The Demise of Honda
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,557
Likes: 0
From: Hollywood
nobody,
i agree.......honda is "driven" by the gluttonous forces of multinational corporatism as all big car companies. stock vehicles are simply inappropriately compromised for the enthusiasists desires. the strategy is to procure the vehicle that most fits your
base needs with the entire understanding that it will require modification. but the base vehicle must not have any unfixable fatal flaws or overall design philosophy that cannot be reasonably undone, otherwise u r cooked.
i agree.......honda is "driven" by the gluttonous forces of multinational corporatism as all big car companies. stock vehicles are simply inappropriately compromised for the enthusiasists desires. the strategy is to procure the vehicle that most fits your
base needs with the entire understanding that it will require modification. but the base vehicle must not have any unfixable fatal flaws or overall design philosophy that cannot be reasonably undone, otherwise u r cooked.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,776
Likes: 2
From: Bay Area
Discontent is the first step in progress. I think that Honda is missing out on opportunities and am voicing what I perceive. I do think that if Honda continues to go in the direction they're going they're going to be in for some rough sales years.
What would you rather drive if both cars were brand spankin' new?:
An '02 Civic HB or a 95 Civic HB?
CRX Si or Del Sol?
Integra Type R vs. RSX Type S?
$20K '03 Civic Si or $22K '03 Civic Type R?
240hp $32K S2000 vs. 38K 340 hp S2000 (with warranty)?
And if you had the money and were in the market for a 90K car, would the NSX be your first choice?
What would you rather drive if both cars were brand spankin' new?:
An '02 Civic HB or a 95 Civic HB?
CRX Si or Del Sol?
Integra Type R vs. RSX Type S?
$20K '03 Civic Si or $22K '03 Civic Type R?
240hp $32K S2000 vs. 38K 340 hp S2000 (with warranty)?
And if you had the money and were in the market for a 90K car, would the NSX be your first choice?
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 1
From: You wish
Wow, so many inaccuracies and problems here:
Originally posted by Nobody
I'm a die hard S2000 supporter....but when it comes to other Honda (Acura) vehicles, I have a difficult time defending their product and engineering decisions...Honda seems to concentrate and put more emphasis on what a vehicle IS rather than what it DOES--120 hp per liter is more important than total hp; forced induction is considered an engineering failure; .9gs on 205/225s is more interesting to them from a theoretical standpoint than 1.01 gs on 245/285 tires, etc.
Be careful not to get caught up in arbitrary specific measurements. I doubt Honda really cares all that much about how many g's a magazine will pull on most of their cars. Most customers don't care how many g's a car pulls, but how it feels in a corner. And why put big tires on a car if a smaller one will give nearly as much grip while reducing cost, improving fuel mileage and improving steering feel? Isn't how it feels more important than the absolute final level of steady state grip?
The WRX is already a clear sign of what is possible when purist theory and styling take a back seat to physics and demand for performance.
People have already discussed this, but you might ask yourself why, if the WRX is such an example of good performance design, do they use 205 series all-season tires ;-)
Honda refuses to bring the Type R Civic Hatchback because it will hurt the (flagging) sales of the RSX. (WTF? - do they want more total sales revenues or a higher # of sales per vehicle?) How about thinking of bringing the wicked hatchback over to cripple the sales of the SVT Focus?
The RSX had its best month last month. The Type-Rs are a low volume vehicle and won't add much to the bottom line. I'd like to see the R too, but that's been Honda's pattern since 1995 - so it isn't exactly new and won't cause any "fall of Honda".
Corporate theme styling....if customers don't like the look of one car, they won't like the look of any of their other vehicles; if customers do like the theme styling, they'll still only buy one (ok, maybe two). . . again, WTF?
So BMW's shouldn't look like BMW's, Mercedes like Mercedes? C'mon, you have to have a consistent image if you want to build up a loyal customer base. The average consumer wants to buy something they feel comfortable with.
No TRD, SVT or MazdaSpeed equivalent? WTF again. . . . Honda is f*ing themselves by not having an HRC division that capitalizes on the 8 figure enthusiast market and are exponentially losing touch with the devoted Honda/Acura fans who now are looking elsewhere for pukka vehicles that respond well to aftermarket performance upgrades.
Why? 75% of the import/sport compact aftermarket in the US is Honda based. Everyone and their mother makes aftermarket Honda parts. Are you familiar with how TRD does business? They sell dramatically overpriced parts (with the exception of the supercharger kits), and they've been trying like hell to jump start the aftermarket on their newer, more youth oriented cars. Yet, to date the much newer RSX has an aftermarket larger than the several years old Celica.
Oh yeah....don't even get me started on the embarassing braking distances of every Honda/Acura out ther besides the NSX/S2k exhibit. e.g. - Taurus SEs, Thunderbirds, Oldsmobiles, Chrisler 300Ms and even most trucks can outbrake Civic SIs ('00). The Accord V-6? If I remember correctly, a Navigator or an Escalade can brake in less time/distance. Again, WTF?
What are you basing this on? Which magazine? I just picked up my latest issue of R&T and noted that it took the Si took 133 ft and the Accord V6 137 ft to stop from 60 mph. That compares to an SVT Focus at 134 ft and a Toyota Camry V6 at 135 ft (Chrysler 300M at 144 ft!). The Si and the Focus were tested on the same day in the same location. Are there cars that stop quicker? Sure, but its all in the tires at lower speeds. Honda chooses very long lasting, all-season tires. I prefer stickier tires, but they seem to work for the general populace.
Honda Corp. is going in the wrong direction and in 2 years will be where Nissan was 5 years ago.
I'll put big money against you on that one. Honda's sales will continue to increase for the next two years. So how much you want put down? :-) There's a big reason why Honda's sell so well - people like them. They like the price, the quality, the driving feel, the functionality, and many even like the looks :-). Most don't like the dealers. Imagine how much better they'd sell if the dealer network had a clue!
UL
Originally posted by Nobody
I'm a die hard S2000 supporter....but when it comes to other Honda (Acura) vehicles, I have a difficult time defending their product and engineering decisions...Honda seems to concentrate and put more emphasis on what a vehicle IS rather than what it DOES--120 hp per liter is more important than total hp; forced induction is considered an engineering failure; .9gs on 205/225s is more interesting to them from a theoretical standpoint than 1.01 gs on 245/285 tires, etc.
Be careful not to get caught up in arbitrary specific measurements. I doubt Honda really cares all that much about how many g's a magazine will pull on most of their cars. Most customers don't care how many g's a car pulls, but how it feels in a corner. And why put big tires on a car if a smaller one will give nearly as much grip while reducing cost, improving fuel mileage and improving steering feel? Isn't how it feels more important than the absolute final level of steady state grip?
The WRX is already a clear sign of what is possible when purist theory and styling take a back seat to physics and demand for performance.
People have already discussed this, but you might ask yourself why, if the WRX is such an example of good performance design, do they use 205 series all-season tires ;-)
Honda refuses to bring the Type R Civic Hatchback because it will hurt the (flagging) sales of the RSX. (WTF? - do they want more total sales revenues or a higher # of sales per vehicle?) How about thinking of bringing the wicked hatchback over to cripple the sales of the SVT Focus?
The RSX had its best month last month. The Type-Rs are a low volume vehicle and won't add much to the bottom line. I'd like to see the R too, but that's been Honda's pattern since 1995 - so it isn't exactly new and won't cause any "fall of Honda".
Corporate theme styling....if customers don't like the look of one car, they won't like the look of any of their other vehicles; if customers do like the theme styling, they'll still only buy one (ok, maybe two). . . again, WTF?
So BMW's shouldn't look like BMW's, Mercedes like Mercedes? C'mon, you have to have a consistent image if you want to build up a loyal customer base. The average consumer wants to buy something they feel comfortable with.
No TRD, SVT or MazdaSpeed equivalent? WTF again. . . . Honda is f*ing themselves by not having an HRC division that capitalizes on the 8 figure enthusiast market and are exponentially losing touch with the devoted Honda/Acura fans who now are looking elsewhere for pukka vehicles that respond well to aftermarket performance upgrades.
Why? 75% of the import/sport compact aftermarket in the US is Honda based. Everyone and their mother makes aftermarket Honda parts. Are you familiar with how TRD does business? They sell dramatically overpriced parts (with the exception of the supercharger kits), and they've been trying like hell to jump start the aftermarket on their newer, more youth oriented cars. Yet, to date the much newer RSX has an aftermarket larger than the several years old Celica.
Oh yeah....don't even get me started on the embarassing braking distances of every Honda/Acura out ther besides the NSX/S2k exhibit. e.g. - Taurus SEs, Thunderbirds, Oldsmobiles, Chrisler 300Ms and even most trucks can outbrake Civic SIs ('00). The Accord V-6? If I remember correctly, a Navigator or an Escalade can brake in less time/distance. Again, WTF?
What are you basing this on? Which magazine? I just picked up my latest issue of R&T and noted that it took the Si took 133 ft and the Accord V6 137 ft to stop from 60 mph. That compares to an SVT Focus at 134 ft and a Toyota Camry V6 at 135 ft (Chrysler 300M at 144 ft!). The Si and the Focus were tested on the same day in the same location. Are there cars that stop quicker? Sure, but its all in the tires at lower speeds. Honda chooses very long lasting, all-season tires. I prefer stickier tires, but they seem to work for the general populace.
Honda Corp. is going in the wrong direction and in 2 years will be where Nissan was 5 years ago.
I'll put big money against you on that one. Honda's sales will continue to increase for the next two years. So how much you want put down? :-) There's a big reason why Honda's sell so well - people like them. They like the price, the quality, the driving feel, the functionality, and many even like the looks :-). Most don't like the dealers. Imagine how much better they'd sell if the dealer network had a clue!
UL
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,465
Likes: 30
From: NorCal
You may seem disappointed with Honda but if you look around (the road) they seem to be doing something right. Who knows, maybe down the road, Honda will slowly lose their market share. But I'll bet they will not be a Nissan. And Audi will rise! 
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,776
Likes: 2
From: Bay Area
Wow...I describe my own disappointment in Honda for not focusing more on performance and I get a 1 star rating. Did I mistakenly post on the Odessey board or what?
Some good points you bring up, UL. Honda could be doing better, though. Will the company go under? No, the title of my post was a bit hyperbolic, I'll admit. But I do think companies like Nissan and Subaru are making some very smart decisions. That's going to impact Honda in a big way (at least to performance buyers) if they don't respond.
Some good points you bring up, UL. Honda could be doing better, though. Will the company go under? No, the title of my post was a bit hyperbolic, I'll admit. But I do think companies like Nissan and Subaru are making some very smart decisions. That's going to impact Honda in a big way (at least to performance buyers) if they don't respond.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Ultimate Lurker,
Before you correct other people's inaccuracy, you should correct your own. According to the latest reported 2002 YTD sale # the Celica outsells the RSX 3 to 1.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ultimate lurker
[B]Wow, so many inaccuracies and problems here:
Originally posted by Nobody
I'm a die hard S2000 supporter....but when it comes to other Honda (Acura) vehicles, I have a difficult time defending their product and engineering decisions...Honda seems to concentrate and put more emphasis on what a vehicle IS rather than what it DOES--120 hp per liter is more important than total hp; forced induction is considered an engineering failure; .9gs on 205/225s is more interesting to them from a theoretical standpoint than 1.01 gs on 245/285 tires, etc.
Be careful not to get caught up in arbitrary specific measurements.
Before you correct other people's inaccuracy, you should correct your own. According to the latest reported 2002 YTD sale # the Celica outsells the RSX 3 to 1.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ultimate lurker
[B]Wow, so many inaccuracies and problems here:
Originally posted by Nobody
I'm a die hard S2000 supporter....but when it comes to other Honda (Acura) vehicles, I have a difficult time defending their product and engineering decisions...Honda seems to concentrate and put more emphasis on what a vehicle IS rather than what it DOES--120 hp per liter is more important than total hp; forced induction is considered an engineering failure; .9gs on 205/225s is more interesting to them from a theoretical standpoint than 1.01 gs on 245/285 tires, etc.
Be careful not to get caught up in arbitrary specific measurements.