Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Has Honda's run - run out?

14445474950153

Comments

  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    The Accord doesn't "need" 240HP. In fact, the top-selling variant is the 160HP LX automatic.

    The S2000 is a sports car.

    The RSX is a sporty up-level coupe.

    The Odyssey is 4,000+ lbs, can haul 7 people, and it can tow 3500 lbs.

    The TL is a premium sedan meant to compete with the G35's and 3-series.

    The Civic is pretty much a commuter car or bought by small/young families who want safe reliable transportation. 0-60 times are way down on their priority list. The typical Civic buyer wants it to look good (which it does), get great gas mileage (which it does), be safe (which it is), and have enough power to get them where they are going or cruise on the highway easily (which it also does).

    If it's that important to you newcar and the 06 Civic does not get the 2.4L then don't buy one (it's not like you would anyways). But using your logic, all mid-size sedans should be sold with the biggest most-powerful engine available which would rule out 4 cylinder mid-size sedans.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Member Posts: 1,696
    whoo. Just finished reading all this and my brain hurts.

    It is simple guys. Newcar thinks that the 2.4 should be an option in the Civic and I agree. No not every civic that rolls of the line would need it. Just enough to sell to the people that want it. Believe it or not Anon, people do buy cheap small cars AND want whatever performance (handling and power) they can get ;-)

    Pretty simple really. It isn't Honda bashing at all.
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    My point is that the Civic can attain the same performance/economy numbers with a 2.0L while leaving the 2.4L for use in the Accord. Why use the 2.4 if you don't have to? I understand the flip-side is "why not use it if you can?" I think it would be entirely uncharacteristic of Honda to use the 2.4 in the Civic but who knows they might prove me wrong. Guess it's wait and see time.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Well, to make the point, the K20A gets better mileage than K24A! How does that go with your idea? Heck, Accord V6 gets better highway mileage than TSX (6MT). So now, TSX should use V6.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Member Posts: 1,696
    I don't see it as same performance:

    2.4L
    160 hp @ 5500 rpm
    Torque 161 ft-lbs. @ 4500 rpm

    2.0L
    160 hp @ 6500 rpm
    132 ft-lbs. @ 5000 rpm

    The 2.4 L developes 30 more lb/ft of torque at 500 rpm lower. Same horsepower comes on 1000 rpm lower.

    If you put those two motors in the same car, you would feel the power difference. The 2.4 would feel more powerfull and be less effected by additional passenger weight. Would be a great optional motor to compete against the Mazda 3 and Focus ST. Would feel much more powerfull than the 180hp Corolla that is out now as well.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    You would feel difference in power because K24A has a stronger low end. But it is anybody's guess at this point if it will (or won't) affect Civic's chassis and weight.

    BTW, the K20A in RSX (base) is rated: 160 HP @ 6500 rpm, 141 lb.-ft @ 4000 rpm.

    That said, speculation has begun. At this point, I would bet on the engine I mentioned earlier... "K20B" (the "rumor" refers to it as Direct Injection engine). K20B is currently sold in JDM Honda Stream and is rated 15% better than K20A in fuel economy (and actually better than D17A as well, which is also offered as the base engine).

    In Civic, K20B could achieve 30+ mpg while delivering 150-160 HP. And that would be... typical Honda!

    PS. And is Corolla getting its 170 HP from 1.8 or from 2.4? Nobody seems to talk about that! It wouldn't take much to have Civic "GS-R" (as I would like to call it) have 190-200 HP.
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    To further prove Honda can tune the engine to serve whatever purpose it needs:

    2004 Acura TSX 6-speed (with the 2.4):
    22 city/29 highway

    2005 Acura RSX-S 6-speed (with the 2.0):
    24 city/31 highway

    They produce nearly the same HP (200HP for the TSX vs. 210HP for the 2005 RSX-S. So the 2.0L can be tuned to get similar HP and better MPG than the 2.4. Both are great engines, I just feel the 2.0L is more suitable for the Civic .. maybe even a 1.8L.
  • newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    "But using your logic, all mid-size sedans should be sold with the biggest most-powerful engine available which would rule out 4 cylinder mid-size sedans."

    Again, I never said the 2.4L should be standard in the Civic. I never said that. OK?

    "Well, to make the point, the K20A gets better mileage than K24A!"

    In what cars?

    "To further prove Honda can tune the engine to serve whatever purpose it needs:

    2004 Acura TSX 6-speed (with the 2.4):
    22 city/29 highway

    2005 Acura RSX-S 6-speed (with the 2.0):
    24 city/31 highway"

    Did you forget that the TSX is about 450 lbs heavier than the RSX?

    Geez. This is too easy.
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    Even if you adjust for the weight difference the TSX/RSX are producing similar numbers.
  • newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    "Even if you adjust for the weight difference the TSX/RSX are producing similar numbers."

    Really?

    The TSX is pulling around 450 extra pounds.

    Just curious. If you threw the TSX drivetrain into the RSX, how fast do you think the RSX would be and what mileage would it get?

    Think about that.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    Honda is slipping because they aren't playing the power game? Or are we saying that Honda isn't slipping everyone is is just getting better? Maybe we are saying it is too soon to tell one way or the other. For a While Honda was the Number two manufacturer in Japan and sold more Accords in the US than anyone else sold sedans. Today that is not true. At one time the Civic received nothing but praise from almost all can magazines and now they are being criticized for a lower build quality. Or is it the same build quality and everyone is just getting better? At one time the Civic SI was the leader of the pocket rockets and today they are at the back of the pack. All things have happened. How are we supposed to evaluate this?

    The real question isn't if Honda is a good company it is if Honda if running out of steam? Why did Nissan catch them in Japan and why did Toyota Camry outsell them in the US? Lastly, from a enthusiasts perspective what made Honda decide to let the Sentra, Focus, Neon and Corolla XRS have all the spotlight?

    This is the same company that gave us the origional SI and CRX and even the Prelude. They were pretty bold moves for their time. The Ford guys got the Focus SVT for a time, the Nissan guys got the Spec v back and the neon guys got the SRT. Honda fanatics cried for the Civic type R but didn't even get a nibble and the SI hatch looks to be dying on the vine. What has happened?
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    Who knows. It might be heavier. In cars the size of the RSX and TSX every pound counts. The Si has been criticized for being "porky". I do know that it would be more than a matter of just swapping the engines out. It could cause the interior room to go down. Who knows. It might be faster. Who knows. But Honda doesn't "need" the 2.4L to make the RSX go fast .. it does a good enough job of that with the 2.0L.

    I just think it's hilarious that you are so obsessed with this.
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    "why did Toyota Camry outsell them in the US?"

    This one is easy. Rebates and rentals. Even now you can get $750 cash back on the 2005 Camry and they have 1.9% financing available. Toyota sells 10-12% to fleets while Honda hovers =/- 2%.

    The Sentra and Corolla both have axles, the SRT will always be a Neon no matter how fast it is, and the Focus is ... a Focus. They are all competent cars but hardly head and shoulders above the Civic/Civic SI.

    Honda/Acura have given us a 6-speed Accord coupe, the TSX, the 6-speed TL, and the S2000. As nice as the original Si and Prelude were they were no nicer for their time than the above-mentioned cars are for theirs.
  • npaladin2000npaladin2000 Member Posts: 593
    "The Sentra and Corolla both have axles, the SRT will always be a Neon no matter how fast it is, and the Focus is ... a Focus. They are all competent cars but hardly head and shoulders above the Civic/Civic SI."

    Have you even DRIVEN a Focus? Or even it's second-cousin, the Mazda3?

    I'll agree the Focus started off ugly, with recalls. But it also hit the same market that Honda had always shot for with Civic. Small, fun to drive, with decent performance and fuel economy. And once they became more reliable, and ESPECIALLY now that they've un-screwed the looks, it's a great competitor. It's also available CHEAPER than the Civic, and you can get lower-line models with ABS. That's important to people because it brings an insurance discount (BIG screwup by Honda with ABS availability).

    Civic used to be king of compacts, but competition is a LOT stiffer now. The Neon isn't as bad of a vehicle as it can be and it DOES have a great suspension and steering setup. The Focus is lightyears ahead of it, with experience developed from rally-racing the Focus chassis, just like Subaru with the Impreza. So between Impreza, Focus, and 3, you've got great fun to drive compact cars. With Neon...well, you've got an attempt to be like that, though execution leaves much to be desired, like power rear windows. ;) Who knows how the new Cobalt will stack up in this area as well?

    Back in the "olden days" Honda's Civic had it easy. They were competing with the Cavalier (snort), an Escort that went too far from it's Mazda roots, and...well, the same freaking Neon with no ability to have power rear windows. ;) (Lucky for Honda back then that Protege never registered on anyone's radar). But the competition has stiffened considerably.

    It might not be so much of a case of Honda running out of steam. It may be more of a case of Honda taking their usual pace at a time when the rest of the industry is maing a huge leap forward. If Cobaly offers the same quality and fun to drive factor as a Focus or 3 or Impreza, then the horse race DEFINITELY has gotten interesting. Then it will depend on the next re-design of the Civic, and if Honda can make a great leap forward as well, or even just keep up.
  • newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    "Civic used to be king of compacts, but competition is a LOT stiffer now."

    Here's something to think about.

    Most powerful engine available, compact sedans:

    1994 Nissan Sentra-110 hp
    2005 Nissan Sentra-175 hp

    1994 Mazda Protege-125 hp
    2005 Mazda3-160 hp

    1994 Toyota Corolla-115 hp
    2005 Toyota Corolla-170 hp

    1994 Mitsubishi Mirage-113 hp
    2005 Mitsubishi Lancer-160-300 hp

    1994 Honda Civic-125 hp
    2005 Honda Civic-127 hp
  • driftracerdriftracer Member Posts: 2,448
    good point.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    the Mazda3 selling, anyway? I went to www.autosite.com, but for some reason they don't have the 3 listed. At least, I couldn't find it.

    At the DC auto show, Grbeck, Mminerbi, and I checked out the new 3's, and our consensus was pretty much that every other small car on the market had suddenly become obsolete. It seemed to really bring a new level of style, luxury, and class to the small car market, and it seemed like one of those cars that when you looked at the window sticker, your first response is "IS THAT ALL?!"

    But out in the "real world", Mazda3's still seem fairly rare.
  • npaladin2000npaladin2000 Member Posts: 593
    "But out in the "real world", Mazda3's still seem fairly rare."

    Mazda is a niche manufacturer. Compared to GM and Ford they have little market penetration. Still, I've seen a large (comparitively) number of 3 and 6 models around here, especially since the nearest Mazda dealer is 40+ miles away. What IS seen around here are a lot of Focuses (Foci?) because they're such good cars, a lot of Cavaliers because GM pays people to take them off the lot and open up space, a lot of Elantras because the job market here stinks, and fair number of Accords....but much fewer current-model Civics than there used to be.

    2 Mazda dealers serve this area...each almost 50 miles away, in opposite directions. One of them can't keep 3s in the lot very long at all. The other one can, but they're in CT and also carry non-CARB ones, which don't move quite as fast.
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    All of the cars above have been redesigned since the Civics introduction with the exception of the Sentra. Up until this past month the Corolla had a 130HP max and until this year the Protege made do with 130HP. Even with the Corolla only having 130HP it is the top-selling small car right now with the Civic a close second. Which further proves the theory that, outside of EdmundsLand, HP is not a driving factor for purchases in this class.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    By saying that Mazda is a niche player, do you mean to say they wouldn't like to sell as much as Honda/Toyota etc?

    The 3 is a great little car, just like the 6, but Mazda does not seem to get a handle on build consistency, inherent design defects. Most 3 owners are complaining of poor AC performance, added to the check engine lights coming on repeatedly, even after being fixed by the customer. The CEL issue also came up in the 6 as well as the stain/rust problem. I agree that every manufacturer has issues with new models, but for Mazda it was really important to get a handle because they were getting two great cars in the market, replacing two not so great ones (626, Protege to a lesser extent) and needed all the positive word of mouth publicity they needed.

    The Focus, well, what can I say, the number of issues it has had does not inspire confidence, even though most are sorted out now, but that was at the expense of the people who bought them all these years. Clearly, a rental favorite.

    I am not defending the Civic, but I am definitely going to reserve my jydgement till I see the new Civic in a couple of years
  • npaladin2000npaladin2000 Member Posts: 593
    Focus was pre-Civic-redesign though. That was (and is) also a hot selling car.
  • npaladin2000npaladin2000 Member Posts: 593
    Mazda doesn't even have the capacity to BUILD as many cars as Honda and Toyota, so no. All they have to do is sell everything they build. As far as build consistency, the Mazda3 seems to be better off than the Civic. If the majority of complaints are scattered A/C issues (many people's A/C is fine) and the odd CEL when you don't tighten the gas cap enough, I'd have to say the car's pretty good. However, more than one magazine has complained about the latest Civic's not so impressive build-quality.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Did you forget that the TSX is about 450 lbs heavier than the RSX?
    200 HP Category
    2004 TSX: 22/29 mpg
    2004 RSX-S: 25/31 mpg

    Here, poorer mileage must be due to “weight issue”.
    160 HP Category
    2004 Accord: 26/34 mpg
    2004 Civic Si: 26/30 mpg
    Here, poorer “highway” mileage must be due to K20A being a gas guzzler.

    2004 RSX: 27/33 mpg… yeah who cares. It must be the weight issue again!

    I see inconsistency in your arguments. There are just too many variables that affect the picture so if you want to talk about the whole picture, talk about every little thing that affects it. Common sense will dictate that K20A will help in a lighter car (if not by much) and will result in slightly better fuel economy than K24A under similar performance criteria. If it didn’t, we would see fuel economy go up with displacement and torque, not down. But yes, K24A will make for a very powerful Civic, especially at the low end. I doubt there is a need to achieve that. K20A is more than enough, but we might see K20B after all.

    Here's something to think about. Most powerful engine available, compact sedans

    If 125 HP was the most power Civic had in 1994, in 2004, the number was up to 160 HP. So, the power was up by 28%. In 1994, the most powerful Sentra had 140 HP, and in 2004, 175 HP (power up by 25%).

    In 2006, I’m hoping Civic would hit 200 HP, but you want 160 HP. ;-)
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    The Focus is 50,000 behind the Corolla and Civic despite incentives and fleet sales. Interestingly, Ford discontinued the high-performance SVT version with 170HP. The strongest engine is 151HP now.
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    "All they have to do is sell everything they build."

    Something that was hard for Mazda to accomplish with the 6 and the RX-8. The 3 is selling well but most 3's I've seen are the base 3i sedans. So again, it looks as if HP isn't the driving factor in compact sedan purchases.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Why did Nissan catch them in Japan and why did Toyota Camry outsell them in the US?
    Answer to the first part would be in an understanding as to whether it was Honda being aggressive and taking over the second place position in Japanese market or was it Nissan going down the drain? If I remember correctly, Nissan had closed a few manufacturing units and slowed down production. It wasn’t until after the Renault stepping in, the production capacity and new models were launched. If this weren’t a temporary situation, it would had been very surprising for Honda to be in that position.

    Toyota Camry sells better than any car in the USA because Toyota wants to. And that’s the bottom line. We seem to forget that over last 15 years or so, Accord has rarely been the best selling car (sales including fleet), but we seem to compare only those 2-3 times when it did.

    Lastly, from a enthusiasts perspective what made Honda decide to let the Sentra, Focus, Neon and Corolla XRS have all the spotlight?
    Corolla XRS is just too new to be a part of the equation. I think part of the equation is the demise of Celica. Focus SVT and Civic Si arrived around the same time. We talk so much about Civic Si as not being a success, but where is the SVT which was supposedly a darling 2-3 years ago? And Sentra, is that car still selling? Chrysler isn’t doing anything unusual by making noise. In the end game, it isn’t the noise that counts.

    But this isn’t meant to indicate that Honda should stay put. I also believe that Civic is getting ignored. By now, Honda should have replaced the D-series engine with K-series. OTOH, Honda is being aggressive with its V6 engines (as well as K24A in Accord/CR-V/Element/TSX). I have a feeling that as long as Honda is able to move out 300K units or so of Civics this year and next, they are in a comfort zone. Civic sales are actually up a little this year (compared to last) and may see an all time high sales.

    Something that Honda needs to do is diversify, without being overly aggressive. Civic needs it, even Accord needs it. And that need is for a sport tuned chassis to go with a reasonably (not overly) powerful engine.
  • newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    "160 HP Category
    2004 Accord: 26/34 mpg
    2004 Civic Si: 26/30 mpg
    Here, poorer “highway” mileage must be due to K20A being a gas guzzler."

    Thanks for making my point. The Civic Si needed to be geared the way it is in order for it to perform like it does. If it were geared more for economy, it wouldn't perform as well and as it stands now, it's already lagging behind the heavier Accord as far as acceleration/economy balance. The Accord has an excellent acceleration/economy balance with the 2.4L and I don't see why the Civic wouldn't as well.

    "If 125 HP was the most power Civic had in 1994, in 2004, the number was up to 160 HP."

    If you would have read and comprehended my post, you would have seen that I was specifically talking about compact sedans. You even quoted me as talking about sedans. Since when is the Civic Si a sedan?

    We can't seem to agree that the 160 hp 2.4L would be better in the Civic than the 160 hp 2.0L, but can you at least agree that it might be time for more than 127 hp in the Civic coupe and sedan?...or do you just want to argue any point that I make?
  • npaladin2000npaladin2000 Member Posts: 593
    Hard to say that when the 3 base model has the most horsepower of any base compact car out there, you know. 148 horses, dontcha know. ;)
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    So again, it looks as if HP isn't the driving factor in compact sedan purchases.
    Yep. Its about focusing in the strengths that a particular segment demands.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    If the overall sales target is just 70K units/year, you could as well have 200 HP as base power rating.
  • newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    "So again, it looks as if HP isn't the driving factor in compact sedan purchases."

    Do you think Civic sales would go up or down if a 160 hp 2.0L or 2.4L were offered in addition to the 1.7L in the sedan and coupes?
  • newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    "I see inconsistency in your arguments."

    Inconsistency in MY arguments?

    You think a 160 hp 2.4L is not necessary for the Civic and too much, but you want to see a 200 hp Civic?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Do you think Civic sales would go up or down if a 160 hp 2.0L or 2.4L were offered in addition to the 1.7L in the sedan and coupes?

    Given the aggressiveness Honda has shown in much of its lineup in terms of horsepower, I have no doubt that Civic is next up in line for it. So, 2.0 will likely become a part of the equation when the redesign comes around next year. Hey, if 2.4 comes around, it would make it a rocket. Many seem to believe it is very much underrated in Accord, especially if you look at the C&D comparison that involved Mazda6 and Accord despite of similar power rating the Accord was said to feel much stronger and had a more linear power delivery, imagine that in a 300 lb lighter Civic. Well, double wishbones come to rescue to some extent in Accord, not sure how struts would take it in Civic. We already know about the tug-friendly Sentra (even with LSD).

    That said, even with addition of 2.0 or 2.4, the sales will likely stay close to where they have been for past several years (300-325K units/year). Honda’s idea of a performance Civic seems to be “manual transmission only”, and that is going to continue to have a narrow appeal. Now, if they equipped automatic to go with it, then there can be a considerable increase. But I hope, Honda remains true to its roots, and offers a screaming 190-200 HP Civic Si and tune the chassis to match it.

    You think a 160 hp 2.4L is not necessary for the Civic and too much, but you want to see a 200 hp Civic?
    Weren’t you complaining about lack of power in Civic? How would 160 HP be better than 200 HP? If the current Civic Si delivered 190-200 HP instead of 160 HP that it does, would it help change your opinion?

    Between 2.0 and 2.4, it is about getting the more. I don't see the point of getting same from more. In fact, use of K20 could help Civic in racing as well. It is said to be more flexible in terms of tuning due to its bore/stroke dimensions, and with lower displacement, the car can also be lighter.
  • alfoxalfox Member Posts: 708
    all Honda has to do is increase the diameter of the tailpipe to about the size of downspout, and lower the suspension another 4" - that's all. Oh, and make the muffler smaller.

    Maybe offer CAI's. The CAI doesn't have to add actual horsepower as long as the kit includes Type S stickers...
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Here is the answer to the question of spicing up the Civic (upper level), not only from power point of view, but also from fuel economy and emissions point of view...

    image

    Yes, the sticker "DOHC VTEC" will have to now say... "DOHC i-VTEC I"

    And if Honda does introduce K20B in Civic EX (if not in DX and LX), it could also mean introduction of CVT in something other than Civic HX in the Civic lineup. This CVT mated 2.0 also comes with 7-speed setting.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I can see the point about the Civic's peak power not really keeping up. But until recenctly the Corolla was the same way and those were the two best sellers.

    So Honda and Toyota were making tons of profit with extremely low costs.

    Remind me, was that a criticism or complement to Honda?

    Just playing Devil's Advocate. How would you convince their bean counters to change strategies in a radical manner?

    Remember, the Si with 160hp is their slow selling Civic.

    -juice
  • npaladin2000npaladin2000 Member Posts: 593
    Well, instead of adding horsepower, Honda could just add a bunch of stickers to the Civic to make it faster, right? ;)
  • newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    "Weren’t you complaining about lack of power in Civic? How would 160 HP be better than 200 HP? If the current Civic Si delivered 190-200 HP instead of 160 HP that it does, would it help change your opinion?"

    If they put 200 hp in the Civic, great, no complaints from me.

    I simply suggested that the 160 hp 2.4L would be a nice engine in the Civic.

    You were the one saying that the 2.4L is too much, people don't buy power, nobody needs a 2.4L Civic, it's against Honda's philosophy, bla, bla, bla.......

    And now you want a 200 hp Civic?

    Who's inconsistant?

    "Between 2.0 and 2.4, it is about getting the more. I don't see the point of getting same from more."

    It's not the same though. The 160 hp 2.4L is more powerful than the 160 hp 2.0L.

    "especially if you look at the C&D comparison that involved Mazda6 and Accord despite of similar power rating the Accord was said to feel much stronger and had a more linear power delivery, imagine that in a 300 lb lighter Civic."

    YES!!! Just imagine. I think you might be seeing my point now.
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    Or they could just come up with a catchy slogan like "zoom, zoom" and hope that noone really realizes their cars have no more zoom than any others.
  • newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    "Remember, the Si with 160hp is their slow selling Civic."

    Is it because it has 160 hp, or is it because the Si is an ugly little hatchback that is too much money?
  • npaladin2000npaladin2000 Member Posts: 593
    "Or they could just come up with a catchy slogan like "zoom, zoom" and hope that noone really realizes their cars have no more zoom than any others."

    Spoken like someone who has never driven a Mazda. ;)

    Incidentally, how does a 148 horsepower Mazda3 have no "zoom zoom" compared to a 115 horse Civic LX, or even a 127 horse Civic EX, hmmmmm?
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    I've driven the 6 a few times, several Miatas, and the MPV. I've never driven the 3 because the interior turned me off. Same for the RX-8.

    If all you look at is HP then sure the 3i would appear to have more zoom but does anyone have the 0-60 rating for the 3i?

    The problem with the Si was Honda tried to sell too many of them. The SVT was limited to 7500 I think and the MS Protege was 2500. Honda brought 15,000 Si's to the US. I think they overshot the market considering the Si is manual only.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    limits the number of sport hatches Honda can sell, that is for sure. Without an automatic available, you are limiting yourself to a small group of potential buyers (much smaller than Honda ws back in 1986 with the first Civic SI, also manual-only).

    But the looks of the current hatch certainly playe a role, I am convinced. If they had also offered a SI coupe this time around (same powertrain and seats as the hatch of course) I bet it would have outsold the hatch 5 to 1. And that Honda could have sold 15K per year.

    So next time, they could do that. Or even (god forbid!) offer a four-door SI since that seems to be where the market is going - sport compact sedans, as opposed to the sport compact hatches of yore. In fact, by skipping the hatch in America entirely, Honda could save money at the same time.

    I'll stop now - a tear is welling up in my eye - I find myself in the position of advocating for NOT bringing a Civic hatch to the States! ;-)

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • motownusamotownusa Member Posts: 836
     Honda should import the Civic TypeR. It is available in Europe. Too bad the USA doesn't get this version of the Civic. The Civic Si is a bit to docile by today's standard. Even Dodge has the Neon SRT. A 200 Hp Civic is what Honda needs to take on the Subaru Impreza WRX and Dodge Neon SRT.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    It’s been a while since I saw a slogan from Honda along the lines… more man less machine. So true, especially when you consider that this was brought up with the S2000. A lot of people want a car that can take them around. How many consider really “driving a car”? Zoom-zoom might work in commercials, but it is more of a boom-boom when you consider where Mazda is compared to Honda. When I visit Ford’s website, I see “Mazda” down there, what’s up with that?

    But, here is an interesting point. If Honda were to equip Civic (EX) with K20A (base RSX), this is how the Mazda 2.3 and Honda 2.0 would compare…
    Honda 2.0: 160 HP @ 6500 rpm, 141 lb.-ft @ 4000 rpm, 27/33 mpg
    Mazda 2.3: 160 HP @ 6500 rpm, 150 lb.-ft @ 4500 rpm, 25/32 mpg

    Results from the drag race may be a matter of having healthier horses. I guess.

    That said, bringing over Civic 5-door hatchback doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me. I’ve always thought the Civic Hybrid should have been the 5-door hatchback! There is, probably, a larger market for 5-door hatchback than 3-door hatchback in the American market. And offering only manual transmission will not help the cause when it comes to sales volume.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Kind of ironic given the discussion from the other day.

    http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=2201- 330

    For the month of July, Honda was once again the second largest company in Japan; 70,039 units versus 67,847.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    I'm sorry. Are we talking about adding the 2.4L to just the Si, or to the upper levels of the Civic line-up (EX and SE)?

    Frankly, I could care less about the Si. It aught to be canned and replaced by a Honda-badged RSX without all the expensive luxury trimmings. Heck, call it the Integra once more.

    If we're talking about the EX sedan and coupe, then we're in another market. Fuel economy rules. Adding the 2.4L will hinder the city rating for the car and it's far too popular (as is) to be messing with that.

    Adding a 2.0L to the EX would give it the power and the fuel economy. That's the way to go.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    As for power comparisons with other cars on the market... well, that's just nuts. If the other manufacturers have to offer multiple engines options to get their cars to sell, then that's their problem. No need for Honda to follow them off that cliff.

    Now, I agree that the Civic could use a power boost. Like, say, 150 hp for the EX. But it doesn't need the 2.4L engine to accomplish that.
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Member Posts: 3,387
    Maybe instead of judging the Civic by Honda's standard, maybe we could judge it by what is happening to other makes...

    Toyota...They are taking over. Three successful brands. Marketshare isgrowing by leaps and bounds. They didn't choose to put the 2.4 in the Corolla. But sales are booming. In fact when they redesigned the Corolla, they maxed out at 130hp and sales doubled from the previous gen. The Corolla has an axle rear suspension. Toyota introduced the 1.8L XR-S simply because they could.

    Nissan...They are growing too. But they had no other way to go. Sentra sales are okay but even the 2.5L SE-R gets little respect from the market since they switched to axle rear suspension.

    Mitsubishi has the Lancer. They can't even give the cars away. Wanna talk about an automaker that may be running out. The Galant is not selling, they are discontinuing the SUV's. Somebody needs to take a pulse.

    Mazda has the 3 and the ......... The Mazda6 has three versions. Edmunds was clamoring for the hatch. We have a hatch and sales are stagnant. The wagon is here too but Blah... I thought I would love the 3 when I first saw it, but the details kind of put me off. So.... They sell modestly better than the Protege. This is to answer the question of 3 sales posted earlier.
    http://media.ford.com/mazda/article_display.cfm?article_id=18915

    Honda...As a company they are setting records it seems every year for the past few years.
    http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2001?mid=2004080349485&mime=asc But in regards to the Civic, for the past few generations Honda has increased the displacement of the Accord and Civic 4 cylinders by 100cc each redesign. They used different levels of tune to separate the models. If they continue this trend I see no reason why a K-series 1.8 could not produce 125 hp in the DX/LX and 140 hp in the EX. With the torque spreading capabilities i-vtec has shown, the 1.8 would be able to propel the Civic quite nicely. And even a 1.8 liter screamer could easily be tuned for 180 hp or more for the SI.

    Is Hondas run running out? Doesn't look like it when you broaden the scope to look at it's competition. Is Honda building the same cars that they used to though? I don't think so. I'm actually disappointed in many current offerings. But compared to what else is out there...Well I currently have a 03 Civic, 04 Accord, and a 04 Ody in my garage.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    some very persuasive arguments made the last couple of dozen posts that power is not selling that well when it comes to compact cars. SVT Focus is gone and was a sales disappointment. SRT-4, Corolla XRS, and Sentra Spec-V are all niche models - only a few thousand per year are manufactured. The Impreza has 165 hp just to level the playing field because of the added weight of AWD. Mitsu sales are down so far that it is impossible to properly gauge Ralliart sales as a success or failure (the model is also too new).

    It would be so easy for Honda to make the K20A the next EX's standard engine, stilll get low 30's for combined mileage, and give the "fast" model 160 hp. But I think it is overall more important for them to bring the power level of the base models into the ballpark. To me, that says "130 hp". To hedge their bets for the future, 135 or 140 would be even better. Especially if they ever get serious about bringing over the five-door hatch. With that car's potential for carrying four people or lots of cargo on a reglar basis, 115 hp just won't do. Or maybe they would want to give all five-doors the EX powertrain in America, I dunno.

    One final note: with Honda's heritage and rep, it would be easy for them to sell a serious sport Civic, or even possibly reintroduce the Prelude more like it was in the old days - Civic-sized and a low "gadgetry quotient". But the point is, it would have to have the power. Even given the unpopular hatch styling, the '02-'04 SI would have sold a lot better, I think, if it had had 200 hp like Civics do in other places. They could properly price such a car at $20-22K without professional reviewers and the market at large calling it "overpriced" as they did with the EP hatch.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

This discussion has been closed.