Sure, I'll agree that the 04 still can handle, and I believe the bones on the front can attribute to that. I have an 02 and I think it handles pretty well, but I don't think any generation can match an Integra or more recently, RSX/TSX. That's what I meant by "Honda's of old".
The low-cowl, roller skate feel of Hondas past is gone. There's nothing like that feeling that you used to get as you ride in the early 90's Hondas. That low beltline and tall greenhouse design has left the entire market.
"Some foreign cars have a lot of positive attributes that may resonate with teens," said Andy Turton, president of TNS Automotive division. "However, the real superstar is Honda. Two reasons may contribute to this: First, its Civic model appeals strongly to teens, and secondly, its brand is perceived as one of quality and durability, as well as flexibility."
"bigger" part. That's why I don't drive my Lexus that much. It's too big. But I keep it around because it's so nice lookin'. Now my other car, the SI, I drive it every day. It's so small and the suspension is tight and controlled. Maybe I need a TSX.
Yeah but there are people lined up to buy your Lexus so obviously some think it's no where near too big. You had to put wheels and tires on the Civic to make it handle well. The LS is a nice, classy car straight from the factory. But maybe you're right ... maybe you do need a new TSX. The LS is too much car for you and you are getting a little old for the Si.
Either way you can't do any worse than the clunkers you used to drive.
"I believe Edmunds summed it up best when they compared it to the 91 era Maxima, which by far was my favorite."
All of those early 90's Japanese sedans look better than the modern versions IMO. The 90-93 Accord was my favorite generation Accord. The 92-94 Camry was super classy looking.
"a RWD TSX with the same engine and transmissions it has now - THAT'S the ticket. :-)"
Sounds like a match for the 3 series. I believe I mentioned something about that a while back.
I just finally got around to reading my issue of Car this month, and they mentioned some additional imminent "deaths": not only have they decided against replacing the NSX with the HSC concept, they are also axing the Integra type-R in Japan, and killing plans to export NSX type-Rs to Europe. The CTR's future is also questionable, according to them. And there is no replacement scheduled for the S2000. As regards the NSX, they are almost poetic in saying "the bell is tolling for Japan's first and only true supercar".
I have to agree with this though: "Honda has grown up hugely since the 80s, when the NSX was planned". "This is just the opening bell on Honda's decision to abandon its sports car heritage". "In the 21st century, Honda has different priorities. Its interests are diverse - motorcycles, robots, generators, fuel cells, hybrids, aircraft, marine engines... then there's the pressure to keep up with Toyota...right across the board. It's a rivalry as intense as that between Mercedes and BMW in Germany".
In short, money talks, and very VERY slow NSX sales don't. Nor do niche sales of the S2K, or the ITR and CTR. Even the Integra sells in lower volume nowadays than almost everything else Honda sells - sports coupes are a small segment after all. Witness the nearing demise of the Celica, whose history topped 30 years.
One other thing I had not heard: the article mentions Honda is, however, contemplating a competitor for the Lexus SC coupe.
In my view, this is EXACTLY the road Toyota ran down about ten years ago - chasing the big bucks in high-volume sales catering to the middle of the spectrum. I hope Honda does not run in the identical direction, not only because it makes some of the last affordable cars for enthusiasts out there, but also because I don't think it can successfully out-Toyota Toyota.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
gee35coupe pointed out one of my favorite design features - low-slung, low-cowl designs from its former Civics, Accords, and Preludes. My '90 Prelude was such a pleasure to drive daily - mainly because the view of the road was literally 'wide open' with light, yet direct handling with an excellent feeling of the road.
The evolving demand for more power in the 90's required larger engines - thus a higher cowl and taller suspension systems with larger wheels/tires - Hondas have gradually grown to their current size based on the general American demand for 'bigger is better'. Compare a '76 Accord to a current '05 model - and you will find the evolution to be astonishing. Its likely that today's Civic is larger than the first Accords of the late 70s.
Honda may be running in the direction of higher volume for bigger profits, but I think that's the natural way of large companies doing business. But take heart - Honda is far better at listening to its customer base and delivering on a current need versus a company like General Motors. Think about it - compare the classic lines of a car like the '67 Camaro (responding to the success of Ford's Mustang) versus today's 2005 Chevy Malibu. There was tons more market research and dollars put into today's Malibu - but wow - what an incredibly boring car it ultimately turned out to be! Hyundai is making some cars that are far more attractive and functional than a blase, bread-box car like the Malibu. GM has continually failed to read the market effectively by turning out some very ill-conceived products - Cadillac is their only recent sign of hope, but that says little for its Chevrolet and Pontiac divisions (Is that rounded Grand Prix lookin thing really a 'GTO'??) Today's Honda's diverse product line (even crossing into its motorcycle and generator products) demonstrates their commitment to innovation and design based on the dynamic needs of its customers.
Who would have thought that today Honda would introduce a 200+ hp Accord sedan - loaded to the hilt with no compromises - that could achieve a strong 30+ mpg rating as a hybrid? That's innovation... while GM thinks it should forego emphasis on hybrids in the mainstream and focus on evolutionary designs like the Buick LaCrosse (jeezzzz - pass me a Geritol).
My only personal request to Honda - please - bring back a sport coupe like the Prelude (or something like it). And when you do - while they may seem dated - could you bring back the pop-up headlights? - they gave the car some personality. Consider it 80's retro design (!)
those wide-open greennhouses with the low cowls and generous glass area, too. I think that those designs went away for several reasons, though. First, jut about all cars today have thicker roof pillars to improve rollover protection. The windshields are much more rakish today, and since the A-pillars slant, they're naturally going to be weaker than a more vertical A-pillar, so they beef them up. They also make door frames a lot thicker these days, which cuts down on wind resistance, and makes them harder to break into with a coat hanger.
And low beltlines are great for making a light, airy interior, but they're horrible when it comes to side impact protection. And SUV's and trucks don't "fight fair" in that arena, because their bumpers usually hit at the weakest part of the side, instead of down low, towards the floorpan.
I've noticed the trend to more claustrophobic interiors in all cars, not just Honda. For instance, my '00 Intrepid has worse visibility than ANY car I've ever owned, including any landau-padded, opera-windowed beast from the late 70's/early 80's. A lot of those old cars had thick, upright C-pillars that looked like they could hide a Greyhound bus, but a lot of the newer cars are just as bad. The actual C-pillar itself might not look as thick, because it might have more of a curve to it, but then the frame around the back door is usually thicker, and often they put a little blank spacer towards the back, to allow the window to roll down further.
Most rounded-off cars, ever since the first Ford Taurus, have had another annnoying trait. The roof is so sloped-off that the top of the windshield is often at my eye level. And I have to look down into the rear view mirror, instead of straight at it or even up at it, as in an older car. That makes more of a blind spot for me, as the mirror intrudes a bit into my forward view.
Still, once I drive something enough I do get used to it. I've driven a few 300's and Magnums, and I think their visibility is worse than my Intrepid! At least I can see the hood, though!
I don't know the new ones look like just look like lets go in a new direction and abandon the our styling direction of the 80's and 90's. The newer ones just don't do it for me like the older Accord's did in terms of styling. Maybe its the Accord's I grew up with that make my disdain towards the 03+ sedan. When I see an 04 TSX, 04 TL or an 05 RL I'm like yeah thats the Honda/Acura i grew up with. When I see an 03 Accord Sedan I'm like thats not the Honda I grew up on. The interior quality of the 03+ Accords is alot better than the old ones I will say though.
If Honda tries to out Toyota Toyota remember Mazda and Nissan did that and got killed in the mid 90's in doing that. I know Honda has better people running their operation than Nissan and Mazda had in the mid 90's.
I looked at Accord sales yesterday and they are down by 17-18,000 units from last years numbers. The TSX has picked up some slack in terms of maybe canniblizing some of the people who are not happy with the 03 Accord's styling. I don't know if Honda worries about dipping Accord sales though considering how well the TSX is selling.
I want to see Honda return to the brand they were from the late 80's to late 90's period personally. I see this with Mazda now but Mazda doesn't have the name or the marketing power to bring in customers like Honda does. I also see a little bit of this with Hyundai they are bringing in more youth buyers as well. Hyundai has nice looking small cars like the Elantra and Tibby. Hyundai is making a good name for itself in the US.
Responding to post 3266(acura3.2Tltypes):
"Gm has continually failed to read the market effectively by turning out some ill-conceived products-Cadillac is their only sign of hope, but that says little for its Chevrolet and Pontiac divsions(is that rounded Grand Prix lookin thing really a 'GTO'??)"
About GM I like the Pontiac G6 but the market is not responding to this car. Its the first GM car in awhile thats affordable that I can actually afford and I have a liking towards. I couldn't see that about GM cars in the 90's because most of them were just ugly to me.
Finally, following Honda has been an fun an enjoyable ride for 10 years. The 01 Civic and 03 Accord miscues worry me though. The 03 Accord was the first time I thought Honda really made miscue. Other than that they have really done a good job at reading the market. A car like the 300C which is a competitor the Accord and TL could worry Honda a bit but that was more of Chrysler hitting a grand slam at the right time more than anything else. When the Cadillac CTS came out Honda had an answer with the 04 TL. Ford just came out with the 500 which can compete with the Accord EXV6 but I don't think the 500 will be the outright success for Ford that the 300C has been for Chrysler. As long Honda keeps on responding to the market they will be ok I think. A bunch of miscues like Nissan and Mazda made in the mid 90's I don't think Honda is capable of making that many mistakes with the market.
sporty cars for enthusiasts at reasonable prices, I would say the only two other companies that come to my mind after Honda in this regard would be Nissan and Mazda, as carguy has mentioned.
The thing with Nissan is, the quality has been way down since the "Renault renaissance". Even the reliability seems to have dipped - the Titan appears to have massive problems, the Z cars are a pain to own with high tire roar and constant tire replacements and realignments. So yeah, Nissan is still in the inexpensive sport game, but I wouldn't want any of the current crop. Honda can stay ahead of them without a lot of trouble if they just put some effort into the next Civic and kill IMMEDIATELY the automatic transmission problems on higher models.
Mazda is a whole different ball game: they have finally (after a very long hiatus) put out some products that do an enthusiast proud, now they just need to focus several of the models (MPV, B-series, Mazda6) more. But Honda will lose more and more customers to Mazda unless Mazda slips up. Indeed, "sport" is a hard category to compete on, because there are so many companies trying to offer it, and so many buyers in the "A-to-B" or "quiet and smooth" (a la Camry) camps. Honda can boost its quality back to exceptional, and "re-sport" its car lineup, or refocus on being a more direct competitor to Toyota. But again, if they choose the latter, I do not expect them to be able to outcompete Toyota on its home turf. Honda has the edge over Mazda in its dealer network (Mazda's is pretty bad) and in the overall quality of the Accord (regardless of its looks) vs the Mazda6. They will have to work to keep that edge.
People have mentioned Subarus in the last few years as an obvious competitor as well, but I disagree: AWD makes the sporty offerings portly, and the cars are all more expensive. Same is true of VW: sportiest car they have currently is the R32, and in a three-way with Evo and WRX Sti (all similarly priced) it was rated the nicest overall package but way slower in most measures of performance. So forget those two.
The Americans? Nah. They mostly deal in big cars and trucks. Their small offerings are never exceptional (Focus would have been if not for all the problems, perhaps the '07 Euro Focus II will change this?), and the only one coming down the pipe that looks like it has a good chance of changing this fact is the Solstice and whatever its coupe twin will be. But it is still a year away, and many promising concepts from GM have turned into something else along the way over the years.
The funny thing is, look at Car this month and there is a whole sweet review of several European Fords. If Ford would just bring their European cars to America (they could still keep their big American models like the 500), they would almost overnight become Honda's biggest headache. Well-built, nice and competitive cars with a sporty edge. They would hit Honda where it hurts.
Honda built itself on lightweight, durable, efficient cars with high build quality and reliability. If they retrench in this position, they would still stand out in today's market. But the rush to gain wider market share will likely compromise many of these characteristics. I think there is good evidence that this compromise has already begun. Don't let it continue, Honda!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The 6 has faded. I like the car but Mazda is still selling 04 6's and its November already. The 3 they might have Honda there. If you asked me in June when Mazda sales were way up Honda might have to worry about them but now I don't think so. Mazda sales not counting August because August was a terrible month overall for automakers. Sales at Mazda have been down for July, September, and October. Mazda shoots itself alot to which Honda doesn't do alot of. Things like rusting on 03 6's and A/C not working on 04 3's Mazda just sometimes self-destructs. Kia outsells Mazda now. Don't get me wrong I like Mazda but the market isn't responding to their products like they were a few months back. One last thing if I were in the market now the Mazda 6 is what I would buy probably so Honda would lose a sales there.
I think Nissan and Hyundai scare me the most. I know quality at Nissan has gone down but that was mainly because of build quality issue's at their new truck plant in Mississippi. Nissan brought engineers from Japan to correct build quality problems at their new truck plant in the US. The Altima and Maxima are still well built cars. The Sentra is still way behind the current Civic though and way behind the Mazda 3. The Sentra is way long in the tooth and reliability dropped below average in CR. CR doesn't even reccommed the Sentra anymore.
As for Ford the Focus is still a good seller. The F-150 sells well. The 500 you have to wait and see.
As for compromise I think Honda realizes that with the 01 Civic and 03 Accord. I think they will go back and correct those 2 mistakes they made. You don't want to be GM in the 80's and be Mazda of the mid 90's and keep on making mistakes until wether you lose customers or the money dries up all together. To me Honda was focusing more on Acura of late more than Honda. Thats why you see Honda making slip-ups which we didn't see in the 90's.
"I think they will go back and correct those 2 mistakes they made."
Hey, they may not be perfect, but they're far from out and out "mistakes". In the case of the Accord in particular, I think it's difficult to consider a car that has dominated most of the comparisons against other cars in its class as a "mistake". Sure, not everyone is in love with the Accord's styling, but from just about all other measures it's clearly among the top designs in its class. Many other automakers would be thrilled with having such a "mistake" in their lineup.
I'm sorry, but I just don't think that Honda was all that perfect in the 80's and 90's. The original Odyssey was a genuine flop. The Prelude was a sales flop with a front end that was just as polarizing as the new Accord's back. While the cars wear an Acura badge, the Vigor, 2.5TL, and 3.5RL were all lackluster designs.
I purchased an '04 EX Accord Coupe in June 2004. I truly want to like the car. Great power (4 cyl w/5 sp. manual), nice thoughtful features, but ... the headliner creaking is HORRIBLE. I just took the car in for my first attempt at repairing the creaking. I have the HondaCare warranty so the rental (a crappy Civic LX) was free. The diagnosis "poorly fitted insulation at headliner." So, Shockley Honda "insulated headliner." I'm driving home and hit a few bumps ... and I hear cracking from the passenger side ... again. I just don't want to spend my entire life getting this problem fixed. Even the trashy Civic I rented didn't creak and snap, crackle, and pop. The Accord had two other body integrity probs too.
"I think Nissan and Hyundai scare me the most. I know quality at Nissan has gone down but that was mainly because of build quality issue's at their new truck plant in Mississippi"
I wasn't talking just of build quality problems, but also the quality of the cars in general. Altima was introduced with an absolutely bargain basement interior that they have only just remedied; Sentra still has one. Then there's Maxima - a great car with an enormous price (in its class), that has the same powertrain as its lesser sibling the Altima, and answers a question most people are now answering by shopping near-lux brands.
It is funny, but for most of the compact cars on the market today, I would say there is a bottom trim level that really strikes me as rental grade. It is certainly true for the Sentra 1.8 - I was in one recently. It was true for the old Mazda Protege, but I have not been in a Mazda3 2.0 to see. It is certainly true for Focus, and let's not even get into the GM offerings. It is even true to some extent in the Subaru Impreza, whose "bargain basement offering" is quite expensive relative to the others. The only exception is Jetta, and again, this car is very expensive in its class.
BUT I would NOT say that is the case in the Civic or Corolla, which is one way they really stand apart. The same could be said of the Accord and Camry, with the same rental grade comment applying to their base-trim midsize peers.
That is the kind of thing Nissan really needs to address before they are going to steal substantial sales from Honda.
As for Hyundai - forget it. Their cars are not ready to have a Toyota/Honda price sticker on them, and I have test driven several recently. They sell well because they have become durable and well-built, are inexpensive and have huge warranties, and I can't fault them, but they are also not at a quality level where they (or Kia) are comparable to Hondas. Maybe they will be in a few years. All the more reason for Honda to make the next Civic and Accord a slam dunk.
Having said all that, I should add that rockvillebear's Accord problems are exemplary of the kind of slips Honda is making too many of right now. That has to stop, but quick.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
any more today than they were back when people now think they were building perfect cars. It's just that more people have this forum to come and complain about the problems they are having. The Accord Forum is actually quiet for a car that sells 350,000 copies a year. If you would compare the number of newbies in the "prices paid" type forums vs. the complaint ones, it's not all that bad. I mean if Benz can get away with selling the cars they build at the prices they charge with the quality reputation they have here on Edmunds, Honda is gonna be just fine.
Yeah Honda did make mistakes in the 80's and 90's. Everything is just more noticeable maybe its just because alot of automakers have caught up with Honda and the field is closing up tightly. I mean no car makers really make crap anymore. On the Acura dide of the the 96 RL was bland yeah but it still looks good on the exterior. Other than that they were trying to be Lexus. I'm with you with the 2.5 TL and Vigor though.
Response to post 3275(gee 35):
Yeah I;ll agree with the last part of your post with Mercedes. Mercedes does sell alot of cars but their scores in surveys since 2000 have been pretty disasterous but hey they still sell. Honda/Acura is way ahead of Mercedes in reliability.
As for complaints I have 23,900 on my 02 Acura CL. Its built tight as a drum. No rattles no nothing. Build quality on this car is pretty good. I got this car when they were changing over from 01 to 02 models in September of 2001 so the factory did a good job of retooling and working out the bugs on this car. If you take care of a car it will last you a long time.
I've been thinking am I going to stick with Honda/Acura on future purchases or gioelsewhere like go to Mazda or another brand when I am in the market for a new car. That will still be a long time. Build quality doesn't worry me with Honda just their slip-us on exterior styling worry me of late.
We have friends of ours who own a CL, 01 I think. He uses it as his daily driver, has something like 120,000 miles on it. Tight as a drum, and he drives the heck out of it (I believe it's a Type S). Real nice cars IMO. They also just bought an 04 X Touring/Nav/RES to replace their 01 after it served them well for 150,000+ miles.
My dad and I both have X's as well, his is an 01 with around 120k and mine's still young (03), ready to turn 30k. I think a few rattles or squeeks are minor complaints IMO, especially when seeing milages like these have!
Honda is trying to blame the expected sales drop on higher gas prices. Why don't they admit that the American design team screwed up the Accord by giving it Buick styling?
People buy Japanese cars because they want Japanese styling (just look at the terrific TL), not GM/Saturn styling!
considering that the Accord already gets great fuel economy! Someone oughtta slip the news to Honda that the most popular Chrysler 300 model is the relatively thirsty Hemi, so evidently fuel economy isn't a high priority to a lot of people!
Heck, in my case, the higher gas prices might be the one thing that would be MORE likely to put me into an Accord next time I buy a new car!
Absolutely, I agree. If gas hit $8 a gallon I think that's the only way I'd go (blindfolded) into a Honda dealer to buy an Accord with the 2.4l and a manual.
26/34 I believe. Better than most compacts.
Gas prices are a huge motivator for Accord sales. Most are I4s, not V6s.
I don't know the new ones look like just look like lets go in a new direction and abandon the our styling direction of the 80's and 90's.
Nope. You must have seen at least one car, from Honda past (early 90s) whose overall profile resembles that of the current Accord sedan. Okay, not exactly in the front where the Accord is more muscular, but in the rear where the typical complaint on styling of the sedan is to be found. One of them is the 1992-1995 Civic sedan, with rounded, high and short rear. The other car would be one that looked like this in a close up picture
I guess it's mainly in the headlights. Any car with the headlights that are too big just can't pull off "muscular", in my book. That wide-eyed deer-in-the-headlights look yes, or maybe the look my cat got on his face when I caught him peeing down one of the furnace vents, perhaps. But muscular, no. Or, sometimes they end up looking like aging actresses that have had one facelift too many, resulting in the "peeled back" look of the headlights.
Now a car with the headlights that are too small can come off looking more muscular, but then you run into the "squinty eyed" look.
The Accord's front needs a more prominent grille. As is it just looks like it melted. Or like someone stretched it in length.
I agree that the tail lights looks like they're upside down.
Off topic: ever notice the previous Explorer's headlights were upside down? If you disagree, check the previous Mountaineer - they flipped them back over!
I think Honda usually goes off on a different direction with styling with every new Accord. The '90-93 had a greenhouse that was almost BMW-like, with a relatively long hood and rear deck. Almost perfect in proportioning, IMO.
When the '94 Accord came out, it looked nothing like the previous generation, IMO. Well, except for the trapezoidal-esque grille, but that's about it. It was more rounded, and seemed to have more greeenhouse and less hood and decklid, although it still had nice proportions.
Then when the '98 came out, oddly enough, I thought it had more of a resemblance to the '90-93 than it did the '94-97! If they had come out with this design in 1994, I don't think it would've looked the least bit out of place! It seemed more angular and squared-off to me than the '94-97, and as a result seems more an evolution of the '90-93.
But now with the '03, I think it would've made a nice follow up to the '94-97. Back to a somewhat rounded shape, and a big greenhouse, with short hood and rear deck.
It's almost like Honda has two timelines mixed up in their styling, and we're in some kind of time warp!
style-wise, at least, was the '86-89 model! I loved those flip-up headlights! And back then, it really did seem like a sporty car...especially if you compare one to a Camry! Although I must profess a perverse fondness for the '87-91 Camry.
Yeah, back then the Accord didn't look that much different from the Prelude. Remember they both had similar pop-ups? The front ends were very similar, and Prelude was their sports car.
If you like pop-ups, welcome to the BDFC (*). My Miata qualifies me.
May be I should have said lean muscle. That said, the new Accord is definitely more muscular than the Hondas of the early 90s.
Grill is another interesting aspect of Accord through all its generations. Traditionally, Accord has had a thin line grill through the generations (except the 1998-2002 Accord). So, grill-less has been an Accord tradition, in North America. European/Japanese Accord and Civics have, however, had “more” grill.
Honda could use the light truck grill (Pilot, Odyssey, CR-V and Element) in the Accord and next Civic, but I suspect it will make the Accord look like Altima, and in addition, people will complain about Acuras and Hondas looking alike (a prominent complaint in the 1999-2001 TL). Even with the grill-less exterior, many suggest that the new RL looks like an Accord (although I haven’t figured out yet, which one).
At first, when I looked at the photos before the new RL was released, I thought the new car looked a bit like the old Mazda Millenia crossed with a second gen Olds Aurora. I hadn't seen one in person till this weekend at the NE auto show in Boston.
I take back all of that. In person, the new RL is Awesome. It has a nice "Planted" stance, similar to an older E-class Benz. It's very classy, but very mean looking at the same time. Interior wise, I've gotta compliment Acura for designing and building a gorgeous interior, Especially in the Parchment. Everything just fells high quality and seats are comfy. Rear seat room is a little tight and I'd have prefered the 20" wheels from the concept, but I'd give it a solid A score.
I'd kill to find this car with a manual gearbox...
I don't think muscle when I see the Accord's front end. To my eyes, muscle is described with curves and arches placing emphasis on the business parts of the car. Large fender flares are a good example of automotive muscle. A bulging hood is another.
Still, the Accord does have a interesting facade. The concave/convex transition from hood to fender was unique until BMW started to use it. It looks "taught". Most cars have some kind of character lines on the hood. The Accord's hood is flat. I've never seen another car with such a design. Unfortunately, the angular, swept-back headlights are as common as a MacDonalds burger. But as a whole, the front of the car is unique and sleek.
Older Hondas got by on their overall shape. They were wedges with lots of creases and lines. They were the same lines used by everyone else, but the low body profile gave no question as to what the car was about. The latest Accord finally uses some unique design cues. I think the coupe looks great. Too bad about the sedan's rear end, though.
Acura's 90s era sedans were bland, but the current design scheme really started with the MDX in 2000. The almost-Cadillac creases and shapes started with that vehicle. If they had only used them on the RSX, I think folks would have seen the trend much earlier. It wasn't until the TSX hit our shores that it was recognized.
I believe the crease (and the penta-grill) started with the 1995 Acura CL-X concept.
Some of it was carried into production CL.
To my eyes, Accord has grown to be more muscular over the generations, and with a more pronounced fenders. And with the 2003 Accord, Honda also started a hide-the-gap (between hood and fenders) theme and has been carrying it into other vehicles, including the RL. For sake of comparison: 1990-1993 Accord 1994-1997 Accord 1998-2002 Accord 2003+ Accord
The CL-X concept actually brought about my least favorite Acura styling motif. The beak-shaped front bumper is just plain bad. Makes the car look amphibious, or something. The MDX wears a subtle version of that bumper.
With the TL, Acura does away with that. The blunt nose on the car gives the facade some real force. The new RL also seems to shun the beak and looks a bit more like a softened TL.
I still like the size and proportions of the 1994-97 Accords.
If I recall correctly, Honda purposely made that generation a little smaller than the one before, because it believe that the 1990s would be a decade of austerity and conservation. Obviously, THAT prediction flopped, and the Camry passed the Accord in sales rather decisively. Hence, the 1998 Accord seemed to pick up where the 1990-93 generation had left off.
04 looks Pacer like compared to the last generation. The A Pillar has less rake, the front looks shorter and there are no lines to break up the bubble look. It also looks like the roof line comes back farther into the trunk.
To me the car looks more like an economy car than a mid sized sedan.
that without anything around it as a reference point, the current Accord looks like a smaller car than it really is. Traditionally, as you moved up the size classes of cars, the hood and rear deck would usually grow faster than the actual passenger cabin of the car, with the end result being that bigger cars ended up looking really low and lanky, where a smaller car would look upright and stubby.
The current Accord really does have small-car proportions...just blown up to mid-sized, if that makes sense. (conversely, I think the '90-93 Accord has mids-sized proportions...just shrunk down to compact size) Another thing that might throw it off a bit is that the Accord's trunk is a bit small compared to the likes of the Altima and Camry, but it has a very generous passenger cabin, so that might mess with the proportioning even more.
The Camry also suffers this same fate, IMO...it looks like a small car blown up to midsized. The Altima somehow escapes it though. But then the Altima also has a longer wheelbase, and is a bit longer overall, so that might have something to do with it!
Exactly my point. If I wanted a Buick I would go buy a Buick. The 04 TL you can tell has European styling elements but still it still retains its Acura DNA. The Accord with the Altima and Mazda 6 they should have gone back to the mid 90's look. I don't know what their marketing team was thinking. The 90 and 98 Accord's sold great: why? because they both look like Honda's not GM cars. The 94 was a dissapointment from a sales standpoint but as I brought up a time or too before the was more of an effort to go after younger buyers at that particluar time period. Honda was worrying the average age buyer was going up for the Accord at that time. I remember when I first saw the 94 Accord when I was 15 years old I was look that is a great looking car. I even got my issue of Automobile Magazine that year somewhere in 94-95 they even left the 5th generation Accord off the top cars 10 list. They ranked cars like the Mercury Mystique/Ford Contour and GEO Prizm over it. If I remember this right they said the Accord is the family sedan the American's wish they could make. Well if that was the case why did you put the Ford Contour on your list that year and not the Accord? The 03 was just such a dissappointment but the interior is best in class no doubt.
Yeah the American Team design messed up but the American design team did design the 04 TL and did a great job. I think for the 08 Accord(I think thats the next time the Accord is up for redesign) Honda will go back to basics with the Accord styling but it can't be that bland. If Nissan hits a bullyseye with the next generation Altima like they did with the current generation Altima Honda will have something to lose sleep over in my opinion. Does anybody think this generation of Accord Honda might push up the redesign for 07 maybe since the exterior styling hasn't been well recieved? I know Honda used to do 4 year model cycles but now switches it up to 5 year model cycles. Nissan's last generation Altima(98-01)had a 4 year model cycle and the previous Altima had a 5 year model ycle(93-97.)
that the 2nd-gen Altima was just a facelift. Sure fooled me! Now the Maxima on the other hand, the '00-03 looked like a heavy-handed facelift of the '95-99.
As a 2-Accord owner I really wanted to by a new one in 2000- the Maxima re-design was goofy, I never liked Camry, but the Accord was, well, sooo dull. Bought a Passat- fun, until it got some miles on it and began to self-destruct (like everyone warned me!). Looking to dump it in '03, I saw the first pics of the new Accord and went- Jeez, this is what they did to win back the unfaithful? C'Mon! Drove it anyway and the interior and improved handling won me over, especially the sweet 2.4L and it's great mileage (I averaged 33mpg hwy after break-in)- but I just couldn't get by that horrid bubble-butt of the sedan and the choppy roofline, so I bought a Coupe. It exceeded my expectations and was flawlessly reliable for 30k miles; I unfortunately mis-judged how inconvenient a coupe really is with 2 near-teenagers and increasing the usage to offset our other vehicle, a thirsty Exped. So back to the buying arena again and really wanted to just trade for a Accord sedan, but, alas, disproportionate styling of the sedan just frosted me. Drove the TSX and even the TL, plus the G35X and ES330- all nice but just too much money. Revisited the #1 runner-up when I bought my '03, this time driving a V6 and looking at the usefullness of a 5-door- and now have a Volcanic Red Maxda6S sitting in my driveway. A hair under 23K loaded with auto. Not as nicely finished as the Accord inside, but- I don't cringe when I look at it. I hope Honda really looks closer at what can ultimately drive many purchases- if they lost a loyalist, how many thousands did they not get who were just shopping? A shame as it's a great car overall.
Comments
"Some foreign cars have a lot of positive attributes that may resonate with teens," said Andy Turton, president of TNS Automotive division. "However, the real superstar is Honda. Two reasons may contribute to this: First, its Civic model appeals strongly to teens, and secondly, its brand is perceived as one of quality and durability, as well as flexibility."
Either way you can't do any worse than the clunkers you used to drive.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
All of those early 90's Japanese sedans look better than the modern versions IMO. The 90-93 Accord was my favorite generation Accord. The 92-94 Camry was super classy looking.
"a RWD TSX with the same engine and transmissions it has now - THAT'S the ticket. :-)"
Sounds like a match for the 3 series. I believe I mentioned something about that a while back.
I have to agree with this though: "Honda has grown up hugely since the 80s, when the NSX was planned". "This is just the opening bell on Honda's decision to abandon its sports car heritage". "In the 21st century, Honda has different priorities. Its interests are diverse - motorcycles, robots, generators, fuel cells, hybrids, aircraft, marine engines... then there's the pressure to keep up with Toyota...right across the board. It's a rivalry as intense as that between Mercedes and BMW in Germany".
In short, money talks, and very VERY slow NSX sales don't. Nor do niche sales of the S2K, or the ITR and CTR. Even the Integra sells in lower volume nowadays than almost everything else Honda sells - sports coupes are a small segment after all. Witness the nearing demise of the Celica, whose history topped 30 years.
One other thing I had not heard: the article mentions Honda is, however, contemplating a competitor for the Lexus SC coupe.
In my view, this is EXACTLY the road Toyota ran down about ten years ago - chasing the big bucks in high-volume sales catering to the middle of the spectrum. I hope Honda does not run in the identical direction, not only because it makes some of the last affordable cars for enthusiasts out there, but also because I don't think it can successfully out-Toyota Toyota.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The evolving demand for more power in the 90's required larger engines - thus a higher cowl and taller suspension systems with larger wheels/tires - Hondas have gradually grown to their current size based on the general American demand for 'bigger is better'. Compare a '76 Accord to a current '05 model - and you will find the evolution to be astonishing. Its likely that today's Civic is larger than the first Accords of the late 70s.
Honda may be running in the direction of higher volume for bigger profits, but I think that's the natural way of large companies doing business. But take heart - Honda is far better at listening to its customer base and delivering on a current need versus a company like General Motors. Think about it - compare the classic lines of a car like the '67 Camaro (responding to the success of Ford's Mustang) versus today's 2005 Chevy Malibu. There was tons more market research and dollars put into today's Malibu - but wow - what an incredibly boring car it ultimately turned out to be! Hyundai is making some cars that are far more attractive and functional than a blase, bread-box car like the Malibu. GM has continually failed to read the market effectively by turning out some very ill-conceived products - Cadillac is their only recent sign of hope, but that says little for its Chevrolet and Pontiac divisions (Is that rounded Grand Prix lookin thing really a 'GTO'??) Today's Honda's diverse product line (even crossing into its motorcycle and generator products) demonstrates their commitment to innovation and design based on the dynamic needs of its customers.
Who would have thought that today Honda would introduce a 200+ hp Accord sedan - loaded to the hilt with no compromises - that could achieve a strong 30+ mpg rating as a hybrid? That's innovation... while GM thinks it should forego emphasis on hybrids in the mainstream and focus on evolutionary designs like the Buick LaCrosse (jeezzzz - pass me a Geritol).
My only personal request to Honda - please - bring back a sport coupe like the Prelude (or something like it). And when you do - while they may seem dated - could you bring back the pop-up headlights? - they gave the car some personality. Consider it 80's retro design (!)
ES
And low beltlines are great for making a light, airy interior, but they're horrible when it comes to side impact protection. And SUV's and trucks don't "fight fair" in that arena, because their bumpers usually hit at the weakest part of the side, instead of down low, towards the floorpan.
I've noticed the trend to more claustrophobic interiors in all cars, not just Honda. For instance, my '00 Intrepid has worse visibility than ANY car I've ever owned, including any landau-padded, opera-windowed beast from the late 70's/early 80's. A lot of those old cars had thick, upright C-pillars that looked like they could hide a Greyhound bus, but a lot of the newer cars are just as bad. The actual C-pillar itself might not look as thick, because it might have more of a curve to it, but then the frame around the back door is usually thicker, and often they put a little blank spacer towards the back, to allow the window to roll down further.
Most rounded-off cars, ever since the first Ford Taurus, have had another annnoying trait. The roof is so sloped-off that the top of the windshield is often at my eye level. And I have to look down into the rear view mirror, instead of straight at it or even up at it, as in an older car. That makes more of a blind spot for me, as the mirror intrudes a bit into my forward view.
Still, once I drive something enough I do get used to it. I've driven a few 300's and Magnums, and I think their visibility is worse than my Intrepid! At least I can see the hood, though!
If Honda tries to out Toyota Toyota remember Mazda and Nissan did that and got killed in the mid 90's in doing that. I know Honda has better people running their operation than Nissan and Mazda had in the mid 90's.
I looked at Accord sales yesterday and they are down by 17-18,000 units from last years numbers. The TSX has picked up some slack in terms of maybe canniblizing some of the people who are not happy with the 03 Accord's styling. I don't know if Honda worries about dipping Accord sales though considering how well the TSX is selling.
I want to see Honda return to the brand they were from the late 80's to late 90's period personally. I see this with Mazda now but Mazda doesn't have the name or the marketing power to bring in customers like Honda does. I also see a little bit of this with Hyundai they are bringing in more youth buyers as well. Hyundai has nice looking small cars like the Elantra and Tibby. Hyundai is making a good name for itself in the US.
Responding to post 3266(acura3.2Tltypes):
"Gm has continually failed to read the market effectively by turning out some ill-conceived products-Cadillac is their only sign of hope, but that says little for its Chevrolet and Pontiac divsions(is that rounded Grand Prix lookin thing really a 'GTO'??)"
About GM I like the Pontiac G6 but the market is not responding to this car. Its the first GM car in awhile thats affordable that I can actually afford and I have a liking towards. I couldn't see that about GM cars in the 90's because most of them were just ugly to me.
Finally, following Honda has been an fun an enjoyable ride for 10 years. The 01 Civic and 03 Accord miscues worry me though. The 03 Accord was the first time I thought Honda really made miscue. Other than that they have really done a good job at reading the market. A car like the 300C which is a competitor the Accord and TL could worry Honda a bit but that was more of Chrysler hitting a grand slam at the right time more than anything else. When the Cadillac CTS came out Honda had an answer with the 04 TL. Ford just came out with the 500 which can compete with the Accord EXV6 but I don't think the 500 will be the outright success for Ford that the 300C has been for Chrysler. As long Honda keeps on responding to the market they will be ok I think. A bunch of miscues like Nissan and Mazda made in the mid 90's I don't think Honda is capable of making that many mistakes with the market.
The thing with Nissan is, the quality has been way down since the "Renault renaissance". Even the reliability seems to have dipped - the Titan appears to have massive problems, the Z cars are a pain to own with high tire roar and constant tire replacements and realignments. So yeah, Nissan is still in the inexpensive sport game, but I wouldn't want any of the current crop. Honda can stay ahead of them without a lot of trouble if they just put some effort into the next Civic and kill IMMEDIATELY the automatic transmission problems on higher models.
Mazda is a whole different ball game: they have finally (after a very long hiatus) put out some products that do an enthusiast proud, now they just need to focus several of the models (MPV, B-series, Mazda6) more. But Honda will lose more and more customers to Mazda unless Mazda slips up. Indeed, "sport" is a hard category to compete on, because there are so many companies trying to offer it, and so many buyers in the "A-to-B" or "quiet and smooth" (a la Camry) camps. Honda can boost its quality back to exceptional, and "re-sport" its car lineup, or refocus on being a more direct competitor to Toyota. But again, if they choose the latter, I do not expect them to be able to outcompete Toyota on its home turf. Honda has the edge over Mazda in its dealer network (Mazda's is pretty bad) and in the overall quality of the Accord (regardless of its looks) vs the Mazda6. They will have to work to keep that edge.
People have mentioned Subarus in the last few years as an obvious competitor as well, but I disagree: AWD makes the sporty offerings portly, and the cars are all more expensive. Same is true of VW: sportiest car they have currently is the R32, and in a three-way with Evo and WRX Sti (all similarly priced) it was rated the nicest overall package but way slower in most measures of performance. So forget those two.
The Americans? Nah. They mostly deal in big cars and trucks. Their small offerings are never exceptional (Focus would have been if not for all the problems, perhaps the '07 Euro Focus II will change this?), and the only one coming down the pipe that looks like it has a good chance of changing this fact is the Solstice and whatever its coupe twin will be. But it is still a year away, and many promising concepts from GM have turned into something else along the way over the years.
The funny thing is, look at Car this month and there is a whole sweet review of several European Fords. If Ford would just bring their European cars to America (they could still keep their big American models like the 500), they would almost overnight become Honda's biggest headache. Well-built, nice and competitive cars with a sporty edge. They would hit Honda where it hurts.
Honda built itself on lightweight, durable, efficient cars with high build quality and reliability. If they retrench in this position, they would still stand out in today's market. But the rush to gain wider market share will likely compromise many of these characteristics. I think there is good evidence that this compromise has already begun. Don't let it continue, Honda!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think Nissan and Hyundai scare me the most. I know quality at Nissan has gone down but that was mainly because of build quality issue's at their new truck plant in Mississippi. Nissan brought engineers from Japan to correct build quality problems at their new truck plant in the US. The Altima and Maxima are still well built cars. The Sentra is still way behind the current Civic though and way behind the Mazda 3. The Sentra is way long in the tooth and reliability dropped below average in CR. CR doesn't even reccommed the Sentra anymore.
As for Ford the Focus is still a good seller. The F-150 sells well. The 500 you have to wait and see.
As for compromise I think Honda realizes that with the 01 Civic and 03 Accord. I think they will go back and correct those 2 mistakes they made. You don't want to be GM in the 80's and be Mazda of the mid 90's and keep on making mistakes until wether you lose customers or the money dries up all together. To me Honda was focusing more on Acura of late more than Honda. Thats why you see Honda making slip-ups which we didn't see in the 90's.
Hey, they may not be perfect, but they're far from out and out "mistakes". In the case of the Accord in particular, I think it's difficult to consider a car that has dominated most of the comparisons against other cars in its class as a "mistake". Sure, not everyone is in love with the Accord's styling, but from just about all other measures it's clearly among the top designs in its class. Many other automakers would be thrilled with having such a "mistake" in their lineup.
I wasn't talking just of build quality problems, but also the quality of the cars in general. Altima was introduced with an absolutely bargain basement interior that they have only just remedied; Sentra still has one. Then there's Maxima - a great car with an enormous price (in its class), that has the same powertrain as its lesser sibling the Altima, and answers a question most people are now answering by shopping near-lux brands.
It is funny, but for most of the compact cars on the market today, I would say there is a bottom trim level that really strikes me as rental grade. It is certainly true for the Sentra 1.8 - I was in one recently. It was true for the old Mazda Protege, but I have not been in a Mazda3 2.0 to see. It is certainly true for Focus, and let's not even get into the GM offerings. It is even true to some extent in the Subaru Impreza, whose "bargain basement offering" is quite expensive relative to the others. The only exception is Jetta, and again, this car is very expensive in its class.
BUT I would NOT say that is the case in the Civic or Corolla, which is one way they really stand apart. The same could be said of the Accord and Camry, with the same rental grade comment applying to their base-trim midsize peers.
That is the kind of thing Nissan really needs to address before they are going to steal substantial sales from Honda.
As for Hyundai - forget it. Their cars are not ready to have a Toyota/Honda price sticker on them, and I have test driven several recently. They sell well because they have become durable and well-built, are inexpensive and have huge warranties, and I can't fault them, but they are also not at a quality level where they (or Kia) are comparable to Hondas. Maybe they will be in a few years. All the more reason for Honda to make the next Civic and Accord a slam dunk.
Having said all that, I should add that rockvillebear's Accord problems are exemplary of the kind of slips Honda is making too many of right now. That has to stop, but quick.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Response to post 3275(gee 35):
Yeah I;ll agree with the last part of your post with Mercedes. Mercedes does sell alot of cars but their scores in surveys since 2000 have been pretty disasterous but hey they still sell. Honda/Acura is way ahead of Mercedes in reliability.
As for complaints I have 23,900 on my 02 Acura CL. Its built tight as a drum. No rattles no nothing. Build quality on this car is pretty good. I got this car when they were changing over from 01 to 02 models in September of 2001 so the factory did a good job of retooling and working out the bugs on this car. If you take care of a car it will last you a long time.
I've been thinking am I going to stick with Honda/Acura on future purchases or gioelsewhere like go to Mazda or another brand when I am in the market for a new car. That will still be a long time. Build quality doesn't worry me with Honda just their slip-us on exterior styling worry me of late.
My dad and I both have X's as well, his is an 01 with around 120k and mine's still young (03), ready to turn 30k. I think a few rattles or squeeks are minor complaints IMO, especially when seeing milages like these have!
Honda is trying to blame the expected sales drop on higher gas prices. Why don't they admit that the American design team screwed up the Accord by giving it Buick styling?
People buy Japanese cars because they want Japanese styling (just look at the terrific TL), not GM/Saturn styling!
Heck, in my case, the higher gas prices might be the one thing that would be MORE likely to put me into an Accord next time I buy a new car!
26/34 I believe. Better than most compacts.
Gas prices are a huge motivator for Accord sales. Most are I4s, not V6s.
-juice
Nope. You must have seen at least one car, from Honda past (early 90s) whose overall profile resembles that of the current Accord sedan. Okay, not exactly in the front where the Accord is more muscular, but in the rear where the typical complaint on styling of the sedan is to be found. One of them is the 1992-1995 Civic sedan, with rounded, high and short rear. The other car would be one that looked like this in a close up picture
The Honda Innova!
Now a car with the headlights that are too small can come off looking more muscular, but then you run into the "squinty eyed" look.
I agree that the tail lights looks like they're upside down.
Off topic: ever notice the previous Explorer's headlights were upside down? If you disagree, check the previous Mountaineer - they flipped them back over!
-juice
When the '94 Accord came out, it looked nothing like the previous generation, IMO. Well, except for the trapezoidal-esque grille, but that's about it. It was more rounded, and seemed to have more greeenhouse and less hood and decklid, although it still had nice proportions.
Then when the '98 came out, oddly enough, I thought it had more of a resemblance to the '90-93 than it did the '94-97! If they had come out with this design in 1994, I don't think it would've looked the least bit out of place! It seemed more angular and squared-off to me than the '94-97, and as a result seems more an evolution of the '90-93.
But now with the '03, I think it would've made a nice follow up to the '94-97. Back to a somewhat rounded shape, and a big greenhouse, with short hood and rear deck.
It's almost like Honda has two timelines mixed up in their styling, and we're in some kind of time warp!
I like the 90-93 and then the 98. Go figure.
-juice
If you like pop-ups, welcome to the BDFC (*). My Miata qualifies me.
-juice
* Barn Door Fan Club
Grill is another interesting aspect of Accord through all its generations. Traditionally, Accord has had a thin line grill through the generations (except the 1998-2002 Accord). So, grill-less has been an Accord tradition, in North America. European/Japanese Accord and Civics have, however, had “more” grill.
Honda could use the light truck grill (Pilot, Odyssey, CR-V and Element) in the Accord and next Civic, but I suspect it will make the Accord look like Altima, and in addition, people will complain about Acuras and Hondas looking alike (a prominent complaint in the 1999-2001 TL). Even with the grill-less exterior, many suggest that the new RL looks like an Accord (although I haven’t figured out yet, which one).
I take back all of that. In person, the new RL is Awesome. It has a nice "Planted" stance, similar to an older E-class Benz. It's very classy, but very mean looking at the same time. Interior wise, I've gotta compliment Acura for designing and building a gorgeous interior, Especially in the Parchment. Everything just fells high quality and seats are comfy. Rear seat room is a little tight and I'd have prefered the 20" wheels from the concept, but I'd give it a solid A score.
I'd kill to find this car with a manual gearbox...
The TSX looks lean, the TL purposeful, and the RL sharp. They all have shoulders and a corporate look to them, an identity basically.
-juice
Still, the Accord does have a interesting facade. The concave/convex transition from hood to fender was unique until BMW started to use it. It looks "taught". Most cars have some kind of character lines on the hood. The Accord's hood is flat. I've never seen another car with such a design. Unfortunately, the angular, swept-back headlights are as common as a MacDonalds burger. But as a whole, the front of the car is unique and sleek.
Older Hondas got by on their overall shape. They were wedges with lots of creases and lines. They were the same lines used by everyone else, but the low body profile gave no question as to what the car was about. The latest Accord finally uses some unique design cues. I think the coupe looks great. Too bad about the sedan's rear end, though.
Some of it was carried into production CL.
To my eyes, Accord has grown to be more muscular over the generations, and with a more pronounced fenders. And with the 2003 Accord, Honda also started a hide-the-gap (between hood and fenders) theme and has been carrying it into other vehicles, including the RL. For sake of comparison:
1990-1993 Accord
1994-1997 Accord
1998-2002 Accord
2003+ Accord
With the TL, Acura does away with that. The blunt nose on the car gives the facade some real force. The new RL also seems to shun the beak and looks a bit more like a softened TL.
If I recall correctly, Honda purposely made that generation a little smaller than the one before, because it believe that the 1990s would be a decade of austerity and conservation. Obviously, THAT prediction flopped, and the Camry passed the Accord in sales rather decisively. Hence, the 1998 Accord seemed to pick up where the 1990-93 generation had left off.
To me the car looks more like an economy car than a mid sized sedan.
I like the square ones. Thinner pillars and bigger windows for better visibility, plus they just look more functional.
The new models' D-pillar is awkward. The roof line seems to drop suddenly, it's unnatural.
-juice
The current Accord really does have small-car proportions...just blown up to mid-sized, if that makes sense. (conversely, I think the '90-93 Accord has mids-sized proportions...just shrunk down to compact size) Another thing that might throw it off a bit is that the Accord's trunk is a bit small compared to the likes of the Altima and Camry, but it has a very generous passenger cabin, so that might mess with the proportioning even more.
The Camry also suffers this same fate, IMO...it looks like a small car blown up to midsized. The Altima somehow escapes it though. But then the Altima also has a longer wheelbase, and is a bit longer overall, so that might have something to do with it!
Yeah the American Team design messed up but the American design team did design the 04 TL and did a great job. I think for the 08 Accord(I think thats the next time the Accord is up for redesign) Honda will go back to basics with the Accord styling but it can't be that bland. If Nissan hits a bullyseye with the next generation Altima like they did with the current generation Altima Honda will have something to lose sleep over in my opinion. Does anybody think this generation of Accord Honda might push up the redesign for 07 maybe since the exterior styling hasn't been well recieved? I know Honda used to do 4 year model cycles but now switches it up to 5 year model cycles. Nissan's last generation Altima(98-01)had a 4 year model cycle and the previous Altima had a 5 year model ycle(93-97.)
I think Honda will stick to its schedule. Huge costs are at stake.
-juice