This has become one of the more confusing discussions I've read on TOV but it's a good look at the market and the media reviews Honda has received during the past few years. We want Honda to stop building Toyotas but we want them to be aggressive and focused like Toyota. We want the old Honda back but we don't want those old 105hp Civics and we don't like the current Civic.
There is only one issue here which is the separation of passion and desire from engineering. Car fans want the passion, the Camaros, the off-road F-150 trucks to drive to the grocery store. It's all good. On the other hand, millions of Americans want solidly engineered and manufactured cars, vans, SUVs and trucks which fit their needs. The question here is which of these groups of customers would an auto company started as a engine producer, managed by conservative engineers, and focused on solving problems likely serve.
Engineers are trained in the application of limited resources in solving problems so it should come as no surprise that a group of engineers designs a new car with a given set of features and to a price point taking into account the need to earn a profit and then expresses utter surprise when the intended customer deems that car as unworthy. If we don't want Honda to be managed by engineers we need to state exactly that; we want Honda to become another Ford or BMW. If we want Honda to remain the unique auto company which designs cars that intelligently meet their customers' needs while using fewer resources, are cleaner, and cost those customers less money we need to demand not better specifications but more passionate products.
The fact that Honda doesn't build an FRS/BRZ doesn't prove that they can't or won't but rather they don't want to at this time. It is indeed the customer base which moved away from Honda and engineers aren't necessarily trained to understand customer desires. We want good old fashioned Civics but with 200hp. We want Odyssey minivans which aren't minivans but cool people movers which can carry lots of cargo. We want compact, lightweight sporty Accords but we want them to dominate the family car market. We want RWD but we want compact cars with lots of interior space. None of this makes any sense from a practical view.
I've looked at the ILX and thought it was a pretty nice little sporty sedan. I checked the Audi web site and found the least expensive A4, which is FWD, begins in price at about where the 2.4/6mt ILX tops out. Has anyone here driven both a 2.4 ILX and a current FWD A4? I haven't. I suspect the ILX will get lost in the market because most luxury buyers don't want intelligent cars. They want cars with passion. Take a good long look at a base A4. How does that car really differ from the ILX? It's not like times have changed in that regard though because for the first six years or so no one seemed to want a new Integra. No one cared about Integras and most folks didn't know what one was in the first place. Many of the folks who had heard of one would insult you for buying your car because "it's just a Honda."
We can't have intelligently engineered cars having large amounts of power but also top of the market fuel economy while also having up to the minute tech features planned five years in advance. The question is what exactly is it that we Honda customers want. We need to be clear about this and our wants and desires need to be consistent for six to ten years at a time. And we need to agree that an engineering approach can be a pretty clinical view on the problem being solved.
1. Offer competitive (or better) power from an advanced, usually smaller, more efficient engine than the rest of the competition.
2. Offer a car that was as light or lighter than the competition.
3. Offer an advanced suspension design that combined both good ride with excellent performance.
4. Managed to do all these things while maintaining excellent reliability, competitive cost.
Oh, and...
5. Were fun to drive relative to the competition.
Yes, these things had some downsides. Criticism for low torque, often somewhat higher NVH levels (usually road/tire noise), etc. But it was what made Honda, Honda.
Fast forward to today:
1. Powertrains are now bigger than much of the competition (which is moving to turbos), fall behind in acceleration the sportier you go in terms of car types, have gone backwards tech wise and no longer provide many of the "Honda" characteristics that created so many fans. Fuel economy wise, everyone is competing with Honda for the top spot and often win in the EPA game. Maybe not real world, but many are still at least very close there.
2. Lightness still seems to be a goal for Honda, so give them credit there. The Civic is lighter than the competition. I believe the Fit is too. The Accord is competitive. The SUV lines are so/so in this regard. Unfortunately though, all these vehicles have pretty much grown in size as they aged, so Honda is suffering the same bloat as most OEMs.
3. Mostly strut suspensions and beam axles in many Honda cars these days. This is a definite step backwards. But hey, at least Honda hasn't gone away from fitting the shittiest tires available and sticking with weak brake pad compounds (oh wait, that was what they used to do wrong...).
4. Reliability and Cost are still strong points, although I'd argue that Honda has taken some hits here, but they're still well regarded.
5. Regarding fun to drive, I think Honda has slipped a bit here, but other OEMs have come on strong, particularly in the sportier cars. But even in the more mainstream areas, other makes have done a good job injecting some fun and sport into selected trim levels.
So, the problem is that Honda hasn't advanced much in many areas, gone backwards in others, while its competitors have advanced strongly in many areas. Instead of working to maintain its superiority where it had and improve the areas it needed to, it appears as though Honda has taken to looking at the competition and deciding that what they had was good enough.
I believe there is plenty of passion left in the engineers at Honda. They've been behind some of the greatest cars Honda has produced, often working behind the scenes and under the bureaucratic radar to get things done. But they've been stifled by poor management, both strategically and in tactical resource management.
Grace141 wrote: This has become one of the more confusing discussions I've read on TOV but it's a good look at the market and the media reviews Honda has received during the past few years.
What is confusing is this statement.
This thread makes more sense here at ToV than anything. It is enthusiasts talking about a car built for enthusiasts. What don't you get?
Grace141 wrote: This has become one of the more confusing discussions I've read on TOV but it's a good look at the market and the media reviews Honda has received during the past few years.
What is confusing is this statement.
This thread makes more sense here at ToV than anything. It is enthusiasts talking about a car built for enthusiasts. What don't you get?
This seems a somewhat familiar tactic: the suggestion that "we" have suddenly become collectively confused, it's time to wrap up the discussion, or let's just patiently wait for Honda to respond.
notyper wrote: Couldn't disagree more with you Grace141.
Remember what Honda used to do:
1. Offer competitive (or better) power from an advanced, usually smaller, more efficient engine than the rest of the competition.
2. Offer a car that was as light or lighter than the competition.
3. Offer an advanced suspension design that combined both good ride with excellent performance.
4. Managed to do all these things while maintaining excellent reliability, competitive cost.
Oh, and...
5. Were fun to drive relative to the competition.
SC
I am not asking for anyone to agree with me, as I live in Europe and that is a small market, but I am surprised on how many agree on the above and then still many times defend Honda for their current or (hopefully not planned) +20% products.
All of the above is true, Honda used to be a little bit more than the rest for approx the same... and I am just saying, if they increase engine output by say 15% with ED, they will be lagging behind the current family sedans. And yes, in europe small displacement turbos are popular but the general publid DOES NOT care what engine technology is used. They want, swift, economic and perceived quality. I know the current Accord(TSX) is better than most euros but it doesn't sell because it's lagging behind.
1997 the Accord was not lagging behind, a 2.0 Audi/VW/Renault/Ford engine was weak and not as fuel efficient compared to a 2.0 Honda engine... how things have changed.
It would be soooo easy for the Accord(TSX) to be super competitive and get great reviews. 2.0Turbo or 2.0+Electric engine (Public doesn't care what tech), about the same price as today, some nice technology offerings and about the same perceived quality. Very important that you can get good connectivity without Navi... 98% of the $$$ does not care if Honda strays away from NA only, starts to do forced or electric as long as the outcome is about the same.
330R wrote: Grace, what on earth are you talking about?
Do forgive me for saying this. But same here. He seems to be blaming -us-, enthusiasts for the predicament Honda is in. And that Honda has gone into this shithole simply because they let the engineer run the company. Whereas all these while, many of us agrees that it is because the bean-counters have taken over the company. So I am super confused because his arguement seems to suggest that if Honda kicks out all their engineers and let the bean counters run the company as they see fit, then suddenly Honda cars will become very desirable to enthusiasts and will be widely praised by fans and media alike. A strange post IMHO. No offense meant.
I've looked at the ILX and thought it was a pretty nice little sporty sedan. I checked the Audi web site and found the least expensive A4, which is FWD, begins in price at about where the 2.4/6mt ILX tops out. Has anyone here driven both a 2.4 ILX and a current FWD A4? I haven't. I suspect the ILX will get lost in the market because most luxury buyers don't want intelligent cars. They want cars with passion. Take a good long look at a base A4. How does that car really differ from the ILX? It's not like times have changed in that regard though because for the first six years or so no one seemed to want a new Integra. No one cared about Integras and most folks didn't know what one was in the first place. Many of the folks who had heard of one would insult you for buying your car because "it's just a Honda."
We can't have intelligently engineered cars having large amounts of power but also top of the market fuel economy while also having up to the minute tech features planned five years in advance. The question is what exactly is it that we Honda customers want. We need to be clear about this and our wants and desires need to be consistent for six to ten years at a time. And we need to agree that an engineering approach can be a pretty clinical view on the problem being solved.
Cars in general have become more powerful and have achieved a relative better fuel economy...
market competition does that.
That you compare the A4 vs. ILX is interesting - actually
the A4 is made to give a 3series or a C class a hard time.
Probably next year nobody will compare the ILX to these cars.
The new A3 out soon as a sedan will be based on a totally new platform / architecture and will look a lot more sporty than the ILX; "passion" versions are sure to follow.
The A class hatch - new platform / architecture too, will get a similar sporty sedan brother too - positioned below the C class. Again "passion" versions are sure to follow.
The A class hatch AMG is well on its way.
BMW has similar plans around the new 1 series.
We will see how Acura wants to keep the civic based ILX competing in its segment. Either go full on too, with passion versions e.g. sport hatchs, coupes.... or sort of let the ILX dissolve after a few years.
I don't have a good feeling for now.
But I cant stop thinking that Honda was quick into the CUV thing with the CRV and did define this segment over the years, so just maybe the ILX is the start of a long family of small Acuras and they do have big plans - maybe even a nice roadster. BIG maybe...
I hope the Mazda/Alfa plans to work together on the next Miata /mx5 is motivation for Honda. Those cars will probably be very good looking and fun!
But otherwise, I think that Honda is not the kind of company that would make RWD sports cars regularly. History shows, they only made a handful of those compared to all the others. I see it this way: The last few enthusiasts cars that they do (SiR, NSX, S2000 etc.) are all done to celebrate something, and some of these car only appear because the regular models are sales success and let's face it it made Honda a lot of money to put into R&D for them. I don't know if the Type R was to celebrate anything, isn't it was meant to be a racing car for the roads right.... it's an excercise for enginneers to show off their potential and first one was the NSX R (probably) because the RX-7 embarrassed the regular NSX on the track.
My quesiton is, is Honda in a position to celebrate, and what are the reasons to celebrate a true FR sports in this kind of economy / fuel price etc / high exchange rate? I find myself asking this. I don't know about Honda's finanicial, if these cars are simply not in the plans for the time being, either put on hold last year due to the disasters or what, but seeing the "sales success" of the Civic and some other models, will the enthusiast models follow now ?
Also, if Honda is really going the unpopular decision, are they having difficulty researching better hybrids, or (please don't kill me) hybrids or efficient engines for 'enthusiasts' and is this why there is this a lag and 'dry season' time for enthusiasts? Is Honda taking on a challenge like they seem to always do (they might not be doing well with it.. but i hope they learn) to take the unconventional way? As I see it, even though the CR-Z is not to expectations, but it would be a fun car that doesn't affect the pocket for the driver if they want to drive it like mad and not worry about consequence at the petrol station, and in this way is just like the original efficient Honda when fuel prices were not so costly. Also, is a hybrid, electric, or really 'green', tunable Type R / hot version even possible and what would it take for true enthusiasts to accept?
I mean nowadays if you give me a Civic Type R it's only going to sit at my home for a long time because I can't always just pump premium fuel and then even so I probably won't drive it like it should because I might always regret it when the fuel reaches "E"... in fact I have heard at least one of the Civic Type R owners in my town is doing EXACTLY that nowadays... but if you give me (or that owner) a CR-Z, it would be more carefree with it and drive it like it should instead of sitting at home and only driving slowly around out on weekends..
just my 2 cent
feel free to correct me on what you think is wrong
I'm not asking anyone to agree with anything I say and I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I'm saying the general theme on TOV for a couple of years now has been one of wanting Honda to act like it did back in the good old days which coincidentally was a time when they sold a lot fewer cars in the US. Honda cars were special because they were cool engineering focused cars but also because there weren't that many people buying them. If people inside Honda really do read these discussions here what exactly should they take away?
There is also a common theme of folks wanting Honda to be that very different company from the '70s thru the '90s but we're constantly comparing their products to every other car on the market. The part that always bothers me is the feeling that Honda not producing they're own version of the FRS/BRZ or any car might mean they can't or don't know how from an engineering perspective. The title of this thread prompts an instant response from me. What is Honda's answer for the FRS/BRZ? They'll probably ignore it. As they should if they really were the old Honda. It was only when Honda moved to the mainstream and began benchmarking their cars against their competitors' such as the Camry that the uniqueness of the company began to fade.
When Honda introduced the Del Sol Si Road & Track ran a comparo between it and the Miata. The resulting opinions were the Honda was the better car but the Mazda was the car of choice. If you take a 1st gen Miata and add an integral roll hoop for rollover safety, a removable hardtop for security, FWD for better packaging and more interior space, and platform parts sharing to keep costs down you get a Del Sol. The Honda was safer, less expensive to own, more powerful and faster, and it had comparable handling to the Mazda. The Miata won the comparo. People love their Hondas because they are intelligently designed cars but they long for cars like the Mazda because of irrational wants and desires.
I've now seen two of the FRS/BRZ cars on the roads and I think it's one of the coolest new cars in the past few years. I think Subaru and Toyota have hit the sweet spot for the Sports GT type of car and it's certainly reasonably priced - they could tack another $5k US onto the base price and sell every one they could build for the next few years. It's nothing like what Honda would offer though. A Honda sports GT designed to be a Honda engineering masterpiece would probably be a little too smart for it's own good and end up being another '11 CRZ, '10 Insight, '09 TL, '06 Ridgeline, '00 Insight, '96 2.5TL, '95 Odyssey, '93 Vigor, '88 Civic Wagovan, '84 CRX, '79 Prelude, etc. All of which makes the Integras, Legends, early Accords and Civics, the S2k, the '06 Si very special.
When Honda introduced the Del Sol Si Road & Track ran a comparo between it and the Miata. The resulting opinions were the Honda was the better car but the Mazda was the car of choice. If you take a 1st gen Miata and add an integral roll hoop for rollover safety, a removable hardtop for security, FWD for better packaging and more interior space, and platform parts sharing to keep costs down you get a Del Sol. The Honda was safer, less expensive to own, more powerful and faster, and it had comparable handling to the Mazda. The Miata won the comparo. People love their Hondas because they are intelligently designed cars but they long for cars like the Mazda because of irrational wants and desires.
"People love their Hondas because they are intelligently designed cars but they long for cars like the Mazda because of irrational wants and desires."
Really?
Well, it might be a possibility that people long for the Mazda because it is a better packaged car. The Del Sol was a poor attempt at capturing the Miata crowd, because even then, Honda didn't get it.
Go do a little research on all of the downsides of the Del Sol vs. the Miata, and maybe you will understand a little bit more about those "irrational wants and desires".
Grace141 wrote: I'm saying the general theme on TOV for a couple of years now has been one of wanting Honda to act like it did back in the good old days which coincidentally was a time when they sold a lot fewer cars in the US.
Of course they sold a lot fewer cars. They had a lot fewer models: Civic, Prelude, Accord.
What someone from Honda reading this discussion should take away from it is get back on top of things. Look HARD at your sport compact offerings from the past. Go back to leading in engine tech, suspension, interior quality and ergonomics. Stop cheaping out on everything. Bring back at least one real VTEC screamer. Answer the Toyobaru, or at least bring back the Integra or Prelude, and don't half-ass it. Not every car has to be bled dry of its character in order to please the greenies. And on the cars you bend over backwards to bring to the greenies - don't half-ass those, either.
Likewise, I'm not asking for you to agree with me. I'm also not asking for your ramblings about emissions or fuel economy in response, so don't bother with them.
Can we please get back to interesting shit like the BRZ and not all this boring shit about Honda. Frankly, it's been said to death. And a vwry weird perspective isn't actually a new perspective; it's just weird.
And no more weird shit about transverse boxer engines either. That was wierd!
Nick's right. Grace, that's what someone from Honda should take away from not just this discussion, but Honda-related discussions on this website, all other Honda fan sites, blogs, the non-paid-off media, the public at large, and especially their own product lineup:
THIS.
BORING.
SHIT.
Now knock it the hell off and bowl over the world again.
That's so boring I think I nodded off. I prefer ads that don't feature the car so much. More like, a split-screen of a douchebag at work and at a club, walking out toward the car for 80%+ of the ad. That's the kind of car my dad would have if he hadn't had me.
Does Acura actually pay a marketing company for that nonsense?
I wish they would go back to building cars people actually want! It would be so much simpler than trying to convince you to buy whatever misguided project they come up with next...
Nope. And the ad I saw (Car & Driver?) was a 2-page spread. So the concept was so good they thought it was worth paying nearly double?
I'm all for sublime but this one escapes me.
Wysiwyg.
Neal wrote: Nope. And the ad I saw (Car & Driver?) was a 2-page spread. So the concept was so good they thought it was worth paying nearly double?
I'm all for sublime but this one escapes me.
Wysiwyg.
Two page ad, you says? Well, I think I can predict one of next year's 10 Best winners. :o
Grace141 wrote: I'm not asking anyone to agree with anything I say and I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I'm saying the general theme on TOV for a couple of years now has been one of wanting Honda to act like it did back in the good old days which coincidentally was a time when they sold a lot fewer cars in the US. Honda cars were special because they were cool engineering focused cars but also because there weren't that many people buying them. If people inside Honda really do read these discussions here what exactly should they take away?
There is also a common theme of folks wanting Honda to be that very different company from the '70s thru the '90s but we're constantly comparing their products to every other car on the market. The part that always bothers me is the feeling that Honda not producing they're own version of the FRS/BRZ or any car might mean they can't or don't know how from an engineering perspective. The title of this thread prompts an instant response from me. What is Honda's answer for the FRS/BRZ? They'll probably ignore it. As they should if they really were the old Honda. It was only when Honda moved to the mainstream and began benchmarking their cars against their competitors' such as the Camry that the uniqueness of the company began to fade.
When Honda introduced the Del Sol Si Road & Track ran a comparo between it and the Miata. The resulting opinions were the Honda was the better car but the Mazda was the car of choice. If you take a 1st gen Miata and add an integral roll hoop for rollover safety, a removable hardtop for security, FWD for better packaging and more interior space, and platform parts sharing to keep costs down you get a Del Sol. The Honda was safer, less expensive to own, more powerful and faster, and it had comparable handling to the Mazda. The Miata won the comparo. People love their Hondas because they are intelligently designed cars but they long for cars like the Mazda because of irrational wants and desires.
I've now seen two of the FRS/BRZ cars on the roads and I think it's one of the coolest new cars in the past few years. I think Subaru and Toyota have hit the sweet spot for the Sports GT type of car and it's certainly reasonably priced - they could tack another $5k US onto the base price and sell every one they could build for the next few years. It's nothing like what Honda would offer though. A Honda sports GT designed to be a Honda engineering masterpiece would probably be a little too smart for it's own good and end up being another '11 CRZ, '10 Insight, '09 TL, '06 Ridgeline, '00 Insight, '96 2.5TL, '95 Odyssey, '93 Vigor, '88 Civic Wagovan, '84 CRX, '79 Prelude, etc. All of which makes the Integras, Legends, early Accords and Civics, the S2k, the '06 Si very special.
I think the theme has been more of "start making some cars we can truly get excited about again!"
they haven't been making BAD cars but there's been a lot of treading water and dipping into some very strange markets that don't seem to exist nor materialize, while leaving some of the proven (yet admittedly small) markets out in the cold.
I don't know how many times it can be said, the enthusiast oriented vehicles breed lifelong fans and the sales tend to spread organically thanks to the reputation that has been cultivated. Toyota's reputation is for ultra-reliable appliances. Honda's reputation has been similar on the "ultra reliable/high quality front" but they had the added distinction of being more fun to drive, higher performing, more cleverly engineered, and or more efficient than the comparable Toyota, for the same or less money.
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
