 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / July 2007will honda's usa "marketing" dept learn this lesson?
from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070704/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_sales;_ylt=A0WTUZK6DYtG1k8A cAms0NUE we learn that: "Honda said it sold 140,935 vehicles in June, up from 126,449 during the same month last year. Sales were led by the Civic and Fit small cars and the CR-V small sport utility vehicle." are you listening honda usa "marketing" department? are you going to pay attention this time? because your track record needs a little help. you didn't want to know about the crv. you didn't want to know about the fit [jazz]. and you have done everything you can to kill the civic's backbone, the civic hatchback. anyone would think y'all were getting backhanders from detroit or something. well, you're not are you? > from: > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070704/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_sales;_ylt=A0WTUZK [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > getting backhanders from detroit or something. well, you're not are > you? I wish they would bring back the Prelude. Update it with LED turnsignals and taillights. Right now,Honda/Acura does not make anything I would buy. I'd buy an old 00-01 Prelude before I'd buy any new Honda/Acura.  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > I wish they would bring back the Prelude. > Update it with LED turnsignals and taillights. > Right now,Honda/Acura does not make anything I would buy. > I'd buy an old 00-01 Prelude before I'd buy any new Honda/Acura. I'm pretty sure they decided to aim the Accord coupe V6/manual transmission at that market. After all, the 'lude was built on the Accord chassis. >> I wish they would bring back the Prelude. >> Update it with LED turnsignals and taillights. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > After all, the 'lude was built on the Accord chassis. in which case, why not just sell a prelude? nobody buys an accord if they want something that is a little more fun. just like the crx was a no-brainer body transplant from the civic, so should be the prelude. > > I'm pretty sure they decided to aim the Accord coupe V6/manual > > transmission at that market. > > > > After all, the 'lude was built on the Accord chassis. > > > in which case, why not just sell a prelude? Ah, but you forget: the beancounters were in charge during that time. It is cheaper to make the Accord than a model with different sheet metal and interior. They may yet bring back the 'lude, now that the engineers seem to be back on the throne, but no doubt it's way down on their to-do list. >>> I'm pretty sure they decided to aim the Accord coupe V6/manual >>> transmission at that market. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It is cheaper to make the Accord than a model with different sheet metal > and interior. but the accord coupe is extensively re-worked. can't see any cost saving between that and a prelude. > They may yet bring back the 'lude, now that the engineers seem to be > back on the throne, but no doubt it's way down on their to-do list. remains to be seen. they haven't cured the civic wishbone thing yet. and they're not addressing the fact that they don't have anything to touch the evo/wrx yet either. [that's a /serious/ failing.] all it takes is a new prelude with 4wd and a blown s2000 motor to get that ball rolling. even if it were limited edition. redirecting resources to giant suv's??? wtf were they thinking? btw, that wrx is one heckofa car. got passed by modded one a few weeks back - no idea what he had under the hood, but the noise was such that i looked in the mirror to see what was going on. wrx emerging from an on-ramp maybe 300 meters back. two shifts [and about as many seconds] later, he passed my sorry 85mph a.s like i was standing still. seriously, that's one of the fastest vehicles i've ever seen. on or off the track. if honda had a vehicle, with motor, able to handle that kind of re-work, and wishbones, they could recapture the hearts and minds of the 2-ner/wrx crowd they blew apart back in 2001. and they should. > > It is cheaper to make the Accord than a model with different sheet metal > > and interior. > > but the accord coupe is extensively re-worked. can't see any cost > saving between that and a prelude. Sure--because they were doing the Accord coupe anyway. When they chose to equip it with the V6 w/manual tranny, that was their nod to the 'lude crowd--which, by and large, had grown up and probably were very happy to have such a car. They gave a nod to that market without having to spend a bunch of money. Doing a full-on 'lude would have entailed MUCH more money, and plainly Honda didn't see any good return on such an effort. > > They may yet bring back the 'lude, now that the engineers seem to be > > back on the throne, but no doubt it's way down on their to-do list. > > remains to be seen. they haven't cured the civic wishbone thing yet. In the Civic line, I don't think there's anything to be "cured". It's just not a problem. Civics are selling well--and that's all Honda cares about. > and they're not addressing the fact that they don't have anything to > touch the evo/wrx yet either. [that's a /serious/ failing.] nah. Honda doesn't have the money Toyota has, not by far, so they're happy to stay out of those markets. Given Honda's history, that doesn't surprise me one bit. > redirecting resources to > giant suv's??? wtf were they thinking? Well, the Pilot/MDX has sold well--no surprise, since that's the kind of car many people were buying. "What were they thinking"? I can tell you: "let's build an SUV that competes well in the SUV market, which is huge." No surprise there. The Ridgeline has its niche, too. It's a very, very strong vehicle. Not my cup of tea, but well done for those who like it. > btw, that wrx is one heckofa car. got passed by modded one a few weeks > back - no idea what he had under the hood, but the noise was such that i [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of re-work, and wishbones, they could recapture the hearts and minds of > the 2-ner/wrx crowd they blew apart back in 2001. Ah, they could--but they clearly see their destiny lying elsewhere. >>> It is cheaper to make the Accord than a model with different sheet metal >>> and interior. >> but the accord coupe is extensively re-worked. can't see any cost >> saving between that and a prelude. > > Sure--because they were doing the Accord coupe anyway. but that's the illogical bit! just do it properly and call it a prelude! > When they chose to equip it with the V6 w/manual tranny, that was their > nod to the 'lude crowd--which, by and large, had grown up and probably > were very happy to have such a car. v6 is not "true honda" and hardly sells anywhere else in the world - it's pandering to the american market. > They gave a nod to that market without having to spend a bunch of money. > Doing a full-on 'lude would have entailed MUCH more money, really, not very much. > and plainly > Honda didn't see any good return on such an effort. vs how many accord coupe's sold? not many. >>> They may yet bring back the 'lude, now that the engineers seem to be >>> back on the throne, but no doubt it's way down on their to-do list. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > just not a problem. Civics are selling well--and that's all Honda cares > about. disagree! it's handling that put honda on the map. they threw that out the window when they went macpherson on the civic. may as well buy a camry. or a subaru if you want a car with guts. >> and they're not addressing the fact that they don't have anything to >> touch the evo/wrx yet either. [that's a /serious/ failing.] > > nah. Honda doesn't have the money Toyota has, not by far, so they're > happy to stay out of those markets. Given Honda's history, that doesn't > surprise me one bit. but the point is, the civic was one of the most popular cars in the world in terms of gross sales. and incredibly popular on the track. and with a relatively low power motor! don't see many modern civics on the track because they don't handle. you see wrx's because what they lack in handling, they make up in power. >> redirecting resources to >> giant suv's??? wtf were they thinking? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The Ridgeline has its niche, too. It's a very, very strong vehicle. > Not my cup of tea, but well done for those who like it. but globally, that's a zero market - it just diverts resources. and domestically, unit sales aren't high either. cost of development vs. sales? >> btw, that wrx is one heckofa car. got passed by modded one a few weeks >> back - no idea what he had under the hood, but the noise was such that i [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ah, they could--but they clearly see their destiny lying elsewhere. yes, handing their customer base over to toyota, subaru, mitsubishi and nissan. they should stick to the one thing that used to differentiate them from the pack, and do it was well as possible - sports car handling on a cheap compact/family car. it's not like it costs that much more to produce, and when balanced against brand loyalty and repeat sales, is a no-brainer. > > In the Civic line, I don't think there's anything to be "cured". It's > > just not a problem. Civics are selling well--and that's all Honda cares > > about. > > disagree! it's handling that put honda on the map. That may have been so years back, but you can't dispute: Civics are selling well, AND that's all Honda cares about. Honda is a marketing company. If handling doesn't sell, then they won't care. >>> In the Civic line, I don't think there's anything to be "cured". It's >>> just not a problem. Civics are selling well--and that's all Honda cares [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That may have been so years back, but you can't dispute: Civics are > selling well, AND that's all Honda cares about. but they're not selling as well as they used to - honda have lost significant market share to toyota. and the rsx or whatever the successor to the integra is, [same civic platform] isn't selling at all! > Honda is a marketing company. if that's what they think, that's the problem! > If handling doesn't sell, then they won't > care. but handling /does/ sell! if they think they're just going to sell cheap generic crap, they're in trouble because toyota can do that better. and frankly, hyundai [etc] is breathing hard up their tail pipe as well. they'll also have their margins cut to the bone and have no brand loyalty. if they make something that people like because it's better, price is less elastic /and/ they retain repeat customers. like subaru. honda used to play the game /way/ better. there's no reason they can't do it again. >>>> In the Civic line, I don't think there's anything to be "cured". >>>> It's just not a problem. Civics are selling well--and that's all [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > successor to the integra is, [same civic platform] isn't selling at > all! the RSX is defunct;they stopped making them,ISTR. >> Honda is a marketing company. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > but handling /does/ sell! Look at how well the Integra sold. 3dr and 4 dr versions! Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell. the old 1996-2000 Civic hatchback sold very well,and newer versions were uglier and didn't sell as well. Tuners would rather buy an older Honda and rework it than buy a new Civic. > if they think they're just going to sell cheap generic crap, they're > in trouble because toyota can do that better. and frankly, hyundai [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > honda used to play the game /way/ better. there's no reason they > can't do it again. Sochiro Honda is no longer around,that's the problem. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>>> In the Civic line, I don't think there's anything to be "cured". >>>>> It's just not a problem. Civics are selling well--and that's all [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Look at how well the Integra sold. 3dr and 4 dr versions! absolutely!!! > Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell. it had the power and the fittings. the only differentiator was handling - basically, it was a dog. > the old 1996-2000 Civic hatchback sold very well,and newer versions were > uglier and didn't sell as well. indeed. > Tuners would rather buy an older Honda and rework it than buy a new Civic. not just tuners - ordinary drivers too. i had a bunch of people fighting over my 2000 civic hatch when i sold it. >> if they think they're just going to sell cheap generic crap, they're >> in trouble because toyota can do that better. and frankly, hyundai [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sochiro Honda is no longer around,that's the problem. >> Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell. > >it had the power and the fittings. the only differentiator was handling >- basically, it was a dog. Wot? They tried to sell the RSX as pre-riced, for more money. It's the marketing that didn't work, not so much the car. The handling on those old Integras wasn't anything to write home about. I never actually drove the RSX, ... oh, maybe I test drove one once about 1998, I don't recall, but I'll eat a bug if it handled worse than any stock Integra. J. >>> Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell. >> it had the power and the fittings. the only differentiator was handling [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > J. if you say you test drove the rsx in 98, you'll have been eating more than bugs! >if you say you test drove the rsx in 98, you'll have been eating more >than bugs! Huh. I woulda swore the RSX was already current when I bought the 1999 CL, but a little Googling suggests you are right in suggesting otherwise. They say the memory is the second to go. I test drove the Integra waaay back when. Or maybe it was an Isetta. Really, what's the difference? J. > They say the memory is the second to go. > > I test drove the Integra waaay back when. Or maybe it was an Isetta. > Really, what's the difference? > > J. LOL! The Isetta really was Way Back When. I remember an episode of the original Alvin cartoon show in which an ostrich mistook an Isetta that Dave had just bought for an egg and was trying to hatch it. I was about ten years old and didn't catch the humor. A few years later I saw one parked in our neighborhood and then I understood. Mike >>if you say you test drove the rsx in 98, you'll have been eating more >>than bugs! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I woulda swore the RSX was already current when I bought the 1999 CL, > but a little Googling suggests you are right in suggesting otherwise. RSX came after the Integra,which was last made in 2001. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> I woulda swore the RSX was already current when I bought the 1999 CL, >> but a little Googling suggests you are right in suggesting otherwise. > >RSX came after the Integra,which was last made in 2001. Well, I bought the 1999 new in early 2000, ... naw, still doesn't work, does it? Probably test drove the RSX on some service visit to the dealer, I had the CL for a four-year lease. Then later drove the TSX which was still pricey then, but went with the Accord. The whole Acura marketing model could use a little tuning up, IMHO, I mean look at the RL, nice but who cares, not different enough from the TL, which is not different enough from the Accord. But that's been true since day one with Acura, they never differentiated from the Honda world even as far as Lexus did from Toyota or Infiniti from Nissan. J. >> if you say you test drove the rsx in 98, you'll have been eating more >> than bugs! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > J. Heh... The Isetta was the "smart" car of its day! <G> JT > > Honda is a marketing company. > > if that's what they think, that's the problem! well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money. >>> Honda is a marketing company. >> if that's what they think, that's the problem! > > well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money. which requires that they satisfy demand, and repeat those sales! how are they going to do that if they make junk and can't retain? > > well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money. > > > which requires that they satisfy demand, and repeat those sales! how > are they going to do that if they make junk and can't retain? But jim, the thing is that they are fulfilling their goal without fulfilling *your* goals. But they *are* fulfilling *their* goals. >>> well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But they *are* fulfilling *their* goals. if their goals are losing share to toyota on the civic vs. corolla, failing completely on the rsx and ridgeline, and giving away the vast and loyal civic/prelude customer base to subaru, you're dead right - they've succeeded handsomely! > > In article <KaOdnY1mYNcjBBDbnZ2dnUVZ_rTin...@speakeasy.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and loyal civic/prelude customer base to subaru, you're dead right - > they've succeeded handsomely! Silly question here. I own a '98 and a 2000 Civic (both manual LX) and test drove newer models (I think one in 2004 and one in 2006). Somehow I felt that the new ones are not as nice as the ones I have, but was not able to specifically express what it was. Maybe the new ones are a little bulkier, a little more tame, maybe something like they're not as fun as the '98 or 2000. >From a technical POV, what was changed from the 6th generation (I think) onward that makes them less fun to drive? >>> In article <KaOdnY1mYNcjBBDbnZ2dnUVZ_rTin...@speakeasy.net>, >>>>> well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>From a technical POV, what was changed from the 6th generation (I > think) onward that makes them less fun to drive? weights are about the same, perhaps just a little heavier for the more recent civics. biggest difference is suspension. changed to macpherson strut up front in 2001. it's a lot more vague in feel and can't corner as well. ok on freeways though so the freds don't notice much. cheaper to manufacture hence ubiquity on most cheaper cars. >> from: >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070704/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_sales;_ylt=A0WTUZK [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and taillights. Right now,Honda/Acura does not make anything I would buy. > I'd buy an old 00-01 Prelude before I'd buy any new Honda/Acura. I have a Supra (88) and a Scion tC (05) The seating position in the Civic Si is the same as the Supra. The seating position in the Scion is the same as Outback Steakhouse. Wish I had bought the Civic... >>from: >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070704/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_sales;_ylt=A0WTUZK [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Right now,Honda/Acura does not make anything I would buy. > I'd buy an old 00-01 Prelude before I'd buy any new Honda/Acura. They've also managed to make the new Civics *ugly*. Toyota has done the same thing: given their cars unattractive, militaristic-looking noses like American vehicles tend to have. One really wonders if they realize who has been winning the sales wars the last 5 years, and who has been losing... mjc13 wrote: > They've also managed to make the new Civics *ugly*. Toyota has done > the same thing: given their cars unattractive, militaristic-looking > noses like American vehicles tend to have. One really wonders if they > realize who has been winning the sales wars the last 5 years, and who > has been losing... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I *hated* the look of the hatchback civics. I like the look of the new ones. The Si is a thing of beauty, IMO, and the rest of the line isn't that much different. Now, the Japanese Si Hatchback is a nice looking car, maintaining the new style look, and making it a hatch. I would buy one of those in a second if they were available here... On Jul 4, 8:58 pm, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>" > They've also managed to make the new Civics *ugly*. I think the current Civic is gorgeous, even better looking than previous generation, which was also an improvement over the previous generation before that. > Toyota has done > the same thing: given their cars unattractive, militaristic-looking > noses like American vehicles tend to have. I do agree that Toyotas are pretty ugly. > They've also managed to make the new Civics *ugly*. Toyota has done > the same thing: given their cars unattractive, militaristic-looking > noses like American vehicles tend to have. One really wonders if they > realize who has been winning the sales wars the last 5 years, and who > has been losing... IMO, most manufacturers are making ugly cars now. Look at Nissan's line-up... Yuck!!! >I wish they would bring back the Prelude. >Update it with LED turnsignals and taillights. >Right now,Honda/Acura does not make anything I would buy. >I'd buy an old 00-01 Prelude before I'd buy any new Honda/Acura. Well, I agree with the others here, that today's Accord coupes deliver whatever it is you think you'd get out of a Prelude. EXCEPT the distinction. I agree with you that, in terms of sizzle, Honda/Acura is determinately non-sizzling. The Si's are so-so, the S2000 is an engineering marvel but addresses only a tiny market, no successor to the NSX, no V8's for the top of the line. They seem to be underselling the Fix for reasons that escape me, but the thing is 500 pounds too heavy in any case. My Accord is perhaps the world's best automotive bargain and an engineering marvel itself (as are also the Camry), but ... not as exciting as one would like. Just look at that new Audi R8 coupe ... bring back a Prelude in that class, why doncha? J. >>I wish they would bring back the Prelude. >>Update it with LED turnsignals and taillights. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, I agree with the others here, that today's Accord coupes deliver > whatever it is you think you'd get out of a Prelude. Put a 1998-2001 last generation Prelude next to an Accord coupe,and the Accord will be bigger and taller.(and heavier) IMO,significantly different. The older 1990 Prelude was much closer to the Accord. Then there was that wierd Prelude inbetween them..... Even the defunct RSX was sportier than any Accord. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> Well, I agree with the others here, that today's Accord coupes deliver >> whatever it is you think you'd get out of a Prelude. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Even the defunct RSX was sportier than any Accord. I like the taller small cars, if I want an MGB roadster there's already the S2000. I look at the current Porches as a little retro in staying so low. The new motors are so much better, a little extra wind resistance, even a *little* extra weight, are OK. How 'bout this, a new Prelude would make a great new Honda vehicle to experiment with low weight technologies, like the Lotusii. http://lotuscars.com/Elise.aspx Civic Si engine, Accord-derived composite chassis, << 2200 pounds, maybe 4wd option, << $40k list. For Acura, I *still* say put in a 4-liter V8, make it an RL-class sedan << 2800 pounds (V8 drivetrain is still gonna be heavy), but at that power/weight ratio it would also fly. Probably $60k range. Put a few solar cells on the trunk for good luck! :) Needless to say, both would get outstanding mileage, for the class. ... though I see that Lotus is only listed at 24/29. With Honda tuning (and some loss of zoom) I'd think a two-seater like that could go 29/36 or better - current Si sedan lists at 23/32 @ 3000 pounds. Hmm, oddly enough, the specs are almost the same for the coupe. Error? J. > Put a 1998-2001 last generation Prelude next to an Accord coupe,and the > Accord will be bigger and taller.(and heavier) If Honda continued to make the Prelude today, put today's 'lude against a 98-01 'lude, and today's car would be bigger and heavier. Fact. So? > Even the defunct RSX was sportier than any Accord. Ever driven a current model V6 Accord coupe w/manual trans? |
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
|
©2008 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.