Has Honda's run - run out?

varmint · March 2005

I thought the 2006 Civic Si concept had plenty of pizazz. 200 hp in a handsome coupe body... What's not to like? With a little luck, it's an RSX-S without the high price tag. Granted, the production model will be toned down a bit, but it looks like a much better canvas for the tuner crowd than the current model. We already know the K-series engines have gobs of potential.

seminole_kev · March 2005

Well I'm sure the IS250 is a go for the European market (hence the stick) but are we going to see that motor (and transmission) here in the States? (Sorry, once I saw the bloat and the V6 rather than I6, I haven't been following the new IS much at all)

gee35coupe · March 2005

I'm all over the IS. I don't think there is any bloat when you consider the standard equipment. Look at the TSX. It's also a very heavy car but has mega-content. It's hard to make a loaded entry-lux car come in with a Civic weight. Especially if you want it to be crash worthy too.

Acccording to press releases the motor and stick are a go or the U.S. I'm glad too cause there is no way the IS350 is gonna be able to come in in the $27K price range. This car is everything I wanted the TSX to be.

anythngbutgm · March 2005

I would hope that with this IS, as well as the 3-er, and the C-class, Honda would push Acura towards developing a rear drive layout or 2 for future vehicles like the TSX. I know it's a long shot though, and if anything, the TSX will probably be AWD.

I am absolutely ecstatic about this car (IS250) and will be watching closely for new developments, pricing, etc. Thanks Nippon for the news!

davem2001 · March 2005

Acura wants to make the SH-AWD available across the board, like Audi does with Quattro or MB does with 4Matic...I doubt you'd see a 'pure' RWD, but then again, they do make the S2000 and the NSX so I guess it's not totally impossible

anythngbutgm · March 2005

I really dig AWD, but if they're going to add it to the TSX, they need to bump up the power to 250 and increase the diplacment IMO. Would the J30 fit under the hood of the TSX?

davem2001 · March 2005

they're taking about as the next generation of the current lineup rolls out, they will be available with AWD...not retro-fitting it to the current TSX

I agree, the downside to AWD is the added weight, complexity, cost.

ateixeira · March 2005

That would cannibalize TL sales, especially if it got both AWD and a V6.

-juice

varmint · March 2005

IMO, the MDX will be the next to get SH-AWD, followed by the RDX. The next "car" to see AWD will likely be the TL, not the TSX. The TL has the power and sales volume to justify such an expensive addition. With the 5 year model cycle, I think we'll see an AWD TL with the 2007 model year (arriving in 2006). Which will probably allow the TL to continue its aggressive sales pace through the end of the model cycle.

The goal of TSX is to be an entry-level vehicle for Acura. Not only would SH-AWD add about 220 lbs to the curb weight, it would add $2,000 to the price tag. And that's before we even get into adding a V6.

OT: Ditto on the IS250. It's quickly finding its way onto my top ten list.

strager · March 2005

http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/honda30e_20050330.htm

implies it's only the styling that's to blame for Honda's slump.

I say it's also the lack of wagons and 5 door hatchbacks in Honda's lineup. I don't consider the CR-V a wagon, although Honda wishes everyone should think of it as one.

carlisimo · March 2005

I still don't get why people call the current Accord "bland." It looks like a daring design to me; too strange for me to be comfortable with it. Weird mix of angles and curves, but it doesn't look bland like the Malibu Classic or an old Camry. It's closer to being ugly than boring.

Agree on the rest though. Honda's being too conservative on their body choices, engine performance, and especially styling. Safety doesn't sell that many cars when anyone can do it. And the current Civic's suspension doesn't respond well to modifying, which was a big draw on the old ones.

seminole_kev · March 2005

well I'm probably going to sound like an idiot, but this current Accord manages to be both bland and ugly at the same time, which I never thought was possible, but I'll try to explain.

The overall shape of the current accord is very bland to me. Kind of just "used bar of soap" blandness. BUT when I look at the details, the headlights and the "upside down" tailights, I find some really ugly things (again to me).

That may not make much sense, but that the best way I can describe it. Part of it I guess is because all the "detail" items are flush, so nothing stands out at any kind of overview.

ateixeira · March 2005

The advatage Toyota has over Honda is that they have a more complete lineup, including several pickups and seemingly endless SUV options.

Ridgeline will help Honda even if it only serves to draw curious shoppers in to then buy other Honda models.

Basically as Honda's lineup expands, the Accord will benefit.

-juice

mariner7 · March 2005

I think Toyota has several recent advantages over Honda, besides more resources and therefore fuller lineup.

Better strategy: its Scion strategy is much better than the foundering Element strategy

Better design: its GS/IS design language is so much better than RL, and even TL

One of the advantages of being small is supposed to be you're supposed to respond to changing markets. The killer is that nobody responds as quick as Toyota.

ateixeira · March 2005

Element was successful, have sales really dipped that much? It didn't even cannibalize CR-V sales.

Scion has a lot of money behind it, go to any auto show and it's one of the most attention-getting booths.

Element cost nothing compared to the Scion effort. Successful in a different way, IMHO.

Acura's designs are fine, also. I see RLs every day, all over the place.

-juice

davem2001 · March 2005

Toyota is more willing to use incentives - I think right now there is a $750 rebate on the Camry, whereas Honda doesn't do the rebate/incentive thing, except maybe those 'cash to dealer' deals.

Also, I do think there is a styling component - I agree with seminole-kev - the new Accord somehow manages to look bland and weird at the same time - the details, especially the 'upside down' headlights and tail-lights, are unattractive and the overall shape is bland... I think the Camry is just better looking, and I'm usually a Honda guy.

ateixeira · March 2005

$600 on Accords last I heard. But they do avoid those.

-juice

andre1969 · March 2005

to the Camry, until the '05 refreshening of the Camry. I don't know if they're using subliminal advertising or spraying pherimones on the car or slipping a mickey into my drink, but I'm actually starting to LIKE the Camry! Especially in SE guise.

In the past I used to prefer the Camry, although that was mainly because it was always a bigger car, but they're pretty equal now in terms of size.

seminole_kev · March 2005

yeah I agree that the minor refreshing they gave the Camry really helped out the looks. Minor change that went a long way.

stickguy · March 2005

slap yourself before you do something stupid.

I like the Accord, other than the taillights, but am really turned off by the Camry. The interior is even a bigger difference to me. Love the Accord, hate the Camry.

Even if it was tied, the droopy tailpipe on the Camry would instantly disqualify it from the running. it would drive me nuts. Not that I'm shallow or anything.

driftracer · March 2005

Just so you know...

"slap yourself before you do something stupid"

it's language like this that causes people to lose their CCB memberships...

stickguy · March 2005

I meant buying a Camry instead of the Charger or 300C that he's waiting for.

driftracer · March 2005

a Camry?? He's not even OLD!

gee35coupe · March 2005

But my next car looks like it's gonna be a Lexus. I'm going back to Toyota where I started. Honda has got to come up with a RWD Acura. And soon. I'm making more money now and I want something RWD, manual transmissioned, luxurious, and dependable.

explorerx4 · March 2005

honda and toyota seem to be promoting leases.

stickguy · March 2005

I'm kinda agreeing with you. I lovew the 'Ody we got, but for me, I'm sorry I didn't get RWD this time. The new IS250 does look sweet, and Honda just doesn't have anything to compete. The TSX is nice, but too buzzy. The TL just has too much power through the front wheels with the 6 speed.

I always liked the 3 series, but never found the right unit (mostly due to price). The new 3 series, the IS, even the G35 are tempting, and the big H just doesn't play with that crowd.

I also like the looks of the new A3 (and really like the hatch utility), and Honda missed that boat too, not bringing over the hot 5 door '06 Civic.

gee35coupe · March 2005

I'm looking for somthing a little more adult. But still small. I even find our Accord too big for everyday use(Anony loves it though). The Lexus IS250 looks like it may be everything I want. Reliable, great looking, reasonably quick, and not all that expensive.

ateixeira · March 2005

Yeah, what is it with Toyota's exhaust dipping so far below the rear diffys? Camry and RAV4 to name a couple.

I'm in a Miata so I notice those things.

)

-juice

andre1969 · March 2005

didn't they fix the Camry's tailpipe dip for 2005? Either that, or they did something with the rear fascia to hide it better? Or maybe I've just gotten used to it and don't notice it anymore?

If I were forced to choose between an Accord and a Camry, I do think I'd still go with an Accord. I've liked the current-gen Accord better than the current-gen Camry, although the '05 restyle does make them a bit more equal.

I still prefer the seating position of the Accord though (front seat feels like it goes back a lot further) and the interior does still seem a couple steps higher in quality.

But not to worry...I'm still holding out for a 300C or Charger, so I don't think there will be a Camry in my future. Or an Accord. Buuut, there is this nice looking '76 LeMans I found on eBay... :-)

varmint · March 2005

For many folks, I think the word "bland" is just the default word they use to describe any Honda they don't like. It's not that the car in question is actually bland, it's just that is the word they are familiar with. I've even seen it applied to the Element (!?!?)

The Accord's design is actually quite interesting in many aspects. The convex/concave transition from hood to fender was pretty much unique until BMW started using it. The fact that the hood itself has no character lines is unique. Instead, the seams provide the same V shape we see on most cars.

I'm not saying that the Accord is pretty. The tail end (more than just the lights) prevent it from being a looker. And the swept-back headlights are so last season. But it's not bland.

ateixeira · March 2005

IMO looks OK, just seems styled by the guy that operates the wind tunnel. Hire an Italian like the Koreans have started doing, then fine-tune it at the wind tunnel.

-juice

strager · March 2005

that's the word that comes to my mind when I see the Accord. Contrast the current Accord to the '94-'97 model, which looks athletic and much younger by comparision.

It's almost like the Accord is over the hill and turned middle aged, and become fat. I think that may have turned off a lot of potential buyers, who don't associate Honda with the bloated look.

andre1969 · April 2005

probably has "grown up", to try to appeal to its core buyer group, which is aging. To be fair though, Toyota's been doing the same thing with cars like the Camry and Avalon. The important thing to do though, is to strike a balance, keeping the current customers as they age, but not coming off with an old fogey image that alienates younger buyers.

One thing that might make the current Accord look bloated, compared to older models is the high beltline, and in profile the huge passenger compartment coupled with a relatively short hood and rear deck. For having such a high beltline though, the Accord still does a great job at feeling open and airy on the inside. Maybe not as much as those older pre-MacPherson strut models that gave you the low dash and beltline, but at least you don't feel like you're riding in a bathtub!

I think the Altima does a better job than the Accord, style-wise. It doesn't look nearly as disproportionate to me, and offers similar interior room and a larger trunk. But it is a few inches longer, both in wheelbase and length, so that might help it out some. And, of course, the Altima's interior is nowhere near as nice as the Accord's, and neither is the workmanship.

strager · April 2005

that the Accord is probably the most refined mid-size car. It's been often said that Honda buyers don't care about styling, they buy Honda for the overall package, etc, etc. That may be true of the Honda faithful, but those folks keep on getting older. Younger buyers don't care for the fat look, imo.

anythngbutgm · April 2005

I'm on my fourth right now and for an all around commuter vehicle, the Accord fits the bill perfectly for the price. It's comfortable, quiet, smooth and pretty quick with the manual especially. It really is about the overall package. As for competition which I would consider:

Camry: softer ride , a bit more "Basic" interior, hard seats

Altima: Notchy shifter, Interior not as well built

MZ6: Small interior, more boy racer style than necessary

Galant: Auto only, Cost cutting on interior

Now I am also not a huge fan of the newest body style, but interior wise sitting in the back seat of the new one (my sis has one) is like sitting in my living room, while mine ('02) is not as roomy. And the interior is a bit more "classy" compared to mine as well. Both are built extremely well IMO, and I'm very nit-picky on details.

carlisimo · April 2005

I think another problem is that the Accord has a lot of competition on the "slightly sporty family sedan" side, from Nissan and Mazda, whereas no one's really going after the Camry.

andre1969 · April 2005

and even the Camry seems to be getting into the "slightly sporty" market with the Camry SE, while maintaining its status quo with the LE and XLE models.

ateixeira · April 2005

That's mostly cosmetic. When we shopped it the SE didn't even have ABS standard. No manual tranny with the V6 model, either. It's an appearance package on an LE, basically.

-juice

varmint · April 2005

"...the Accord still does a great job at feeling open and airy on the inside. Maybe not as much as those older pre-MacPherson strut models that gave you the low dash and beltline..."

Pre-MacPherson? You must be thinking of the Civic. The Accord still rides on double bones.

I'm not sure what the rational is, but Honda has almost completely dropped the low-cowl interiors they used to be known for. I think my 1st gen CR-V is one of the last designs with that feature. I suspect it could be related to their newer crash protection architecture, but I've never heard a definitive explanation.

andre1969 · April 2005

I guess I was getting my Accords and Civics crossed! The reason for the higher beltlines and cowls might actually be two-fold. First, better side impact protection. Didn't some new, more stringent side impact standard come out around 1997? Second, the driving population is getting older, and those older, low-slung Accords were a bit harder to get into than the more recent, more upright models. As they raised the seat height, they had to raise the height of the dash and cowl, as well, otherwise your legs would be in the dashboard.

nippononly · April 2005

"It's an appearance package on an LE, basically."

Actually, the SE has firmer suspension settings, and if you drive them back to back you can tell. I did a 3-way comparo, LE/SE/Accord LX. The two most closely matched are the SE and LX. The "regular" Camry ride is pillow smooth, something no accord matches. No Accord matches the wallowing through turns and over speed bumps of the regular Camry either.

The Accord EX, by contrast, has a noticeably firmer ride than the LX, and busier by the same token over bad pavement. The Camry SE also has a 3.3L V-6, as opposed to the 3.0 of the other Camry V-6s.

seminole_kev · April 2005

..I though I remembered the SE getting the 3.3L V6 rather than the 3.0L, but I am probably wrong on that.

seminole_kev · April 2005

...Nippon already answered it.

davem2001 · April 2005

I think the confusion is, when the latest generation Camry first came out, 2002 or 2003 MY, the SE was basically just a trim package. When they did the mid-cycle 'freshening' for MY 2005, the SE now has the better engine, it's more of a distinct model from the LE, XLE.

As for Honda, I think another aspect to consider is just that the competition is getting tougher. Look over the past 5, 7 years or so - the Altima is much improved, the Mazda 6 is much better than a 626, the Camry has stepped somewhat into the "sporty family car" arena...then you have Hyundai, the Sonata is much improved...the marketplace is crowded.

ateixeira · April 2005

So true, go hop in a CRX and then try any new Honda back-to-back.

We only drove the SE 4cyl 5-speed, and that was MY2002. That's the sportier one?

Then I can't imagine how soft the LE is.

-juice

nippononly · April 2005

real soft! :-)

anonymousposts · April 2005

picture a warm marshmallow that's been ran over by a 18 wheeler and you will almost come close to grasping the softness of the Camry suspension. Lol.

grbeck · April 2005

...seems to appeal to older folks more than the Accord. So maybe they appreciate the softer suspension. I also never see ANY older drivers (60+) in the Altima or Mazda6, so it could be true that those two are hitting the Accord harder than they are the Camry.

toyo_z · April 2005

i got to try out the latest gen accord sedan the other day, and I was really surprised.

I'd owned an early-90's vintage LX and the cabin was incredibly airy -- almost like being in a fighter jet, with the low cowl and great visibility all around.

The new one didn't feel right -- the high flanks made me feel claustrophobic, though certainly it was light-years more refined than my old beast.

I've noticed this trend with other manufacturers, too... my old subaru legacy has far better visibility than my '03. Same deal for the lexus ES.... the strange yam-shaped body makes reward visibility terrible.

Perhaps psychologically people 'feel" safer with higher beltlines, but i for one am not a fan. I hope that honda can reverse this trend in their next accord.

gee35coupe · April 2005

Keep the SUV bumpers from hitting your kidneys.

Has Honda's run - run out?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles