Honda Car Forum

In article <zoqdnQhHuMH7EoDeRVn-3A@speakeasy.net>,
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> > There *is* a reason for the editorial process.
> >
> the only reason for putrifaction is that pissants sit on the side lines
> and won't do anything about it. i contribute to wikipedia on the stuff
> where i have expertise. if you have the same, and you see stuff you
> don't like, fix it. if you don't, you have no business complaining.

You can't fix something like a wiki, where the ignorant masses can--with
their total and complete ignorance--create such a huge mound of garbage.
I can go in and correct errors, but I'm wasting my time--because all it
takes is one know-it-all who doesn't (or one ass playing games) to undo
it.

You may think that the cream will rise to the top, but what will
actually rise to the top is the ignorance of the masses who thought they
heard something from a friend of a friend of his dentist's mechanic.

The existence of urban legends, and the popularity of snopes.com and its
ilk, is proof that wikis are nothing but garbage.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <zoqdnQhHuMH7EoDeRVn-3A@speakeasy.net>,
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>There *is* a reason for the editorial process.
>>>
>>
>>the only reason for putrifaction is that pissants sit on the side lines
>>and won't do anything about it. i contribute to wikipedia on the stuff
>>where i have expertise. if you have the same, and you see stuff you
>>don't like, fix it. if you don't, you have no business complaining.
>
>
> You can't fix something like a wiki, where the ignorant masses can--with
> their total and complete ignorance--create such a huge mound of garbage.
> I can go in and correct errors, but I'm wasting my time--because all it
> takes is one know-it-all who doesn't (or one ass playing games) to undo
> it.
>
> You may think that the cream will rise to the top, but what will
> actually rise to the top is the ignorance of the masses who thought they
> heard something from a friend of a friend of his dentist's mechanic.
>
> The existence of urban legends, and the popularity of snopes.com and its
> ilk, is proof that wikis are nothing but garbage.
>
urban legend? honda on wikipedia? can't fix anything? that's way off
base.

there's some truly great stuff on there. the cream /does/ rise to the
top. sure, it can be vandalized, but repair is just as easy, and from
what i've seen, where people take the trouble to write good stuff, it
sticks. even controversial subjects where there are many opposing
viewpoints can end up [eventually] with text that sticks...

controversy example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

not so controversial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_energy

dold@XReXXhonda.usenet.us.com wrote:
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>>dold@XReXXhonda.usenet.us.com wrote:
>>maybe, but the first model imported wasn't the civic was it? and it
>>would be good to get some more car history in there - it's currently
>>very motorcycle-centric!
>
>
> Sorry, I thought you knew, and were just taking a poke at Wikipedia.
>
> The first officially imported Honda car in the US was the N600 followed by
> the Z600, a minuscule coupe with a twin cylinder 600cc motor that looked
> like a motorcycle engine. The car I knew fairly well would actually list
> to the left when its owner got in. I don't think they were at all popular,
> and I remember when the Honda Civic was introduced. The same guy traded in
> his Z600, which had over 100,000 miles on it, on a Civic. He didn't like
> the newer car, too pedestrian ;-)
>
> So the phrase "gained a foothold with the Civic", seems to be true.
> A couple of other sites skip the N600 altogether, even if they mention the
> S500 in a timeline.
>
> Prior to that, although not officially imported, there was an S500 roadster
> that I remember from the one of the sales guys at Berkeley Honda
> (Motorcycles) brought in gray market in the 60's.
>
> http://www.histomobile.com/histomob/...44/histo02.htm
>
excellent!

Back in my autocross days (mid to late 1960's) when I was running an
Austin Mini, one of regular participants had a Honda S600 (this was a
convertible). I am not sure if this was offically imported or not--my
guess is not.

Ken

dold@XReXXhonda.usenet.us.com wrote:
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>>dold@XReXXhonda.usenet.us.com wrote:
>>maybe, but the first model imported wasn't the civic was it? and it
>>would be good to get some more car history in there - it's currently
>>very motorcycle-centric!
>
>
> Sorry, I thought you knew, and were just taking a poke at Wikipedia.
>
> The first officially imported Honda car in the US was the N600 followed by
> the Z600, a minuscule coupe with a twin cylinder 600cc motor that looked
> like a motorcycle engine. The car I knew fairly well would actually list
> to the left when its owner got in. I don't think they were at all popular,
> and I remember when the Honda Civic was introduced. The same guy traded in
> his Z600, which had over 100,000 miles on it, on a Civic. He didn't like
> the newer car, too pedestrian ;-)
>
> So the phrase "gained a foothold with the Civic", seems to be true.
> A couple of other sites skip the N600 altogether, even if they mention the
> S500 in a timeline.
>
> Prior to that, although not officially imported, there was an S500 roadster
> that I remember from the one of the sales guys at Berkeley Honda
> (Motorcycles) brought in gray market in the 60's.
>
> http://www.histomobile.com/histomob/...44/histo02.htm
>

<dold@XReXXhonda.usenet.us.com> wrote
> The first officially imported Honda car in the US was the N600 followed by
> the Z600, a minuscule coupe with a twin cylinder 600cc motor that looked
> like a motorcycle engine. The car I knew fairly well would actually list
> to the left when its owner got in. I don't think they were at all
popular,
> and I remember when the Honda Civic was introduced. The same guy traded
in
> his Z600, which had over 100,000 miles on it, on a Civic. He didn't like
> the newer car, too pedestrian ;-)
>
> So the phrase "gained a foothold with the Civic", seems to be true.
> A couple of other sites skip the N600 altogether, even if they mention the
> S500 in a timeline.


> Prior to that, although not officially imported, there was an S500
roadster
> that I remember from the one of the sales guys at Berkeley Honda
> (Motorcycles) brought in gray market in the 60's.
>
> http://www.histomobile.com/histomob/...44/histo02.htm

As cited by the wikipedia article, www.honda.com yada through the sub-links
has a timeline for Honda in America. It states: "1966 -- Honda N360
mini-compact car with air-cooled engine debuts."

See http://corporate.honda.com/america/timeline.aspx, scroll through the
years.

See also http://world.honda.com/news/2003/c030827_1.html ,which confirms
that the n360 preceded the n600.

http://world.honda.com/automobile/history.html mentions the S500 being
released in 1963, but does not indicate it was brought to the U.S.

Timelines appear to vary by one to two years. No doubt some fine
hair-splitting over the terms used would reveal why.

In sum, wikipedia's statement on when Hondas "gained a foothold" is correct.
Its first web site citation is in fact www.honda.com , which appears to me
to be the proverbial, valid "horse's mouth."

"TeGGeR." <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

> You, Clarence, have something to add that is not currently there, the list
> of models older than the Civic. Why don't you add it?

I don't disagree with the facts of this article on wikipedia. The Civic
was the first popular Honda in the US.



It was quite a bit larger than the Z600. I don't think I ever saw the
N600. The S500 was a gray market when I saw it.

The disagreement that I would have is with the other sites that I located
when trying to find a photo of the z600. They had timelines with missing
models. The Wikipedia article does not. It is too general to argue with.

I am disappointed by the Honda year-by-year stories, where you lose the
flow of a particular topic when tracing it from year to year.


--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <e4cTe.11505$OT1.7040@fe09.lga>,
> Sparky Spartacus <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote:
>
>>Smaller than a Civic? The mid 70's Civics were so small you didn't get
>>into them so much as put them on.
>
> Wrong-o. They weren't that small at all.
>
> Of course, I owned several--and you owned, let's see, NONE.

That's not the only way to know something like this, e.g., I had a good
friend who had a Civic and rode in it many times. You never rode in Ed's
car, so what do you know!

You owned *several* in the mid 70's? Do you buy a new car every year, Elmo?

They were small.

TeGGeR® wrote:

> Sparky Spartacus <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote in
> news:RJ4Te.35422$U63.3378@fe12.lga:
>
>
>>jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda#Company_history
>>>
>>>the civic wan't the first honda automobile sold in the u.s. can
>>>someone please fix this wikipedia page?
>>
>>The Civic is the first Honda I remember seeing or hearing of in the
>>US.
>
> Honda sold several tiny air-cooled models prior to the Civic. dold is
> correct so far as I'm aware.

I wasn't denying that some Honda models were in the US prior to the
Civic, just that the Civic is the first Honda I remember seeing (and
riding in).

People seem awfully touchy about this!

TeGGeR® wrote:

> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:ZPidnUT-ht-SKoHeRVn-
> gw@speakeasy.net:
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda#Company_history
>>
>>the civic wan't the first honda automobile sold in the u.s. can someone
>>please fix this wikipedia page?
>
> The page is actually correct.
>
> "Honda was having difficulty selling its automobiles in the United States.
> Built for Japanese buyers, Honda's small cars had failed to gain the
> interest of American buyers."
>
> This is correct.
>
> "Honda finally established a foothold in the American market in 1972 with
> the introduction of the Civic, larger than their previous models, but still
> small compared to the typical American car"
>
> This is correct as well. It doesn't actually say that the Civic was the
> first car, just that it was the first /successful/ one.
>
> What I think needs double-checking is this page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Honda_engines
> which may well be correct, but is the sort of page that is more likely to
> ontain errors and omissions.

Thanks for a breath of rationality!

In article <2TpTe.29436$YC1.28010@fe08.lga>,
Sparky Spartacus <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote:

> > Of course, I owned several--and you owned, let's see, NONE.
>
> That's not the only way to know something like this, e.g., I had a good
> friend who had a Civic

A 79 or earlier Civic?



> You owned *several* in the mid 70's? Do you buy a new car every year, Elmo?

Nope. But the pre-1980 Civics, I had a few. I'm a big guy; they fit me
great.

In fact, I brought home a recliner in one. Stuck it in the hatch, it
fit great.

No, those cars weren't small at all. But then, you were probably,
what--5, 6 years old at the time?