just yesterday saw someone driving crazy hot through traffic in a
cherry red convertible, wasn't until he passed me that I saw it was an
S2000 being driven like it deserves.
my 2010 Accord has excellent handling for a commuter sedan, the
engineering is excellent for what it is but that just isn't tight and
responsive - like my 1987 Accord was! is anything in the Honda/Acura
line sporty anymore or must I do like everyone else in west LA and go
for a bimmer? ... or just drive like a dufus, which is actually fine
since most LA traffic is so congested it seldom matters what you're
driving, which is why I've stayed with the brand so far.
Historically if you want a softer feel in a Honda you go for an LX, if
you want the feel of tighter suspension and more road feel you go with
The overall trend in mainstream makes has been toward a softer feel over
the last decade or so, because of increasingly neglected infrastructure
and diminishing road conditions in the US compared to the newly-paved
growth of the 80s, and more potholes and road anomalies just leads to
more vibration related warranty repairs (i.e. cost the automaker money),
and consumers and the increase in road noise complaints will dampen the
benefits of a tighter feel.
Sure, there are more expensive makes that find "the right balance" but
different folks have different needs and not everyone wants sportiness
in a car.
Once when my M5 was in the shop I drove the wife's Camry LE for a couple
of days. As much as I like the M5, the ride of the Camry was so soft
and cushy and kept itself out of the driver's way so much that I
literally felt a reduction in overall stress in rush hour traffic. Cars
like the M5 strive to engage the driver and encourage you focus on the
act of driving it on your way from point A to point B. Cars like the
Camry get you from point A to point B while trying to stay out of sight
and out of mind and letting you focus on other things.
Shows how much you know.
Honda intentionally moved to a car that the tuners/ricers were not
interested in simply because that kind of car was more profitable for
The ricers didn't even count in their decision.
hmmmmm, you "forgot" to quote the final sentence in what I wrote:
The ricers didn't even count in that decision.
How is that "consistent with protecting the brand image as you said"?
That the ricers were not interested, was simply a byproduct of the
actual decision to make the car cost less to manufacture.
The ricers didn't even count in that decision.
Go ahead, misquote me again troll boy, and see what happens.
The Bloomberg article seems focused on "Consumer Reports said this or
that" but doesn't really add any new justification for it.
Sales of the Civic will probably be impacted by the CR article,
because a lot of sheep depend on it to think for them.
In some ways Honda might have been caught resting on the exterior
design, because although the design is significantly improved from the
rear, the rest of the exterior looks very much like the previous model
(which interestingly got great reviews when it came out).
I don't own one of these cars but I've driven one, and they exceeded
what I expected in a small car. My friend bought the Civic after
thorough evaluation of others in similar price range, including
Hyundai, Toyota, Ford and Nissan, that was based on pre-sale
In 5 years she will be damn glad she owns a Honda instead of a Hyundai
or Ford for sure.
you can indeed tell when the old man died. anything launched post 91 is
lacking the fundamental spark of creativity and even engineering
[the 1996-2000 civic si for instance has a rear sway bar with only ~4"
lever arm length and mountings close together. it thus is unable to
exert any significant anti-sway reaction - all it succeeds in doing is
making the rear suspension inflexible and rough-riding. contrast that
with the 88-91 civic sway bar with nearly 12" lever arm length and
mountings as far apart as the frame allows, and you begin to see that
the old man actually /knew/ what the mechanical fundamentals were about.
he also knew aerodynamics, but that's another rant for another time.]
it's all relative. the it wasn't a great design, but it sure was a huge
improvement on the models that had immediately preceded it. [absolutely
nothing underneath worth a damn though.]
wha??? no gm???
it's all relative. there's nothing even vaguely interesting or creative
about toyota - they're simply "buick done right". but relative to
honda, who have dropped "drivability" from their design criteria and
reliability from the customer care agenda, toyota are looking damned
I asked my friend about Toyota she test drove a 2011 Corolla on the
same day she drove the 2012 Civic, both cars being at a similar price
point. She strongly prefered the Civic, felt that the Corolla felt
too "lightweight" and had a definite small-car feel, whereas the Civic
felt more substantial and high quality. The Toyota was also almost
$1000 more expensive, yet got substantially poorer gas mileage, while
not feeling as peppy in terms of acceleration. The Civic also had
better crash test ratings than Corolla.
I'm not sure what Toyota has planned for the 2012 Corolla, but she did
not want to wait months to buy, and had already fallen in love with
the driving feel and overall experience of the Civic. I personally
like Toyota as an automaker and have been thrilled with my Lexus. I've
been in her Civic several times and some of the features in her car
make me jealous.
as a straight line freeway cruiser, the "new" range of huge heavy civics
are fine. but that's what the accord is for. the civic is not the
small peppy little city cars they once were. and they don't handle like
they used to.
i'll never buy a civic that's larger than an old accord, and i'll never
buy a car that doesn't offer a decent maneuvering agility safety margin.
when i meet a deer or a bear on a winding country/mountain road at
night, and the damned animal has jumped out right in front of me, i want
to be able to slow and steer around it, even when i'm on an adverse
camber and have no crash barrier between me and thin air. i don't have
that confidence in a modern huge heavy macpherson civic. i do in my
old, small, light, wishbone civic.
honda re unduly influenced by their u.s. marketing division. those guys
are ex-gm, and judging by their actions, you'd think they were plants
with a mission to sabotage honda, not help. ridgeline? no crv? no
fit? ho hatchbacks? no 4wd's? these are all ridiculous mis-steps that
help gm, not help honda.
[and honda are unduly dependent on the u.s. market because they got
shafted in europe. honda bought/bailed out just under half of defunct
govt-owned british manufacturer triumph on the understanding that they
could buy the balance when the govt was ready to sell. honda dumped
money into their launch and used that as a base for euro expansion.
then the govt sold their majority holding to bmw, no bid, no
consultation with honda!!! overnight, honda europe had the rug pulled.
honda changed their focus to the u.s. after that. short term, they
had no choice. but they've done nothing to move wider, and it's too
much exposure if you ask me.]
Was for. Accords have been upsized too. The Civic is still small
compared to an Accord which is now bigger and heavier.
Steering around the bear might be slightly more difficult than before,
but the good news is that if you actually hit it, you might be better
off in one of the newer Civics than the old. If you want something
smaller and lighter in a Honda you'd probably rather look at the CR-Z,
the Fit, the Insight or one another smaller Honda. Don't assume old
Civics are the size equivalent of new. And honestly if you're that
worried about avoiding collision deer and bears, you might want to
slow down on winding mountain roads at night. Brakes work pretty well
for this if you are driving safely in the first place.
i know you're trying to be humorous, but i'd rather not hit the local
wildlife in the first place. the fit/crz is macpherson with that
utterly numb-brain trailing arm nonsense in the rear. works great on
freeways and chevys, but it's the very antithesis of what put honda on
the map. and that's what i'm complaining about.
on the libya news footage last night, one of the "rebels" was driving a
kia pickup. why the f is that vehicle not available here??? all the
detroit stuff is oversized, and has abysmal fuel consumption. all the
japanese stuff has gotten bloated beyond recognition - part of the
reason people pay so much to keep their p.o.s. 80's and 90's toyota
pickups on the road.
At least for now you can still buy a new Ford Ranger. My Mom's 12 year old
Ranger (was my Dad's before he passed away) runs just fine despite minimal
maintenace and being regularly trashed by my Son's when they were younger
(plus my Mom keeps backing it into things). It is still realtively small,
but with decent load carrying capacity. It always buged me that my 2006
Nissan Frontier, was much bigger on the outside, couldn't carry any more
weight, and was less comfortable on the inside compared to a 1999 Ranger.
The Frontier was a weird vehicle - big on the outside, small on the inside.
It would it fly (4L V6) and the 4WD system was really good also. But it also
sucked gas (mileage was only marginally better than my 2009 F150), had
marginal springs (if you loaded the Frontier to the rated capacity it was
dragging the ground - the Ranger did much better with an even heavier load).
I finally ditched the Nissan becasue I kept getting leg cramps if I had to
drive it more than 30 minutes at a time. Only thing I miss about the
Frontier is the 4WD system. It worked really well.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.