lilengineerboy: There is no aftermarket for the Accord. That is what drives the tuner crowd.
The tuners and their desires drive the aftermarket, not the other way around.
Come to the Carlisle Sport Compact show, held annually in May. It attracts participants (primarily 30 and under) from all over the East Coast.
I sell tickets, so I get to see what cars are entered on the showfield. There were lots of Accord owners there, and they don't look old enough to be anybody's parents. Not too many Buicks or Pontiacs on the showfield, either.
lilengineerboy: If they had wanted it to appeal to tuners, they definitely wouldn't have gone with the low-level audio system that incorporates the entire center stack facia. You can't even get real tires for the 4 cylinders without up-sizing the wheels.
Until recently, Honda never intentionally appealed to the tuner crowd. For example, Honda made the 2001 Civic MORE difficult to modify than the 1996-2000 generation (partly because of police concerns about thefts of Acura Integras for the drivetrains, which tuners were installing in 1996-2000 Civics).
Despite the great box office success of The Fast and the Furious, which featured the Civic and the Honda name prominently, Honda refused to provide vehicles for the sequel, 2 Fast, 2 Furious. It downplayed its vehicles' popularity with tuners (and, by association, street racers).
Once the 2001 Civic was criticized for being too boring, Honda backtracked and brought out the much more radical 2006 model. It also made the 2003 Accord more radical in style than its predecessor - especially the coupe.
Several years ago, while renting an apartment, my (relatively new) 1998 Accord was parked next to my neighbor’s 1995 Accord which was broken in for the stereo. When I saw it, the first thought came to my mind was that the new integrated system perhaps didn’t appeal to the thieves. If my car had system similar to older Accord, chances are, I would be cleaning shattered glass too. There are pros and cons to everything. Tuners find their way, a typical buyer doesn’t. So, companies set their priorities around masses.
Besides, new cars rarely appeal to tuners. It usually takes a generation. In those days, 1996-2000 Civic wasn’t hot. It was 1992-1995 Civic.
As for tires, wheels, shocks and brakes, no matter what an automaker delivers, tuners won’t stick with stock anyway. And what they like, won’t work for the masses. When I first saw 2002 Civic Si, the first thing that I thought about was a good car for tuners. It had the basics, a low compression engine (good baseline for forced induction), good chassis (but crappy, small tires that will be among first changes) etc. However, it failed because tuners don’t buy new cars (or I haven’t seen it happen, personally). And its base price was high. Had Honda stuck with the older formula with maxed out engine (within limits), perhaps it would have worked better. So, Honda had to go back to it with 2006 Si.
If we're talking new buyers then, all that training by 30+ years of car ownership shouldn't apply. Are all the kids listening to their parents grumble (the same parents who switched to Camcords?).
The kids (like me a bit over 10 years ago) may listen or not listen to their parents, but they definitely remember what they said. So they can remember they made a mistake in not taking the advice without and before the parent even saying "I told you so." I didn't listen in 1994 when I got a nice new Dodge. I paid for it in wasted time, hassle, and money. I dearly paid for it in tow trucks, broken head gaskets and transmissions. Then I paid for it some more when at 65,000 miles it had to be gotten rid of once and for all, as the repairs became all the more frequent and costly, and the resale being deplorable (to put it lightly) was the final "lesson learned."
I was so upside down that the parents "'95 Camry" had to come to the rescue of this young early 20's year old college student. I got to take the Camry for about 2 years to get settled, graduate, and then find a job and save money so I could buy a Toyota/Honda.
A young 20 something doesn't really WANT to drive a Camry around, but after living with a Dodge for 5 years, it was like heaven-sent. The Camry ran without breakdowns, it ran without need of tow trucks, and it ran cheaply (just as good of mileage with gas as the smaller lesser powered lighter Neon).
And after taking the Camry to 100K miles and giving it back to the parents, it was worth about 3X as much as the Neon was 2 years earlier with 65,000 miles (that's 35K less!).
Had I listened to my parents and got a Corolla or Civic instead in 1994, I'd of saved thousands in repair bills, hundreds in tow truck costs, weeks of wasted time and inconvenience, and again, thousands in resale value. The parents wouldn't have had to "come to the rescue."
So there are probably kids like me out their that made the same mistake I did, and didn't listen to their parents' warnings about domestic junk (and now hate the domestics), and then I'm sure their are probably kids who did listen, and are happier (and healthier due to less stress) because of it (and better off financially).
However, had I listened back in 1994, then I probably would have been forced into rebuying a Honda or Toyota back to back as most do; due to overwhelmingly positive experiences. Having said that, if I hadn't bought domestic in 1994, I'd never have owned a lemon, and I suppose domestics today wouldn't all be on my "blacklist" (rightfully so).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The tuners and their desires drive the aftermarket, not the other way around.
Come to the Carlisle Sport Compact show, held annually in May. It attracts participants (primarily 30 and under) from all over the East Coast.
I sell tickets, so I get to see what cars are entered on the showfield. There were lots of Accord owners there, and they don't look old enough to be anybody's parents.
While I am sure a small town in the middle of rural PA is the hotspot for the compact car scene, growing up on the coast of southern California is my frame of reference. My mom's friends have Accords, Camrys, and Solaras. Also, adding a bunch of headrest screens and game boys to a boring car doesn't make it exciting, nor does it constitute "tuning" even if it has a body kit and a big wing.
Not too many Buicks or Pontiacs on the showfield, either.
That might have something to do with the fact that Buick doesn't have a sport compact, and they are fuddy duddy.
Until recently, Honda never intentionally appealed to the tuner crowd. For example, Honda made the 2001 Civic MORE difficult to modify than the 1996-2000 generation (partly because of police concerns about thefts of Acura Integras for the drivetrains, which tuners were installing in 1996-2000 Civics).
From 1974 to 2000, Civics were the king of import tuner cars. There was every aftermaket accessory known to man to fit those vehicles. Most of my time trial racing on the tracks in California was spent with pre-'01 Civics. Some were supercharged, many had motor swaps. My personal favorites were the 88-91 CRXs with B16a or B18c swaps. The 91 SE-R just had nothing to do with that, unless it had a SR20DE-T swap.
In 2001 they changed to a cheaper rear suspension set up so they could meet their price point. It had nothing to do with police anything. They Civic was getting too close to the Integra/stupid_letter_thing market. This kind of supports my thought that Honda peaked in the 90s, but alas different discussion.
If you really think Honda isn't going to provide or allow their cars to be in a movie because of the image it projects, eh right.
The new Civic became cool again because they got rid of the Integra/stupid_letter_thing so there was no danger of market overlap.
No I had a 1984 Ford Bronco that I loved. Never an issue. Gave it to an ex wife after it was about 6 years old. Had a 1974 Dodge van that gave good service past 100,000 miles and 10 years. Traded for the 1984 Ford Bronco.
I can honestly tell you my time in the shop was 99% with Toyota, Honda, and Subaru. I had a 1970 Datsun PU that was perfect, should not have sold it. Got the 1973 Subaru that was nothing but trouble and worthless in snow. 1976 Datsun PU would not start when temp dropped to 5 degrees. Dealer took it back on lease. 1978 Honda Accord was 2nd choice when there was a year wait for a VW Dasher Diesel. Accord had lots of problems with overheating. Engine lasted about 60k miles. Honda was purely in the transition from motorcycles to cars. I bought it from the motorcycle dealer. Bought two new Toyotas. First in 1964 last one in 1994, both problematic. Five GM vehicles from 1988 to 2005 without any headaches. No doubt in my mind that GM is a better truck builder than any of the others. I try not to buy any cars unless I have to. Quite frankly not much on the road since 2000 really excites me, and I want a nice luxury SUV. I would buy a pre 2007 Escalade in a heartbeat if my wife liked the front end. Says it is ugly and I kind of agree.
Several years ago, while renting an apartment, my (relatively new) 1998 Accord was parked next to my neighbor’s 1995 Accord which was broken in for the stereo. When I saw it, the first thought came to my mind was that the new integrated system perhaps didn’t appeal to the thieves. If my car had system similar to older Accord, chances are, I would be cleaning shattered glass too. There are pros and cons to everything.
And $300 later, he has his window fixed and a current if not cutting edge sound system with a head unit that actually has contemporary features, while you are condemned to listen to that 13 year old stereo for ever. Does that even have a CD player? That might fit your needs (going back and forth to work listening to NPR, etc) but I would think you might enjoy the system in your Acura more because its newer and has additional features.
As for tires, wheels, shocks and brakes, no matter what an automaker delivers, tuners won’t stick with stock anyway.
There are limitations in amateur racing classes that require stock fitments (but not OEM fitments). It also is less threatening to warranties and lease vehicle restrictions. That means if the Accord had a 205/55R16 like it should instead of some minivan size 205/60R16, I could swap out the sticky-as-wet-tile tires for something like A BFG Comp TA KDW or or a Pirelli P-Zero. This is especially important because poor tires are the reason it is back of category for braking and very high for fuel economy. I could (and will) swap out the under-damped Tokico stock shocks for Bilstein or Koni (heck, even the "performance" Tokico would help).
>Buick doesn't have a sport compact, and they are fuddy duddy.
I represent resent that statement.
Actually I see more and more Accords, Camrys, Sonatas, Civics, and especially Corollas being driven by youth-challenged drivers. You can't play those stereotypes here in the Midwest.
I can honestly tell you my time in the shop was 99% with Toyota, Honda, and Subaru. I had a 1970 Datsun PU that was perfect, should not have sold it. Got the 1973 Subaru that was nothing but trouble and worthless in snow. We can all give stories about domestics or imports that have been "perfect" and "nothing but trouble." I bought a Suzuki in 1992 (the year it was ranked 2nd WORST in quality) that has been nearly perfect for the past 15 years. My father purchased a 1974 Subaru brand new and our neighbors bought a 1973 Subaru brand new and neither gave anyone any trouble in their first decade of life...even in the snow. My only troubled car purchase was my 1986 Merkur.
I totally agree. Our perception of an automaker is based on ours or someone we know, and that experience. I am fine with buying vehicles built here by foreign automakers. It keeps some of the money flowing in the USA. I just do not think the Big 3 has been given a fair shake in the press especially some of the magazines that show a distinct Japanese bias. My Big 3 experience since 1974 was all good. My Japanese new vehicle purchases since 1964 scored: 1 good, 5 bad.
I had the Subaru coupe. It would start hopping and pop out of gear going up hill in just 3-4 inches of snow. It was my first front wheel drive and did not give me a warm feeling about that configuration. Problem never resolved.
Gary says, "especially some of the magazines that show a distinct Japanese bias."
You see a "Japanese Bias" because you see more good Japanese cars than good Big 3 cars. If the Big 3 were making cars as well as the Japanese carmakers, you would see reviews just as glowing.
There is no "anti-USA bias" there is a "bad car/good car" bias.
In 2001 they changed to a cheaper rear suspension set up so they could meet their price point. It had nothing to do with police anything. They Civic was getting too close to the Integra/stupid_letter_thing market.
2001 Civic had the same rear suspension set up that the generation before it did, reactive-link (3-link) double wishbones. As for Integra/RSX, they too got the same chassis as they have always shared it with Civic. So, I don’t see what you’re complaining about. If it were about how it was tuned (a little mismatched to the front), then you would have a point. But Honda worked to fix it a year later, and completely revised it for 2006 (without changing the set up).
Seriously, when you were racing, were people actually buying brand new Civics and doing all the tweaks and swaps? Or, were they using older models? My observation bodes with the latter. Very few, if any, want to give up their factory warranty unless they are serious racers and buy cars just for that.
And $300 later, he has his window fixed and a current if not cutting edge sound system with a head unit that actually has contemporary features, while you are condemned to listen to that 13 year old stereo for ever. Does that even have a CD player?
You’re the one who has trouble with stock system. I don’t. I have been pretty happy with the system in the car, and don’t really look forward to inviting thieves over while I’m away with glow in the dark thingies. Besides, my neighbor sold her Accord (it was the third time it was broken into) and got herself a yellow VW Beetle.
That means if the Accord had a 205/55R16 like it should instead of some minivan size 205/60R16, I could swap out the sticky-as-wet-tile tires for something like A BFG Comp TA KDW or or a Pirelli P-Zero.
Are you serious? It will be ridiculous to design a mainstream car around the “needs” of two hundred racers who aren’t allowed to change stock wheels, or don’t want to.
Automakers have to stick with tradeoffs. It has been a long time issue on Hondas that they attract thieves. Over last ten years, Honda has tried to minimize that (adverse) effect, starting with double-din integrated stereo with anti-theft code, engine immobilizer etc. Open invitation to thieves is a thing of the past.
Now, are you telling me that 2001+ RSX/Civic have no aftermarket potential? K20 responds well to changes, and is a far superior engine than any engine in Integra/Civic from the past. The chassis has gotten better since the early mishap on mismatched sets. If you had a choice between 1999 Civic Si (new) and 2008 Civic Si (new), which would you pick?
I just do not think the Big 3 has been given a fair shake in the press especially some of the magazines that show a distinct Japanese bias.
The big-3 get a fair shake when they deserve it. In the end, they lack consistency. Holding a grudge against brand based on country of origin is one of the worst things to do in a free market. The Japanese do set the benchmark on a lot of things, although Europeans take the cake when it comes to styling and driving dynamics. While American brands seem to be chasing both, in futility. They don't have an identity. Even GM plays "German influence" big on its cars. Went pitting "new" Aura against Japanese competition and planned to do it with the new Malibu (and then reality struck). What is American about it?
There is an ad in the new C&D this month for the new Malibu with a tagline "Tired of trying to look foreign..." or something.
Funny, because it looks like an evolution of the last one which looked nothing like an Asian car either. Both are about as risky as buying a bag of white bread at Trader Joe's.
Too bad it's impossible to find one that hasn't either been stolen or had the bag beaten out of it :mad: Finding one that hasn't been modded is impossible...
lilengineerboy: While I am sure a small town in the middle of rural PA is the hotspot for the compact car scene, growing up on the coast of southern California is my frame of reference.
Carlisle Production shows - including the Sport Compact show held in May - attract participants from all over the eastern U.S., along with manufacturers who want to sell their wares directly to tuners. It is one of the premier events of its type in the country, and an excellent place to gauge the popularity of various cars among younger (which I would define as those under 30) buyers.
lilenginneerboy: My mom's friends have Accords, Camrys, and Solaras.
As I said, the Accord has a wide appeal. Your anecdote only proves that. Doesn't necessarily prove that young people don't want Accords, too.
In the 1960s, lots of middle-age people bought Mustangs and Impala SS coupes. So did lots of young people.
lilengineerboy: Also, adding a bunch of headrest screens and game boys to a boring car doesn't make it exciting, nor does it constitute "tuning" even if it has a body kit and a big wing.
The question isn't whether you deem the modifications worthy to fall under the definition of "tuning." The questions are whether the Accord coupe still appeals to young people, and whether they are modifying it, and the answer on both counts is "yes."
lilengineerboy: That might have something to do with the fact that Buick doesn't have a sport compact, and they are fuddy duddy.
I also mentioned Pontiac, too, which sold the Grand Am and Sunfire and now sells the G6 and G5, in response to your suggestion that Pontiacs are popular with young buyers, based on a count of vehicles in high school parking lots.
None of these vehicles appeal to many customers beyond those named Hertz and Alamo, and certainly not to the high school crowd, unless their parents bought them used from the rental car place.
lilengineerboy: From 1974 to 2000, Civics were the king of import tuner cars. There was every aftermaket accessory known to man to fit those vehicles.
And, as I said, the tuners drove the demand for products. The companies selling the products did not lead the market, as you originally suggested. This does not contradict what I said.
lilengineerboy: In 2001 they changed to a cheaper rear suspension set up so they could meet their price point. It had nothing to do with police anything.
I never specifically referred to the rear suspension change as the one made in response to Integra thefts (which involved stealing the Integras for the drive train). Sorry, but this was documented when the 2001 Civic debuted. Honda specifically changed the 2001 Civic to make installation of the Integra drivetrain much more difficult.
lilengineerboy: If you really think Honda isn't going to provide or allow their cars to be in a movie because of the image it projects, eh right.
Companies - including car companies - regularly pay very good money to have their products placed in movies. Many companies would love to have their products featured in a hit movie, and would love to be asked by the producers to provide a product specfically for the image it projects onscreen.
When the producers of 2Fast, 2 Furious went to Honda to provide vehicles, the company refused to do so, because it did not want to be associated with street racing. The producers then went to Nissan (for the Skyline) and Mitsubishi, which agreed to provide vehicles.
lilengineerboy: The new Civic became cool again because they got rid of the Integra/stupid_letter_thing so there was no danger of market overlap.
The Civic became cool again when Honda gave it much racier styling and reintroduced the hot Si model in coupe (and later sedan) form. The previous-generation Si hatchback was a disappointment from a performance standpoint. Plus, most Americans do not like hatchbacks - even performance hatchbacks. Which is why Honda got rid of both the Si hatchback and Acura RSX. Plus, Honda wanted move Acura upscale, and having a small hatchback in the showroom wasn't helping Acura's image in this regard.
2001 Civic had the same rear suspension set up that the generation before it did, reactive-link (3-link) double wishbones.
No, it didn't: Much ado has been made about Civic's redesigned suspension, with some detractors claiming that Honda had "sold out" by replacing the sophisticated double-wishbone front suspension with the more inexpensive MacPherson strut configuration. - Edmunds, 2001
Seriously, when you were racing, were people actually buying brand new Civics and doing all the tweaks and swaps? Or, were they using older models?
The then current Civic SI was VERY popular, as were all prior editions.
You’re the one who has trouble with stock system. I don’t. I have been pretty happy with the system in the car,
Yeah, and its something I feel is a shortcoming with the vehicle. That is how I feel about it, and I am a consumer. I don't think everyone will feel that way.
That means if the Accord had a 205/55R16 like it should instead of some minivan size 205/60R16, I could swap out the sticky-as-wet-tile tires for something like A BFG Comp TA KDW or or a Pirelli P-Zero.
Are you serious? It will be ridiculous to design a mainstream car around the “needs” of two hundred racers who aren’t allowed to change stock wheels, or don’t want to.
I don't expect them to design a car around me, especially one that is aimed at old ladies. It would be nice if they didn't use a minivan tire size though. Some of us have less trouble budgeting a few hundred dollars to upgrade the tires than something in the thousands to upgrade the tires and wheels.
If you had a choice between 1999 Civic Si (new) and 2008 Civic Si (new), which would you pick?
For 200# and a better suspension, audio options, engine swap opportunities, hmm yeah I might be very tempted to go with the 1999.
lilenginneerboy: My mom's friends have Accords, Camrys, and Solaras.
As I said, the Accord has a wide appeal. Your anecdote only proves that. Doesn't necessarily prove that young people don't want Accords, too.
"The median age of Accord buyers has gradually moved upward (from 41 in 1995 to 50 in 2005) as the car's sales have been carried along by a grateful, aging clientèle. That demographic migration is reflected in the car's design and engineering. It's conspicuously quieter, more refined, less demanding and safer, both in the sense of crash tests and in its styling." - Orlando Sentinel
In the 1960s, lots of middle-age people bought Mustangs and Impala SS coupes. So did lots of young people.
Yup, and I bet you could find a kid driving a minivan too. Old people buying cars trying to be young is different then kids buying fuddy-duddy cars.
The question isn't whether you deem the modifications worthy to fall under the definition of "tuning." The questions are whether the Accord coupe still appeals to young people, and whether they are modifying it, and the answer on both counts is "yes."
10 kids fixing up their mom's car doesn't mean it appeals to young people.
I also mentioned Pontiac, too, which sold the Grand Am and Sunfire and now sells the G6 and G5, in response to your suggestion that Pontiacs are popular with young buyers, based on a count of vehicles in high school parking lots.
Valid point. I have seen more modified Grand Ams in Michigan, not so much in CA. I think the only way you got a Sunfire is if your parents work for GM or you did something bad in a former life.
Companies - including car companies - regularly pay very good money to have their products placed in movies. Many companies would love to have their products featured in a hit movie, and would love to be asked by the producers to provide a product specfically for the image it projects onscreen.
The car featured in the movie was a Civic, not an Accord. It also comes down to advertising dollars, Honda didn't deem it a worthwhile use of their capital.
The Civic became cool again when Honda gave it much racier styling and reintroduced the hot Si model in coupe (and later sedan) form.
It kind or looks like a giant dustbuster, so styling is subjective, but I do like the performance of the 2006+ Civic SI and the fact that it has an limited slip. You will notice this happened at the same time the eliminated the RSX. Besides, this is where the Civic should be, a sport compact for the youth+ market.
Plus, Honda wanted move Acura upscale, and having a small hatchback in the showroom wasn't helping Acura's image in this regard.
Exactly, they wanted to make it more fuddy-duddy and stuffy.
They should find out who was working on the assembly lines at the main plants, the parts/supplier plants, and the quality control departments at the time their vehicle that burned them was built. They should find out who was managing the departments involved with those vehicles. They should ask all of those former and current guilty employees to contribute to a "refund" fund to the customer, so that they can get their money back for money very well completely wasted due to their negligence, incompetence, lack of care, poor design, poor execution, and poor craftsmanship as a whole. Poor managment is a given.
If all the former and current employees responsible for producing POS and lemons :lemon: would step up and be held accountable financially, that would save the BIG 3 and bring customers like me back.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"The median age of Accord buyers has gradually moved upward (from 41 in 1995 to 50 in 2005) as the car's sales have been carried along by a grateful, aging clientèle. That demographic migration is reflected in the car's design and engineering. It's conspicuously quieter, more refined, less demanding and safer, both in the sense of crash tests and in its styling." - Orlando Sentinel
1) Honda makes youthful car models, but not all of them are youthful. 2) Honda provides value and low true cost to own. 3) Honda's are reliable and good for the poor man. 4) Honda's are affordable and get good gas mileage. 5) Honda's handle better than average, and have a sporty flair.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
>They should find out who was working on the assembly lines at the main plants, the parts/supplier
That has to be the worst idea I've read. Are you going to do that with all the Honda transmission problems where they lockup? Are you going to do that with the Camry and others with sludge? With transmission problems now? I'll spare looking up other foreign car wonders to list here. What a waste of band width.
The problem is some who favor foreign brands are like Mac users; they feel that nothing else was worth anything--only their Macintoshes were valuable. All the other computers were worthless because they weren't, sigh, a Macintosh. And I'll end that I used to own a two Macintosh computers and control others at work so save the flames about my criticism.
Are you going to do that with all the Honda transmission problems where they lockup?
First, Honda most definitely should have fired and or cut in pay by 50% those most directly responsible for the isolated to V6 engined transmission gaffe.
Second, Honda doesn't need a "refund" fund because everyone that had issues within the first 100K miles with their tranny had it replaced with a brand new transmission free of charge already.
Third, one bad part does not a bad car make.
Fourth, the Domestics have seemingly denied all extended warranty claims, even if only 1,000 miles after warranty, and have given people hard times for within the warranty period too. A lot of people here and everywhere I'm sure still feel like they got cheated into spending money they shouldn't have had to spend due to buying a domestic :lemon:.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
lilengineerboy: The median age of Accord buyers has gradually moved upward (from 41 in 1995 to 50 in 2005) as the car's sales have been carried along by a grateful, aging clientèle. That demographic migration is reflected in the car's design and engineering. It's conspicuously quieter, more refined, less demanding and safer, both in the sense of crash tests and in its styling." - Orlando Sentinel
A median age of 50 is hardly senior citizen territory. And I would like to see the median age for the coupe model. We aren't talking Buick here, where the age of buyers was somewhere north of 60 (the new Enclave may help to lower that a bit).
lilengineerboy: Yup, and I bet you could find a kid driving a minivan too. Old people buying cars trying to be young is different then kids buying fuddy-duddy cars.
That's not the point being addressed. Certain cars have a wide demographic appeal, and the fact that some middle-age people, such as your mother, drive a particular car, does not mean that it no longer appeals to younger people.
Lots of people of all ages liked the Impala and the Mustang in the 1960s, and they like the Accord today. Which is why the Imapala and Mustang were considered successful cars, and the Accord is considered one today.
Lots of largely older people liked Ramblers in the 1960s and Buicks today. Unforunately, younger people did not. Which is why Ramblers had a tarnished reputation, and why Buick is fighting an uphill battle to gain new customers.
Lots of rental car companies appear to like Pontiacs, which presents an uphill battle of an entirely different stripe.
lilengineerboy: 10 kids fixing up their mom's car doesn't mean it appeals to young people.
Every mom I know doesn't want her vehicle modified, and doesn't let her son (or daughter) do it. Kids are not modifying their parents' vehicles.
It's also lots more than 10 kids modifying their vehicles.
lilengineerboy: The car featured in the movie was a Civic, not an Accord. It also comes down to advertising dollars, Honda didn't deem it a worthwhile use of their capital.
I knew they were Hondas (three Civics used by the hijackers). Doesn't change the fact that Honda was cool to the use of its cars because of the image of street racing and lawlessness portrayed by the movie.
Plus, the movie's producers weren't charging Honda for the use of the vehicles...though they did want them for free. Honda still refused.
lilengineerboy: You will notice this happened at the same time the eliminated the RSX.
There was an Si version of the Civic while the RSX was still available (the hatchback version that wasn't too popular).
lilengineerboy: Exactly, they wanted to make it more fuddy-duddy and stuffy.
Honda wanted Acura to be in the near-luxury segment, and the RSX was hurting the brand's image in that regard. The TL, TSX, RDX and MDX are hardly fuddy-duddy vehicles.
Much ado has been made about Civic's redesigned suspension, with some detractors claiming that Honda had "sold out" by replacing the sophisticated double-wishbone front suspension with the more inexpensive MacPherson strut configuration. - Edmunds, 2001
And you took Edmunds’ words to heart, and without realizing that they were actually talking about front suspension, not rear. A bit of facts for you: 1996-2000 Civic: Double Wishbone (Front), Reactive Link Double Wishbone (Rear) 2001-2005 Civic: MacPherson Strut (Front), Reactive Link Double Wishbone (Rear)
To be read as: Honda retained the rear suspension fundamentals. It continued with the 3-link set up going from 2000 to 2001 (Bonus fact: Accord and TL use 5-link).
A fun fact to top it off... 2006 Civic Si is a much better car than the 2000 Civic Si. :shades:
That means if the Accord had a 205/55R16 like it should instead of some minivan size 205/60R16, I could swap out the sticky-as-wet-tile tires for something like A BFG Comp TA KDW or or a Pirelli P-Zero.
Interestingly enough, the “minivan size” 205/60/R16 is stock wheel size in current Mazda6 Sport. I haven’t heard people complain about it.
The median age of Accord buyers has gradually moved upward (from 41 in 1995 to 50 in 2005) as the car's sales have been carried along by a grateful, aging clientèle.
Is that a bad thing? Lancer has the youngest buyers of any segment, but what does it really say about the car? To me it means that fewer buyers are repeat buyers. They buy and move one when it comes time to replace. Do you think business prefer to not have loyal buyers who keep coming back?
And speaking of Accord, if we go by the numbers provided along with a few assumptions, you just might discover something interesting. Honda sold 341K units of Accord in 1995 and 369K in 2005. So, if 100% of buyers in 1995 returned to purchase another Accord, they were now 51 years old. But, Honda sold 28K additional units, and average age actually went down. With that taken into consideration, the average age of new buyers was only 38! Putting things into perspective can change a lot of things.
Or do you think if you find a car appealing today, the automaker and want the same car from that brand ten years later, they should chase you away because you threaten to add to their average age? I’m not someone who looks over the shoulder to get approval for my cars. I see, I like and I get it. I was 23 when I drove home the “elderly” family sized 1998 Accord. Now I’m 33, and if the new Accord is worth my money, PR isn’t going to sell or take it away from me. Perhaps it doesn’t work the same with you?
I'd say that Toyota is probably becoming more like Buick, offering cars that are a bit more sedate, "grown up", conservative, whatever. They're not quite at the "God's Waiting Room" level yet, but maybe where Buick was in the 70's. Cars that were bit more mature, but not over-the-hill.
Honda today might be kinda like what the Cutlass Supreme was in the 1970's, or even a Delta 88. Widely appealing to all ages, but a bit more youthful than a Buick.
Accord has done some funny things along the way but one thing it has consistently done is carry along their established market with each new edition.
My first couple of Accords were really subcompacts. My 00 is considered mid-sized and now they are marketing large cars in a way that I'd still look at one.
One thing I don't like to see is that while they've made them big now they still have the same size trunk! You would think they'd figure out that people taking up more space tend to bring more junk, too.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
lilengineerboy: Exactly, they wanted to make it more fuddy-duddy and stuffy.
Honda wanted Acura to be in the near-luxury segment, and the RSX was hurting the brand's image in that regard. The TL, TSX, RDX and MDX are hardly fuddy-duddy vehicles.
Current MDX buyers qualify as an "affluent family," with a median household income of $139,000 per year. Some 54 percent are female, likely to be around age 45. Secondary customers come from the "affluent empty nester" group. - Tirekicking Today
TSX median (not mean) age - 35 TL mean age - 50
Sure they aren't as long as you don't mind driving your parents cars.
There was an Si version of the Civic while the RSX was still available (the hatchback version that wasn't too popular).
Yup, and it was ugly and had lower performance, so not to challenge the RSX.
Interestingly enough, the “minivan size” 205/60/R16 is stock wheel size in current Mazda6 Sport. I haven’t heard people complain about it.
The Mazda6 Sport is the base model vehicle without alloys. It is about $16,000, the Accord has those tires on the EX, supposedly a highline model.
And speaking of Accord, if we go by the numbers provided along with a few assumptions, you just might discover something interesting. Honda sold 341K units of Accord in 1995 and 369K in 2005. So, if 100% of buyers in 1995 returned to purchase another Accord, they were now 51 years old. But, Honda sold 28K additional units, and average age actually went down. With that taken into consideration, the average age of new buyers was only 38! Putting things into perspective can change a lot of things.
No, because while it may be hard for you fathom, I don't know anyone that bought a new Accord in the 90s and replaced it with another new Accord recently. My '93 was a hand me down and was replaced by a G35. The '96 was replaced by a Prius, so those are 2 middled aged folks that perhaps weren't as infatuated with the Accord as some others (those were just the ones in my family).
Or do you think if you find a car appealing today, the automaker and want the same car from that brand ten years later, they should chase you away because you threaten to add to their average age? I’m not someone who looks over the shoulder to get approval for my cars. I see, I like and I get it. I was 23 when I drove home the “elderly” family sized 1998 Accord. Now I’m 33, and if the new Accord is worth my money, PR isn’t going to sell or take it away from me. Perhaps it doesn’t work the same with you?
I don't think the 90s Accord was so elderly. The age reported though isn't PR and what Honda would like to happen, that is the results of sales. PR always aims cars at younger folks, like the Honda Element, but then the mean age was in the 40s.
I am not criticizing your choice in vehicles, everyone should buy what makes them happy. What did you have before the '98?
One thing I don't like to see is that while they've made them big now they still have the same size trunk! You would think they'd figure out that people taking up more space tend to bring more junk, too.
I've noticed this trend, too. I think what's happening is that they're making the wheelbases longer on the cars without really making them much longer. That's giving them a bit more interior room, but it's cutting into trunk space, as there's less overhang in the rear.
IIRC, the Toyota Camry dropped from around 17 cubic feet to 15 cubic feet of trunk space with the 2007 redesign. I think the tapered, sloping rear end cut into that a bit, as well though. I think the Sebring/Avenger sedans only have 13 cubic foot trunks. The 2001-06 Sebring/Stratus had 16 cubic foot trunks. I've heard conflicting stories on the new Altima though, as I've seen the trunk listed at 15 cubic feet and I've seen it listed at 18 cubic feet. The '02-06 style was 16 cubic feet. Even with bigger cars like the 300/Charger, the trunks are smaller. I don't know if the RWD setup did that or the longer wheelbase, though. Usually with a RWD car they had to hang the gas tank out back, so unless you had a l-o-n-g rear overhang and a shallow trunk, like in a Dart/Valiant, or some of the earlier Mopar intermediates, you weren't getting the spare tire under the trunk floor. The 300/Charger have an IRS though, which lets them put the gas tank under the back seat, just like in an FWD car. It just sort of straddles the driveshaft, which doesn't bounce up and down like it would in a car with a live rear axle. Anyway, the Intrepid's trunk was 18.4 cubic feet, 18.8 for the Concorde/LHS, and something like 16.7 for the 300M. I think it's 15 for the current 300 and 16 for the Charger.
I think one reason why I take issue with so many so-called "full sized" cars is that the EPA determines those size classes based solely on interior volume. So a car that's tall and narrow, and can only hold 4 people in comfort might get classed as larger than one that's low-slung and wide, but can hold 6.
When it comes to trunk volume, back in the old days, a full-sized car would usually have 20 cubic feet or more. An intermediate was usually around 16-18. Compacts were usually 15 or less, although some exceptions, like the '67-69 Dart, were 17. So when I hear them call a car with a 14 cubic foot trunk "full sized", I'm just going to roll my eyes.
The threshold for a full-sized car, in EPA standards, is 120 cubic feet of combined interior/trunk volume. A 2007 Accord is 103/14 (117 total). A 2006 Camry was 102/17 (119 total). A 2006 Altima was 103/16 (119 total). In large cars, an Intrepid was 104/18 (122 total). An Impala is something like 105/18 (123 total). So for awhile now, there really hasn't been much of a jump between mid- and full-sized cars.
However, old-school full-sized cars, like the Crown Vic and its ilk, have at least 110 cubic feet of interior volume and 20+ cubic foot trunks, so they're still a signigicant size larger than something like an Intrepid, Impala, or the new Accord.
I found the interior volume specs on my '79 New Yorker, and was surprised that its interior was "only" 108 cubic feet, and the trunk around 21. It actually feels a lot bigger inside to me than that...bigger than a Crown Vic. However, the interior is pretty long and wide, but not very tall. A wide interior with lots of shoulder room can make a car feel big, but a taller cabin will also inflate the volume.
I am curious to check out the new Accord when it's available, though. It started being the "right" size for me, I'd say, with the 2003 style. I liked the 1998-02 style, but had a chance to drive one a couple months ago. And even with a power seat, I just couldn't get that comfortable.
A median age of 50 is hardly senior citizen territory. And I would like to see the median age for the coupe model. We aren't talking Buick here, where the age of buyers was somewhere north of 60 (the new Enclave may help to lower that a bit).
A few years back, MSN autos used to publish reviews by a guy who also listed the median age of that car's buyer group. I remember, among larger cars at least, the Intrepid was about the most "youthful" car around, with a median buyer age of 50. Also in the 50-something range were the 300M and the Regal. I think they were both at 57. I think the LeSabre was 67, while the Century, Park Ave, and Concorde were all 70. I think the Grand Marquis was pushing 70 as well, but can't remember the Crown Vic, Bonneville, or Impala stats.
I think with larger cars especially, it's hard to get a median buyer age down really low, simply because really young people, by and large, don't buy big cars. And that's sort of what the Accord is turning into. But on the flip side, there are plenty of older people who buy bigger cars, and the bigger the Accord and other cars get, the older the buyer base is going to get.
I wonder if the '08 Accord is going to alienate many buyers by suddenly becoming "too" big? I think that as long as they can give the car good, responsive handling, and good road feel, Honda should be okay. I drove an '07 Camry at a test drive event, and wasn't impressed at all. While it handled fine, it just didn't provide very good feedback. About the best way I can describe it is that the car itself was capable, but it was more willing to start wallowing than an Accord or Fusion (the 2 other cars in the test), so it would sort of scare you into backing down before you realized the car's full potential. Kinda like "stop it baby, it's gonna hurt!". In contrast, the Accord was more like "push me! Push me hard! Harder! HARDER!!!" :P
But, I guess Honda always did try to make the Accord a bit sportier than the Camry.
You're into stereotyping territory. If someone is used to a sporty, tight car they are more critical of the less taut, but capable larger car ride. I am amazed at how my LeSabre cornered when decided I was replacing the tires and started doing the fast corners. Although there is more give than the last Accord I drove or the Acuras my neighbor has, they have the ability to get you through a corner or curve much, much better than I expected.
The 07 Camry is not one I've driven but aren't the different models different in their suspension handling setup, somewhat like the Lucerne is? Which model did you drive.
As for buyers starting with smaller, sporty cars and progressing to larger cars meaning that comparing average age for full-sized cars with lithe, sporty cars is like studying the income tax progressive tax rate scale. It's gonna happen.
I did find out who owns the Mary Kay pink DTS I kept seeing at the local high school campus. She looks about thirty; another stereotype broken. Way below average age for the DTS. And several LeSabres are driven by folks in their early 30s and 40s; another one bites the dust. But there are many sage elderly owners who have wisely chosen their dependable car as the LeSabre--just so no one thinks I've lost touch with reality.
Nah there are always outliers for everything. When I was in high school, a couple of guys really wanted that boxy Toyota van. It was different then a full size van or VW shaggin wagon thing, but that is what they wanted. Me, I wanted an MR2 or Integra, as opposed to driving my folks old POS k-car.
The 07 Camry is not one I've driven but aren't the different models different in their suspension handling setup, somewhat like the Lucerne is? Which model did you drive.
The Camry they had at this test drive event was a very well-equipped V-6 model, but I can't remember if it was an SE or an XLE. I imagine the SE might be a better handler than the XLE, but being V-6, I'm sure either one would be stiffer than the 4-cyl version. And overall, I still wouldn't say this Camry was a HORRIBLE car. It's just that I preferred the Fusion and Accord to it. If anything, I think this comparison made me appreciate the Accord all that much more, considering its design dates to 2003, whereas the Fusion came out as a 2006 (or was it 2005? I'm losing track now...must be getting elderly :P ) and the Camry's an '07.
You're into stereotyping territory. If someone is used to a sporty, tight car they are more critical of the less taut, but capable larger car ride. I am amazed at how my LeSabre cornered when decided I was replacing the tires and started doing the fast corners.
The last LeSabre I drove was a 2000 or so model. It was a Custom, so it just had the skinny 15x6 wheels. I imagine the Limited had bigger wheels/tires and a stiffer suspension. I really didn't care for this LeSabre I drove, but I think I had just gotten used to stiffer-riding cars that provided more driver feedback, like my 2000 Intrepid, '89 Gran Fury (a copcar, and a whole different beast from the civilian model), and before that a '79 Newport that was equipped with the "Open Road Handling Package", which again transformed it into a much better handler than the base model.
This 2000 LeSabre felt like it was trying hard to isolate the driver away from the world outside, and there probably are a lot of people that still want a car like that. It also felt big to me...bigger than its size would suggest. Still, it's the type of car where if I needed a good used car and found one at a reasonable price, I wouldn't turn it down. Even though I have a preference for Mopars, I'd probably trust a used LeSabre more than I would a used Intrepid/Concorde. I think I'd still hold out for a Park Ave, though!
"You see a "Japanese Bias" because you see more good Japanese cars than good Big 3 cars. If the Big 3 were making cars as well as the Japanese carmakers, you would see reviews just as glowing."
Well some Domestic products of late are getting good reviews mainly GM products like the new CTS(the automotive press is in love with the 08 CTS it seems), the Saturn Outlook, and the Aura. Consumer Reports likes the Ford Fusion/Mercury Millan twins. The Chrysler 300 also got good reviews when it first came onto the market.
"That demographic migration is reflected in the car's design and engineering. It's conspicuously quieter, more refined, less demanding and safer, both in the sense of crash tests and in its styling."
I do expect a model than it was 12-13 years prior(the Accord in this case we are talking about) to be quiter, refined, safer, better in crash test results automatically. If a model by any manufacturer isn;t safer, better in crash tests than it was 12-13 years prior that respective automaker is not doing its job in terms of making good product decesions. I don;t know what it means that the Accord is less demanding than it was 12-13 years ago.
As for the styling directions of the last 2 Accords(03 and 08) I don;t like it. I feel like the styling of the last 2 gen Accords is more of a combo to cater to a Toyota Avalon/Camry crowd than it is the 1990's Accord crowd. Bad move in my opinion by Honda with the styling of the last 2 generations of Accord. I'm not old either(I'm 27) but I remember when the 94 Accord and 98 Accord came out and I was in high school at the time.
Before anybody says I'm too young to like an Accord(Sedan that is) I have owned a 1998 Mazda 626 LX 4 cyl(leased when I was 18), a 2002 Acura CL(bought when I was 21) and now a 2007 Mazda 6i since I totaled the Acura in an accident a month ago. I could have bought a leftover 07 Accord instead of the Mazda 6 but the styling just didn't do it for me.
Honda has expectations for the 08-2012 to sell 430,000 Accord a year but to me they're not gonna do it its just that the market isn't gonna support 430,000 Accord sold yearly a year. Add in more people are buying car-based SUVs than ever before and the car based SUV market is taking sales away from the mid-size market. I know Toyota sold 448,000 Camry's in 2006 but the 2007 Camry was like one of the best debut sellers for a new model in like how many years? I mean a seller like the 2007 Camry just doesn;t come around that often.
"Once the 2001 Civic was criticized for being too boring, Honda backtracked and brought out the much more radical 2006 model. It also made the 2003 Accord more radical in style than its predecessor - especially the coupe."
Yeah Honda did good with the 2006 Civic but the 2003 Accord(the Sedan styling in particular was a bad move.) I like the 1998-2002 Accord Coupe's styling better than the 2003-2007. My verdict is not out on the 08 Accord Coupe's styling yet but the 08 Accord Sedan's styling looks ike another bad move in that its too conservative again to me just like the 03 was.
"From 1974 to 2000, Civics were the king of import tuner cars. There was every aftermaket accessory known to man to fit those vehicles."
The Civic did not become a popular tuner car until like the late 90's I think. I mean given I was 10 years old in 1989 I might not remember that much from the 80's cars that were around then but I would remember if there was souped-up Civic in the 80's.
The Civic did not become a popular tuner car until like the late 90's I think. I mean given I was 10 years old in 1989 I might not remember that much from the 80's cars that were around then but I would remember if there was souped-up Civic in the 80's.
Might be a regional thing. I wouldn't think that anybody would do anything at all with a 1983 or older Civic but hey, stranger things have happened. However, it seems that starting with the 1984 Civic, mainly the squared-off hatchback, that people started to mod them.
I went to California on vacation in 1992, and modded little cars seemed pretty common out there at the time. People who looked down on the cars had a term for them that's a bit too disparaging to mention here (and it's NOT that starchy R-word). And from California, the trend seemed to catch on.
>This 2000 LeSabre felt like it was trying hard to isolate the driver away from the world outside,
The General base tires are soft rolling, soft sidewall and would tend to not grip tightly. The 16 inch 225x60 Michelins are still great at only 40% of tread depth left. But time to get a set of Harmony tires on it. The car is closer to the Bonneville handlling than I had thought.
I really don't remember the '83 and earlier Civics being that popular around these parts, even when they were new. The Accord was pretty popular, though. It seems like once that '84 style came out, all of a sudden the Civic was all over the place.
I think the pre-84 Civic was eh, I don't know, if you compare it to other cars of the era like the Omni and the Chevette its not so bad, but comparing like a Rabbit, the VW felt like more of a car to me.
The original Prelude was a Civic, it didn't really start picking up steam until the '83 model or so, and that was fun to drive but not very powerful. The 88-91 was very limited with respect to upgrade path, but otherwise a nice ride, and they 92+ with the vtec motor and a host of bolt ons was more interesting.
Comments
Does that mean you've been burned by Ford and Chrysler too, since you buy GM only?
The tuners and their desires drive the aftermarket, not the other way around.
Come to the Carlisle Sport Compact show, held annually in May. It attracts participants (primarily 30 and under) from all over the East Coast.
I sell tickets, so I get to see what cars are entered on the showfield. There were lots of Accord owners there, and they don't look old enough to be anybody's parents. Not too many Buicks or Pontiacs on the showfield, either.
lilengineerboy: If they had wanted it to appeal to tuners, they definitely wouldn't have gone with the low-level audio system that incorporates the entire center stack facia. You can't even get real tires for the 4 cylinders without up-sizing the wheels.
Until recently, Honda never intentionally appealed to the tuner crowd. For example, Honda made the 2001 Civic MORE difficult to modify than the 1996-2000 generation (partly because of police concerns about thefts of Acura Integras for the drivetrains, which tuners were installing in 1996-2000 Civics).
Despite the great box office success of The Fast and the Furious, which featured the Civic and the Honda name prominently, Honda refused to provide vehicles for the sequel, 2 Fast, 2 Furious. It downplayed its vehicles' popularity with tuners (and, by association, street racers).
Once the 2001 Civic was criticized for being too boring, Honda backtracked and brought out the much more radical 2006 model. It also made the 2003 Accord more radical in style than its predecessor - especially the coupe.
Besides, new cars rarely appeal to tuners. It usually takes a generation. In those days, 1996-2000 Civic wasn’t hot. It was 1992-1995 Civic.
As for tires, wheels, shocks and brakes, no matter what an automaker delivers, tuners won’t stick with stock anyway. And what they like, won’t work for the masses. When I first saw 2002 Civic Si, the first thing that I thought about was a good car for tuners. It had the basics, a low compression engine (good baseline for forced induction), good chassis (but crappy, small tires that will be among first changes) etc. However, it failed because tuners don’t buy new cars (or I haven’t seen it happen, personally). And its base price was high. Had Honda stuck with the older formula with maxed out engine (within limits), perhaps it would have worked better. So, Honda had to go back to it with 2006 Si.
The kids (like me a bit over 10 years ago) may listen or not listen to their parents, but they definitely remember what they said. So they can remember they made a mistake in not taking the advice without and before the parent even saying "I told you so." I didn't listen in 1994 when I got a nice new Dodge. I paid for it in wasted time, hassle, and money. I dearly paid for it in tow trucks, broken head gaskets and transmissions. Then I paid for it some more when at 65,000 miles it had to be gotten rid of once and for all, as the repairs became all the more frequent and costly, and the resale being deplorable (to put it lightly) was the final "lesson learned."
I was so upside down that the parents "'95 Camry" had to come to the rescue of this young early 20's year old college student. I got to take the Camry for about 2 years to get settled, graduate, and then find a job and save money so I could buy a Toyota/Honda.
A young 20 something doesn't really WANT to drive a Camry around, but after living with a Dodge for 5 years, it was like heaven-sent. The Camry ran without breakdowns, it ran without need of tow trucks, and it ran cheaply (just as good of mileage with gas as the smaller lesser powered lighter Neon).
And after taking the Camry to 100K miles and giving it back to the parents, it was worth about 3X as much as the Neon was 2 years earlier with 65,000 miles (that's 35K less!).
Had I listened to my parents and got a Corolla or Civic instead in 1994, I'd of saved thousands in repair bills, hundreds in tow truck costs, weeks of wasted time and inconvenience, and again, thousands in resale value. The parents wouldn't have had to "come to the rescue."
So there are probably kids like me out their that made the same mistake I did, and didn't listen to their parents' warnings about domestic junk (and now hate the domestics), and then I'm sure their are probably kids who did listen, and are happier (and healthier due to less stress) because of it (and better off financially).
However, had I listened back in 1994, then I probably would have been forced into rebuying a Honda or Toyota back to back as most do; due to overwhelmingly positive experiences. Having said that, if I hadn't bought domestic in 1994, I'd never have owned a lemon, and I suppose domestics today wouldn't all be on my "blacklist" (rightfully so).
Come to the Carlisle Sport Compact show, held annually in May. It attracts participants (primarily 30 and under) from all over the East Coast.
I sell tickets, so I get to see what cars are entered on the showfield. There were lots of Accord owners there, and they don't look old enough to be anybody's parents.
While I am sure a small town in the middle of rural PA is the hotspot for the compact car scene, growing up on the coast of southern California is my frame of reference. My mom's friends have Accords, Camrys, and Solaras.
Also, adding a bunch of headrest screens and game boys to a boring car doesn't make it exciting, nor does it constitute "tuning" even if it has a body kit and a big wing.
Not too many Buicks or Pontiacs on the showfield, either.
That might have something to do with the fact that Buick doesn't have a sport compact, and they are fuddy duddy.
Until recently, Honda never intentionally appealed to the tuner crowd. For example, Honda made the 2001 Civic MORE difficult to modify than the 1996-2000 generation (partly because of police concerns about thefts of Acura Integras for the drivetrains, which tuners were installing in 1996-2000 Civics).
From 1974 to 2000, Civics were the king of import tuner cars. There was every aftermaket accessory known to man to fit those vehicles. Most of my time trial racing on the tracks in California was spent with pre-'01 Civics. Some were supercharged, many had motor swaps. My personal favorites were the 88-91 CRXs with B16a or B18c swaps. The 91 SE-R just had nothing to do with that, unless it had a SR20DE-T swap.
In 2001 they changed to a cheaper rear suspension set up so they could meet their price point. It had nothing to do with police anything. They Civic was getting too close to the Integra/stupid_letter_thing market. This kind of supports my thought that Honda peaked in the 90s, but alas different discussion.
If you really think Honda isn't going to provide or allow their cars to be in a movie because of the image it projects, eh right.
The new Civic became cool again because they got rid of the Integra/stupid_letter_thing so there was no danger of market overlap.
Had a 1974 Dodge van that gave good service past 100,000 miles and 10 years. Traded for the 1984 Ford Bronco.
I can honestly tell you my time in the shop was 99% with Toyota, Honda, and Subaru. I had a 1970 Datsun PU that was perfect, should not have sold it. Got the 1973 Subaru that was nothing but trouble and worthless in snow. 1976 Datsun PU would not start when temp dropped to 5 degrees. Dealer took it back on lease. 1978 Honda Accord was 2nd choice when there was a year wait for a VW Dasher Diesel. Accord had lots of problems with overheating. Engine lasted about 60k miles. Honda was purely in the transition from motorcycles to cars. I bought it from the motorcycle dealer. Bought two new Toyotas. First in 1964 last one in 1994, both problematic. Five GM vehicles from 1988 to 2005 without any headaches. No doubt in my mind that GM is a better truck builder than any of the others. I try not to buy any cars unless I have to. Quite frankly not much on the road since 2000 really excites me, and I want a nice luxury SUV. I would buy a pre 2007 Escalade in a heartbeat if my wife liked the front end. Says it is ugly and I kind of agree.
And $300 later, he has his window fixed and a current if not cutting edge sound system with a head unit that actually has contemporary features, while you are condemned to listen to that 13 year old stereo for ever. Does that even have a CD player? That might fit your needs (going back and forth to work listening to NPR, etc) but I would think you might enjoy the system in your Acura more because its newer and has additional features.
As for tires, wheels, shocks and brakes, no matter what an automaker delivers, tuners won’t stick with stock anyway.
There are limitations in amateur racing classes that require stock fitments (but not OEM fitments). It also is less threatening to warranties and lease vehicle restrictions. That means if the Accord had a 205/55R16 like it should instead of some minivan size 205/60R16, I could swap out the sticky-as-wet-tile tires for something like A BFG Comp TA KDW or or a Pirelli P-Zero. This is especially important because poor tires are the reason it is back of category for braking and very high for fuel economy.
I could (and will) swap out the under-damped Tokico stock shocks for Bilstein or Koni (heck, even the "performance" Tokico would help).
I
representresent that statement.Actually I see more and more Accords, Camrys, Sonatas, Civics, and especially Corollas being driven by youth-challenged drivers. You can't play those stereotypes here in the Midwest.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
We can all give stories about domestics or imports that have been "perfect" and "nothing but trouble." I bought a Suzuki in 1992 (the year it was ranked 2nd WORST in quality) that has been nearly perfect for the past 15 years. My father purchased a 1974 Subaru brand new and our neighbors bought a 1973 Subaru brand new and neither gave anyone any trouble in their first decade of life...even in the snow. My only troubled car purchase was my 1986 Merkur.
I had the Subaru coupe. It would start hopping and pop out of gear going up hill in just 3-4 inches of snow. It was my first front wheel drive and did not give me a warm feeling about that configuration. Problem never resolved.
You see a "Japanese Bias" because you see more good Japanese cars than good Big 3 cars. If the Big 3 were making cars as well as the Japanese carmakers, you would see reviews just as glowing.
There is no "anti-USA bias" there is a "bad car/good car" bias.
2001 Civic had the same rear suspension set up that the generation before it did, reactive-link (3-link) double wishbones. As for Integra/RSX, they too got the same chassis as they have always shared it with Civic. So, I don’t see what you’re complaining about. If it were about how it was tuned (a little mismatched to the front), then you would have a point. But Honda worked to fix it a year later, and completely revised it for 2006 (without changing the set up).
Seriously, when you were racing, were people actually buying brand new Civics and doing all the tweaks and swaps? Or, were they using older models? My observation bodes with the latter. Very few, if any, want to give up their factory warranty unless they are serious racers and buy cars just for that.
And $300 later, he has his window fixed and a current if not cutting edge sound system with a head unit that actually has contemporary features, while you are condemned to listen to that 13 year old stereo for ever. Does that even have a CD player?
You’re the one who has trouble with stock system. I don’t. I have been pretty happy with the system in the car, and don’t really look forward to inviting thieves over while I’m away with glow in the dark thingies. Besides, my neighbor sold her Accord (it was the third time it was broken into) and got herself a yellow VW Beetle.
That means if the Accord had a 205/55R16 like it should instead of some minivan size 205/60R16, I could swap out the sticky-as-wet-tile tires for something like A BFG Comp TA KDW or or a Pirelli P-Zero.
Are you serious? It will be ridiculous to design a mainstream car around the “needs” of two hundred racers who aren’t allowed to change stock wheels, or don’t want to.
Automakers have to stick with tradeoffs. It has been a long time issue on Hondas that they attract thieves. Over last ten years, Honda has tried to minimize that (adverse) effect, starting with double-din integrated stereo with anti-theft code, engine immobilizer etc. Open invitation to thieves is a thing of the past.
Now, are you telling me that 2001+ RSX/Civic have no aftermarket potential? K20 responds well to changes, and is a far superior engine than any engine in Integra/Civic from the past. The chassis has gotten better since the early mishap on mismatched sets. If you had a choice between 1999 Civic Si (new) and 2008 Civic Si (new), which would you pick?
The big-3 get a fair shake when they deserve it. In the end, they lack consistency. Holding a grudge against brand based on country of origin is one of the worst things to do in a free market. The Japanese do set the benchmark on a lot of things, although Europeans take the cake when it comes to styling and driving dynamics. While American brands seem to be chasing both, in futility. They don't have an identity. Even GM plays "German influence" big on its cars. Went pitting "new" Aura against Japanese competition and planned to do it with the new Malibu (and then reality struck). What is American about it?
Funny, because it looks like an evolution of the last one which looked nothing like an Asian car either. Both are about as risky as buying a bag of white bread at Trader Joe's.
'99, NQA. Lighter and better suspension.
Carlisle Production shows - including the Sport Compact show held in May - attract participants from all over the eastern U.S., along with manufacturers who want to sell their wares directly to tuners. It is one of the premier events of its type in the country, and an excellent place to gauge the popularity of various cars among younger (which I would define as those under 30) buyers.
lilenginneerboy: My mom's friends have Accords, Camrys, and Solaras.
As I said, the Accord has a wide appeal. Your anecdote only proves that. Doesn't necessarily prove that young people don't want Accords, too.
In the 1960s, lots of middle-age people bought Mustangs and Impala SS coupes. So did lots of young people.
lilengineerboy: Also, adding a bunch of headrest screens and game boys to a boring car doesn't make it exciting, nor does it constitute "tuning" even if it has a body kit and a big wing.
The question isn't whether you deem the modifications worthy to fall under the definition of "tuning." The questions are whether the Accord coupe still appeals to young people, and whether they are modifying it, and the answer on both counts is "yes."
lilengineerboy: That might have something to do with the fact that Buick doesn't have a sport compact, and they are fuddy duddy.
I also mentioned Pontiac, too, which sold the Grand Am and Sunfire and now sells the G6 and G5, in response to your suggestion that Pontiacs are popular with young buyers, based on a count of vehicles in high school parking lots.
None of these vehicles appeal to many customers beyond those named Hertz and Alamo, and certainly not to the high school crowd, unless their parents bought them used from the rental car place.
lilengineerboy: From 1974 to 2000, Civics were the king of import tuner cars. There was every aftermaket accessory known to man to fit those vehicles.
And, as I said, the tuners drove the demand for products. The companies selling the products did not lead the market, as you originally suggested. This does not contradict what I said.
lilengineerboy: In 2001 they changed to a cheaper rear suspension set up so they could meet their price point. It had nothing to do with police anything.
I never specifically referred to the rear suspension change as the one made in response to Integra thefts (which involved stealing the Integras for the drive train). Sorry, but this was documented when the 2001 Civic debuted. Honda specifically changed the 2001 Civic to make installation of the Integra drivetrain much more difficult.
lilengineerboy: If you really think Honda isn't going to provide or allow their cars to be in a movie because of the image it projects, eh right.
Companies - including car companies - regularly pay very good money to have their products placed in movies. Many companies would love to have their products featured in a hit movie, and would love to be asked by the producers to provide a product specfically for the image it projects onscreen.
When the producers of 2Fast, 2 Furious went to Honda to provide vehicles, the company refused to do so, because it did not want to be associated with street racing. The producers then went to Nissan (for the Skyline) and Mitsubishi, which agreed to provide vehicles.
lilengineerboy: The new Civic became cool again because they got rid of the Integra/stupid_letter_thing so there was no danger of market overlap.
The Civic became cool again when Honda gave it much racier styling and reintroduced the hot Si model in coupe (and later sedan) form. The previous-generation Si hatchback was a disappointment from a performance standpoint. Plus, most Americans do not like hatchbacks - even performance hatchbacks. Which is why Honda got rid of both the Si hatchback and Acura RSX. Plus, Honda wanted move Acura upscale, and having a small hatchback in the showroom wasn't helping Acura's image in this regard.
No, it didn't:
Much ado has been made about Civic's redesigned suspension, with some detractors claiming that Honda had "sold out" by replacing the sophisticated double-wishbone front suspension with the more inexpensive MacPherson strut configuration. - Edmunds, 2001
Seriously, when you were racing, were people actually buying brand new Civics and doing all the tweaks and swaps? Or, were they using older models?
The then current Civic SI was VERY popular, as were all prior editions.
You’re the one who has trouble with stock system. I don’t. I have been pretty happy with the system in the car,
Yeah, and its something I feel is a shortcoming with the vehicle. That is how I feel about it, and I am a consumer. I don't think everyone will feel that way.
That means if the Accord had a 205/55R16 like it should instead of some minivan size 205/60R16, I could swap out the sticky-as-wet-tile tires for something like A BFG Comp TA KDW or or a Pirelli P-Zero.
Are you serious? It will be ridiculous to design a mainstream car around the “needs” of two hundred racers who aren’t allowed to change stock wheels, or don’t want to.
I don't expect them to design a car around me, especially one that is aimed at old ladies. It would be nice if they didn't use a minivan tire size though. Some of us have less trouble budgeting a few hundred dollars to upgrade the tires than something in the thousands to upgrade the tires and wheels.
If you had a choice between 1999 Civic Si (new) and 2008 Civic Si (new), which would you pick?
For 200# and a better suspension, audio options, engine swap opportunities, hmm yeah I might be very tempted to go with the 1999.
As I said, the Accord has a wide appeal. Your anecdote only proves that. Doesn't necessarily prove that young people don't want Accords, too.
"The median age of Accord buyers has gradually moved upward (from 41 in 1995 to 50 in 2005) as the car's sales have been carried along by a grateful, aging clientèle. That demographic migration is reflected in the car's design and engineering. It's conspicuously quieter, more refined, less demanding and safer, both in the sense of crash tests and in its styling." - Orlando Sentinel
In the 1960s, lots of middle-age people bought Mustangs and Impala SS coupes. So did lots of young people.
Yup, and I bet you could find a kid driving a minivan too. Old people buying cars trying to be young is different then kids buying fuddy-duddy cars.
The question isn't whether you deem the modifications worthy to fall under the definition of "tuning." The questions are whether the Accord coupe still appeals to young people, and whether they are modifying it, and the answer on both counts is "yes."
10 kids fixing up their mom's car doesn't mean it appeals to young people.
I also mentioned Pontiac, too, which sold the Grand Am and Sunfire and now sells the G6 and G5, in response to your suggestion that Pontiacs are popular with young buyers, based on a count of vehicles in high school parking lots.
Valid point. I have seen more modified Grand Ams in Michigan, not so much in CA. I think the only way you got a Sunfire is if your parents work for GM or you did something bad in a former life.
Companies - including car companies - regularly pay very good money to have their products placed in movies. Many companies would love to have their products featured in a hit movie, and would love to be asked by the producers to provide a product specfically for the image it projects onscreen.
The car featured in the movie was a Civic, not an Accord. It also comes down to advertising dollars, Honda didn't deem it a worthwhile use of their capital.
The Civic became cool again when Honda gave it much racier styling and reintroduced the hot Si model in coupe (and later sedan) form.
It kind or looks like a giant dustbuster, so styling is subjective, but I do like the performance of the 2006+ Civic SI and the fact that it has an limited slip. You will notice this happened at the same time the eliminated the RSX. Besides, this is where the Civic should be, a sport compact for the youth+ market.
Plus, Honda wanted move Acura upscale, and having a small hatchback in the showroom wasn't helping Acura's image in this regard.
Exactly, they wanted to make it more fuddy-duddy and stuffy.
If all the former and current employees responsible for producing POS and lemons :lemon: would step up and be held accountable financially, that would save the BIG 3 and bring customers like me back.
So, is Honda becoming the new Buick?
That'll never happen.
1) Honda makes youthful car models, but not all of them are youthful.
2) Honda provides value and low true cost to own.
3) Honda's are reliable and good for the poor man.
4) Honda's are affordable and get good gas mileage.
5) Honda's handle better than average, and have a sporty flair.
That has to be the worst idea I've read. Are you going to do that with all the Honda transmission problems where they lockup? Are you going to do that with the Camry and others with sludge? With transmission problems now? I'll spare looking up other foreign car wonders to list here. What a waste of band width.
The problem is some who favor foreign brands are like Mac users; they feel that nothing else was worth anything--only their Macintoshes were valuable. All the other computers were worthless because they weren't, sigh, a Macintosh. And I'll end that I used to own a two Macintosh computers and control others at work so save the flames about my criticism.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
First, Honda most definitely should have fired and or cut in pay by 50% those most directly responsible for the isolated to V6 engined transmission gaffe.
Second, Honda doesn't need a "refund" fund because everyone that had issues within the first 100K miles with their tranny had it replaced with a brand new transmission free of charge already.
Third, one bad part does not a bad car make.
Fourth, the Domestics have seemingly denied all extended warranty claims, even if only 1,000 miles after warranty, and have given people hard times for within the warranty period too. A lot of people here and everywhere I'm sure still feel like they got cheated into spending money they shouldn't have had to spend due to buying a domestic :lemon:.
A median age of 50 is hardly senior citizen territory. And I would like to see the median age for the coupe model. We aren't talking Buick here, where the age of buyers was somewhere north of 60 (the new Enclave may help to lower that a bit).
lilengineerboy: Yup, and I bet you could find a kid driving a minivan too. Old people buying cars trying to be young is different then kids buying fuddy-duddy cars.
That's not the point being addressed. Certain cars have a wide demographic appeal, and the fact that some middle-age people, such as your mother, drive a particular car, does not mean that it no longer appeals to younger people.
Lots of people of all ages liked the Impala and the Mustang in the 1960s, and they like the Accord today. Which is why the Imapala and Mustang were considered successful cars, and the Accord is considered one today.
Lots of largely older people liked Ramblers in the 1960s and Buicks today. Unforunately, younger people did not. Which is why Ramblers had a tarnished reputation, and why Buick is fighting an uphill battle to gain new customers.
Lots of rental car companies appear to like Pontiacs, which presents an uphill battle of an entirely different stripe.
lilengineerboy: 10 kids fixing up their mom's car doesn't mean it appeals to young people.
Every mom I know doesn't want her vehicle modified, and doesn't let her son (or daughter) do it. Kids are not modifying their parents' vehicles.
It's also lots more than 10 kids modifying their vehicles.
lilengineerboy: The car featured in the movie was a Civic, not an Accord. It also comes down to advertising dollars, Honda didn't deem it a worthwhile use of their capital.
I knew they were Hondas (three Civics used by the hijackers). Doesn't change the fact that Honda was cool to the use of its cars because of the image of street racing and lawlessness portrayed by the movie.
Plus, the movie's producers weren't charging Honda for the use of the vehicles...though they did want them for free. Honda still refused.
lilengineerboy: You will notice this happened at the same time the eliminated the RSX.
There was an Si version of the Civic while the RSX was still available (the hatchback version that wasn't too popular).
lilengineerboy: Exactly, they wanted to make it more fuddy-duddy and stuffy.
Honda wanted Acura to be in the near-luxury segment, and the RSX was hurting the brand's image in that regard. The TL, TSX, RDX and MDX are hardly fuddy-duddy vehicles.
And you took Edmunds’ words to heart, and without realizing that they were actually talking about front suspension, not rear. A bit of facts for you:
1996-2000 Civic: Double Wishbone (Front), Reactive Link Double Wishbone (Rear)
2001-2005 Civic: MacPherson Strut (Front), Reactive Link Double Wishbone (Rear)
To be read as: Honda retained the rear suspension fundamentals. It continued with the 3-link set up going from 2000 to 2001 (Bonus fact: Accord and TL use 5-link).
A fun fact to top it off... 2006 Civic Si is a much better car than the 2000 Civic Si. :shades:
That means if the Accord had a 205/55R16 like it should instead of some minivan size 205/60R16, I could swap out the sticky-as-wet-tile tires for something like A BFG Comp TA KDW or or a Pirelli P-Zero.
Interestingly enough, the “minivan size” 205/60/R16 is stock wheel size in current Mazda6 Sport. I haven’t heard people complain about it.
The median age of Accord buyers has gradually moved upward (from 41 in 1995 to 50 in 2005) as the car's sales have been carried along by a grateful, aging clientèle.
Is that a bad thing? Lancer has the youngest buyers of any segment, but what does it really say about the car? To me it means that fewer buyers are repeat buyers. They buy and move one when it comes time to replace. Do you think business prefer to not have loyal buyers who keep coming back?
And speaking of Accord, if we go by the numbers provided along with a few assumptions, you just might discover something interesting. Honda sold 341K units of Accord in 1995 and 369K in 2005. So, if 100% of buyers in 1995 returned to purchase another Accord, they were now 51 years old. But, Honda sold 28K additional units, and average age actually went down. With that taken into consideration, the average age of new buyers was only 38! Putting things into perspective can change a lot of things.
Or do you think if you find a car appealing today, the automaker and want the same car from that brand ten years later, they should chase you away because you threaten to add to their average age? I’m not someone who looks over the shoulder to get approval for my cars. I see, I like and I get it. I was 23 when I drove home the “elderly” family sized 1998 Accord. Now I’m 33, and if the new Accord is worth my money, PR isn’t going to sell or take it away from me. Perhaps it doesn’t work the same with you?
I'd say that Toyota is probably becoming more like Buick, offering cars that are a bit more sedate, "grown up", conservative, whatever. They're not quite at the "God's Waiting Room" level yet, but maybe where Buick was in the 70's. Cars that were bit more mature, but not over-the-hill.
Honda today might be kinda like what the Cutlass Supreme was in the 1970's, or even a Delta 88. Widely appealing to all ages, but a bit more youthful than a Buick.
Accord has done some funny things along the way but one thing it has consistently done is carry along their established market with each new edition.
My first couple of Accords were really subcompacts. My 00 is considered mid-sized and now they are marketing large cars in a way that I'd still look at one.
One thing I don't like to see is that while they've made them big now they still have the same size trunk! You would think they'd figure out that people taking up more space tend to bring more junk, too.
Honda wanted Acura to be in the near-luxury segment, and the RSX was hurting the brand's image in that regard. The TL, TSX, RDX and MDX are hardly fuddy-duddy vehicles.
Current MDX buyers qualify as an "affluent family," with a median household income of $139,000 per year. Some 54 percent are female, likely to be around age 45. Secondary customers come from the "affluent empty nester" group. - Tirekicking Today
TSX median (not mean) age - 35
TL mean age - 50
Sure they aren't as long as you don't mind driving your parents cars.
There was an Si version of the Civic while the RSX was still available (the hatchback version that wasn't too popular).
Yup, and it was ugly and had lower performance, so not to challenge the RSX.
The Mazda6 Sport is the base model vehicle without alloys. It is about $16,000, the Accord has those tires on the EX, supposedly a highline model.
And speaking of Accord, if we go by the numbers provided along with a few assumptions, you just might discover something interesting. Honda sold 341K units of Accord in 1995 and 369K in 2005. So, if 100% of buyers in 1995 returned to purchase another Accord, they were now 51 years old. But, Honda sold 28K additional units, and average age actually went down. With that taken into consideration, the average age of new buyers was only 38! Putting things into perspective can change a lot of things.
No, because while it may be hard for you fathom, I don't know anyone that bought a new Accord in the 90s and replaced it with another new Accord recently. My '93 was a hand me down and was replaced by a G35. The '96 was replaced by a Prius, so those are 2 middled aged folks that perhaps weren't as infatuated with the Accord as some others (those were just the ones in my family).
Or do you think if you find a car appealing today, the automaker and want the same car from that brand ten years later, they should chase you away because you threaten to add to their average age? I’m not someone who looks over the shoulder to get approval for my cars. I see, I like and I get it. I was 23 when I drove home the “elderly” family sized 1998 Accord. Now I’m 33, and if the new Accord is worth my money, PR isn’t going to sell or take it away from me. Perhaps it doesn’t work the same with you?
I don't think the 90s Accord was so elderly. The age reported though isn't PR and what Honda would like to happen, that is the results of sales. PR always aims cars at younger folks, like the Honda Element, but then the mean age was in the 40s.
I am not criticizing your choice in vehicles, everyone should buy what makes them happy. What did you have before the '98?
I've noticed this trend, too. I think what's happening is that they're making the wheelbases longer on the cars without really making them much longer. That's giving them a bit more interior room, but it's cutting into trunk space, as there's less overhang in the rear.
IIRC, the Toyota Camry dropped from around 17 cubic feet to 15 cubic feet of trunk space with the 2007 redesign. I think the tapered, sloping rear end cut into that a bit, as well though. I think the Sebring/Avenger sedans only have 13 cubic foot trunks. The 2001-06 Sebring/Stratus had 16 cubic foot trunks. I've heard conflicting stories on the new Altima though, as I've seen the trunk listed at 15 cubic feet and I've seen it listed at 18 cubic feet. The '02-06 style was 16 cubic feet. Even with bigger cars like the 300/Charger, the trunks are smaller. I don't know if the RWD setup did that or the longer wheelbase, though. Usually with a RWD car they had to hang the gas tank out back, so unless you had a l-o-n-g rear overhang and a shallow trunk, like in a Dart/Valiant, or some of the earlier Mopar intermediates, you weren't getting the spare tire under the trunk floor. The 300/Charger have an IRS though, which lets them put the gas tank under the back seat, just like in an FWD car. It just sort of straddles the driveshaft, which doesn't bounce up and down like it would in a car with a live rear axle. Anyway, the Intrepid's trunk was 18.4 cubic feet, 18.8 for the Concorde/LHS, and something like 16.7 for the 300M. I think it's 15 for the current 300 and 16 for the Charger.
I think one reason why I take issue with so many so-called "full sized" cars is that the EPA determines those size classes based solely on interior volume. So a car that's tall and narrow, and can only hold 4 people in comfort might get classed as larger than one that's low-slung and wide, but can hold 6.
When it comes to trunk volume, back in the old days, a full-sized car would usually have 20 cubic feet or more. An intermediate was usually around 16-18. Compacts were usually 15 or less, although some exceptions, like the '67-69 Dart, were 17. So when I hear them call a car with a 14 cubic foot trunk "full sized", I'm just going to roll my eyes.
The threshold for a full-sized car, in EPA standards, is 120 cubic feet of combined interior/trunk volume. A 2007 Accord is 103/14 (117 total). A 2006 Camry was 102/17 (119 total). A 2006 Altima was 103/16 (119 total). In large cars, an Intrepid was 104/18 (122 total). An Impala is something like 105/18 (123 total). So for awhile now, there really hasn't been much of a jump between mid- and full-sized cars.
However, old-school full-sized cars, like the Crown Vic and its ilk, have at least 110 cubic feet of interior volume and 20+ cubic foot trunks, so they're still a signigicant size larger than something like an Intrepid, Impala, or the new Accord.
I found the interior volume specs on my '79 New Yorker, and was surprised that its interior was "only" 108 cubic feet, and the trunk around 21. It actually feels a lot bigger inside to me than that...bigger than a Crown Vic. However, the interior is pretty long and wide, but not very tall. A wide interior with lots of shoulder room can make a car feel big, but a taller cabin will also inflate the volume.
I am curious to check out the new Accord when it's available, though. It started being the "right" size for me, I'd say, with the 2003 style. I liked the 1998-02 style, but had a chance to drive one a couple months ago. And even with a power seat, I just couldn't get that comfortable.
A few years back, MSN autos used to publish reviews by a guy who also listed the median age of that car's buyer group. I remember, among larger cars at least, the Intrepid was about the most "youthful" car around, with a median buyer age of 50. Also in the 50-something range were the 300M and the Regal. I think they were both at 57. I think the LeSabre was 67, while the Century, Park Ave, and Concorde were all 70. I think the Grand Marquis was pushing 70 as well, but can't remember the Crown Vic, Bonneville, or Impala stats.
I think with larger cars especially, it's hard to get a median buyer age down really low, simply because really young people, by and large, don't buy big cars. And that's sort of what the Accord is turning into. But on the flip side, there are plenty of older people who buy bigger cars, and the bigger the Accord and other cars get, the older the buyer base is going to get.
I wonder if the '08 Accord is going to alienate many buyers by suddenly becoming "too" big? I think that as long as they can give the car good, responsive handling, and good road feel, Honda should be okay. I drove an '07 Camry at a test drive event, and wasn't impressed at all. While it handled fine, it just didn't provide very good feedback. About the best way I can describe it is that the car itself was capable, but it was more willing to start wallowing than an Accord or Fusion (the 2 other cars in the test), so it would sort of scare you into backing down before you realized the car's full potential. Kinda like "stop it baby, it's gonna hurt!". In contrast, the Accord was more like "push me! Push me hard! Harder! HARDER!!!" :P
But, I guess Honda always did try to make the Accord a bit sportier than the Camry.
You could almost PARK an Accord in the trunk of a Crown Vic!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You're into stereotyping territory. If someone is used to a sporty, tight car they are more critical of the less taut, but capable larger car ride. I am amazed at how my LeSabre cornered when decided I was replacing the tires and started doing the fast corners. Although there is more give than the last Accord I drove or the Acuras my neighbor has, they have the ability to get you through a corner or curve much, much better than I expected.
The 07 Camry is not one I've driven but aren't the different models different in their suspension handling setup, somewhat like the Lucerne is? Which model did you drive.
As for buyers starting with smaller, sporty cars and progressing to larger cars meaning that comparing average age for full-sized cars with lithe, sporty cars is like studying the income tax progressive tax rate scale. It's gonna happen.
I did find out who owns the Mary Kay pink DTS I kept seeing at the local high school campus. She looks about thirty; another stereotype broken. Way below average age for the DTS. And several LeSabres are driven by folks in their early 30s and 40s; another one bites the dust. But there are many sage
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Me, I wanted an MR2 or Integra, as opposed to driving my folks old POS k-car.
The Camry they had at this test drive event was a very well-equipped V-6 model, but I can't remember if it was an SE or an XLE. I imagine the SE might be a better handler than the XLE, but being V-6, I'm sure either one would be stiffer than the 4-cyl version. And overall, I still wouldn't say this Camry was a HORRIBLE car. It's just that I preferred the Fusion and Accord to it. If anything, I think this comparison made me appreciate the Accord all that much more, considering its design dates to 2003, whereas the Fusion came out as a 2006 (or was it 2005? I'm losing track now...must be getting elderly :P ) and the Camry's an '07.
You're into stereotyping territory. If someone is used to a sporty, tight car they are more critical of the less taut, but capable larger car ride. I am amazed at how my LeSabre cornered when decided I was replacing the tires and started doing the fast corners.
The last LeSabre I drove was a 2000 or so model. It was a Custom, so it just had the skinny 15x6 wheels. I imagine the Limited had bigger wheels/tires and a stiffer suspension. I really didn't care for this LeSabre I drove, but I think I had just gotten used to stiffer-riding cars that provided more driver feedback, like my 2000 Intrepid, '89 Gran Fury (a copcar, and a whole different beast from the civilian model), and before that a '79 Newport that was equipped with the "Open Road Handling Package", which again transformed it into a much better handler than the base model.
This 2000 LeSabre felt like it was trying hard to isolate the driver away from the world outside, and there probably are a lot of people that still want a car like that. It also felt big to me...bigger than its size would suggest. Still, it's the type of car where if I needed a good used car and found one at a reasonable price, I wouldn't turn it down. Even though I have a preference for Mopars, I'd probably trust a used LeSabre more than I would a used Intrepid/Concorde. I think I'd still hold out for a Park Ave, though!
Well some Domestic products of late are getting good reviews mainly GM products like the new CTS(the automotive press is in love with the 08 CTS it seems), the Saturn Outlook, and the Aura. Consumer Reports likes the Ford Fusion/Mercury Millan twins. The Chrysler 300 also got good reviews when it first came onto the market.
I think the Fusion came out in late 2005 but as a 2006 model. The current Camry came out in early 2006 as a 2007 model.
I do expect a model than it was 12-13 years prior(the Accord in this case we are talking about) to be quiter, refined, safer, better in crash test results automatically. If a model by any manufacturer isn;t safer, better in crash tests than it was 12-13 years prior that respective automaker is not doing its job in terms of making good product decesions. I don;t know what it means that the Accord is less demanding than it was 12-13 years ago.
As for the styling directions of the last 2 Accords(03 and 08) I don;t like it. I feel like the styling of the last 2 gen Accords is more of a combo to cater to a Toyota Avalon/Camry crowd than it is the 1990's Accord crowd. Bad move in my opinion by Honda with the styling of the last 2 generations of Accord. I'm not old either(I'm 27) but I remember when the 94 Accord and 98 Accord came out and I was in high school at the time.
Before anybody says I'm too young to like an Accord(Sedan that is) I have owned a 1998 Mazda 626 LX 4 cyl(leased when I was 18), a 2002 Acura CL(bought when I was 21) and now a 2007 Mazda 6i since I totaled the Acura in an accident a month ago. I could have bought a leftover 07 Accord instead of the Mazda 6 but the styling just didn't do it for me.
Honda has expectations for the 08-2012 to sell 430,000 Accord a year but to me they're not gonna do it its just that the market isn't gonna support 430,000 Accord sold yearly a year. Add in more people are buying car-based SUVs than ever before and the car based SUV market is taking sales away from the mid-size market. I know Toyota sold 448,000 Camry's in 2006 but the 2007 Camry was like one of the best debut sellers for a new model in like how many years? I mean a seller like the 2007 Camry just doesn;t come around that often.
Yeah Honda did good with the 2006 Civic but the 2003 Accord(the Sedan styling in particular was a bad move.) I like the 1998-2002 Accord Coupe's styling better than the 2003-2007. My verdict is not out on the 08 Accord Coupe's styling yet but the 08 Accord Sedan's styling looks ike another bad move in that its too conservative again to me just like the 03 was.
The Civic did not become a popular tuner car until like the late 90's I think. I mean given I was 10 years old in 1989 I might not remember that much from the 80's cars that were around then but I would remember if there was souped-up Civic in the 80's.
Might be a regional thing. I wouldn't think that anybody would do anything at all with a 1983 or older Civic but hey, stranger things have happened. However, it seems that starting with the 1984 Civic, mainly the squared-off hatchback, that people started to mod them.
I went to California on vacation in 1992, and modded little cars seemed pretty common out there at the time. People who looked down on the cars had a term for them that's a bit too disparaging to mention here (and it's NOT that starchy R-word). And from California, the trend seemed to catch on.
Civic 1200 Land
Just because someone wasn't born yet doesn't mean it wasn't happening :P
The General base tires are soft rolling, soft sidewall and would tend to not grip tightly. The 16 inch 225x60 Michelins are still great at only 40% of tread depth left. But time to get a set of Harmony tires on it. The car is closer to the Bonneville handlling than I had thought.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The original Prelude was a Civic, it didn't really start picking up steam until the '83 model or so, and that was fun to drive but not very powerful. The 88-91 was very limited with respect to upgrade path, but otherwise a nice ride, and they 92+ with the vtec motor and a host of bolt ons was more interesting.