Honda lost its Mojo?
10-13-2010, 03:55 AM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the most part there aren't any fun, fast, affordable cars made anymore so don't blame Honda, plus Honda makes bikes which are more fun than almost anything on 4 wheels. Ride a sportbike for a while and suddenly most cars seem boring, fat, and dopey. It just comes down to money and good power to weight ratios are expensive, Honda simply can't sell many cars at that price point.
So if you want weather protection, stereos, electronic gizmos to help you drive, buy a M3 or whatever, if you want to be in charge and have your hands and feet directly controlling the machine you are driving, get a bike. But don't blame Honda for losing its mojo, they still make unbelievingly fun vehicles, blame yourself for not riding a bike.
So if you want weather protection, stereos, electronic gizmos to help you drive, buy a M3 or whatever, if you want to be in charge and have your hands and feet directly controlling the machine you are driving, get a bike. But don't blame Honda for losing its mojo, they still make unbelievingly fun vehicles, blame yourself for not riding a bike.
10-13-2010, 06:14 AM
#24
Originally Posted by fishfryer,Oct 13 2010, 03:55 AM
For the most part there aren't any fun, fast, affordable cars made anymore so don't blame Honda, plus Honda makes bikes which are more fun than almost anything on 4 wheels. Ride a sportbike for a while and suddenly most cars seem boring, fat, and dopey. It just comes down to money and good power to weight ratios are expensive, Honda simply can't sell many cars at that price point.
Yamaha came out with a crossplane crankshaft (acts and fires like a V4) R1 in 2009 that is truly innovative. Honda's latest CBR1000rr (I owned one and sold it last year) burns oil. First time in my life that one of the Honda sportbikes are known for burning oil. Lots of customers pissed off.
My point is they are f**king up on both sides.
Like triple said, it's all $$$$$$ these days. They actually used to care about their products 10 years ago.
10-13-2010, 07:11 AM
#25
Registered User
Originally Posted by Triple-H,Oct 12 2010, 01:09 PM
Which means.... if they actually cared about the enthusiast market they would address the issue, but instead, their choice is to walk away from us. And to me that is about the same sentiment as the original article; Honda (HERE) has lost its mojo.
California for the most stringent emissions laws on the planet and American Honda ( hmm again based in Torrance ) for not asking for more enthusiast products from Japan.
You can also blame American Honda for not offering enough trim levels and color options here too
.........and last but not least American Honda for hiring that idiot Dave Marek as it's chief designer
Don't blame Honda Japan
10-13-2010, 07:17 AM
#26
I had some time to think about this more, and I believe, grudgingly, that they are definitely making the right move for their long term brand strategy. Let me elaborate for a second.
What's Honda known for these days to the mass public. Pros- solid, well built relatively, reliable, and to the discerning few fun to drive cars. Cons- ridiculous insurance for what you buy (civic), high theft rate perception (new civics dont get stolen, but the perception is still there, again civic), and boy racer image. So let's say toyota, nissan, or more importantly hyundai nails their next subcompact (doubtful but possible), thereby taking away the pros of Honda, the other manufacturers will have a distinct advantage. So what's causing the cons? Enthusiasts.
If you don't think this is an issue, next time you have someone asking you advice on choosing their next commuter car, tell them to compare insurance rates first before they pull the trigger. And judging by how the fit has somewhat caught on with the zomg jdm tyte yo crowd, same may happen to the fit.
Lets also keep in mind that if honda were to make a successful enthusiast car today, with the size cars are obligated to be today, and their lack of truly powerful engines, they would have to deviate too greatly. And don't try and feed the whole well if they brought over the 30K type r, that enthusiasts will buy that car over an evo/sti/Z/gen coupe/ms3/etc.
What's Honda known for these days to the mass public. Pros- solid, well built relatively, reliable, and to the discerning few fun to drive cars. Cons- ridiculous insurance for what you buy (civic), high theft rate perception (new civics dont get stolen, but the perception is still there, again civic), and boy racer image. So let's say toyota, nissan, or more importantly hyundai nails their next subcompact (doubtful but possible), thereby taking away the pros of Honda, the other manufacturers will have a distinct advantage. So what's causing the cons? Enthusiasts.
If you don't think this is an issue, next time you have someone asking you advice on choosing their next commuter car, tell them to compare insurance rates first before they pull the trigger. And judging by how the fit has somewhat caught on with the zomg jdm tyte yo crowd, same may happen to the fit.
Lets also keep in mind that if honda were to make a successful enthusiast car today, with the size cars are obligated to be today, and their lack of truly powerful engines, they would have to deviate too greatly. And don't try and feed the whole well if they brought over the 30K type r, that enthusiasts will buy that car over an evo/sti/Z/gen coupe/ms3/etc.
10-13-2010, 07:30 AM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mxt_77,Oct 12 2010, 10:00 AM
I wonder if the author's claims about Honda's "misses" or failures are actually based on decreasing sales numbers, or if they're just opinion from a random auto "enthusiast". The fact of the matter is that Honda is a business, and they're going to build what sells. If consumers will buy bland in bulk, why should they bother wasting resources developing small-run, and probably small-profit cars like the S2000? In a recession era, those types of things are frivolous.
In the end, articles like this are meaningless. If the author is actually correct, then consumers will speak with their dollars and buy more "mavericky" alternatives. But I suspect Hondas will continue to sell, even if this author believes that Honda has gone astray. Therefore, this author's opinion is meaningless to Honda.
In the end, articles like this are meaningless. If the author is actually correct, then consumers will speak with their dollars and buy more "mavericky" alternatives. But I suspect Hondas will continue to sell, even if this author believes that Honda has gone astray. Therefore, this author's opinion is meaningless to Honda.
You are right to ask, in effect, why does it mater if the sales are still there. However, that can be dangerous. For a long time Detroit quality was falling and the Japanese were making decent (not yet great but decent) small cars. It was easy at the time to say everything was fine because sales were still good. However, once sales really take a hit it can be hard to reverse the trend.
Take a long time Accord buyer. This person has always appreciated the quality of Honda Accord. However, the newest Accord just doesn't feel as special as the older ones. The buyer bought the newest Accord thinking it would be special like the older ones. Instead, it seems to be just a car. Five years from now in 2015 that buyer is going to consider a new car. The 2005 Accord was good enough to make them want a 2010 Accord without cross shopping other cars. The 2010 Accord wasn't as special and now that buyer is considering other brands. Well unless the 2015 Accord regains it's mojo that buyer might just decide the 2015 Fusion is a better car and Honda loses a life long repeat buyer.
This buyer may return to Honda but they will now always consider other brands. That is BAD news for Honda as it means they lost a loyalty based buyer. A so so car today may not hurt sales in the short term but it can result in lost sales years from now. Those sales aren't always easy to get back. Ask Ford.
10-13-2010, 08:40 AM
#28
The new Accord feels just as solid, to me. I've driven the Fusion, Malibu, Camry, and Accord all within the last year. The Accord still stands out as feeling solid, with the Fusion close behind. The Malibu felt solid but it also felt very heavy and slow to respond to input. The Accord and Fusion were, by far, the best to drive from a solidity and handling combined standpoint. The Camry feels very solid but it also feels very "blah" to me. Yet, it still outsells all of the above cars.
10-13-2010, 08:44 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by mxt_77,Oct 12 2010, 02:10 PM
Honda is a business and their goal is to make money so they can continue to be a business. If it's not profitable for them to bring a car to the US shores (or if it offers no other side-benefits), then it doesn't really make sense to do it.
My 2nd reply to this is risk assessment profile. Any extremely successful company will tell you, they did not get as big as they are by playing it safe. Honda has lost their mojo, they have lost their balls, they have turned down their risk assessment profile to a level that is nothing more than playing it safe.
I'm not sure how old you are, or if you remember Dodge/Chyrsler back in the day when they were making the Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare, it was a very bleak period for them because of such poor quality and such huge recalls. This is back when in very simple terms they were on the verge of going completely out of business, and it is when Lee Iacocca joined the company. Keep in mind this was also when the Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon were being introduced, and they were turning out to be a very big sales success, but not enough to solve all the problems because the problems were just too big.
So, do you know what they did to help save themselves?
They started development work on an image piece, a car that on one hand made no logical sense to build, let alone throw money away developing concepts and doing R&D on. It was what many thought to be an extremely stupid idea, but Iacocca knew the value of risk, he knew playing it safe was not enough. Market share needed to be expanded, the company needed to greatly improve their image, something big had to be done. The car I'm referring to is the Dodge Viper, a car that could not be much more opposite of its stablemates the Omni and Horizon. The Viper single-handedly changed the image consumers had of Dodge, and it was reflected in increased sales.
Iacocca had a set of balls, Honda has lost theirs. A methodical safe plan is not always the best one, making all decisions based solely upon profitability is nothing more than short sightedness. I agee with the OP, Honda has lost their mojo, a safe methodical approach based upon nothing more that profit is not the only way to go, and in the end it could prove to be the worst way to go.
10-13-2010, 08:54 AM
#30
Originally Posted by Triple-H,Oct 13 2010, 11:44 AM
My 1st reply to this is no-chit
My 2nd reply to this is risk assessment profile. Any extremely successful company will tell you, they did not get as big as they are by playing it safe. Honda has lost their mojo, they have lost their balls, they have turned down their risk assessment profile to a level that is nothing more than playing it safe.
I'm not sure how old you are, or if you remember Dodge/Chyrsler back in the day when they were making the Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare, it was a very bleak period for them because of such poor quality and such huge recalls. This is back when in very simple terms they were on the verge of going completely out of business, and it is when Lee Iacocca joined the company. Keep in mind this was also when the Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon were being introduced, and they were turning out to be a very big sales success, but not enough to solve all the problems because the problems were just too big.
So, do you know what they did to help save themselves?
They started development work on an image piece, a car that on one hand made no logical sense to build, let alone throw money away developing concepts and doing R&D on. It was what many thought to be an extremely stupid idea, but Iacocca knew the value of risk, he knew playing it safe was not enough. Market share needed to be expanded, the company needed to greatly improve their image, something big had to be done. The car I'm referring to is the Dodge Viper, a car that could not be much more opposite of its stablemates the Omni and Horizon. The Viper single-handedly changed the image consumers had of Dodge, and it was reflected in increased sales.
Iacocca had a set of balls, Honda has lost theirs. A methodical safe plan is not always the best one, making all decisions based solely upon profitability is nothing more than short sightedness. I agee with the OP, Honda has lost their mojo, a safe methodical approach based upon nothing more that profit is not the only way to go, and in the end it could prove to be the worst way to go.
My 2nd reply to this is risk assessment profile. Any extremely successful company will tell you, they did not get as big as they are by playing it safe. Honda has lost their mojo, they have lost their balls, they have turned down their risk assessment profile to a level that is nothing more than playing it safe.
I'm not sure how old you are, or if you remember Dodge/Chyrsler back in the day when they were making the Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare, it was a very bleak period for them because of such poor quality and such huge recalls. This is back when in very simple terms they were on the verge of going completely out of business, and it is when Lee Iacocca joined the company. Keep in mind this was also when the Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon were being introduced, and they were turning out to be a very big sales success, but not enough to solve all the problems because the problems were just too big.
So, do you know what they did to help save themselves?
They started development work on an image piece, a car that on one hand made no logical sense to build, let alone throw money away developing concepts and doing R&D on. It was what many thought to be an extremely stupid idea, but Iacocca knew the value of risk, he knew playing it safe was not enough. Market share needed to be expanded, the company needed to greatly improve their image, something big had to be done. The car I'm referring to is the Dodge Viper, a car that could not be much more opposite of its stablemates the Omni and Horizon. The Viper single-handedly changed the image consumers had of Dodge, and it was reflected in increased sales.
Iacocca had a set of balls, Honda has lost theirs. A methodical safe plan is not always the best one, making all decisions based solely upon profitability is nothing more than short sightedness. I agee with the OP, Honda has lost their mojo, a safe methodical approach based upon nothing more that profit is not the only way to go, and in the end it could prove to be the worst way to go.