Restyled 2013 Civic At LA Autoshow
12-04-2012, 11:05 AM
#33
Again, underneath it all it is mostly the same and I understand that, but there is a reason Honda brought out a refresh ahead of schedule... people generally did not like or care for the '12's styling. Yes it may be just a commuter car, that's all the Civic ever has been... but even as a commuter car, wouldn't you rather have something that has better styling or looks mildly sporty as opposed to a bland Toyota look alike?
For the record, I used to own the true bastard Si (02-05 gen) so I do have some point of reference on what I'm talking about since I've been down that road once before.
12-04-2012, 11:13 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion, the Elantra sucks to drive. It looks good and the interior is decent but it's hardly a fun car to drive and it doesn't exude quality, either. Initial impressions were good but long-term, people are finding them to generally be worse on gas than advertised and they definitely aren't as sporty or comfortable as the Civic.
The Focus is a great little car and I love the hatchback. However, with Ford's recent issues with the 1.6L EcoBoost catching on fire, that'd give me quite a bit of pause, plus it's the most expensive compact car in its class, which is significant considering these cars are generally not meant to option up like that (for most buyers). Real-world fuel economy isn't as high as the others in class, either. It just has great looks and driving dynamics on its side, which is perfect for some people.
The Dart is an unknown right now - not enough data to show if it can hit its fuel economy targets or how build quality and reliability are. I don't remotely think you can compare it to a Civic, though. Interior is pretty bland/bad (to me) and I don't think for a second that the Dodge mechanicals will be nearly as good as the Civic, not to mention the fuel economy. I haven't driven it but honestly, I don't care if it drives like an S2000 - the car itself doesn't warrant any hope that it'll be a great, reliable car in the long run. I have less faith in the Dart than virtually any other car in the class, except possibly a Kia Forte.
The Civic is already the best-selling compact in the US (by quite a margin) and this refresh is only going to make it sell even better.
The Focus is a great little car and I love the hatchback. However, with Ford's recent issues with the 1.6L EcoBoost catching on fire, that'd give me quite a bit of pause, plus it's the most expensive compact car in its class, which is significant considering these cars are generally not meant to option up like that (for most buyers). Real-world fuel economy isn't as high as the others in class, either. It just has great looks and driving dynamics on its side, which is perfect for some people.
The Dart is an unknown right now - not enough data to show if it can hit its fuel economy targets or how build quality and reliability are. I don't remotely think you can compare it to a Civic, though. Interior is pretty bland/bad (to me) and I don't think for a second that the Dodge mechanicals will be nearly as good as the Civic, not to mention the fuel economy. I haven't driven it but honestly, I don't care if it drives like an S2000 - the car itself doesn't warrant any hope that it'll be a great, reliable car in the long run. I have less faith in the Dart than virtually any other car in the class, except possibly a Kia Forte.
The Civic is already the best-selling compact in the US (by quite a margin) and this refresh is only going to make it sell even better.
12-04-2012, 12:48 PM
#35
The Civic is the best selling these days thanks to inertia. It's not a bad car but it's not great either, just good. I think your Ford comment is a bit iffy. Yes, new engine from Ford is suffering from a manufacturing defect that has a bad possible outcome. That same engine is not used in the Focus any more than Honda's horrid V6 automatics were used in the Civic. In a sense the Civic sells well for the same reason why the Big 3 didn't lose the truck market to Toyota and Nissan. Even if the Toyota and Nissans were better, by the time they came to market with a good product people weren't really unhappy with their Ford or Chevy so they just bought another one. The same explains why the Camry still sells well even compared to the superior Accord not to mention the other cars in the class.
All of those are present in the 2012 model. While the interior of the 2012 may have LOOKED cheap, it was still well-built. Honda, at this point, is merely doing window dressing on that car. The "inherent goodness" that describes the traditional Civic was and continues to be there.
In the real world, it gets as good or better fuel economy than any vehicle in the class. The mechanicals are well proven (our 8th gen has substantially the same motor/transmission and it's been perfect for 90K miles in nearly five years), the car handles sportily (not necessarily class-leading, but still better than many - only the Focus and Mazda3 are better, in my opinion) and resale and build quality are still high. Standard options were fine and are only getting better.
In short, it's selling on sustained strong characteristics. The looks have never defined the Civic, though some iterations were quite nice compared to others in the class (and just as many weren't!). Virtually every complaint was based on looks, both inside and out. The rest were rarely, if ever, questioned because the car itself was quite good as it was.
What you're forgetting (in regards to the Camry vs Accord) is that the Camry supplies what people want, despite the fact it's not what you or I would choose. Choice of vehicles is based on many factors and while I agree that the Accord is a far superior car FOR THINGS I CARE ABOUT, it's not as plush and quiet and it's only just now getting to be as quick as the Camry with the V6. The Camry's reliability record surpasses the Accord, due to the transmission issues you mentioned, so it has it beat there as well. Throw in excellent fuel economy and the Camry actually has a lot to offer, especially if your primary needs are quiet/isolation, fuel economy, reliability and resale.
12-04-2012, 01:26 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the recent reviews said the sporty handling is gone (or no better than the competition). You also forgot that in years past the Civic felt like a better built car than the competition. It felt more substantial. That isn't really true anymore. Reliability is great but this isn't the early 90s. I would expect any of these cars to last a long time. I also remember my non-mechanically minded friend who's 3 year old Accord (an '08 IIRC) left her stranded because the battery cable corroded on her. She didn't live in the rust belt and really I have no idea how the cable got so bad. Regardless her 3 year old car committed a cardinal sin of reliability, it left her stranded. The dealer and tow truck fees left her around $600 lighter. My brother's '08 or '09 Civic was delivered with a tail light not working. The cause, well the factory didn't plug it in. I trust Honda to last a long time but really, it wasn't like my Contour SVT ever left me stranded and it's lights worked from the factory.
The Civic most certainly isn't (or at least the '12 model didn't) retain much of what made it a class leader for so long. I mean how bad do you have to get for Consumer Reports to NOT recommend the Civic? I mean CR is the same magazine that automatically gave new Hondas a pass on the reliability scores even though over makes had to prove that they were reliable. That, and all the other bad reviews AND Honda's scurry to redesign tells me the car had issues even if they weren't reliability.
Your final paragraph really could have been written by someone explaining why strong sales of GM cars in the 70s meant the Japanese had no future in the US market. Honda was and Toyota perhaps still is on product cruise control. What made their products great compared to the competition in the past just isn't there. When the difference between average and stellar reliability is honestly 1-2 problems over 100,000 miles and 8 years the need to buy a Honda or Toyota to get reliability just isn't there anymore. Hell, my father's now 4 year old Passat has proven trouble free. It's a damned VW, those are supposed to fall apart almost as fast as SAABs! Now reliability is often measured in annoyance failures rather than stuck on the side of the road (my friend's Accord aside). Well the low rent interior of the last Camry sure was annoying as was the odd styling of the last Accord. The new Accord isn't great but it's no longer a negative. In the end the Accord to some degree and the Camry in particular are selling based on momentum. That's fine but it won't last for ever. You can laud them for doing just an OK job but don't kid yourself into thinking they are the market standouts they used to be and that their sales are based more on the quality of the current products vis-a-vis the competition vs historic perceptions.
The Civic most certainly isn't (or at least the '12 model didn't) retain much of what made it a class leader for so long. I mean how bad do you have to get for Consumer Reports to NOT recommend the Civic? I mean CR is the same magazine that automatically gave new Hondas a pass on the reliability scores even though over makes had to prove that they were reliable. That, and all the other bad reviews AND Honda's scurry to redesign tells me the car had issues even if they weren't reliability.
Your final paragraph really could have been written by someone explaining why strong sales of GM cars in the 70s meant the Japanese had no future in the US market. Honda was and Toyota perhaps still is on product cruise control. What made their products great compared to the competition in the past just isn't there. When the difference between average and stellar reliability is honestly 1-2 problems over 100,000 miles and 8 years the need to buy a Honda or Toyota to get reliability just isn't there anymore. Hell, my father's now 4 year old Passat has proven trouble free. It's a damned VW, those are supposed to fall apart almost as fast as SAABs! Now reliability is often measured in annoyance failures rather than stuck on the side of the road (my friend's Accord aside). Well the low rent interior of the last Camry sure was annoying as was the odd styling of the last Accord. The new Accord isn't great but it's no longer a negative. In the end the Accord to some degree and the Camry in particular are selling based on momentum. That's fine but it won't last for ever. You can laud them for doing just an OK job but don't kid yourself into thinking they are the market standouts they used to be and that their sales are based more on the quality of the current products vis-a-vis the competition vs historic perceptions.
12-04-2012, 02:17 PM
#37
But the recent reviews said the sporty handling is gone (or no better than the competition). You also forgot that in years past the Civic felt like a better built car than the competition. It felt more substantial. That isn't really true anymore. Reliability is great but this isn't the early 90s. I would expect any of these cars to last a long time. I also remember my non-mechanically minded friend who's 3 year old Accord (an '08 IIRC) left her stranded because the battery cable corroded on her. She didn't live in the rust belt and really I have no idea how the cable got so bad. Regardless her 3 year old car committed a cardinal sin of reliability, it left her stranded. The dealer and tow truck fees left her around $600 lighter. My brother's '08 or '09 Civic was delivered with a tail light not working. The cause, well the factory didn't plug it in. I trust Honda to last a long time but really, it wasn't like my Contour SVT ever left me stranded and it's lights worked from the factory.
The Civic most certainly isn't (or at least the '12 model didn't) retain much of what made it a class leader for so long. I mean how bad do you have to get for Consumer Reports to NOT recommend the Civic? I mean CR is the same magazine that automatically gave new Hondas a pass on the reliability scores even though over makes had to prove that they were reliable. That, and all the other bad reviews AND Honda's scurry to redesign tells me the car had issues even if they weren't reliability.
Your final paragraph really could have been written by someone explaining why strong sales of GM cars in the 70s meant the Japanese had no future in the US market. Honda was and Toyota perhaps still is on product cruise control. What made their products great compared to the competition in the past just isn't there. When the difference between average and stellar reliability is honestly 1-2 problems over 100,000 miles and 8 years the need to buy a Honda or Toyota to get reliability just isn't there anymore. Hell, my father's now 4 year old Passat has proven trouble free. It's a damned VW, those are supposed to fall apart almost as fast as SAABs! Now reliability is often measured in annoyance failures rather than stuck on the side of the road (my friend's Accord aside). Well the low rent interior of the last Camry sure was annoying as was the odd styling of the last Accord. The new Accord isn't great but it's no longer a negative. In the end the Accord to some degree and the Camry in particular are selling based on momentum. That's fine but it won't last for ever. You can laud them for doing just an OK job but don't kid yourself into thinking they are the market standouts they used to be and that their sales are based more on the quality of the current products vis-a-vis the competition vs historic perceptions.
The Civic most certainly isn't (or at least the '12 model didn't) retain much of what made it a class leader for so long. I mean how bad do you have to get for Consumer Reports to NOT recommend the Civic? I mean CR is the same magazine that automatically gave new Hondas a pass on the reliability scores even though over makes had to prove that they were reliable. That, and all the other bad reviews AND Honda's scurry to redesign tells me the car had issues even if they weren't reliability.
Your final paragraph really could have been written by someone explaining why strong sales of GM cars in the 70s meant the Japanese had no future in the US market. Honda was and Toyota perhaps still is on product cruise control. What made their products great compared to the competition in the past just isn't there. When the difference between average and stellar reliability is honestly 1-2 problems over 100,000 miles and 8 years the need to buy a Honda or Toyota to get reliability just isn't there anymore. Hell, my father's now 4 year old Passat has proven trouble free. It's a damned VW, those are supposed to fall apart almost as fast as SAABs! Now reliability is often measured in annoyance failures rather than stuck on the side of the road (my friend's Accord aside). Well the low rent interior of the last Camry sure was annoying as was the odd styling of the last Accord. The new Accord isn't great but it's no longer a negative. In the end the Accord to some degree and the Camry in particular are selling based on momentum. That's fine but it won't last for ever. You can laud them for doing just an OK job but don't kid yourself into thinking they are the market standouts they used to be and that their sales are based more on the quality of the current products vis-a-vis the competition vs historic perceptions.
The Civic is still sporty to drive. I own the last gen and have driven the new gen - the new one is indeed better. It's not as sporty in that it's not as harsh and arguably a bit less immediate but as I mentioned before, it's a much better compromise. It's not like the Civic was ever a sports car - the Mazda3 has always been a better sporty compact and the new Focus is similarly sporty.
Consumer Reports based their review on subjective issues, not objective ones, and it made them look like fools because to that point, they've always maintained objectivity. They took issue with the lack of a difference between the new and old model rather than judging the new one objectively against the competition. Honda's fantastic sales of the Civic certainly proved that people saw way more in the Civic than Consumer Reports did. Let's face it - there was a media bandwagon and CR jumped right on it. I agree that the 2012 Civic felt cheaper (in terms of the interior) and the looks weren't as good but people got so stuck on those two things that they never actually thought about how it drove, how smooth it is, how fuel efficient it is and that it was and is still quite a good car.
My final paragraph is not about Honda, it's about Toyota. Not sure why it's relevant to the discussion about Honda especially when they have vehicles like the Accord and Odyssey that are clear class leaders, the CR-V which only has one possible competitor (Escapes, which are catching on fire) and the Civic as the top-selling compact. Inertia is only good for so many vehicles and while Honda may occasionally coast on some of its vehicles (I agree!), they definitely still make very good vehicles, most of which are at or near the top of their respective classes. Regardless, I made objective points about the Camry that would sell it to many people. The Camry is not a piece of crap - it still has a great powertrain, it's quiet, it gets great fuel economy and it's still reliable - it just isn't to your and my taste. Fact is, it probably never was.
/>/>The new Accord isn't great? It's just made C&Ds Top 10 list (again) and it has been raved about in every review. Go drive one and you'll see why - it is an amazing machine. Easily the class leader. Fastest acceleration (4-cyl and V6), 2nd best fuel 4-cyl economy (and best with a V6), loads of room and built like a tank with a ton of standard options. They're already selling very, very well.
As far as reliability goes, there are still a TON of crappy vehicles out there. Let's ignore the EcoBoost fires for a while and talk about my co-workers Dodge Dakota on its third transmission with 60K kms (less than 40K miles) on it. Or perhaps my ex-coworker's VW Touareg that crapped out before he could get it home from the dealership, brand new (took them a two weeks to fix it). We could also discuss the Hyundai Sonata alignment/chassis issues that plagued the early owners. Heck, transmission issues plagued the early Focus vehicles as well, with the dual-clutch transmission. Don't kid yourself - reliability is nowhere near guaranteed these days.
12-04-2012, 03:34 PM
#38
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North of Toronto
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2012 came out when the economy was in the dumps. Honda designed '12 civic to have a low starting price, they didn't cut corners, but they cut things they didn't absolutely need, and the interior suffered cosmetically. It was a gamble and they lost. They thought people wanted something inexpensive and economical, but they ended up wanting decked out compact cars. They listened to the people and reports and a year later they redesign the car and packed it full of standard equipment. I have never seen such an extensive change in a short amount of time from any other car company, and I don't think people appreciate the cost and work involved in changing just one plastic panel in a car. Also FMC is still scheduled for 2016.