I've had two Hondas, an Integra and a Prelude, and I loved them both. My brother has had 3 Hondas-two Accords and a Civic. Many of my friends drive Hondas also. I have a friend who has a 91 Accord with well over 200,000 miles on it. I've seen first hand plenty of good Honda experiences (the most recent though isn't the greatest, my brother's 2002 Civic EX coupe). We have a really good family friend who has been a longtime Honda mechanic and has maintained all of my family and friend's Hondas...extra bonus for buying Honda.
With that said, I didn't even test drive the new Accord before I bought my Mazda6, even though I knew it was more than competitive. I didn't need to, because I couldn't handle that rear end.
I really believe that Mazda would have even more trouble selling the Mazda6 if the Accord sedan's rear end wasn't so weird looking. I'm not really fond of the front end either, but at least I could live with that.
My Mazda6 had the rust issue in the weather-stripping sashes too, which hasn't gotten worse..knock on wood. But I STILL wouldn't trade my rust issue Mazda6 for an equivalent Accord sedan.
I got to experience just how improved the current Accord is, over previous generations. One of our managers has a '94 Accord sedan, and I rode with him one day to NASA HQ down in DC. It's about a 30 minute drive, if that. Well, that passenger seat had my butt, legs, and back hurting before we even got down there!
In contrast, I've spent plenty of seat time in Grbeck's '03 Accord, and much longer trips than that jaunt in the '94, when we've gone to car shows and such, and his car never hurt me. Not once! In fact, I think it's downright impressive.
Well, don't worry about it, seeing as you have the 5 door, your car isn't affected. It affected 2003 models and early 2004s.
Also, I live in Minnesota, and my car went through an awful salty winter, and nothing really changed. The affected area is the sashes welded onto the window frame that hold the weatherstripping in place, an area which really isn't exposed to the outside elements anyway. I was furious when I saw it, but it hasn't gotten worse, so I'm starting to think it's less of an issue than I originally thought as my car is almost 2 years old now.
Anyway, if you want a more in depth idea of it, take a look at the Mazda6 thread back in Oct or Nov 2003 I believe....if you dare. But, I wouldn't bother if I were you, because your car isn't affected.
If all we can find to discuss is the thoroughly beaten to death topic of the Accord sedan's rear end styling, then this topic's run has clearly run out.
With Acura on the roll with new productas like the RL and strong increasing sales of the TL and TSX coupled with steady sales of the MDX, I think they are in a secure position that isn't "running out" any time soon.
The Civic is going to be replaced soon, but even the current one is seeing growth in sales. The Accord is still managing 370+ thousand a month and besides some exterior styling issues, like Andre said it's still quite a package. Add the hybrid and I think it will seel just fine if not better till the redesign in 08'. The Pilot is still going strong, the CRV is still strong and the new ODY is a WOW in my opinion. Especially in Touring trim.
I just don't see this "run" running out anytime soon either so maybe this thread should?
Mazda really has their styling down pat. The 6 and now the 3 are really very handsome and sort of make some competitors seem even more boring than they are.
The two examples above should serve as a wake-up call for Honda. Two people that prefer Hondas picked a car they might have liked less. Wow.
It is a sportier alternative, but people are cross-shopping the Accord and the TSX with the 6.
Now for some good news, the RL got an award from Popular Science for the innovative AWD system:
"Mazda really has their styling down pat. The 6 and now the 3 are really very handsome and sort of make some competitors seem even more boring than they are."
Frankly, to me, one of the cars that the 3's more aggressive styling makes look more boring than it is big brother 6.
The 6 never looked to be anything special to me, styling-wise. It's not a bad looking car, but it really broke no new ground anywhere. Just as the Accord has some styling details that cause some to "wince", I find a few like that on the 6, including the yawn inducing Cavalier-inspired taillights and the oddly shaped grille that looks like it's sucking on a lemon.
Again, it's not a bad looking car, but at the same time, I don't find it to be the awe-inspiring styling success that some make it out to be.
"Even if the Accord's styling was less...controversial...the cars still wouldn't be direct competitors."
But they are competitors, you can't deny that.
I was anticipating the 2003 Accord and honestly, I would've had a hard time passing it up if it looked a little more like the 98-02 generation, a little more evolutionary, instead of what it turned out to be.
Everything is there for the 2003 Accord. Great gas mileage, the best manual transmission, Honda resale, Honda reliability, good handling, and a close family friend willing to maintain it for much less than dealer cost etc. etc. It is aguably the best midsize sedan out there. So why in the hell would I buy a Mazda6 instead?
Galant is worse than the Accord, though. Look at that corporate nose - yuck! Plus they're in financial disarray, you have to wonder if that long warranty will be worth anything.
I already answered that question. In my opinion, the Accord sedan styling is THAT bad. It is the worst looking car Honda has ever made, in my opinion. Yeah, they still sell a lot of them, so obviously someone likes the styling, or at least can put up with it, but I know I'm not the only one who really, really doesn't like it.
Sometimes I get confused and what Honda was thinking: Did they go for more controversal because of the 02+ Altima or go extremely bland to compete directly with Toyota. Sometimes I think either or.
I think Acura has their styling down but Honda I don't know why they are going for this family look with the Oddy, Accord, and Civic. A family look is good for a luxury line like Acura but for a base brand like Honda? No the family look is not good.
Response to post 3305(new Car 31:)
You think the 6 would have that much trouble if not for the Accord's looks?
People who don't like the looks of the Sedan model could just buy an Accord Coupe.
"The 5-point grille is their corporate identity, it's not going away any time soon."
I don't have any problem with the corporate identity... after all, Acura uses the 5-point grille as well. It's just the particular implementation of it on the 6 that I dislike.
"Successful designs can be subtle, and I think that's the key to the 6. It's not overdone nor is it completely dull."
People have been saying that about Hondas for years. And I agree completely with your statement. It just seems that some people have taken to falling all over everything that comes out of Nissan and Infiniti of late, vehicles that are many things, but subtle is not one of them. So these folks have the view that "over the top" is the expected norm, and subtle is therefore dull.
"Any how, style certainly hasn't turned shoppers away from it."
No, but the 6 is at best a very modest success sales-wise, so style isn't attracting buyers in droves, either.
"You think the 6 would have that much trouble if not for the Accord's looks?"
Absolutely. In fact, in my particular case, I'm sure of it. I was shopping for a 4 cyl with a manual. If the Accord looked like the TSX, I would have one, for sure, no doubt in my mind. I would've picked up the 160 hp 4 cyl version with a manual, for less than $20K and I would've been set. But, that's not the way it worked out, and the Mazda6 was the next best thing.
"People who don't like the looks of the Sedan model could just buy an Accord Coupe."
Nope. No more 2 doors for me. I'm part of a car pool and a 2 door would be way too annoying day to day.
1998 Accord was the first major makeover for the car, growing from a compact to a midsize sedan. The styling was conservative, and while it retained the slim-line headlamp look with a thin amber line running at the bottom (Audi TT got a similar treatment, and now it has become more common, including clear versions as in RL and Odyssey). People neither loved it, nor hated it. Many were disappointed that Honda moved away from a wedgy 94-97 style to a more corporate look mobile.
There were some styling elements carried over from about a decade ago that helped me observe that Honda likes to look back a few years to “evolve” a new style. The tail lamp treatment in the sedan was lifted off late 80s Prelude, and in the sedan, NSX inspiration is evident.
2003 Accord was a more daring approach to styling the car, with inclusion of a more muscular look and a move away from subtle lines to stronger creases. The only issue I have had is with the shape of the tail lamp, which, BTW, is perhaps the only major difference between the rear end of a midsized sedan from early 90s in the Honda (Japan) lineup, the Honda Ascot Innova!. The Innova look was also used in 1992-95 Civic sedan, a relatively long hood, squarish roofline (something that has more or less been a part of Accord’s style) and a very short and rounded rear end. Put the drooping tail lamp in 1992-95 Civic sedan, and you will see a mini-2003 Accord rear end.
The coupe’s rear end took a slightly differently route. And having seen a 1996-98 TL and 2001-2003 CL next to 2003 Accord in similar color tone, I can suggest that the tail lamp and crease treatment is derived off the Acuras, down to a horizontal crease that runs between tail lamps! There is an S2000-like “folding into tail lamp” shoulder crease which is probably the most pronounced difference.
And why Accord? 1999 TL was a drastic departure from the car it was replacing and had a rear end that seems to have evolved from early 90s Acura Legend! It would be also worthwhile to note that I see some resemblance between the rear end treatment of RSX to that of the old Legend Coupe (Integra/RSX has always had a slim tail lamp which makes it look different but other than that the similarities are interesting). And the slim tail lamp that has existed in some form in Integra/RSX also made its way into 2004 TSX.
For 2004 TL, Honda seems to have gone back to the mid-90s (wedge shaped) theme used for the 94-97 Accord! Unlike the Accord, TL has sharper lines, and the similarities are most pronounced at the rear end.
2005 RL also incorporates a few styling elements from the mid-90s Acura (TL to be more specific). The shoulder line, now wraps into the rounded (1997-2000 CL-esque) tail lamp instead of staying parallel to the ground to go with the more upright tail lamps of the 1996-1998 TL. Other than that, there are quite a few (styling) similarities between 1996-2004 and 2005 RL.
This is a jist of my observations concerning Honda’s styling approach. I suspect that the next Accord will adopts cues from one of the Honda/Acura that we have already seen. But we won’t see that happening for at least couple of years.
I think if Honda can fix the styling issues and pehaps tweak the suspension a little more to further improve handling (or, perhaps even better, offer a sport pkg.) they will be in a perfect position to win back former Honda owners that purchased something else on 3-4 year loan/leases. Another thing that I will look closely at is build integrity of the interior- although the materials are better than ever, I had a few squeaks and creaks on my '03 that I was able to fix myself, but supprised me in a Honda. I kept my '87 Accord 11 years, 170K miles, and it was as tight and rattle-free the day I sold it as the day I bought it. Maybe they now have some assemblers that used to work for GM?!
they dropped the Legend name was because while "Legend" and "Integra" were common household words, "Acura" wasn't. They figured that by going to more generic names, like "TL" and "RL", it would place more emphasis on the brand name "Acura", and not the individual model names. I dunno if it was a good long-term move or not. But I do know that the Legend was a lot more memorable in my mind than the RL ever was! Maybe the new one will change all that for the better.
Acura went alpha with NSX back when it was launched in Japan (autumn 1989). And alphanumeric name is something Honda started its lineup with (T360, S500).
BTW, Honda has used alphanumeric designation for trim levels, at least in the Japanese market. Currently, there is "Inspire 30TL/Accord 24TL" (implying a Touring Luxury trim of Inspire/Accord with 3.0/2.4 liter engine) and "Accord 24S" (2.4-liter Sport trim).
That's what the rumor mill is cranking out. The mid-life update is supposed to include quite a few more sheetmetal changes than is normal for Honda. But I remain skeptical. I suspect the rumors are supported by wishful thinking more than any real evidence.
I don't think the name change would have been such an issue if the RL had actually been a worthy successor to the Legend. Had the first RL been as complete a package as the 2005 is today, we'd be patting them on the back.
Just take a look at the other cars in the line-up.
Did anyone shed a tear for the Vigor name? No. Probably because the 2.5TL that replaced it was a reasonable replacement.
There was a hiccup when the Integra went to RSX form, but nothing on the scale of the outcry regarding the change to RL. Why? Because the RSX is a good car. Changing the suspension got a bigger reaction than changing the name.
I certainly agree that Lexus, Mercedes, and BMW have better brand recognition. But that's a product issue. Acura didn't have the product to establish a real name through the mid-late 1990's. I don't think the name changes have anything to do with it.
I think you have a point, people might have been even more disappointed if they had kept the Legend name on a successor they felt was not worthy of it.
I don't think Honda's run has run out. Honda is still building some of the best cars in their respective classes. The Civic is also up for a redesign. I doubt Honda will be filing for bankruptcy any time soon.
...Don't expect anything radical. I do think there will be a redesigned front end and some changes to the rear, but the rest of the body will pretty much stay the same.
But more likely is the introduction of more technologically-advanced engines. Don't be surprised that the current K24 2.4-liter I-4 i-VTEC engine rated at 160 bhp (SAE) is replaced by a new K24B engine of similar displacement but with direct fuel injection, which will bump up horsepower to 170-175 bhp (SAE) but will have better fuel efficiency and lower emissions than the current K24 engine.
Another possible change with the "refreshed" NA-market Accord is the availability of a CVT automatic, essentially the same transmission lifted from the Japanese-market Honda Odyssey minivan.
I think the front of the Accord is nice, sides OK in the current fad of blocky/slab sided sedans, and only the back needed work. Get soemthing like the TSX butt on there, and you are good to go.
The interior is also very nice. If I was forced to get a new 4 door sedan right now, it would probably be an EX-L 4 cyl 5 speed.
I am actually putting my money on Honda to succeed, since I put down a deposti yesterday on a new Odyssey for the wife. Hopefully the nice workers in 'Bama have their act together in January when they get around to building ours.
I think it wouldn't be hard to achieve those power gains, but they'd be high up in the rev range so it really wouldn't matter to a lot of people.
Now that they've used the red taillights on the hybrid, does that mean they won't want to use them on the rest of the range after the facelift? I'd like a shape change, but all red is better than the current design.
As for the front, just give us what they use in Japan (the "Honda Inspire" - ironically, a luxury car because the TSX is their Accord).
I, for one, and starting to get tired of those "refrigerator grilles" that they've been slipping on cars as of late.
But I guess if they'd get rid of those two creases in the hood that don't line up with anything (it's an Accord, not a '69 Bonneville or an Edsel) and give it an insectoid look, and tone down the headlights, it could work.
"Now that they've used the red taillights on the hybrid, does that mean they won't want to use them on the rest of the range after the facelift? I'd like a shape change, but all red is better than the current design."
The all red taillights are on all 2005 Accord sedans, not just the hybrid. And IMO, they look better than the original design in the pictures, but the original design looks better in person.
Yes, the rumor mill could be relying on wishful thinking.
When the current Accord debuted, I remember the head of Honda saying that, at best, it would match the sales of the previous generation. Honda was not expecting sales to increase.
Given the increased internal competition alone - Pilot and TSX, specifically - I wonder if Honda wasn't planning for a slight drop in sales.
I like the front of the Inspire, although, like Andre, I think Honda can improve the appearance even more by deleting the two creases on the hood.
in the SI thread too, but thought I would mention here that MT this month is saying that the next SI (2006 MY) will be a coupe like the 99-00, rather than a hatch. The current SI has been the most dismal sales flop for them in recent memory.
The picture they have there makes it look like the new Civic coupe is going to stylistically converge even more with the revised-for-05 RSX/Integra. Luckily the RSX itself will be all-new for '07, and maybe it will follow the Acura family look more after that. It shouldn't look exactly like a Civic, IMO.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I really don't think a lack of ABS and automatic transmission were the lackluster attributes for the Si.
I happen to like the "chunky wedge" style of the hatch, but there's no denying that the public was less than thrilled with it. Going to a coupe body is probably the most potent antidote for the Si's case of bad mojo. I think it's more boring that the hatch, but it will appeal to more buyers.
But I also think the Si failed to lead. The new hatch was an evolutionary upgrade from the previous design. Compared with the old model, the new Si is smooth and practical. At the same time, the rest of the market decided to get into the game with cars that offered a coarse, but intense driving experience. Honda didn't meet them on the same playing field. They fixed the wrong problems with the previous vehicle.
Well, the current SI had ABS and EBD. Auto could have been offered to appeal to more buyers. In fact, I've overheard potential buyers (at a movie theater) talk about absence of slushy. Of course, the point of SI isn't to go for high volume, but then, what exactly is a logical sales target for a car like it? Is Dodge Neon SRT-4 a sales success? What about Corolla XRS? Was Focus SVT considered a success?
In case of SI, starting (and ending) price tag didn’t help either. Sometimes it sets the tone in car comparisons. So, it may be a good idea to not look from top, but from the bottom in the lineup and go up from there.
"I really don't think a lack of ABS and automatic transmission were the lackluster attributes for the Si."
I agree. I don't even think you can blame the sales on the fact that it was a hatchback. It was the looks. I see plenty of Golf GTIs, and those are hatchbacks.
"the point of SI isn't to go for high volume, but then, what exactly is a logical sales target for a car like it?"
What did the previous generation sell like? I've asked that question before. I know when my friend bought one brand new back in 99' or 00' (can't remember), he had trouble finding one and didn't get a good deal. They certainly weren't giving them away back then, and I think it's because they didn't look like Pokemon characters back then.
"what exactly is a logical sales target for a car like it? Is Dodge Neon SRT-4 a sales success? What about Corolla XRS? Was Focus SVT considered a success?"
Toyota wants to sell 5000 Corolla XRSs per year.
Honda, OTOH, wanted to sell 15K SIs per year - it never even got close I don't think.
Dodge's target for the SRT-4 is at 5000 or lower annually as well, although I forget the exact number. And Ford considered the SVT Focus to be a sales flop, and killed it when they facelifted Focus for '05.
If Honda wanted to sell 5000/year, they would probably be happy with the SI (did it get to 5000 sales annually anywhere in '02-'04?). But they are like VW - unhappy with low numbers on their hot hatch. VW wants to sell some ungodly number of GTIs with the next gen, and figures it has made the updates to accomplish that. Their 5000/year model will be the R32, which will make 300 hp and cost $30K - my how the hot hatch segment has grown! :-P
But the BASE GTI will have 200 hp from a turbo 2.0, and the VR-6 will have around 250, if its output roughly matches the 3.0 that will be available for Jetta and Passat. SI had better have its act together for MkVI - the competition now is fierce!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree. 5K would be way below Honda's expectations. 15K sounds feasible for Honda to achieve, but then, to succeed, a car needs more than refinement (that Si has) and a nice interior. I wonder what impact would offering Si with 200 HP and 17 inch rims would have made, in terms of carrying sales.
Besides, Honda needs to move RSX up to TSX class, or slightly under it, to reduce perceived overlap, and help RSX as a model.
When I think about it, and although Si probably can be had for near invoice price tag, Civic Si, RSX and Accord Coupe offer plenty of choices to buyers who want something manual transmission. Accord Coupe may mostly appeal to a different buyer, but I wonder if there is some overlap. It may be possible for a few buyers to jump up to Accord Coupe V6/6MT from both, RSX and Si.
I'm not sure sales volume is the measure that matters most. The Si is on the sales floor to gather street cred for the Honda brand. That is the area where it faltered.
"Accord Coupe may mostly appeal to a different buyer, but I wonder if there is some overlap."
The Civic FP package was probably meant to bridge that gap. But without drivetrain enhancements, it hasn't been much of an image booster.
but Honda fell woefully short - a company like this needs to reinforce its position by offering a vehicle that flat smokes the Scion Tc, Hyundai Tiburon, Mitsubishi Eclipse, Focus SVT, Mazda 3, etc....all they offered was a more expensive, like-performing competitor.
They fell short in 1999-2000, and did it again with the recent Si model.
Comments
With that said, I didn't even test drive the new Accord before I bought my Mazda6, even though I knew it was more than competitive. I didn't need to, because I couldn't handle that rear end.
I really believe that Mazda would have even more trouble selling the Mazda6 if the Accord sedan's rear end wasn't so weird looking. I'm not really fond of the front end either, but at least I could live with that.
My Mazda6 had the rust issue in the weather-stripping sashes too, which hasn't gotten worse..knock on wood. But I STILL wouldn't trade my rust issue Mazda6 for an equivalent Accord sedan.
In contrast, I've spent plenty of seat time in Grbeck's '03 Accord, and much longer trips than that jaunt in the '94, when we've gone to car shows and such, and his car never hurt me. Not once! In fact, I think it's downright impressive.
Also, I live in Minnesota, and my car went through an awful salty winter, and nothing really changed. The affected area is the sashes welded onto the window frame that hold the weatherstripping in place, an area which really isn't exposed to the outside elements anyway. I was furious when I saw it, but it hasn't gotten worse, so I'm starting to think it's less of an issue than I originally thought as my car is almost 2 years old now.
Anyway, if you want a more in depth idea of it, take a look at the Mazda6 thread back in Oct or Nov 2003 I believe....if you dare. But, I wouldn't bother if I were you, because your car isn't affected.
The Civic is going to be replaced soon, but even the current one is seeing growth in sales. The Accord is still managing 370+ thousand a month and besides some exterior styling issues, like Andre said it's still quite a package. Add the hybrid and I think it will seel just fine if not better till the redesign in 08'. The Pilot is still going strong, the CRV is still strong and the new ODY is a WOW in my opinion. Especially in Touring trim.
I just don't see this "run" running out anytime soon either so maybe this thread should?
Mazda has cast the Mazda6 as a sportier alternative to the Accord/Camry, pitching it to a narrower audience.
Even if the Accord's styling was less...controversial...the cars still wouldn't be direct competitors.
Not a bad tactic, especially considering that Ford will still get plenty of use from this platform (Fusion/Milan/Zephyr/numerous crossovers).
The two examples above should serve as a wake-up call for Honda. Two people that prefer Hondas picked a car they might have liked less. Wow.
It is a sportier alternative, but people are cross-shopping the Accord and the TSX with the 6.
Now for some good news, the RL got an award from Popular Science for the innovative AWD system:
http://www.theautochannel.com/F/news/2004/11/10/277071.html
-juice
Frankly, to me, one of the cars that the 3's more aggressive styling makes look more boring than it is big brother 6.
I actually think the longer 6 looks more handsome. The 3 is more playful and being small it can afford to be that way.
Both work, IMO.
-juice
Again, it's not a bad looking car, but at the same time, I don't find it to be the awe-inspiring styling success that some make it out to be.
Successful designs can be subtle, and I think that's the key to the 6. It's not overdone nor is it completely dull.
"Not a bad looking car" is pretty good for its class, I think.
Any how, style certainly hasn't turned shoppers away from it.
-juice
But they are competitors, you can't deny that.
I was anticipating the 2003 Accord and honestly, I would've had a hard time passing it up if it looked a little more like the 98-02 generation, a little more evolutionary, instead of what it turned out to be.
Everything is there for the 2003 Accord. Great gas mileage, the best manual transmission, Honda resale, Honda reliability, good handling, and a close family friend willing to maintain it for much less than dealer cost etc. etc. It is aguably the best midsize sedan out there. So why in the hell would I buy a Mazda6 instead?
Galant is worse than the Accord, though. Look at that corporate nose - yuck! Plus they're in financial disarray, you have to wonder if that long warranty will be worth anything.
-juice
I already answered that question. In my opinion, the Accord sedan styling is THAT bad. It is the worst looking car Honda has ever made, in my opinion. Yeah, they still sell a lot of them, so obviously someone likes the styling, or at least can put up with it, but I know I'm not the only one who really, really doesn't like it.
More accolades for the RL:
http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=8747
-juice
I think Acura has their styling down but Honda I don't know why they are going for this family look with the Oddy, Accord, and Civic. A family look is good for a luxury line like Acura but for a base brand like Honda? No the family look is not good.
Response to post 3305(new Car 31:)
You think the 6 would have that much trouble if not for the Accord's looks?
People who don't like the looks of the Sedan model could just buy an Accord Coupe.
-juice
I don't have any problem with the corporate identity... after all, Acura uses the 5-point grille as well. It's just the particular implementation of it on the 6 that I dislike.
"Successful designs can be subtle, and I think that's the key to the 6. It's not overdone nor is it completely dull."
People have been saying that about Hondas for years. And I agree completely with your statement. It just seems that some people have taken to falling all over everything that comes out of Nissan and Infiniti of late, vehicles that are many things, but subtle is not one of them. So these folks have the view that "over the top" is the expected norm, and subtle is therefore dull.
"Any how, style certainly hasn't turned shoppers away from it."
No, but the 6 is at best a very modest success sales-wise, so style isn't attracting buyers in droves, either.
Absolutely. In fact, in my particular case, I'm sure of it. I was shopping for a 4 cyl with a manual. If the Accord looked like the TSX, I would have one, for sure, no doubt in my mind. I would've picked up the 160 hp 4 cyl version with a manual, for less than $20K and I would've been set. But, that's not the way it worked out, and the Mazda6 was the next best thing.
"People who don't like the looks of the Sedan model could just buy an Accord Coupe."
Nope. No more 2 doors for me. I'm part of a car pool and a 2 door would be way too annoying day to day.
There were some styling elements carried over from about a decade ago that helped me observe that Honda likes to look back a few years to “evolve” a new style. The tail lamp treatment in the sedan was lifted off late 80s Prelude, and in the sedan, NSX inspiration is evident.
2003 Accord was a more daring approach to styling the car, with inclusion of a more muscular look and a move away from subtle lines to stronger creases. The only issue I have had is with the shape of the tail lamp, which, BTW, is perhaps the only major difference between the rear end of a midsized sedan from early 90s in the Honda (Japan) lineup, the Honda Ascot Innova!. The Innova look was also used in 1992-95 Civic sedan, a relatively long hood, squarish roofline (something that has more or less been a part of Accord’s style) and a very short and rounded rear end. Put the drooping tail lamp in 1992-95 Civic sedan, and you will see a mini-2003 Accord rear end.
The coupe’s rear end took a slightly differently route. And having seen a 1996-98 TL and 2001-2003 CL next to 2003 Accord in similar color tone, I can suggest that the tail lamp and crease treatment is derived off the Acuras, down to a horizontal crease that runs between tail lamps! There is an S2000-like “folding into tail lamp” shoulder crease which is probably the most pronounced difference.
And why Accord? 1999 TL was a drastic departure from the car it was replacing and had a rear end that seems to have evolved from early 90s Acura Legend! It would be also worthwhile to note that I see some resemblance between the rear end treatment of RSX to that of the old Legend Coupe (Integra/RSX has always had a slim tail lamp which makes it look different but other than that the similarities are interesting). And the slim tail lamp that has existed in some form in Integra/RSX also made its way into 2004 TSX.
For 2004 TL, Honda seems to have gone back to the mid-90s (wedge shaped) theme used for the 94-97 Accord! Unlike the Accord, TL has sharper lines, and the similarities are most pronounced at the rear end.
2005 RL also incorporates a few styling elements from the mid-90s Acura (TL to be more specific). The shoulder line, now wraps into the rounded (1997-2000 CL-esque) tail lamp instead of staying parallel to the ground to go with the more upright tail lamps of the 1996-1998 TL. Other than that, there are quite a few (styling) similarities between 1996-2004 and 2005 RL.
This is a jist of my observations concerning Honda’s styling approach. I suspect that the next Accord will adopts cues from one of the Honda/Acura that we have already seen. But we won’t see that happening for at least couple of years.
I like the Legend name, not sure why they ever dropped it. Maybe now that the RL is more competitive people will start to recognize the name.
-juice
Not yet, anyway. And they went alphanumeric a long time ago.
The new RL is perhaps the first true flagship, though we'll see if people can accept a V6 (nice as it is) to play that role.
-juice
BTW, Honda has used alphanumeric designation for trim levels, at least in the Japanese market. Currently, there is "Inspire 30TL/Accord 24TL" (implying a Touring Luxury trim of Inspire/Accord with 3.0/2.4 liter engine) and "Accord 24S" (2.4-liter Sport trim).
Just take a look at the other cars in the line-up.
Did anyone shed a tear for the Vigor name? No. Probably because the 2.5TL that replaced it was a reasonable replacement.
There was a hiccup when the Integra went to RSX form, but nothing on the scale of the outcry regarding the change to RL. Why? Because the RSX is a good car. Changing the suspension got a bigger reaction than changing the name.
I certainly agree that Lexus, Mercedes, and BMW have better brand recognition. But that's a product issue. Acura didn't have the product to establish a real name through the mid-late 1990's. I don't think the name changes have anything to do with it.
-juice
I don't think Honda's run has run out. Honda is still building some of the best cars in their respective classes. The Civic is also up for a redesign. I doubt Honda will be filing for bankruptcy any time soon.
But more likely is the introduction of more technologically-advanced engines. Don't be surprised that the current K24 2.4-liter I-4 i-VTEC engine rated at 160 bhp (SAE) is replaced by a new K24B engine of similar displacement but with direct fuel injection, which will bump up horsepower to 170-175 bhp (SAE) but will have better fuel efficiency and lower emissions than the current K24 engine.
Another possible change with the "refreshed" NA-market Accord is the availability of a CVT automatic, essentially the same transmission lifted from the Japanese-market Honda Odyssey minivan.
I think the front of the Accord is nice, sides OK in the current fad of blocky/slab sided sedans, and only the back needed work. Get soemthing like the TSX butt on there, and you are good to go.
The interior is also very nice. If I was forced to get a new 4 door sedan right now, it would probably be an EX-L 4 cyl 5 speed.
I am actually putting my money on Honda to succeed, since I put down a deposti yesterday on a new Odyssey for the wife. Hopefully the nice workers in 'Bama have their act together in January when they get around to building ours.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Now that they've used the red taillights on the hybrid, does that mean they won't want to use them on the rest of the range after the facelift? I'd like a shape change, but all red is better than the current design.
As for the front, just give us what they use in Japan (the "Honda Inspire" - ironically, a luxury car because the TSX is their Accord).
But I guess if they'd get rid of those two creases in the hood that don't line up with anything (it's an Accord, not a '69 Bonneville or an Edsel) and give it an insectoid look, and tone down the headlights, it could work.
The all red taillights are on all 2005 Accord sedans, not just the hybrid. And IMO, they look better than the original design in the pictures, but the original design looks better in person.
When the current Accord debuted, I remember the head of Honda saying that, at best, it would match the sales of the previous generation. Honda was not expecting sales to increase.
Given the increased internal competition alone - Pilot and TSX, specifically - I wonder if Honda wasn't planning for a slight drop in sales.
I like the front of the Inspire, although, like Andre, I think Honda can improve the appearance even more by deleting the two creases on the hood.
The picture they have there makes it look like the new Civic coupe is going to stylistically converge even more with the revised-for-05 RSX/Integra. Luckily the RSX itself will be all-new for '07, and maybe it will follow the Acura family look more after that. It shouldn't look exactly like a Civic, IMO.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
-juice
Can't expect high volume sales in the USA with just stick.
I happen to like the "chunky wedge" style of the hatch, but there's no denying that the public was less than thrilled with it. Going to a coupe body is probably the most potent antidote for the Si's case of bad mojo. I think it's more boring that the hatch, but it will appeal to more buyers.
But I also think the Si failed to lead. The new hatch was an evolutionary upgrade from the previous design. Compared with the old model, the new Si is smooth and practical. At the same time, the rest of the market decided to get into the game with cars that offered a coarse, but intense driving experience. Honda didn't meet them on the same playing field. They fixed the wrong problems with the previous vehicle.
In case of SI, starting (and ending) price tag didn’t help either. Sometimes it sets the tone in car comparisons. So, it may be a good idea to not look from top, but from the bottom in the lineup and go up from there.
I agree. I don't even think you can blame the sales on the fact that it was a hatchback. It was the looks. I see plenty of Golf GTIs, and those are hatchbacks.
"the point of SI isn't to go for high volume, but then, what exactly is a logical sales target for a car like it?"
What did the previous generation sell like? I've asked that question before. I know when my friend bought one brand new back in 99' or 00' (can't remember), he had trouble finding one and didn't get a good deal. They certainly weren't giving them away back then, and I think it's because they didn't look like Pokemon characters back then.
Toyota wants to sell 5000 Corolla XRSs per year.
Honda, OTOH, wanted to sell 15K SIs per year - it never even got close I don't think.
Dodge's target for the SRT-4 is at 5000 or lower annually as well, although I forget the exact number. And Ford considered the SVT Focus to be a sales flop, and killed it when they facelifted Focus for '05.
If Honda wanted to sell 5000/year, they would probably be happy with the SI (did it get to 5000 sales annually anywhere in '02-'04?). But they are like VW - unhappy with low numbers on their hot hatch. VW wants to sell some ungodly number of GTIs with the next gen, and figures it has made the updates to accomplish that. Their 5000/year model will be the R32, which will make 300 hp and cost $30K - my how the hot hatch segment has grown! :-P
But the BASE GTI will have 200 hp from a turbo 2.0, and the VR-6 will have around 250, if its output roughly matches the 3.0 that will be available for Jetta and Passat. SI had better have its act together for MkVI - the competition now is fierce!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Besides, Honda needs to move RSX up to TSX class, or slightly under it, to reduce perceived overlap, and help RSX as a model.
When I think about it, and although Si probably can be had for near invoice price tag, Civic Si, RSX and Accord Coupe offer plenty of choices to buyers who want something manual transmission. Accord Coupe may mostly appeal to a different buyer, but I wonder if there is some overlap. It may be possible for a few buyers to jump up to Accord Coupe V6/6MT from both, RSX and Si.
"Accord Coupe may mostly appeal to a different buyer, but I wonder if there is some overlap."
The Civic FP package was probably meant to bridge that gap. But without drivetrain enhancements, it hasn't been much of an image booster.
They fell short in 1999-2000, and did it again with the recent Si model.