Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Has Honda's run - run out?
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But no matter how big the changes are, sales are unlikely to exceed the usual 300K-325K mark under a single model name in this class. And competition is going to keep attacking. It has been done in the past, and will be done in the future. The challenge is, keeping up with the tradition.
Hey, that's what they said about the '57 Plymouth, which was outsold by Chevy and Ford by roughly 2:1. However, how is the Mazda3 selling, in general? Is it meeting forecasts? Has it improved over the Protege? For instance, way back in 1957, while Ford and Chevy beat Plymouth, Plymouth still sold a record number of cars, reclaimed 3rd place, and stole plenty of sales from Ford and Chevy. It didn't totally decimate Ford or Chevy, but it was still a success.
Just because the Civic is outselling the 3 by a wide margin, doesn't automatically mean the 3 is a loser. Mazda probably doesn't have nearly the dealership network or production capacity of Honda, so on sheer volume they could never compete. However, if they originally forecast, say, 75000 units and it pulls down 125000, I'd classify that as a success. But I have no idea at all how it's selling. Anybody got any sales stats?
And yes, the smaller Mazda dealer network would have an effect on sales. As would the fact that Honda is a household name while Mazda is a relative unknown - when I had my RX-7, people would refer to it as the "Isuzu", and a couple assumed it was a 300ZX. Some of the same people also used to call my Subaru the "Isuzu"! Two brands with little mainstream recognition, except for Miatas and Outback wagons, and for Subie more recently, the WRX.
That is a problem Honda rarely has, especially not with the Civic.
robert: my point was merely that price plays too much of a role in sales for sales figures alone to indicate the best vehicles out there, either in build, reliabilty, or for enthusiast enjoyment. Some people buy cars just on the basis that they save money, while others just get the A-to-B transportation that gives them the least hassle in the buying process, or which has the best warranty. None of those consumer aspects of the car say all that much about the car itself.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Cavaliers outsell Lotus Elise. Does that make Cavalier a better car? I think not.
Mazda is selling every Mazda3 they're building. They're making money. And when compared on a feature-by-feature basis, the 3 equals or beats the Civic.
I guess the current Civic Si is a failure in that regard compared to the previous generation.
I'll be Chevy sells more Z24 Cavaliers than Honda sells Si Civics. The sales numbers speak for themselves, the Cavalier must be better.
This SI is a really good car, and deserved to sell better than it did. And the Mazda3 is a really good car too, that deserves a bigger better dealer network and more brand-name recognition.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
1. Some people buy cars just on the basis that they save money
2. While others just get the A-to-B transportation that gives them the least hassle in the buying process
3. Or, which has the best warranty.
Where does Civic fit in? More often than not, I see people claiming Civic is overpriced and people don’t get to see the financing/cash back deals either. So, can it be one? Is Honda the best choice for number 2 to most buyers? Or, does Honda provide the best warranty?
Civic sells for what it is, a proven, reliable, economical car that offers a balance between good ride quality and handling. You will see spike in sales of Civic just as soon as price of gasoline creeps up. That’s the kind of reputation the car has and there is no point changing that. And this addresses the last point in your post
None of those consumer aspects of the car say all that much about the car itself.
I think it does in this case. People buy a Civic because it is a Civic. It was never meant to be a lifestyle vehicle, to be exclusive and different. A lifestyle vehicle makes a splash like Jetta did in the late 90s. But style can last only for so long.
Speaking of sales, Mazda3 is on pace to beat the sales of Protégé from a year ago. At this point last year (thru July), Mazda had sold 43K units of Protégé and has sold 48K units of 3. I don’t expect Mazda3 to be the sales (volume) success that Civic and Corolla are, for couple of reasons. Mazda isn’t a big player, and for Ford, Focus might be the more important car in the class.
But, inventory turnaround numbers bring in a good perspective. At least it helps quiet the crowd that was claiming something quite different from what the reality is. It is amazing to see a quicker inventory turnaround on a higher volume car but somehow this aspect gets lost in our zest for flashy attitude
I’m not sure. How many Civic Si’s did Honda sell in 1999-2000 compared to 2002-2003? But, if Civic Si is all you can talk about, you’re talking about 15K units/year (or 5% of Civic sales) and ignoring the rest.
IMO, the current Civic Si is better than the old in a lot of ways. It has a better engine, better interior, better shifter, and better features. Heck, the 1999-2000 Civic Si didn’t even have ABS! The new Si has ABS with EBD. Couple of poor choices may have hurt the perception tires and the decision to use the most docile iteration of the K20A possible coupled to extremely short gearing. Throw in 200 HP K20A and better tires, and Si/Si-R could have easily had the success it is having in CTR form in Europe.
I'll be Chevy sells more Z24 Cavaliers than Honda sells Si Civics. The sales numbers speak for themselves, the Cavalier must be better.
If more people are buying Cavalier Z24 for same price with manual transmission over Civic Si, I would acknowledge that it is more successful than Civic Si.
Civic Si, like most cars in the USA, would do better in terms of sales with available automatic. But, it isn’t something that the car is supposed to be about.
Why ignore the Civic Si? We're talking about areas where Honda's not doing so hot, and the Si is a good example.
I've already asked for sales figures for the previous generation and nobody said anything. I don't know.
What I do know is that when my friend bought one of the previous generation Si's in 2000, they weren't dealing at all on them. He had trouble finding one, let alone trying to pay less than MSRP. Around here, that generation Si was very popular.
Strange. Must be a conservative bunch of buyers, averse to change.
-juice
I kinda doubt Si has been ignored. Rather, it has been the focal point of much of the discussion. And this discussion isn’t just about failures, but where Honda stands as an automaker. So, you’ve got to cover the positives and the negatives to draw a conclusion, logically. At least, that’s how I would do it.
I've already asked for sales figures for the previous generation and nobody said anything. I don't know.
The way you had put it
“I guess the current Civic Si is a failure in that regard compared to the previous generation”
I thought you had some information you could share with us. I have heard that the 1999-2000 Civic Si was popular, but I still don’t know how popular. And then, is sales an indicator of quality of a car. ;-)
Maybe the first incentives, too.
-juice
I did share my information with you.
You couldn't get a deal on the previous generation Civic Si.
Now, with the new one, it seems like you can pick your color and negotiate.
Based on that, I'd say the old generation was more popular.
"And then, is sales an indicator of quality of a car. ;-)"
I'm not the one emphasizing sales figures. I brought up the Si to prove that sales figures alone don't tell you if the car is good or not. I wouldn't say the Si is a bad car at all, it just doesn't sell like a typical Honda or the previous generation Si.
Someone made the comment about the earlier Si not having ABS. I'm sure some people have to have all the protection they can get, in their "chicken little", "the sky is falling" hand-wringing way of life, but this car was built for enthusiasts - people who race autocross and hillclimb events DON'T want ABS, traction control, and all those things that protect you from your own inability to drive...
The car was built for people who COULD drive, and took courses and practiced to improve their skills.
If they only sold 5000 units a year of the previous generation, how come I see way more of the older Si's than the new ones? The new Si has had an extra year of being on sale than the older one. The new one was sold 2002, 2003, and 2004, the old one was sold in 1999 and 2000.
I don't even think that it's only because it's a hatchback.
Yes, it's a hatchback, but it's goofy looking on top of being a hatchback.
True. I guess that was the point. If I were to dig down deeper, I could probably find my post here at Town Hall along the same lines that you suggested. I remember quoting Dodge Viper as an example back then, but people chose to bash the SI anyway.
But who is to say that perception or needs or wants work the way we think? Let us recap a little using road test from our very own Edmunds (I knew I had to find just one road test to illustrate it).
“Downs: : Power doesn't come on until 4000 rpm. Don't like the childish, red gauge markings. Where are the antilock brakes?
Base MSRP of Test Vehicle: $17,860
The Civic Si also gets bigger wheels, tires and brakes than regular Civics, giving the Si excellent grip and stopping power in most circumstances. We say most, however, because Honda chose not to equip the Civic Si with antilock brakes, an obvious misstep for an otherwise serious entrant into the entry-level sports car market.”
How does Honda respond? Chooses bigger engine to have more low-end power, revises interior completely (the greatest strength of the SI), added ABS/EBD.
OTOH, the tire size/selection was mediocre the MSRP went up by $1.2K (but so did features) and the Honda opted to go HB style (HB is the heaviest body style in Civic lineup, it used to be the lightest in the past). I’m not sure if importing from Europe plays a role in bumping up the price tag. But regardless, the improvements were masked by many other factors.
I see more aftermarket potential in the current Civic SI than I did in the old. But apparently, that’s not how a typical buyer is seeing it (at this point). Perhaps that will change in a few years.
And then, there is form versus function aspect. More often than not, styling can affect one or the other aspect. The HB was designed for the European market where pedestrian safety is one of the measures. And with this styling, Civic became the first car to obtain 3 out of 4 stars in that regard, and high praise from the European agency. As for the rest of the styling, I see a lot of resemblance carried over from the old days (see a picture of 1992 Civic SI and 2002 Civic SI side by side, except for the front, the rest of the car is very similar).
Some very nasty cars were brought, doing impressive stuff - one car had 374 hp at the wheels...running low 12s, and right at 1.0 g on the pad. Lots of aftermarket goodies for this one, and lots of following from enthusiasts - I just think it's going to be a used car rush instead of buying them new - the way they're being let go for cheap will certainly affect their used car pricing, much to the benefit of yound guys and girls looking for a hot hatch to play with.
I have heard that the K20A is very responsive engine when it comes to modifications.
Also, 30 day supply is very tight, that's a seller's market. The industry standard is 60 days, so the Civic is in short supply.
-juice
Anyway, accounting for all of these variables is usually an impossible mess. It would appear that Honda's dealership advantage is moot, the use of incentives is matched, production capacity is not being stretched, and both companies have a similar number of offerings.
That leaves two possibilities.
1. The Civic is selling so well because it's an icon within its class, or...
2. The Civic is selling so well because it's a good car and people like it.
I don't think being an icon is enough to account for a 7 to 1 sales advantage. So the product has got to be part of the reason for the Civic's sales success.
Tell that to GM. The Mustang outsold the Camaro and Firebird combined and the GM twins were arguably the better pony cars.
If the Honda fans in here had to get a brand new small car (Civic, Corolla, Mazda3, Focus, etc.) tommorow, what would it be?
I think I've already answered your other question.
varmint Aug 30, 2004 1:39pm
I think they sold more than 5000 99-00 Si's. I have looked for the exact numbers but they don't seem to be published, at least not where I can easily find them. However, it's worth noting that someone can easily "fake" a 99-00 Si while it's impossible to fake the 02-04.
"If the Honda fans in here had to get a brand new small car (Civic, Corolla, Mazda3, Focus, etc.) tommorow, what would it be?"
First off the list is the Focus. Nothing against it (I actually think the interior in the 05 is pretty nice) but I just can't quite switch to the Ford camp yet.
Next off would be the Corolla. I like the overal design (especially the S model) but the seating position is uncomfortable for me and the equivalent of torture for my husband. I'm also not crazy of the texture of the plastics. And there's the whole semi-independent suspension hump that I can't get over.
That leaves the 3 and the Civic. I like the idea of the 3 but the driving position leaves something to be desired. I don't like the seat fabric and I am not sure it will age as well as the Civic has. Overall, it's a nice car and I can see why people would buy one but it's just not for me.
So by process of elimination I guess I would end up with a Civic. It has it's faults but it is the most comfortable for gee, has great crash tests, great gas mileage, and I like the wheels on the new EX models.
"I don't like the seat fabric and I am not sure it will age as well as the Civic has."
This is exactly what I said earlier. People aren't buying the Civic because it's the better product, they buy it because of the badge on the hood. As I said, slap a Ford badge on it and sales would drop like a rock. Put a Honda badge on the Focus and people would be all over it. Even Honda fans can't come out and say the Civic is the best small car because it's not. Give the Focus the Civic platform and the Civic the Focus platform and Honda fans would be frothing at the mouth and saying how great Honda is.
And look at the Accord. It's tops in absolutely nothing.
Fuel mileage: Malibu wins
Handling: Mazda6 wins
Power: Nissan Altima wins
Brakes: below a whole bunch of cars
Warranty: the lowest warranty
Standard Equipment: Not even close, steel wheels on a V6 coupe? Ridiculous.
Price: of course not
Reliability: Toyota and Buick wins
Crash scores: No better than the Camry
Like I originally said, Honda isn't anything special and with all the quality problems there's not much reason to pay more, get an ugly (IMO), worst warranty car that is not tops in anything. If you want a reliable car get a Toyota or Buick and be done with it.
http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_us_promised_land/
"No major expansion is planned beyond the present 1,006 Honda dealers and 262 Acura dealers in the U.S."
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/pf/autos/new_dealerships/
"By 2007, it hopes that half its approximately 700 dealerships will incorporate the new designs."
Gas mileage? Accord is one of the best
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass.htm
Power? Accord is one of the best while still providing excellent gas mileage numbers
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_midinexp.htm
Crash tests? Accord is one of the best
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_midinexp.htm
Standard equipment? For $20,000 (carsdirect.com) you can get an Accord EX which comes with sunroof, cruise, CD changer, alloys, ABS with EBD, 4 wheel disc brakes, side airbags, etc.
Even more important, for 2005 ALL Accords from the $16,000 DX up have standard side airbags, side curtains, and ABS. Most families care more about safety than they do shiny round things.
Reliability? Okay, Toyota and Buick do better in tests. Even so, Honda is ahead of lots of makes. Mazda and Nissan included. So again, the Accord is one of the best.
Brakes? The stopping distance may be longer than others. At least you have class-leading safety features and crash tests to help you out in the even of a crash.
Warranty? This award goes to Hyundai. Does that mean that Hyundai makes the best car in the segment?
You see, the Accord's claim to fame has never been excelling in any one area but when you look at the big picture the Accord is at or near the top in every category.
Edmunds agrees although they do think the brakes could be stronger.
"as an overall package, the seventh-generation Accord is the best one Honda has ever offered"
"Judging by the numbers, it's readily apparent that the Accord had few weaknesses. It earned the top score on editors' 23-point evaluations, and our test car came standard with nine of the 12 features that we consider most important in a family sedan. It didn't fare too badly in instrumented testing, either, as its smooth and potent V6 engine earned it the second-fastest 0-to-60-mph (7.5 seconds) and quarter-mile (15.7 seconds) acceleration times. Its braking performance was much less impressive, however, and we'd like to see Honda fit its sedan with a more powerful set of brakes."
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/101056/page019- .html
So if you want the car with the highest HP rating, buy an Altima. If you want to hug corners all day buy a 6. If you want to run around slamming on your brakes then buy a Sebring. If you want the cheapest car buy a Sonata. If you want the most standard equipment buy a Passat. If you want some of everything then buy the Accord. I know I did and I haven't regretted it for a second.
The engines may also feature direct injection, as Honda wants to improve performance AND economy, which is line with its corporate "green" image.
The Civic is also expected to move upmarket, in resposne to the debut of the smaller, cheaper Honda.
If all of this is true, it sounds as though Honda IS paying attention to the Mazda3.
IYHO.
Contrary to your position, it's amazing how Hondas almost always land at or near the top of every comparison test. For example, the Accord was the top rated car in its class according to enthusiast mags like Motor Trend, Car and Driver and Road and Track, web sites like Edmunds, and consumer mags like Consumer Reports.
"The same people that buy Hondas, typically buy Silver cars, boring cars for boring people."
That's as opposed to boring people who have deluded themselves into thinking that their choice of car has made them exciting. Of course, nobody else is fooled.
I for one am grateful for the fact that I have enough self-assurance that I can buy a car that does what I want, rather than feeling compelled to define myself by the car I purchase.
In a recent minivan comparison test in Car and Driver the old 2004 Odyssey was rated as the best minivan, defeating brand new offerings from four other manufacturers. Certainly when it was first introduced in 1995 the Odyssey did not fare well. But the entirely new model launched in 1999 shot to the top of the class as the best minivan on the market. For it to still be regarded as the best four years later when all its competitors have introduced supposedly new and improved models is almost unheard of.
One could forgive Honda if it too introduced a lightly revised Odyssey with just a handful of changes and called it new. Instead it has totally revamped the 2005 model making a myriad of changes to "maintain its leadership as the benchmark minivan."
Like people said before me, Honda does not excell at just one, but rather is better at all aspects.
And by the way, the V6 coupe comes standard with Alloys.
Ford Focus is a good car, but the good oen is not sold here, we get the dummified, american rendition of the Focus. Drive Volvo S40/Mazda 3 and see what true Focus is capable of.
Yes, Honda may not make eye candy cars. But, truely, what is better a good looking car that drives like crap or a decent looking car that drives like a charm and provides comfort and years of service?
Hunday Tiburon is a very good looking car, but I would not buy it. Same for the VW Jetta. If Honda paid Pininnfarina to design the Accord, it owuld have been a good looking car, but would you pay $40K for an Accord?
Maserati Quadroporte is a family sedan with looks and perfomance, but I don't see Masrati selling 500,000 of them in a year, or 10 years.
Hondas are not as overpriced as people think. Since there are almost no options, you choose trims. If you compare the top of the line trim in every model (EX, Si, or Type S) with comparably equipped Ford, Mazda, Toyota, Nissan and even Hyundai, you will see that Honda's price is right on the money, or even bellow competition.
Honestly, here in the land of shallow superficialness, people will put up with a good looking car that drives like crap because impressing other people is more important to them.
LOL! You don't need to spend $40K to get a decent looking sedan.
In my opinion, the Camry, Altima, Passat, Mazda6, and Legacy are worthy comepetitors to the Accord and they're all better looking and none of them will cost you $40K.
Guigiaro penned the Daewoo Leganza, which was a sharp looking sedan (too bad the hardward didn't match the looks).
-juice