By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
As a family car, I believe it excels all its peers. But it is sure not a single guy's car any more. Those days are at least a decade behind it.
As for Buicky - well, drive a Camry before you call it that. Heck, drive a BUICK. Even Camry is less floaty and more connected than a Buick Regal or Century, and the Accord does the Camry one better (two better in the EX!).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Not really. Toyota was a major player before Honda was born as a company (automotive business didn’t happen until 1963). Nissan was the other well established player in the market. In fact, Soichiro Honda had plenty of challenge in its home ground, led by MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry). Here is an excerpt (and link) on the same:
In defiance of MITI's desires, Honda announced its intention to enter automobile production in the early 1960s. MITI felt that Japan's automotive industry of ten manufacturers should be merged into two international majors (namely Toyota and Nissan) and one minicar manufacturer. Honda went ahead and introduced the S360 sports car anyway.
Honda wasn’t even a toddler when Toyota was a fully grown adult. Here is another link that provides a good perspective:
Soichiro Honda – Uniquely Driven
Honda’s refusal to put V6 in Accord was bashed for a while (currently, we’re at V8 level). Refusal to sell family sedan with compact sedan would had been worse, outside of appealing to “lifestyle buyers”.
As for single buyers, Honda offers a sleek alternative for single buyers, a coupe form of the Accord. Family buyers don’t want compact dimensions with four doors. That’s a fact.
Regardless of dimensions, the Accord looks obese and almost like it doesn't quite fit in its sheet metal. I like the way nippononly describes the look "It doesn't help that the styling of the Accord makes it look like when you puff out your cheeks - no sharp lines, lots of rounded edges, like they pumped up a smaller car with an air pump".
When the 2003 Accord was introduced, Honda itself said that the primary buyers of the Accord weren't families, but empty nesters over 45. That's why they said they wanted it to project "passion". Apparently that meant giving it Buick styling. Incidentally, most families nowadays buy minivans and SUVs not so-called family sedans as their primary vehicle.
As for fat rear, hardly! That’s the norm. We’re not talking Jaguars here. Rounded rear does not necessarily equate to fat. If you have not noticed there is an ongoing trend (check out Lexus SC/Solara, TL, 350Z, G35 Coupe, TT, Mazda3, Maxima, Altima, FX35/45 etc). Perhaps, a “trendy Accord” came as a surprise to many. ;-)
When the 2003 Accord was introduced, Honda itself said that the primary buyers of the Accord weren't families, but empty nesters over 45.
I read enough about the current Accord, I saw an attempt to instill sportier/cheetah like profile/orientation, but never this. That would be a ridiculous statement to have come from Honda. You should provide a link to this then I can be on your side.
That said, isn’t it interesting that average age of Accord buyer was a year 44 years in 2003 (by comparison, Toyota Corolla was at 43 years). So, Honda apparently didn’t meet its target. ;-)
Incidentally, most families nowadays buy minivans and SUVs not so-called family sedans as their primary vehicle.
This does not mean there are no family sedans. Does it?
Now other people on this board are saying what I have been saying ever since the 03 Accord Sedan came out. I think what Honda was trying to do was appeal to people who do not like the "Very Japanese exterior styling" of Honda for the past 20 years. Most older buyers I think who don't go for Honda's "very Japanese Styling" like with the Accord in the decades of 80's and 90's are in the age range of 50's and 60's and grew up on Chevy;s and Ford's. Most younger buyers in their 20's and 30's think the Domestic Big 3 Cars of today are ugly so that's why the young people don't buy them. In Conclusion Honda is trying to appeal to a dying breed of "Domestic Big 3 older buyers". Honda trying to appeal to a Domestic Big 3 car Buyer is not going to work. Number 1): Honda's cars always appealed to the younger buyer. 2.) Honda is not a domestic Big 3 nameplate. They are a Japanese nameplate and need to style their cars to look Japanese.
With Acura yeah they are taking styling chances and Acura sales have been up for the past few years.
"Fine with me, since Mazda's doing a better job with that particular sporty/daring segment anyway.
I don't have alot of faith with Mazda. I like them but most people buy a Mazda product once and 5 years later its on a Honda, Toyota, ot Nissan used car lot. Mazda doesn't have alot of loyal buyers. In a recent study Mazda finshed near the bottom in terms of brand loyalty.
The 1992-1993 Accord actually looked like a Japanese Car. The 05 Accord looks a 95-96 Buick Regal. To me any Honda made in the 90's I would select over any Buick.
I think the current generation Civic the exterior styling its not ugly but it just looks like a rush job a little bit.
As far as blaming Accord sales for rising gas prices with people buying big SUV's nowdays I don't think people care about high gas prices.
Mazda may not be the smartest automaker around but they don't totally just put a Ford Engine in their car. Mazda takes a Ford engine and re-tools on a little bit to make it their own somewhat.
The 1992-1993 Accord actually looked like a Japanese Car. The 05 Accord looks a 95-96 Buick Regal.
Really? It never struck me as Buick Regal. That said, what exactly defines styling of a Japanese car?
The 6 spd manual V6 quickly erases that issue though...
Honestly, when the gen 7 Accord was released, Honda was on the heels of Toyota, and the Camry also grew (bubbled up) in size. It would have been a big risk not to match it in dimensions. And for those who don't like the Accord looks, check out a smaller, and very nimble TSX. Got a chance to drive one while my wifes X was in for a 30k service. What a blast to drive!!!
If I was buying today, I would skip right over the new Accord and go right for the Acura...
Accord: Up 39% (ends up with 387K units for the year)
Civic: Up 22% (ends up with 309K units for the year)
Odyssey: Up 36%
Pilot: Up 45%
CR-V: Up 31%
S2000, Insight and Element were down. Acura sales increased by 25% with all but NSX (does it count anymore?) showing growth. Most notable, TL exceeded 7K unit mark (again) and TSX also crossed the 3K unit mark. RL continued at about 2K units. MDX had over 6K units.
Acura almost hit 200K unit mark for the year (at 199K). Last five years in Acura’s sales history:
2004: 199K (that is better than twice the sales from 1995 when only 95K units were sold)
2003: 171K
2002: 166K
2001: 170K
2000: 143K
Takeo Fukui, Honda CEO recently said that he would like Honda to "give off the smell of danger" to its competitors from now on, because Honda is becoming too predictable. He gave the example of the Prius as something that was unexpected from Toyota.
I for one am finding more interesting cars from Toyota nowadays like my Scion xB and the Prius, and I expect this trend to continue. Previously, as the owner of a Civic I never thought I'd replace it with a Toyota.
I don't think the Civic Si will get 200hp. I think they'll get more torque and will top off at 180hp if they're lucky.
What I want to know about is the Civic lineup and whether they'll get more than 140hp.
Any thoughts?
One place to look is the 06 VW jetta and golf. I think they're slatted to get 140hp.
And in your Acura remarks, you didn't mention RSX sales, but did you mean to imply that they were up along with the other models?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Any thoughts?"
Read this thread a while back.
"One place to look is the 06 VW jetta and golf. I think they're slatted to get 140hp."
The base model 06 Jetta is going to get an I5 with 150 hp based on the old 2.0L I4.
I bet the 200 hp Jetta will be fun. Would be cool to see Honda offer an SI sedan in addition to the coupe.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yeah it would. Either give the EX sedan a big boost in power, or offer an Si sedan. I can't wait to see what happens.
Have you ever even driven a buick? Century maybe, but definately not a Regal. Go test drive a Regal GS. It is definately not floaty or less connected than a camry. And I have driven lots of cars in all my travels. Camry is probably the most floaty of all cars I've driven. Granted I haven't driven a Camry SE, but I have driven a Solara...
But like someone else said, I believe the "buicky" statement was referring to overal exterior styling. It has a somewhat bubbly theme to it. Especially the back. I don't think anyone was implying that it drives like a buick. Though Honda isn't doing anyone any favors by installing such crap tires on their cars. Like the Michelin Energy MXV4, Bridgestone Turanza EL42, and Michelin Pilot HX MXM4.
Me, I married, have two kids, and went from Honda to an 04 Chrysler Pacifica because it looks cool and apparently Chrysler got the mojo that Honda formerly had..... The Pacifica is a cool concept, you may laugh, but I wondered why Honda never did the Pacifica......
Honda YTD Sales:
Accord: 387K
Civic: 309K
Odyssey: 154K
CR-V: 149K
Pilot: 128K
Element: 60K
S2000: 7.3K
Honda Total: 1,195,479 (2003: 1,178,929)
Acura YTD Sales:
TL: 78K
MDX: 60K
TSX: 30K
RSX: 22K
RL: 8.8K
Acura Total: 198,919 (2003: 170,918)
Civic Si may not happen as a 2006 model when rest of the new Civic debuts. But when it does, I suspect 200 HP would be targeted, with RSX moving up to 200 HP (base) and 240 HP (Type-S).
"Regular" Civics may top out anywhere between 140-160 HP depending on what Honda wants to target.
ktnr: "You think the next-gen Jetta will move off CR's "Least Reliable" small cars list?"
No, I don't. But the Golf might - they will all be built in Germany beginning with the next gen.
robert: so Honda sales were up overall about 1.4% over 2003 - that seems OK to me. No evidence that the run has run out, even if its design emphasis is shifting towards "mass market". And at Acura - wow. A more than 16% sales increase year over year? Definitely excellent. I will be curious to see if they can continue that growth next year, given that all the new models came out this year. And the little RSX still made more than 20K - better than I thought it would do. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The new Civic looks quite interesting. Saw a spy shot in one of my car magazines yesterday (I'm trying to work through the pile), I think Autoweek. It was the 5 door, which certainly pushes the style envelope. Hopefully the sedan has some style, and they get the dynamics right.
Maybe they will give the Accord a tail job as a mid-cycle refresh. Other than the butt, that is a nice car, especially the interior. Maybe a sport package would be nice too...
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
When showing the cars in contention to my fiancee, the Accord was the only one she objected to. Alot of people I have talked to feel the same way. The funny thing was she can't really say why, specifically. Just does NOT like it (the general look of it I guess).
And now that I think about it, I like the styling of the Mazda6 and Passat... heck, even the Altima, Camry and Taurus better than the Accord. Of course, that's not as important to me as driving dynamics and quality.
I think Honda is losing buyers to the competition because of some elements of style that are hard to quantify. They aren't quite as bad as BMW (love it or hate it) but I'm hearing similiar opinions. What do you guys think about the overall style of the Accord, the Acura RL, etc. compared to the competition?
The Accord is a great car for senior citizens, imo. But it doesn't quite have the youthful image of the '94-'97 generation - the '94 Accord looks like a cousin of today's TL. The RL looks great, it is one of the best in the luxury car segment. The TL hands down, is THE best looking car to my eyes in the near luxury segment.
I like the front end styling of the Accord, though people have been complaining about that too.
As for Honda losing customers, I don't know about that, since they do seem to be increasing sales year over year, but I hope the new Civic looks better than what I have seen in spy shots, that one looks like an Si with 5 doors.
Ditto. I've got a feeling all this "Buick" talk is based solely on the taillights. As if that defined the car.
As for a sport package... Accord has one.
http://media6.motorcities.com/03GGM564142395B.jpeg
They actually carry a 1.4l engine in that market, they're made in Brazil for the Mercosul countries (the NAFTA of the South Americas).
Gas quality is very poor so they probably avoided the lean burn 1.3l. They are actually working on a 1.5l engine for that market.
The Brazilian Civic gets a de-tuned 1.7l, basically.
Civic costs about 50-55k Reais, or about $19-20k US dollars. But the Fit is cheaper, about 45k, or $16-17k USD. They offer good passenger room and tall seating, but not much cargo space when all the seats are in use.
I think the Fit could bring in young buyers and possibly compete with the Scion xA, IMO the closest competitor sold here now.
-juice
Thars what I think too that it should be in the reverse. I think Acura was getting targeted for bland styling in the latter part of the 90's. Meanwhile, Acura's competition such as BMw and Audi really had alot of exterior styling home-runs in the latter part of the 90's. In conclusion I guess Honda decided with their Acura brand they wanted to match the Germans in exterior styling with their "new wave" of Acura's: 04 TL, MDX, TSX, and 05 RL.
The 94-97 Accord I don't think in my opinion Honda would ever do a exterior styling to an Accord again at least on the sedan model. I remember when the 94 Accord came out too. I liked that car alot then. I still think the 96-97 Accord is the best looking Accord ever.
"The RL looks great, it is one of the best in the luxury car segment. The TL hands down, is THE best looking car to my eyes in the near luxury segment."
I agree with you 100% again.
The Civic still has its younger buyers but I don't think as much as the 92-95 and 96-00 Civic had. I don't think the youth crowd has totally dropped the Civic like a hot potato(at least not yet) but it I think the youth is a little on the borderline of dropping it pending the 06 Civic redesign.
I don't know if Honda is deconting their Accord and Civic styling to sell more TSX's or what the deal is. The TSX to Acura is like what the EVO is to Mitsu: its enthusiast product and not a mass market product like Accord and Civic are. The TSX is a profit maker no doubt but Honda relies alot on Civic and Accord sales for alot of their profits. In conclusion I don't think it would be healthy for Honda to gamble on TSX sales to cannabilize Accord and Civic sales on a consistent basis. Honda will not win TSX sales that way each time out over an Accord and Civic. The TSx price tag is too steep for that.
I agree the 98-02 Accord Coupe looks "sportier" than the current one. As for the 03 Accord Coupe looking like a Solara though I think the 03 Accord Coupe came out a little before the 04 Solara did though.
"Young" buyer will snap up these used Civics LX's and Corrollas compared to the "Edmunds preferred" sporty cars. As long as Honda makes cars that can run 200,000 miles with minimal care, they will be just fine.
That's what worries me about the V6 tranny problems. That's a bigger long-term problem than how much power the net Civic will have.
But it doesn't quite have the youthful image of the '94-'97 generation - the '94 Accord looks like a cousin of today's TL
I agree, especially on the TL styling comment. I definitely see an evolution of the 1994-97 Accord in the current TL in the rear quarters. However, styling and orientation wasn’t helping Honda sell Accords of the 1994-1997 era compared to the pace Honda had gotten used to. Sales dipped. I’ve made an attempt to “average” (per year) for each of the last four generations of Accord (including the current that has been in the market for 27 months).
1990-1993: 387 units/year (Four Year Design)
1994-1997: 365 units/year (Four Year Design)
1998-2002: 404 units/year (Five Year Design)
2003-current: 393 units/year (in its third year)
Accord sales had been going up with each generation since launch, except with 1994-1997 generation. The larger 1998-2002 generation recorded the best years in Accord’s history. The latest generation of Accord has seen sales slip a little but I can as well attribute that slip to a new competition in Honda’s Acura lineup (namely TSX), and Honda sold 30K of them in 2004, and had sold 19K of them in 2003.
So effectively, combined sales of TSX and Accord in 2003 was 418K units, and 417K in 2004. I doubt Vigor and 2.5TL were taking up sales from 1994-1997 and 1998 Accord though. (Acura sold only 8K units of Vigor in calendar year 1994, and just 253 units in 1995)
Just a little more statistical data to play with.
From 1998-2002, the Accord gained ground with the demise of the Taurus and Sable. Other than the Camry, no car made a serious grab for the mass market.
With the current design, the Accord has serious competition. Nissan's Altima is stronger than every before, and much stronger (volume-wise) than the Maxima.
Regardless, I think a better measure would be market share. We are always adding buyers to the market, so the real measure is not how many units are sold... it's how many were sold with respect to the number of buyers. After all, sales might creep up year after year. But if the number of buyers increases at a faster rate, that vehicle is losing ground to somebody.
However, there is a considerable overlap between Accord and TSX to warrant an intrusion into sales, especially by the latter, flashier offering. Me included. If I had to take a guess, I would say that no more than half of TSX buyers may be "all new" to Acura line.
These are the kind of overlaps that can kill one or the other model (Prelude was the last example from Honda). And with Element and CR-V, Honda has tried to maintain enough distinction and upped CR-V position continuously. Element now serves a lower price class (16K-20K), and CR-V goes for $20-25K. This has allowed Honda to "expand" its overall small ute sales from the usual 140K for CR-V alone to 210K for the two combined (CR-V by itself would have had hard time accomplishing that IMO).
Market share is important as well, but it works better at brand level than at individual model level.
Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant the first gen Solara. The one that's out there right now is on a whole different level.
"That's what worries me about the V6 tranny problems. That's a bigger long-term problem than how much power the net Civic will have."
I think the V6 tranny issue is in the past now. And even still, I know 11 people with V6 Honda's and not one of them has had an issue. Some of these cars are well 100,000 miles and a couple are up over 150,000 miles. With proper maintainance, I think the reputation of the 200,000 mmile Honda still exists. Honda would be fools to jeopardize a reputation like the one that they've built over the years.
Some other unrelated thoughts: I think Honda is being VERY slow about introducing new cars (not SUVs) to the US market. OK, I know that SUVs/trucks are more popular and Honda wants to improve their market share in that segment. But that has come at the expense of cars. I had been looking forward to replacing my Civic with a Civic 5 door in 2000 and was disappointed to find out that Honda had no plans to bring it to the US. Since then Toyota has introduced several four door hatchbacks: Prius, Matrix, Scion xA, xB, plus the tC hatch/coupe.
I had also hoped that Honda would bring the Fit and/or Stream, but finally gave up and bought a Scion xB. Although the redesigned Fit is supposed to be here next year, I'm sure there are plenty of people like me who have abandoned Honda in favor of Mazda or Toyota. It just seems to me that American Honda Product Planning is asleep at the wheel. Incidentally, based on the not so hot sales of the xA, I don't think the Fit will do more than 50-60K units/year.
That's 50-60k more than before though. Might actually might pick up some sales to make up for the losses in the Accord segment. And then the Civic can move up a scale to meet the 3 (the one to beat in the segment IMO) and allow the fit to cover entry-level.
Good move.
I think given the comments from American Honda Motors in the last year or so we will definitely see the second-generation Honda Fit in the US market, probably starting in January 2006 as the first of the 2007 models. Because Honda wants to take the Civic upmarket to better compete against the Mazda3 and the upcoming next-generation Nissan Sentra due this Fall, Honda needs a new entry-level car, and the Fit will fill that need.
This is why there is a very small chance Honda may just show the second-generation Fit at NAIAS in concept car form.
If it can reach that figure, it will be a success. Successfully exploiting marketing niches is the wave of the future (look at Ford replacing the Taurus with three vehicles - Fusion, Freestyle and Five Hundred). Honda is wise to move in this direction.
As for introductions, Honda has always been a conservative company. In the late 90s, the focus clearly shifted to cater to the other half of the market segment that was growing. Honda has always believed in lean processes to keep itself and its bottom line healthy. It shows up in more places than just the lineup. But, when a company grows without bulking up, I would say it has a chance to age very well.
I don't think the Fit will do more than 50-60K units/year.
That’s fine. If Honda sells (only) 60K units/year, they would have not only addressed the needs for people who want Honda to deliver an economical alternative to Civic with utility, but also help grow Honda’s sales by 5%. That is, a lot of growth for a volume seller.
If the '94-97 Accord = 25-35 years old, to my eyes the current Accord looks like it is a member of AARP.
And then, today's 44 year old buyer (average age of Accord buyer in 2003) was 34 year old when he/she was moved by Accord 10 years ago. Perhaps you suggest that Honda should try not to have a loyal customer base. None of us is getting younger.
Speaking of bloated looks, part of it is safety cage design, and part of it is the shape of the tail lamp. Otherwise, there is plenty of resemblance between 1998-02 and current Accord (and I own a 1998).