For me, it is the present, not the past. IMO, the new Civic is better than the one I have and that is the bottom line. It is safer, has more space and handles/rides just as well as my 2000 Civic. What is wrong with that? You don’t seem to agree with me, and I don’t with others!
You don't like it? I like the wagon a whole lot; the rest you can have (at least the power goes to the right wheels!). But yeah, it seems more than a few mfrs are looking to get back to their roots and can't do it with their existing models without alienating their core customers who have matured with them.
Why not a new line of nifty, nimble little Honda sprinters? ;-)
If Accord is out of the budget, I doubt Mazda6i, Altima or Camry would be in. Accord LX probably accounts for half of Accord sales, and has an MSRP+ destination that is about the same as the Mazda, Nissan or Toyota (similarly equipped).
Now, cash incentives and rebates may be another issue. Any automaker would offer more incentives to attract customers. An automaker not doing that may not be having trouble finding buyers. A while ago, someone pointed out that Accord is trailing Camry in terms of sales. Considering that 12-15% of Camry sales go to fleet (compared to less than 2% for Accord), it appears, Accord appeals to more individual (like you and me) than does the “best selling car” in America. And that is not a bad trade off.
I don't see how the new Civic handles better than it's predecessor. The one I drove handled poorly and was upset by small bumps. Going over modest railroad tracks it wobbled around like a 85 Cadillac with bad shocks. Only slightly exaggerating.
I'm not saying that the new Civic hasn't improved in certain areas. All of the improvements don't cancel out the fact that they ditched the front wishbones though, IMO.
Unlike you, I understand why Honda was criticized for getting rid of the front wishbone suspension. The front wishbone suspension was one of the things that made the Civic special and unique compared the competition.
I've seen references to late 80s Civic being sporty, while the 1996-2000 was not. How do you figure that?
With the redesign in 2001, Honda had the rear suspension not match up to the front (note that the rear is still double wishbone), and addressed that with the 2002 model.
Civic Si is also a car that handles very well, and doesn't give up much in terms of ride either.
Let us see if there is some consistency with test drives for Civic at Edmunds
Back in 1997 (comparison of Civic and Escort) Let's talk about power. I happened to drive the Honda before the Ford and was duly impressed with its pick up and go ... until the next morning when the Escort blew me down the road like a kite in high winds--an experience I'm familiar with having lived in downtown Chicago. Both powertrains are acceptable for the size of the cars, but if you want a little more pizzazz in your commute, the Ford will deliver.
Sounds like, “power” was never Civic’s selling point.
The Honda started off zippy, but ran out of steam in the upper gears. Others thought the Ford was a bit thrashy.
But something was!
Handling on both cars was rated mediocre Double wishbone or not? Back then, the Civic did have double wishbone, didn’t it?
A year forward (1998 Comparison, Civic to Escort ZX2) In contrast, the Honda fared poorly in the fun-to-drive department.
Even with double wishbones?
Where the Civic shines is in design and engineering details. That’s being consistent a year later.
Fast forward to the “new Civic” (2003 Road Test Comparison)
As it was the most expensive car in the test, it might seem as though the Honda should've won, but even after points were deducted for its lofty price tag, the Civic EX still managed to come out on top. What made the difference? Refinement, build quality and a well-trimmed interior were the most often cited reasons for the Civic's first-place finish. If you're looking for an inexpensive sedan that doesn't look or feel that way, the Civic is the one.
More consistency. But what about handling, because double wishbone was missing up front now? Based on the two earlier tests, not handling, but refinement and balance was praised in the Civic. What about now, that it was compared to cars like Protégé and Sentra?
The Civic's ride and handling are two more areas where it earned high marks from our editors. It's more tightly controlled than the Elantra and Corolla, yet more forgiving than either the Protegé or the Sentra. In other words, the Civic strikes the best balance between ride comfort and road feel. Heavy insulation makes for a quiet cabin, while the solid steering feel keeps you well apprised of the road conditions below.
Sounds like lack or presence of double wishbones has little to do with the overall packaging. Does it?
as long as you're throwing out quotes, here's a few from Car and Driver (better than Edmunds IMO) regarding the Civic:
"Beyond fundamentals, great cars are also the result of pleasing choices. Maybe this Civic is trying too hard for sporty handling. It does very well on that score, but the ride has gotten harsh. Noisy, too."
"Moreover, path control on the freeway is nowhere near as sharp as Civics used to be"
"Of the various changes made to the Civic range, the most surprising is Honda's adoption of a strut-type front suspension. The engineers say it helped them shorten the nose (by enabling them to raise the steering gearbox) and also improve impact-absorption performance. Good reasons both, yet we feel slightly disappointed at the disappearance of Honda's elegant and nimble double-control-arm setup."
I don't care if you use kids Jello lunchpacks for the suspension as long as it rides right. I never was bent out of shape about Honda dropping the bones, just didn't like the way it rode. Agreed that the 3 series is one nice ride. Rides smooth, yet handles well. The new civic will ride smooth on smooth rodes, and at least on the 2001 I drove, go to hell in a handbasket as soon as it gets even a little bumpy. Also just didn't handle well. Hopefully the 2002+ was vastly improved.
People always bring up BMW when someone starts talking about Honda getting rid of the wishbone front on the Civic. "if it's good enough for BMW, it must be good enough for the Civic" is the reasoning here.
Well, if the Civic handled and rode anwhere close to a 3 series, I could see where you are coming from, but...
I always think of the Honda as practical, great ergonomics and quality, but not necessarily fun. I think the new Accord looks great. I don’t like the new Camry’s design and wasn’t impressed when I rented one recently. I don’t think Honda’s run is anywhere close to being over, but I still like Mazda6 and Altima, perhaps, over the Accord. The Taurus design is hideous in my opinion. I still find most Hondas a little boring compared to some other brands.
bottgers: Semantics chief. I am on the same page as you.
I am making a bold prediction via sorcery and witchcraft that any new product by Honda "would have" the edge over any Korean counterpart.
Crusty riding Hondas? Say it ain't so! I agree and a comparo done by C&D a little while back had one of the editors lamenting the same subject. I don't have it in front of me but I believe the gist wat that the newest Accord was less adept at soaking up road irregularites but did not gain any handling prowess for the trade off.
If we think back the big three had the performance advantage and the plush ride but this did not save them from the motorcycle company that thought they could sell cars over here. This still will go back to economics and quality. There is a silver lining I think, and that is hybrids. Honda and Toyota have the upper hand in these. When these cars can prove themselves as performers and are not packaged in bad styles then I think they will sell well.
Honda is already facing a threat by the Koreans in the form of lower prices, longer warranties, and slick marketing. However, I don't think anything's been proven to show that Honda's being threatend by the Koreans in terms of build quality.
Thats what the thinking was back in the day, but man was we surprised when that little Civic ran and ran. When the typical family person thinks of cars it's not just all about zero to sixty, skid pads, and horse power. It is about getting service from a car that has been payed for. You can bet the Korean car companies are working for this and they are making gains.
Longer (non-transferable) warranty may be working for Hyundai (and Kia, which is basically a Hyundai and owned by it), much like cash incentives and 0% financing is for many. But in the longer term, it may not. We shall see.
Honda could offer low end models, a price class Civic no longer belongs in with the demise of the basic hatchback version, and probably will shortly. But for now, the company seems to be focusing on balancing sales between cars and light trucks to a normal level. With the rumored arrival of Jazz, Honda might do just that. A car that would compete with low cost Hyundai/Kia, Suzuki and GM offerings, while potentially be more refined than all of them. And it would also target Scion at the same time.
" I don't have it in front of me but I believe the gist wat that the newest Accord was less adept at soaking up road irregularites but did not gain any handling prowess for the trade off."
If memory serves me correctly, this was a comment from either MT or C&D when they did their "first look". The comparisons that both magazines ran on production vehicles had high praise for the suspension tuning, saying it produces a firmly damped but comfortable ride and well controlled handling.
For example, here's what C&D said in their mainstream sedan comparo, which the Accord won:
"The Accord's supple ride seems to do little to harm its canyon-carving potential, and the lightness of its controls fails to blur the accuracy of their operation."
Honda is the master of bringing high quality affordable transport to us. I think they are going to need to bring it back in the very near future. Otherwise they will continue to slip like our big three. There always has been something about going back to our roots.
Otherwise they will continue to slip like our big three.
As I mentioned earlier, Honda did see a dip in operating income last year, but the net income was up. And this is despite of a slump in Japanese market, since Honda is doing much better in Europe now, and has been selling at record levels in North America. Honda’s forecast shows a continued dip in operating income for next year primarily because of exchange rate (yen to dollar) but sales are at an all time high.
That said, I don’t want to see Honda getting too comfortable with its position, but “continuing to slip” sounds like an exaggeration. Honda has been setting record sales, and staying close to a level the company never achieved before isn’t an indication of “continuing to slip” to me.
Being among the youngest of the bunch and independent, Honda has to play smart in a competitive market. Mazda and Nissan can tap resources of their parent companies (Ford and Renault respectively), VW, Toyota, Daimler Chrysler and GM have had plenty of resources of their own to start with. There go the companies that are larger than Honda today. BMW, is in similar position as Honda (not age wise, but resource wise), so they have to be smart as well.
You stated that the Accord' competition was $8,000 less. I said show me a comparably equipped car that can match the Accord's safety, refinement, and performance for $8,000 less. I'm still waiting ....
First, thanks for the well written and well thought out feedback on my post. I'll try to respond in kind.
I agree that looks are subjective and I'm sure there are people who like the look of the new Accord. In my circle though, I know several people who have elected to buy the Camry over the Accord based on looks alone. Accord sales are down and given that it's the class standard in terms of driveability, reliability, features and price (yes I know Hyundai's are cheaper and are closing the reliability gap, but they're still not in Honda's class yet), I have to believe that it's because of the looks.
IMO, for a mass market family sedan, it's preferable to have a blander looking car b/c a key element in mass sales is offending as few people as possible. Polarizing styling and mass market just don't go together. Honda clearly dropped the ball on this one.
I'll stay away from the Civic's decontenting b/c honestly, I have not ridden in the new generation Civics. However, I've driven the older generation Civic hatchback tons of times and it's handling and road feel are amazing for such an affordable car.
I'm sure you're correct that other car makers have decontented their smaller economy cars as well, but as one poster correctly pointed out, Honda made a huge deal about the double wishbone suspension. The market believed the Civic handled better because it had the suspension set up of more expensive cars. So if there is a difference in ride quality, people will naturally blame the removal of the double wishbone.
As for Honda's business strategy, I can't agree with you at all. Fact is, big trucks and big SUVs are a huge profit center for the Domestic 2.5. A company like Honda that has built such amazing brand equity and a loyal following SHOULD expand its brand into every market segment. It's shortsighted of them not to.
I've driven Civics, liked 'em and bought an Acura MDX. When my family grows and I need a bigger car, I won't even be able to consider a Honda offering b/c they refuse to make bigger truck/SUVs with ladder on frames. A company of Honda's size and reputation should be thinking along these lines:
1. Hook 'em on Civics when they're in high school; 2. Get 'em in Accords in their 20s. 3. Get 'em in Honda/Acuras in their 20s and 30s, combo of Accord/TL and Odyssey/Pilot/MDX etc. 4. Get dad a big truck if he needs it to tow boats or do other work. 5. Offer bigger SUVs as the family grows.
Right now, when I hit stage 4 and 5 in my life, Honda has nothing to offer me, and I like Hondas and Acuras.
Maybe Honda doesn't need RWD if its SH-AWD technology works out, we'll have to wait and see. But by putting their resources into SH-AWD, they delayed entering markets 4 and 5 above plus they ignored the enthusiast market which demands RWD (market 6).
They may later be able to move into markets 4-6 using SH-AWD, but they've delayed a long time and now they'll have to fight tooth and nail to grab market share from strongly entrenched Domestic 2.5 plus Toyota and Nissan.
With gas prices going through the roof the large SUV market could face a questionable future. Eventually the American public will wise up and realize that a Honda Odyssey that gets 25 MPG can haul as many people and as much stuff as that Expedition getting 15 MPG. Sure if you need to haul a large trailer or a big boat you might need a large V8 SUV but for most Americans who just use them to cart little Jack and Jill to school, the movies, and soccer practice there is no justification for driving an Excursion or Suburban. So investing millions and millions of dollars into R&D could be risky. But as Honda has shown in the past with the MDX, Pilot, and Odyssey if they ever do decide to enter the large-SUV market they will create a benchmark.
As long as the tax law allows you to Section 179 a large SUV (100% tax writeoff in first year instead of depreciating), sales of large SUVs will be fine. Also, my main point is that Honda should enter the truck market. The large SUV sales are just an attempt to leverage off a truck frame and get additional sales.
Also, in the lux market, they don't care about gas prices. It's nothing compared to what they're shelling out on the car plus maintenance, insurance, etc.
"Accord sales are down and given that it's the class standard in terms of driveability, reliability, features and price, I have to believe that it's because of the looks."
BINGO!
I have a bunch of Honda lover friends and none of them likes the way the new Accord looks. My parents just got two new cars recently, a Camry, and an I35. My Dad didn't even check the Accord out, even though it's probably a better car overall than the Camry or I35. Why? Didn't like the way it looked. Same deal with me and my Mazda6. I didn't even give the Accord a chance, even though it trumps the Mazda6 in many categories.
Wait just a second here: that somebody (anybody) would choose a Camry over an Accord on looks alone is one too many for me! The I35 I can sorta see, but a Camry?
Now that's funny!
BTW, I'm certainly not disagreeing that looks are a part of the equation. To the contrary, I rather insist they are. But a Camry? In '95, I'd have believed that no problem, but a new Camry?
What's your point? We bought our Accord without considering the Camry or I35. We did check the 6 out but lost interest quickly due to the insane options fiasco, what we considered to be styling that already looked a bit dated, and the Mazda dealers didn't want to deal on them at the time we bought our 2003 Accord coupe.
They had better make gains considering where they started. It wasn't too long ago when all Korean cars were horendous heaps of junk. Honda started out building great cars right from the get-go. The Koreans basically had no where to go but up. Even though I do believe they've made strides with their vehicles, I still don't think they compare in terms of build quality (reliability wise) the Hondas or Toyotas.
Anon the general non C&D reading public is more concerned with what they can keep in the wallet and not what the car does on the track, skid pad, and almost any other printed spec. I think you know and all of us know that Hondas rep was built on affordable high quality transportation. What Honda has now is a high quality mid-size car that is pushing a thirty thousand dollar price tag. Honda not only tops the class on paper but also on sticker. If they want to continue break neck sales volume than they will need to stay away from out pricing the class. I would agree with new car except with the features, after all Honda does charge $1,2000 for air, charge for floor mats, charge for body moldings, and the list goes on.
I think more people need to focus on quality of the car itself, and not how automakers advertise them. Honda rightfully bragged about double wishbones in the 90s Civic. And they now rightfully brag about it being safer and roomier in the same package. As buyers, you’ve to get out of that notion, and see if the car delivers everything you need and want, or not.
Regarding looks, Accord sedan still follows a conservative styling. Honestly, I can’t see much about it that I dislike. May be a more subtle tail lamp is all that the sedan needs. The more closely I look at it, the more I like it. I simply love its front and front to side profile. While Camry is more conservative, I just don’t have a taste for its styling elements. It is just too boxy and upright.
Between Sonata and Accord, IMO, price wise they are similar, except that you could get a “V6” with the Hyundai. However, that V6 is only for namesake. I would take the Accord I-4 over it, any day. That Hyundai V6 feels strained and breathless. And lacks the refinement that the Accord I-4 delivers. Unless it was the car itself, but after having driven a Sonata for 5000 miles, I have nothing good to say about its dynamics either. May be someday, Hyundai will improve upon these aspects and still offer these cars for a good price.
A lot was talked about on JDP IQS a while ago. I decided to take another look and see where Kia stacked up. Although Hyundai was closer to the top, above Toyota and still below Honda, Kia ranked near the bottom (but better than Nissan and Mazda). Kia vehicles are virtually identical to Hyundai (the parent company) under the skin yet they are so different in rankings! These are good reasons I would not place my bets based on JDP IQS.
A company like Honda that has built such amazing brand equity and a loyal following SHOULD expand its brand into every market segment. It's shortsighted of them not to.
Actually, that was my point. Honda has been focusing on light truck segment more than in cars, to balance out the sales. Once Honda has a near normal split of sales between cars and light trucks (about 50-50), I can only imagine there will be more focus on smaller cars. AHM is almost there.
Element and CRV duo serve the purpose well for young guns. Odyssey is a great success story, and it should get better with the redesign this year. Even with new releases lately, and in its sixth year, it still ranked #2 in Edmunds’ Comparison and #1 in C&D’s latest minivan comparison. Pilot is doing its job well. MDX is a success story as well.
Acura is due to get a smaller SUV (RDX?) shortly, and Honda will get a pickup. To me it looks like Honda is addressing a much wider audience now than it did just 4-5 years ago.
Regarding ladder-frame pickups, too much deal is made out of it. Seeing where Honda is now, I don’t think it would be smart move for them to invest in that direction. While the Honda pickup isn’t going to be a monster hauler, it should serve the purpose most people need, if not they want.
And then, at some point, when the current vehicles reach a saturation point, and “ladder frame” based trucks become a marketing necessity, I don’t see why Honda wouldn’t venture into that area.
But by putting their resources into SH-AWD, they delayed entering markets 4 and 5 above plus they ignored the enthusiast market which demands RWD (market 6).
May be I don’t understand “enthusiast market”. Or may be I do, because I want performance vehicles from Honda/Acura. SH-AWD is a clear example of Honda’s talent and effort. To offer AWD in RL, Acura could have done away with offering the AWD system (VTM-4) from MDX. But no, they went a step or two further, and enhanced the VTM-4 to deliver a system that promises excellent performance. This is smart investment (as long as it delivers what it promises to).
I am not saying they are there yet but they are getting there and it will show in sales and the numbers seen on the road. All I am saying is the top dogs better keep on their toes and deliver a product that does not out price the class. If they don't and they are skirting it then what happened then sure can happen now.
"BTW, I'm certainly not disagreeing that looks are a part of the equation. To the contrary, I rather insist they are. But a Camry? In '95, I'd have believed that no problem, but a new Camry?"
Yup, a new Camry. I personally don't like the the looks of the Camry or Accord, but if I had to choose, it'd be the Camry.
"In '95, I'd have believed that no problem, but a new Camry?"
In 95, the Accord looked better than the Camry IMO.
"What's your point? We bought our Accord without considering the Camry or I35."
My point is that the Accord potentially lost of couple of buyers (me and my parents) because of it's looks. The Accord is arguably better overall than either the Camry or I35. It hauls butt, gets decent gas mileage, handles well, rides well, and is somewhat fun to drive. The same can't be said of either the I35 or Camry. And to prove that looks do matter: My parents bought the more expensive I35 over the Maxima on looks alone, even though the two cars are essentially identical (at least the last gen Maxima). They didn't need the power sun shade, leather, heated seats, or the Infiniti name, but my Dad thought the Maximas (new and old one) were hideous.
This is the first downturn noted in Honda's performance in forever, and for the first time also, we're noticing decontenting and limiting going on in Honda, which makes them somewhat non-competitive. They've always been slow on engine size, but overcame it with dogged dependability. Now, transmissions are failing, the wishbone is gone, and looks seem to have taken a wierd turn. Sales are showing it. The question is, will they recover shortly, or continue to emulate an American car maker in their approach to cars?
Looks like this thread has been hot lately. Honda will be just fine. Keep in mind, the Accord has been on the 10 best list much longer than any other car, including the false BMW ad claiming their 3 series has been on it for an "unprecedented" 13 years. The Accord has 18 under its belt. I guess they meant unprecedented for a BMW. Considering the direction of the market, I think it would be rather unwise for Honda to start worrying about a ladder frame. That would cost a TON of money, and it seems like most of the market is moving towards unibody SUVs. People that buy Chevys and Fords arent going to cross shop a Honda anyway, and there's no way Honda would release a truck that gets 12mpg. That's completely against the company's entire values.
is now running TV ads in my area for Accord LX leases: $239/month with $1000 down.
Or I can get a BMW 325i sedan for $289/month with about $4800 down.
And Civic leases are running even cheaper - $159/month. Wow.
I can't remember the last time I have seen American Honda pushing its cars as hard as it is now. But clearly, they are not the only ones having to do so. The local dealer is still offering $8000 off every Vette on the lot.
Remember that until the current Corolla came out and brought with it the very popular Matrix wagon (note that there is no wagon version of the Civic in the U.S.), Civic led the compact sales charts....
Sales are off, but they look pretty good in and of themselves...it is just that some past years were extra hot. I think Civic would reclaim the compact prize if they brought over the European Civic five-door hatch for U.S. sale. Clearly this is a segment that is taking off big time - why let Toyota, Pontiac, and Ford have that whole pie?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The BMW may have been referring to consecutive wins. The Accord 94-97 had only one or two years on the 10 Best list. That said, I think youd be hard pressed to correlate Car and Drivers Ten Best list with sales and profit margins. They've put some really questionable cars on that list in the past, as well... (wasnt the Renault GTA on the list in the 80s???)
Overall, I think Honda is fine. However, I do have a few comments:
On the current Civic: 1) It is definitely an improvement over the previous generation. 2) It is not as competitive in its market segement as it once was, nor does the Civic model range compete in as many segments of that market. That said, after a recent test drive of the Mazda 3, it is far and away my first choice in the segment. For the conservative crowd, I think the Corolla does it better than others. Honda needs to be serious with the next Civic, it left the door wide open with this one.
On the Accord: 3) IMO, the Accord is hardly styled offensively, and I have a hard time believing the marginal sales decline of late is due exclusively to styling. I think its a function of the ultra-competitive market, and I feel increased pressure from the sporting faction (think Altima, 6) is increased on the Accord. 4) Overall, the competition for 2005 will keep the Accord on its heels
On Acura: 5) Acura is on a roll. Period. TSX, TL, the next RL. Great engines, great chassis, agressive lines that are distinctly Acura. Honda's brightest spot.
On the entry market: 6) Where is Honda? Seriously? Scion sold 5700 units in April, in only 24 states. Thats 70,000 units a year. Honda loyalists dont tell me that these sales arent coming from Honda at all. The Civic used to compete in the entry level and tuner markets. Now it sells well in neither.
Hondas not in trouble, but if its going to stick with a cars only orientation, it might want to increase its lead, and be substantially qualitatively better than the competition, as it was in the past. The Civic isnt on top any more, and the Accords lead is narrow. AND, theres nothing at the bottom of the market, save the highly undesirable Civic VP.
And once again I ask you to substantiate your claim that you can get a comparably equipped car for $8,000 less than an Accord. Since it seems that you don't want to back up that statement I looked around and there is no car, even if you consider rebates, that can be had for $8,000 less once it is comparably equipped to the Accord.
Sure the average American buying a midsize sedan may not care about skid pad numbers, 0-60 times, etc but those practical people probably do care about safety. I know there is no way I could put a dollar value on the safety of my husband and my one month old son. Those same people probably also care about efficiency. None of the lower-tier sedans can match the class leaders (Accord, Camry) in this area.
Sure you can load up an Accord with the 240HP V6 and NAV for $28,000 but that is still less than a Camry, Altima, and Passat with the same options. The Accord is hardly the most expensive sedan in it's class. The most popular Accord is the LX which can be had for around $18,000. Honda does charge for air conditioning but only on the DX Accord which can be had for $13,900. Body-side moldings are standard on the Accord so I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say you have to pay extra for them.
I think the increased sales numbers of Korean vehicles has more to do with pricing, warranties, and advetising than anhything else. Yes, the quality has improved, but not close to Honda and Toyota yet.
Their marketing strategy is pretty slick as well. Hyundai and Kia are always running TV ads telling us how their vehicles offer more than those from Honda and Toyota for a lot less money, and they come with a better warranty. A lot of people bite on this stuff hook, line, and sinker. It doesn't take much research to find out how silly these comparisons really are. It's like trying to compare pollock fish to lobster.
I know exactly what you mean. I've seen the Kia Sedona vs. Toyota Sienna ad several times, trying to compare those two is laughable. The Sienna is the best on the market, period. The Sedona is several years old, has almost none of the features, gets crap for mileage because 1. its significantly overweight, and 2. it uses the same V6 Hyundai has been using for WAY too long. You'll notice whenever they say "V6" power, they never mention actual horsepower, as they pretty much come in last, with the exception of the sorry lump of 184hp pushrod that powers Chevy's embarrasment.
I agree it's all inclusive when it comes to sales. Honda does not need help with quality and I don't think their in grave trouble at least not yet, but I would look for things like better finance options and more standard options on the cars. This should be good news for consumers and make no mistake this is compition driven. And make no mistake they can be knocked from their perch if they don't react to the compition. I know it's just initial quality but the JD Powers survey has some merit. We all would like to think that a great performing car would be the best seller, but this is not always the case. What I am saying is a long term runner with a great warranty can pose a threat to be taken seriously.
I hope you're right. Personally I think Hondas and Toyotas have gotten to be a bit overpriced lately ad something like this could bring their prices back down to reality. Whether they end up lowering prices, or adding more standard features, either way the consumer wins.
but I would look for things like better finance options
Honda is offering 1.9-2.9% financing on Accords, and 2.9% on Civics, with no cash incentives. Now, this is not as good as those from Hyundai/Kia ($2000-2500, 0%) or Nissan (Upto $1500, 0% to 2.9%) or Mazda ($1500, 0.9%). Probably because Honda is still managing to move its inventory without being too aggressive. So, that addresses part of the topic.
IMO, Accord LX would be more comparable to Sonata GLS V6. Initially, the Accord LX may cost about a grand more (adding ABS to the Hyundai since it is an option). But considering “city mileage estimate” for cost of gas in five years (60K miles), and ALG residual for the car’s resale value after five years (35% for Accord, 26% for Sonata), Accord LX turns out to be $2K less expensive. In fact, doing the same math using base (four banger Sonata), although that car would be $2.5K cheaper to buy compared to Accord LX, it would end up being $500 more expensive in five years.
To me, the "initial" saving is worthless, if I compromise quality and refinement to get it. And I won't.
and more standard options on the cars.
Funny that you bring this up. Would you have faux wood as a standard option, or ABS as one? Hyundai/Kia have done something that amuses me quite a bit. They don't go for the items that don't show up in looks as standard items. ABS is standard even in the stripped Accord DX. Accord LX accounts for half of the sales, and at $18,500, it is a great car, equipped with just about everything one needs (incl a refined engine).
On the entry market: 6) Where is Honda? Seriously? Scion sold 5700 units in April, in only 24 states. Thats 70,000 units a year. Honda loyalists dont tell me that these sales arent coming from Honda at all. The Civic used to compete in the entry level and tuner markets. Now it sells well in neither.
Really? At the end of April, the year-to-date sales of Civic are up 5.6% compared to a year ago, and at the current pace, Honda would be able to move 300-310K units of Civic. That has been the upper side of Civic territory. Not bad for a car that is due for redesign next year.
Going back to entry level offerings, Honda has definitely moved away from it, and focused on $15-30K price range, mainly light trucks (CRV, Element, Odyssey and Pilot) and rightfully so. That’s where the meat is.
In the near future, I expect Honda to re-establish focus at the low end (potentially with the highly successful, Jazz). That one car may single handedly compete with Scion brand, while filling in for the low end Civics that are no longer offered (the Civic CX and DX hatch). It is based off a low cost platform, so Jazz should comfortably sit in $10-14K price range, while Civic continues to serve the $14-18K price class.
Comments
Why not a new line of nifty, nimble little Honda sprinters?
;-)
Now, cash incentives and rebates may be another issue. Any automaker would offer more incentives to attract customers. An automaker not doing that may not be having trouble finding buyers. A while ago, someone pointed out that Accord is trailing Camry in terms of sales. Considering that 12-15% of Camry sales go to fleet (compared to less than 2% for Accord), it appears, Accord appeals to more individual (like you and me) than does the “best selling car” in America. And that is not a bad trade off.
Unlike you, I understand why Honda was criticized for getting rid of the front wishbone suspension. The front wishbone suspension was one of the things that made the Civic special and unique compared the competition.
With the redesign in 2001, Honda had the rear suspension not match up to the front (note that the rear is still double wishbone), and addressed that with the 2002 model.
Civic Si is also a car that handles very well, and doesn't give up much in terms of ride either.
Back in 1997 (comparison of Civic and Escort)
Let's talk about power. I happened to drive the Honda before the Ford and was duly impressed with its pick up and go ... until the next morning when the Escort blew me down the road like a kite in high winds--an experience I'm familiar with having lived in downtown Chicago. Both powertrains are acceptable for the size of the cars, but if you want a little more pizzazz in your commute, the Ford will deliver.
Sounds like, “power” was never Civic’s selling point.
The Honda started off zippy, but ran out of steam in the upper gears. Others thought the Ford was a bit thrashy.
But something was!
Handling on both cars was rated mediocre
Double wishbone or not? Back then, the Civic did have double wishbone, didn’t it?
A year forward (1998 Comparison, Civic to Escort ZX2)
In contrast, the Honda fared poorly in the fun-to-drive department.
Even with double wishbones?
Where the Civic shines is in design and engineering details.
That’s being consistent a year later.
Fast forward to the “new Civic” (2003 Road Test Comparison)
As it was the most expensive car in the test, it might seem as though the Honda should've won, but even after points were deducted for its lofty price tag, the Civic EX still managed to come out on top. What made the difference? Refinement, build quality and a well-trimmed interior were the most often cited reasons for the Civic's first-place finish. If you're looking for an inexpensive sedan that doesn't look or feel that way, the Civic is the one.
More consistency. But what about handling, because double wishbone was missing up front now? Based on the two earlier tests, not handling, but refinement and balance was praised in the Civic. What about now, that it was compared to cars like Protégé and Sentra?
The Civic's ride and handling are two more areas where it earned high marks from our editors. It's more tightly controlled than the Elantra and Corolla, yet more forgiving than either the Protegé or the Sentra. In other words, the Civic strikes the best balance between ride comfort and road feel. Heavy insulation makes for a quiet cabin, while the solid steering feel keeps you well apprised of the road conditions below.
Sounds like lack or presence of double wishbones has little to do with the overall packaging. Does it?
If only they would ressurect the CRX.....
I don't because I don't know which references you are refering to.
"Beyond fundamentals, great cars are also the result of pleasing choices. Maybe this Civic is trying too hard for sporty handling. It does very well on that score, but the ride has gotten harsh. Noisy, too."
"Moreover, path control on the freeway is nowhere near as sharp as Civics used to be"
"Of the various changes made to the Civic range, the most surprising is Honda's adoption of a strut-type front suspension. The engineers say it helped them shorten the nose (by enabling them to raise the steering gearbox) and also improve impact-absorption performance. Good reasons both, yet we feel slightly disappointed at the disappearance of Honda's elegant and nimble double-control-arm setup."
Hmmmmm...
Maybe BMW's front strut setup works a little better than Hondas? Hmmm....
;-)
Nah, the 2002 is still pretty harsh. My brother has one.
People always bring up BMW when someone starts talking about Honda getting rid of the wishbone front on the Civic. "if it's good enough for BMW, it must be good enough for the Civic" is the reasoning here.
Well, if the Civic handled and rode anwhere close to a 3 series, I could see where you are coming from, but...
I am making a bold prediction via sorcery and witchcraft that any new product by Honda "would have" the edge over any Korean counterpart.
Crusty riding Hondas? Say it ain't so! I agree and a comparo done by C&D a little while back had one of the editors lamenting the same subject. I don't have it in front of me but I believe the gist wat that the newest Accord was less adept at soaking up road irregularites but did not gain any handling prowess for the trade off.
Honda could offer low end models, a price class Civic no longer belongs in with the demise of the basic hatchback version, and probably will shortly. But for now, the company seems to be focusing on balancing sales between cars and light trucks to a normal level. With the rumored arrival of Jazz, Honda might do just that. A car that would compete with low cost Hyundai/Kia, Suzuki and GM offerings, while potentially be more refined than all of them. And it would also target Scion at the same time.
If memory serves me correctly, this was a comment from either MT or C&D when they did their "first look". The comparisons that both magazines ran on production vehicles had high praise for the suspension tuning, saying it produces a firmly damped but comfortable ride and well controlled handling.
For example, here's what C&D said in their mainstream sedan comparo, which the Accord won:
"The Accord's supple ride seems to do little to harm its canyon-carving potential, and the lightness of its controls fails to blur the accuracy of their operation."
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article- _id=1807&page_number=10
As I mentioned earlier, Honda did see a dip in operating income last year, but the net income was up. And this is despite of a slump in Japanese market, since Honda is doing much better in Europe now, and has been selling at record levels in North America. Honda’s forecast shows a continued dip in operating income for next year primarily because of exchange rate (yen to dollar) but sales are at an all time high.
That said, I don’t want to see Honda getting too comfortable with its position, but “continuing to slip” sounds like an exaggeration. Honda has been setting record sales, and staying close to a level the company never achieved before isn’t an indication of “continuing to slip” to me.
Being among the youngest of the bunch and independent, Honda has to play smart in a competitive market. Mazda and Nissan can tap resources of their parent companies (Ford and Renault respectively), VW, Toyota, Daimler Chrysler and GM have had plenty of resources of their own to start with. There go the companies that are larger than Honda today. BMW, is in similar position as Honda (not age wise, but resource wise), so they have to be smart as well.
I agree that looks are subjective and I'm sure there are people who like the look of the new Accord. In my circle though, I know several people who have elected to buy the Camry over the Accord based on looks alone. Accord sales are down and given that it's the class standard in terms of driveability, reliability, features and price (yes I know Hyundai's are cheaper and are closing the reliability gap, but they're still not in Honda's class yet), I have to believe that it's because of the looks.
IMO, for a mass market family sedan, it's preferable to have a blander looking car b/c a key element in mass sales is offending as few people as possible. Polarizing styling and mass market just don't go together. Honda clearly dropped the ball on this one.
I'll stay away from the Civic's decontenting b/c honestly, I have not ridden in the new generation Civics. However, I've driven the older generation Civic hatchback tons of times and it's handling and road feel are amazing for such an affordable car.
I'm sure you're correct that other car makers have decontented their smaller economy cars as well, but as one poster correctly pointed out, Honda made a huge deal about the double wishbone suspension. The market believed the Civic handled better because it had the suspension set up of more expensive cars. So if there is a difference in ride quality, people will naturally blame the removal of the double wishbone.
As for Honda's business strategy, I can't agree with you at all. Fact is, big trucks and big SUVs are a huge profit center for the Domestic 2.5. A company like Honda that has built such amazing brand equity and a loyal following SHOULD expand its brand into every market segment. It's shortsighted of them not to.
I've driven Civics, liked 'em and bought an Acura MDX. When my family grows and I need a bigger car, I won't even be able to consider a Honda offering b/c they refuse to make bigger truck/SUVs with ladder on frames. A company of Honda's size and reputation should be thinking along these lines:
1. Hook 'em on Civics when they're in high school;
2. Get 'em in Accords in their 20s.
3. Get 'em in Honda/Acuras in their 20s and 30s, combo of Accord/TL and Odyssey/Pilot/MDX etc.
4. Get dad a big truck if he needs it to tow boats or do other work.
5. Offer bigger SUVs as the family grows.
Right now, when I hit stage 4 and 5 in my life, Honda has nothing to offer me, and I like Hondas and Acuras.
Maybe Honda doesn't need RWD if its SH-AWD technology works out, we'll have to wait and see. But by putting their resources into SH-AWD, they delayed entering markets 4 and 5 above plus they ignored the enthusiast market which demands RWD (market 6).
They may later be able to move into markets 4-6 using SH-AWD, but they've delayed a long time and now they'll have to fight tooth and nail to grab market share from strongly entrenched Domestic 2.5 plus Toyota and Nissan.
Also, in the lux market, they don't care about gas prices. It's nothing compared to what they're shelling out on the car plus maintenance, insurance, etc.
BINGO!
I have a bunch of Honda lover friends and none of them likes the way the new Accord looks. My parents just got two new cars recently, a Camry, and an I35. My Dad didn't even check the Accord out, even though it's probably a better car overall than the Camry or I35. Why? Didn't like the way it looked. Same deal with me and my Mazda6. I didn't even give the Accord a chance, even though it trumps the Mazda6 in many categories.
Now that's funny!
BTW, I'm certainly not disagreeing that looks are a part of the equation. To the contrary, I rather insist they are. But a Camry? In '95, I'd have believed that no problem, but a new Camry?
}-]
Regarding looks, Accord sedan still follows a conservative styling. Honestly, I can’t see much about it that I dislike. May be a more subtle tail lamp is all that the sedan needs. The more closely I look at it, the more I like it. I simply love its front and front to side profile. While Camry is more conservative, I just don’t have a taste for its styling elements. It is just too boxy and upright.
Between Sonata and Accord, IMO, price wise they are similar, except that you could get a “V6” with the Hyundai. However, that V6 is only for namesake. I would take the Accord I-4 over it, any day. That Hyundai V6 feels strained and breathless. And lacks the refinement that the Accord I-4 delivers. Unless it was the car itself, but after having driven a Sonata for 5000 miles, I have nothing good to say about its dynamics either. May be someday, Hyundai will improve upon these aspects and still offer these cars for a good price.
A lot was talked about on JDP IQS a while ago. I decided to take another look and see where Kia stacked up. Although Hyundai was closer to the top, above Toyota and still below Honda, Kia ranked near the bottom (but better than Nissan and Mazda). Kia vehicles are virtually identical to Hyundai (the parent company) under the skin yet they are so different in rankings! These are good reasons I would not place my bets based on JDP IQS.
A company like Honda that has built such amazing brand equity and a loyal following SHOULD expand its brand into every market segment. It's shortsighted of them not to.
Actually, that was my point. Honda has been focusing on light truck segment more than in cars, to balance out the sales. Once Honda has a near normal split of sales between cars and light trucks (about 50-50), I can only imagine there will be more focus on smaller cars. AHM is almost there.
Element and CRV duo serve the purpose well for young guns.
Odyssey is a great success story, and it should get better with the redesign this year. Even with new releases lately, and in its sixth year, it still ranked #2 in Edmunds’ Comparison and #1 in C&D’s latest minivan comparison.
Pilot is doing its job well.
MDX is a success story as well.
Acura is due to get a smaller SUV (RDX?) shortly, and Honda will get a pickup. To me it looks like Honda is addressing a much wider audience now than it did just 4-5 years ago.
Regarding ladder-frame pickups, too much deal is made out of it. Seeing where Honda is now, I don’t think it would be smart move for them to invest in that direction. While the Honda pickup isn’t going to be a monster hauler, it should serve the purpose most people need, if not they want.
And then, at some point, when the current vehicles reach a saturation point, and “ladder frame” based trucks become a marketing necessity, I don’t see why Honda wouldn’t venture into that area.
But by putting their resources into SH-AWD, they delayed entering markets 4 and 5 above plus they ignored the enthusiast market which demands RWD (market 6).
May be I don’t understand “enthusiast market”. Or may be I do, because I want performance vehicles from Honda/Acura. SH-AWD is a clear example of Honda’s talent and effort. To offer AWD in RL, Acura could have done away with offering the AWD system (VTM-4) from MDX. But no, they went a step or two further, and enhanced the VTM-4 to deliver a system that promises excellent performance. This is smart investment (as long as it delivers what it promises to).
Yup, a new Camry. I personally don't like the the looks of the Camry or Accord, but if I had to choose, it'd be the Camry.
"In '95, I'd have believed that no problem, but a new Camry?"
In 95, the Accord looked better than the Camry IMO.
"What's your point? We bought our Accord without considering the Camry or I35."
My point is that the Accord potentially lost of couple of buyers (me and my parents) because of it's looks. The Accord is arguably better overall than either the Camry or I35. It hauls butt, gets decent gas mileage, handles well, rides well, and is somewhat fun to drive. The same can't be said of either the I35 or Camry. And to prove that looks do matter: My parents bought the more expensive I35 over the Maxima on looks alone, even though the two cars are essentially identical (at least the last gen Maxima). They didn't need the power sun shade, leather, heated seats, or the Infiniti name, but my Dad thought the Maximas (new and old one) were hideous.
Or I can get a BMW 325i sedan for $289/month with about $4800 down.
And Civic leases are running even cheaper - $159/month. Wow.
I can't remember the last time I have seen American Honda pushing its cars as hard as it is now. But clearly, they are not the only ones having to do so. The local dealer is still offering $8000 off every Vette on the lot.
Remember that until the current Corolla came out and brought with it the very popular Matrix wagon (note that there is no wagon version of the Civic in the U.S.), Civic led the compact sales charts....
Sales are off, but they look pretty good in and of themselves...it is just that some past years were extra hot. I think Civic would reclaim the compact prize if they brought over the European Civic five-door hatch for U.S. sale. Clearly this is a segment that is taking off big time - why let Toyota, Pontiac, and Ford have that whole pie?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Overall, I think Honda is fine. However, I do have a few comments:
On the current Civic:
1) It is definitely an improvement over the previous generation.
2) It is not as competitive in its market segement as it once was, nor does the Civic model range compete in as many segments of that market. That said, after a recent test drive of the Mazda 3, it is far and away my first choice in the segment. For the conservative crowd, I think the Corolla does it better than others. Honda needs to be serious with the next Civic, it left the door wide open with this one.
On the Accord:
3) IMO, the Accord is hardly styled offensively, and I have a hard time believing the marginal sales decline of late is due exclusively to styling. I think its a function of the ultra-competitive market, and I feel increased pressure from the sporting faction (think Altima, 6) is increased on the Accord.
4) Overall, the competition for 2005 will keep the Accord on its heels
On Acura:
5) Acura is on a roll. Period. TSX, TL, the next RL. Great engines, great chassis, agressive lines that are distinctly Acura. Honda's brightest spot.
On the entry market:
6) Where is Honda? Seriously? Scion sold 5700 units in April, in only 24 states. Thats 70,000 units a year. Honda loyalists dont tell me that these sales arent coming from Honda at all. The Civic used to compete in the entry level and tuner markets. Now it sells well in neither.
Hondas not in trouble, but if its going to stick with a cars only orientation, it might want to increase its lead, and be substantially qualitatively better than the competition, as it was in the past. The Civic isnt on top any more, and the Accords lead is narrow. AND, theres nothing at the bottom of the market, save the highly undesirable Civic VP.
~alpha
Sure the average American buying a midsize sedan may not care about skid pad numbers, 0-60 times, etc but those practical people probably do care about safety. I know there is no way I could put a dollar value on the safety of my husband and my one month old son. Those same people probably also care about efficiency. None of the lower-tier sedans can match the class leaders (Accord, Camry) in this area.
Sure you can load up an Accord with the 240HP V6 and NAV for $28,000 but that is still less than a Camry, Altima, and Passat with the same options. The Accord is hardly the most expensive sedan in it's class. The most popular Accord is the LX which can be had for around $18,000. Honda does charge for air conditioning but only on the DX Accord which can be had for $13,900. Body-side moldings are standard on the Accord so I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say you have to pay extra for them.
Their marketing strategy is pretty slick as well. Hyundai and Kia are always running TV ads telling us how their vehicles offer more than those from Honda and Toyota for a lot less money, and they come with a better warranty. A lot of people bite on this stuff hook, line, and sinker. It doesn't take much research to find out how silly these comparisons really are. It's like trying to compare pollock fish to lobster.
but I would look for things like better finance options
Honda is offering 1.9-2.9% financing on Accords, and 2.9% on Civics, with no cash incentives. Now, this is not as good as those from Hyundai/Kia ($2000-2500, 0%) or Nissan (Upto $1500, 0% to 2.9%) or Mazda ($1500, 0.9%). Probably because Honda is still managing to move its inventory without being too aggressive. So, that addresses part of the topic.
IMO, Accord LX would be more comparable to Sonata GLS V6. Initially, the Accord LX may cost about a grand more (adding ABS to the Hyundai since it is an option). But considering “city mileage estimate” for cost of gas in five years (60K miles), and ALG residual for the car’s resale value after five years (35% for Accord, 26% for Sonata), Accord LX turns out to be $2K less expensive. In fact, doing the same math using base (four banger Sonata), although that car would be $2.5K cheaper to buy compared to Accord LX, it would end up being $500 more expensive in five years.
To me, the "initial" saving is worthless, if I compromise quality and refinement to get it. And I won't.
and more standard options on the cars.
Funny that you bring this up. Would you have faux wood as a standard option, or ABS as one? Hyundai/Kia have done something that amuses me quite a bit. They don't go for the items that don't show up in looks as standard items. ABS is standard even in the stripped Accord DX. Accord LX accounts for half of the sales, and at $18,500, it is a great car, equipped with just about everything one needs (incl a refined engine).
6) Where is Honda? Seriously? Scion sold 5700 units in April, in only 24 states. Thats 70,000 units a year. Honda loyalists dont tell me that these sales arent coming from Honda at all. The Civic used to compete in the entry level and tuner markets. Now it sells well in neither.
Really? At the end of April, the year-to-date sales of Civic are up 5.6% compared to a year ago, and at the current pace, Honda would be able to move 300-310K units of Civic. That has been the upper side of Civic territory. Not bad for a car that is due for redesign next year.
Going back to entry level offerings, Honda has definitely moved away from it, and focused on $15-30K price range, mainly light trucks (CRV, Element, Odyssey and Pilot) and rightfully so. That’s where the meat is.
In the near future, I expect Honda to re-establish focus at the low end (potentially with the highly successful, Jazz). That one car may single handedly compete with Scion brand, while filling in for the low end Civics that are no longer offered (the Civic CX and DX hatch). It is based off a low cost platform, so Jazz should comfortably sit in $10-14K price range, while Civic continues to serve the $14-18K price class.