Honda Car Forum

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:30:37 -0800, SoCalMike
> <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>>>CRV and RAV4 are at the top of this class. They compete pretty
>>>fiercely so either one should be a good car.
>>
>>so whatcha think about the "bigger" RAV? will the CRV stay "small"?
>
>
> I don't know what honda is going to do, but I know what I wish they
> would do. Keep the CRV at its current size and introduce a large
> station wagon with about the interior size of the G1 Odyssey. Make it
> low to the ground, sporty and easily reconfigurable to hold five
> passengers or 1 - 2 passengers and a lot of cargo. With the right
> styling, I think it could be a hit.
>
>
heretic. sell what they sell in europe? no, our domestic marketing
droids that have killed the hatchback and the crx and the prelude will
never allow that. i mean, detroit's been singing the song of "high
gross margins for suv's" for over a decade, so the same [u.s. based]
honda marketing idiots that follow slavishly every idiotic "initiative"
that comes out of detroit, will never do it. example: detroit sells red
rear turn signals, so, despite the fact that they're confusing and
unsafe on any road other than a farm track with no other vehicles
present, u.s. honda /has/ to follow.

if any of you honda marketing morons are reading this, honda built a
global world beater selling small, fast, economic, reliable,
japanese-style [euro-style, actually] sedans. and have [/had]
incredible customer loyalty. have any of you ever paid attention to
that? what about listening to the customer rather than just the
bleating of other sales idiots? do you know how many time's i've been
approached by people wanting to buy my 89 civic hatch this last month?
and the sales idiots say there's no demand for hatchbacks!!! ever tried
to buy an old crx??? you'll be fighting off 20 other dudes waving the
green stuff in the owner's face. but the sales idiots say there's "no
demand".

honda's marketing troubles are like mcdonalds bleating about slumping
market share as they introduce salads, fish, and countless other b.s.
garbage items to their menu. fact: mcdonalds built a global empire
selling beefburgers and fries. because that's what people want!!! come
to california some time and check out in-n-out burger. every single
in-n-out is /packed/. all day long. and they have a 3-item menu!!!
they're CRUSHING mickey d's. does it take a wall st. m.b.a. analysis
genius to figure out a trend here?

answer: do what you do well. and take initiative once in a while.
don't dick about trying to follow trends because you'll never be the
lead dog. [think "ridgeline". what genius came up with that? i'd love
to meet that person.] you know what the view is of you're not the lead
dog? "*", that's what.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:33:07 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <43f73de4.55408973@rsnews.rapidsys.com>,
> satran.@NOSPAMrapidsys.com (StevenA) wrote:
>
>> I've taken care to stick to the scheduled maintenance,
>> and overall it's been the most troublefree and reliable car I've ever owned.
>
>The best way to evaluate this: in the last year of a model, go drive
>one new.
>
>Then hit the used lots and find one from the first year of that model,
>one that hasn't been beaten to death.
>
>If you do this with a CRV, you'll find that it doesn't hold up as well
>as an Accord, for example, in the same comparison.


An interesting test. It does have a flaw in that it ignores the
effect of driver demographics. CRV drivers might be younger, more
aggressive driving, less interested in maintenance, etc. than Accord
drivers. They may trade more frequently so the car has had multiple
owners. They may use them for hauling. As unlikely as it seems, some
of the CRVs may even be driven off-road. Not saying that any of this
is necessarily true, its just a possible complication.

<<An interesting test. It does have a flaw in that it ignores the
effect of driver demographics. CRV drivers might be younger, more
aggressive driving, less interested in maintenance, etc. than Accord
drivers. They may trade more frequently so the car has had multiple
owners. They may use them for hauling. As unlikely as it seems, some
of the CRVs may even be driven off-road. Not saying that any of this
is necessarily true, its just a possible complication. >>

Well I am still not sure if I want to go with another Accord EX or a
CRV when my lease is up. I really love my accord, but just wanted
something with 4WD. My accord ex-2005 is really comfortable and has
alot of really nice comfort features. I wish the accord offered an all
wheel drive option

Al

Hello, I've owned my CR-V for three years now, and I love it! The only
problem I've had was with the on-board computer. The dealer replaced it
with no problems! Other than regular oil changes and changing the cabin
filters I've had no other issues!

Nino Nospam!
"Herpster1966" <tomboy83@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140234620.585980.12740@g44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>I was talking to a woman last night. She was telling me that she heard
> that there is a large number of 2 year old CRV's at car lots, and her
> reasoning is that she believes that they fall apart in 2 years. I told
> her there are probably alot of used two year old CRV's because alot of
> people that had leases traded them in. Does anyone have any thoughts
> about CRV's as far as their quality? What she told me is the body
> integrity is poor, the seats are uncomfortable and the ride is harsh,
> but I have trouble believing this of a Honda. I have already owned 3
> hondas and had good luck with all of them for the most part. I am
> planning on getting a CRV in two years, probably a 4WD brand new lease.
>
> Al
>

In article <d0mev1ds1433qp72ccpmn8d6olp5iqtqmt@4ax.com>,
gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com (Gordon McGrew) wrote:

> >If you do this with a CRV, you'll find that it doesn't hold up as well
> >as an Accord, for example, in the same comparison.
>
>
> An interesting test. It does have a flaw in that it ignores the
> effect of driver demographics.

True. So drive a few of the used examples, then.



> CRV drivers might be younger, more
> aggressive driving, less interested in maintenance, etc. than Accord
> drivers. They may trade more frequently so the car has had multiple
> owners. They may use them for hauling. As unlikely as it seems, some
> of the CRVs may even be driven off-road. Not saying that any of this
> is necessarily true, its just a possible complication.

Well, I threw the Accord in there as an example. Compare it to the RAV4
as well, since that's a direct market competitor.

And do the same comparison with a Civic, the platform on which the CRV
is built. You'll find that the Civic holds up better than the larger
and heavier CRV--because that platform just doesn't have what it takes
to do justice to the CRV long-term.

Many people won't care, though, because they're dumping the car after
three years. Or else they had the car from new for 8 years and don't
realize how far it went downhill, since they experienced it slowly.

But those who get into a 4 year old 50K mile CRV at the used car lot
will realize that "gee, something's wrong here. This is a Honda?"

In article <1140287752.783124.243130@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
"Herpster1966" <tomboy83@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well I am still not sure if I want to go with another Accord EX or a
> CRV when my lease is up.

How about just keeping your current Accord? Isn't that an option?

In article <mhjev1lglt4boeb3iesve663q6al7bsit1@4ax.com>,
gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com (Gordon McGrew) wrote:

> I don't know what honda is going to do, but I know what I wish they
> would do. Keep the CRV at its current size and introduce a large
> station wagon with about the interior size of the G1 Odyssey. Make it
> low to the ground, sporty and easily reconfigurable to hold five
> passengers or 1 - 2 passengers and a lot of cargo. With the right
> styling, I think it could be a hit.

Well, it was called the Odyssey. That really was a station wagon, in
reality.

They still do it today, albeit larger; it's called the Odyssey.

With swing-out doors and an enclosed cargo area (and a higher ride
height), it's called the Pilot (MDX for Acura).

With swing-out doors and an external cargo area, it's called the
Ridgeline.

Take your pick. They have it.

They also do things in other countries that we don't see here. I think
they do a standard wagon configuration like what you're looking for.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 15:01:51 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <mhjev1lglt4boeb3iesve663q6al7bsit1@4ax.com>,
> gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com (Gordon McGrew) wrote:
>
>> I don't know what honda is going to do, but I know what I wish they
>> would do. Keep the CRV at its current size and introduce a large
>> station wagon with about the interior size of the G1 Odyssey. Make it
>> low to the ground, sporty and easily reconfigurable to hold five
>> passengers or 1 - 2 passengers and a lot of cargo. With the right
>> styling, I think it could be a hit.
>
>Well, it was called the Odyssey. That really was a station wagon, in
>reality.

That is what I drive now. '98 Odyssey I bought in 2003 to replace my
'92 Volvo 240 Wagon. Compared to Volvo, the Ody has a notch more
cargo square footage, but it is less usable because it is less flat
and more intruded upon by the wheel wells. It is also less convenient
in that the center seats in the Ody have to be removed from the car to
maximize cargo whereas the Volvo had folding seats. The Ody has
better acceleration but the Volvo handled much better and certainly
had room for a much bigger engine. The Volvo was also slightly
narrower and shorter outside and had a tighter turning radius. It
also had a manual transmission.

If Honda took the concept of the 240 Wagon and updated it with better
suspension, engine, etc., I think it would be a winner. I bet lots of
people are looking for a vehicle with the utility of a SUV but with
the fuel economy, size and handling of a car.

>They still do it today, albeit larger; it's called the Odyssey.
>
>With swing-out doors and an enclosed cargo area (and a higher ride
>height), it's called the Pilot (MDX for Acura).
>With swing-out doors and an external cargo area, it's called the
>Ridgeline.

None of those will fit in my garage and they are too big and clumsy
anyway.

External cargo area doesn't strike me as particularly practical for
most users. Certainly not for me.

>Take your pick. They have it.
>
>They also do things in other countries that we don't see here. I think
>they do a standard wagon configuration like what you're looking for.

Sigh. Maybe they are right. Not enough demand for a practical, fun,
large car in the US.

On 18 Feb 2006 10:35:52 -0800, "Herpster1966" <tomboy83@yahoo.com>
wrote:

><<An interesting test. It does have a flaw in that it ignores the
>effect of driver demographics. CRV drivers might be younger, more
>aggressive driving, less interested in maintenance, etc. than Accord
>drivers. They may trade more frequently so the car has had multiple
>owners. They may use them for hauling. As unlikely as it seems, some
>of the CRVs may even be driven off-road. Not saying that any of this
>is necessarily true, its just a possible complication. >>
>
>Well I am still not sure if I want to go with another Accord EX or a
>CRV when my lease is up. I really love my accord, but just wanted
>something with 4WD. My accord ex-2005 is really comfortable and has
>alot of really nice comfort features. I wish the accord offered an all
>wheel drive option
>
>Al

Why do you want 4WD? For snow? Try an extra set of wheels and some
first-rate snow tires like Nokians. If you live in a city, you will
probably be more than happy. My GS-R with Nokians seems to go better
than most SUVs when the snow is really nasty in Chicago. Then in the
Summer you can run cheap high performance tires like Kumhos and the
handling will be a lot better than with all season radials.

What's with the 50K miles? My CRV @ 30K Miles drives better than new. Only
complaint is the seat material is not up to snuff.

And guess how many visits to a dealer or mechanic since new? none






"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-7EBE0E.14584618022006@nntp3.usenetserver.com...
> In article <d0mev1ds1433qp72ccpmn8d6olp5iqtqmt@4ax.com>,
> gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com (Gordon McGrew) wrote:
>
>> >If you do this with a CRV, you'll find that it doesn't hold up as well
>> >as an Accord, for example, in the same comparison.
>>
>>
>> An interesting test. It does have a flaw in that it ignores the
>> effect of driver demographics.
>
> True. So drive a few of the used examples, then.
>
>
>
>> CRV drivers might be younger, more
>> aggressive driving, less interested in maintenance, etc. than Accord
>> drivers. They may trade more frequently so the car has had multiple
>> owners. They may use them for hauling. As unlikely as it seems, some
>> of the CRVs may even be driven off-road. Not saying that any of this
>> is necessarily true, its just a possible complication.
>
> Well, I threw the Accord in there as an example. Compare it to the RAV4
> as well, since that's a direct market competitor.
>
> And do the same comparison with a Civic, the platform on which the CRV
> is built. You'll find that the Civic holds up better than the larger
> and heavier CRV--because that platform just doesn't have what it takes
> to do justice to the CRV long-term.
>
> Many people won't care, though, because they're dumping the car after
> three years. Or else they had the car from new for 8 years and don't
> realize how far it went downhill, since they experienced it slowly.
>
> But those who get into a 4 year old 50K mile CRV at the used car lot
> will realize that "gee, something's wrong here. This is a Honda?"
>