 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / August 2005Who does NOT agree that Honda should fire their designers
and the guys who hired them. In past past 3 years we had Accord, Ridgeline and the upcoming Saturn inspired Civic - enough said. > and the guys who hired them. > In past past 3 years we had Accord, Ridgeline and the upcoming Saturn > inspired Civic - enough said. What would that solve? > and the guys who hired them. > In past past 3 years we had Accord, Ridgeline and the upcoming Saturn > inspired Civic - enough said. I agree that Honda design has gone downhill--at a rate generally the same as their product quality. I liked the 98-02 Accord look. The 03 model is fugly. Now go look at an 06 Hyundai Sonata. They got it right--it's just about the same overall look as the Accord, but with the details right. Haven't seen the Civic. > and the guys who hired them. > In past past 3 years we had Accord, Ridgeline and the upcoming Saturn > inspired Civic - enough said. IMO, the ridgeline is a dud. the element isnt as popular, since the scion xB came out with a lower price and better mileage. civic is as boring as a focus, and at least the focus offers a hatch. accord styling is still slowly growing on me, but i doubt ill ever like it as much as the last generation or the one 2 generations before that. maybe the jazz will be interesting? i hope. >and the guys who hired them. >In past past 3 years we had Accord, Ridgeline and the upcoming Saturn >inspired Civic - enough said. Not sure about the next gen Civic, but otherwise agree they've been on a downhill slope. Though I wouldn't say much positive about the last gen Prelude either. Hondas have never been the most stylish, but in the past looked clean and light. OTOH, I do like the Acura TSX and (sort of) TL. I'm more about the mechanic rather then the design which should not hamper the vehicle's purpose. Example, Mercedes new line of sedan, with a very sleek design, but crappy rear head room (which is stupid in my opinion). Pars > and the guys who hired them. > In past past 3 years we had Accord, Ridgeline and the upcoming Saturn > inspired Civic - enough said. Agreed - Element, CRV, Ridgeline, Accord and now the fugly new civic. Just amazes me how much Honda has gone down hill. While some may like the new civics’ interior I find it too busy and cluttered. The new civic is larger than the accord of yesterday. We need a new car from Honda to replace the civic. Maybe the fit is what is called for. I believe a lot is riding on the US release of the fit. While other companies have been coming up with great designs that fit a nitch in the market I think Honda is relying too much on their product reputation and loyalty buyers. They should seriously reconsider their design team’s direction.  Signaturemagpilot Discussions from http://fitfreak.net Sorry to beat a dead horse here but I also agree. I'm not too fond of the current Accord (although the 06 with the LEDs looks more appealing) and the new 06 Civic looks awful (what were they thinking with the steering wheel). I had wished they brought the Euro Accord (our TSX) over as the Accord. I'm looking to get the TSX, but I wished its interior was available in cloth as I throw stuff in the backseat and am afraid of tearing the leather. Nick >Agreed - Element, CRV, Ridgeline, Accord and now the fugly new civic. >Just amazes me how much Honda has gone down hill. While some may like [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >reputation and loyalty buyers. They should seriously reconsider their >design teams direction. That's all I've been hearing for the past several generations of Hondas. People crying about the styling and the general consensus is, "it's too mundane" !. And then, everyone else ends-up copying the same style or praising the fact that the style 'grows on you'. These wee-wee brains that are all about the style, should be put in the back seat. Pars > Sorry to beat a dead horse here but I also agree. I'm not too fond of > the current Accord (although the 06 with the LEDs looks more [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >reputation and loyalty buyers. They should seriously reconsider their > >design team's direction. That's maybe what you have been hearing but I have been hearing complaints with this latest generation Accord. I've like the Accord line up until the latest gen. Also note that Nissan had the front end light design on the Altima before they came out on the Accord. It's just that Honda had a bad way of deigning the front grill and rear. If you think that Honda was doing such a good job on the most recent Accord, then why are they completely changing the back end on the sedan in the 06? I'll tell you one reason, decline in sales of the Accord. Nick >That's all I've been hearing for the past several generations of Hondas. >People crying about the styling and the general consensus is, "it's too [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> >reputation and loyalty buyers. They should seriously reconsider their >> >design team's direction. [color=black]Pars Wrote: > That's all I've been hearing for the past several generations of > Hondas.[/color] [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > better yet the Euro version of the civic with exception to the dash > which needs to go. It is Fugly. Signaturemagpilot Discussions from http://fitfreak.net > I had wished they brought the Euro Accord >(our TSX) over as the Accord. The Acura TSX is just plain gorgeous. A REALLY good design. The powers that be at Honda just decided that we Americans would be satisfied with the current American Accord design. Got to give the people a reason to move up to Acura, right ? In Europe, Honda didn't have that luxury. There's some SERIOUS competition in that category designwise...Citroen and Peugot have some beauties...and then there's Alfa-Romeo. So they practically HAD to use the TSX as their Accord over there. I visited Europe recently, and they have MUCH better looking cars over there. A MUCH greater selection in the low to mid-priced sports sedan category. Honda sells a car that looks like our current Civic si Hatchback, except it has 4 doors . The car is hot. A damned shame we can't get it in the US. Cheers, --N With a very few exceptions,I consider BMW's Saab's and Volvo's to be the most unstylish vehicles I have ever seen.They are nothing but boxes on wheels in my opinion,a LOT worse style wise than any Honda product.To each his own I guess. >With a very few exceptions,I consider BMW's Saab's and Volvo's to be the >most unstylish vehicles I have ever seen.They are nothing but boxes on >wheels in my opinion,a LOT worse style wise than any Honda product.To >each his own I guess. Got to agree with you about the new BMW's. Damn, they're ugly. Saab also took a step back with their new designs. But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard. Honda still has some great stuff...it's just that a lot of it is in Europe and not available in America. In my previous post, I was referring specifically to marques that aren't available in the US. Peugot has some smoking models all across their range. And the Alfas...Damn, you should see one in person. Europeans have really embraced the hot hatchback category. I really wish we had more of a selection here in the US. Cheers, --N > But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the > pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard. With Ford chassis. Wheeee. >>But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the >>pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard. > > With Ford chassis. > > Wheeee. but they HIDE it well. most people dont know some jags are reformulated fords. yet, theyve been able to bring prices down and now anyone can buy a jag. is that good, or bad? > > But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the > > pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard. > > With Ford chassis. > > Wheeee. These days, any manufacture can make a strong chassis, but the hard part is also making it light and crash worthy, without blowing the budget... I don't know about Ford/Mazda chassis, but they're on the right track with their suspension design. The double wishbone up front is probably going to keep them in the game. Back on topic.. If the 05 Civic could be the most grotesque car on the road, but if it can get 1022Km from a tank of gas (50L), then it'll still get my thumbs up. Pars > > But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the > > pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard. > > With Ford chassis. > > Wheeee. Volvo. The safest car for the world's worst drivers. SignatureOn May 01, 2003, President Bush declared that, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." -------- "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation. " - George "Dubya" Bush >>>But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the >>>pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Volvo. The safest car for the world's worst drivers. you ever been to a junk yard to look at the wrecks? volvo are nothing special. "safety" is just their marketing schtik. jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:2- 2dnZ2dnZ20k2DenZ2dneDqk96dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@speakeasy.net: >>>>But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the >>>>pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you ever been to a junk yard to look at the wrecks? volvo are nothing > special. "safety" is just their marketing schtik. "Safety" is right between your ears. Everything else is window dressing. That includes seat belts. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:2- > 2dnZ2dnZ20k2DenZ2dneDqk96dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@speakeasy.net: > > > > you ever been to a junk yard to look at the wrecks? Yes, and I used to work in a tow shop. Some models withstand a lot more than others, and Volvo as a brand tends to have such models. > > volvo are nothing special. "safety" is just their marketing schtik. More structural strength around the passenger compartment is more structural strength. In many situations, it won't do you a bit of good, true; but in side impacts, for example, it's damn nice to have. And Volvos do have more structural strength than the average vehicle. As far as personal injury goes, what matters is the work done on some tissue relative to the rest of the body. (When the entire body is accelerated uniformly, there's no injury, obviously.) An accident may involve so much acceleration that the safety restraints cause a fatal degree of tissue compression and hydrostatic shock; in that case, structural strength of the cabin doesn't help and may even hinder survival (since the cabin absorbs less of the energy). However, many accident injuries are the result of penetrations into the cabin encountering tissue, and either fatally compressing or dividing it; in those cases, structural strength does reduce chance of serious injury. Contemporary Volvos built on the same platform as some Ford and Mazda models have significantly higher curb weight because of the additional steel in their cabin cages. > "Safety" is right between your ears. Everything else is window dressing. > That includes seat belts. Bah. While I'll grant that driver behavior is the most important component of driving safety,[1] I've been in more than one collision where my car was legally positioned and stopped in traffic, and some jackass ran into it. I've seen a *lot* of such accidents. As far as I'm concerned, the safety equipment in my car is there to protect me from events I can't anticipate - and as long as I drive, there will be some. I've towed a car which had been proceeding properly down the road when a vehicle coming the other way swerved into their lane immediately in front of them. No room for avoidance; no time to stop, and it wouldn't help anyway since the oncoming vehicle wasn't under control. If the passengers in that car hadn't been wearing seatbelts, their chances of survival would have been very small. Obviously, safety features are secondary, and certainly for me they're not the deciding factor in choosing a brand or model; while I like my Volvo, I enjoyed my Hondas more, and I like their efficiency and practicality. But safety differences do exist among models and it's not unreasonable to make that a criterion when selecting a vehicle. 1. Other than avoiding being in or near moving vehicles in the first place, of course. SignatureMichael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com Every allegiance to some community eventually involves such a fetish, which functions as the disavowal of its founding crime: is not 'America' the fetish of an infinitely open space enabling every individual to pursue happiness in his or her own way? -- Slavoj Zizek > > > volvo are nothing special. "safety" is just their marketing schtik. > > More structural strength around the passenger compartment is more > structural strength. Right. And I'll put any Volvo up against the 99-up Honda Odyssey. Schtick. >>>>volvo are nothing special. "safety" is just their marketing schtik. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Schtick. some cars are definitely different in design philosophy. bottom line, the strong passenger cell is important, and energy absorption of the outer "soft zones" is important too. but how "soft" is safe? the contention is that a lot of vehicles are designed so that the "soft zone" structural deformation ocurrs at a lower than necessary treshold and in locations that cause more structural damage than necessary because it means more cars get written off after relatively minor low-speed impacts. for instance, it's common to see frames deform in a zone that is just behind the engine/steering gear, making repair next to impossible. if the low-energy zones were /before/ the engine compartment, repair could more easily be undertaken. the actual yield point necessary to protect occupants is the key issue. the old 5mph bumper laws were fine from a safety standpoint, but lobbying from detroit soon, er, made it clear that 5mph bumpers were just not business friendly enough for them - once it became clear that they significantly reduced the write-off rate and thus new vehicle sales figures. funny how that is. it's like rollover rates for suv's. the nhtsa debates rollover safety rules, but finds itself powerless to implement them as it fears it would rule whole classes of current vehicles unsafe. and that would never do. even the issue about about making roof columns more able to withstand rollover without collapse is being avoided. certainly less financial impact for detroit, but consumer safety??? funny how that is. >some cars are definitely different in design philosophy. bottom line, >the strong passenger cell is important, and energy absorption of the >outer "soft zones" is important too. Very important indeed. Check out this link: >http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150 Which passenger cell would you rather be in ? The F-150 (on the right) is essentially the same vehicle as the Ford Excursion. The people who buy them think they are safe... BMW obviously did their homework with the mini. I'm glad Honda also places a great deal of importance on a strong passenger cell as well. It's important stuff. Cheers, --N >>>> But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the >>>> pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you ever been to a junk yard to look at the wrecks? volvo are nothing > special. "safety" is just their marketing schtik. How can you tell from looking at wrecks? >>>>> But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the >>>>> pipeline. They're gonna go after the sports sedan market hard. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > How can you tell from looking at wrecks? you can see what happens to the structure on various types of impact. ones where the passenger compartment caves are the one /not/ to have a crash in. you see all kinds of educational things in junk yards. > Saab also took a step back with their new designs. saab is completely GMs bitch, now. their "new" SUV is a rebadged clone. look for them to turn into another isuzu... a lame duck company waiting to die. > Saab also took a step back with their new designs. > But Volvos are looking good lately. They've got some beauties in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Cheers, --N European car makers would import them if there were a market for their automobiles here. Both the Honda 2 door hatchback and the Mazda 4 door (or 5 door, if you prefer) hatchback are non-starters. The Civic SI is the deal of the century (leather Momo wheel, electric sunroof, Alcantara recaro-like seats, decent sound system, alloys, and a nice 2l iVTEC engine) and the dealers can't give them away at $17,000. Car's got cooties. Now, if they could make a Honda just like an F350 dually 4x4 with a Cat T6 Turbodiesel and extra heavy armor-plating (just in case) THAT would be a big seller :) A very sensible ride for that commuter with a 120 mile round trip. I wish we weren't so ignorant..... > With a very few exceptions,I consider BMW's Saab's and Volvo's to be the > most unstylish vehicles I have ever seen.They are nothing but boxes on > wheels in my opinion,a LOT worse style wise than any Honda product.To > each his own I guess. i can appreciate the subtlety of the BMW and volvo styling, and the way they (at least used to) have a common "theme". chris bangle is doing all he can to uglify the BMWs, tho. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Cheers, --N > Have a look at the next EU civic (not available in US) at http://www.honda.co.uk/ Good lookin eh ??? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Good lookin eh ??? i fookin <3 it. the seat arrangement is supposedly similar to the fit/jazz. i do like the fact its a 4 door that looks like a 2 door, and its a hatch. suh-weet. >Have a look at the next EU civic (not available in US) at >http://www.honda.co.uk/ > >Good lookin eh ??? Thanks for the link ! Damn ! that's nice. They really got the interior right. I gotta believe something like that would sell like hotcakes over here. I just don't understand their decisions. Just poking around looking at all the details on that site made my mouth water. Did you notice that it will have a hybrid option ? It will be a serious hybrid offering improved performance over the standard model. (similar to our Accord V-6 hybrid) There will also be a diesel option. With the diesel, it will do 0-60 in less than 9 sec., AND it will get 55mpg. Why can't we get cars like that ? (just a rhetorical question...I know the answer) I am reminded of a car that is available for sale in Britain. A car made by GM. (yes, THAT GM...) How's this: 0-60 4.7 sec. (wow) top speed 151 mph 33mpg (wow again) $40,000. Of course, not available in the US... They're too busy selling us SUV's... The car is the Vauxhall VX220 turbo. (not suitable for Americans...) We should start complaining. Cheers, --N > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The Acura TSX is just plain gorgeous. > A REALLY good design. im glad they brought it in. i think they went with a bigger car as the accord because the market wants that. otherwise, the door would be wide open for the camry, and the even bigger stretched avalon. > The powers that be at Honda just decided that we Americans would be > satisfied with the current American Accord design. > Got to give the people a reason to move up to Acura, right ? yeah. wish the RSX wasnt so freakin boring though. > In Europe, Honda didn't have that luxury. > There's some SERIOUS competition in that category designwise...Citroen [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hatchback, except it has 4 doors . The car is hot. > A damned shame we can't get it in the US. yet, grasshopper... yet. if they build it, we will come! all signs point to spring for the 4 door jazz/fit to come to the states. too bad its not september, but oh well... they really need to do something to stem the tide of people flocking to the scion xA and xB. the tC is also a nice car for the money, and probably a better sport coupe value than the acura RSX. > Cheers, --N > > and the guys who hired them. > In past past 3 years we had Accord, Ridgeline and the upcoming Saturn > inspired Civic - enough said. The Accord coupe is OK from my standpoint. And, I have quite a few compliments on my 01 Prelude. The Pilot (which we also have) is just fine -- certainly at least as appealing as the SUV from other manufacturers. As far as quality goes -- no problems with the Pilot or my Prelude. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.