will honda's usa "marketing" dept learn this lesson?

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?

absolutely!!!

it had the power and the fittings. the only differentiator was handling

- basically, it was a dog.

indeed.

not just tuners - ordinary drivers too. i had a bunch of people fighting over my 2000 civic hatch when i sold it.

But jim, the thing is that they are fulfilling their goal without fulfilling *your* goals.

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!

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.

if you say you test drove the rsx in 98, you'll have been eating more than bugs!

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.

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.

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.

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

JXStern wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

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.

Heh... The Isetta was the "smart" car of its day!

JT