Has Honda's run - run out?

merc1 · June 2004

Talon95's post #873 is exactly what I'm saying. I agree with his viewpoint totally on this. Nissan's great profitability is still relatively new and I personally don't think it will last like Toyota's, Honda's, BMW's and Porsche's has.

I just watched a Car and Driver review of the Armada and its the same thing thats been said about a lot of Nissan's "new" products. They lack refinement: too much engine and suspension noise, plasticy interiors and just an overall impression of a rushed product.

Now I'm not saying Nissan will have another fall like they did before that French company stepped up, but I do think their profits will be eaten up more so than the four I mentioned above. It seems to me that they're going for flash, quick lauches, but not enduring quality like Honda or Toyota.

This makes their cars cheaper to build, giving them more left over when it is time to count the profits. Their designs kill Honda and Toyota when it comes to styling so incentives aren't needed as much. I don't think Nissan's lesser dependency on incentives has anything to do with quality, its all new product with styling that makes Hondas and Toyotas look very bad in comparison. Lets see what happens to their profit/quality relationship in 5 years or so. I think it is too early to tell anything yet.

There is a most relevant (and timely I might add) story about this very thing in the July issue of CAR magazine, page 33.

To quote"

"The four most consistently successful car companies of the past decade are Toyota, Honda, BMW and Porsche. Other boom and bust, huff and puff, and regularly deliver warnings about poor productivity, (which doesn't apply to Nissan now obviously) over-capacity, cost cutting and all ther other stultifying language of the multinational car giant...."

This article fingers VW and DaimlerChrysler, but I think some of the same things apply to Nissan, but again..not the productivity part.

M

carguy58 · June 2004

Ad far as far as Nissan they have had problems with rattling and recalls of late with the Armada and Quest. I think Nissan's new plant in Mississippi is the culprit of those problems or bugs. I know from what I read Nissan is taking a look at the problems at the Mississippi plant. The car business is like any other business: when a problem occurs a company has to take a look at it or else they will lose customers. I'm sure Nissan will respond to these problems.

As far as Honda as goes just alot of exteriior styling problems that Honda has needs to straighten out. The Acura brand is fine. I don't know what is trying to do with the Accord. The stragety in terms of the target audience is baffling with this generation of Accord. Its just like ever since after the 97 model Honda has been unsure of what exterior styling direction to take with the Accord. The 98 Accord had the same tailight treatment as the 90 Accord. I'm trying to figure out what kind of styling evolution what kind of styling evolution I see with the Accord in the upcoming generation. Its just very hard for me to figure out.

carguy58 · June 2004

Ad far as far as Nissan they have had problems with rattling and recalls of late with the Armada and Quest. I think Nissan's new plant in Mississippi is the culprit of those problems or bugs. I know from what I read Nissan is taking a look at the problems at the Mississippi plant. The car business is like any other business: when a problem occurs a company has to take a look at it or else they will lose customers. I'm sure Nissan will respond to these problems.

As far as Honda as goes just alot of exteriior styling problems that Honda has needs to straighten out. The Acura brand is fine. I don't know what Honda is trying to do with the Accord. The stragety in terms of the target audience is baffling with this generation of Accord. Its just like ever since after the 97 model Honda has been unsure of what exterior styling direction to take with the Accord. The 98 Accord had the same tailight treatment as the 90 Accord. I'm trying to figure out what kind of styling evolution what kind of styling evolution I see with the Accord in the upcoming generation. Its just very hard for me to figure out.

nippononly · June 2004

than follow the direction of the new RL (Legend) - a nice sleek front, nothing too boxy or bulgy. I don't like the squared-off look of the new TL and TSX as much. The current Accord has an OK (not great) looking front, but a big bulgy butt with a bad taillight design.

But I am not sure Accord could maintain class-leading interior volume if it used the swoopy roofline of the new RL.

newcar31 · June 2004

90 and 98 Accords are my favorites. Those were the generations where I'd pick the Accord over any of it's competitors.

gee35coupe · June 2004

We love the new look. Honda knows they can't please every buyer. But they only expect to sell around 2 million of them over the next 5 years. That's less than the population of one decent sized city. They would have to design the Galant to mess up the reputation they've built.

robertsmx · June 2004

The 98 Accord had the same tailight treatment as the 90 Accord. I'm trying to figure out what kind of styling evolution what kind of styling evolution I see with the Accord in the upcoming generation. Its just very hard for me to figure out.

1998 Accord sedans taillight was clearly derived from late 1980s Prelude, and that of coupes came from NSX. Thats going back about eight to ten years in both cases.

Until MY2003, Honda stuck with slim headlamps for Accord. This slim-style was a design element in Integra, Legend and Vigor, and continues in current TSX and TL. Speaking of TSX and TL, their back end seems to have been inspired by first generation Integra (in case of TSX, the shape of the taillight) and 1994-97 Accord (the rear end stance of the TL with more aggression). Once again, going back in history by ten years or so (more in case of the slim taillight in TSX).

1992-95 Civic had slim headlamp too, and matched by a similarly shaped taillight. In 1996, Honda adopted the large eye headlamp for Civic, and the taillight size grew to compliment it. Honda adopts the large eye treatment for 2003 Accord, but much of the size is contributed by the eye-brow (the turn signal made angular and moved from bottom as in 1998-2002 Accord to the top). The main headlight area is still slim.

And while were at it, try to notice the similarities in the rear end profile of 1992-95 Civic sedan and 2003-2004 Accord. They both have short/rounded rear deck!

2003 Accord Coupes tail lamp, and its inspiration is no secret. We first saw the style in 1996 Acura TL, and the same evolved for 2001 Acura CL, and finally made it into 2003 Accord Coupe. Having seen all three cars side by side, I can attest that a detail as subtle as a horizontal line running across the rear between tail lamps exists in all three cars!

2003 Accord Sedans taillight has been talked about a lot. I see it as an evolutionary style too! And guess where I see the birth. Let us go back about ten years, to 1992 Accord. Although 1990-1991 Accord sedans taillights were rectangular, to match the rectangular headlamps, in 1992-1993 Accord, stylists chopped the single piece headlamp lens at one of the top corner (inside), AND they chopped off one of the lower corners (also inside) of the taillight lens! So, the new taillight was no longer a full rectangle, but appears detached at the bottom, away from the license-plate area.

For 1998 Accord, Honda went back to full-length taillight. Combine the two (chopped at a corner element from 1992-93 Accord and full-length taillight of the 1998-2002 Accord) and add edges to the overall shape (especially corners) with curves to match the shape of the headlamps, and voila, 2003 Accord taillight is here!

Honda continues to practice the same with the upcoming RL as well. While the front end is typical RL (as it came around in 1996 with wide heavy looking grill and largish headlamps), the rear end is derived from 1996 TL (including the shoulder line that runs below and to the side of the trunk lid that many are confusing to be similar to BMW 7-series trunk lid cover style).

So, it is possible that we will see some design elements from a ten year old Honda/Acura, when the next Accord comes around in MY2008 (or MY2007 if Honda decides to go back to four-year redesign cycle).

muffin_man · June 2004

Impressive review of the last decade+ of Honda design!

varmint · June 2004

I think if you look hard enough, you can see similarities between just about any set of vehicles. I think evolutionary styling is when strong styling cues are carried from one generation of a car to the next generation of the same car.

There wll be plenty of cross-model styling thefts (Robertsmx lists a good number of them), but that's just using what they perceive as good ideas. It has nothing to do with the brand or evolution of the car. It could just as easily have been stolen from a car from another brand, which Honda/Acura has also done.

carguy58 · June 2004

I thought Honda had it going it right with the Accord in the mid to late 90's with the 96-97 and 98-00 models. Yes I do like the 98 despite saying before that the 98 has the same talight treatment as the 90 Accord does.

Also wanted to comment on Robertsmx's last post if you notice the Accord had the same tailights from 1990-1997 but got more a defined look to them during that time period. To explain it further Robert covered the 92. For 94 when Honda came out with the 94 Accord the headlights got more define looking and then with the refreshening for the 96 Accord the headlights had more of an aggressive look to them(not in your face sort of look but sort of.)

If you noticed to the 96-98 Civic has the same tailights as the 92-93 Accord if you look hard enough. I think with the stylists did with the 96 Civic was take the 92 Accord talights and just shoterned the length of them.

Also if you notice the 94 Accord and 01-03 Civic Coupe talights bare a striking resemblance to each other.

Honda is plenty capable of designing great cars. The new TL is awesome looking.

On Gee's post before about the Galant that car is awful looking. Mitsu had it going on with the 99 Galant. I don't understand how Mitsu in 5 years had a great looking Galant and now they have one of the worst looking cars in production right now.

driftracer · June 2004

Heck, they have a $78 million class action suit hitting them on the Galant - I figure that they figure they have nothing to lose, why not make it controversial?

The more they lose in market share, the less profit they make, the less the pay out....

andre1969 · June 2004

is that, over the past 10-15 years ago, it seems like cars have actually STOPPED evolving! They might be getting better and more reliable, and safer, but style-wise, it almost seems like they're changing them for the sake of change, but not advancing the design of the automobile any.

For instance, from just about any other era in time, if you took two cars that were 10 years apart and put them side-by-side, you could almost always tell which one looked older. For instance, just look back at how most cars looked, in 10 year increments. Most 1994 cars, IMO, don't really look any older than their 2004 counterparts. But then compare a '94 to an '84, and the differences are much more drastic. Same if you go back to '74, '64, '54, '44 (well, okay, that one's impossible! ;-), etc.

I think if we had never seen a 1994 Accord before in the past, and Honda suddenly mad the next-gen Accord look just like a 1994 did (just bigger to keep up with the times) I don't think it would look a bit out of place.

nippononly · June 2004

the subject of the lawsuit on the Galant? Defective manufacturing or fraudulent marketing?

Sometimes on these boards you hear people say stuff like "yeah, it sucks, but if it had a Honda badge it would still sell like hotcakes". Even if there were an 'H' on the front of that miserable new Galant, its sales would still suck.

andre: I think that is because around 1990 we went from wind tunnel tested, hand-drawn styling to computer-modeled styling. So now the clay putty look dominates from one generation to the next, with every carmaker seeking the lowest coefficient of drag and production cost they can get, and few going out on any sort of a limb with their styling. In this environment, we should applaud BMW for going out on that limb and doing something different; too bad that their "something different" was kinda ugly. :-(

driftracer · June 2004

huge class action over brakes (premature wear, vibrations, shoddy OEM quality) - applies only to vehicles showing problems in the first 50k miles or so. I did the engineering inspection on the cars (6 units, pulled by Mitsubishi and plaintiff's lawyers) and wrote the report the judge used to certify the class action suit.

robertsmx · June 2004

Im not sure if evolutionary styling must be limited to a particular model within a lineup. In case of automakers with heavy bias on family resemblance, it does affect more than one model after all. BMW and Mercedes would be good examples.

On the other side of the spectrum, among offerings in North America, Toyota is least consistent about a styling theme across the board.

Here is another bit of historical revival from Honda (check out the hood)...
2003 Inspire
1988 Legend

Ofcourse, that was also a design element in Prelude (except the last restyle).
1979 Prelude
1995 Prelude

andre1969 · June 2004

I think the '92-96 Camry was every bit as "modern" looking as the '97-01 generation, or the current model (which IMO is a big step backward).

robertsmx · June 2004

I think 1992-96 Camry looked the best among all generations that I can remember.

anonymousposts · June 2004

92-96 Camry was (and still is) a classic design. Much like the 90-93 Accords. Some car companies could take those 10 year old designs today and sell them as new cars.

newcar31 · June 2004

I agree. Loved both of those cars. The side profile of those Camrys is almost identical to the original LS400.

anonymousposts · June 2004

The Camry seemed to get "thinner" inside in 1997 compared to the 92-96's. I also prefer the one-piece dash of the early generation Accords vs. the new one. The original LS400 (we have a 94) is another great design. As is the Legend.

varmint · June 2004

Robertsmx - Are you talking about the V-shaped, raised section in the center of the hood? Buddy, find me a car that doesn't have a raised section there.

The industry has traditionally taken one of two options on hoods. Raise the center or lower the center. Some use a center crease, while other's don't. That's not a lot of options. I think one of the things that makes the new Accord unique is the fact that it does neither. The hood is a perfectly blank slate.

In my opinion, evolutionary styling is taking strong design elements and incorporating them into the sheetmetal from one year to the next.

Having wheel wells, or a windshield, or a door handle in the same place are not examples of strong styling statements.

The twin kidney grill on a BMW or the big flat headlights on former Volvos are strong statements. Cadilac's recent use of planar surfaces and harsh creases would also fit the bill. The small circular headlights from the last generation Integra were a strong statement. The taillights on the CR-V are another from Honda. These are things that stand out because of their uniqueness or the impact of their use.

Incorporating them from year to year would be the evolutionary part of the equation. The car needs to have them present consistently over time. If you jump from 1955 to 2005, you're not talking evolution, you're talking retro.

Now, your example example of BMW is a good example of brand styling. In this regard, Volvo is another that has done this very well in recent years. Having your line of cars resemble each other is nice for brand recognition. But that's not the same thing as evolutionary designing.

For example, if Honda designed all of their new cars using styling from the Element, the line would have good brand styling. But that change would be far too dramatic (I know some would say horrific, but I like the Element) to be considered evolutionary.

andre1969 · June 2004

of years of evolution wiped out is the Chrysler 300. They could have launched it in 1990 to replace the M-body Fifth Avenue, skipping those FWD C-bodied NYers and both generations of LH car, and I don't think anybody would have noticed.

robertsmx · June 2004

Yep, the raised section on the middle of the hood. Sure, almost every car has some part of hood raised, but you should be able to see a specific design element there. If every car had it, I wouldn't have noticed a difference. BTW, Infiniti/Nissan is also using it as a design element. Obviously, it stands out as a design element to me.

And notice that I mentioned it as one of the design elements in most generations of Prelude. In fact, the last generation had its hood going the other way. Similar is the case with S2000.

grbeck · June 2004

When the current Accord debuted, my first thought after seeing it in real life was...S2000. The hood and front fender ensemble evoke the S2000 for me.

From the side, the sedan, especially, emphasizes the "long hood, short deck" school of styling - which also brings to mind the S2000.

As for incorporating the Element's styling in future products - the front of the Honda SUT show truck takes its cue from the Element. It will be interesting to see just how closely the production truck follows the show vehicle.

varmint · June 2004

Robert - I guess we just see it differently. I don't see anything unique about either a convex or concave shape in the middle of the hood. It doesn't suggest a strong design element to my eye.

Grbeck - Designer of the S2K wanted the car to look like it had a central fuselage with the fenders stretching outward to reach the wheel arches.

The new Accord has similar look, but achieves it in a different manner. The hood, as mentioned above, is featureless. But the gap between hood and fender tapers from front to back, giving it the same V shape that Robertsmx and I were just writing about. That taper gives the visual impression that the body of the car comes to a point up front (like a fuselage). From the sides of the hood, the fenders do a convex to concave transfer. This gives the sheetmetal a kind of skin-stretched-over-bone look to it. Both were the same ideas behind the S2000's body.

Now, I don't think the fronts of the Accord and S2K actually look anything alike, but I can see similarities in the intent of the design.

robertsmx · June 2004

I thought so too, and in coupe, the shoulder line has a subltle resemblance to it (the way it folds into the tail lamp), as is the cut on the door sill in the sedan.

carguy58 · June 2004

Sone people brought cars up on these boards from 1992 and 1994 well cars from the 90's have a more classic look to them. I mean you take a look at today's like a BMW 7 Series, Infinti G35, or a Cadillac CTS. Those designs I don't think will age well. I think for a design to age well it has to be formal but yet elegant. Aggressive looking cars don't really age well. Take a look at the 92 Pontiac Boneville and 92 Pontiac Grand AM. Those 2 cars are very agressive looking but have aged very poorly. If you take a look at a 93 Mazda 626 or a 1993 Accord those 2 cars have aged alot better than alot of cars from the Domestic Big 3 automakers had back then at that time. To take it further to comment about Andre's comment(I don't mean to diss Andre either.) Cars gave evolved I mean the 80's saw the boxy/square fad, the 90's saw the bubble look fad. The 00's you see more slanted back ends on cars(Chysler 300C, Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry Solara(I don't like the looks of that car though.)

As far as Toyota styling is concerned Toyota has no styling evolution to their cars.

designman · June 2004

I know the eye of the beholder always does the accounting, but the S2000 and current Accord comparison boggles my mind. The S2000 is one of the best styles to come from Honda, the current Accord may be the worst. The S2000 is one of the best body styles on the road period. The current Accord is one of many modern-day ugly ducklings. The S2000 has attitude. It looks more like a viper than the Viper. The Accord reminds me of a watermelon.

merc1 · June 2004

Your opinion on the new TL please sir.

M

andre1969 · June 2004

no diss taken ;-) Actually, I'll agree that car styling has evolved (maybe "advanced" is a better term for the idea I'm trying to get across) since the 80's. I was thinking more in terms though, since the early 90's, although there were some standouts in the 1980's.

For example, I don't think the Ford Taurus looks any more "modern" today than the original design, although it's much better built. And I thought some of Chrysler's mid-to-late 80's K-car derivatives, like the LeBaron GTS/Lancer and the LeBaron coupe/convertible (at least the ones with the hidden headlights) still look pretty good today. As does the '83-88 T-bird and '83-86 Cougar (I thought they messed that one up in '87-88).

But back to the early 90's...I don't think an Impala looks any more modern than an early 90's Lumina, although, again, it's much better built. And it's hard for me to judge Chrysler anymore, because IMO, the Intrepid/300M/Concorde/LHS are a more "modern" style than the 300, even if they're physically an older design.

Back to Honda...my old task leader at work has a '92 or '93 Honda Civic sedan that he drives back and forth to work every day. He bought the thing new. I think it actually looks more modern than the current Civic!

On the S2000 front, I can see a little bit of family resemblance between it and the Accord, in kind of the same way that a Chrysler 300, Pacifica, Town & Country, and Crossfire all have a vague family resemblance. It's just that the S2000, being a sports car, could let style dictate the design, so it comes off as much more pure. The Accord had to be able to hold 5 people in relative comfort, have a decent-sized trunk, be able to accept both 4- and V-6 engines, and compete with a whole slew of other models, so there were more important things than style to be considered in its design.

One thing that, IMO, really throws off the Accord's style is that it's a very roomy car inside, but has fairly small external dimensions. It's kind of like having the passenger cabin of a big car, but the front- and rear-ends of a compact. The end result is a nice comfy car that doesn't take up a lot of space and is easy to maneuver, but it compromises style. I think the Toyota Camry and Avalon suffer from this same affliction. Somehow though, I think the Altima came out looking good. It's only about the same length as a Camry/Accord, and has about the same interior volume (I think it has a bigger trunk than the Accord, though), but I think its proportioning is better. Then again, it has a longer wheelbase than the Camry/Accord/Avalon, so that might be part of what helps it.

designman · June 2004

TL has grown on me. Definitely a positive step forward. It will never make my knee-knocker list but find it at the top of my highly-tolerable-would-definitely-buy list. For a fussbudget like me this is almost as good as it gets.

Not crazy about extreme wedginess of sedans and massive rears but the butt lines and light assemblies are finely shaped. I usually like traditional dark sedans to complement the blue pinstripe suits, but as a roadster man, I'll take the sportier approach in the bigger babies if done right. I think the TL is as close to being done right as it will probably get.

Interior is nice, real nice. Always liked Honda and Acura interiors. They have the touch that suits me. I don't think anyone does interior fit and finish better than Acura. Have to step up to MB for this, but even then, I just like the airiness of Acuras.

With SH-AWD, TL and RL would be a strong contenders to replace my 530. That's years away though. Will see where this all goes and how my other half weighs in.

varmint · June 2004

"The S2000 has attitude. It looks more like a viper than the Viper." - Designman

LOL! You know, I think you're right about that. With its huge front fenders and narrow mid section, I've always thought that the Viper looked more like a scorpion.

I think the Accord/S2K comparison is valid from a styling perspective, but you have to understand that doesn't mean the two cars have to look alike. The shape of the cars has as much impact as the styling details.

One of the Honda styling comparisons I've always found interesting is the RSX vs Integra. Many people prefer the last generation Integra and have claimed that the RSX is "too bland". (How cliche is that?)

Anyway, from my perspective the Integra is the one missing and styling details. The only styling it had in the sheetmetal was the little round headlights. That's it. No strong character lines. Nothin'.

Meanwhile, the RSX has interesting headlights and taillights. The body has more character lines and a more distinctive grill. It has far more styling in the details.

The difference between the two is the fact that the old car had a swept-back, low to the ground shape. The new car has a forward-leaning, taller shape. I think that is what sets people off. It's the shape, rather than the styling.

merc1 · June 2004

As always a very interesting view from you on styling. I like the new TL too, but some things about its styling that put me off. It is however a big improvement over the previous design, imo. I've always liked Acuras too and I'll never get the 1995 Legend GS out of my head!

M

varmint · June 2004

The TL's tail is too short for my tastes. I prefer the longer, more balanced shape of the old design. But the details in the sheetmetal are far more sporty. They did a great job with the front end. The blunt section coming down off the hood provides a great canvas for the grill. I wish the RL had taken a stronger resemblance with that section of the car.

Minor quibble. The rakish profile makes for very small windows in the back seat. It feels tight.

andre1969 · June 2004

hit its styling peak with the second generation. IMO, that one seemed the most upscale, and the least like a Civic. Ever since then, they've just seemed to get more and more Civic-like. I did like the first generation too, with the hidden headlights, but overall that style was just too boxy for my tastes, compared to the 2nd gen.

I'm not crazy about the current RSX, but I wouldn't call it bland! I really don't care for the front-end treatment...I think the headlights are too big and awkard, adn the grille's too small. The roofline makes me think of an exaggerated Olds Alero coupe at certain angles. One thing I do like about it a lot though, is that the RSX does a better Bel Air treatment on the taillights than the Chevy Impala!!

carguy58 · June 2004

I agree somebody who lives across the street from me has a Lebaron Convertible and yes it still looks pretty darn good.

Also on the 300C the 300C looks like an 85 Chrysler 5th Avenue(you know that large car Chrysler used to sell in the early to mid 80's period.) The headlights of the 300C look like they were dervied from the old early-mid 80's Chrysler 5th Avenue.

As far as the Integra/RSX is concerned when the 02 RSX came out and I started seeing them on the road I used to mistake them for 96-00 Civic's. The headlights of those 2 cars loooked similar.

As far as the Civic of 2 generations ago is concerned(92-95) its probably the most sporty Civic thats ever been styled. The new one is bigger so thats probably one of the reason the Civic from 10 years ago looks more "modern" as you said. Remember the bigger the car is it takes away "sportiness" from the exterior design.

andre1969 · June 2004

in some ways, I almost think my 79 New Yorker looks more modern than the new 300! It's more low-slung and has a sleeker, tapered took to it, and despite the padded landau roof (I think Chrysler was one of the few makers to put a landau roof on a SEDAN!), actually has quite a vast expanse of glass area. The smaller, M-body NYer/5th Ave of the 80's was more blocky and upright, but still had generous glass area (although the thick C-pillars and blocked-out quarter windows in back made on heck of a blind spot) I think the 2005 300/300C could have come out as a 1990 model, and wouldn't have looked the least bit out of place.

Is the current Civic really much longer than the '92-95? I know it's considerably taller, and that's where I think the awkwardness comes in. I just don't view tall cars as being sporty. I don't think physical size has anything to do with whether a car is sporty or not, though, as I'd consider something like an Intrepid or 300M, or Bonneville to be sporty. I think in some ways, the Intrepid looks just a bit like a big '92-95 Civic. Mainly in the clean, flowing design, and the way the front-end really doesn't have a grille, etc.

designman · June 2004

You make excellent points regarding the TL. A little more length in the rear and a touch less rake by lowering the rear height would have nailed it. It's overall proportions are a bit excessive and precludes it from possessing that must-have appeal. The previous TL had very balanced proportions. It's hard to find a car that isn't compromised these days IMO. Another case in point is the G35 coupe. It's hunkered-down sporty, but those headlamps look like dog paws or witch's fingernails.

robertsmx · June 2004

I know the eye of the beholder always does the accounting, but the S2000 and current Accord comparison boggles my mind.

I see your point, but there are small design elements that are common between S2000 and Accord, although the larger picture doesnt suggest it. Next time you look at Accord Coupe squarely from behind, notice how the shoulder line wraps itself around the tail lamps. It is very similar to the way it does in the S2000. Although, in the end, and in the big picture, Accord Coupe resembles first generation TL and second generation CL on the rear.

When the 2003 Accord (sedan) pictures were released, one of the first things that struck my eyes were the indentation at the lower part of the doors, another subtly carried out design element (also from S2000). No, Accord sedan still doesnt look like S2000, but that was never the point.

And S2000 has some styling elements from the first Honda car S500, with raised fenders/headlamp area (compared to the hood) and defined shoulder line running thru the tail lamp. And having given a closer look to the grills of these first Hondas (from the 1960s), Ive a feeling thats the source of the Acura (as well as Honda) penta-grill theme as well! In the 70s/80s, however, Honda moved to rectangular grill.

It's only about the same length as a Camry/Accord, and has about the same interior volume (I think it has a bigger trunk than the Accord, though), but I think its proportioning is better. Then again, it has a longer wheelbase than the Camry/Accord/Avalon, so that might be part of what helps it.

Altima is about 4 inch longer than Accord, and probably has the same wheelbase. The additional length is more than enough to give it a bigger trunk (actually, I think an inch or two would easily add up about a cubic feet or two to the trunk space).

If I were given a chance to fix Accord (sedans) styling, I would tweak the rear bumper (the way it moves up at the corners), give it triangular tail lamps and straighten out the lower edge of the rear glass (instead of it curving around the edges). In other words take it a little into the conservative side.

Meanwhile, the RSX has interesting headlights and taillights.

I missed RSX in my earlier post. Starting with the front end, the last generation Integra brought in the quad- eye look, and although the quad eye look wasnt carried over as is, the lower part of the headlight was probably styled to indicate that.

The overall shape of the tail lamp is similar to that from all Integras in the past (basic rectangular shape), with the semi-circular cut at the bottom was probably meant to reflect the same styling theme in the front. However, the top of the trunk lid got an edgier look to it, with the styling element from the Legend of the early 90s.
Park a 2002 RSX and a 1992 Legend next to each other and similarities on the rear end will be visible.

carguy58 · June 2004

I'm sorry it was the New Yorker not the 5th Avenue I was talking about before. The 300C headlights looked derived from the New Yorker(not the 5th Avenue.) Sorry my mistake. Also if the 300C came out in 1990 the big grille would sort of look out of place with the rest of the Chrysler line-up and styling theme at that time. I don't think the front end of the 300C meshes well with other Chrysler products from 1990 as far as exterior styling goes. Chrysler was still selling rebadged Mitsubishi's at that time like the Colt Vista van and the Laser. I think 1995 was the year Chrysler overhauled its line-up. You had the Sebring, the Viper coming out at that time.

Comment on post 913(designman)

On the TL the rear end is a little blocky but yet its aggressive. Nothing wrong with blocky though. At least people don't scream bland at Acura products anymore. I hope the next RSX gets that same styling theme as the new TL. The new NSX from what I have seen will have an aggressive just look the new TL.

On the RL I haven't seen enough to judge. Some people think the designers at Honda should have used the current TL styling theme for the new RL. The RL is a big luxury car. I don't know if Honda made an agressive looking RL on how it would age on the exterior. An aggressive design on a big luxury car like the RL could age terribly. You always want big luxury cars to have a conservative appearence to age well. I mean the Mercedes E-Class is not aggressive looking but its a very beautiful looking car.

Lastly I am a huge fan of the new TL: could be the best looking luxury car out save the Audi A8. Thats how good the new TL looks.

saugatak · June 2004

As always, your comments on design are thought provoking and an interesting read.

I got to see the TL and TSX next to each other recently and I decided I like the TSX a little better. The TL is a fine looking car IMO, but there are just a few too many design elements that don't seem to quite mesh 100%. The TSX just looked cleaner.

I thought the body panels on the TSX ran too low, however. The sheet metal around the wheels needs to be "tucked in" a little.

newcar31 · June 2004

I like everything about it except for the crease down the side of the car and the square Pontiac style dual exhaust tips. Other than that, it's very nice looking. Too bad the Accord couldn't have looked like that. I probably would've bought one.

carlisimo · June 2004

It looks like the design theme of the '00s is blockyness. Lots of creases. Since they're incorporated into curves, it's not a rehash of the boxy '80s (when it seems like more cars looked the same than they do now). I like the departure from the rounded, swoopy '90s as far as lines go.

Saw a Mazda3 hatch today, probably the non-exotic I think is prettiest right now. When I was next to it I was surprised by how high it was. The beltline and the steering wheel were at least half a foot above my Tercel's, and I've sat in lower cars than mine. I hope it's not like the Vibe, which I've driven and I felt like I was in an SUV. I wonder what it'll mean for future tuners who lower their cars; lower one of these tall cars and you're still higher up than in a stock '90s Civic.

*edit* I thought I was in the "modern car styling" thread after reading a page of this one. My bad.

nippononly · June 2004

if the '06 Civic would be the first to break with the current trend, and actually LOWER the beltline enough so the driver can actually SEE out of the car and rest his/her arm on the windowsill...what a concept! :-)

Not to mention, reduce driver seat height to below minivan and SUV levels. If people want a small SUV, they can always buy a CR-V instead.

ateixeira · June 2004

True that, check out the cowl of an '84 Civic, must be about a foot lower than the current models.

-juice

c1rybick · June 2004

I drive a 95 Camry, and despite how utterly boring it is to drive, it is a beautiful car (for a Camry, at least). The side profile is especially nice. And reliable--we're the third owners, and yet I understand that nothing major has needed to be fixed with 150,000 miles on the car.

A new Civic is almost (it might actually be) taller than my Camry. Good headroom in them, I guess. My sister's Civic (97 EX sedan) is certainly lower. I don't mind driving her car (VTEC, 5-speed, the nice handling for a stock car), but it's a little too low to the ground for me to want to drive every day. Of course, I'm six feet tall, so that doesn't help. Especially since hers has the moonroof.

I think that that new TL is a very good looking car, although the taillights are a little boring when you're looking at it from the rear. I just wish it was RWD! I'd rather have a lower torque TSX than the TL if it's going to be FWD.

varmint · June 2004

"You make excellent points regarding the TL. A little more length in the rear and a touch less rake by lowering the rear height would have nailed it. It's overall proportions are a bit excessive and precludes it from possessing that must-have appeal. The previous TL had very balanced proportions." - Designman

Yeah, I just don't understand why all the stylists think that a short decklid is the only way to make a car look sporty. I mean, Jaguar has been doing long boots for decades and they age very well. The Acura Legend designs also had a more sleek look with the long trunk. Those cars had balance.

Frankly, I think the TSX does a better job of balancing the "tall sedan" shape. But the styling details in the TL's sheetmetal are much more aggressive.

varmint · June 2004

I know what you mean. A lot of people think that if a car isn't flashy, it isn't styled well. The 95 Camry was a very well done car. I always thought that the last gen Accord was another. Yet, many enthusiasts still call for the automotive equivalent to gold chains and exposed chest hair.

ateixeira · June 2004

IMO the TL looks fine to me. Sales are OK too.

The long hood/short deck trend started with the Mustang, I guess.

-juice

robertsmx · June 2004

Long hood and short rear deck has been a classic GT styling theme for decades. It mostly applied to sports cars and coupes, but is being extended to sedans lately to give them a more sporty profile. I, for one, like it, since Im not a big fan of must have as big trunk as is the hood as is the cabin.

The styling trend with short rear deck in sedans probably started in the late 90s. Im sure there were exceptions, but if I saw more longer rear deck vehicles coming out now, they will only remind me of the cars in the 1980s or earlier.

My all time favorite from styling perspective

Has Honda's run - run out?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles