I expect that the premium sedan market will be very interesting over the next few years, with the potential for some fairly substantial shifts in market share. Infiniti's new found success should make the new M45 a much more viable contender, with far greater visibility and desirability than anything they've ever offered in this class. Acura's redesigned RL should also be more of a player, as it ramps up the luxury and goes for a greater prestige image by replacing its former FWD design with AWD. And the just confirmed hybrid model planned for 2006 should make it all the more competitive. Next, early reports indicate that the next Lexus LS redesign is going to be much more athletic and stylish, with standard and extended wheelbase versions, a serious attempt at competing directly with BMW on their own turf. Meanwhile, as the competitors from Japan position themselves to compete more successfully against them, BMW's bulletproof reputation is taking more than a little bit of a beating with all of the controversy surrounding the Bangle-mobiles, with 7 series sales down 15% from last year so far. This is as their most formidable Japanese competitor, Lexus, scores with LS430 sales through March up almost 75% over last year. Care to speculate how many of those buyers may have bought a 7-Series if BMW hadn't dropped the ball so badly? As I said, it should be interesting.
Whereas Nissan/Infiniti was dead in the water pre-Ghosn and had to make bold moves (thus the big push on the FM platform), Honda was doing pretty well with its current strategy and felt no need to risk investing in a RWD platform that might just end up cannibalizing their successful product line.
It's too bad b/c just as Lexus proved it could carve out a nice profitable chunk of MB's business, Infiniti is proving that they can carve out a nice chunk of BMW's business.
Honda's a tweener and taking a little bit of both, and yes their sales are pretty good, but those sales are the result of Honda putting more into their cars to make up for FWD.
For example, the TL and G35 are comparably priced but the G35 has a real cheap interior and has been out for 3 years, yet it's almost keeping pace with the TL which is in its first model year and has a much nicer, much more luxurious interior.
I'd like to see how the G35 would do if Nissan puts in a decent interior.
I understand that Hondas margins are healthy, and I personally don't think their run has run out. But margins have to be maintained over time. Honda is in the business of selling cars they can maintain margins in several ways they can do this by keeping operations clean, they can sell less volume at a higher price, or they can out price the compition. Even with sales down a bit they are still strong due to the fact that they produce a quality product. But as compition stiffens this will put pressure on the margins and cause any company to adjust the way they do business, what route they take is up to shareholders and senior management. We must remember that the consumer and this includes fleet buyers drive the market and the market is driven by sales. Honda can choose to sell less in volume for more money, but I feel this would be a departure from what put them were they are today. They already have a luxury line of cars and that segment is usually driven more along margin lines. As we all know base models make less than luxury models.
"Honda's a tweener and taking a little bit of both, and yes their sales are pretty good, but those sales are the result of Honda putting more into their cars to make up for FWD."
I'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment... unquestionably the content/value factor is in Acura's favor, but the cars themselves have gotten quite a few accolades on their merits as performance cars. Yes, the press has said that the TL would be better as a sports sedan if it were RWD, but they also say it's still a credible sports sedan regardless. I look at it as Acura giving the marketplace an affordable, high content alternative in the 3/5 series classes, aimed at people who want a very sporty sedan, but to whom that fact that a RWD based unit may be better behaved when driving at 9/10ths doesn't make a bit of difference, because they'll never drive the car that hard anyway. (I suspect that a significant number of people who buy any of these cars fit that description.) Also to address market demand for sports sedans in areas that have harsh winters.
My assessment of the whole situation is that Acura has found a specific niche that's successful for them, and that success shows no sign of abating or of being some kind of fluke. Frankly, it would be a very risky proposition to mess with the success they've developed in a possibly misguided attempt to take on BMW head-to-head in order to satisfy sports sedan purists. As I stated in my previous posts, I think it's debateable that they'd do any better salewise by replacing their FWD/AWD designs with RWD designs, and since they've already developed a successful line of sports sedans by leveraging a single platform that they share with Honda, the additional outlay for an all-new RWD platform would be sure to have a negative effect on their bottom line. Admittedly, they're not the darlings of the RWD fans and sports sedan purists, but their success shows that they have plenty of fans of their own, and Acura is VERY profitable. After all, Acura is first and foremost a business, so at the end of the day, isn't that what REALLY counts?
"For example, the TL and G35 are comparably priced but the G35 has a real cheap interior and has been out for 3 years, yet it's almost keeping pace with the TL which is in its first model year and has a much nicer, much more luxurious interior."
For a couple of reasons, I don't think this reflects any real issue with the TL...
First, the buzz for the G35 has been incredible, and it shows no signs of dying down. Enthusiast magazines continue to herald its 3-series class performance, so it still stays in the news almost as much as when it was new. And its sales numbers suggest that many people are willing to overlook its class-trailing interior in favor of the good things about it. So I think that the G35 is on a roll and isn't the type of car that's going to suffer a noticeable drop in volume just because someone else releases a new or revised competitor, even if the G35 is 3 years old. IMO, the G35 has developed the kind of reputation that makes it largely immune to such fickleness in the marketplace.
Second, don't forget that Acura has another car that falls into the lower end of the price range in the sports sedan market space... the TSX. If a person wants a car that's quite a bit more affordable than the 3-series/G35/TL entries while still being well equipped, luxurious and a real blast to drive, the TSX is a great option. And it's gotten very high praise from the enthusiast magazines and owners alike for its very sporty demeanor, FWD design notwithstanding. So if you add up all of Acura's sports sedan sales in the smaller to larger spectrum of the midsized segment, Acura is actually outselling Infiniti in that market, being ahead of them by about 33% so far this year.
I still understand your point, but I still think that Acura is proving itself to be quite a capable competitor in the sport sedan market space despite its decision to stay with FWD. And I contend that messing with the undeniable success that they've had and still have for mostly philosophical reasons ("if you want to sell sports sedans, RWD is the 'right' thing to do") would be a very risky proposition that could perhaps be somewhat successful, or it could backfire on them in a major way.
"Yes, the press has said that the TL would be better as a sports sedan if it were RWD, but they also say it's still a credible sports sedan regardless"
yes, but they have also said this is the power limit for FWD Hondas before it starts to get ugly (torque steer, rotten balance, etc). So regardless of how great the TL is, the high-ups at Honda must be thinking hard about where they will go from here in five years.
The switch to AWD is a relatively easy one, but it goes against the grain of Honda's engineering, light weight emphasis. A switch to RWD might be more expensive than a small company like Honda could contemplate, even if it could ameliorate the costs across both brands. Of course, excluding the niche models, it really only has two global platforms, so maybe it would be feasible...
A small side plus is that a unibody truck is a little more credible with RWD than FWD.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Between Honda and Toyota it must be remembered that Toyota sells cars en masse to the rental car companies. These numbers are counted in the totals.
I hope Honda doesn't start doing this. When the rental co's dump these cars a year and a half later, the market get's flooded and it drops the resale values.
Honda had a press release at the beginning of the year that stated they preferred not to go the rental, cash rebate, and 0.0% financing route to sell cars.
You hear so much about resale, as if you are going to make money off these cars. These cars for the most part are expendable items. The difference in resale if you keep most of these cars short term is rather you want KY or sandpaper. How many of the people on this board from the ages of 40 to 50 still have the car they had in high school? And is that car in original condition? Because if you don't and it isn't than you have only layed out money for your car. Your best option if you want to spend as little money over your lifetime is to purchase as few cars as you can. Of course this would not apply to those that collect vintage cars or resale them. Honda does not have to use incentives at this time because they are a diversified company. They don't have to fret much if one line does not sell as many units, they will be strong somewhere else. Honda makes everything from boat engines to lawn mowers. Honda is not a car company built just around car people. Honda is a huge corporation, the days of cars built by just car people are almost finished.
I don't think anyone expects to make money but for those of us who like to trade often poor resale would be the end of that. Even if you don't like to trade often sometimes your circumstances change and you need to part with a car sooner than you expected. Example, back in November of 2002 we were looking at a Mazda6 and the 03 Honda Accord Coupe. We liked the way both of them looked and drove. We ended up going with the Accord Coupe because at the time the deals were better on the Honda than they were on the Mazda. In July of 2003 we found out we had a little one on the way. Little one + coupe = not very convenient. Thanks to Honda resale we were able to quite easily dump the coupe for a 04 sedan. Had we bought the 6 that would have cost us alot more money. Although it would have been a sedan so the need to trade wouldn't have been as immediate.
Regarding the TL, I'm pretty sure that AWD is inevitable for the reasons you stated... I had that assumption in the back of my head but never expressed it in any of my posts. Now that the RL is opening the AWD "floodgates" for Acura, I'd guess that Acura has started the process of evolving to some degree into the Japanese equivalent of Audi. At least the AWD will fit into their existing platform structure, as I still doubt that they'd make the investment nor the dramatic mindset change of going to a new RWD platform for sedans. Unless the truck thing forces a change, because I doubt they'd switch to RWD just for sedans.
"A small side plus is that a unibody truck is a little more credible with RWD than FWD."
Good point. Actually, this could end up being the deciding factor... I guess a lot of it depends on the success of the SUT once it hits the marketplace. As someone said uptopic, the failure of the Subaru Baja may not bode well for the SUT's sales prospects.
I just read in Automotive News that analysts are saying that Honda will need to concentrate more on light trucks to sustain their success in the US market... sedans aren't enough by themselves anymore. That's not saying anything bad about Honda's sedans, just stating a marketplace reality in their opinions.
Unfortunately, the article didn't define exactly what they meant by light trucks... that could be more of the unibody SUV/van variants like the Pilot, MDX and Odyssey, or perhaps they are talking "hardcore" RWD trucks ala Tundra and Tacoma.
On a related side note, I wonder what it's going to take to make a full size truck from a Japanese manufacturer into a real contender in the US market. Even mighty Toyota's best effort so far (the Tundra) has achieved only a very small fraction of the unit sales of the Ford F-Series. And from what I've heard, the Titan introduction has fallen quite a bit short of expectations for Nissan.
I remember seeing a quote in which a Ford spokesperson was bragging that on the last Saturday of March, they sold as many F-Series trucks on that one day as Nissan had sold Titans for the entire year up to that date. This would tend to suggest that any Japanese manufacturer is going to have a looooong uphill climb in that market.
My assessment of the whole situation is that Acura has found a specific niche that's successful for them, and that success shows no sign of abating or of being some kind of fluke. Frankly, it would be a very risky proposition to mess with the success they've developed in a possibly misguided attempt to take on BMW head-to-head in order to satisfy sports sedan purists. As I stated in my previous posts, I think it's debateable that they'd do any better salewise by replacing their FWD/AWD designs with RWD designs, and since they've already developed a successful line of sports sedans by leveraging a single platform that they share with Honda, the additional outlay for an all-new RWD platform would be sure to have a negative effect on their bottom line. Admittedly, they're not the darlings of the RWD fans and sports sedan purists, but their success shows that they have plenty of fans of their own, and Acura is VERY profitable. After all, Acura is first and foremost a business, so at the end of the day, isn't that what REALLY counts?
As Nippononly pointed out, Honda's hit the limits of FWD so they're moving to AWD instead of spending the money to develop RWD platforms which (a) are expensive and (b) have the potential to eat into the sales of their quality FWD sedans like Civic, Accord, TSX and TL.
What I'd like to point out is that with the intro of the M35/45, Infiniti is essentially rolling out the 2nd generation of the FM platform (been substantially improved). This platform will put Infiniti into contention with BMW as the best handling sedan.
Despite some severe missteps, BMW is still one of the most prestigious car manufacturers around, certainly significantly more prestigious than Lexus, Acura or Infiniti. IMO, what's made BMW so prestigious is their complete and total dedication to making a great driving car. BMW may screw other things up, but in terms of handling and performance, it's the best.
As a result, BMW can charge much more massive premiums than Honda. By developing a car that handles handles as well as a BMW (hopefully the 2nd generation FM platform will do so), IMO Infiniti is going to push its way into the ranks of the prestigious automakers.
MB was Lexus's stalking horse, BMW is Infiniti's.
They spent the money to develop the platform and got their savings by offering cruddy interiors. Now that Infiniti has amortized the costs of developing the FM platform, they can boost the interiors, probably jack up prices and start making fat profits per car, probably fatter profits than Acura.
Honda's SH-AWD strategy is low risk, low cost and as long as SH-AWD works, the strategy will probably preserve Acura's niche, which is a good one.
However, Infiniti's RWD strategy was a riskier swing for the fences, but I think they're going to hit a home run. Honda on the other hand is bunting the runner over to second.
anon, there are circumstances as well as wants. Some people just don't like to keep cars over the long haul. I was talking with a co-worker and he said he just likes having a new car to drive, and can't keep one when it gets old. I don't intend to pass judgment on not keeping cars or why people buy what they buy. But unless you collect or use your vehicle for a living a better resale just eases the pain a bit. Honda and most other car companies are giants and they exist and live by the bottom line. To Hondas credit they are well diverse, better off than most. Honda has worked hard at building a good reputation as well. I think that if you pick their brains you will find that they don't offer incentives simply because they don't have to. The pressure from the compition just is not here yet.
"However, Infiniti's RWD strategy was a riskier swing for the fences, but I think they're going to hit a home run. Honda on the other hand is bunting the runner over to second."
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. As I indicated in an earlier post, I too feel that the new M45 has the potential to be a major player. However, even if it handles as well as a BMW, there's a pretty substantial difference in the markets for a 3-series competitor and a 5/7-series competitor. It remains to be seen if Infiniti's recent successes extend the brand's reputation far enough to include much more expensive sedans than the G35. Buyers at that level are FAR more particular about many things, especially prestige, and Infiniti has just started moving towards the A-list after years of being little more than a pretender. Infiniti may start to get there, but they have a long way to go, especially if your statement that even Lexus isn't there yet is accurate, since they've been extremely successful since day one.
Another factor that may work against Infiniti is that, as I said in an earlier post, it sounds like Lexus is looking to change stalking horses with the next LS sedan. I guess MB is no longer enough of a challenge for them, so now they're looking to take on BMW. So Infiniti had better establish their reputation in the higher end sporty sedan market quickly... BMW alone will be a formidable challenge, but directly challenging both BMW and Lexus at the same time may be beyond their ability to succeed.
Finally, I'm not sure that all aspects of the M45 are quite right for its target market. I don't think Infiniti has yet figured out the whole package for a high end sedan, a situation that manifests mostly in the M45's styling, IMO. The semi-radical "flavor of the day" styling approach that has worked well for Nissan and Infiniti in the $20,000 - $35,000 range doesn't translate well to $50,000+ luxury sports sedans, in my opinion. And to me, the M45 smacks too much of "Maxima on steroids" in its styling... it just doesn't have the "presence" of a medium-to-large BMW or MB. For example, its roofline is reminiscent of the Chevy Impala, which is hardly something for a premium luxury sedan to aspire to. So I'm not convinced that the M45 is the total package that Infiniti needs to successfully challenge BMW in such a rarified market segment.
So which will be more successful... Infiniti's full-frontal assault on BMW, or Acura's stealthier "sneak up on them" approach? As with most things that we've discussed here, time will tell. While I wish Infiniti well with the M45, I still think they're in for the challenge of their corporate lifetime. Hopefully they're up to that challenge.
As for Honda/Acura, if it's a choice between super premium sedans beyond the RL's market space vs. trucks, I think trucks are far more important to their future. Nissan doesn't have to make that choice since they already have the truck thing covered.
Honda started the R&D for engine and aircraft projects back in the 80's. They started development on an engine in 99 and just signed a deal with GE to produce the engine.
Yes, Honda is diversified, yes Honda makes great small engines, and possibly now, small Jet engines. They are very good at what they do, but they have made some mistakes in the Car business, just like everyone else - from time to time. Most of these errors have been in the styling arena. They usually correct pretty quickly. Their biggest asset has been loyalty, driven by quality. It's a great strategy-something domestics don't have patience for consistently.
But lately, it seems some inexplicable changes have taken place at Honda. For example - why on earth would the double-wishbone suspension be deleted from the Civic? It was one of the selling points, and people pleasing features of the design of the Civic, that made it so popular. The Strut suspension has taken away the low beltline and low cowl feature of the Civic that made it so appealing with a great green house and commanding driving position. Things like this seem to be cutting into the sales of the car now.
"The Strut suspension has taken away the low beltline and low cowl feature of the Civic that made it so appealing with a great green house and commanding driving position. Things like this seem to be cutting into the sales of the car now."
This may not be due solely to the suspension change. They've raised the beltline and the cowl on the current Accord as well, and it still has the double wishbones.
I remember reading somewhere that this was done because the higher beltline made people feel more surrounded by the car and better protected in the case of a crash. Obviously it's a purely psychological thing, but probably became more important when the road began to be overrun by SUVs that dwarf your average sedan.
At any rate, to me the lower beltline and lower cowl are the main things that I preferred with my 2000 Accord over my 2003. Although I've adjusted to it and I don't even think about it anymore.
Thanks, I didn't know that about the Accord. Sounds like they just cheapened the Civic then, unfortunately.
Personally, I HATE the bathtub feeling, and it's about the first thing I reject when I sit in a car. I like the commanding view feeling - screw the "protection" thing. Of course, I've never been T-boned either, which could change one's perspective about this????
... is how badly ALL of the current midsized cars performed in the IIHS side impact tests. Every one they tested recently got a poor rating except those equipped with side curtain airbags. And the reason for that is that part of the ramming device that they use in the test is at bumper height for a large truck or SUV. That part of the ram came through the side window in each car and the dummy's head hit it, causing serious "injury", except in the cars with the side curtains.
Your defense of Honda's strategy is a pretty good one. It's not my money so it's easy for me to push Honda to take risks. Maybe if it were my money and my career on the line, I'd play it more conservative like Honda has (although I doubt it, I can't see myself ignoring a profitable market segment like the entry level sport/lux RWD segment). In any case, Honda has made some mistakes (don't we all) but they have ultimately been successful and that's what counts, so their strategy and execution cannot be bad.
We'll both have to reserve judgment on the M45 until it comes out. I don't think it's intended to take on the 7-series, but the 5-series, which IMO is in trouble b/c BMW's 2004 sales have been better than 2003 when the E39 platform was in its last model year, but not as good as 2002 when E39 was in its next to last model year.
Like you said, it's possible for reasons of prestige that the M45 won't sell, a 2nd generation G35, which will be based off the improved FM platform, will guaranteed deal a body blow to 3-series and even 5-series sales IMO. I mean, think about it, the G35 as it stands now handles well but not quite as good as a BMW and has a cruddy interior.
In 2005 Nissan is supposed to upgrade the interior. With an upgraded interior and BMW quality handling based off the 2nd gen. FM platform, that is a 3-series killer.
I think, but don't know, that the M45 will be a hit. But I am pretty sure that the next G35 will be a smash.
why on earth would the double-wishbone suspension be deleted from the Civic?
To compete better in a tough market segment. People demand space, decent handling (read: not sports car), safety and a good price. Design is about compromises, and business is about making money. Everybody strives that.
Honda (global) sales was up 2.4% (not down) as was the net income (10.8%).
We must remember that the consumer and this includes fleet buyers drive the market and the market is driven by sales. True, but fleet is usually a last resort to any automaker and avoided unless necessary. This is a classic example of sales volume not being the end game.
The switch to AWD is a relatively easy one, but it goes against the grain of Honda's engineering, light weight emphasis.
I'm not sure if Honda's engineering philosophy is about "light weight", it is more about being efficient, small and consolidated. And the strategy Honda adopted by consolidating platforms to a minimum, is a benchmark that many currently pursue. Even Hyundai (after taking ownership of Kia) claimed that they would be looking at reducing twenty five existing platforms to just seven between the two brands. Thats the future.
AWD opens up an area where Honda addresses the wants of performance enthusiasts, while delivering the rest of the products as it always has. That is a smart business model, IMO.
A switch to RWD might be more expensive than a small company like Honda could contemplate, even if it could ameliorate the costs across both brands. Of course, excluding the niche models, it really only has two global platforms, so maybe it would be feasible...
RWD platform shouldn't be a big deal for Honda to develop and sell. But, why put an effort where there is little to no additional benefit to be had? Instead focus elsewhere. Among global platforms, Honda has... Global Small Car (used in Jazz) Global Compact (used in Civic, CRV, RSX) Global Midsize (used in Accord, TSX, TL) Global Light Truck (used in Odyssey, Pilot, MDX)
In addition, there is the S2000 (its own RWD platform) and NSX (its own RWD platform), and the current RL.
A small side plus is that a unibody truck is a little more credible with RWD than FWD. Not true, if AWD is standard. A light truck makes more sense to me with AWD than with either RWD or FWD.
Infiniti's RWD strategy was a riskier swing for the fences Remember, RWD platform did nothing for Infiniti in the 90s. So, cars sell not for which wheels are driven, but for what they deliver as a package, and good marketing.
And Nissan/Infiniti could take more risks lately, with the cashflow (with Renault's stake), and had nowhere to go but up. Honda has to continue to be smart with its money if it wants to go all alone in the long term.
Ok, educate me how eliminating the double wishbone in the Civic made it better please. I don't get it, because my 89 Civic (May she rest in peace) was very spacious, a joy to handle and drive, and as efficient as I can imagine. So how does a strut suspension improve what I think, was the perfect Civic? I'm sincere in asking....because I think they have ruined it.
generally speaking, lighter weight would be considered more "efficient" in an automobile, I think by pretty much everyone here except you perhaps - consensus please?
If I am not much mistaken Honda's crossovers (Pilot and MDX) are based on the Accord platform. This is the first I am hearing of a "Global light truck platform".
you'll get no argument here: ">A small side plus is that a unibody truck is a little more credible with RWD than FWD.
Not true, if AWD is standard. A light truck makes more sense to me with AWD than with either RWD or FWD."
Of course, if you'll notice, I made no mention of AWD, but merely compared RWD and FWD.
And lastly, "RWD platform shouldn't be a big deal for Honda to develop and sell. But, why put an effort where there is little to no additional benefit to be had?" I think all those magazine editors as well as most sports car enthusiasts would disagree with you that there no benefits to be had from the switch to RWD. And for a relatively small car company without a money tree or any corporate sponsors, which is what Honda is, building new RWD platforms for the Civic and Accord, or even just for the Accord, would likely be a BIG expensive stretch. You try it some time! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If you extract, please extract the whole sentence or comment. For I said that if sales were down a bit on one line they did not need to worry because another line would be strong. This would explain sales being up over all and not needing to place incentives. Anon so they are going to venture with GE? I have not read that thanks for the info. Pratt lost the 7E7 compition, that was a pretty heavy blow I hope they can stay viable.
Ok, educate me how eliminating the double wishbone in the Civic made it better please.
If you can tell me where I mentioned the above. That said, Civic did gain in a few things, while giving up some. Why? "To compete with the competition better"
generally speaking, lighter weight would be considered more "efficient" in an automobile, I think by pretty much everyone here except you perhaps - consensus please?
Not sure where you gathered Honda's philosophy of only "light weight" being the target. In fact, Hondas tend to be heavier these days. That said, the amusing thing about this is, that the new RL with AWD is supposedly about 100 lb. lighter than the FWD outgoing RL. If true, your concern has been addressed!
If I am not much mistaken Honda's crossovers (Pilot and MDX) are based on the Accord platform. This is the first I am hearing of a "Global light truck platform".
"Detroit, January 4, 2004 --- The Honda SUT Concept made its world debut today at the 2004 North American International Auto Show as American Honda announced plans for the launch of an all-new sport-utility truck slated for introduction in calendar year 2005. The all-new model will be based on Honda's Global Light Truck Platform and will be produced by Honda Canada Manufacturing in Alliston, Ontario."
Honda produces vehicles using "global light truck platform" in Ontario and Alabama. So, now you should know.
And regarding switching to/ investing in RWD platform, I'm sure Honda execs have done the math on returns. So, let us leave it at that.
Even with sales down a bit they are still strong due to the fact that they produce a quality product.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the above, the response doesn't change. Now, if you mentioned "if" sales of some models go down and other models make up for it... then I understand. Thats how it works for anybody.
When Honda got away from the double wishbones in the Civic's front suspension, a lot of people immediatly started hollering that Honda had somehow, cheapened the car and that handling would be affected.
Honda's fault for this reaction since they made such a big deal out of the wishbones for so many years.
When the 01 Civics came out, I attended a "ride and drive" where they had us drive them fast on a road course. they also had us ride with professional drivers who demonstrated handling had not been affected.
Of course, some will always disagree.
At the same time, the improved interior room and raised the frontal crash test ratings to five star.
if, when the 2001 Civics came out, there were not ride/handling issues, then why did they redesign the suspension immediately for the 2002 model?
I drove the 2001 Civic EX sedan when it first came out and thought it handled and rode like a pig (especially compared to the previous model). I have not driven a "revised" 2002+ model, but my hope is they addressed the issue.
The funny thing about the suspension "tweak" that 2002 Civic received was not at the front (where the change was made from double wishbone to Macpherson struts), but in the rear (where the 3-link/reactive-link double wishbone was retained).
I've said over and over that the switch to struts wasn't the problem, just that when the new civic came out, the suspension was screwed up. Now everyone jumped on Honda thinking it was the switch to struts that did it, but it wasn't. They just flat boned up the suspension.
Again, if the suspension was great from the get-go, why the fix?
"At the same time, the improved interior room and raised the frontal crash test ratings to five star.
You can't always have everything."
No you can't, but Honda could have raised the frontal crash test rating and improved the interior room while retaining the front double wish bone suspension. You guys are trying to make it seem like Honda HAD to get rid of the front wishbones in order to improve interior room and crash test scores.
Well, at least your response was very kind and reasonable, and I thought informative, although others have brought up some interesting questions. I appreciate the courtesy because I am really curious about it. I so loved my 89 Civic - drove it 179,000 miles before giving it to my daughter. Just don't care for the new design, I guess....
ages ago, and I kinda liked it. Little cars in general aren't my thing, but this one did give me a newfound respect for them. Somehow, I fit more comfortably in that '91 Civic than I do in the current model!
"It's easy to say What Honda "should" or "could" have done.
I'm not in a position to answer for them."
Well, it seems like you are trying to answer for them by implying that it was either the double wishbone front suspension, or improved crash tests and interior room. I can't answer for Honda either, but I can tell you that the improved crash test results and interior room could have been acheived using the double wishbone front. The Accord seems to be doing OK crash test and interior room wise with the double wishbone front suspension.
"Funny, because the overwhelming majority of shoppers don't care one twit about the suspension."
Then I wonder why Honda uses the more expensive and more complex double wishbone design at all. Gosh, if it doesn't matter, Honda could save a ton of money and just use mac-struts on all of their vehicles.
Nippononly - Maybe I can give you a better answer on the Pilot/MDX/Ody platform.
Yes, the global light truck platform is related to the mid-size global platform (shared with the TSX, Accord, and TL). But it is more like a distant cousin, than a brother or sister.
For example, here's a picture of the underpinnings of the Pilot.
Do you think the Accord has rails like those? Nah.
It's because the word "platform" doesn't mean a shared frame. It means that the vehicle is similar in the "types" of major components. For example, both the Accord and Pilot have transversely-mounted engines with a FWD layout. They both can be assembled on a line using similar robots and jigs (just reprogrammed for different specific parts). So, yes, they are similar.
However, they are also very different. The rails in that picture show one major difference. Another is the front suspension sub frame. The Accord uses double bones, while the Pilot uses struts. Of course, there are others. Suffice it to say that there are enough differences for Honda to consider it a separate platform despite several similarities.
Why are some people having so much problem admitting that Honda got rid of the double wishbone for cost reasons?
Making a profit IMO is a valid reason to decontent a car. I may not be happy with it, but I can understand it.
"Not sure where you gathered Honda's philosophy of only "light weight" being the target. In fact, Hondas tend to be heavier these days. That said, the amusing thing about this is, that the new RL with AWD is supposedly about 100 lb. lighter than the FWD outgoing RL. If true, your concern has been addressed!
The new AWD RL may be lighter than the old FWD RL, but I think Varmint correctly noted that the AWD system used in the RL is adapted from the VTM system used in MDX and Pilot, which weighs around 220 lbs. Therefore, a new FWD RL (if it existed) would weight 220 poundsless than the new AWD RL.
robertsmx, I don't understand why you have a problem admitting that the extra drivetrain required in an AWD system will add weight when compared to the FWD/RWD version of the SAME car.
I believe Honda's cars are mostly lighter than competing same-size models. Which was my original point. Honda's cars have always been special, in part, BECAUSE they were not porkers like many other makes.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I don't think Robert was saying that the new RL is lighter than the old because it has AWD. I think he was saying that they have compensated for the weight by using aluminum and carbon fiber to good effect. The result is an RL that is actually lighter than the old model despite it having AWD.
Would a FWD version the vehicle be lighter still? Sure. But why give up SH-AWD for 220 lbs? If it works as promised, I'd give up food and lose the lbs myself.
"Would a FWD version the vehicle be lighter still? Sure. But why give up SH-AWD for 220 lbs? If it works as promised, I'd give up food and lose the lbs myself. "
LOL varmint. My wife is trying to put me on the South Beach diet. If she signs off on the RL, I'll go on the SH-AWD diet with you!
nvbanker Replacing double wishbone front with struts up front did help improve space and safety. Did it improve handling? Regular Civics handled well (note: well) anyway regardless of double wishbone or struts. When was the last time double wishbones were a must have in this class for best handling? Handling is only as good as tuning. Double wishbone may offer more potential towards tuning, but we’re talking stock cars here. And that said, CRX used struts, and I hardly see anybody bring that up.
seminole_kev I've said over and over that the switch to struts wasn't the problem, just that when the new civic came out, the suspension was screwed up. Now everyone jumped on Honda thinking it was the switch to struts that did it, but it wasn't. They just flat boned up the suspension. Suspension tuning was not right, a little softer on the rear for a “more compliant” ride. And I know people mistake that tuning issue with replacement of wishbones with struts.
Again, if the suspension was great from the get-go, why the fix?
It was okay, but not great (depending on what you prefer). And, again, it didn’t matter whether the car used double wishbone or struts. This is similar to the RL situation when the model replaced Legend in the Acura lineup. It used double wishbones, but the car was softly sprung and lost the character that Legend was known for. Acura has tweaked the firmness at least couple of times to address concerns from people.
No you can't, but Honda could have raised the frontal crash test rating and improved the interior room while retaining the front double wish bone suspension.
You acknowledge that everything isn’t possible, and then go on to say it is! May be, Honda could have done it by stretching the car and adding 150 lb of steel. That would be good, right? No. Why offer something that doesn’t get appreciated anyway? (At least until it is lost).
The Accord seems to be doing OK crash test and interior room wise with the double wishbone front suspension.
Accord just doesn’t do “okay” in this regard, but the key is size of the cars. Accord is a midsize, and Civic barely got out of sub-compact class into compact with the redesign (without an increase in external dimensions). If Civic were 15 inch longer and 5 inch wider, it would be the size of Accord.
Then I wonder why Honda uses the more expensive and more complex double wishbone design at all. Gosh, if it doesn't matter, Honda could save a ton of money and just use mac-struts on all of their vehicles. You have a point there! So, are you suggesting that Honda doesn’t like cost cutting? Applications rule decisions.
Why are some people having so much problem admitting that Honda got rid of the double wishbone for cost reasons?
Is struts cheaper alternative to wishbones? Yes. I doubt anybody is denying that. But the problem with some people here is that they lug around only the inexpensive aspect of struts and don’t want to admit the benefits that it could bring. There must be a reason why wishbones aren’t offered in this class of vehicles.
robertsmx, I don't understand why you have a problem admitting that the extra drivetrain required in an AWD system will add weight when compared to the FWD/RWD version of the SAME car. Once again, you are emphasizing on just one aspect, and forgetting the rest. While SH-AWD may be the lightest AWD of its kind around (aah the Honda philosophy :-)), it would add about 220 lb. Without it, the RL would probably weigh about as much as the TL and have 300 HP. Wait, did I say 300 HP front driver? Why have 300 HP, why not 200 HP four cylinder engine, and save weight further see where I am going? Honda is addressing wants of people by adding powerful engines, and it needs to do something about it. And SH-AWD plus weight trimming methods result in a car that has more power, AWD and yet, lighter. How is this any different from the Honda way?
Comments
Whereas Nissan/Infiniti was dead in the water pre-Ghosn and had to make bold moves (thus the big push on the FM platform), Honda was doing pretty well with its current strategy and felt no need to risk investing in a RWD platform that might just end up cannibalizing their successful product line.
It's too bad b/c just as Lexus proved it could carve out a nice profitable chunk of MB's business, Infiniti is proving that they can carve out a nice chunk of BMW's business.
Honda's a tweener and taking a little bit of both, and yes their sales are pretty good, but those sales are the result of Honda putting more into their cars to make up for FWD.
For example, the TL and G35 are comparably priced but the G35 has a real cheap interior and has been out for 3 years, yet it's almost keeping pace with the TL which is in its first model year and has a much nicer, much more luxurious interior.
I'd like to see how the G35 would do if Nissan puts in a decent interior.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment... unquestionably the content/value factor is in Acura's favor, but the cars themselves have gotten quite a few accolades on their merits as performance cars. Yes, the press has said that the TL would be better as a sports sedan if it were RWD, but they also say it's still a credible sports sedan regardless. I look at it as Acura giving the marketplace an affordable, high content alternative in the 3/5 series classes, aimed at people who want a very sporty sedan, but to whom that fact that a RWD based unit may be better behaved when driving at 9/10ths doesn't make a bit of difference, because they'll never drive the car that hard anyway. (I suspect that a significant number of people who buy any of these cars fit that description.) Also to address market demand for sports sedans in areas that have harsh winters.
My assessment of the whole situation is that Acura has found a specific niche that's successful for them, and that success shows no sign of abating or of being some kind of fluke. Frankly, it would be a very risky proposition to mess with the success they've developed in a possibly misguided attempt to take on BMW head-to-head in order to satisfy sports sedan purists. As I stated in my previous posts, I think it's debateable that they'd do any better salewise by replacing their FWD/AWD designs with RWD designs, and since they've already developed a successful line of sports sedans by leveraging a single platform that they share with Honda, the additional outlay for an all-new RWD platform would be sure to have a negative effect on their bottom line. Admittedly, they're not the darlings of the RWD fans and sports sedan purists, but their success shows that they have plenty of fans of their own, and Acura is VERY profitable. After all, Acura is first and foremost a business, so at the end of the day, isn't that what REALLY counts?
"For example, the TL and G35 are comparably priced but the G35 has a real cheap interior and has been out for 3 years, yet it's almost keeping pace with the TL which is in its first model year and has a much nicer, much more luxurious interior."
For a couple of reasons, I don't think this reflects any real issue with the TL...
First, the buzz for the G35 has been incredible, and it shows no signs of dying down. Enthusiast magazines continue to herald its 3-series class performance, so it still stays in the news almost as much as when it was new. And its sales numbers suggest that many people are willing to overlook its class-trailing interior in favor of the good things about it. So I think that the G35 is on a roll and isn't the type of car that's going to suffer a noticeable drop in volume just because someone else releases a new or revised competitor, even if the G35 is 3 years old. IMO, the G35 has developed the kind of reputation that makes it largely immune to such fickleness in the marketplace.
Second, don't forget that Acura has another car that falls into the lower end of the price range in the sports sedan market space... the TSX. If a person wants a car that's quite a bit more affordable than the 3-series/G35/TL entries while still being well equipped, luxurious and a real blast to drive, the TSX is a great option. And it's gotten very high praise from the enthusiast magazines and owners alike for its very sporty demeanor, FWD design notwithstanding. So if you add up all of Acura's sports sedan sales in the smaller to larger spectrum of the midsized segment, Acura is actually outselling Infiniti in that market, being ahead of them by about 33% so far this year.
I still understand your point, but I still think that Acura is proving itself to be quite a capable competitor in the sport sedan market space despite its decision to stay with FWD. And I contend that messing with the undeniable success that they've had and still have for mostly philosophical reasons ("if you want to sell sports sedans, RWD is the 'right' thing to do") would be a very risky proposition that could perhaps be somewhat successful, or it could backfire on them in a major way.
yes, but they have also said this is the power limit for FWD Hondas before it starts to get ugly (torque steer, rotten balance, etc). So regardless of how great the TL is, the high-ups at Honda must be thinking hard about where they will go from here in five years.
The switch to AWD is a relatively easy one, but it goes against the grain of Honda's engineering, light weight emphasis. A switch to RWD might be more expensive than a small company like Honda could contemplate, even if it could ameliorate the costs across both brands. Of course, excluding the niche models, it really only has two global platforms, so maybe it would be feasible...
A small side plus is that a unibody truck is a little more credible with RWD than FWD.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I hope Honda doesn't start doing this. When the rental co's dump these cars a year and a half later, the market get's flooded and it drops the resale values.
As for fleet sales - I read that about 10 percent of Camrys go to fleet customers.
"A small side plus is that a unibody truck is a little more credible with RWD than FWD."
Good point. Actually, this could end up being the deciding factor... I guess a lot of it depends on the success of the SUT once it hits the marketplace. As someone said uptopic, the failure of the Subaru Baja may not bode well for the SUT's sales prospects.
I just read in Automotive News that analysts are saying that Honda will need to concentrate more on light trucks to sustain their success in the US market... sedans aren't enough by themselves anymore. That's not saying anything bad about Honda's sedans, just stating a marketplace reality in their opinions.
Unfortunately, the article didn't define exactly what they meant by light trucks... that could be more of the unibody SUV/van variants like the Pilot, MDX and Odyssey, or perhaps they are talking "hardcore" RWD trucks ala Tundra and Tacoma.
On a related side note, I wonder what it's going to take to make a full size truck from a Japanese manufacturer into a real contender in the US market. Even mighty Toyota's best effort so far (the Tundra) has achieved only a very small fraction of the unit sales of the Ford F-Series. And from what I've heard, the Titan introduction has fallen quite a bit short of expectations for Nissan.
I remember seeing a quote in which a Ford spokesperson was bragging that on the last Saturday of March, they sold as many F-Series trucks on that one day as Nissan had sold Titans for the entire year up to that date. This would tend to suggest that any Japanese manufacturer is going to have a looooong uphill climb in that market.
As Nippononly pointed out, Honda's hit the limits of FWD so they're moving to AWD instead of spending the money to develop RWD platforms which (a) are expensive and (b) have the potential to eat into the sales of their quality FWD sedans like Civic, Accord, TSX and TL.
What I'd like to point out is that with the intro of the M35/45, Infiniti is essentially rolling out the 2nd generation of the FM platform (been substantially improved). This platform will put Infiniti into contention with BMW as the best handling sedan.
Despite some severe missteps, BMW is still one of the most prestigious car manufacturers around, certainly significantly more prestigious than Lexus, Acura or Infiniti. IMO, what's made BMW so prestigious is their complete and total dedication to making a great driving car. BMW may screw other things up, but in terms of handling and performance, it's the best.
As a result, BMW can charge much more massive premiums than Honda. By developing a car that handles handles as well as a BMW (hopefully the 2nd generation FM platform will do so), IMO Infiniti is going to push its way into the ranks of the prestigious automakers.
MB was Lexus's stalking horse, BMW is Infiniti's.
They spent the money to develop the platform and got their savings by offering cruddy interiors. Now that Infiniti has amortized the costs of developing the FM platform, they can boost the interiors, probably jack up prices and start making fat profits per car, probably fatter profits than Acura.
Honda's SH-AWD strategy is low risk, low cost and as long as SH-AWD works, the strategy will probably preserve Acura's niche, which is a good one.
However, Infiniti's RWD strategy was a riskier swing for the fences, but I think they're going to hit a home run. Honda on the other hand is bunting the runner over to second.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. As I indicated in an earlier post, I too feel that the new M45 has the potential to be a major player. However, even if it handles as well as a BMW, there's a pretty substantial difference in the markets for a 3-series competitor and a 5/7-series competitor. It remains to be seen if Infiniti's recent successes extend the brand's reputation far enough to include much more expensive sedans than the G35. Buyers at that level are FAR more particular about many things, especially prestige, and Infiniti has just started moving towards the A-list after years of being little more than a pretender. Infiniti may start to get there, but they have a long way to go, especially if your statement that even Lexus isn't there yet is accurate, since they've been extremely successful since day one.
Another factor that may work against Infiniti is that, as I said in an earlier post, it sounds like Lexus is looking to change stalking horses with the next LS sedan. I guess MB is no longer enough of a challenge for them, so now they're looking to take on BMW. So Infiniti had better establish their reputation in the higher end sporty sedan market quickly... BMW alone will be a formidable challenge, but directly challenging both BMW and Lexus at the same time may be beyond their ability to succeed.
Finally, I'm not sure that all aspects of the M45 are quite right for its target market. I don't think Infiniti has yet figured out the whole package for a high end sedan, a situation that manifests mostly in the M45's styling, IMO. The semi-radical "flavor of the day" styling approach that has worked well for Nissan and Infiniti in the $20,000 - $35,000 range doesn't translate well to $50,000+ luxury sports sedans, in my opinion. And to me, the M45 smacks too much of "Maxima on steroids" in its styling... it just doesn't have the "presence" of a medium-to-large BMW or MB. For example, its roofline is reminiscent of the Chevy Impala, which is hardly something for a premium luxury sedan to aspire to. So I'm not convinced that the M45 is the total package that Infiniti needs to successfully challenge BMW in such a rarified market segment.
So which will be more successful... Infiniti's full-frontal assault on BMW, or Acura's stealthier "sneak up on them" approach? As with most things that we've discussed here, time will tell. While I wish Infiniti well with the M45, I still think they're in for the challenge of their corporate lifetime. Hopefully they're up to that challenge.
As for Honda/Acura, if it's a choice between super premium sedans beyond the RL's market space vs. trucks, I think trucks are far more important to their future. Nissan doesn't have to make that choice since they already have the truck thing covered.
But lately, it seems some inexplicable changes have taken place at Honda. For example - why on earth would the double-wishbone suspension be deleted from the Civic? It was one of the selling points, and people pleasing features of the design of the Civic, that made it so popular. The Strut suspension has taken away the low beltline and low cowl feature of the Civic that made it so appealing with a great green house and commanding driving position. Things like this seem to be cutting into the sales of the car now.
This may not be due solely to the suspension change. They've raised the beltline and the cowl on the current Accord as well, and it still has the double wishbones.
I remember reading somewhere that this was done because the higher beltline made people feel more surrounded by the car and better protected in the case of a crash. Obviously it's a purely psychological thing, but probably became more important when the road began to be overrun by SUVs that dwarf your average sedan.
At any rate, to me the lower beltline and lower cowl are the main things that I preferred with my 2000 Accord over my 2003. Although I've adjusted to it and I don't even think about it anymore.
Personally, I HATE the bathtub feeling, and it's about the first thing I reject when I sit in a car. I like the commanding view feeling - screw the "protection" thing. Of course, I've never been T-boned either, which could change one's perspective about this????
We'll both have to reserve judgment on the M45 until it comes out. I don't think it's intended to take on the 7-series, but the 5-series, which IMO is in trouble b/c BMW's 2004 sales have been better than 2003 when the E39 platform was in its last model year, but not as good as 2002 when E39 was in its next to last model year.
Like you said, it's possible for reasons of prestige that the M45 won't sell, a 2nd generation G35, which will be based off the improved FM platform, will guaranteed deal a body blow to 3-series and even 5-series sales IMO. I mean, think about it, the G35 as it stands now handles well but not quite as good as a BMW and has a cruddy interior.
In 2005 Nissan is supposed to upgrade the interior. With an upgraded interior and BMW quality handling based off the 2nd gen. FM platform, that is a 3-series killer.
I think, but don't know, that the M45 will be a hit. But I am pretty sure that the next G35 will be a smash.
why on earth would the double-wishbone suspension be deleted from the Civic?
To compete better in a tough market segment. People demand space, decent handling (read: not sports car), safety and a good price. Design is about compromises, and business is about making money. Everybody strives that.
Honda (global) sales was up 2.4% (not down) as was the net income (10.8%).
We must remember that the consumer and this includes fleet buyers drive the market and the market is driven by sales.
True, but fleet is usually a last resort to any automaker and avoided unless necessary. This is a classic example of sales volume not being the end game.
I'm not sure if Honda's engineering philosophy is about "light weight", it is more about being efficient, small and consolidated. And the strategy Honda adopted by consolidating platforms to a minimum, is a benchmark that many currently pursue. Even Hyundai (after taking ownership of Kia) claimed that they would be looking at reducing twenty five existing platforms to just seven between the two brands. Thats the future.
AWD opens up an area where Honda addresses the wants of performance enthusiasts, while delivering the rest of the products as it always has. That is a smart business model, IMO.
A switch to RWD might be more expensive than a small company like Honda could contemplate, even if it could ameliorate the costs across both brands. Of course, excluding the niche models, it really only has two global platforms, so maybe it would be feasible...
RWD platform shouldn't be a big deal for Honda to develop and sell. But, why put an effort where there is little to no additional benefit to be had? Instead focus elsewhere. Among global platforms, Honda has...
Global Small Car (used in Jazz)
Global Compact (used in Civic, CRV, RSX)
Global Midsize (used in Accord, TSX, TL)
Global Light Truck (used in Odyssey, Pilot, MDX)
In addition, there is the S2000 (its own RWD platform) and NSX (its own RWD platform), and the current RL.
A small side plus is that a unibody truck is a little more credible with RWD than FWD.
Not true, if AWD is standard. A light truck makes more sense to me with AWD than with either RWD or FWD.
Remember, RWD platform did nothing for Infiniti in the 90s. So, cars sell not for which wheels are driven, but for what they deliver as a package, and good marketing.
And Nissan/Infiniti could take more risks lately, with the cashflow (with Renault's stake), and had nowhere to go but up. Honda has to continue to be smart with its money if it wants to go all alone in the long term.
If I am not much mistaken Honda's crossovers (Pilot and MDX) are based on the Accord platform. This is the first I am hearing of a "Global light truck platform".
you'll get no argument here:
">A small side plus is that a unibody truck is a little more credible with RWD than FWD.
Not true, if AWD is standard. A light truck makes more sense to me with AWD than with either RWD or FWD."
Of course, if you'll notice, I made no mention of AWD, but merely compared RWD and FWD.
And lastly, "RWD platform shouldn't be a big deal for Honda to develop and sell. But, why put an effort where there is little to no additional benefit to be had?" I think all those magazine editors as well as most sports car enthusiasts would disagree with you that there no benefits to be had from the switch to RWD. And for a relatively small car company without a money tree or any corporate sponsors, which is what Honda is, building new RWD platforms for the Civic and Accord, or even just for the Accord, would likely be a BIG expensive stretch. You try it some time! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If you can tell me where I mentioned the above. That said, Civic did gain in a few things, while giving up some. Why? "To compete with the competition better"
Not sure where you gathered Honda's philosophy of only "light weight" being the target. In fact, Hondas tend to be heavier these days. That said, the amusing thing about this is, that the new RL with AWD is supposedly about 100 lb. lighter than the FWD outgoing RL. If true, your concern has been addressed!
If I am not much mistaken Honda's crossovers (Pilot and MDX) are based on the Accord platform. This is the first I am hearing of a "Global light truck platform".
"Detroit, January 4, 2004 --- The Honda SUT Concept made its world debut today at the 2004 North American International Auto Show as American Honda announced plans for the launch of an all-new sport-utility truck slated for introduction in calendar year 2005. The all-new model will be based on Honda's Global Light Truck Platform and will be produced by Honda Canada Manufacturing in Alliston, Ontario."
Honda produces vehicles using "global light truck platform" in Ontario and Alabama. So, now you should know.
And regarding switching to/ investing in RWD platform, I'm sure Honda execs have done the math on returns. So, let us leave it at that.
"why on earth would the double-wishbone suspension be deleted from the Civic?
To compete better in a tough market segment. People demand space, decent handling (read: not sports car), safety and a good price."
Seems like you're saying doing this made them compete better, acquire space, better handling, safety & a good price, no?
Even with sales down a bit they are still strong due to the fact that they produce a quality product.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the above, the response doesn't change. Now, if you mentioned "if" sales of some models go down and other models make up for it... then I understand. Thats how it works for anybody.
Honda's fault for this reaction since they made such a big deal out of the wishbones for so many years.
When the 01 Civics came out, I attended a "ride and drive" where they had us drive them fast on a road course. they also had us ride with professional drivers who demonstrated handling had not been affected.
Of course, some will always disagree.
At the same time, the improved interior room and raised the frontal crash test ratings to five star.
You can't always have everything.
I drove the 2001 Civic EX sedan when it first came out and thought it handled and rode like a pig (especially compared to the previous model). I have not driven a "revised" 2002+ model, but my hope is they addressed the issue.
The "fix" was firming up the rear suspension.
Again, if the suspension was great from the get-go, why the fix?
You can't always have everything."
No you can't, but Honda could have raised the frontal crash test rating and improved the interior room while retaining the front double wish bone suspension. You guys are trying to make it seem like Honda HAD to get rid of the front wishbones in order to improve interior room and crash test scores.
I'm not in a position to answer for them.
Funny, because the overwhelming majority of shoppers don't care one twit about the suspension.
They did retune the rear suspension on the 2002's. I'm not exactly sure what they did but I know they firmed things up quite a bit.
I'm not in a position to answer for them."
Well, it seems like you are trying to answer for them by implying that it was either the double wishbone front suspension, or improved crash tests and interior room. I can't answer for Honda either, but I can tell you that the improved crash test results and interior room could have been acheived using the double wishbone front. The Accord seems to be doing OK crash test and interior room wise with the double wishbone front suspension.
"Funny, because the overwhelming majority of shoppers don't care one twit about the suspension."
Then I wonder why Honda uses the more expensive and more complex double wishbone design at all. Gosh, if it doesn't matter, Honda could save a ton of money and just use mac-struts on all of their vehicles.
Yes, the global light truck platform is related to the mid-size global platform (shared with the TSX, Accord, and TL). But it is more like a distant cousin, than a brother or sister.
For example, here's a picture of the underpinnings of the Pilot.
http://4hs.org/pv/2003/09/17/HON2003091760521_pv.jpg
Do you think the Accord has rails like those? Nah.
It's because the word "platform" doesn't mean a shared frame. It means that the vehicle is similar in the "types" of major components. For example, both the Accord and Pilot have transversely-mounted engines with a FWD layout. They both can be assembled on a line using similar robots and jigs (just reprogrammed for different specific parts). So, yes, they are similar.
However, they are also very different. The rails in that picture show one major difference. Another is the front suspension sub frame. The Accord uses double bones, while the Pilot uses struts. Of course, there are others. Suffice it to say that there are enough differences for Honda to consider it a separate platform despite several similarities.
Making a profit IMO is a valid reason to decontent a car. I may not be happy with it, but I can understand it.
"Not sure where you gathered Honda's philosophy of only "light weight" being the target. In fact, Hondas tend to be heavier these days. That said, the amusing thing about this is, that the new RL with AWD is supposedly about 100 lb. lighter than the FWD outgoing RL. If true, your concern has been addressed!
The new AWD RL may be lighter than the old FWD RL, but I think Varmint correctly noted that the AWD system used in the RL is adapted from the VTM system used in MDX and Pilot, which weighs around 220 lbs. Therefore, a new FWD RL (if it existed) would weight 220 poundsless than the new AWD RL.
robertsmx, I don't understand why you have a problem admitting that the extra drivetrain required in an AWD system will add weight when compared to the FWD/RWD version of the SAME car.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Would a FWD version the vehicle be lighter still? Sure. But why give up SH-AWD for 220 lbs? If it works as promised, I'd give up food and lose the lbs myself.
LOL varmint. My wife is trying to put me on the South Beach diet. If she signs off on the RL, I'll go on the SH-AWD diet with you!
Replacing double wishbone front with struts up front did help improve space and safety. Did it improve handling? Regular Civics handled well (note: well) anyway regardless of double wishbone or struts. When was the last time double wishbones were a must have in this class for best handling? Handling is only as good as tuning. Double wishbone may offer more potential towards tuning, but we’re talking stock cars here. And that said, CRX used struts, and I hardly see anybody bring that up.
seminole_kev
I've said over and over that the switch to struts wasn't the problem, just that when the new civic came out, the suspension was screwed up. Now everyone jumped on Honda thinking it was the switch to struts that did it, but it wasn't. They just flat boned up the suspension.
Suspension tuning was not right, a little softer on the rear for a “more compliant” ride. And I know people mistake that tuning issue with replacement of wishbones with struts.
Again, if the suspension was great from the get-go, why the fix?
It was okay, but not great (depending on what you prefer). And, again, it didn’t matter whether the car used double wishbone or struts. This is similar to the RL situation when the model replaced Legend in the Acura lineup. It used double wishbones, but the car was softly sprung and lost the character that Legend was known for. Acura has tweaked the firmness at least couple of times to address concerns from people.
You acknowledge that everything isn’t possible, and then go on to say it is! May be, Honda could have done it by stretching the car and adding 150 lb of steel. That would be good, right? No. Why offer something that doesn’t get appreciated anyway? (At least until it is lost).
The Accord seems to be doing OK crash test and interior room wise with the double wishbone front suspension.
Accord just doesn’t do “okay” in this regard, but the key is size of the cars. Accord is a midsize, and Civic barely got out of sub-compact class into compact with the redesign (without an increase in external dimensions). If Civic were 15 inch longer and 5 inch wider, it would be the size of Accord.
Then I wonder why Honda uses the more expensive and more complex double wishbone design at all. Gosh, if it doesn't matter, Honda could save a ton of money and just use mac-struts on all of their vehicles.
You have a point there! So, are you suggesting that Honda doesn’t like cost cutting? Applications rule decisions.
Is struts cheaper alternative to wishbones? Yes. I doubt anybody is denying that. But the problem with some people here is that they lug around only the inexpensive aspect of struts and don’t want to admit the benefits that it could bring. There must be a reason why wishbones aren’t offered in this class of vehicles.
robertsmx, I don't understand why you have a problem admitting that the extra drivetrain required in an AWD system will add weight when compared to the FWD/RWD version of the SAME car.
Once again, you are emphasizing on just one aspect, and forgetting the rest. While SH-AWD may be the lightest AWD of its kind around (aah the Honda philosophy :-)), it would add about 220 lb. Without it, the RL would probably weigh about as much as the TL and have 300 HP. Wait, did I say 300 HP front driver? Why have 300 HP, why not 200 HP four cylinder engine, and save weight further see where I am going? Honda is addressing wants of people by adding powerful engines, and it needs to do something about it. And SH-AWD plus weight trimming methods result in a car that has more power, AWD and yet, lighter. How is this any different from the Honda way?