tranny service.
I think CD4E stands for Can Destroy 4 times your Earnings.
Mazda got smart and now uses JATCO to supply most their trannys, including the 6.
-juice
You can show one year where the Protege was slightly better than the Civic? I looked at both from 95-02 and the Civic has 8 clear circles (which means a 5-9.3% chance of a problem) and nothing below that. The Protege has 20 clear circles and 8 half-black circles. To me that would indicate that historically the Civic is more reliable. Especially if you consider the number of Civics sold compared to the Protege. Meaning, with more units sold there are more opportunities for problems.
"They aren't eager to make that V8 or RWD platform for their "luxury" division so instead reskin Accords, add more options, and charge a premium"
The 05 RL is AWD. And with 300HP coming from it's 3.5L V6 a V8 isn't necessary considering it's price and the competition it will have in it's price range. It is the first North American application of real-time traffic, the unique SH-AWD system, it has the ACE structure, etc. The RL is eons better than the one it is replacing and is a car that, at this point, Mazda could only dream of producing.
It amazes me how all of you are stuck on downing the Civic. Is it because the Civic is Honda's only "weakness" because it is going into it's last year? Honestly, if you do think the Civic is Honda's weakness then Honda is doing pretty darn well considering the Civic is still one of the highest-selling compacts, one of the safest, and one of the most fuel-efficient.
You can talk about Honda's run running out all day long but I am extremely curious to see if Mazda's will ever begin.
-juice
Let us discuss this having a grip on reality thing. One, you have tried to mask the comment made earlier about Honda being the only automaker who doesn’t seem to oppose stricter regulations to fuel economy and emissions. Why?
Two, you don’t have to worry about resources. Honda has enough to bring jet engines to the market, so what is the big deal with an automotive V8? They’ve been emphasizing so much on development and feasibility of fuel cell technology, and you think they lack resources for V8 and SUV development? Yes, Honda has less resource than the old guns, but you need to look at where the focus is.
Finally, what do you think a Honda V8 would be like? I can bet the emphasis will still be on class leading fuel economy and emissions. You see it with four bangers, you see it with six cylinder engines, so why wouldn’t you see it with V8?
They aren't eager to make that V8 or RWD platform for their "luxury" division so instead reskin Accords, add more options, and charge a premium.
Comments like these amuse me. They aren’t eager to make a V8 apparently because they have enough room to grow without it. How many V8 engines does Mazda make? RWD hasn’t been proven to be a necessity. And the way market seems to be shaping up, AWD looks more promising! Last I heard, the new Mercedes S-Class might have AWD standard!
Let us now address the issue of platform, rather an understanding of it. This article makes for a good reading.
Going back to the Accord, RL is more than just a re-skin. I have always wonder if the perception would be different if RL was launched first and Honda advertised Accord as being based off RL. For the clueless, this direction would work better than the other way around.
Why did they decide to go with the V6 hybrid Accord instead of a 4-cyl hybrid Accord? Because they figure Americans care about power more than saving some MPG, so give them what they want.
You seem very authoritative in answering the question on Honda’s behalf. I can only guess, and here is how. Adoption of hybrid technology is meant to improve fuel economy by 30-40%, or may be more. Accord four-cylinder is already fuel efficient, and while it could benefit more from it, putting several economy compact cars to shame from a 255 HP V6 powering a midsize sedan is to address the issues that many have raised over the years hybrids have been around. You want fuel economy, go Civic or Prius. You want performance with improved fuel economy, go Accord.
It is also about providing choices. Hybrid technology is still in its infancy, and it has a lot more to prove, and Accord Hybrid is another step in that direction. And yes, Honda is in business of making money. That is no secret either.
One will have to be really misinformed/uninformed or stubborn to not acknowledge Honda as a leader in fuel economy/emissions efforts. And it is not just the cars, Honda has been revising its practices in the places that produce the vehicles as well! On of the magazines (I believe C&D) had an article on it.
Not very amazing to me. It's Honda's weakest offering in the lineup and something different from Honda...."a loser".
"Is it because the Civic is Honda's only "weakness" because it is going into it's last year?"
No, not because it's going into it's last year. See the Car and Driver comparo. That was a 2002 model and they called it a loser and it hasn't changed significantly since then. New headlights and alloy wheels don't address the things that C&D was complaining about.
"Especially if you consider the number of Civics sold compared to the Protege. Meaning, with more units sold there are more opportunities for problems."
That has nothing to do with the ratings. CR uses a percentage to calculate ratings.
"The first year Civic dropped to Average in CR, Mazda might have been ahead temporarily, but they didn't sustain it."
Really? I'm going to have to check CR again because I swear the Protege got the highest rating possible. Have they rated the Mazda3 yet?
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/100022/page015- .html
"Refinement, build quality and a well-trimmed interior were the most often cited reasons for the Civic's first-place finish. If you're looking for an inexpensive sedan that doesn't look or feel that way, the Civic is the one."
"That has nothing to do with the ratings. CR uses a percentage to calculate ratings"
Again, my point is that if quality is equal and one model outsells the other the model that outsells the other will have more lemons. Therefore, unless we know the sample size is identical, there would be more Civic lemons than Protege lemons even if quality was equal.
It's a new model so no reliability responses from surveys yet. However, they predict reliability to be well above average.
Yes, and CR knows this, that's why they go by percentage.
"Therefore, unless we know the sample size is identical, there would be more Civic lemons than Protege lemons even if quality was equal."
That's why CR uses a percentage of vehicles sold. Otherwise, lower volumn models would have an advantage. You were trying to make the point that since the Civic sells more, it would have more lemons, and that would be reflected in CR's ratings. I'm saying, no, you're wrong because CR uses percentage of vehicles sold.
Golly, some of you folks just can't get enough of that line. That's, what?, the 50th time we've read that in the last week?
I've gotta wonder. If the Civic is such a loser, and it sells at a faster pace than the Mazda 3, what does that make the Mazda3? What's less than a loser? Is the 3 a "sub-loser"?
Let's take a little poll... Which word best describes the 3?
1. Dud
2. Clinker
3. Fiasco
4. Washout
How about my personal favorite, "miscarriage"?
Or maybe it's just about time that we retired that sad little "loser" quote.
The smaller the sample, the greater potential for a few odd surveys to skew the results.
Golly, if the Honda folks are going to bring up C&D comparison tests, you have to take the bad with the good. Can't talk about the Accord winning if you can't talk about the Civic losing at the same time.
"I've gotta wonder. If the Civic is such a loser, and it sells at a faster pace than the Mazda 3, what does that make the Mazda3? What's less than a loser? Is the 3 a "sub-loser"?"
When in doubt, bring up sales. Being a loser never stopped certain cars from selling. Being a winner never stopped certain cars from not selling. Besides, the loser comment was refering to a comparison test, not a sales competetion.
"The larger the sample, the more accurate the rating."
That's true, but that's not the point anonymousposts was trying to make.
I like Car and Driver and I respect them more than Edmunds when it comes to automotive journalism.
I'm happy with the Mazda6's second place finish. They liked the Mazda6 in that comparison a heckuva lot more than they liked the Civic in it's comparison test. They never called the 6 a "loser". "Loser" is a pretty strong word, especially coming from a mag that has historically loved Hondas.
We shall see how Honda responds to the new competition. If it's anything like how they responded to the Sienna then expect big changes for the 06 Civic.
1. Dud
2. Clinker
3. Fiasco
4. Washout
How about my personal favorite, "miscarriage"?
Or maybe it's just about time that we retired that sad little "loser" quote."
Why don't you submit that poll to the publication that declared the Civic a "loser"?
See what they can come up with.
Are you telling this to yourself? Or to "Honda folks"?
Fifth.
"While that is pretty disappointing for a Honda it was still not the worst car in the test like some of you are making it out to be."
It beat the Kia Spectra LS, Suzuki Aerio GS, Nissan Sentra GXE, Dodge Neon SXT, and the Mitsubishi Lancer OZ.
At least it wasn't the worst car in the test. Way to go!
"If it were the Mazda that came in fourth you all would say they were paid off, biased, or just plain dumb."
I would never say that. I have never said such a thing on Edmunds. Never. I argue with people who say things like that.
Not sure why you'd think I'd say that.
Should I be telling this to myself?
Examples please.
So is the statement that was this was something new from Honda.
What we have here is a case of he said/she said. C&D said one thing years ago. Edmunds said another. I mentioned sales because it illustrates that an awful lot of he and she buyers have voted in favor of the Edmunds version of events.
Fifth. See post 2570 and post 2618.
"What we have here is a case of he said/she said. C&D said one thing years ago. Edmunds said another. I mentioned sales because it illustrates that an awful lot of he and she buyers have voted in favor of the Edmunds version of events."
How many of those Civic buyers read both comparos?
How many people bought Civics in 2002 after Car and Driver called it a "loser"?
I'll bet the Car and Driver comparo had no effect at all on sales of the Civic. I'll bet the Edmunds comparo didn't affect sales either.
Some have been trashing the Civic needlessly. It's only the best small car (in all qualities) that all small Japanese cars aspire to. :-)
Like the Accord is the medium sized that all wannabe Korean and Japanese cars aspire to. :-)
Has anyone seen pics of the 2005 Sonata? Can you say 2004 Accord Copy? Except they screwed up the interior and the Hood (Too Korean). Before Trashing the Civic, keep in mind that the CR-V, the new EDIX/FR-V and the TSX were all developed from the Civic chassis. These are all excellent cars (especially the TSX which gives any BMW3 a run for its money.
The only negative about the Civic IMHO is the premium pricing, but that is a dealer greed prerogative. They sell well and fly out the dealership -- so obviously the laws of supply and demand set in to charge premiums. I doubt they'll come up with a Honda test-drive program (like GM has) :-))
All other qualities of the Civic are exemplary --
1. ride
2. handling
3. lack of NVH, rattles and squeaks
4. Smooth, smooth, smooth
5. Fit and finish
6. Styling
7. Interior
I find it funny that some folks just get angry with a Honda dealer for the premium pricing, dash out angrily to buy Mazdas, Hyundais, Suzukis etc.-- and then realize two months down the road that they're stuck with with that 'POS' for the next four years (If it makes it that long :-) )and then angrily keep trashing Hondas in internet forums like this for the next ten years. Some of these people haven't even driven a Civic!!!
To these people I say -- next time...make a wise decision and don't dupe yourself. Go buy a Honda.
Like I said -- I've been driving Civics since 1979. I know these cars. I've kept some Civics for six or more years -- made good money from the low depreciation -- and then went on to buy ACURAs that kept their values even better!
Try that with your average Japanese car. Last time I heard -- the local Infiniti dealership was trying to undercut pricing to sell cars. This is unheard of, in the luxury car market.
Or they try to change models like the Korean brands every other year. How else would the cars sell? Yes they get REAL generous on the equipment level. But that's not why you buy a car. You have to live with this thing for the next four years. Let's keep that in mind.
The Civic (typically due to Honda Corporate Fuel economy Policy) -- comes in GX and HX flavors as well. The former is an NGV vehicle, the latter is a fuel economy leader without the benefit of a HYBRID (I believe 50 MPG Highway still). Next year, the smaller Honda Jazz will do 60 MPG Highway. In Europe, the European Accord (Acura TSX here in the USA) comes with a smooth diesel (yes a _smooth_ diesel -- I've driven one). It's the 2.2 ICT-DI (gets 92 MPG), review here,
http://www.carpages.co.uk/honda/honda_diesel_sets_new_world_recor- ds_12_05_04.asp?switched=on&echo=566525199
movie link here.
http://world.honda.com/automobile/image/movie/ictdi.jpg
Where are these models (GX, HX) from Mazda?? Come on....
There is a trend here (fuel economy and other innovations). Other Japanese brands (even Toyota in spite of its size and prowess) will (for the near future) be second to Honda and will have products that are at least one generation removed from a Honda product.
They don't shoehorn a V8 in a HONDA (even the Pilot/MDX) just because it will fit. Honda philosophy has always been to under-size its engines. Which makes sense because (again the 80/20 rule) 80% of the time you're only using 20% of the engine's power. I cringe on the SoCal freeways when I see some overfed twit driving an H2. Ten MPG for carrying that one clueless dweeb! Meanwhile Greenland keeps getting smaller and smaller.
In any case -- I wish Mazda the best with its new 3. It is well designed and standard equipment is indeed generous. But the pieces don't actually make up something whole for me.
I was watching an HD Broadcast last week on DishNet and they were showing the Tokyo 2004 Motorshow highlights. There was a segment on Honda's new massive crash-test center (Incidentally you can get admission for watching the car-crashes when they do test there). In Europe they have new legislation that says that if you hit a pedestrian, there can be only so much damage to the person' knee, ankle, body etc. So the New Fit/Jazz/Civic bumpers are already compliant with the Euro legislation.
This is partly the reason for building the crash-testing facility. See here as well,
http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4040824_02.html
Point is -- Honda is trying to niche market itself as a safe intelligent person's car.
In Japan -- Honda has pioneered innovations so far ahead of other car companies -- there is no comparison at all. The Fit (same size as the Mazda2) offers smartcard ignition and pushbutton starting a la the US market S2000 and the MBZ C320. That's a car smaller than the Civic!!
In the Japanese market the Honda Inspire (equivalent to US Accord) comes with optional collision avoidance radar as well as sensors and warning tone enunciators to keep the car in-lane. How about Mazda??
Honda's 3.5l V6 is going into a Saturn Vue this year I hear. Saturn wanted to bring more smoothness into the powertrain, so they turned to Honda.
The S2000 makes 240 horses from a 2.0 litre engine. Enough said.
Anyhow -- without frothing up ad-infinitum, I ask Honda detractors to be informed. Go to any one of the Honda websites in the US or Europe, read up the industry rags. Then come here and argue. Then the argument will some value and polish to it. Come to the argument with at least some accurate information...
I value input from both of you, but this continual arguing is getting old.
Did you mean RSX? Because the TSX is built on the Accord platform.
4th, 5th whatever. The Civic finished mid-pack.
A lower volume vehicle that's harder to get because it's in high demand. Kinda the way the Civic used to be.
I think this threads run has run out.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
But what about the the transmissions, we're going on 4 years now, and we are still have V6 auto_trannys bitting the dust.
Looks like I may have to pass on a Pilot (can't risk it).
By the way they build Civic in 2 factories to keep up with demand from North America. So yes, they have increased production. And they have to import Japanese-built Accords during peak demand times.
The thread hasn't run out. But the let's only bash the Civic and not talk about how it relates to Hondas "run" has.
An example of Hondas run having a "second wind".
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/19/pf/autos/odyssey/index.htm?cnn=ye- s
And if Mazda could produce 300,000+ Mazda3s, would the inventory supply be as low, and would there be no need for direct-to-the-customer rebates?
They don't sell Civics faster, they sell MORE of them. That's purely an issue of amount of production capacity combined with number of retail outlets.
I'm sure that Mazda - and any other car maker - would love to have a car line that has a 50-day supply at current sales rates and still moves about 300,000 units per year.
Incidentally, if the Civic sales are "purely an issue of amount of production capacity combined with number of retail outlets," then the Chevy Cavalier should be the best-selling small car in America, as it has plenty of production capacity and more retail outlets than any other brand of small car.
But it hasn't quite worked out that way, now has it?
What I DON'T hear about is Honda increasing production of the Civic to meet the suprisingly high demand for the car. I DO hear that about the Mazda3. What does THAT tell you?
It tells me that Honda, drawing on its past experience of selling Civics, has been able to closely match production capacity with demand.
Honda doesn't have to increase production to meet demand, as it properly forecast needed capacity from day one, based on over two decades of selling Civics in the United States.
The Mazda3 was an all-new design with a new nameplate, sold by a brand that has had its shares of ups and downs in the American market. Ford may have wanted to play it safe, as past Mazdas did not set the world on fire with their sales.
How many times has a company been criticized - on this board, and in the regular media - for being over-optimistic about a vehicle's sales prospects? Ford was conservative with the Mazda3, and now finds itself in the happy position of having to increase production to meet demand for the car.
For that I take my hat off to Ford and Mazda. The 3 is a great car.
Considering that the current Civic is in the final year of its design cycle, I'd say that Mazda (and Ford) would LOVE to have the Mazda3 enjoy the sames sales rate and inventory supply when it reaches the end of its design cycle.
Well, Honda didn't lie... the recall on the 2003 models was for a different issue. The earlier tranny issues dealt primarily with the torque converter and if the problem manifested itself, the torque converter or transmission had to be replaced. I had the transmission replacement done on my last Accord, a 2000 V6, very early on and it worked great from that point on.
The new recall involves inspecting second gear for signs of overheating and if it shows none, installing an oil jet kit to improve lubrication of second gear. It's a minor mod and the inspection and modification take less than 2 hours.
Having owned an Accord from each generation, I can say that the gen 7 transmission is functionally an incredible improvement over the gen 6. Far more responsive and smoother shifting. And as Honda has come forward with the recall, I have no qualms about their backing up the transmissions in the future.
Regarding a new Pilot, a different fix has been incorporated into the production line, so as long as you go with a late 2004 or 2005, the issue is already handled.
You make a very good case for Honda. If they do decide to bring their diesel engine to these shores I would be inclined to forgive them for the 1978 Accord. I did go look at the Acura MDX. I like the looks better than any of the other wannabe Japanese SUVs. However I get real mixed reviews from owners here on the forum. It seems there are some real issues that Acura is not addressing. I think I would pass on the MDX until it is getting a clean bill of health.
Well I guess Honda owners can sleep easy tonight knowing it wasn't just one issue, but two different ones.
"I had the transmission replacement done on my last Accord, a 2000 V6, very early on and it worked great from that point on."
The fact you even got it replaced once is too much. And I've read posts on Edmunds where someone had went through 2 and more transmissions, with failures still happening, not to mention posts on other websites. Edmunds makes up a small percentage of car owners yet there's quite a few owners reporting transmission replacements. Bottomline, it's no wonder people are questioning Honda "quality" these days.
And of course there's always the normal things that can go wrong and are reported by owners. Honda is above average no question, but they are not in the same league as Toyota. The US mutters Toyota and Honda in the same breath when it comes to reliability, Honda is more on par with Nissan and some Mazdas, Subarus, etc.
That's why I posted the lemon cases out of Hawaii. The numbers clearly show Toyota is a step above (by the way, anyone with other states lemon cases who want larger numbers feel free to post it, this is the only one I can find, I would be more than interested to see the numbers from other states). We all know people buy Hondas based on reliability, but yet they won't touch a Mazda, Nissan, Subaru, etc. This alone is what keeps Honda afloat and if they keep it up the way they're going they'll be in trouble. People are catching on to VW's and other European cars. These owners that buy based on reliability should be buying Toyota. And at least Toyota and Nissan have a 5 year powertrain warranty.
The Corolla is no Civic and the Camry is no Accord. They have staked out places in the market and stick with them.
Again, another smart move. If the consumer wants these companies to clean up their act and give them the best car possible then refuse to buy it until they get their quality control in order. Having blind loyalty to Honda and buying their cars regardless is not smart. VW is suffering and maybe, just maybe it'll be enough so they get their act together.
Yes, the major one that affected between 1.5 - 2.0% of Hondas/Acuras and that required a transmission replacement apparently is solved.
The second recall is one that takes action to prevent a possible future failure under VERY specific circumstances. With Honda dealing with this as a recall, the number of vehicles expected to be affected is very low.
Guess I'll sleep easier tonight knowing that a simple modification now will help prevent serious problems down the road.
"Edmunds makes up a small percentage of car owners yet there's quite a few owners reporting transmission replacements."
Statistically, that's meaningless. We have no way of determining how representative this so-called "quite a few owners" is of the total population of Honda owners. Not to mention the fact that your average "non-enthusiast" Honda owner is unlikely to visit Edmunds unless he or she encounters a problem. So I propose that there's just as likely "quite a few owners" with problem-free Hondas who aren't represented here. At any rate, observational "data" gained from watching posts on Edmunds proves absolutely nothing.
"The US mutters Toyota and Honda in the same breath when it comes to reliability, Honda is more on par with Nissan and some Mazdas, Subarus, etc."
Well for one thing, I recall that driftracer reported that the number of lemon law cases regarding Hondas in the area that he covers is almost nil. So the Hawaii figures fall far short of representing a comprehensive view.
And I guess your little post from Hawaii nullifies all of the work done by Consumer Reports and JD Power, who rank Honda equal to Toyota and, at least in the case of JDP, well above Nissan and Mazda.
One report from the state of Hawaii vs. the huge survey efforts by CR and JDP across the entire US? Sorry, not even close.
"These owners that buy based on reliability should be buying Toyota. And at least Toyota and Nissan have a 5 year powertrain warranty."
Since you're so prone to crucify Honda for its transmission problems, you should be just as inclined to crucify Toyota for its engine sludge problems. You can rail on Honda all you want (in fact, it seems that you are), but the fact of the matter is that all auto manufacturers face some major issues from time to time. And that includes those ranked highly for reliability, such as Honda and Toyota.
Now I'm not going to side with anyone on the whole Honda/Mazda war, because I like both companies, and I believe the 3 has really raised the bar on the compact front, but I think the next Civic is going to take the next step further. And as much as people in here would like to believe Honda is going the way of Yugo, your dreaming. The bar is still very high on the quality/reliabilty front, Automakers are attacking JD powers ratings with a vengence. People want a car that's built well, gets good economy, and stays out of the shop. From a personal experience, I know 11 people who own V6 Honda's (one of which is mine), only one has had the tranny issue. Guy with an 04' Ody that had a wine in reverse. So as a precaution, they replaced it. Brought the car in, day after he was on his way, no questions asked, no charge. Much better experience than with the Trailblazer he had before, snapped an A-arm in the suspension while cruising on the highway about 70mph. Dealer told him it was the Boston roads that caused it, not the vehicle... Fought with them for 3 weeks before they fixed it. They flipped the bill, he paid for 3 weeks with a Cavalier rental.
I've had 4 Accords, a CRV and now an MDX myself. All have been perfect. Would I trust Mazda on the same level? Yes, they just don't have the model portfolio that Honda/Acura have. I think they'll get there if Ford lets them.
What I found most interesting is that GM went from a high of 30% market share in Hawaii to 9.5% in 2003. Toyota and Honda both increased market share over the 6 year period. It tells me that the public is interested in reliability over other aspects of vehicle ownership. I did notice that Mazda had more than it's share of problems. I know Hawaii is a very small market, I imagine owners there have the same problems as anywhere. Maybe more dealer problems because there is no competition.
Frankly I don't care how big or small the transmission glitch is. The fact is that it has been on-going for 4-5 years now [NOT GOOD]. And has cause me to me very gun-shy of Honda AT. I would have felt better if it has all been taken care of back in 2001. But since it wasn't, and many have had repeat issues, I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about Honda/Acura V6-AT products.
How does Honda keep flying under the radar, and not overly tarnish their reputation??
Because most reasonable people know these are cars and that no automaker is perfect. These"problems" are not widespread enough to effect most reliability surveys, and Honda also extends warranty coverage on issues that it finds to be inherent in its products. What more can they do? Heck, even Lexus has a couple recalls this year on the LS. No one builds em better than Lexus.
I know Honda won me over when they helped me get out of a 1998 Civic EX that had a paint/bodywork problem. You earn/keep customers that way.
But the real fact is that it's not ongoing... the recall is a completely different issue from the earlier transmission problem. And unlike with the earlier problem, the recall is a means of preventing a problem from occurring at all. With the previous problem, there were no preventative steps that could be taken... if a transmission was going to fail, it would show symptoms of the failure and have to be replaced.
Interpret it as you may... I'm not trying to talk into anything. If it makes you uncomfortable, by all means do yourself and all of us a favor and buy something else. But from what I've seen and experienced myself, I'm not worried about the transmission design or Honda's commitment to stand behind it.
However, if a lengthy ongoing issue is something that scares you, I'd avoid Toyota V6s as well. The same design issue that lead to engine failures due to sludge buildup affected both 4-cyl and V6 designs over 6 model years... although the 4-cyl design has been discontinued, current Toyota V6 engines are of the same design family as the affected engines.
Seems that at first, Toyota denied any responsibility at all, blaming the issue on owners who didn't change their oil often enough. However, when they finally started to see the problem in cars where the owners had proof of following the recommended oil change interval, not to mention the beating their reputation for reliability was beginning to take on the Internet and in the press, they backed down and started covering some engine failures. They even made a design change to help prevent future problems (although some experts believe that it only made the problem less likely, rather than solving it completely). Despite all of this, they still maintain that any problems are the owner's fault.
However, based on the existence of the linked petition, it seems that they're still trying to give people the runaround...
http://www.petitiononline.com/TMC2003/petition.html
At least with the earlier transmission problems, Honda finally extended the warranty on most models that were potentially affected. They could have followed Toyota's example and continue to jerk their owners around, but they didn't. For the record, the transmission on my 2000 Accord was one of the first ones replaced, and Honda and the dealership were extremely cooperative. No Toyota-style "try to blame the owner" runaround.
So I strongly disagree with pzev that Toyota reliability is better than Honda's. Just like Honda, they generally deserve their reputation for reliability, but they're far from perfect. If you consider the Honda AT issues a debacle, the Toyota sludge issue is a debacle of equal severity, and Toyota has been far less inclined to support their customers than Honda has been. Anyway, he says that my transmission should never have failed in the first place... if that's the case, I think it's safe to say that the Toyota V6 engines that failed shouldn't have done so in the first place, either.
I guess you weren't following the thread earlier (understandable given the pace).
Recent report show that the Civic has a 30 day supply on hand. The Mazda 3 has a 50 day supply. The Civic sits on the lots for less time, and they sell more units. Time over distance (in this case units sold) equals speed. The Civic covers more sales over a shorter amount of time.
Also, the number of outlets for Honda is not a great deal more than Mazda. Mazda has more than 850, while Honda has a bit more than 900. Compare that with Ford (over 4,000 retailers), and the difference isn't all that great. At least, not enough to make up for the faster sales rate of the Civic.
Also, the number of outlets for Honda is not a great deal more than Mazda. Mazda has more than 850, while Honda has a bit more than 900. Compare that with Ford (over 4,000 retailers), and the difference isn't all that great. At least, not enough to make up for the faster sales rate of the Civic."
Couple of responses to that. Number one, the supply of Civics has much less further to travel, because they're mainly built here, while ALL Mazda3s are built in Hiroshima, Japan. That means longer transit time, because a certain percentage of the supply is going to be on the water at any given time (that's actually been some of the problem with supply of the 3, they take so long to get here). Mazda may have a 50 day supply BUILT, but it's not in the dealers' hands. They NEED that 50 day supply because delivery takes 2 months plus from the factory.
Now, in response to that number of retail outlets you gave: have you factored in that Honda delers are largely stand-alone, whereas Mazda dealers are largely NOT standalone? That's going to mean that Honda's actual dealership infrastructure total is going to be a lot larger. Basically each Honda dealership is 1 dealership. But each Mazda dealership is more like half a dealership (Though here they're halved with Mitsubishi and VW, not exactly the most desirable of brands).
Yyyeeeaaahhh Rrrriiigghhht.
Well what about the Mazda6 vs. Accord sales and days supply disparity? Or maybe the MPV?