A $30K Accord and no moonroof? What in the hell is Honda thinking?
Just kidding, I don't really care, the Accord hybrid is an amazing car, but I know some Honda fans from Edmunds are going to be awfully disappointed that there's no moonroof.
The new Car and Driver has a full write up on the Accord Hybrid. It sounds amazing, fast AND efficient.
with a moonroof (well, actually a sunroof). It wasn't a must-have thing, but it was nice to have. If I were buying a new car, and one that expensive, I'd definitely want one!
that NONE, I repeat NONE, of the hybrids have a moonroof either standard or even available from the factory? I am not sure, but I would bet quite a bit of money that it is because of the added weight of a moonroof. Maybe it has something to do with aerodynamics too, which of course are maximized on hybrids to increase fuel economy.
I would like to know Honda's next plans for hybrids. Will there ever be a "common man's" version of the hybrid Accord, $23K sticker with the equipmentlevel of a 4-cyl LX? What about Pilot?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This is a midsize that does 0-60 in 6.7 seconds and gets almost 40 mpg. I understand that some people want a moonroof, but I don't understand why it's a make or break item.
Nippon - This is was my last issue on the current subscription, so I think they wanted to get it to me asap.
Lemme see, I think the HAH gets different alloy rims, a decklid spoiler (which decreases the "awfulness" of the back end a bit), and it's loaded to the gills. Only the NAV is an option.
However, you lose the folding rear seat, the moonroof, and a bit of trunk space. FWIW, there's no reason why you couldn't add a moonroof.
Keeping the comparison with the Escape going, both have similar mpg ratings, but they're reversed. The Escape HEV's city figure is about the same as the Accord's highway, and vice versa. In real world testing (with the staff doing burnouts), the two vehicles got 25 and 26 mpg.
The Escape has some price advantage as far as entry cost is concerned. You can get a decontented Escape HEV for about $27K. MT commented on one odd little content sacrifice. Without the $1,900 NAV, you lose the power meter showing the push and pull between the ICE and motors. Not a serious issue, but no fun at all!
I wonder why Honda puts the battery pack up there. One reason is ease of heat dissipation, but I would think that underbody install may also work (or on the sides with gills now there is a cosmetic idea).
all the hybrids seem to have their battery packs right there - that is why in the old Prius the seats would not fold down either, even though every other four-door Toyota sedan at the time had fold-down seats. In the newer Prius, aren't they under the back seat somewhat, allowing the hatch design? I think they made the load floor higher to cover the battery pack.
Hybrid naysayers have made much of the battery pack being essentially stowed right under where the rear-seat passengers sit, but of course the gas tank has been in that same spot on many non-hybrid models for 50 years or more. I wonder which is more dangerous for the rear-seat passengers in a crash - having the battery pack right there, or having the gas tank right there...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I just flipped through the Car and Driver article again, and there's no mention of the moonroof unavailability in the whole article, not even in the part where they point out the sacrifices.
Apparantly, while being hung up on the amazing performance and fuel economy, they forgot all about the moonroof being gone, or maybe they just don't care.
The title of the article is "Haul [non-permissible content removed] and save gas" That's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.
I don't see how you can say that a moonroof is going to be any more or less of a requirement in the "tree-hugger" segment than it would in any other segment, especially at $30K. What is the "tree-hugger" segment anyway? Can you define that? Other than the moonroof, the car is pretty decked out and the leather isn't going to please the true granola treehugger green peace types anyway who don't need all the fancy stuff. And I KNEW you would say something like that.
And really, if the car was meant strictly for treehuggers, why the V6? Why not make it slow and get better mileage? The tree huggers wouldn't care, right?
the HAH as a "tree hugger". This is arguably the first of a new hybrid breed: those that sacrifice large mileage gains for a power increase and a small mileage gain. And at $30K, it is going to look like a "luxury car" to most of the folks who would normally consider an Accord for their car.
As such, I think they would have been well advised to put in a moonroof despite the extra weight and loss of aerodynamic efficiency, but maybe those losses are worse than I imagine them to be.
I think the omission of a moonroof is ESPECIALLY noticeable at Honda, where in all the lines of cars, the top level trims have moonroofs. And ALL the Acuras have them.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Moonroof isn't "for granted" in near luxury segment. Many near/luxury cars have it as an optional feature, so I don't see it as a big deal other than that I prefer to have moon roof.
Both CD and MT tested the I-4 Auto Accord, and their figures were 8.3 and 8.5 seconds from 0-60. Even CR, which normally has lower numbers, got 9 seconds for the Accord. The manual I-4 Accord was tested to 7.5 seconds, from 0-60. I don't think any Tribute/Escape has numbers that better these.
I don't think it's that big of a deal either, that's my point, and it has nothing to do with "tree huggger" status either. First of all, I don't think you can define the "tree hugger" segment, and second of all, how would anyone know whether or not "tree huggers" like moonroofs? Just because other hybrids don't have moonroofs doesn't mean someone who values efficient vehicles doesn't like or want a moonroof. But again, not a big deal IMO and in Car and Driver's opinion.
I agree that the absence of a moonroof kinda derails the full luxury experience. On the other hand, there's plenty of other content to make up for it. I think it's a forgivable trade-off for the gee-wiz factor of IMA.
It's been my experience that Honda has offered the V6 sedan as a luxury upgrade, not a performance upgrade (the 6MT coupe is another matter). IMHO, the extra torque from the electric motor adds to the effortless driving ideal that luxury vehicles are supposed to offer. The noise suppression offered by ANC also aids in promoting a luxury experience. So selling a $30K Accord with all this technology seems consistent with Honda's plans.
I mean, for a while people were shelling out $30K for an AWD Passat without a CD player. <shrug>
Actually, caramel covered apples to small valencia oranges.
We're talking V6 plus hybrid power, for pleasing performance. They could have added the hybrid powertrain to the 2.4l, but they chose to start with the V6 and offer something different and a true first in a hybrid - performance!
The Escape hybrid is very expensive if you compare it to a FOUR cylinder Escape, which offers similar real world performance. These slow-ish SUVs are indeed comparable in terms of performance.
Ford is trying to manipulate the marketing and have people compare the premium over a V6 Escape, but that's nonsense, the V6 Escape is substantially quicker, no comparison.
Performance costs money. It's worth more to many people.
that the 4-cyl Accord comes in that fast in acceleration. If they can get a little 160 hp 4-cyl/automatic to do 0-60 in 8.3-8.5 seconds, it almost seems lame that the 3.0 automatic, with 80 hp more, is only about 1-1.5 seconds quicker, depending on your source.
As for moonroofs in the near luxury department, sure there are cars without it. Just as there are cars in that market without leather. They're called loss leaders, bait-and-switch specials, etc. And if you buy one, you'd better make sure you really like it, because I hear they get hit hard on depreciation.
They relax the gearing with the V6, to keep mileage up.
HAH has enough performance to perhaps draw interest from folks shopping in the near-luxury segment. Honestly, I think it's going to compete more with the TL than with the Escape hybrid.
"The Escape hybrid is very expensive if you compare it to a FOUR cylinder Escape, which offers similar real world performance. These slow-ish SUVs are indeed comparable in terms of performance."
Actually, one of the mags (either MT or C&D) got their hands on a 4AT four cylinder Escape for comparison with the HEV. The four banger's track numbers were measured in days and weeks. I think it ran 0-60 in 14 seconds, or more. The quarter mile was a number too long for me to recall. ;-)
But I think we're way off track comparing 0-60 times. Nippon only was simply remarking that the Escape V6 (his buddy's older Tribute, actually) felt more peppy than an Accord I4. He may be right since he's talking about "feel", not drag racing. It's just that the full-throttle comparison comes out in favor of the Accord.
I think when we add two cylinders to that Accord, things start to change and probably in favor of the Accord. My position was that adding a V6 and IMA put the Accord V6 into a whole new ballpark when compared with the Escape V6, nevermind the somewhat less powerful Escape HEV.
So, IMHO, saying that both offer V6 performance is a bit of an over-simplification. Sure, they're both V6-esque. But that's like saying Busch-lite and Guinness are both "beers". I believe anyone who drives both hybrids will come away understanding this.
Here's something that might be a bit too on topic to introduce at the moment, but here it is anyway.
I was digging through some old links and found one that describes the strengths and weaknesses of HMC from back in 1999. Kinda interesting to compare what they were concerned with 5 years ago and what has happened since.
Weaknesses: 1. NA provides profits 2. Not big enough to afford mistakes 3. No high-profit big rigs 4. Acura needs a kick in the pants 5. Small product line 6. Weak in UK
Wow, credit where credit is due, Honda addressed just about every one of those.
1. Not sure but NA probably still does provide most of the profits.
2. I think they now are big enough to absorb a few mistakes. We'll see if the Ridgeline bombs, but if it does, it won't hurt 'em too bad.
3. Don't know if you'd call the Pilot and Odyssey big rigs, but they are to Honda, relatively speaking. Throw in MDX and you have their biggest hits at the large end of the spectrum, the opposite of a decade ago.
4. Acura is on a roll. TSX, TL, MDX was already hot. New RL looks competitive. They have certainly improved a lot.
5. Expanded product line already, but a smaller car and the Ridgeline should help that some more. Still not a full-line manufacturer like Toyota has become, though.
6. No idea about UK, anyone? I know they build CR-Vs there, though, and they now make their own diesels.
when the last car was built that would do the quarter mile faster than it would do 0-60!
Trivia note: In 1968, Consumer Reports tested a Dodge Dart 225 slant six/auto and 3 or 4 other compacts. The Dart did 0-60 in 14 seconds, and the 1/4 mile in 19.0 seconds@72 mph. I wonder what the 1/4m mile time would be on the Escape!
I saw a test of a Ford Excursion with the base 5.4 once, and it also did 0-60 in 14 seconds. So there might still be a few vehicles out there that slow, but they're few and far between! I think even my roommate's '98 Tracker could do 0-60 in about 11-12 seconds with one person on board. It would really bog down under a full load, though.
1. They have talented stylists that have styled vehicles like the current Acura TL, RL, and MDX. All 3 of these vehicles maybe the best looking vehicles in their class. Acura has their styling down pat.
2.) Hybrid and Engine Technolgy.
3.) Value for your money.
4.) Business savvy-Knows what the average customer wants and Honda usually delivers that product well with Honda in the 90's and Acura currently. Honda has always struck me as a company that does its homework and does it pretty well before they release a model.
Things Honda has done wrong.
1.) The current Civic was a disaster by Honda standards. They let second tier competitors such as Mazda with the last generation Protege and current 3 back into the compact car game. They also let Hyundai with the current Elantra back into the compact car game. Also, the current Civic has seen a revision every year on exterior styling. 02 they added 2 bars to the front grille. 03 they redid the back end sort of with the tailights and added little ground effects. 04 they did the usual mid cycle refresh. Dumping the double wishbone suspension on the Civic was a mistake. Finally, too much costing on interior materials with the current generation Civic. A bright sport for the Civic I think sales have actually been up since the 04 revisions.
2.) Americanizing the Accord-Honda is usually pretty business savvy. The current Accord exterior styling made no sense what so ever. Who were the going for with this? They were trying for older buyers with the sedan and I don't get why they would do something like that. Very un Honda-like. Coupe was the usual Honda slam dunk so I cut them some slack there.
3.) Honda is not the fountain of youth it was in the 90's. Younger buyers are turning to brands like Mazda, Hyundai, and Nissan. Honda is too good of a company to let these 3 brands bully them around. They would have never let that happened in the 90's. Honda embarassed Nissan to death in the 90's.
4.)A former boss at Honda from 1990-1998(I;m not sure if he was the CEO or what he was) but he said there was too much pressure to compete with Toyota. My thing is who cares what Toyota is doing? Honda will never be as big as Toyota. Honda has to deliver the product their customer wants not a product that directly competes with Toyota. Honda tried that approach with Acura in the latter part of the 90's in trying to compete with Lexus and it backfired big time. Models like the 96 TL and 98 RL did really nothing. Honda finally woke up with Acura. Do they really need to learn the same lesson twice with trying to compete with Toyota/Lexus? I think not.
5.) First year models-03 Accord and 04 TL with creaking and rattling. This is again very un-Honda like. Creaking and Rattling in a Honda product? This is not the usual quality that they deliver. I think for 04 with the Accord they did correct the first year bugs. With the TL they used cheap tires to put on the car from what I am reading. I;m sure for 05 Honda will correct the bugs with TL. The main point hear is Honda cannot have this many bugs in the future with first year models. You turn off customers like that. In conclusion, Honda must do a better job of working out bugs with first year models in the future.
Honda hasn't done this wrong but the current price war in the US market might force Honda to discount more and more. I think for now Honda discounts 1,936 dollars for each model it sells. Thats what I read yesterday in the Wall Street Journal.
The 3 main thing that concern me for Honda's is build quality with first year models, cost cutting, and exterior styling.
Nice post. A lot of it is just growing pains, really.
They focus attention on the new products like the Ody and Pilot, so the Civic plays second fiddle to those more profitable units and it's not as well thought out.
One thing you did not mention was the tranny failures they've had recently. I think that may have been due to the fact they all along they've been experts at lighter, smaller cars.
Now suddenly they are doing much bigger vans and SUVs. It might be just a lack of experience on the heavier duty side of things. These heavier vehicles with the torquey 3.5l V6 deliver more torque than the powertrain engineers are used to dealing with.
when Honda puts an automatic transmission up behind a bigger V-6 engine, is it a beefier unit than what goes up behind the smaller 4-cyl?
I don't know what the norm is nowadays, but it used to be that automakers had several different transmissions of varying ruggedness, to correspond with increasing engine sizes.
The Dart wins. The Escape is an automatic (4 speed) with AWD and the new 2.3L engine from Mazda. 0-60 in 14.7 seconds and 20.1 seconds in the quarter mile. They did not list a trap speed.
In the back of the mag, they list an AWD Element sprinting at 8.7 and 16.6 seconds.
Weaknesses: 1. NA provides profits 2. Not big enough to afford mistakes 3. No high-profit big rigs 4. Acura needs a kick in the pants 5. Small product line 6. Weak in UK
I think that numbers 1 and 2 are still true.
Number 3 is no longer such an issue. Honda's trucks are profitable, but they don't have the same profit margins as the primitive trucks of the big 2.5. The thing that has changed is the fact that the Big 2.5's trucks don't have those profit margins, either! With the incentives Ford, GM, and DCX are throwing on the hoods, they are no longer huge sources of income. They still make a profit, but the incentives and forced production on many of these vehicles has cut those margins. The introduction of big Hondas and the loss of gross profits on traditional trucks sorta combine to make it a less significant weakness.
Acura got it's kick a while ago and the brand is doing very well. Number four is definitely a non-issue.
Europe has become a new playground for Honda. The Accord has earned quite a bit of respect. While the Civic isn't scoring a big increase over here, it's very popular in Europe. So is the Jazz. Sales are up 17% overall.
The new 2.2L diesel is proving to me a big sales booster. Accord sales are up 53% with the diesel. The CR-V is the best selling petrol vehicle in its class. It's outsold by other models which offer diesel engines, like the RAV4. However, 70% of the RAV's sales are diesels. With the CR-V getting the same 2.2 from the Accord, they're going to need to increase production (which they are).
"The Escape is an automatic (4 speed) with AWD and the new 2.3L engine from Mazda. 0-60 in 14.7 seconds and 20.1 seconds in the quarter mile. They did not list a trap speed.
In the back of the mag, they list an AWD Element sprinting at 8.7 and 16.6 seconds."
That's nuts. I wonder why the huge difference? Does the Ford tranny suck that bad, or is the Ford heavier? Was the Element that C&D tested a manual transmission? That would explain a lot. If not, it almost seems like something was wrong with the Escape test vehicle.
When you compare the Accord and Mazda6 with basically the same engines as the Element and Escape, the 0-60 difference is .4 seconds (that's point 4 seconds, or a little less than 1/2 second) according to C&D, and those cars were tested at the same time in the same test with the same type of transmission. The Escape engine has a little less hp, but that can't be enough to account for a 6 second! difference. Wow.
The Element tested was a manual transmission. No wonder.
I have no doubt that even the automatic version of the Element would be quicker than the Escape, but nowhere near 6 seconds quicker.
Ford isn't known for the most efficient automatics anyway, and comparing acceleration times for two different vehicles, one with a manual, and one with an automatic, is comparing apples to oranges.
Thanks for providing that, Newcar. They didn't list the transmission in the road test digest, so I wasn't sure myself (sorry). I had to check the EPA city mpg rating just to figure out that it was an AWD model.
I think the problem with the Escape's transmission is the gearing (not necessarily the efficiency). I may be mistaken, but I think it uses the same transmission as the V6. The six has the torque to overcome the tall gearing, but the 2.3L doesn't. Combine that with a relatively heavy rig and you get slow acceleration.
"Europe has become a new playground for Honda. The Accord has earned quite a bit of respect."
Thats what upset me Europe gets what we call the Acura TSX while we get an Accord that looks like a Buick on the back end. As a Honda loyalist that upset me when American-ized the Accord and then moved the sportier Accord to the Acura line. That to me was not a good business move on Honda's part.
TSX is popular but it may be too small to be Honda's mainstream mid-size sedan. Specifically it's kind of narrow.
I think they got it right - let the big car sell in volume, and make the smaller one sportier and charge more for it.
Mazda6 and Legacy are similarly sized (to the TSX that is) but they sell in much less volume than the large import sedans in this class (Camry, Accord, and Altima).
"Europe gets what we call the Acura TSX while we get an Accord that looks like a Buick on the back end."
I think if you look at the market, the Euro Accord is actually placed in almost exactly the same position the TSX can be found here. The Euro version just offers a wider range of options.
Over here, the Accord is the everyday family sedan. Across the pond, the Civic is the car that more closely fits that slot. In their markets, the Euro Accord is a premium sedan. It's a (small) step up from an everyday car.
Here in the USA, the TSX is marketed as a step up from an ordinary car. But, just like the Euro Accord, it's a small step up and not a true luxury mobile.
I've got a feeling that if Honda changed the back end of the US Accord a lot of the negatives would dry up. Many people are more jealous of the TSX styling than the actual car.
Funny, but the tail lights don't bother me as much as the angled trailing edge of the trunk. That design has never looked good on a car (witness earlier Imprezas). A straight drop following the decklid, as seen on the Civic, would be better.
In fact, just adding a decklid spoiler does a bit to ease the pain.
They offer a low profile lip spoiler which really makes it more attractive. But like Varmint said, the rear of the sedan seems to be the center of all the negativity towards the Accord.
What's cool about the TSX is it touches on Honda's of the past with sharper body lines, smaller body, higher strung Vtec 4 cyl. It was meant more as a replacement for the old Teg 4-door than an actual mass market Accord. I believe Edmunds summed it up best when they compared it to the 91 era Maxima, which by far was my favorite. You can throw a TSX around like Honda's of old, something you can't claim in a gen 7 Accord, not even the Coupe with the 6-speed IMO.
I believe my 04 Accord handles just as good as a 93 Accord. Sure it's gotten a bit bigger but almost all cars have. I feel the biggest handicap of the 7th generation (probably even the 6th generation) is the OEM Michelin tires. Handling aside the 04 is significantly better than the 90-93,94-97, and a good improvement over the 98-02 Accord.
Comments
Just kidding, I don't really care, the Accord hybrid is an amazing car, but I know some Honda fans from Edmunds are going to be awfully disappointed that there's no moonroof.
The new Car and Driver has a full write up on the Accord Hybrid. It sounds amazing, fast AND efficient.
I would like to know Honda's next plans for hybrids. Will there ever be a "common man's" version of the hybrid Accord, $23K sticker with the equipmentlevel of a 4-cyl LX? What about Pilot?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This is a midsize that does 0-60 in 6.7 seconds and gets almost 40 mpg. I understand that some people want a moonroof, but I don't understand why it's a make or break item.
Lemme see, I think the HAH gets different alloy rims, a decklid spoiler (which decreases the "awfulness" of the back end a bit), and it's loaded to the gills. Only the NAV is an option.
However, you lose the folding rear seat, the moonroof, and a bit of trunk space. FWIW, there's no reason why you couldn't add a moonroof.
Keeping the comparison with the Escape going, both have similar mpg ratings, but they're reversed. The Escape HEV's city figure is about the same as the Accord's highway, and vice versa. In real world testing (with the staff doing burnouts), the two vehicles got 25 and 26 mpg.
The Escape has some price advantage as far as entry cost is concerned. You can get a decontented Escape HEV for about $27K. MT commented on one odd little content sacrifice. Without the $1,900 NAV, you lose the power meter showing the push and pull between the ICE and motors. Not a serious issue, but no fun at all!
The reason the back seats don't fold down in the HAH is because the battery pack is back there, is that right?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I wonder why Honda puts the battery pack up there. One reason is ease of heat dissipation, but I would think that underbody install may also work (or on the sides with gills now there is a cosmetic idea).
Hybrid naysayers have made much of the battery pack being essentially stowed right under where the rear-seat passengers sit, but of course the gas tank has been in that same spot on many non-hybrid models for 50 years or more. I wonder which is more dangerous for the rear-seat passengers in a crash - having the battery pack right there, or having the gas tank right there...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Apparantly, while being hung up on the amazing performance and fuel economy, they forgot all about the moonroof being gone, or maybe they just don't care.
The title of the article is "Haul [non-permissible content removed] and save gas" That's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.
And really, if the car was meant strictly for treehuggers, why the V6? Why not make it slow and get better mileage? The tree huggers wouldn't care, right?
As such, I think they would have been well advised to put in a moonroof despite the extra weight and loss of aerodynamic efficiency, but maybe those losses are worse than I imagine them to be.
I think the omission of a moonroof is ESPECIALLY noticeable at Honda, where in all the lines of cars, the top level trims have moonroofs. And ALL the Acuras have them.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree that the absence of a moonroof kinda derails the full luxury experience. On the other hand, there's plenty of other content to make up for it. I think it's a forgivable trade-off for the gee-wiz factor of IMA.
It's been my experience that Honda has offered the V6 sedan as a luxury upgrade, not a performance upgrade (the 6MT coupe is another matter). IMHO, the extra torque from the electric motor adds to the effortless driving ideal that luxury vehicles are supposed to offer. The noise suppression offered by ANC also aids in promoting a luxury experience. So selling a $30K Accord with all this technology seems consistent with Honda's plans.
I mean, for a while people were shelling out $30K for an AWD Passat without a CD player. <shrug>
Actually, caramel covered apples to small valencia oranges.
We're talking V6 plus hybrid power, for pleasing performance. They could have added the hybrid powertrain to the 2.4l, but they chose to start with the V6 and offer something different and a true first in a hybrid - performance!
The Escape hybrid is very expensive if you compare it to a FOUR cylinder Escape, which offers similar real world performance. These slow-ish SUVs are indeed comparable in terms of performance.
Ford is trying to manipulate the marketing and have people compare the premium over a V6 Escape, but that's nonsense, the V6 Escape is substantially quicker, no comparison.
Performance costs money. It's worth more to many people.
-juice
As for moonroofs in the near luxury department, sure there are cars without it. Just as there are cars in that market without leather. They're called loss leaders, bait-and-switch specials, etc. And if you buy one, you'd better make sure you really like it, because I hear they get hit hard on depreciation.
HAH has enough performance to perhaps draw interest from folks shopping in the near-luxury segment. Honestly, I think it's going to compete more with the TL than with the Escape hybrid.
-juice
Actually, one of the mags (either MT or C&D) got their hands on a 4AT four cylinder Escape for comparison with the HEV. The four banger's track numbers were measured in days and weeks. I think it ran 0-60 in 14 seconds, or more. The quarter mile was a number too long for me to recall. ;-)
But I think we're way off track comparing 0-60 times. Nippon only was simply remarking that the Escape V6 (his buddy's older Tribute, actually) felt more peppy than an Accord I4. He may be right since he's talking about "feel", not drag racing. It's just that the full-throttle comparison comes out in favor of the Accord.
I think when we add two cylinders to that Accord, things start to change and probably in favor of the Accord. My position was that adding a V6 and IMA put the Accord V6 into a whole new ballpark when compared with the Escape V6, nevermind the somewhat less powerful Escape HEV.
So, IMHO, saying that both offer V6 performance is a bit of an over-simplification. Sure, they're both V6-esque. But that's like saying Busch-lite and Guinness are both "beers". I believe anyone who drives both hybrids will come away understanding this.
I was digging through some old links and found one that describes the strengths and weaknesses of HMC from back in 1999. Kinda interesting to compare what they were concerned with 5 years ago and what has happened since.
http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1999/b3636007.arc.htm#B36360- 13
Strengths:
1. Profitable technology
2. Global reach
3. Engine sales
4. Strong R&D
Weaknesses:
1. NA provides profits
2. Not big enough to afford mistakes
3. No high-profit big rigs
4. Acura needs a kick in the pants
5. Small product line
6. Weak in UK
I stand corrected.
So it goes like this:
Honda Accord Hybrid: very quick
Escape V6: peppy
Escape Hybrid: sorta slow
Escape 4 banger: ssssslllooooooooooooooooooooowww
:-)
In 14 seconds I could drop the wife off, she could VOTE, and then run back and hop in the Escape while I'm still accelerating!
-juice
1. Not sure but NA probably still does provide most of the profits.
2. I think they now are big enough to absorb a few mistakes. We'll see if the Ridgeline bombs, but if it does, it won't hurt 'em too bad.
3. Don't know if you'd call the Pilot and Odyssey big rigs, but they are to Honda, relatively speaking. Throw in MDX and you have their biggest hits at the large end of the spectrum, the opposite of a decade ago.
4. Acura is on a roll. TSX, TL, MDX was already hot. New RL looks competitive. They have certainly improved a lot.
5. Expanded product line already, but a smaller car and the Ridgeline should help that some more. Still not a full-line manufacturer like Toyota has become, though.
6. No idea about UK, anyone? I know they build CR-Vs there, though, and they now make their own diesels.
-juice
Trivia note: In 1968, Consumer Reports tested a Dodge Dart 225 slant six/auto and 3 or 4 other compacts. The Dart did 0-60 in 14 seconds, and the 1/4 mile in 19.0 seconds@72 mph. I wonder what the 1/4m mile time would be on the Escape!
I saw a test of a Ford Excursion with the base 5.4 once, and it also did 0-60 in 14 seconds. So there might still be a few vehicles out there that slow, but they're few and far between! I think even my roommate's '98 Tracker could do 0-60 in about 11-12 seconds with one person on board. It would really bog down under a full load, though.
The latter engine is supposed to be torquier, so I'm surprised it would be so slow.
-juice
1. They have talented stylists that have styled vehicles like the current Acura TL, RL, and MDX. All 3 of these vehicles maybe the best looking vehicles in their class. Acura has their styling down pat.
2.) Hybrid and Engine Technolgy.
3.) Value for your money.
4.) Business savvy-Knows what the average customer wants and Honda usually delivers that product well with Honda in the 90's and Acura currently. Honda has always struck me as a company that does its homework and does it pretty well before they release a model.
Things Honda has done wrong.
1.) The current Civic was a disaster by Honda standards. They let second tier competitors such as Mazda with the last generation Protege and current 3 back into the compact car game. They also let Hyundai with the current Elantra back into the compact car game. Also, the current Civic has seen a revision every year on exterior styling. 02 they added 2 bars to the front grille. 03 they redid the back end sort of with the tailights and added little ground effects. 04 they did the usual mid cycle refresh. Dumping the double wishbone suspension on the Civic was a mistake. Finally, too much costing on interior materials with the current generation Civic. A bright sport for the Civic I think sales have actually been up since the 04 revisions.
2.) Americanizing the Accord-Honda is usually pretty business savvy. The current Accord exterior styling made no sense what so ever. Who were the going for with this? They were trying for older buyers with the sedan and I don't get why they would do something like that. Very un Honda-like. Coupe was the usual Honda slam dunk so I cut them some slack there.
3.) Honda is not the fountain of youth it was in the 90's. Younger buyers are turning to brands like Mazda, Hyundai, and Nissan. Honda is too good of a company to let these 3 brands bully them around. They would have never let that happened in the 90's. Honda embarassed Nissan to death in the 90's.
4.)A former boss at Honda from 1990-1998(I;m not sure if he was the CEO or what he was) but he said there was too much pressure to compete with Toyota. My thing is who cares what Toyota is doing? Honda will never be as big as Toyota. Honda has to deliver the product their customer wants not a product that directly competes with Toyota. Honda tried that approach with Acura in the latter part of the 90's in trying to compete with Lexus and it backfired big time. Models like the 96 TL and 98 RL did really nothing. Honda finally woke up with Acura. Do they really need to learn the same lesson twice with trying to compete with Toyota/Lexus? I think not.
5.) First year models-03 Accord and 04 TL with creaking and rattling. This is again very un-Honda like. Creaking and Rattling in a Honda product? This is not the usual quality that they deliver. I think for 04 with the Accord they did correct the first year bugs. With the TL they used cheap tires to put on the car from what I am reading. I;m sure for 05 Honda will correct the bugs with TL. The main point hear is Honda cannot have this many bugs in the future with first year models. You turn off customers like that. In conclusion, Honda must do a better job of working out bugs with first year models in the future.
Honda hasn't done this wrong but the current price war in the US market might force Honda to discount more and more. I think for now Honda discounts 1,936 dollars for each model it sells. Thats what I read yesterday in the Wall Street Journal.
The 3 main thing that concern me for Honda's is build quality with first year models, cost cutting, and exterior styling.
They focus attention on the new products like the Ody and Pilot, so the Civic plays second fiddle to those more profitable units and it's not as well thought out.
One thing you did not mention was the tranny failures they've had recently. I think that may have been due to the fact they all along they've been experts at lighter, smaller cars.
Now suddenly they are doing much bigger vans and SUVs. It might be just a lack of experience on the heavier duty side of things. These heavier vehicles with the torquey 3.5l V6 deliver more torque than the powertrain engineers are used to dealing with.
-juice
I don't know what the norm is nowadays, but it used to be that automakers had several different transmissions of varying ruggedness, to correspond with increasing engine sizes.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Rockline was considered but then shelved, it would have promised a bit too much me thinks.
-juice
I think I will contiune to call it the honda Aztec, since I think (hope?) it will be a bomb, but I have been wrong before.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Don't get me started on my "ugly cars can sell if they're priced right" rant, I'd keep you folks up all night! LOL
-juice
In the back of the mag, they list an AWD Element sprinting at 8.7 and 16.6 seconds.
1. NA provides profits
2. Not big enough to afford mistakes
3. No high-profit big rigs
4. Acura needs a kick in the pants
5. Small product line
6. Weak in UK
I think that numbers 1 and 2 are still true.
Number 3 is no longer such an issue. Honda's trucks are profitable, but they don't have the same profit margins as the primitive trucks of the big 2.5. The thing that has changed is the fact that the Big 2.5's trucks don't have those profit margins, either! With the incentives Ford, GM, and DCX are throwing on the hoods, they are no longer huge sources of income. They still make a profit, but the incentives and forced production on many of these vehicles has cut those margins. The introduction of big Hondas and the loss of gross profits on traditional trucks sorta combine to make it a less significant weakness.
Acura got it's kick a while ago and the brand is doing very well. Number four is definitely a non-issue.
Europe has become a new playground for Honda. The Accord has earned quite a bit of respect. While the Civic isn't scoring a big increase over here, it's very popular in Europe. So is the Jazz. Sales are up 17% overall.
The new 2.2L diesel is proving to me a big sales booster. Accord sales are up 53% with the diesel. The CR-V is the best selling petrol vehicle in its class. It's outsold by other models which offer diesel engines, like the RAV4. However, 70% of the RAV's sales are diesels. With the CR-V getting the same 2.2 from the Accord, they're going to need to increase production (which they are).
In the back of the mag, they list an AWD Element sprinting at 8.7 and 16.6 seconds."
That's nuts. I wonder why the huge difference? Does the Ford tranny suck that bad, or is the Ford heavier? Was the Element that C&D tested a manual transmission? That would explain a lot. If not, it almost seems like something was wrong with the Escape test vehicle.
When you compare the Accord and Mazda6 with basically the same engines as the Element and Escape, the 0-60 difference is .4 seconds (that's point 4 seconds, or a little less than 1/2 second) according to C&D, and those cars were tested at the same time in the same test with the same type of transmission. The Escape engine has a little less hp, but that can't be enough to account for a 6 second! difference. Wow.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=39&article- - _id=1777&page_number=1
The Element tested was a manual transmission. No wonder.
I have no doubt that even the automatic version of the Element would be quicker than the Escape, but nowhere near 6 seconds quicker.
Ford isn't known for the most efficient automatics anyway, and comparing acceleration times for two different vehicles, one with a manual, and one with an automatic, is comparing apples to oranges.
That CD4E tranny is a nightmare. In the 626, failures were so common it was a question of when, not if.
-juice
I think the problem with the Escape's transmission is the gearing (not necessarily the efficiency). I may be mistaken, but I think it uses the same transmission as the V6. The six has the torque to overcome the tall gearing, but the 2.3L doesn't. Combine that with a relatively heavy rig and you get slow acceleration.
Oh yeah, HAH was being compared to the Escape HEV. I think we can conclude that performance is nowhere near comparable.
-juice
Thats what upset me Europe gets what we call the Acura TSX while we get an Accord that looks like a Buick on the back end. As a Honda loyalist that upset me when American-ized the Accord and then moved the sportier Accord to the Acura line. That to me was not a good business move on Honda's part.
I think they got it right - let the big car sell in volume, and make the smaller one sportier and charge more for it.
Mazda6 and Legacy are similarly sized (to the TSX that is) but they sell in much less volume than the large import sedans in this class (Camry, Accord, and Altima).
Size does matter! ;-)
-juice
I think if you look at the market, the Euro Accord is actually placed in almost exactly the same position the TSX can be found here. The Euro version just offers a wider range of options.
Over here, the Accord is the everyday family sedan. Across the pond, the Civic is the car that more closely fits that slot. In their markets, the Euro Accord is a premium sedan. It's a (small) step up from an everyday car.
Here in the USA, the TSX is marketed as a step up from an ordinary car. But, just like the Euro Accord, it's a small step up and not a true luxury mobile.
I've got a feeling that if Honda changed the back end of the US Accord a lot of the negatives would dry up. Many people are more jealous of the TSX styling than the actual car.
In fact, just adding a decklid spoiler does a bit to ease the pain.
What's cool about the TSX is it touches on Honda's of the past with sharper body lines, smaller body, higher strung Vtec 4 cyl. It was meant more as a replacement for the old Teg 4-door than an actual mass market Accord. I believe Edmunds summed it up best when they compared it to the 91 era Maxima, which by far was my favorite. You can throw a TSX around like Honda's of old, something you can't claim in a gen 7 Accord, not even the Coupe with the 6-speed IMO.