Honda Car Forum

In article <9POdnbeoAoYK0hDbnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

> > Honda is a marketing company.
>
> if that's what they think, that's the problem!

well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <9POdnbeoAoYK0hDbnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> Honda is a marketing company.
>> if that's what they think, that's the problem!
>
> well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money.
>
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?

Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
> news:9POdnbeoAoYK0hDbnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article <j9idnQBEgfMliBDbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In the Civic line, I don't think there's anything to be "cured".
>>>>> It's just not a problem. Civics are selling well--and that's all
>>>>> Honda cares about.
>>>> disagree! it's handling that put honda on the map.
>>> That may have been so years back, but you can't dispute: Civics are
>>> selling well, AND that's all Honda cares about.
>> but they're not selling as well as they used to - honda have lost
>> significant market share to toyota. and the rsx or whatever the
>> successor to the integra is, [same civic platform] isn't selling at
>> all!
>
> the RSX is defunct;they stopped making them,ISTR.
>>> Honda is a marketing company.
>> if that's what they think, that's the problem!
>>
>>> If handling doesn't sell, then they won't
>>> care.
>> but handling /does/ sell!
>
> Look at how well the Integra sold. 3dr and 4 dr versions!

absolutely!!!

> Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell.

it had the power and the fittings. the only differentiator was handling
- basically, it was a dog.

> the old 1996-2000 Civic hatchback sold very well,and newer versions were
> uglier and didn't sell as well.

indeed.

> Tuners would rather buy an older Honda and rework it than buy a new Civic.

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


>
>> if they think they're just going to sell cheap generic crap, they're
>> in trouble because toyota can do that better. and frankly, hyundai
>> [etc] is breathing hard up their tail pipe as well. they'll also have
>> their margins cut to the bone and have no brand loyalty. if they make
>> something that people like because it's better, price is less elastic
>> /and/ they retain repeat customers. like subaru.
>>
>> honda used to play the game /way/ better. there's no reason they
>> can't do it again.
>>
>
> Sochiro Honda is no longer around,that's the problem.

In article <KaOdnY1mYNcjBBDbnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

> > well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money.
> >
> 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?

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

But they *are* fulfilling *their* goals.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <KaOdnY1mYNcjBBDbnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money.
>>>
>> 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?
>
> 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!

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:45:39 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>> Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell.
>
>it had the power and the fittings. the only differentiator was handling
>- basically, it was a dog.

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.

JXStern wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:45:39 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell.
>> it had the power and the fittings. the only differentiator was handling
>> - basically, it was a dog.
>
> 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!

On Jul 5, 8:48 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article <KaOdnY1mYNcjBBDbnZ2dnUVZ_rTin...@speakeasy.net> ,
> > jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> >>> well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money.
>
> >> 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?
>
> > 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!

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.

>From a technical POV, what was changed from the 6th generation (I
think) onward that makes them less fun to drive?

gigelus2k3 wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:48 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article <KaOdnY1mYNcjBBDbnZ2dnUVZ_rTin...@speakeasy.net> ,
>>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>> well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money.
>>>> 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?
>>> 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!
>
> 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.
>
>>From a technical POV, what was changed from the 6th generation (I
> 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.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:41:08 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

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

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.