Has Honda's run - run out?

varmint · November 2005

It would be more fun if it included personal histories.

This is the restaurant where Dad took Mom for their first date... and stiffed her with the check."

I could have a lot of fun with that.

ateixeira · November 2005

Imagine if Honda went a step beyond excluding BMW dealerships as destinations. What if they actively pointed out new Honda dealers?

Hey varmint, let's check out that new RL, I hear that SH-AWD is really nice and it would make a nice replacement for your TL, which needs an oil change by the way...

or maybe:

nippononly, your old car's warranty expired and you've been talking about a new Civic for ages, how 'bout we go check one out now, I'll set the destination for you. Turn left, then proceed zero point two miles to the Honda dealer on the right.

-juice

nippononly · November 2005

that would freak me out - I would sell the car at the first opportunity! :-)

Saw another pic of the five-door Fit, looking forward to that car arriving. Might be looking at a car like this in a couple of years. Would consider the Yaris too, but it appears the five-door won't make it here, only the three-door. Which will probably be Toyota's loss.

Forget where I was reading about it, but they estimated the Fit would start at $14K. I wonder how much extra it will be to get cruise, alloys and a moonroof. If that is even possible. I want to see superlative fuel economy. *crosses fingers*

ateixeira · November 2005

Imagine what that would do to chronic car buyers!

Bear in mind that after 30 mpg, you get diminishing returns. In other words, 15 mpg is a lot more than 10 mpg, but 35 mpg isn't really much more than 30 mpg.

I'm sure the Fit will sip fuel. I think in Brazil the biggest engine is a 1.3l. It's very successful there and has won awards for customer satisfaction.

-juice

varmint · November 2005

The fuel economy is lower than most were hoping, but you need to remember this vehicle was designed for european and far east driving styles. It was not designed for US highways. We're also getting the "performance" 110hp 1.5L engine, not the fuel sipping 1.3L.

nwng · November 2005

Since this idea is so receptive with the folks at edmunds, let me put together some investors and engineers to develope the dvd for oem navs. And five years from now, i will be sipping rum on the sandy beach of my own carribean island :shades:

ateixeira · November 2005

I get a commission if my idea flies, OK? Just invite me and the wife down for a weekend bash in the tropics!

-juice

nippononly · November 2005

32-37? Do you mean 32 city, 37 highway? I hope not. This is a lighter, lower-powered car than Civic is. I WANT to see a 5-point improvement over the Civic (35/45 with CVT), but EXPECT to see at least a 2 or 3 point improvement. This car's footprint isn't a lot smaller than Civic's, so what would be the point of getting the Fit if the Civic does better with gas? Just the lower price? Or maybe a love for hatchbacks.

Keeping my fingers crossed...

varmint · November 2005

Yep, I mean 32 city and 37 highway. Check TOV, you're not alone in being a bit shocked.

This IS a low-powered car, so the little engine has to work a bit to get it up to the speeds we travel here in the US. FWIW, I believe the Scion xA gets about the same rating. The Chevy Aveo gets 27-35 or something like that.

The Civic you're comparing it with has a brand new R series engine. The Fit is actually a 4 year-old model and probably does not have the latest technology. It does have to be cost-competitive after all.

nippononly · November 2005

but that brings up something that has been a bit of a controversy over in the '06 Fit thread, right? Namely, that the next-gen Fit is due out next year, and we can't say for sure which model we will be getting, old or new? Seems dumb to offer a brand new model here that is in its very last year elsewhere, only to replace it with something new after a year. My bet is the next-gen Fit is what we will get, and I am hoping they have taken leaps and strides forward in engine tech, for the purpose of improving fuel economy.

I would strike it from my list if 32/37 were the best it could do.

On a broader note, Toyota and Honda both seem to be resting on their laurels a bit right now on the fuel economy front, and I think it is because they can point to the hybrids and say "see? we have high efficiency cars covered", but I want a non-hybrid that I can get 35-40 mpg in from week to week. Small is fine, lower power is fine.

Why don't T&H use the Corolla/Civic engines, detune them, and plug them in smaller cars? Economies of scale, improvement in fuel economy over Civrolla, everybody wins.

varmint · November 2005

Well, it could very well be the new Fit. The mpg I'm posting comes from Honda materials given to the dealers in order to help them sell whichever version we get here.

dino001 · November 2005

Why don't T&H use the Corolla/Civic engines, detune them, and plug them in smaller cars?

Size of engine compartment, perhaps?

nippononly · November 2005

you think, really? In Honda's case, that is the size of a 1.5L four vs a 1.7L four. Can they be that different?

dino001 · November 2005

When you get small, space becomes a serious premium. Engine is not engine block only, all the other stuff as well. Jump from 1.5 to 1.7 does not seem big, but we also have a different transaxle, etc. I don't know, it is a wild guess seeing how packed those Japanese compartments are.

ateixeira · November 2005

It's not nearly as aerodynamic as a Civic, I believe it's taller, or at least the shape is more blunt and it appears that way. Civic is much sleeker.

Plus, with the 1.8l engine the Civic can be geared tall for the highway. That's how they get 40mpg highway.

Advantages? Cheaper, smaller, easier to park, more manueverable, better city mpg, hatch practicality. You can get a 25" TV home in a Fit, but not a Civic.

-juice

nippononly · November 2005

they should just bring the Euro Civic five-door over here and call it a day then. The only stand-out among those advantages you listed is the price, which will become important as Civic shoots up (seemingly) in price. The others are negligible - there's no guarantee that the Fit's dimensions will be that much smaller and the car that much more maneuverable than Civic, which isn't exactly huge anyway.

Now if they can pack in the Honda goodness and still sell the Fit for $14K, maybe that is enough by itself. But I am still looking for (hoping, anyway) one of the three new subcompacts (Versa, Fit, Yaris) next year to offer superlative fuel economy.

ateixeira · November 2005

For most people price is #1.

More importantly, having the Fit allows the Civic to move upscale, in both price and perception. Fit will now be entry-level, and Civic will be one step up.

A Civic hatch would cheapen the Civic line overall in the eyes of a fickle American public.

-juice

bumpy · November 2005

The others are negligible - there's no guarantee that the Fit's dimensions will be that much smaller and the car that much more maneuverable than Civic, which isn't exactly huge anyway.

Isn't the '06 Civic about the same size and weight as a Scion tC? That's not exactly "small".

The Euro Civic is quirky and upscale enough to be sold here as an Acura RSX in 3 and 5-door versions (the Integra had 4-door versions up to the mid-90s).

varmint · November 2005

Does the Civic Hatch get the same mpg as the new Sedan? Or are we talking about something like 30-37 mpg with a higher base price?

varmint · November 2005

"The Euro Civic is quirky and upscale enough to be sold here as an Acura RSX in 3 and 5-door versions (the Integra had 4-door versions up to the mid-90s)."

As nice as the Euro Civic is (and also the Canadian CSX), Acura in the US needs to leave the TSX as their entry level car. Pardon the negativity, but the brand will never earn much prestige with pimply-faced teens running around the showroom.

carlisimo · November 2005

I think the European Civic is slightly downscale of ours. Torsion-beam rear suspension if I remember right... basically they did more to keep costs down and interior room up, than on the JDM/USDM Civic.

Either way, the styling wouldn't fly here. We're too bland for it.

I'm pessimistic on the Fit, too. (I like the Jazz name more, actually.) It's closest to the xA, and I think it'll suffer the same fate. A retiree car, not a segment dominator.

I don't think Honda can keep its prices as low as the competition. It could end up with the numerically weakest car engine on the market. It doesn't look like it'll be a leader in mileage. It's not ugly, but it's not obviously cute or great looking.

More than ever, small cars need a strong selling point, and I don't see one in the current Fit.

varmint · November 2005

I believe the CRX was torsen-beam. Don't let one design aspect dominate your opinion of the Euro Civic. UK and Asian reviews have all been very favorable on how the Fit/Jazz handles. It's torsen-beam, as well.

I agree that the styling is too spicy for the mainstream market, but odd-ball looks have actually been a huge catalyst for selling the xB and Element. The niche market would probably love the look of the Euro Civic.

Mind you, I still don't think they should bring the Civic Hatch over. The Fit is a better alternative for the bottom of the market and the buyer looking for practical transport.

ateixeira · November 2005

http://www.modernracer.com/features/carcutawayhondaciviccrx.html

among the first cars to use Honda's ingenious new four-wheel, double-wishbone suspension system. This race-proven suspension system is designed to provide some rather invigorating handling

That thing was way ahead of its time, even today's new Civic Si or RSX Type S doesn't have a rear suspension as sophisticated as that.

-juice

ateixeira · November 2005

But they still don't mention a beam...

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/projectcars/0012scc_projcrx/

The '88 CRX also has a different rear suspension than any other CRX. Honda's unique sort-of-double-wishbone, sort-of-trailing-arm rear suspension uses a toe control link and a compliance bushing in concert to give a passive rear steering effect.

I doubt the Fit use a suspension anything like that, either way.

-juice

varmint · November 2005

"Handling is very good for the small car, thanks to fairly firm suspension. Understeer prevails, as this is seen as the 'safer' handling characteristic than oversteer. City bumps and thumps were soaked up admirably by the front independent and rear torsion beam suspension, given the overall firmness of the suspension. On rougher roads, the car could feel somewhat unsettled, but on normal city and suburban roads where the car will spend 99% of its lifetime, it was acceptable, if not a little firm."

http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_6083/article.html

You appear to be right about the CRX, though. Apologies for my defective memory.

gee35coupe · November 2005

Just like the early Civics and the first Integra. But in 1987 the Civic started with wishbones and the CRX was built off of that platform along with the second gen Integra.

ateixeira · November 2005

I recall the '90-91 models best, because I went shopping for one. It was close, definitely on my short list. I just didn't think a 2 seater could manage as my one and only car at the time.

But I've always remembered them fondly. The Civic Si wasn't as light and nimble.

-juice

rsholland · November 2005

Yep, and it rode like a truck, as I had an '84 Civic S and have driven several first-generation CRXs. As long as you were on a smooth road it was fine. Get it on a rough road, and it was pure torture.

Bob

ateixeira · November 2005

OK, so now we got it straight. The early ones had it, but later they went to a more sophisticated suspension.

I think it's OK in a very light car. It basically matters a lot less. Especially in a non-performance car.

The double-wishbone setup shows its edge only near the limits, basically by keeping the tire patches parallel to the ground. Struts and beams will change the angle slightly, and not maximize tire grip.

I'm sure Honda wanted to move the Civic Si and CRX Si in the sporty direction, so they invested wisely in the bones.

Lots of cars use beams, though, the Golf and Jetta did up to the Mark IVs, the Sentra and previous generation Maxima too. They offer very compact packaging when interior space is more important that maximum grip.

Lastly - I'd argue that struts are better than beams, because they're fully independent, while beams are not. So you hit uneven pavement in a torsion beam, and the right wheel affects the left, and vice-versa. So a pot hole can upset the whole rear end, even make the axle hop. That's what Bob felt.

-juice

varmint · November 2005

Another one still using a beam out back.

ateixeira · November 2005

And Matrix, minus the AWD model, which oddly enough gets a different rear suspension.

Scion xA and xB too, I believe. It's quite common.

-juice

bumpy · November 2005

Believe it or not, the smallest car sold in the US without a torsion-beam rear end is the Hyundai Accent.

carguy58 · November 2005

My opinion is from a styling standpoint it definately has more precsence and looks more agressive than the 01-05 Civic Coupes. Syling DNA hints at headlights off of the Acura TSX and the grille insert off of the 03-05 Accord's. It looks like Honda/Acura of late is getting that bland tag off of them in terms of styling that they had in the 80's and 90's. Still though the Accord, Pilot, and CR-V suffer from weird or bland styling and need huge overhalus in my opinion from a styling standpoint. To me the 06 Civic Sedan should have been styled differently and still suffers from bland styling in my opinion. The 06 Civic Coupe, 01 MDX, 04 TL and 05 RL were cases of Honda taking styling chances though.

My other questions and comments about Honda here:

-Will there be a new CR-V for 07 because the last one lasted from 97-01 so that would make a 5 year model cycle and the current one was released as an 02 model.

-Some Honda fans think the RSX will be on the chopblock but what are the latest updates about the RSX getting a redesign for maybe 07 because the current model dates back to the 02 model year.

-I also see the refresh of the 06 Accord Coupe: they should have just left it as it was. It didn;t need the chrome grille insert and the revised tailights really don't help its look. I wonder if the 08 Accord Coupe will stay as a target for people who like the old Prelude or if the Accord Coupe will go back to having a slight resemblance to the Sedan like it did back in 97-98 when the 6th generation Accord was released(98-02 model.)

larsb · November 2005

I guess we might have to wait one more year to bury Honda.... :shades:

:shades:

ateixeira · November 2005

Though it doesn't have the most technical merit among industry awards, it does carry the most marketing value. I'm sure Honda will milk this for all it's worth.

-juice

varmint · November 2005

-Will there be a new CR-V for 07 because the last one lasted from 97-01 so that would make a 5 year model cycle and the current one was released as an 02 model.

Technically, the 1st gen CR-V went 6 years. It was available in other markets back in 1996, but didn't come to our shores until 1997.

That said, it will be redesigned for MY 2007. Some production capacity will be shifted to one of the plants in Ohio. It will be based on an "all new" platform shared with the RDX. Nobody knows exactly what "all new" means, though. No reliable information regarding engines, transmission, or other features.

-Some Honda fans think the RSX will be on the chopblock but what are the latest updates about the RSX getting a redesign for maybe 07 because the current model dates back to the 02 model year.

2006 will be the last year for the RSX. That would be the traditional five-year run. There have been zero reliable rumors about a redesigned RSX. There have been dozens of rumors stating that it has reached its end.

varmint · November 2005

I've always thought C&D did a better job with their 10 Best awards. MT's COTY winners have been hit or miss. I mean, they awarded COTY to the Malibu back in '97 or '98. There's a bunch of "where are they now" cars on their list.

dino001 · November 2005

Same with Ford Thunderbird and Lincoln LS.

varmint · November 2005

300M...

Yet, they've missed some great cars like the Odyssey, Miata, and others.

larsb · November 2005

All COTY from every source has some dogs in it.

THIS COTY award will NOT be a dog....

carguy58 · November 2005

"I've always thought C&D did a better job with their 10 Best awards. MT's COTY winners have been hit or miss. I mean, they awarded COTY to the Malibu back in '97 or '98. There's a bunch of "where are they now" cars on their list."

Its funny what you said about categorizing cars in a "Where They Are They Now" category because thats a VH1(music channel)type of thing. Remember when VH1 used to air "Where Are They Now?" episodes of musicians from the 70's, 80's, and real early 90's about 5 years back?

Getting back to cars The 97-03 Malibu wasn't a bad car but it suffered from reliability problems like the brakes and terrible resale values. The new Malibu the exterior styling is just a mess.

carguy58 · November 2005

I remember getting my motor trend magazine back in 95-96 in my freshman and sophmore years of high school. They put cars in 95 like the Mecury Mistique or Ford Contour on that list and didn't put cars like the Accord and Porsche 911 on their list. They put the Accord and 911 on their "near misses list" in that issue. They also put the Geo Prizm(rebadged Toyota Corolla) on their list in either 95 or 96 which was an alright point A to point B compact car that the time. In my opinion the Nissan Maxima(95-99 model) should have been on their list somewhere at the time. I mean it had 4 doors, a great interior, great build quality and didn;t have the torque steer that many automotive reviewers complain about with current Altima's and Maxima's. Maybe Motor Trend is more favorable towards American Cars. I hear all the time that CR is bias against American Cars(Domestic Big 3.) well maybe MT maybe favors American Cars more. Who Knows? Who cares? I would have bought the Accord or Maxima over the Mystique at the time so their opinion doesn;t matter to me. I give them props for naming the miller cycle engine as their engine of the year in that issue which was used in the Mazda Millenia.

andre1969 · November 2005

did MT start merging foreign and domestic cars together for COTY? They used to do a COTY and then an import COTY. The Renault Alliance, and VW GTI both won, because they were built in the US (Wisconsin and Pennyslvania, respectively). One year the Citroen SM won it though, so I don't know what they were thinking that year.

Anyway, to pick COTY the editors of MT usually pick what they feel is the most significant new car AT THAT TIME. Meaning, taking into account the econonic and political climate, where gas prices are going, and so forth. So often a car wins out because it happened to be the right car at the right time. Also, keep in mind that the car has to be all-new (or mostly all-new) in that year.

For instance, let's look back to 1997? What domestic cars were new that year? There was the Grand Prix/Regal/Century and the Malibu, and that's all I can think of. Chrysler had nothing new for '97...they sprang the Neon on us in '95, as well as the Sebring/Stratus, and the LH cars would be new for '98, so '97 was a holding pattern year. Ford had the Contour/Mystique in '95, the Taurus/Sable in '96, but nothing new in '97. So the Malibu probably just won by default!

Now the Toyota Camry WAS new in 1997, and I'd imagine that if MT had grouped imports and domestics by that time, it may have won. But then again, maybe not. The '97 Camry was actually being panned at the time for its boring style, Rubbermaid nose, Tempo taillights, and uncomfortable seats. And compared to the '92-96, it actually seemed a letdown. In contrast, the press was all over the Malibu, and those "The Car You Knew America Could Build" ads were getting milked for all they're worth.

In retrospect yeah, the '97 Camry probably was a better choice than a '97 Malibu. Easy to say today, 8 years later. But back then, the Malibu sure looked like a contender. Just as I'm sure that, at the time, the Citation, Alliance, Aspen/Volare, Monza 2+2, Omni/Horizon, and Vega all seemed like winners. And for the most part, they would have been, had it not been for one nagging little issue...reliability. But that's somthing they don't take into account for COTY, as it usually takes a few years (a few minutes in the case of the Vega :P ) for reliability problems to surface.

carlisimo · November 2005

The previous CR-Vs and Integras/RSXs came out a year or so after the redesigned Civics, because they're on the Civic's platform.

So the new CR-V should be ready for show soon. The RSX... I expect it to be put to rest, with RSX sales so low. Its only markets are the US and Japan, and sporty coupes are declining there, too. Great car, but more people buy Elements and Ridgelines...

varmint · November 2005

They stopped doing the import COTY after 1999. FWIW, the import car in 1997 was the 5 Series.

1999 is the same year they broke the SUV awards apart from the trucks, as well.

I understand the limitations of the COTY awards, and in many cases the choices make sense within those limitations. So, in effect, it's the limitations which I feel are the problem.

C&D's 10 Best awards allow winners of previous years to repeat. They also permit significant redesigns (even if it's not a full model change). And because they do not pick only one vehicle, the field is broader. So, I think their award is less susceptible to the "hype factor" we see in MT's awards. When I read the top 10 list, I see a group of good, solid cars.

carguy58 · November 2005

"Now the Toyota Camry WAS new in 1997, and I'd imagine that if MT had grouped imports and domestics by that time, it may have won. But then again, maybe not. The '97 Camry was actually being panned at the time for its boring style, Rubbermaid nose, Tempo taillights, and uncomfortable seats. And compared to the '92-96, it actually seemed a letdown. In contrast, the press was all over the Malibu, and those "The Car You Knew America Could Build" ads were getting milked for all they're worth."

The Carmey has always been criticzed for boring styling I think. However, I don;t know what the reviews were for the for 92-96 Camry exterior styling. As for the nose of the 97 Camry what do they mean by rubbermaid? I don't personally like the styling of the 02-06 Camry's even though the 05 redfresh did its enhance the cars look from the 02-04 model years. I think it looks less sleeker than the 97-01 model. The 95-96 Camry was the best styled Camry in my opinion though.

andre1969 · November 2005

actually that part about the rubbermaid grille and tempo taillights was taken right from C&D or MT...one of the buff rags. I think it refers to the nose, which was nothing but plastic and just had a cheap, plastic garbage can quality to it. They improved it for 2000-02 with a little chrome accenting, similar to what they did with the '96-97 Accord versus the '94-95.

IIRC, the '92-96 Camry was often referred to as a "baby Lexus", both inside and out. It was almost too "upscale" for its class. I don't think it was really criticized for being boring, but referred to as "conservative". Of course, the line between "conservative" and "boring" can be a fine one!

My favorite Camry is actually the '87-91! Hardly an exciting car, but there's just a clean sensibility about its gently rounded wedge shape that I find attractive. I like the Mazda 626 from around that timeframe as well, a car that's very similar in style to the Camry.

ateixeira · November 2005

I think the whole auto mag industry is guilty of that, whatever is new tends to win or at least be seen favorably, even cars that flop in the market.

-juice

carguy58 · November 2005

"actually that part about the rubbermaid grille and tempo taillights was taken right from C&D or MT...one of the buff rags. I think it refers to the nose, which was nothing but plastic and just had a cheap, plastic garbage can quality to it. They improved it for 2000-02 with a little chrome accenting, similar to what they did with the '96-97 Accord versus the '94-95."

The 94-95 Accord and 97-99 Camry's had a body colored grille which was whatever color the car was thats what color the grille would be. The body chromed grille on the Camry was 00-01 not 00-02. The 02 model year brought us the current Camry.

I think with the 97 Camry Toyota(maybe in my opinion) wanted to make the exterior styling more acceptable to people who regulary bought GM and Ford and didn't look the very Japanese style of the first 3 generation Camry's so I guess that explains the Tempo Tailights. The Camry was the best selling car in America from 1997-2000 and I think is the best selling car from 2002 till now. The Accord did overtake it in 01 in sales.

Another thing about the 97 is somebody called the suspension on the 97-01 Camry "crap" on these boards. I was taking a look at CR's ratings for the 97 Camry and the rating for suspension was either much worse than average or below average for the "trouble spot" for suspension. Of course in other ratings for "trouble spots" the Camry finshed pretty well for a 7 year old model.

"My favorite Camry is actually the '87-91! Hardly an exciting car, but there's just a clean sensibility about its gently rounded wedge shape that I find attractive. I like the Mazda 626 from around that timeframe as well, a car that's very similar in style to the Camry."

The 88-92 626 does still look good and modern to this day!

gee35coupe · November 2005

A DX. That car ran to 260K. And would still be running today had she done some basic maintenance to it. She neglected it a but and I deemed it unsafe amd bought her another car. She now drives a 1993 Accord 10th anniversary. It's quickly approaching 200K with minimal upkeep. If I can find one, I'd buy her another '93 when this one quits. Heck, I'd drive a '93 if I could find a clean 5 speed with less than 150K on it.

Has Honda's run - run out?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy