|
|
|
|
 |
atomiclightbulb
 |
|
Neal wrote:
^What's especially amusing is that Shawn states essentially the same thing yet they won't dare go after HIM on it. And I believe both SC and owe post with somewhat equal authority.
Pick your targets carefully.
|
Two points here:
(1) SC is tough but I have always thought that his opinions are fair. Same with Jeff. They will call things as they see them, but they will explain the good and the bad. My perception is that owequitit spins everything in a bitterly negative light and will only grudgingly acknowledge the positive when pushed. This is just as bad as the people here who spin and shill for Honda regardless of the merits.
(2) People won't cross SC because he can ban your ass if you troll and or make him mad ;-)
|
DCR
|
|
SC doesn't whip the ban stick around like that, and you know it. People tend to not disagree with him, because he is normally right.
Also, if you have been around here long enough, you'd find that members like Owe were at one time quite positive around here. I used to defend Honda as well, but as time has gone on, their decisions and direction have made it nearly impossible to do.
They can easily please us all, but they are choosing not to.
|
owequitit
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
Especially considering that I specifically referenced the 1/4 mile at the beginning of the paragraph. You guys can't even misuse my words in your propaganda correctly. If you are going to invent/support propaganda and smear campaign, please do yourself a favor and make sure it is at least twisted enough to be plausible. |
First, I apologize for misrepresenting your statement. I got it wrong that time.
| No atomic, you are completely wrong. I am justifiably angry that Honda has put not ANY significant improvement into virtually any engines they make. Of course it only makes sense if you can look past the test results. In the most important segments, it has been absolutely incremental, if at all. Their two most important engines (Civic 4 cylinder and Accord 4 cylinder) are the most guilty. |
What is wrong with incremental progress? As far as I can remember, it has always been this way with Honda where their mainstream offerings are concerned. For example, the 4G USDM Accord started out with a 125 HP F-series engine around 1990, and that same basic F-series block was still in use by the time the 6G Accord was around, 12 years later, making 150 HP.
|
Yet again, you are missing the point entirely because your myopia is focused on trivial textual detail.
There is nothing wrong with incremental improvement (especially in this segment). However, while the performance of the Accord is incrementally better, it is VERY debatable whether or not ENGINE performance is incrementally better. You can take whatever incremental improvement the new Accord produces, and then consider that with an extra 5-20HP (which was the previous norm with a new Accord) how much better it would have been still. I also remind you that every Accord more or less managed an acceleration and performance increase IN SPITE of additional weight/size while this one leverages mostly weight loss and gearing to accomplish it. Now, again, to be clear, I do NOT have a problem with that in any way shape or form (I am ecstatic that this Accord is smaller and lighter). However, it does NOT speak to the engine's improved performance. Since my point was about engine performance, your point about it being faster as a result of weight and gearing is largely irrelevant (I won't say that NONE of it is due to engine performance).
What is more disturbing to me is that Honda seems to be no longer willing or able (you choose which you believe) to improve the performance of their engines in any notable way. Some other competitors have not either, but most have in some way. Also, let's be realistic. The Accord may be the fastest, but when people shop the car, they are going to see the total HP value and assume that all engines are rated equally and 200HP>185 HP. Since a drive will reveal the difference to be largely academic, I don't see Honda making any conquests based on HP level; even if the Honda is faster and the conversion rate on Hyundai HP is .8:1. Why couldn't Honda just rate the Sport at 190 so there was at least no perceived decrease? They could have claimed "same power, but XX cleaner and more efficient. Marketing problem solved. There is a large disconnect between marketing and reality. The fact that Honda doesn't have a clear lead when they previously did is problematic IMO because it is much harder to make a case as an unquestionable leader in a segment when you are not an unquestionable leader on the bench racer's spec sheet. Usually, Honda has lead the HP wars (if by just) at debut versus everything but the base 6 cylinder competition. What I find more problematic is the retreat from the character that has defined Honda's powertrain success for the better part of the last 40 years, which was more with less engine. They accomplished this with more technology, not less. They also had relatively lively and invigorated powertrains. People keep talking about how much "more usable" this new engine is, but really Honda's sales history shows it is a moot point as they largely beat all of their "more usable powerband" competitors and forced everyone to be more like them. The less revvy, less invigorated strategy is not a good one for them, IMO. Nobody was complaining about Honda's powertrain configurations to be honest, and let's be honest in stating that Honda and Toyota's ability to provide super-smooth, super efficient, reasonably powerful engines is the reason GM, Ford, and Chrysler aren't offering base engines with Methuselah's own push rods. It was largely Honda's invigorated engine character that pushed everyone else to implement the technology to get the segment to where it is today.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
DCR wrote:
SC doesn't whip the ban stick around like that, and you know it. People tend to not disagree with him, because he is normally right. |
Yeah, I was joking about the ban stick, hence the ";-)" emoticon in my post.
I don't know that SC has actually banned anyone, although I remember that he threatened to ban TonyE after Tony went on a flaming rampage and accused owequitit, Neal, yourself, and Knight with a White Bucket (I can't remember the user name... not a frequent poster) of trolling, gangbanging, and various other sins after a dustup concerning the 9G Civic Si/K24Z7.
Also, if you have been around here long enough, you'd find that members like Owe were at one time quite positive around here. I used to defend Honda as well, but as time has gone on, their decisions and direction have made it nearly impossible to do.
They can easily please us all, but they are choosing not to.
|
I've only been here 5 years, so I arrived at the peak of Honda enthusiasm. Honda had just delivered the Si based on the 8G Civic, there was still hope for the S2000, the TSX and TL were still agile, quick cars rather than ponderous tourers with numb EPS... things went quickly downhill from 2008 onwards.
I was never really into the performance stuff, but I was disappointed that Honda's mainstream offerings seemed to get bigger, heavier, cheaper, and weirder looking in the years following 2008. However, it looks like they turned that around. CR-V and RDX are well designed and a hit with consumers. I'm very pleased with how the Accord turned out. Honda is getting the core products right again, and that is a good sign. I just hope that they bring in some performance stuff to round out the product lineup, because I think it is a mistake to abandon that market segment, even if it is low volume.
|
owequitit
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Neal wrote:
^What's especially amusing is that Shawn states essentially the same thing yet they won't dare go after HIM on it. And I believe both SC and owe post with somewhat equal authority.
Pick your targets carefully.
|
Two points here:
(1) SC is tough but I have always thought that his opinions are fair. Same with Jeff. They will call things as they see them, but they will explain the good and the bad. My perception is that owequitit spins everything in a bitterly negative light and will only grudgingly acknowledge the positive when pushed. This is just as bad as the people here who spin and shill for Honda regardless of the merits.
(2) People won't cross SC because he can ban your ass if you troll and or make him mad ;-)
|
There is a difference between "fair" and forward. I have been absolutely fair with cars like the Civic by smashing it into oblivion because that is what Honda deserves for their effort. Clearly, they agree as they are attempting to fix it post haste. If you go read my review of the Accord, you will notice that it is much more favorable because the car is a much more favorable execution. Perfect? No. Better than the Civic? Without question. So your assertion that I am not fair is complete and total bullshit. It is at least as fair as any other opinion on here. Also, DCR is right. After being what amounted to a blind Honda fanboy for a number of years, it is impossible to keep lying to yourself when Honda hasn't greatly increased total performance in over a decade, is no longer holding to their own technological values, and has chopped, cut and cheapened everything they touch. Back in the day, it was easy to be a fanboy because they had unquestionably the best execution. Over the last five years, with debacles like the Insight, CR-Z, ZDX and Crosstour, they nearly NEVER have the best overall execution, and it is questionable whether they have it at all. The old Honda RELISHED competition and they always did their best work in the face of it. Just when the competition thought they were going to beat Honda, they would pull so far ahead that it was embarrassing. I think of the 4th gen Accord in that regard. It was such a staggering step forward from not only the previous Accord, but everything people thought Honda would be that it stunned the segment. They had more competition then than they do now.
As for my forwardness, I will simply state a philosophical question. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I am forward because when I would post here, people like you would have a tizzy because I didn't explain myself in excruciating detail and link everything to Hell and back. Then when I did, they bitched that I posted a book. The reason is simple. When people don't want to hear your opinion, the only way to get them to shut up and accept it at the highest level they are going to is to bury them completely. Then they know where they stand, and they can either accept it or move on. Usually, when they make statements about it not being "fair," not wanting to accept it, or it being a book, it is because their internal defenses have kicked in and they either can't counter or didn't expect to be called on it.
I made a succinct straightforward statement about Honda's engine performance in the other thread, which was true whether you like it or not (I personally don't). Rather than assume I had a valid point, you IMMEDIATELY went into attack mode attempting to discredit my point by posting and linking away. If anyone was unfair and biased, it was you because you didn't even give me the benefit of the doubt. When you attacked with your links, I put you in place. Simple as that. I was still completely fair about it, and I didn't do a thing to come after you personally. Like I said before. I can back up my opinions, but it is usually a question of whether it is worth the effort.
I bring this up because I specifically remember having this conversation in the Tesla thread, where you complained that my opinion wasn't valid unless I linked, when it actually was, it just wasn't "substantiated." Keep in mind this is a forum, and I don't necessarily see the need to go in like a defense attorney. For the record, I am VERY fair with Honda. I am usually among the first to give them Kudos when they deserve it, but I am also not afraid to hold them to their own standards of performance. However, having been relatively burned by their product as of late, it reminds me of "once bitten, twice shy." You can ask GM about this as they burned so many customers with shitty product, they still can't get them back.
|
owequitit
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
DCR wrote:
SC doesn't whip the ban stick around like that, and you know it. People tend to not disagree with him, because he is normally right. |
Yeah, I was joking about the ban stick, hence the ";-)" emoticon in my post.
I don't know that SC has actually banned anyone, although I remember that he threatened to ban TonyE after Tony went on a flaming rampage and accused owequitit, Neal, yourself, and Knight with a White Bucket (I can't remember the user name... not a frequent poster) of trolling, gangbanging, and various other sins after a dustup concerning the 9G Civic Si/K24Z7.
Also, if you have been around here long enough, you'd find that members like Owe were at one time quite positive around here. I used to defend Honda as well, but as time has gone on, their decisions and direction have made it nearly impossible to do.
They can easily please us all, but they are choosing not to.
|
I've only been here 5 years, so I arrived at the peak of Honda enthusiasm. Honda had just delivered the Si based on the 8G Civic, there was still hope for the S2000, the TSX and TL were still agile, quick cars rather than ponderous tourers with numb EPS... things went quickly downhill from 2008 onwards.
I was never really into the performance stuff, but I was disappointed that Honda's mainstream offerings seemed to get bigger, heavier, cheaper, and weirder looking in the years following 2008. However, it looks like they turned that around. CR-V and RDX are well designed and a hit with consumers. I'm very pleased with how the Accord turned out. Honda is getting the core products right again, and that is a good sign. I just hope that they bring in some performance stuff to round out the product lineup, because I think it is a mistake to abandon that market segment, even if it is low volume.
|
This second part I agree with. The difference in my standpoint, is that one good execution doesn't constitute a trend. I am hopeful that the Civic revision will be effective, and I am hopeful that they will can product like the ZDX which simply takes funding away from a better Accord, Civic, TL, and maybe something sporty. I hope they get their act together with the new Fit, and make something like the CR-Z that is actually relevant. However, until they actually do, they haven't. 5 years ago, I wouldn't have worried about it because 5 years ago I wouldn't have believed things like the ZDX would have even been given the green light by Honda. To think so would have just been against every grain in my body. When they finally did announce and release it, I was one of the ones on the wrong side of the fence defending the thing. Call it a learning experience. Same with the CR-Z. The sad thing about that car is the amount of enthusiast potential it had (even as a hybrid, with 200HP it would have done well).
Like I said, the Accord represents a reversal of trend, but it is far from a new way forward.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
owequitit wrote:
There is a difference between "fair" and forward. I have been absolutely fair with cars like the Civic by smashing it into oblivion because that is what Honda deserves for their effort. Clearly, they agree as they are attempting to fix it post haste. If you go read my review of the Accord, you will notice that it is much more favorable because the car is a much more favorable execution. Perfect? No. Better than the Civic? Without question. So your assertion that I am not fair is complete and total bullshit. It is at least as fair as any other opinion on here. Also, DCR is right. After being what amounted to a blind Honda fanboy for a number of years, it is impossible to keep lying to yourself when Honda hasn't greatly increased total performance in over a decade, is no longer holding to their own technological values, and has chopped, cut and cheapened everything they touch. Back in the day, it was easy to be a fanboy because they had unquestionably the best execution. Over the last five years, with debacles like the Insight, CR-Z, ZDX and Crosstour, they nearly NEVER have the best overall execution, and it is questionable whether they have it at all. The old Honda RELISHED competition and they always did their best work in the face of it. Just when the competition thought they were going to beat Honda, they would pull so far ahead that it was embarrassing. I think of the 4th gen Accord in that regard. It was such a staggering step forward from not only the previous Accord, but everything people thought Honda would be that it stunned the segment. They had more competition then than they do now.
As for my forwardness, I will simply state a philosophical question. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I am forward because when I would post here, people like you would have a tizzy because I didn't explain myself in excruciating detail and link everything to Hell and back. Then when I did, they bitched that I posted a book. The reason is simple. When people don't want to hear your opinion, the only way to get them to shut up and accept it at the highest level they are going to is to bury them completely. Then they know where they stand, and they can either accept it or move on. Usually, when they make statements about it not being "fair," not wanting to accept it, or it being a book, it is because their internal defenses have kicked in and they either can't counter or didn't expect to be called on it. |
If you are going to post in a continually hostile tone with inflammatory language, people are going to be less receptive to what you have to say.
That is probably part of the reason SC doesn't get flamed. He tells it like it is, but without the drama and hyperbole.
| However, having been relatively burned by their product as of late, it reminds me of "once bitten, twice shy." You can ask GM about this as they burned so many customers with shitty product, they still can't get them back. |
GM's problems were primary reliability related. I knew people who purchased GM and Chrysler products in the 1980's, and the big complaint was how often things broke, and the associated costs and headaches of repair. The Consumer Reports survey results were filled with black marks for domestic vehicles.
Honda's problems are nowhere near that severe. Sure, there have been many oddball products (and I have routinely complained here about the Crosstour, CR-Z, Insight etc.), and many core products suffered (TSX, TL, Accord, Civic), but I don't believe reliability ever became an issue.
|
P54
|
|
owequitit wrote:
P54 wrote:
owequitit wrote:
MarkR wrote:
I am surprised on how little excitement and buzz there is on TOV, new Accord is out and everyone that have been defending Honda how great cars they make I would expect to be all over writing driving stories, dynamics and posting cool pics?
When I browse E90, Audizine those boys seem to be much more excited over their cars????
You got what you asked for and defended, not a very strong motor and not the coolest looking car either but super duper maintenance free and a superb commuter car. Why not more excitement?
I was wondering of letting my S4 go in favour of a smaller car and the M135 seems to be kinda nice I have to say, b*tt ugly, I think not even a mother can love but very very quick, I love the 8-speed DSG.
|
Why would you expect to see a high level of excitement? What products is Honda producing that would make an enthusiast excited? At best, we have shills like P54 telling us that we are irrelevant and people actually WANT half-assed plasticky executions of formerly great product.
The Accord is much better than expected, and it has received the commentary as such. However, with each version being more isolated, less fun, and less connected than before, Honda is in the same boat as BMW at the moment. The core fan base and many of the people who have continually supported them over the years are not happy with many of the decisions being made. They have killed virtually every fun product they made, isolated what was left, and then cut quality in nearly everything they made. The Accord signals a partial return to form, but there is still a little bit of Honda DNA missing here and there. Hopefully they realize this after the Civic debacle and fix it post haste.
|
You put words in my mouth
I did not say people at TOV were irrelevant, however the grammar in a letter from AHM sales is irrelevant to the new 2013 Civic. Neither did I say people WANT cars like what you described.
This is what you said earlier:
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1085878&news_item_id=1085496
benbess wrote:
There will be a significant performance increase with the 2013 2.4 Accord. The 2013 is going to be c. 150 pounds lighter. And the new Earth Dreams DI engine has more torque.
Bottom line is that I expect acceleration from 0-60 to be faster by almost 1 second compared with the 2012. But that's just a guess. We'll soon see.
owequitit answered:
You are just inventing numbers at this point.
As a rule of thumb, each 100lbs of weight lost or gained will affect 1/4 mile time by about .1 second. So expecting anywhere near a second is silly. Even with the CVT, the lower weight and the slight increase in torque (with a likely commensurate loss in top end, uncles Honda has a second, higher output), it will MAYBE a half second faster. |
This is what Car and driver said:
All 181 lb-ft of torque—20 more than in the previous-gen EX’s four-cylinder engine—appear by 3900 rpm, which makes it possible to inject some thrills into the daily commute without winding each gear to the 6800-rpm redline. Of course, if you wish to play, the powertrain is ready and willing, as evidenced by our notes from the test track: “Plenty of low-end torque, so you’ll want to launch around 2500 rpm and spin the tires to redline. Very easy to approach the rev limiter and then shift at just the right time.” The 6.6-second scoot to 60 is mighty impressive—it’s 1.3 seconds quicker than that of a last-gen four-cylinder with a manual—and the car covered the quarter in 15.3. |
So why are you as an enthusiast not excited when Car and driver calls 0-60 time "mighty impressive", you estimated MAYBE 0.5 second faster but it did it 1.3 second faster?
|
I didn't put anything in your mouth P54. You did.
Anytime something is posted from an enthusiastic standpoint you go on an all out political crusade to crush it down and stomp out the dissent so that people won't know your agenda is full of shit.
Every time, every thread, every post, every day. I will be more than happy to literally bury this thread in your one sided bullshit if you like. Or you can tuck tail and pull out now. Your choice.
The bottom line is that Honda has no product to get excited about unless you are a blind, indoctrinated fanboy or an absolute ecological fascist. All of the posting to the contrary isn't going to fix that, no matter how much you pretend it will.
And yes, you do actually tell a significant portion of this board that they are irrelevant with every single thread and post. The problem with people like you is that you say things that have intent and implied meaning, but then you attempt to pretend you didn't say it because it wasn't direct. The problem is that anyone with a brain can see right through the smokescreen.
|
You said:
I didn't put anything in your mouth P54. You did. "
However this is what you said earlier:
" At best, we have shills like P54 telling us that we are irrelevant and people actually WANT half-assed plasticky executions of formerly great product. "
Where did I say that? If I did not say that you put words in my mouth.
benbess wrote:
Bottom line is that I expect acceleration from 0-60 to be faster by almost 1 second compared with the 2012. But that's just a guess. We'll soon see.
owequitit responded:
You are just inventing numbers at this point.
As a rule of thumb, each 100lbs of weight lost or gained will affect 1/4 mile time by about .1 second. So expecting anywhere near a second is silly. Even with the CVT, the lower weight and the slight increase in torque (with a likely commensurate loss in top end, uncles Honda has a second, higher output), it will MAYBE a half second faster. |
You are the one who take the 0-60 time into 1/4 mile. And you call benbess silly for guessing at a 0-60 time.
You say EVEN with CVT, lower weight and more torque it will MAYBE be a half second faster.
Now when Car and Driver says:
| "Plenty of low-end torque, so you’ll want to launch around 2500 rpm and spin the tires to redline. Very easy to approach the rev limiter and then shift at just the right time.” The 6.6-second scoot to 60 is mighty impressive—it’s 1.3 seconds quicker than that of a last-gen four-cylinder with a manual—and the car covered the quarter in 15.3. |
It seems to me benbess guessed very well and he was not silly. He was not playing with numbers like you stated.
When you referred to MAYBE half a second I assumed you meant 0-60 time and not 1/4 mile as benbess talked about 0-60 time. Being quiicker at 0-60 should also mean quicker at 1/4 mile though. And 15.3 at the 1/4 is quick is it not? For a 4 cylinder midsize car. To compare the Accord with your SI is irrelevant, two different cars for completely different buyers. That you are not 100% pleased with the Accord is a benchmark no manufacturer can accomplish. Then you better have someone custom build a car for you and even then you would find something to gripe about.
All magazines have different numbers and the actual owner might never drive his/her car in a way that deliver those numbers. Motor trend give these numbers:
2013 EX-L Navi 3343lb. : 0-60mph: 7.6 sec, 1/4 mile 15.9 sec. @ 90.2 mph
2013 Accord Sport 3251 lb. : 0-60 mph 6.8 sec, 1/4 mile 15.3 sec @ 92.3 mph
Same magazine listed the 2010 model with these numbers:
2010 Accord EX 3361 lb: 0-60 mph 8.9 sec. 1.4 mile 16.6 sec @ 86.0 mph
Comparing the EX model the 2013 model is 5 HP short and have only 18 lb less weight, however is 1.3 seconds faster 0-60 and .7 seconds/ 4.2 mph better in the 1/4 mile. According to your opinion the weight difference can't contribute much to the time so it must be engine/transmission. Passing time 45-65 mph is also about 1 second faster. Maybe you will explain it away by being different driver, different weather or something?
Looking to the Sport model, even with LESS HP than the 2010 EX-L it has 2.1 seconds faster 0-60 time and 1.3 seconds faster 1/4 mile with 6.3 mph higher trap speed.
Sure it weighs 110 lbs less, however according to you that amounts to only 0.1 seconds in the 1/4 mile. So I guess we have to give the transmission and engine the credit. Or would it be that the 2013 was tested under more favorable conditions? Pretty hard for you to see any improvements is it not? And the 2013 is PZEV and yet it performs better.
By your lengthy and multiple responses full of accusations it seems I hit the nail on the head. Did your face turn red or blue when you responded? I think you earned your name for a reason. Like they say, don't get bitter, get better. Sounds like you are full of bitterness towards Honda, like they betrayed you or something. Even with vast improvements that will satisfy 99% of the buyers you still want your 1% to thrill your ego regardless if that is not what the majority of buyers want. The Accord and Civic is volume cars, to suit a broad range of people not just the 1 %.
Hang in there, Honda will cater to people like me and you too, that like high rpm free flowing engines and the exhilarating sound they generate. But it will be in a different vehicle. Designed to meet future demands on emissions. Don't look back to the old, look forward to the new. It's coming.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
owequitit wrote:
This second part I agree with. The difference in my standpoint, is that one good execution doesn't constitute a trend. I am hopeful that the Civic revision will be effective, and I am hopeful that they will can product like the ZDX which simply takes funding away from a better Accord, Civic, TL, and maybe something sporty. I hope they get their act together with the new Fit, and make something like the CR-Z that is actually relevant. However, until they actually do, they haven't. 5 years ago, I wouldn't have worried about it because 5 years ago I wouldn't have believed things like the ZDX would have even been given the green light by Honda. To think so would have just been against every grain in my body. When they finally did announce and release it, I was one of the ones on the wrong side of the fence defending the thing. Call it a learning experience. Same with the CR-Z. The sad thing about that car is the amount of enthusiast potential it had (even as a hybrid, with 200HP it would have done well).
Like I said, the Accord represents a reversal of trend, but it is far from a new way forward.
|
Ok, that is fair. I agree that only time will tell if Honda really has their act together. A good CR-V and great Accord looks like a start to me, but there are a few FMCs coming up that will tell more:
I'm watching to see what Honda does with the Fit, Pilot, and especially the Crosstour. The Crosstour was a disaster and never came close to its 40k/year target. It was so thoroughly beaten by the Subaru Outback that Honda would have to be insane to continue the present formula for the Crosstour.
I'm also keeping an eye on what Acura does with the TL and ILX. The RLX is kind of a lost cause IMO, but who knows what will happen.
|
DCR
|
|
|
P54, what Honda vehicles do you own?
|
siegen
|
|
MarkR wrote:
I am surprised on how little excitement and buzz there is on TOV, new Accord is out and everyone that have been defending Honda how great cars they make I would expect to be all over writing driving stories, dynamics and posting cool pics?
When I browse E90, Audizine those boys seem to be much more excited over their cars????
You got what you asked for and defended, not a very strong motor and not the coolest looking car either but super duper maintenance free and a superb commuter car. Why not more excitement?
I was wondering of letting my S4 go in favour of a smaller car and the M135 seems to be kinda nice I have to say, b*tt ugly, I think not even a mother can love but very very quick, I love the 8-speed DSG.
|
There were a lot of posts shortly after the new Accord came out. Owners posted pictures and impressions, and some magazine review discussion. It's been very positive, which is a big turn-around from recent introductions. There will probably be more comparison reviews coming out soon to spark more discussion.
Also, there will be more posts when the Sport 6MT models are delivered at the end of November (counting down the days!). I don't know about you, but I find it hard to get excited about a CVT. ;)
MarkR wrote:
not a very strong motor and not the coolest looking car
|
What are you comparing it to?
|
P54
|
|
DCR wrote:
P54, what Honda vehicles do you own?
|
Currently none, they have nothing that excites me at the moment. I'm patiently waiting.
|
330R
|
|
|
owequitit
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
There is a difference between "fair" and forward. I have been absolutely fair with cars like the Civic by smashing it into oblivion because that is what Honda deserves for their effort. Clearly, they agree as they are attempting to fix it post haste. If you go read my review of the Accord, you will notice that it is much more favorable because the car is a much more favorable execution. Perfect? No. Better than the Civic? Without question. So your assertion that I am not fair is complete and total bullshit. It is at least as fair as any other opinion on here. Also, DCR is right. After being what amounted to a blind Honda fanboy for a number of years, it is impossible to keep lying to yourself when Honda hasn't greatly increased total performance in over a decade, is no longer holding to their own technological values, and has chopped, cut and cheapened everything they touch. Back in the day, it was easy to be a fanboy because they had unquestionably the best execution. Over the last five years, with debacles like the Insight, CR-Z, ZDX and Crosstour, they nearly NEVER have the best overall execution, and it is questionable whether they have it at all. The old Honda RELISHED competition and they always did their best work in the face of it. Just when the competition thought they were going to beat Honda, they would pull so far ahead that it was embarrassing. I think of the 4th gen Accord in that regard. It was such a staggering step forward from not only the previous Accord, but everything people thought Honda would be that it stunned the segment. They had more competition then than they do now.
As for my forwardness, I will simply state a philosophical question. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I am forward because when I would post here, people like you would have a tizzy because I didn't explain myself in excruciating detail and link everything to Hell and back. Then when I did, they bitched that I posted a book. The reason is simple. When people don't want to hear your opinion, the only way to get them to shut up and accept it at the highest level they are going to is to bury them completely. Then they know where they stand, and they can either accept it or move on. Usually, when they make statements about it not being "fair," not wanting to accept it, or it being a book, it is because their internal defenses have kicked in and they either can't counter or didn't expect to be called on it. |
If you are going to post in a continually hostile tone with inflammatory language, people are going to be less receptive to what you have to say.
That is probably part of the reason SC doesn't get flamed. He tells it like it is, but without the drama and hyperbole.
| However, having been relatively burned by their product as of late, it reminds me of "once bitten, twice shy." You can ask GM about this as they burned so many customers with shitty product, they still can't get them back. |
GM's problems were primary reliability related. I knew people who purchased GM and Chrysler products in the 1980's, and the big complaint was how often things broke, and the associated costs and headaches of repair. The Consumer Reports survey results were filled with black marks for domestic vehicles.
Honda's problems are nowhere near that severe. Sure, there have been many oddball products (and I have routinely complained here about the Crosstour, CR-Z, Insight etc.), and many core products suffered (TSX, TL, Accord, Civic), but I don't believe reliability ever became an issue.
|
You came after me first Atomic, which makes everything I do a response, not an instigation. I am not going to kiss your ass and extend you the benefit of the doubt if you aren't going to return the courtesy. I absolutely will not abide a one way street; PC be damned.
I made a factual statement about Honda's engine technology, which you came after me for. Let's keep our eye on the ball shall we? You came after me, you attempted to discredit my opinion, and you started to skew it towards personal. I simply escalated it to the point where you started to back off.
Of course, at the flip side of the coin, if guys like you and P54 didn't try to build a smear campaign against anyone with an opinion against your own, I wouldn't retaliate in such a hostile fashion... I.e. if you worried more about your own indiscretions instead of everyone else's, the world would be a much better place.
You may also want to go back and review Shawn's recent post history. He has gotten pretty hostile in the face of some crap I put up with daily around here.
|
owequitit
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
There is a difference between "fair" and forward. I have been absolutely fair with cars like the Civic by smashing it into oblivion because that is what Honda deserves for their effort. Clearly, they agree as they are attempting to fix it post haste. If you go read my review of the Accord, you will notice that it is much more favorable because the car is a much more favorable execution. Perfect? No. Better than the Civic? Without question. So your assertion that I am not fair is complete and total bullshit. It is at least as fair as any other opinion on here. Also, DCR is right. After being what amounted to a blind Honda fanboy for a number of years, it is impossible to keep lying to yourself when Honda hasn't greatly increased total performance in over a decade, is no longer holding to their own technological values, and has chopped, cut and cheapened everything they touch. Back in the day, it was easy to be a fanboy because they had unquestionably the best execution. Over the last five years, with debacles like the Insight, CR-Z, ZDX and Crosstour, they nearly NEVER have the best overall execution, and it is questionable whether they have it at all. The old Honda RELISHED competition and they always did their best work in the face of it. Just when the competition thought they were going to beat Honda, they would pull so far ahead that it was embarrassing. I think of the 4th gen Accord in that regard. It was such a staggering step forward from not only the previous Accord, but everything people thought Honda would be that it stunned the segment. They had more competition then than they do now.
As for my forwardness, I will simply state a philosophical question. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I am forward because when I would post here, people like you would have a tizzy because I didn't explain myself in excruciating detail and link everything to Hell and back. Then when I did, they bitched that I posted a book. The reason is simple. When people don't want to hear your opinion, the only way to get them to shut up and accept it at the highest level they are going to is to bury them completely. Then they know where they stand, and they can either accept it or move on. Usually, when they make statements about it not being "fair," not wanting to accept it, or it being a book, it is because their internal defenses have kicked in and they either can't counter or didn't expect to be called on it. |
If you are going to post in a continually hostile tone with inflammatory language, people are going to be less receptive to what you have to say.
That is probably part of the reason SC doesn't get flamed. He tells it like it is, but without the drama and hyperbole.
| However, having been relatively burned by their product as of late, it reminds me of "once bitten, twice shy." You can ask GM about this as they burned so many customers with shitty product, they still can't get them back. |
GM's problems were primary reliability related. I knew people who purchased GM and Chrysler products in the 1980's, and the big complaint was how often things broke, and the associated costs and headaches of repair. The Consumer Reports survey results were filled with black marks for domestic vehicles.
Honda's problems are nowhere near that severe. Sure, there have been many oddball products (and I have routinely complained here about the Crosstour, CR-Z, Insight etc.), and many core products suffered (TSX, TL, Accord, Civic), but I don't believe reliability ever became an issue.
|
2nd part:
Gm's problems started with cheapening component content to save $.10 a car. That logically progressed in stuff that was so cheap and crappy that it didn't last or was "unreliable." Many of those Big 3 defectors went straight to the Japanese companies and never looked back. Many of them will still never own a GM, so GM has to wait for young people to hopefully adopt their product, or rely on blind fanboys who refuse to accept where they stand. All Honda has to do is continue to build the best product the segment has, and they will keep the old buyers and gain new ones, which makes it easier for them to stay on top.
However, as D3 people have infiltrated Honda, they have tried to change the mentality to "let's save $.10 a car. This really the reason the Civic is under such brutal attack from loyalists, not because of the product. They save $100 on the interior and a couple hundred on the powertrain. But then they have to put 2-3x the cash on the hood that they saved on cheaper parts to move the product. It doesn't pencil out and it never will. Quality is always cheaper long term. However, when called on it, the shills come out of the woodwork to discredit the dissenters so that nobody will fin out the jig is up. Unfortunately, they can't quiet Consumer Reports, industry analysts, market share calculations, incentive reports or balance sheets.
GM pulled quality. They drove incentives up to maintain volume. Eventually, to keep the house of cards standing, reliability had to suffer. GM's decline didn't start in the 80's. it started in the early 70's and took about 10-15 years for it to get unquestionably bad. However, by then nobody knew how to fix it because the brain drain was all but complete at GM. Based on time frames, it is absolutely essential that Honda get the memo before they walk the last 1/3 of GM's history. Hopefully, the Accord signals the beginning of a return to form, although we will have to see.
Also for the record, I have been very blunt with Honda about their product. Evert time they call for a survey (purchase, lease extension, service), I let them know exactly where they stand. I talked to a rep for 20+ minutes when I bought my Si off lease because they wanted to know why I didn't want to trade on the 2012. I told them quality was down, the car was less fun, and I couldn't justify getting rid of my 2009 for such a car. I tell the dealers the same thing every time they ask. At some point, some of it must be getting back to Honda.
Of course the swifter the response, the swifter the correction (as evidenced by major Civic changes 1 year in). It doesn't do anybody any favors to condone the poor behavior, and the quicker they fix it, the better.
But of course, you can buy whatever story you want. There are literally hundreds of books and case studies on how the Bug 3 failed, and Honda has been displaying an increasingly alarming number of symptoms for years now. I hope they continue the reversal of trend to be honest.
|
P54
|
|
owequitit wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
There is a difference between "fair" and forward. I have been absolutely fair with cars like the Civic by smashing it into oblivion because that is what Honda deserves for their effort. Clearly, they agree as they are attempting to fix it post haste. If you go read my review of the Accord, you will notice that it is much more favorable because the car is a much more favorable execution. Perfect? No. Better than the Civic? Without question. So your assertion that I am not fair is complete and total bullshit. It is at least as fair as any other opinion on here. Also, DCR is right. After being what amounted to a blind Honda fanboy for a number of years, it is impossible to keep lying to yourself when Honda hasn't greatly increased total performance in over a decade, is no longer holding to their own technological values, and has chopped, cut and cheapened everything they touch. Back in the day, it was easy to be a fanboy because they had unquestionably the best execution. Over the last five years, with debacles like the Insight, CR-Z, ZDX and Crosstour, they nearly NEVER have the best overall execution, and it is questionable whether they have it at all. The old Honda RELISHED competition and they always did their best work in the face of it. Just when the competition thought they were going to beat Honda, they would pull so far ahead that it was embarrassing. I think of the 4th gen Accord in that regard. It was such a staggering step forward from not only the previous Accord, but everything people thought Honda would be that it stunned the segment. They had more competition then than they do now.
As for my forwardness, I will simply state a philosophical question. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I am forward because when I would post here, people like you would have a tizzy because I didn't explain myself in excruciating detail and link everything to Hell and back. Then when I did, they bitched that I posted a book. The reason is simple. When people don't want to hear your opinion, the only way to get them to shut up and accept it at the highest level they are going to is to bury them completely. Then they know where they stand, and they can either accept it or move on. Usually, when they make statements about it not being "fair," not wanting to accept it, or it being a book, it is because their internal defenses have kicked in and they either can't counter or didn't expect to be called on it. |
If you are going to post in a continually hostile tone with inflammatory language, people are going to be less receptive to what you have to say.
That is probably part of the reason SC doesn't get flamed. He tells it like it is, but without the drama and hyperbole.
| However, having been relatively burned by their product as of late, it reminds me of "once bitten, twice shy." You can ask GM about this as they burned so many customers with shitty product, they still can't get them back. |
GM's problems were primary reliability related. I knew people who purchased GM and Chrysler products in the 1980's, and the big complaint was how often things broke, and the associated costs and headaches of repair. The Consumer Reports survey results were filled with black marks for domestic vehicles.
Honda's problems are nowhere near that severe. Sure, there have been many oddball products (and I have routinely complained here about the Crosstour, CR-Z, Insight etc.), and many core products suffered (TSX, TL, Accord, Civic), but I don't believe reliability ever became an issue.
|
2nd part:
Gm's problems started with cheapening component content to save $.10 a car. That logically progressed in stuff that was so cheap and crappy that it didn't last or was "unreliable." Many of those Big 3 defectors went straight to the Japanese companies and never looked back. Many of them will still never own a GM, so GM has to wait for young people to hopefully adopt their product, or rely on blind fanboys who refuse to accept where they stand. All Honda has to do is continue to build the best product the segment has, and they will keep the old buyers and gain new ones, which makes it easier for them to stay on top.
However, as D3 people have infiltrated Honda, they have tried to change the mentality to "let's save $.10 a car. This really the reason the Civic is under such brutal attack from loyalists, not because of the product. They save $100 on the interior and a couple hundred on the powertrain. But then they have to put 2-3x the cash on the hood that they saved on cheaper parts to move the product. It doesn't pencil out and it never will. Quality is always cheaper long term. However, when called on it, the shills come out of the woodwork to discredit the dissenters so that nobody will fin out the jig is up. Unfortunately, they can't quiet Consumer Reports, industry analysts, market share calculations, incentive reports or balance sheets.
GM pulled quality. They drove incentives up to maintain volume. Eventually, to keep the house of cards standing, reliability had to suffer. GM's decline didn't start in the 80's. it started in the early 70's and took about 10-15 years for it to get unquestionably bad. However, by then nobody knew how to fix it because the brain drain was all but complete at GM. Based on time frames, it is absolutely essential that Honda get the memo before they walk the last 1/3 of GM's history. Hopefully, the Accord signals the beginning of a return to form, although we will have to see.
Also for the record, I have been very blunt with Honda about their product. Evert time they call for a survey (purchase, lease extension, service), I let them know exactly where they stand. I talked to a rep for 20+ minutes when I bought my Si off lease because they wanted to know why I didn't want to trade on the 2012. I told them quality was down, the car was less fun, and I couldn't justify getting rid of my 2009 for such a car. I tell the dealers the same thing every time they ask. At some point, some of it must be getting back to Honda.
Of course the swifter the response, the swifter the correction (as evidenced by major Civic changes 1 year in). It doesn't do anybody any favors to condone the poor behavior, and the quicker they fix it, the better.
But of course, you can buy whatever story you want. There are literally hundreds of books and case studies on how the Bug 3 failed, and Honda has been displaying an increasingly alarming number of symptoms for years now. I hope they continue the reversal of trend to be honest.
|
|
owequitit
|
|
P54 wrote:
owequitit wrote:
P54 wrote:
owequitit wrote:
MarkR wrote:
I am surprised on how little excitement and buzz there is on TOV, new Accord is out and everyone that have been defending Honda how great cars they make I would expect to be all over writing driving stories, dynamics and posting cool pics?
When I browse E90, Audizine those boys seem to be much more excited over their cars????
You got what you asked for and defended, not a very strong motor and not the coolest looking car either but super duper maintenance free and a superb commuter car. Why not more excitement?
I was wondering of letting my S4 go in favour of a smaller car and the M135 seems to be kinda nice I have to say, b*tt ugly, I think not even a mother can love but very very quick, I love the 8-speed DSG.
|
Why would you expect to see a high level of excitement? What products is Honda producing that would make an enthusiast excited? At best, we have shills like P54 telling us that we are irrelevant and people actually WANT half-assed plasticky executions of formerly great product.
The Accord is much better than expected, and it has received the commentary as such. However, with each version being more isolated, less fun, and less connected than before, Honda is in the same boat as BMW at the moment. The core fan base and many of the people who have continually supported them over the years are not happy with many of the decisions being made. They have killed virtually every fun product they made, isolated what was left, and then cut quality in nearly everything they made. The Accord signals a partial return to form, but there is still a little bit of Honda DNA missing here and there. Hopefully they realize this after the Civic debacle and fix it post haste.
|
You put words in my mouth
I did not say people at TOV were irrelevant, however the grammar in a letter from AHM sales is irrelevant to the new 2013 Civic. Neither did I say people WANT cars like what you described.
This is what you said earlier:
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1085878&news_item_id=1085496
benbess wrote:
There will be a significant performance increase with the 2013 2.4 Accord. The 2013 is going to be c. 150 pounds lighter. And the new Earth Dreams DI engine has more torque.
Bottom line is that I expect acceleration from 0-60 to be faster by almost 1 second compared with the 2012. But that's just a guess. We'll soon see.
owequitit answered:
You are just inventing numbers at this point.
As a rule of thumb, each 100lbs of weight lost or gained will affect 1/4 mile time by about .1 second. So expecting anywhere near a second is silly. Even with the CVT, the lower weight and the slight increase in torque (with a likely commensurate loss in top end, uncles Honda has a second, higher output), it will MAYBE a half second faster. |
This is what Car and driver said:
All 181 lb-ft of torque—20 more than in the previous-gen EX’s four-cylinder engine—appear by 3900 rpm, which makes it possible to inject some thrills into the daily commute without winding each gear to the 6800-rpm redline. Of course, if you wish to play, the powertrain is ready and willing, as evidenced by our notes from the test track: “Plenty of low-end torque, so you’ll want to launch around 2500 rpm and spin the tires to redline. Very easy to approach the rev limiter and then shift at just the right time.” The 6.6-second scoot to 60 is mighty impressive—it’s 1.3 seconds quicker than that of a last-gen four-cylinder with a manual—and the car covered the quarter in 15.3. |
So why are you as an enthusiast not excited when Car and driver calls 0-60 time "mighty impressive", you estimated MAYBE 0.5 second faster but it did it 1.3 second faster?
|
I didn't put anything in your mouth P54. You did.
Anytime something is posted from an enthusiastic standpoint you go on an all out political crusade to crush it down and stomp out the dissent so that people won't know your agenda is full of shit.
Every time, every thread, every post, every day. I will be more than happy to literally bury this thread in your one sided bullshit if you like. Or you can tuck tail and pull out now. Your choice.
The bottom line is that Honda has no product to get excited about unless you are a blind, indoctrinated fanboy or an absolute ecological fascist. All of the posting to the contrary isn't going to fix that, no matter how much you pretend it will.
And yes, you do actually tell a significant portion of this board that they are irrelevant with every single thread and post. The problem with people like you is that you say things that have intent and implied meaning, but then you attempt to pretend you didn't say it because it wasn't direct. The problem is that anyone with a brain can see right through the smokescreen.
|
You said:
I didn't put anything in your mouth P54. You did. "
However this is what you said earlier:
" At best, we have shills like P54 telling us that we are irrelevant and people actually WANT half-assed plasticky executions of formerly great product. "
Where did I say that? If I did not say that you put words in my mouth.
benbess wrote:
Bottom line is that I expect acceleration from 0-60 to be faster by almost 1 second compared with the 2012. But that's just a guess. We'll soon see.
owequitit responded:
You are just inventing numbers at this point.
As a rule of thumb, each 100lbs of weight lost or gained will affect 1/4 mile time by about .1 second. So expecting anywhere near a second is silly. Even with the CVT, the lower weight and the slight increase in torque (with a likely commensurate loss in top end, uncles Honda has a second, higher output), it will MAYBE a half second faster. |
You are the one who take the 0-60 time into 1/4 mile. And you call benbess silly for guessing at a 0-60 time.
You say EVEN with CVT, lower weight and more torque it will MAYBE be a half second faster.
Now when Car and Driver says:
| "Plenty of low-end torque, so you’ll want to launch around 2500 rpm and spin the tires to redline. Very easy to approach the rev limiter and then shift at just the right time.” The 6.6-second scoot to 60 is mighty impressive—it’s 1.3 seconds quicker than that of a last-gen four-cylinder with a manual—and the car covered the quarter in 15.3. |
It seems to me benbess guessed very well and he was not silly. He was not playing with numbers like you stated.
When you referred to MAYBE half a second I assumed you meant 0-60 time and not 1/4 mile as benbess talked about 0-60 time. Being quiicker at 0-60 should also mean quicker at 1/4 mile though. And 15.3 at the 1/4 is quick is it not? For a 4 cylinder midsize car. To compare the Accord with your SI is irrelevant, two different cars for completely different buyers. That you are not 100% pleased with the Accord is a benchmark no manufacturer can accomplish. Then you better have someone custom build a car for you and even then you would find something to gripe about.
All magazines have different numbers and the actual owner might never drive his/her car in a way that deliver those numbers. Motor trend give these numbers:
2013 EX-L Navi 3343lb. : 0-60mph: 7.6 sec, 1/4 mile 15.9 sec. @ 90.2 mph
2013 Accord Sport 3251 lb. : 0-60 mph 6.8 sec, 1/4 mile 15.3 sec @ 92.3 mph
Same magazine listed the 2010 model with these numbers:
2010 Accord EX 3361 lb: 0-60 mph 8.9 sec. 1.4 mile 16.6 sec @ 86.0 mph
Comparing the EX model the 2013 model is 5 HP short and have only 18 lb less weight, however is 1.3 seconds faster 0-60 and .7 seconds/ 4.2 mph better in the 1/4 mile. According to your opinion the weight difference can't contribute much to the time so it must be engine/transmission. Passing time 45-65 mph is also about 1 second faster. Maybe you will explain it away by being different driver, different weather or something?
Looking to the Sport model, even with LESS HP than the 2010 EX-L it has 2.1 seconds faster 0-60 time and 1.3 seconds faster 1/4 mile with 6.3 mph higher trap speed.
Sure it weighs 110 lbs less, however according to you that amounts to only 0.1 seconds in the 1/4 mile. So I guess we have to give the transmission and engine the credit. Or would it be that the 2013 was tested under more favorable conditions? Pretty hard for you to see any improvements is it not? And the 2013 is PZEV and yet it performs better.
By your lengthy and multiple responses full of accusations it seems I hit the nail on the head. Did your face turn red or blue when you responded? I think you earned your name for a reason. Like they say, don't get bitter, get better. Sounds like you are full of bitterness towards Honda, like they betrayed you or something. Even with vast improvements that will satisfy 99% of the buyers you still want your 1% to thrill your ego regardless if that is not what the majority of buyers want. The Accord and Civic is volume cars, to suit a broad range of people not just the 1 %.
Hang in there, Honda will cater to people like me and you too, that like high rpm free flowing engines and the exhilarating sound they generate. But it will be in a different vehicle. Designed to meet future demands on emissions. Don't look back to the old, look forward to the new. It's coming.
|
I didn't read beyond the first part because you clearly still are lacking in comprehension. Come back and try again when you actually understand what Benbess and I were talking about.
P.S. As a hint, the 1.3 second improvement you keep quoting refers to 0-60 time. Our conversation was about 1/4 mile times and trap speeds, which makes them two completely different measurements. I said he would be crazy to expect any more than a .5 second improvement in the QUARTER MILE time. Guess what, automatic to automatic it was a .4. It was a similar amount for the manuals, so again, thanks for proving me right.
|
owequitit
|
|
P54 wrote:
owequitit wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
There is a difference between "fair" and forward. I have been absolutely fair with cars like the Civic by smashing it into oblivion because that is what Honda deserves for their effort. Clearly, they agree as they are attempting to fix it post haste. If you go read my review of the Accord, you will notice that it is much more favorable because the car is a much more favorable execution. Perfect? No. Better than the Civic? Without question. So your assertion that I am not fair is complete and total bullshit. It is at least as fair as any other opinion on here. Also, DCR is right. After being what amounted to a blind Honda fanboy for a number of years, it is impossible to keep lying to yourself when Honda hasn't greatly increased total performance in over a decade, is no longer holding to their own technological values, and has chopped, cut and cheapened everything they touch. Back in the day, it was easy to be a fanboy because they had unquestionably the best execution. Over the last five years, with debacles like the Insight, CR-Z, ZDX and Crosstour, they nearly NEVER have the best overall execution, and it is questionable whether they have it at all. The old Honda RELISHED competition and they always did their best work in the face of it. Just when the competition thought they were going to beat Honda, they would pull so far ahead that it was embarrassing. I think of the 4th gen Accord in that regard. It was such a staggering step forward from not only the previous Accord, but everything people thought Honda would be that it stunned the segment. They had more competition then than they do now.
As for my forwardness, I will simply state a philosophical question. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I am forward because when I would post here, people like you would have a tizzy because I didn't explain myself in excruciating detail and link everything to Hell and back. Then when I did, they bitched that I posted a book. The reason is simple. When people don't want to hear your opinion, the only way to get them to shut up and accept it at the highest level they are going to is to bury them completely. Then they know where they stand, and they can either accept it or move on. Usually, when they make statements about it not being "fair," not wanting to accept it, or it being a book, it is because their internal defenses have kicked in and they either can't counter or didn't expect to be called on it. |
If you are going to post in a continually hostile tone with inflammatory language, people are going to be less receptive to what you have to say.
That is probably part of the reason SC doesn't get flamed. He tells it like it is, but without the drama and hyperbole.
| However, having been relatively burned by their product as of late, it reminds me of "once bitten, twice shy." You can ask GM about this as they burned so many customers with shitty product, they still can't get them back. |
GM's problems were primary reliability related. I knew people who purchased GM and Chrysler products in the 1980's, and the big complaint was how often things broke, and the associated costs and headaches of repair. The Consumer Reports survey results were filled with black marks for domestic vehicles.
Honda's problems are nowhere near that severe. Sure, there have been many oddball products (and I have routinely complained here about the Crosstour, CR-Z, Insight etc.), and many core products suffered (TSX, TL, Accord, Civic), but I don't believe reliability ever became an issue.
|
2nd part:
Gm's problems started with cheapening component content to save $.10 a car. That logically progressed in stuff that was so cheap and crappy that it didn't last or was "unreliable." Many of those Big 3 defectors went straight to the Japanese companies and never looked back. Many of them will still never own a GM, so GM has to wait for young people to hopefully adopt their product, or rely on blind fanboys who refuse to accept where they stand. All Honda has to do is continue to build the best product the segment has, and they will keep the old buyers and gain new ones, which makes it easier for them to stay on top.
However, as D3 people have infiltrated Honda, they have tried to change the mentality to "let's save $.10 a car. This really the reason the Civic is under such brutal attack from loyalists, not because of the product. They save $100 on the interior and a couple hundred on the powertrain. But then they have to put 2-3x the cash on the hood that they saved on cheaper parts to move the product. It doesn't pencil out and it never will. Quality is always cheaper long term. However, when called on it, the shills come out of the woodwork to discredit the dissenters so that nobody will fin out the jig is up. Unfortunately, they can't quiet Consumer Reports, industry analysts, market share calculations, incentive reports or balance sheets.
GM pulled quality. They drove incentives up to maintain volume. Eventually, to keep the house of cards standing, reliability had to suffer. GM's decline didn't start in the 80's. it started in the early 70's and took about 10-15 years for it to get unquestionably bad. However, by then nobody knew how to fix it because the brain drain was all but complete at GM. Based on time frames, it is absolutely essential that Honda get the memo before they walk the last 1/3 of GM's history. Hopefully, the Accord signals the beginning of a return to form, although we will have to see.
Also for the record, I have been very blunt with Honda about their product. Evert time they call for a survey (purchase, lease extension, service), I let them know exactly where they stand. I talked to a rep for 20+ minutes when I bought my Si off lease because they wanted to know why I didn't want to trade on the 2012. I told them quality was down, the car was less fun, and I couldn't justify getting rid of my 2009 for such a car. I tell the dealers the same thing every time they ask. At some point, some of it must be getting back to Honda.
Of course the swifter the response, the swifter the correction (as evidenced by major Civic changes 1 year in). It doesn't do anybody any favors to condone the poor behavior, and the quicker they fix it, the better.
But of course, you can buy whatever story you want. There are literally hundreds of books and case studies on how the Bug 3 failed, and Honda has been displaying an increasingly alarming number of symptoms for years now. I hope they continue the reversal of trend to be honest.
|
|
P.S. I am glad to see you have nothing left but pictures to post. Probably time to move along now, lest your post history come to the fore.
As for putting words in your mouth, I reiterate what I said before. Just because you don't say it directly doesn't mean you don't imply it. You clearly need to work on reading/writing comprehension based on your repeated comments in this thread. Every statement has meaning behind it. Whether you say "you don't matter" overtly is less important than saying stuff like "well Honda can't just cater to the enthusiasts", "drivability in the "real world" is more important" or any of the other non-sensical statements that spew forth from your keyboard.
|
MarkR
|
|
siegen wrote:
MarkR wrote:
I am surprised on how little excitement and buzz there is on TOV, new Accord is out and everyone that have been defending Honda how great cars they make I would expect to be all over writing driving stories, dynamics and posting cool pics?
When I browse E90, Audizine those boys seem to be much more excited over their cars????
You got what you asked for and defended, not a very strong motor and not the coolest looking car either but super duper maintenance free and a superb commuter car. Why not more excitement?
I was wondering of letting my S4 go in favour of a smaller car and the M135 seems to be kinda nice I have to say, b*tt ugly, I think not even a mother can love but very very quick, I love the 8-speed DSG.
|
There were a lot of posts shortly after the new Accord came out. Owners posted pictures and impressions, and some magazine review discussion. It's been very positive, which is a big turn-around from recent introductions. There will probably be more comparison reviews coming out soon to spark more discussion.
Also, there will be more posts when the Sport 6MT models are delivered at the end of November (counting down the days!). I don't know about you, but I find it hard to get excited about a CVT. ;)
MarkR wrote:
not a very strong motor and not the coolest looking car
|
What are you comparing it to?
|
Haha my thread I started really got off rail. Well well, alot of good reading.
Ok, I've must have missed the reviews (see, I live outside the US).
As cars are more expensive here I guess the buckets are wider/bigger therefore Honda gets compared to alot of cars. A Accord 2.4 (your TSX) costs as much as a basic 3-series/A4/Passat and therefore naturally it gets compared.
I am looking forward to the CVT, maybe it's nice. I just hope the euro-Accord can do 0-100 and 80-120km/h as swiftly as a 2.0T Passat or Audi. It doesn't need to be faster.
Right now, whatever you want to claim, if you drive the Accord 2.4 like any normal everyday driver between 1500-4000rpm the 2.4 NA engine is a dog compared to forced inducted engines.
I know, soon someone will jump the thread again and claim that the Accord is a fast as a VW or C&D got the V6 manual to do a 0-62 under 7 if they really let it scream.
|
bigblue
|
|
Turbo and non-turbo engines have different characteristics. You might prefer one over the other based on feel, noise, response etc. Not so long ago turbos were panned in any review for not being as pure, controllable and linear as an NA engine, now that turbos are available from most manufacturers the flexibility and easily available performance of a turbo is king. Strange that :-) I haven't followed the extensive ... discussion above, but if the 2.4 is acceptable on performance (that's up to you), it might offer a somewhat different driving experience.
To be honest I don't think I've driven a turbo (!?) so maybe the above is rubbish, but it sounds plausible. Anyone with any experience of comparing NA vs turbo at this kind of mid-size saloon car level ?
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
owequitit wrote:
2nd part:
Gm's problems started with cheapening component content to save $.10 a car. That logically progressed in stuff that was so cheap and crappy that it didn't last or was "unreliable." |
I strongly disagree with this. GM's quality problems went far beyond progressively saving a dime and then another dime, until the product was unreliable.
GM vehicles were junk in the 70's and 80's (and perhaps even before then) as a result of numerous factors.
Their R&D centers didn't thoroughly test designs as well as the Japanese did. My older co-workers who owned GM vehicles from that era still joke that anyone who purchased those cars in their first model year was basically de-bugging a beta prototype for GM.
GM's manufacturing operations were a disaster. Documented very thoroughly in this in-depth radio report: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi
The factory culture at GM demanded that the assembly line keep moving even when problems occurred (in Japan, line workers had the authority to halt the line if something was wrong). Cars left the factory with all kinds of assembly errors. A team of workers would later try to correct the errors, but I think there's no way they could have caught them all before the vehicles were shipped out to dealers.
Management was shoddy, and Unions were shoddy. In the report linked above, workers admitted that they were lazy and often didn't care about quality. Drug and alcohol abuse at the one GM plant in Fremont was common. The management and unions viewed each other as enemies and didn't cooperate to make a better product.
When GM asked Toyota to fly union members out to Japan for training, and implement Japanese manufacturing practices, quality at the Fremont GM plant (NUMMI) was just as good as the Japanese factory. A NUMMI Corolla was as good as a Toyota City Corolla. GM tried to implement NUMMI methods at its other plants, with little success because plant management or unions didn't cooperate, and GM didn't have Toyota's supply network.
So I believe that GM's quality problems probably had more to do with careless engineering design, bad manufacturing practices, and unmotivated line workers than parts that were a dime cheaper.
Also, GM overpromised health care benefits to Union workers! They made a bad business decision which forced them to squeeze every penny because they could not stay price competitive with non-Union labor unless they reduced costs somewhere else.
Cheaper parts don't mean the car won't be reliable or last. It depends on what those parts are!
For example, when I look at a 9G Civic, I don't see any indication that there are bad manufacturing practices or careless engineering. The interior plastics and materials are cheap and junky -- that is not in question -- but they are assembled with just as much care and arguably more precision than the 8G Civic. Panel gaps and alignment were much more exact in the the 9G that I test drove last year. Arguably, the hard plastics are more scratch resistant/durable than the stuff in the 8G Civic (there are numerous complaints about plastics in the FA5 that would scuff with only minor impact).
18 months after the 9G Civic went to market, I see a minimal number of complaints on carcomplaints.com and Honda forums concerning the 9G Civic.
|
siegen
|
|
MarkR wrote:
Haha my thread I started really got off rail. Well well, alot of good reading.
Ok, I've must have missed the reviews (see, I live outside the US).
As cars are more expensive here I guess the buckets are wider/bigger therefore Honda gets compared to alot of cars. A Accord 2.4 (your TSX) costs as much as a basic 3-series/A4/Passat and therefore naturally it gets compared.
I am looking forward to the CVT, maybe it's nice. I just hope the euro-Accord can do 0-100 and 80-120km/h as swiftly as a 2.0T Passat or Audi. It doesn't need to be faster.
Right now, whatever you want to claim, if you drive the Accord 2.4 like any normal everyday driver between 1500-4000rpm the 2.4 NA engine is a dog compared to forced inducted engines.
I know, soon someone will jump the thread again and claim that the Accord is a fast as a VW or C&D got the V6 manual to do a 0-62 under 7 if they really let it scream.
|
Yeah the thread got side-tracked but I think your initial post was an interesting one so I'm trying to bring it back.
The A4 and 328i are about $10k to $15k more expensive than the Accord in the USDM, and the new Accord is notably faster than the outgoing model. It is quite impressive actually:
2013 Accord Sedan 2.4L 6MT Sport
6.6 second 0-60
15.3 second 1/4 mile
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-four-cylinder-manual-test-review
2013 Accord Sedan 3.5L 6AT Touring
5.6 second 0-60
14.1 second 1/4 mile
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-sedan-v-6-test-review
Not sure if there is a test of the 3.5L 6MT Coupe yet, but I bet it's even faster than the 3.5L 6AT Sedan.
I've driven the A4, A3, and Golf with 2.0L turbo and I don't like the way the engines feel and their power delivery. I own a 3.0L (naturally-aspirated) A4 right now and whenever the dealer gives me a base-engine VW/Audi loaner I cringe.
I've also driven both the current and previous generation TSX 2.4L in 6MT and AT, as well as two CVT 2013 US Accord 2.4L (Sport and EX). I really like the way the K24 feels compared to the VW/Audi 2.0 turbo. It doesn't have the mid-rpm surge in power, but the power delivery overall is more consistent and immediate. I like the idea of not having all the extra components associated with a turbo as well.
|
P54
|
|
owequitit wrote:
| But of course, you can buy whatever story you want. There are literally hundreds of books and case studies on how the Bug 3 failed, and Honda has been displaying an increasingly alarming number of symptoms for years now. I hope they continue the reversal of trend to be honest. |
^So you did not get it?
Bug 3
owequitit wrote:
P.S. I am glad to see you have nothing left but pictures to post. Probably time to move along now, lest your post history come to the fore.
As for putting words in your mouth, I reiterate what I said before. Just because you don't say it directly doesn't mean you don't imply it. You clearly need to work on reading/writing comprehension based on your repeated comments in this thread. Every statement has meaning behind it. Whether you say "you don't matter" overtly is less important than saying stuff like "well Honda can't just cater to the enthusiasts", "drivability in the "real world" is more important" or any of the other non-sensical statements that spew forth from your keyboard. |
To be fair, when it comes to spewing forth from the keyboard I think you have enough to address on your own. You still put words in my mouth as to what you claim I said. Maybe you read to much into it than necessary or you are too sensitive on my implied meaning rather than look to your own way of expressing things. Seems to me you have your own problems when it comes to reading and understanding what is written. All your "threats" in various posts is quite telling. "Do it my way or else!" mentality.
BTW, the picture was just for fun, responding to your post "Bug 3". When it comes to enthusiasts like I said before the word does embrace more than your interpretation of it. Add to it a word that identify what kind of enthusiast you are and leave room for other people that can be enthusiasts too, without having to subscribe to your interpretation of it.
|
P54
|
|
owequitit wrote:
I didn't read beyond the first part because you clearly still are lacking in comprehension. Come back and try again when you actually understand what Benbess and I were talking about.
P.S. As a hint, the 1.3 second improvement you keep quoting refers to 0-60 time. Our conversation was about 1/4 mile times and trap speeds, which makes them two completely different measurements. I said he would be crazy to expect any more than a .5 second improvement in the QUARTER MILE time. Guess what, automatic to automatic it was a .4. It was a similar amount for the manuals, so again, thanks for proving me right. |
Responding to my post without reading it first and then accuse me for lack of reading comprehension is quite telling about you. Maybe if you took the time yourself to read what others and yourself said you will find out who is lacking.
This is third time, maybe you get it this time, if not I guess you are to preoccupied with writing instead of reading the post you reply too.
I will now prove you wrong since you insist you are right.
1. You did not have a 1/4 mile discussion with benbess.
2. benbess wrote about weight and 0-60 in all his posts, not 1/4 mile and trap speed.
3. benbess made a guess, you respond with calling him silly and inventing numbers.
4. You either have reading comprehension problems or since you insist that your wrong is right you are plain stubborn.
FACTS:
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1085878&page_number=1&news_item_id=1085496
benbess wrote:
| Bottom line is that I expect acceleration from 0-60 to be faster by almost 1 second compared with the 2012. But that's just a guess. We'll soon see. |
owequitit responded:
You are just inventing numbers at this point.
As a rule of thumb, each 100lbs of weight lost or gained will affect 1/4 mile time by about .1 second. So expecting anywhere near a second is silly. Even with the CVT, the lower weight and the slight increase in torque (with a likely commensurate loss in top end, uncles Honda has a second, higher output), it will MAYBE a half second faster. |
benbess talk about 0-60, you respond with how 100 lbs. weight loss only lowers the 1/4 mile with 0.1 sec. then you go on saying " Even with the CVT, the lower weight and the slight increase in torque.....it will MAYBE a half second faster."
Unless you lack in reading comprehension or understanding of what benbess talked about how can you twist this to be 1/4 mile discussion when in fact he mentioned 0-60? When you are saying that MAYBE 0.5 sec. faster, it naturally would be in regard to 0-60 that benbess mentioned and you called him silly and inventing numbers. His guess was better than yours, yet he did not call you out silly and inventing numbers.
MORE FACTS:
Motor Trend test:
2013 EX-L Navi 3343lb. : 185 HP 0-60mph: 7.6 sec, 1/4 mile 15.9 sec. @ 90.2 mph
2010 Accord EX 3361 lb: 190 HP 0-60 mph 8.9 sec. 1.4 mile 16.6 sec @ 86.0 mph
Automatic to automatic the 2013 has 5 less HP, 18 lbs less weight, 0-60 1.3 second faster, 1/4 mile 0.7 sec and 4.2 mph faster.
Manual to manual the 2013 is 1.3 sec faster from 0-60 too. According to Car and Driver.
Since by your own words 1/4 mile time is affected only 0.1 sec. per 100 lb. and the 2013 vehicle tested is only 18 lbs less the improved performance should come from engine/transmission. Or would you claim weather? If 5 less HP and almost equal weight vastly improves performance results Honda must have done something right.
Stop being so bitter at Honda that you can't see where they have improved, even beyond your expectations, maybe that is your biggest pill to swallow.
Stop burying the facts with outright lies and name-callings.
Don’t let your pride, bullying and too many words bury the original intent of the message.
|
owequitit
|
|
P54 wrote:
owequitit wrote:
I didn't read beyond the first part because you clearly still are lacking in comprehension. Come back and try again when you actually understand what Benbess and I were talking about.
P.S. As a hint, the 1.3 second improvement you keep quoting refers to 0-60 time. Our conversation was about 1/4 mile times and trap speeds, which makes them two completely different measurements. I said he would be crazy to expect any more than a .5 second improvement in the QUARTER MILE time. Guess what, automatic to automatic it was a .4. It was a similar amount for the manuals, so again, thanks for proving me right. |
Responding to my post without reading it first and then accuse me for lack of reading comprehension is quite telling about you. Maybe if you took the time yourself to read what others and yourself said you will find out who is lacking.
This is third time, maybe you get it this time, if not I guess you are to preoccupied with writing instead of reading the post you reply too.
I will now prove you wrong since you insist you are right.
1. You did not have a 1/4 mile discussion with benbess.
2. benbess wrote about weight and 0-60 in all his posts, not 1/4 mile and trap speed.
3. benbess made a guess, you respond with calling him silly and inventing numbers.
4. You either have reading comprehension problems or since you insist that your wrong is right you are plain stubborn.
FACTS:
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1085878&page_number=1&news_item_id=1085496
benbess wrote:
| Bottom line is that I expect acceleration from 0-60 to be faster by almost 1 second compared with the 2012. But that's just a guess. We'll soon see. |
owequitit responded:
You are just inventing numbers at this point.
As a rule of thumb, each 100lbs of weight lost or gained will affect 1/4 mile time by about .1 second. So expecting anywhere near a second is silly. Even with the CVT, the lower weight and the slight increase in torque (with a likely commensurate loss in top end, uncles Honda has a second, higher output), it will MAYBE a half second faster. |
benbess talk about 0-60, you respond with how 100 lbs. weight loss only lowers the 1/4 mile with 0.1 sec. then you go on saying " Even with the CVT, the lower weight and the slight increase in torque.....it will MAYBE a half second faster."
Unless you lack in reading comprehension or understanding of what benbess talked about how can you twist this to be 1/4 mile discussion when in fact he mentioned 0-60? When you are saying that MAYBE 0.5 sec. faster, it naturally would be in regard to 0-60 that benbess mentioned and you called him silly and inventing numbers. His guess was better than yours, yet he did not call you out silly and inventing numbers.
MORE FACTS:
Motor Trend test:
2013 EX-L Navi 3343lb. : 185 HP 0-60mph: 7.6 sec, 1/4 mile 15.9 sec. @ 90.2 mph
2010 Accord EX 3361 lb: 190 HP 0-60 mph 8.9 sec. 1.4 mile 16.6 sec @ 86.0 mph
Automatic to automatic the 2013 has 5 less HP, 18 lbs less weight, 0-60 1.3 second faster, 1/4 mile 0.7 sec and 4.2 mph faster.
Manual to manual the 2013 is 1.3 sec faster from 0-60 too. According to Car and Driver.
Since by your own words 1/4 mile time is affected only 0.1 sec. per 100 lb. and the 2013 vehicle tested is only 18 lbs less the improved performance should come from engine/transmission. Or would you claim weather? If 5 less HP and almost equal weight vastly improves performance results Honda must have done something right.
Stop being so bitter at Honda that you can't see where they have improved, even beyond your expectations, maybe that is your biggest pill to swallow.
Stop burying the facts with outright lies and name-callings.
Don’t let your pride, bullying and too many words bury the original intent of the message.
|
P54, you fail again.
1) Yes I DID have a 1/4 mile discussion with Benbess. It was quoted right in the freaking quote you keep trying to use against me. Hence my statements about reading comprehension. Now, try just one more time to go back and re-read the paragraph YOU quoted. The words "quarter mile" ares right in the first or second sentence. Not exactly rocket science.
The difference between you and me is that I am getting pissed off because we are 10 posts down the road from where we started and you still can't comprehend a basic statement in the English language, and yet you are trying to make it my problem. You might need to get a tutor because I simply can't make it any more spoon fed for you. There is absolutely no way I can help you understand at this point.
You might want to go back and re-read your facts as well. Car and Driver was exactly in line with what I claimed. Weight was 100lbs less.
However, that doesn't account for aero or transmission, which were NOT part of my original conversation with Atomiclightbulb regarding engine performance.
Unfortunately, in your attempt to be Dudley Do-Right and fight everyone else's propaganda battles for them, you probably missed that to.
At this point, you have clearly proven to every single member of this board that you are a shill, a dimwit, and a douchebag. I am done. You won. You can't even comprehend basic English, so clearly, you are so far beyond my intellect that there is no way I can even match it.
You have just become the new 80Honda and regardless what you do, say, etc, I will not respond. You could be on fire in the Pacific ocean and I will just let you drown. We can only hope the board is saved from your insufferable bullshit by the ban stick.
Good bye P54.
P.S. Honda is fixing the Civic because their actual customers aren't happy, so all of that work you have done in the last year was wasted. Enjoy.
|
owequitit
|
|
330R wrote:
|
This is...funny???
|
mobis21
|
|
MarkR wrote:
I am surprised on how little excitement and buzz there is on TOV, new Accord is out and everyone that have been defending Honda how great cars they make I would expect to be all over writing driving stories, dynamics and posting cool pics?
When I browse E90, Audizine those boys seem to be much more excited over their cars????
You got what you asked for and defended, not a very strong motor and not the coolest looking car either but super duper maintenance free and a superb commuter car. Why not more excitement?
I was wondering of letting my S4 go in favour of a smaller car and the M135 seems to be kinda nice I have to say, b*tt ugly, I think not even a mother can love but very very quick, I love the 8-speed DSG.
|
TOV isn't really an enthusiast forum. If you get caught praising a Honda product, duck and run. The usual suspects WILL attack you.
Much better forums for discussing Honda or Acura products. Model specific forums are usually good. HondaSUV.org or 9th gen civic for example.
|
DCR
|
|
mobis21 wrote:
TOV isn't really an enthusiast forum. If you get caught praising a Honda product, duck and run. The usual suspects WILL attack you.
Much better forums for discussing Honda or Acura products. Model specific forums are usually good. HondaSUV.org or 9th gen civic for example.
|
Good idea, so go post there and never come back.
|
superchg2
|
|
mobis21 wrote:
TOV isn't really an enthusiast forum. If you get caught praising a Honda product, duck and run. The usual suspects WILL attack you.
Much better forums for discussing Honda or Acura products. Model specific forums are usually good. HondaSUV.org or 9th gen civic for example.
|
You are right about one thing, mobis21. You probably won't catch too many of praising the 9th gen civic.
By the way, have you always been mobis21 or are you reincarnated?
|
superchg2
|
|
mobis21 wrote:
TOV isn't really an enthusiast forum. If you get caught praising a Honda product, duck and run. The usual suspects WILL attack you.
Much better forums for discussing Honda or Acura products. Model specific forums are usually good. HondaSUV.org or 9th gen civic for example.
|
You are right about one thing, mobis21. You probably won't catch too many of us praising the 9th gen civic.
By the way, have you always been mobis21 or are you reincarnated?
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 [2] 3 |
| |
|
![[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}
