well not sure what he's talking about, but I've seen some of the latest Civics at the autshow with un-honda like shutlines and body gaps. Nothing terrible, but sloppier than the past. I didn't take the time to note where it was manufactured though if maybe that was the issue.
My brother has a 2002 Civic EX coupe. The panel gaps and paint are great. The interior has quite a few rattles though, and it makes some pretty harsh suspension noises over harder bumps, even after the new front struts.
My 2001 Protege ES had pretty good build quality too, but the struture of the car just felt a lot more rigid than the Civic. After driving my Protege, the Civic always felt a little flimsy in comparison. The Protege wasn't the smoothest ride either, but unlike the Civic, it had 16 inch wheels and low profile tires.
I've also had plenty of experience with the Focus. My Dad's Focus wagon was OK, but the 2.3L PZEV Focus I had in CA for a week was a blast, and it was an automatic. The car had about 20,000 Los Angeles rental car miles on it and it was SOLID. No rattles. It rides better than my old Protege or my brother's Civic, handles pretty good, has nice steering, and it's quick. I didn't expect it to be so good, I was impressed.
The early 1980s Chevy Impala/Caprice and Malibu were solid family sedans for the time, even if they weren't too exciting. But GM didn't keep up with the game, and first Ford stole Chevy's thunder with the Taurus, and then by 1990 the Accord was the best-selling passenger car in the nation.
newcar31: I test drove a Focus ZTW wagon last spring. I, too, was impressed. The one area where the Civic did trump it was in the drivetrain department. The Civic EX had a superior engine-transmission combination.
Regarding build quality of the Civics - I can't speak about interior rattles, but I've noticed that the Civic's panel gaps and shutlines are much thinner with this generation. As Andre has noted, that makes an uneven gap or line much more noticeable.
If your Accord is really as bad as you say it is, you have just hit the lottery. Your example is the exact opposite of about 99.99999% of what Hondas are usually like.
Now that has to be one of the worst cars in history. I was with a friend of mine at a store, he had one of those Lebarons. Anyway, he made a left pulling out of a parking lot, and the front right wheel literally just.. came off. Chrysler quality at its best.
There will never be a consensus on looks, but as silly as it may seem to a lot of people, I am of the strong opinion that looks can sell a lot of cars or kill sales.
Even if a car has a lot going for it, if it's ugly, lots of people won't buy it. Hell, I won't buy an ugly car. Reason? There are tons of nice looking cars out there that are as good or damned close. Why get something that doesn't appeal to you?
Does that mean I'll buy a slightly uglier but better car? Sure, but I draw the line somewhere, and as far as the new Accord is concerned, I have to draw the line.
The butt of the Accord is just misshapen, the top of the trunk doesn't fit with the bottom half, the tailights are too big and fat and out of proportion, the body of the car looks OK, lean and muscular, but the front of the car narrows down too much and the headlights are too narrow and slanted as well. To me, the Accord looks like an aerobics instructor with a fat butt and Downs syndrome.
Not everyone is going to agree on looks and I know some people will have opinions on the Accord's looks different than mine.
However, if I feel this strongly that the Accord looks ugly, and given that I don't have extreme tastes (in fact, I'm pretty much a mass market appeal type of person with respect to car designs), I am certain that a lot of people out there think the Accord sedan is ugly as well.
"However, if I feel this strongly that the Accord looks ugly, and given that I don't have extreme tastes (in fact, I'm pretty much a mass market appeal type of person with respect to car designs), I am certain that a lot of people out there think the Accord sedan is ugly as well."
Well, I'd describe myself in the same way, mass market appeal-wise, and I like the Accord just fine. I'm not trying to say that it's the styling coup of the century, but I don't find it even remotely as ugly as your rather indelicate description depicts.
I agree that the rear end is the car's weakest point, although I think for some people it's just a different styling approach that takes a little getting used to. I also agree that this isn't a situation to strive for, but hey, nobody's perfect.
Unlike you, I like the front end styling, particularly straight on, where it has a very sleek sports car look to it. It's a bit less successful when viewed from a 3/4 front view, where the sudden drop off of the hood dilutes the sleekness. I also like the front fenders, with their interesting complex curves.
IMO, the best view of the car is the direct side view. It looks very sleek and muscular (probably the most "cheetah-like" aspect of the styling) and it just works for me.
Overall, when it came time to choose my Accord, the exterior styling was fine... I had an issue or two, but nothing that was a show stopper. However, it was the interior that really won me over.
I also test drove the Altima, and the interior WAS a show stopper. Exterior-wise, it was moderately interesting for the 1st couple of model years, but like most sorta radically styled cars, it's starting to look tired, despite the 2005 refresh. Admittedly, that refresh helped the interior quite a bit. At least the current Altima had more interesting exterior styling than its blander than bland predecessor. Unfortunately, subsequent Nissan designs have been far less successful (particularly the Maxima... whoa, that's one really, really ugly car!!!)
Finally, there's the Mazda 6. Despite the accolades and the rabid fan base, I found the steering to be darty and the ride to be rather punishing. The interior is OK, but nothing spectacular. And the styling? Nice, but way too derivative. The plain version of the car is just that, plain. And the cladded version is cartoonish and "boy racer city".
So my final choice ended up being the Accord. The right driving dynamics and a great value for the buck. Superb interior design and satisfactory styling. Like the people who responded to the Apeal study (I wasn't asked), I probably would have given the styling a 3 out of 5.
grbeck--did the Focus you had have the 2.3L? My Dad's wagon had the DOHC 2.0L which was just OK, but the 2.3L transforms the Focus, and puts it on a different level than the Civic.
I think Honda and Toyota are cutting corners a bit to keep production costs down. I've heard that the latest models are more squeak- and rattle-prone than in the past. Someone coming from a Cavalier to an Accord might not notice, but someone trading in an older-model Accord or Camry might.
I had an '88 LeBaron coupe, and it really wasn't that bad of a car. At least, up until around 90,000 miles or so. We took it in for a timing belt change, but it also needed a bunch of suspension work. After that though, it was all downhill. My wife and I split soon after that timing belt change, and I gave her that car (I knew it would be more trouble than what I was driving at the time, a '68 Dart with 300K+ miles on it!). I kept in touch with her, though. In the end, just about everything was shot on that car by around 110-120,000 miles, except the transmission, and even it was leaking fluid! The engine was shot, the turbo was gone, a/c was shot, power antenna broken, the trip computer lied through its teeth, and the paint was starting to wear down to the primer in some spots.
But when it comes to squeaks and rattles, I don't remember it being too bad! ;-) It was actually quite a comfortable little car. We drove it cross-country on our honeymoon, and I didn't have any complaints. About the car, that is! ;-)
everybody is doing it! Honda and Toyota are no exceptions. Maybe you can't fault them for it, since everybody's doing it. But still, the consumers are going to notice.
Very good point. If Honda and Toyota are cutting corners, at least they are smart enough to cut corners you cant see (Nissan). I'd still take a cost cut Toyota any day of the week over a Lebaron, lol. BTW, my wife's Camry was nearing 200K when we traded it, not any major problem to speak of.
The problem for Honda is it can't decide whether it wants to be conservative like Toyota or hip like Nissan and Mazda.
It's a lot safer being conservative. For one, conservative cars have conservative owners, who don't switch to other brands as much. For another, there's a lot more competition trying to be hip. Toyota's just about the only foreigner wanting to be conservative. I think that's a major factor in Toyota's continuing success, it has no real competition in the conservative side of things.
I'd say Honda's head is conservative, but heart is hip.
270 posts in seven days. Honda must have some serious problems! LOL
So who here votes for clear lenses on the Accord's taillights to improve the looks of the rear end? :-)
Cost-cutting is most certainly rampant in the industry now, and to get a car as nice today as the same model was in 1990, you have to move up to a premium brand and pay more. Since Honda and Toyota were more on their game in 1990 than GM and Ford were (in cars), they are bound to look worse by comparison.
Maybe my standards are too high, but there aren't very many cars under $25K these days that impress me in al respects. Instead, everything seems to be one trade for another (the Altima's really icky interior of the last two years being a notable example). I think Honda manages to hit the trade-offs in the middle of the spectrum, rather than being at the extreme in any one characteristic. Tyota and Honda both have to watch all those rattles and squeaks though - there are few things that give one a worse impression of a new car than that (short of actally breaking down, of course!).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You can't compare price based on MSRP. Anyone with common sense and access to the internet knows that you shouldn't pay more than invoice.
Why don't you try going to your local Suzuki dealer and telling them you want a Verona with side airbags (let alone side curtains), dual-zone climate control, EBD, 5-speed auto, and good crash-test scores for ANY price. Won't happen.
I would sacrifice heated mirrors for for ABS and a better chance of survival in a crash. That can be had in even the DX Accord but can't be had in any Verona.
Honda was among the first (if not the first) to use a single lens headlamp in the early 1990s. Was that a cost cutting measure, or a design statement?
When I compare 2003 Accord to my 1998 Accord, I don’t see “cost cutting” but improvements. The quality of just about everything visible (interior/exterior) has gone up, and the invisible too (the chassis is improved, while the layout is identical, the engine and transmission are better). May be I need to ask, where do some others see cost cutting? I’m sure there is some, but that’s part of doing (any kind of) business. And much of it involves cost cutting in processes.
I'd say Honda's head is conservative, but heart is hip.
That’s always been true of Honda. The company cannot afford to be aggressive. Taking one step at a time has been Honda’s forte. The only thing I expect to see from Honda, in a year or two, is that they might move away from 5-year design cycles. They have a (flexible manufacturing) process in place now to allow that without major investment typically associated with redesigns. The competition changes too quickly and aggressively.
squeaks and rattles are caused by a reduction in insulation materials and a move to cheaper plastics, which is also evident to the touch in the new Hondas, the same as it is in most other compact and midsize cars these days. Just two examples of cost-cutting.
In the olden days of 1990, all the interior buttons (power windows etc) were lit at night, now it is just the driver's side window while everything else is dark. Cost cutting. I remember chuckling reading a review of the RSX a couple of months ago where it listed the night-lit interior switches as "one of the ways this car sets itaself apart as a premium brand". Pssshhh. My 4Runner, which happens to be a 1990, has all the switches lit. It is just that carmakers got cheap as competition intensified. They tried to do it in little ways that consumers would not notice, and maybe I am just picky, but I noticed.
I do think that these days Toyota and Honda use more hard and easily marked plastics in their interiors than their competition, and I am not the only one that thinks so - I have read professional reviews that remarked on the same thing (possibly even Edmunds mentions this? I forget).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I partially agree that the latest Accord design has flaws, the rear can be improved with the spoiler, but my wife still thinks it's a boring looking car. We have a 1991 Accord Coupe EX-R with 313,000km and she refuses to part with this jewel, still looks great and runs fine.
The latest Accord has the best interior of any car in it's class and betters some competitors higher up in price levels. As far as deterioration of build quality, I read in a auto trade publication that Honda directed it's engineers to stop over-engineering their cars as it was costing too much and not offering the consumer enough benefit. If you have ever taken apart a door assembly from a 1990's Honda, you could see the over engineering they are referring to.
If you study the interior noise levels of late model cars, virtually all have gotten quieter. I work for a company that provides parts to the Tier 1 electric motor mfg.'s and they have to reduce noise levels and prices every year. As the backgound noises are reduced in our new cars, the noises that we never really heard before now come to the forefront. I suspect that the better handling suspensions that are more commonplace also cause more noise transmission to the cabin.
I have rambled on, but in conclusion I feel that Honda still makes a superior product, but the competitive field has also dramatically improved and now the consumer can practically choose a new car blindfolded and not be upset with the outcome.
"So who here votes for clear lenses on the Accord's taillights to improve the looks of the rear end? :-)"
Hell no. That's about the only thing you could do to that car's rear end to make it look worse than it already is.
Speaking of clear lenses, I haven't seen any new Accords with big wheels, big wings, etc. Compared to previous generation Accords, the tuner crowd seems to be ignoring the new one, and it's not because it's brand new. I've seen plenty of "tuner" new RSXs and Civics.
actually I was kidding. It is just such a common trend these days. The most puzzling one for me is the new RX330 - clear lens on this conservative old-people car?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Honda used to be able to appeal to the cash strapped family but in todays climate of out sourcing and a shift to a service economy they have become a bit of an expense
When it comes to young families or budget minded people with limited incomes you must remember they would like to have nice things to. They want cruise, A/C, power windows, cd players, sunroofs and so on .
Cash strapped families usually look at the basics, not the luxury items, in a good car. And they SHOULD also look at expense part, once the car comes home (I have done the math earlier). Besides,
That is a “whopping” $701 difference in price tag. It would be easy to disregard the minor difference (the quality and feel of the Accord itself will more than justify that). If that “cash strapped” person is capable of doing some math, he/she is also going to figure out savings in the longer term. The Accord holds a better resale (Five year ALG residual is 35% on the Accord LX, compared to 26% on the Sonata GLS). And At City EPA estimate and after 60K miles, the Accord would save $1100 in gas costs alone.
For “really” cash strapped families, Honda offers Accord DX.
Now, Honda does not offer as much rebate and incentives as others do. Probably they have a reason, and don’t NEED to. In which case, this whole thread becomes a mute point because it implies that Honda is managing to move its inventory at an acceptable pace. Rebates or not, hardly anybody pays MSRP on any of the mainstream cars. I don’t.
For that Accord LX, I figure an out of door price of no more than $18,400 (including destination). Quite, a steal IMO, even for “cash strapped” family who value having everything nice-to-have in their car, including safety, and lowest long term ownership costs in its class (per Intellichoice).
"Oh no, dear boy, no Lexus should have clear lenses, simply isn't done..." ;-) For the record, I couldn't care less about the OEM lenses, provided they're approved...
Newcar: You haven't seen slammed new ones most likely because they're still just that: new. Either that or they're to ugly (just kidding). Sport Compact ranked popularity of model years for tuners some time in '03 IIRC, and for Civs it was MY '92. I don't remember Accord's best year, but it can't be far ahead.
squeaks and rattles are caused by a reduction in insulation materials and a move to cheaper plastics, which is also evident to the touch in the new Hondas
That’s an exaggeration and I disagree. I would rather have the trims and pieces from newer Accord than from the old.
In the olden days of 1990, all the interior buttons (power windows etc) were lit at night, now it is just the driver's side window while everything else is dark...
Sometimes certain things give way to new things. One thing replaces another. I would call offering ABS as option (or not offering it at all) being cheap. In today’s Accord, even the stripped “DX” model has it standard. What would you rather have? Lit window switches, or ABS?
That said, one of the rumored changes in the 2005 Accord is that the buttons on the steering wheel will be lighted. Honestly, I’m against the idea. Honda already designs some of the most intuitive interiors, with buttons anybody can learn to use by feeling it. They are laid out logically and with excellent detail.
I do think that these days Toyota and Honda use more hard and easily marked plastics in their interiors than their competition
Not sure what you mean by that. My 2000 Civic uses vinyl-covering foam for a “softer touching” on the dash. But I will take the RSX dash over that soft touch surface any day.
Speaking of clear lenses, I haven't seen any new Accords with big wheels, big wings, etc. Compared to previous generation Accords
I rarely see 1995+ Accords with big wheels and big wings. It is usually the late 80s and early 90s Accord that originally came with 14 inch rims. This aspect probably has to do with initial cost of a car. With Accords (new and used) costing as much as they do, it makes sense to get older Accords to “play with”.
"I rarely see 1995+ Accords with big wheels and big wings. It is usually the late 80s and early 90s Accord that originally came with 14 inch rims. This aspect probably has to do with initial cost of a car. With Accords (new and used) costing as much as they do, it makes sense to get older Accords to "play with"."
Like I said before, I've seen plenty of hopped up RSXs, and I even see quite a few newer Jettas, Passats, and Audi A4s with the big wheels and exhausts, so there are "tuner" people out there that can afford new cars, and they aren't buying Accords.
Well then, it's possible that this latest iteration is to big and Buicky for tuners.
It is huge, not that some of the competition isn't. Perhaps they've hit the outside of the envelope in that regard, and have started to turn off some the Accord faithful.
The bloating trend ain't a good one, in my book.
I'm still not worried about the company. Great product and track record doesn't blow away overnight. It's not like they're GM or anything...
"So they must not have bought 1996-2002 Accords either! What about Mazda6 and Altima? I haven't seen one with the cosmetics that you just described."
Actually, I've seen quite a few tuner 1996-2002 Accords, specifically the coupe. Definetely more than the 626 and previous generation Altima. The Mazda6 and new Altima? First of all, you don't see many Mazda6s period. Second of all, Mazda and Nissan have never been as popular as Honda with the tuner crowd.
Tuners affect bottom line? Not at all, of course. Not the point.
To quote Kipling's Prout: "straws show which way the wind is blowing." Just little indicators like that. It's what no company can ignore in its arrogance, lest its downfall go unrecognized until too far gone.
I don't imply that Honda will suffer that fate; to the contrary, the outrage expressed over the Civ's slow sales is precisely the correct reaction. Hopefully all indicators will be studied and not dismissed...
My wife and I are not conservative old people, and we love the RX330. When ever she gets tired of her 300, we're going to buy a 400h. The 330 is a gorgeous car, I normally dislike ALL SUV designs, even unibody midsizers, and I think its one of the best designs Lexus has done. I dont think other people are bothered by the "tuner lights" either, because the RX is selling like mad. Its new this year, and Ive already seen at least a dozen on the road, if not more. It makes the ML look like a porky old grandma by comparison, which it technically is.
By the way, for those of you that think cars in the '90s were better, well, your wrong. Both Honda and Toyota interior quality has gone WAY up in recent years. I've driven the Solara convertible, its fabulous inside. Toyota could sell it as an SC330 if they wanted to, and they wouldnt really have to make any changes inside. Ride quality is also a drastic improvement, as the old one was just a chopped coupe, and it drove like one. If you still dont believe me, contrast the '04 Sienna vs. a '93 Previa. Its not even a contest. Theres been major upgrades underneath, too. With every generation, torsional and frame stiffness increases, usually by several times. Another thing, side airbags, and curtains. If your gonna get side swiped by an Explorer, which would you rather be in? A '94 Accord, or an '04 Accord?
I mean other than off the National rental lot? No Buick made that I would own, but an '02 Regal GS in full trim is nothing to scoff at, regardless of one's taste in cars.
Yeah, the new Accord is kinda Buicky, meaning it's certainly not the lithe and nimble Accord that built the rep. Does it handle? Sure. Ride? Nice. Accomodate? Moreso than necessary.
It's in keeping with the competition on size, but perhaps the idea should be that you compete in other ways than trying to out-volume (capacity) the other guy. Perhaps.
"I mean other than off the National rental lot? No Buick made that I would own, but an '02 Regal GS in full trim is nothing to scoff at, regardless of one's taste in cars."
In fact, I have. I've driven a 2002 Century, purchased new by a family friend (actually, a friend of my parents). I accompanied them on a day trip to help with the driving, so I spent several hours behind the wheel. This is probably the most likely Accord competitor in Buick's current lineup. There's no comparison whatsoever in the drive... the Accord feels firm, European, with very direct steering, while the Century confirms every Buick stereotype that exists... floaty, boaty, a particularly unsatisfying drive.
As the Regal and Century share their chassis, differing mostly by engine choice and trim, I'd be skeptical that the Regal would be much better.
Now I expect the new LaCrosse to be a different story, if they can get past the double entendre that the name represents in Canada.
No it's suspension tuning, steering and brakes as well. Anyway, beside the point; it's not meant as a direct comparison, but rather a philosophical one. The Accord no longer resembles the cars that made the name for the company, and if you choose your weapon, there are other choices out there that work nicely depending on individual tastes. And given what I drive, no Buick is going to work for me personally!
None of this is insisting that I'm pinpointing issues for Honda to change, just casting about here.
Again, I don't think they're headed down hill, but I do find reasons no to buy the product for me.
this is certainly a euphemistic way of looking at things: "Sometimes certain things give way to new things"
Sometimes MORE things just give way to LESS. However, I am not super-focused on safety issues in my purchasing, so for all of you that are, I can't argue the logic of preferring standard ABS to lit window switches, etc. But I would point out that Honda is not the only one that offers standard ABS. GM is the only one that is notable for making it an option after it used to be standard.
I do think that it will be cool when Honda lights the switches on steering wheels. I have found myself wishing the cruise controls on the steering wheel of my RSX were lit. And bear in mind that on the Accord there are other steering wheel switches for radio and stuff.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think he was refering to the look of the new Accord, not the drive. The back end does look a little Buick-y to me.
It doesn’t to me. Buicks (and American cars in general) tend to have longer rear ends. And if you haven’t noticed, Accord is following a more recent trend of shorter rear deck. Just calling it Buick-y doesn’t make sense to me at all.
Yeah, the new Accord is kinda Buicky, meaning it's certainly not the lithe and nimble Accord that built the rep. Does it handle? Sure. Ride? Nice. Accomodate? Moreso than necessary.
I think it may be a good idea for the anti-Honda members to have a meeting and be on the same page about what they mean when they say something.
I won’t argue on ride and handling aspect of the Accord, because IMO, it balances the two as it always has. Now, accommodation more so than necessary? That is a huge stretch. At just 189 inches long, and 98-103 cu. Ft (depending on trim) interior space, it is hardly “excess” among mainstream sedan. In fact, right between the compact and full size class.
Accord, the size of TSX (which is the size of 1994-97) would not be welcome in family sedan market, unless Honda was happy with half the sales of Accord than it does today.
It's in keeping with the competition on size, but perhaps the idea should be that you compete in other ways than trying to out-volume (capacity) the other guy. Perhaps.
The amusing thing about this argument is that the Accord had to grow in (exterior) size to accommodate V6 that America demanded (hence Japanese/European Accord, and American Accord). Interior volume hardly grew with the latest release, in fact, it gave up 0.1 cu. Ft in trunk space (now, that is certainly not Buicky).
The Accord no longer resembles the cars that made the name for the company
Sometimes MORE things just give way to LESS. However, I am not super-focused on safety issues in my purchasing, so for all of you that are, I can't argue the logic of preferring standard ABS to lit window switches, etc.
Preferences, right? Older Accords are history, and I wouldn’t go for the old system, after seeing the new offerings. Of course, this is how I feel things are, with Honda.
these vaunted tuners that supposedly loved Hondas back in the day don't care about ABS, in fact they will rip it out because it adds weight and reduces fun. And safety issues will not be uppermost in the minds of younger buyers that Honda and every company out there is supposedly chasing. They will want to see content and performance.
As to the Accord, at some point cars just get so big that most of the fun is inevitably driven out. The '88 Accord sedan was a fun drive even though it would seat five and had a plush interior. Do Accord fans feel the current interior is "plush"? Is the current car as nimble as back in the day?
robert is right that upsizing is the American way - bigger is always better to stuff-accumulating American consumers. This is borne out by the fact that Honda global has gone to the trouble and expense of having TWO versions of the Accord, the one for the Americans and the one for everybody else.
Civic and Accord have gotten so big, it is high time (in fact, high time came and went around the year 2000) for Honda to have a smaller vehicle here that brings back the nimble fun of the old shool Hondas. And in this market, Honda had better find a way for it to have more content (standard features) than those Hondas of yore at a competitive price. They could bring in such a car around the same time the Civic is inevitably upsized for the '06 model year revamp.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"I think it may be a good idea for the anti-Honda members to have a meeting and be on the same page about what they mean when they say something."
Anti Honda? I wouldn't consider myself "anti-Honda". I have owned two of them. I just don't think the new Hondas are as appealing with respect to their competition as they used to be, but that does not make me "anti-Honda".
"The amusing thing about this argument is that the Accord had to grow in (exterior) size to accommodate V6 that America demanded (hence Japanese/European Accord, and American Accord)."
That's not why the Accord keeps growing. The basic Honda V6 has been roughly the same physical exterior size for a while now. The Mazda6 is the same size all over the world, and they figured out how to fit a V6 in it.
At only 175 inches long, Civic hardly makes for a “big” car. With the cab-forward design, it manages to squeeze 88-91 cu. ft cabin volume (depending on trim), which is on the smaller size of compact sedan class.
IMO, the latest Accord is the best Accord, in terms of balancing everything including ride, comfort, standard features and feels almost as plush as a near luxury sedan with upper level trims (no wonder, it sells as one in the Japanese market, as Honda Inspire). Its got the best duo of power train as well.
Civic, however, has room for improvements. It does everything in Honda’s typical ways. Now may be the time to add flavor to it, much like Honda did with the Accord. More power, and more features, all around, and love it or hate it styling to boot.
But this also means, as nippononly pointed out, Honda needs a sub-compact, economically priced, to appeal to those who wish Civic CX was still around. Jazz/Fit can be that car, and rumors are, it will be. But since Jazz was launched in 2001, I doubt we will see one in America until it is redesigned (next year).
To give Civic some personality, Honda needs to offer the 2.0 liter I-4, with sport package, but no more in a “docile and refined” form that the current Si is. 160-170 HP engine in EX makes sense, as does 190-200 HP in the Si.
You know what I meant. One takes it for a ride, and other takes styling for granted. Clearly, good communication or understanding is missing. ;-)
That's not why the Accord keeps growing. The basic Honda V6 has been roughly the same physical exterior size for a while now. The Mazda6 is the same size all over the world, and they figured out how to fit a V6 in it.
V6 AND demand for reasonable cabin space appears to be a big reason the 1998 Accord had to grow by 3-4 inches. A company has to satisfy the demand of the buyers in the market it sells products. I’m sure it would have been easier and cheaper for Honda to have a single size Accord around the world. What do you think?
Honda had to retain its chassis design, and we all want to see Honda continue to offer unequal length double wishbone front and 5-link (Watt-link) double wishbone rear suspension intact (otherwise, the company would be bashed for cost cutting). And double wishbones have never been regarded as space efficient design. Toyota can get away with struts all around in Camry, as do all American automakers in the class, but we expect Honda to deliver something different, don’t we? Design compromises.
Honda 3.0 V6 (Accord) is likely more compact than Ford 3.0 Duratec (Mazda6), so could Honda “squeeze-in” the V6 into TSX? (BTW, TSX is couple of inches shorter than Mazda6, while the Mazda is same length as Accord Coupe but couple of inches shorter than Accord sedan). But, I’m not sure if the engineers would want to apply “squeeze-in” engineering without major changes. Not every car follows the same principle in chassis design.
That said, Accord is still four inches shorter than Altima and may be 8-10 inches shorter than the Buicks you bring up often.
Comments
My 2001 Protege ES had pretty good build quality too, but the struture of the car just felt a lot more rigid than the Civic. After driving my Protege, the Civic always felt a little flimsy in comparison. The Protege wasn't the smoothest ride either, but unlike the Civic, it had 16 inch wheels and low profile tires.
I've also had plenty of experience with the Focus. My Dad's Focus wagon was OK, but the 2.3L PZEV Focus I had in CA for a week was a blast, and it was an automatic. The car had about 20,000 Los Angeles rental car miles on it and it was SOLID. No rattles. It rides better than my old Protege or my brother's Civic, handles pretty good, has nice steering, and it's quick. I didn't expect it to be so good, I was impressed.
newcar31: I test drove a Focus ZTW wagon last spring. I, too, was impressed. The one area where the Civic did trump it was in the drivetrain department. The Civic EX had a superior engine-transmission combination.
Regarding build quality of the Civics - I can't speak about interior rattles, but I've noticed that the Civic's panel gaps and shutlines are much thinner with this generation. As Andre has noted, that makes an uneven gap or line much more noticeable.
Even if a car has a lot going for it, if it's ugly, lots of people won't buy it. Hell, I won't buy an ugly car. Reason? There are tons of nice looking cars out there that are as good or damned close. Why get something that doesn't appeal to you?
Does that mean I'll buy a slightly uglier but better car? Sure, but I draw the line somewhere, and as far as the new Accord is concerned, I have to draw the line.
The butt of the Accord is just misshapen, the top of the trunk doesn't fit with the bottom half, the tailights are too big and fat and out of proportion, the body of the car looks OK, lean and muscular, but the front of the car narrows down too much and the headlights are too narrow and slanted as well. To me, the Accord looks like an aerobics instructor with a fat butt and Downs syndrome.
Not everyone is going to agree on looks and I know some people will have opinions on the Accord's looks different than mine.
However, if I feel this strongly that the Accord looks ugly, and given that I don't have extreme tastes (in fact, I'm pretty much a mass market appeal type of person with respect to car designs), I am certain that a lot of people out there think the Accord sedan is ugly as well.
Well, I'd describe myself in the same way, mass market appeal-wise, and I like the Accord just fine. I'm not trying to say that it's the styling coup of the century, but I don't find it even remotely as ugly as your rather indelicate description depicts.
I agree that the rear end is the car's weakest point, although I think for some people it's just a different styling approach that takes a little getting used to. I also agree that this isn't a situation to strive for, but hey, nobody's perfect.
Unlike you, I like the front end styling, particularly straight on, where it has a very sleek sports car look to it. It's a bit less successful when viewed from a 3/4 front view, where the sudden drop off of the hood dilutes the sleekness. I also like the front fenders, with their interesting complex curves.
IMO, the best view of the car is the direct side view. It looks very sleek and muscular (probably the most "cheetah-like" aspect of the styling) and it just works for me.
Overall, when it came time to choose my Accord, the exterior styling was fine... I had an issue or two, but nothing that was a show stopper. However, it was the interior that really won me over.
I also test drove the Altima, and the interior WAS a show stopper. Exterior-wise, it was moderately interesting for the 1st couple of model years, but like most sorta radically styled cars, it's starting to look tired, despite the 2005 refresh. Admittedly, that refresh helped the interior quite a bit. At least the current Altima had more interesting exterior styling than its blander than bland predecessor. Unfortunately, subsequent Nissan designs have been far less successful (particularly the Maxima... whoa, that's one really, really ugly car!!!)
Finally, there's the Mazda 6. Despite the accolades and the rabid fan base, I found the steering to be darty and the ride to be rather punishing. The interior is OK, but nothing spectacular. And the styling? Nice, but way too derivative. The plain version of the car is just that, plain. And the cladded version is cartoonish and "boy racer city".
So my final choice ended up being the Accord. The right driving dynamics and a great value for the buck. Superb interior design and satisfactory styling. Like the people who responded to the Apeal study (I wasn't asked), I probably would have given the styling a 3 out of 5.
I had an '88 LeBaron coupe, and it really wasn't that bad of a car. At least, up until around 90,000 miles or so. We took it in for a timing belt change, but it also needed a bunch of suspension work. After that though, it was all downhill. My wife and I split soon after that timing belt change, and I gave her that car (I knew it would be more trouble than what I was driving at the time, a '68 Dart with 300K+ miles on it!). I kept in touch with her, though. In the end, just about everything was shot on that car by around 110-120,000 miles, except the transmission, and even it was leaking fluid! The engine was shot, the turbo was gone, a/c was shot, power antenna broken, the trip computer lied through its teeth, and the paint was starting to wear down to the primer in some spots.
But when it comes to squeaks and rattles, I don't remember it being too bad! ;-) It was actually quite a comfortable little car. We drove it cross-country on our honeymoon, and I didn't have any complaints. About the car, that is! ;-)
It's a lot safer being conservative. For one, conservative cars have conservative owners, who don't switch to other brands as much. For another, there's a lot more competition trying to be hip. Toyota's just about the only foreigner wanting to be conservative. I think that's a major factor in Toyota's continuing success, it has no real competition in the conservative side of things.
I'd say Honda's head is conservative, but heart is hip.
So who here votes for clear lenses on the Accord's taillights to improve the looks of the rear end? :-)
Cost-cutting is most certainly rampant in the industry now, and to get a car as nice today as the same model was in 1990, you have to move up to a premium brand and pay more. Since Honda and Toyota were more on their game in 1990 than GM and Ford were (in cars), they are bound to look worse by comparison.
Maybe my standards are too high, but there aren't very many cars under $25K these days that impress me in al respects. Instead, everything seems to be one trade for another (the Altima's really icky interior of the last two years being a notable example). I think Honda manages to hit the trade-offs in the middle of the spectrum, rather than being at the extreme in any one characteristic. Tyota and Honda both have to watch all those rattles and squeaks though - there are few things that give one a worse impression of a new car than that (short of actally breaking down, of course!).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Why don't you try going to your local Suzuki dealer and telling them you want a Verona with side airbags (let alone side curtains), dual-zone climate control, EBD, 5-speed auto, and good crash-test scores for ANY price. Won't happen.
I would sacrifice heated mirrors for for ABS and a better chance of survival in a crash. That can be had in even the DX Accord but can't be had in any Verona.
When I compare 2003 Accord to my 1998 Accord, I don’t see “cost cutting” but improvements. The quality of just about everything visible (interior/exterior) has gone up, and the invisible too (the chassis is improved, while the layout is identical, the engine and transmission are better). May be I need to ask, where do some others see cost cutting? I’m sure there is some, but that’s part of doing (any kind of) business. And much of it involves cost cutting in processes.
I'd say Honda's head is conservative, but heart is hip.
That’s always been true of Honda. The company cannot afford to be aggressive. Taking one step at a time has been Honda’s forte. The only thing I expect to see from Honda, in a year or two, is that they might move away from 5-year design cycles. They have a (flexible manufacturing) process in place now to allow that without major investment typically associated with redesigns. The competition changes too quickly and aggressively.
In the olden days of 1990, all the interior buttons (power windows etc) were lit at night, now it is just the driver's side window while everything else is dark. Cost cutting. I remember chuckling reading a review of the RSX a couple of months ago where it listed the night-lit interior switches as "one of the ways this car sets itaself apart as a premium brand". Pssshhh. My 4Runner, which happens to be a 1990, has all the switches lit. It is just that carmakers got cheap as competition intensified. They tried to do it in little ways that consumers would not notice, and maybe I am just picky, but I noticed.
I do think that these days Toyota and Honda use more hard and easily marked plastics in their interiors than their competition, and I am not the only one that thinks so - I have read professional reviews that remarked on the same thing (possibly even Edmunds mentions this? I forget).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The latest Accord has the best interior of any car in it's class and betters some competitors higher up in price levels. As far as deterioration of build quality, I read in a auto trade publication that Honda directed it's engineers to stop over-engineering their cars as it was costing too much and not offering the consumer enough benefit. If you have ever taken apart a door assembly from a 1990's Honda, you could see the over engineering they are referring to.
If you study the interior noise levels of late model cars, virtually all have gotten quieter. I work for a company that provides parts to the Tier 1 electric motor mfg.'s and they have to reduce noise levels and prices every year. As the backgound noises are reduced in our new cars, the noises that we never really heard before now come to the forefront. I suspect that the better handling suspensions that are more commonplace also cause more noise transmission to the cabin.
I have rambled on, but in conclusion I feel that Honda still makes a superior product, but the competitive field has also dramatically improved and now the consumer can practically choose a new car blindfolded and not be upset with the outcome.
Hell no. That's about the only thing you could do to that car's rear end to make it look worse than it already is.
Speaking of clear lenses, I haven't seen any new Accords with big wheels, big wings, etc. Compared to previous generation Accords, the tuner crowd seems to be ignoring the new one, and it's not because it's brand new. I've seen plenty of "tuner" new RSXs and Civics.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
When it comes to young families or budget minded people with limited incomes you must remember they would like to have nice things to. They want cruise, A/C, power windows, cd players, sunroofs and so on .
Cash strapped families usually look at the basics, not the luxury items, in a good car. And they SHOULD also look at expense part, once the car comes home (I have done the math earlier). Besides,
MSRP (including destination)
Accord LX $20,590 (its got everything)
Sonata GLS $19,889 (added ABS)
That is a “whopping” $701 difference in price tag. It would be easy to disregard the minor difference (the quality and feel of the Accord itself will more than justify that). If that “cash strapped” person is capable of doing some math, he/she is also going to figure out savings in the longer term. The Accord holds a better resale (Five year ALG residual is 35% on the Accord LX, compared to 26% on the Sonata GLS). And At City EPA estimate and after 60K miles, the Accord would save $1100 in gas costs alone.
For “really” cash strapped families, Honda offers Accord DX.
Now, Honda does not offer as much rebate and incentives as others do. Probably they have a reason, and don’t NEED to. In which case, this whole thread becomes a mute point because it implies that Honda is managing to move its inventory at an acceptable pace. Rebates or not, hardly anybody pays MSRP on any of the mainstream cars. I don’t.
For that Accord LX, I figure an out of door price of no more than $18,400 (including destination). Quite, a steal IMO, even for “cash strapped” family who value having everything nice-to-have in their car, including safety, and lowest long term ownership costs in its class (per Intellichoice).
"Oh no, dear boy, no Lexus should have clear lenses, simply isn't done..." ;-) For the record, I couldn't care less about the OEM lenses, provided they're approved...
Newcar: You haven't seen slammed new ones most likely because they're still just that: new. Either that or they're to ugly (just kidding). Sport Compact ranked popularity of model years for tuners some time in '03 IIRC, and for Civs it was MY '92. I don't remember Accord's best year, but it can't be far ahead.
That’s an exaggeration and I disagree. I would rather have the trims and pieces from newer Accord than from the old.
In the olden days of 1990, all the interior buttons (power windows etc) were lit at night, now it is just the driver's side window while everything else is dark...
Sometimes certain things give way to new things. One thing replaces another. I would call offering ABS as option (or not offering it at all) being cheap. In today’s Accord, even the stripped “DX” model has it standard. What would you rather have? Lit window switches, or ABS?
That said, one of the rumored changes in the 2005 Accord is that the buttons on the steering wheel will be lighted. Honestly, I’m against the idea. Honda already designs some of the most intuitive interiors, with buttons anybody can learn to use by feeling it. They are laid out logically and with excellent detail.
I do think that these days Toyota and Honda use more hard and easily marked plastics in their interiors than their competition
Not sure what you mean by that. My 2000 Civic uses vinyl-covering foam for a “softer touching” on the dash. But I will take the RSX dash over that soft touch surface any day.
I rarely see 1995+ Accords with big wheels and big wings. It is usually the late 80s and early 90s Accord that originally came with 14 inch rims. This aspect probably has to do with initial cost of a car. With Accords (new and used) costing as much as they do, it makes sense to get older Accords to “play with”.
Like I said before, I've seen plenty of hopped up RSXs, and I even see quite a few newer Jettas, Passats, and Audi A4s with the big wheels and exhausts, so there are "tuner" people out there that can afford new cars, and they aren't buying Accords.
It is huge, not that some of the competition isn't. Perhaps they've hit the outside of the envelope in that regard, and have started to turn off some the Accord faithful.
The bloating trend ain't a good one, in my book.
I'm still not worried about the company. Great product and track record doesn't blow away overnight. It's not like they're GM or anything...
Actually, I've seen quite a few tuner 1996-2002 Accords, specifically the coupe. Definetely more than the 626 and previous generation Altima. The Mazda6 and new Altima? First of all, you don't see many Mazda6s period. Second of all, Mazda and Nissan have never been as popular as Honda with the tuner crowd.
Possible? Very likely.
Noone mods buicks? Or bigger Hondas?
Please don't tell those Grand National owners....
And how much do tuners really effect Hondas bottom line anyway? Used car dealers, maybe.
Tuners affect bottom line? Not at all, of course. Not the point.
To quote Kipling's Prout: "straws show which way the wind is blowing." Just little indicators like that. It's what no company can ignore in its arrogance, lest its downfall go unrecognized until too far gone.
I don't imply that Honda will suffer that fate; to the contrary, the outrage expressed over the Civ's slow sales is precisely the correct reaction. Hopefully all indicators will be studied and not dismissed...
Please don't tell those Grand National owners...."
Lol, the Grand National is FAR, FAR, from your average Buick, and the last one they built was in 1987. People don't mod LeSabres and Park Avenues.
"And how much do tuners really effect Hondas bottom line anyway?"
I never said that tuners have a huge effect on Honda's bottom line, it was just an observation.
"Well then, it's possible that this latest iteration is to big and Buicky for tuners."
Big? Perhaps, though that's the trend in this segment. Buick-y? Obviously you haven't driven a Buick lately.
I think he was refering to the look of the new Accord, not the drive. The back end does look a little Buick-y to me.
By the way, for those of you that think cars in the '90s were better, well, your wrong. Both Honda and Toyota interior quality has gone WAY up in recent years. I've driven the Solara convertible, its fabulous inside. Toyota could sell it as an SC330 if they wanted to, and they wouldnt really have to make any changes inside. Ride quality is also a drastic improvement, as the old one was just a chopped coupe, and it drove like one. If you still dont believe me, contrast the '04 Sienna vs. a '93 Previa. Its not even a contest. Theres been major upgrades underneath, too. With every generation, torsional and frame stiffness increases, usually by several times. Another thing, side airbags, and curtains. If your gonna get side swiped by an Explorer, which would you rather be in? A '94 Accord, or an '04 Accord?
I mean other than off the National rental lot? No Buick made that I would own, but an '02 Regal GS in full trim is nothing to scoff at, regardless of one's taste in cars.
Yeah, the new Accord is kinda Buicky, meaning it's certainly not the lithe and nimble Accord that built the rep. Does it handle? Sure. Ride? Nice. Accomodate? Moreso than necessary.
It's in keeping with the competition on size, but perhaps the idea should be that you compete in other ways than trying to out-volume (capacity) the other guy. Perhaps.
Aha, I see. I understand where you're coming from but, given that I see Buicks a lot (family members own them), I don't really see it myself.
In fact, I have. I've driven a 2002 Century, purchased new by a family friend (actually, a friend of my parents). I accompanied them on a day trip to help with the driving, so I spent several hours behind the wheel. This is probably the most likely Accord competitor in Buick's current lineup. There's no comparison whatsoever in the drive... the Accord feels firm, European, with very direct steering, while the Century confirms every Buick stereotype that exists... floaty, boaty, a particularly unsatisfying drive.
As the Regal and Century share their chassis, differing mostly by engine choice and trim, I'd be skeptical that the Regal would be much better.
Now I expect the new LaCrosse to be a different story, if they can get past the double entendre that the name represents in Canada.
None of this is insisting that I'm pinpointing issues for Honda to change, just casting about here.
Again, I don't think they're headed down hill, but I do find reasons no to buy the product for me.
Sometimes MORE things just give way to LESS. However, I am not super-focused on safety issues in my purchasing, so for all of you that are, I can't argue the logic of preferring standard ABS to lit window switches, etc. But I would point out that Honda is not the only one that offers standard ABS. GM is the only one that is notable for making it an option after it used to be standard.
I do think that it will be cool when Honda lights the switches on steering wheels. I have found myself wishing the cruise controls on the steering wheel of my RSX were lit. And bear in mind that on the Accord there are other steering wheel switches for radio and stuff.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It doesn’t to me. Buicks (and American cars in general) tend to have longer rear ends. And if you haven’t noticed, Accord is following a more recent trend of shorter rear deck. Just calling it Buick-y doesn’t make sense to me at all.
I think it may be a good idea for the anti-Honda members to have a meeting and be on the same page about what they mean when they say something.
I won’t argue on ride and handling aspect of the Accord, because IMO, it balances the two as it always has. Now, accommodation more so than necessary? That is a huge stretch. At just 189 inches long, and 98-103 cu. Ft (depending on trim) interior space, it is hardly “excess” among mainstream sedan. In fact, right between the compact and full size class.
Accord, the size of TSX (which is the size of 1994-97) would not be welcome in family sedan market, unless Honda was happy with half the sales of Accord than it does today.
It's in keeping with the competition on size, but perhaps the idea should be that you compete in other ways than trying to out-volume (capacity) the other guy. Perhaps.
The amusing thing about this argument is that the Accord had to grow in (exterior) size to accommodate V6 that America demanded (hence Japanese/European Accord, and American Accord). Interior volume hardly grew with the latest release, in fact, it gave up 0.1 cu. Ft in trunk space (now, that is certainly not Buicky).
The Accord no longer resembles the cars that made the name for the company
In what way?
Preferences, right? Older Accords are history, and I wouldn’t go for the old system, after seeing the new offerings. Of course, this is how I feel things are, with Honda.
As to the Accord, at some point cars just get so big that most of the fun is inevitably driven out. The '88 Accord sedan was a fun drive even though it would seat five and had a plush interior. Do Accord fans feel the current interior is "plush"? Is the current car as nimble as back in the day?
robert is right that upsizing is the American way - bigger is always better to stuff-accumulating American consumers. This is borne out by the fact that Honda global has gone to the trouble and expense of having TWO versions of the Accord, the one for the Americans and the one for everybody else.
Civic and Accord have gotten so big, it is high time (in fact, high time came and went around the year 2000) for Honda to have a smaller vehicle here that brings back the nimble fun of the old shool Hondas. And in this market, Honda had better find a way for it to have more content (standard features) than those Hondas of yore at a competitive price. They could bring in such a car around the same time the Civic is inevitably upsized for the '06 model year revamp.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Anti Honda? I wouldn't consider myself "anti-Honda". I have owned two of them. I just don't think the new Hondas are as appealing with respect to their competition as they used to be, but that does not make me "anti-Honda".
"The amusing thing about this argument is that the Accord had to grow in (exterior) size to accommodate V6 that America demanded (hence Japanese/European Accord, and American Accord)."
That's not why the Accord keeps growing. The basic Honda V6 has been roughly the same physical exterior size for a while now. The Mazda6 is the same size all over the world, and they figured out how to fit a V6 in it.
IMO, the latest Accord is the best Accord, in terms of balancing everything including ride, comfort, standard features and feels almost as plush as a near luxury sedan with upper level trims (no wonder, it sells as one in the Japanese market, as Honda Inspire). Its got the best duo of power train as well.
Civic, however, has room for improvements. It does everything in Honda’s typical ways. Now may be the time to add flavor to it, much like Honda did with the Accord. More power, and more features, all around, and love it or hate it styling to boot.
But this also means, as nippononly pointed out, Honda needs a sub-compact, economically priced, to appeal to those who wish Civic CX was still around. Jazz/Fit can be that car, and rumors are, it will be. But since Jazz was launched in 2001, I doubt we will see one in America until it is redesigned (next year).
To give Civic some personality, Honda needs to offer the 2.0 liter I-4, with sport package, but no more in a “docile and refined” form that the current Si is. 160-170 HP engine in EX makes sense, as does 190-200 HP in the Si.
That's not why the Accord keeps growing. The basic Honda V6 has been roughly the same physical exterior size for a while now. The Mazda6 is the same size all over the world, and they figured out how to fit a V6 in it.
V6 AND demand for reasonable cabin space appears to be a big reason the 1998 Accord had to grow by 3-4 inches. A company has to satisfy the demand of the buyers in the market it sells products. I’m sure it would have been easier and cheaper for Honda to have a single size Accord around the world. What do you think?
Honda had to retain its chassis design, and we all want to see Honda continue to offer unequal length double wishbone front and 5-link (Watt-link) double wishbone rear suspension intact (otherwise, the company would be bashed for cost cutting). And double wishbones have never been regarded as space efficient design. Toyota can get away with struts all around in Camry, as do all American automakers in the class, but we expect Honda to deliver something different, don’t we? Design compromises.
Honda 3.0 V6 (Accord) is likely more compact than Ford 3.0 Duratec (Mazda6), so could Honda “squeeze-in” the V6 into TSX? (BTW, TSX is couple of inches shorter than Mazda6, while the Mazda is same length as Accord Coupe but couple of inches shorter than Accord sedan). But, I’m not sure if the engineers would want to apply “squeeze-in” engineering without major changes. Not every car follows the same principle in chassis design.
That said, Accord is still four inches shorter than Altima and may be 8-10 inches shorter than the Buicks you bring up often.