xBeastx
 |
|
|
The 2012 Civic continues to sell really well despite all the criticism. The sales are even better than the 2011, which I thought was the best Civic. I wonder if the 2013 update will skyrocket the numbers...
|
DCR
|
|
|
How did the Civic sell in 2006?
|
Colin
|
|
DCR wrote:
How did the Civic sell in 2006?
|
Wouldn't Civics top out at ~300,000 a year?
|
cforez
|
|
DCR wrote:
How did the Civic sell in 2006?
|
June 2006:26312
June 2012:27500
|
nash24
|
|
DCR wrote:
How did the Civic sell in 2006?
|
Its pretty hard to compare sales when there wasnt a world recession in 2006.
We have seen in our market medium sedans are shrinking in sales about 10 percent now and light SUV's and small-mid hatches nearly make up half the sales together, so this shift can alter comparisons aswell.
However if ED engines/trans were ready for launch sales would be a lot higher IMO, as the press would promote a new car with new drivetrains more positively than just a new evolution model with revised engines
|
rev2damoon
|
|
|
I don't think most people have asserted the Civic to be "complete fail". And once again, great sales figures don't automatically mean the 12' Civic didn't take a step back in some ways.
|
integrator
|
|
|
well said, rev
|
notyper
|
|
I think the important thing to assess here is the financials. Honda is putting a _lot_ of money and incentives on the new Civic. Things that they typically haven't had to do for a first year, mass market product. If you're willing to do this (or sell to fleets as GM does, or any other number of sales tactics) you can spike sales and make things look good to outside observers.
The longer term question is: What does this do to my brand? I certainly understand that Honda has a lot of capacity to make Civics and idle capacity costs money. So in many ways it can be a smart move to reduce revenues/profits in order to keep the factories full. But in the longer run, you risk lowering your resale value (a Honda strength if there ever was one) and also creating an expectation from customers that your actual pricing will be substantially lower than advertised. Honda has usually had a very good ability to sell cars close to MSRP with minimal incentives (cash back, financing, lease deals, etc.).
I think the current strategy is viewed as a stopgap until they can get the MMC out, generate some more positive press and command a premium again. For their sakes, that had better happen, or else the long term damage to the brand could be significant.
SC
|
Tigerriot
|
|
rev2damoon wrote:
I don't think most people have asserted the Civic to be "complete fail". And once again, great sales figures don't automatically mean the 12' Civic didn't take a step back in some ways.
|
Exactly. There are terrible products that sell well all the time. That doesn't prove they're good products.
It just proves some people have very low standards.
|
Fan Koni
|
|
Honda knew this gen would need to be given more incentives and they probably accounted for it.
If the last gen accounted for the majority of development costs, then this gen costs Honda 2-5% less straight away.
Add the annual rounds with suppliers and production efficiencies, Honda quickly saves another few.
Maybe Honda saves 10% on production of this gen vs. the last. Selling good numbers brings an obvious extra bonus.
Honda is probably reworking a lot for the next version of this car, maybe a total new platform thing.
Very likely since the Fit & the Accord world is being renewed so the new civic platform could then reuse a lot of both.
The news that the Accord and the Fit sized engines are first to be EDs adds up
So the current civic is likely just filling a Gap, with only a little over a 4 years plan.
Not convinced that this was deliberate and it is a fail??
Just look at VW - the current gen 6 was a luke warm, fat assed, recycled gen 5.
Still VW is very happy about the sales.
The current gen will be replaced after about 5 years - it probably should have been about 3-4 years since the development of the magical new MQB platform / architecture took longer than planned.
Because of that, the Golf cousin A3 had to march on for 9 years! It will be the first car using the MQB.
|
Ganplosive
|
|
cforez wrote:
DCR wrote:
How did the Civic sell in 2006?
|
June 2006:26312
June 2012:27500
|
LMFAO
|
Grace141
|
|
Like Notyper, I'm concerned about Honda's current incentives hurting resale values down the road. If Honda really did dumb down the '12 Civic because they believed the US economy would be in full depression after the 2008 collapse the '12 Civic is properly priced after all of the incentives are applied. And resale based on those properly adjusted prices should be okay if demand for the car remains good. I guess we just see a generation of Civic which happens to be quite a bit less expensive to buy than others. It sure looks like chaos though.
I wonder where Honda goes now with the Civics maybe needing to go upscale and so many folks saying the ILX is over priced for its content. I also wonder how Ford is doing with the Focus with its SEL and Titanium trims. I see a lot of the SELs in parking lots but very few of the Titaniums. We Americans still don't seem too eager to buy expensive small cars. Mini Coopers seem to be everywhere but I see very few 1-series, A3s and C30s.
|
gogzy
|
|
I agree with SC..
I would using dropping the price as last resort, or the final way to save the sales #. it's a NO NO for long term brand image in marketing. mainly because buyers always aware and sensitive of the price, rather content level. and then there is another emotional and brand/image association with the price level, it's complicated (there are brands selling at markup price to preserve it's image.. and they would not move the price even at poor sales number). that's why most retailer like to adjust content, rather change the price.
|
DCR
|
|
Ganplosive wrote:
cforez wrote:
DCR wrote:
How did the Civic sell in 2006?
|
June 2006:26312
June 2012:27500
|
LMFAO
|
2006: 316,638
2007: 331,095
2008: 339,289
2009: 259,722
2010: 260,218
2011: 221,235
2012 YTD: 162,582
|
Hondarulez
|
|
DCR wrote:
Ganplosive wrote:
cforez wrote:
DCR wrote:
How did the Civic sell in 2006?
|
June 2006:26312
June 2012:27500
|
LMFAO
|
2006: 316,638
2007: 331,095
2008: 339,289
2009: 259,722
2010: 260,218
2011: 221,235
2012 YTD: 162,582
|
Wow...the recession was really bad...that's a huge drop from 2008 to 2009. It's good to see 2012 is back on track to be in the 300k zone if they can keep the momentum going.
|
rocky
|
|
|
One factor in the sales of the Civic that didn't exist a few years ago is the presence of strong competitors in the Cruze and Focus.
|
TXsalesguy
|
|
notyper wrote:
I think the important thing to assess here is the financials. Honda is putting a _lot_ of money and incentives on the new Civic. Things that they typically haven't had to do for a first year, mass market product. If you're willing to do this (or sell to fleets as GM does, or any other number of sales tactics) you can spike sales and make things look good to outside observers.
The longer term question is: What does this do to my brand? I certainly understand that Honda has a lot of capacity to make Civics and idle capacity costs money. So in many ways it can be a smart move to reduce revenues/profits in order to keep the factories full. But in the longer run, you risk lowering your resale value (a Honda strength if there ever was one) and also creating an expectation from customers that your actual pricing will be substantially lower than advertised. Honda has usually had a very good ability to sell cars close to MSRP with minimal incentives (cash back, financing, lease deals, etc.).
I think the current strategy is viewed as a stopgap until they can get the MMC out, generate some more positive press and command a premium again. For their sakes, that had better happen, or else the long term damage to the brand could be significant.
SC
|
This same old stuff keeps getting brought up.
Please, please, please notyper, please specify the huge incentives that Honda is throwing at the Civic. What are they? What are you calling an incentive? How much per vehicle? Is it to the dealer or to the customer?
This stuff gets nonchalantly mentioned, others who have a beef or an agenda lock onto it and I don't think you have a clue as to what an incentive would be if it walked up and popped you upside the head.
|
A77
|
|
Back in 06 and 07 we had for instance no incentives on Sis at all - rates were like 6%+ for 60 months, no cash incentives. I remember selling one for over $30,000 pre tax. Then again I sold an Accord for $47,000 pre tax....(I double checked it in case my memory was fading). Better days for sales people - and this was msrp - no mark ups here.
Now the 84 monthly rate is 1.99%, and many qualify for zero percent for 60 months. Even Sis. How much it needs incentivising due to it being less of a class leader than it was, and how much because veryone else offers such low rates is open to question.
|
notyper
|
|
Yeah, the Civic has lease deals that are better than any other competitor. You can get a $19.5k MSRP Civic for $300 less down and $10/month less than an $18.5k MSRP Elantra on a 36 month lease.
I use the Elantra as an example because Hyundai, as much as I don't like them, has seen incentive levels drop as their popularity has increased. Their resale values have also come up to the point that they are very close as well (the Civic is atop KBBs numbers, the Elantra atop ALG). That means that Honda is having to eat it on the leases to hit that price. That's an incentive. That's money they aren't making. It's pretty simple math. You don't even need a calculator to get the gist of it. And don't forget the $500 dealer cash as well - something that doesn't have to be offered on the Fit or CRV.
But feel free to compare to other competitors out there. None are newer than the Civic and none have the kind of deals that Honda is offering on the Civic. This is exactly the time (new product) when Honda shouldn't be having to undercut the competition on pricing.
Oh, and one more thing. Bite me sales boy.
SC
|
Colin
|
|
Hondarulez wrote:
DCR wrote:
Ganplosive wrote:
cforez wrote:
DCR wrote:
How did the Civic sell in 2006?
|
June 2006:26312
June 2012:27500
|
LMFAO
|
2006: 316,638
2007: 331,095
2008: 339,289
2009: 259,722
2010: 260,218
2011: 221,235
2012 YTD: 162,582
|
Wow...the recession was really bad...that's a huge drop from 2008 to 2009. It's good to see 2012 is back on track to be in the 300k zone if they can keep the momentum going.
|
Sales numbers are a 'circular argument'. On the one hand, some will point to the numbers and say that they don't matter since 'bad' cars still sell well aka Corolla. On the other hand, they'll point at numbers for another vehicle and use the low volume as 'proof' that the car is 'bad'.
I will say this. The Civic is typically production limited at ~300k per year. So assuming there isn't a global depression the problem isn't usually 'how do we sell all these cars?" buy rather "how do we get more?" for dealers.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
Colin wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
DCR wrote:
Ganplosive wrote:
cforez wrote:
DCR wrote:
How did the Civic sell in 2006?
|
June 2006:26312
June 2012:27500
|
LMFAO
|
2006: 316,638
2007: 331,095
2008: 339,289
2009: 259,722
2010: 260,218
2011: 221,235
2012 YTD: 162,582
|
Wow...the recession was really bad...that's a huge drop from 2008 to 2009. It's good to see 2012 is back on track to be in the 300k zone if they can keep the momentum going.
|
Sales numbers are a 'circular argument'. On the one hand, some will point to the numbers and say that they don't matter since 'bad' cars still sell well aka Corolla. On the other hand, they'll point at numbers for another vehicle and use the low volume as 'proof' that the car is 'bad'.
I will say this. The Civic is typically production limited at ~300k per year. So assuming there isn't a global depression the problem isn't usually 'how do we sell all these cars?" buy rather "how do we get more?" for dealers.
|
I definitely agree. I guess that's understandable. People in general will use whatever available at that moment to prove their points.
|
superchg2
|
|
TXsalesguy wrote:
Please, please, please notyper, please specify the huge incentives that Honda is throwing at the Civic. What are they? What are you calling an incentive? How much per vehicle? Is it to the dealer or to the customer?
This stuff gets nonchalantly mentioned, others who have a beef or an agenda lock onto it and I don't think you have a clue as to what an incentive would be if it walked up and popped you upside the head.
|
TXsalesguy,
before it walks up and pops you upside the head,
you might want to get a clue as to who you were talking trash to.
And imho, with the 9G it is clear that incentives are what is responsible for moving a lot of these Civic's out of inventory, since the car was not really improved all that much over the previous gen.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
superchg2 wrote:
TXsalesguy,
before it walks up and pops you upside the head,
you might want to get a clue as to who you were talking trash to.
And imho, with the 9G it is clear that incentives are what is responsible for moving a lot of these Civic's out of inventory, since the car was not really improved all that much over the previous gen. |
Two points:
(1) It had occurred to me that Honda might have priced the incentives into its plans from the beginning. We know that Ito demanded a near total redesign of the 9G Civic because the management at Honda believed the financial crisis would destroy the ability of the American consumer to afford a better vehicle. To some extent, that came true. Unemployment is still very high, and millions are underemployed or making far less money than they used to.
Blatantly dropping the MSRP sends a message that the car is cheap. My theory is that Honda engineered a car that could have been sold at lower MSRP than the 8G Civic, but kept the MSRP about the same for marketing reasons. The "incentives" are a giveback on that MSRP and reflect the lower cost of interior materials and conveniences.
(2) I dispute the assertion that the 9G represented no improvement over the 8G.
This has been beaten to death over and over again, but the 9G is superior to the 8G in many metrics.
+ The 9G's R18+5AT powertrain has noticeably more low and midrange torque than the 8G's powertrain. The 8G did 0-60 in ~9.5 seconds for the AT models. The 9G does the same sprint in 8.9-9.1 seconds.
+ The 9G is clearly more efficient than the 8G. Look at the scores on fuelly.com if you don't believe me. Not only that, the 9G defeated all of its competition in fuel economy in the cars.com comparison. It does this despite having performance on par with the Elantra and Cruze.
+ The 9G is safer than the 8G. It has standard stability control and a stronger ACE frame. The 9G is slightly better than the 8G in IIHS side impact tests and much better in the rollover crush test. The 9G scores much better than the 8G in NHTSA's revised and much more stringent tests.
+ The 9G's ride quality is better than that of the 8G. People scoff at the sales guys here, but the truth is that they are on the front lines of customer feedback. I believe it was HONDA AFVM that said that even in back-to-back tests, customers preferred the 9G overall to the 8G the vast majority of the time. The 8G tilts towards sporty, but this means its ride can border on stiff and harsh. Ride in the backseat of an 8G on a road trip where there's harsh pavement for an extended period, and you'll know what I mean. The 9G is just more compliant.
+ The 9G has a level of connectivity greater than the 8G. More USB, more Bluetooth.
Where the 9G falls a bit short is in the interior materials, dashboard layout, and steering ratio.
So while there are shortcomings, it is disingenuous to say that the car was "not really improved all that much over the previous gen." It is clearly better in numerous metrics. The "character" of the car changed, but whether that is for good or for bad is entirely subjective.
|
A77
|
|
A77 wrote:
Back in 06 and 07 we had for instance no incentives on Sis at all - rates were like 6%+ for 60 months, no cash incentives. I remember selling one for over $30,000 pre tax. Then again I sold an Accord for $47,000 pre tax....(I double checked it in case my memory was fading). Better days for sales people - and this was msrp - no mark ups here.
Now the 84 monthly rate is 1.99%, and many qualify for zero percent for 60 months. Even Sis. How much it needs incentivising due to it being less of a class leader than it was, and how much because veryone else offers such low rates is open to question.
|
I lied about the 6%. It was 7.75% for 60 months in June 2007. As opposed to 0.99-1.99% now (of course money is cheaper too now). We had rates of 9% on Fits!
|
DrWhiner
|
|
A77 wrote:
Back in 06 and 07 we had for instance no incentives on Sis at all - rates were like 6%+ for 60 months, no cash incentives. I remember selling one for over $30,000 pre tax. Then again I sold an Accord for $47,000 pre tax....(I double checked it in case my memory was fading). Better days for sales people - and this was msrp - no mark ups here.
|
You sure it's not a typo? What dollar is it? I assume it's not Sing. dollar, NZ dolla, taiwanese dollar or trinidad/tobago dollar. : p
|
DrWhiner
|
|
Lease a 2013 Elantra 1.8 GLS / AT for $179 per month for 36 months with $2,299* due at lease signing.
Offer shown based on *$2,299 due at lease signing (includes $179 first payment and $2,120 capitalized cost reduction).
"Capitalized cost reduction"? Sounds like another word for incentive to me.
|
DCR
|
|
Are you serious, Whiner?
That $2120 is cash down, no?
|
Colin
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
"Capitalized cost reduction"? Sounds like another word for incentive to me.
|
But it's not...
|
superchg2
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
superchg2 wrote:
TXsalesguy,
before it walks up and pops you upside the head,
you might want to get a clue as to who you were talking trash to.
And imho, with the 9G it is clear that incentives are what is responsible for moving a lot of these Civic's out of inventory, since the car was not really improved all that much over the previous gen. |
Two points:
(1) It had occurred to me that Honda might have priced the incentives into its plans from the beginning. We know that Ito demanded a near total redesign of the 9G Civic because the management at Honda believed the financial crisis would destroy the ability of the American consumer to afford a better vehicle. To some extent, that came true. Unemployment is still very high, and millions are underemployed or making far less money than they used to.
Blatantly dropping the MSRP sends a message that the car is cheap. My theory is that Honda engineered a car that could have been sold at lower MSRP than the 8G Civic, but kept the MSRP about the same for marketing reasons. The "incentives" are a giveback on that MSRP and reflect the lower cost of interior materials and conveniences.
(2) I dispute the assertion that the 9G represented no improvement over the 8G.
This has been beaten to death over and over again, but the 9G is superior to the 8G in many metrics.
+ The 9G's R18+5AT powertrain has noticeably more low and midrange torque than the 8G's powertrain. The 8G did 0-60 in ~9.5 seconds for the AT models. The 9G does the same sprint in 8.9-9.1 seconds.
+ The 9G is clearly more efficient than the 8G. Look at the scores on fuelly.com if you don't believe me. Not only that, the 9G defeated all of its competition in fuel economy in the cars.com comparison. It does this despite having performance on par with the Elantra and Cruze.
+ The 9G is safer than the 8G. It has standard stability control and a stronger ACE frame. The 9G is slightly better than the 8G in IIHS side impact tests and much better in the rollover crush test. The 9G scores much better than the 8G in NHTSA's revised and much more stringent tests.
+ The 9G's ride quality is better than that of the 8G. People scoff at the sales guys here, but the truth is that they are on the front lines of customer feedback. I believe it was HONDA AFVM that said that even in back-to-back tests, customers preferred the 9G overall to the 8G the vast majority of the time. The 8G tilts towards sporty, but this means its ride can border on stiff and harsh. Ride in the backseat of an 8G on a road trip where there's harsh pavement for an extended period, and you'll know what I mean. The 9G is just more compliant.
+ The 9G has a level of connectivity greater than the 8G. More USB, more Bluetooth.
Where the 9G falls a bit short is in the interior materials, dashboard layout, and steering ratio.
So while there are shortcomings, it is disingenuous to say that the car was "not really improved all that much over the previous gen." It is clearly better in numerous metrics. The "character" of the car changed, but whether that is for good or for bad is entirely subjective.
|
I guess I am used to the days when Honda tried to stay ahead of the pack. The fact that this car did not come to market with a 6 speed automatic, for example, is an improvement that would have had benefits in performance and fuel mileage. Perhaps the CVT will replace the 5 speed automatic when Earth Dreams take over?
|
DrWhiner
|
|
|
Sorry. I stand corrected.
|
|
|
| |
![[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}
