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

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.

Honda is a marketing company. If handling doesn't sell, then they won't
care.

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

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.

Honda is a marketing company. If handling doesn't sell, then they won't
care.

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

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.

Honda is a marketing company. If handling doesn't sell, then they won't
care.

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

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!

>
> 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!

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.

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

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!

>
> 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!

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.

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

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!

>
> 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!

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.

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

JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in
news:p0bq839lrt0qdaqvmmr4tdofmrj5pe17gr@4ax.com:

> On 4 Jul 2007 21:22:48 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>>I wish they would bring back the Prelude.
>>Update it with LED turnsignals and taillights.
>>Right now,Honda/Acura does not make anything I would buy.
>>I'd buy an old 00-01 Prelude before I'd buy any new Honda/Acura.
>
> Well, I agree with the others here, that today's Accord coupes deliver
> whatever it is you think you'd get out of a Prelude.

Put a 1998-2001 last generation Prelude next to an Accord coupe,and the
Accord will be bigger and taller.(and heavier) IMO,significantly different.
The older 1990 Prelude was much closer to the Accord.
Then there was that wierd Prelude inbetween them.....

Even the defunct RSX was sportier than any Accord.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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

JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in
news:p0bq839lrt0qdaqvmmr4tdofmrj5pe17gr@4ax.com:

> On 4 Jul 2007 21:22:48 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>>I wish they would bring back the Prelude.
>>Update it with LED turnsignals and taillights.
>>Right now,Honda/Acura does not make anything I would buy.
>>I'd buy an old 00-01 Prelude before I'd buy any new Honda/Acura.
>
> Well, I agree with the others here, that today's Accord coupes deliver
> whatever it is you think you'd get out of a Prelude.

Put a 1998-2001 last generation Prelude next to an Accord coupe,and the
Accord will be bigger and taller.(and heavier) IMO,significantly different.
The older 1990 Prelude was much closer to the Accord.
Then there was that wierd Prelude inbetween them.....

Even the defunct RSX was sportier than any Accord.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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

JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in
news:p0bq839lrt0qdaqvmmr4tdofmrj5pe17gr@4ax.com:

> On 4 Jul 2007 21:22:48 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>>I wish they would bring back the Prelude.
>>Update it with LED turnsignals and taillights.
>>Right now,Honda/Acura does not make anything I would buy.
>>I'd buy an old 00-01 Prelude before I'd buy any new Honda/Acura.
>
> Well, I agree with the others here, that today's Accord coupes deliver
> whatever it is you think you'd get out of a Prelude.

Put a 1998-2001 last generation Prelude next to an Accord coupe,and the
Accord will be bigger and taller.(and heavier) IMO,significantly different.
The older 1990 Prelude was much closer to the Accord.
Then there was that wierd Prelude inbetween them.....

Even the defunct RSX was sportier than any Accord.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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

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!
Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell.
the old 1996-2000 Civic hatchback sold very well,and newer versions were
uglier and didn't sell as well.
Tuners would rather buy an older Honda and rework it than buy a new Civic.

>
> 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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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

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!
Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell.
the old 1996-2000 Civic hatchback sold very well,and newer versions were
uglier and didn't sell as well.
Tuners would rather buy an older Honda and rework it than buy a new Civic.

>
> 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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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

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!
Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell.
the old 1996-2000 Civic hatchback sold very well,and newer versions were
uglier and didn't sell as well.
Tuners would rather buy an older Honda and rework it than buy a new Civic.

>
> 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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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

On 5 Jul 2007 22:12:23 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>> Well, I agree with the others here, that today's Accord coupes deliver
>> whatever it is you think you'd get out of a Prelude.
>
>Put a 1998-2001 last generation Prelude next to an Accord coupe,and the
>Accord will be bigger and taller.(and heavier) IMO,significantly different.
>The older 1990 Prelude was much closer to the Accord.
>Then there was that wierd Prelude inbetween them.....
>
>Even the defunct RSX was sportier than any Accord.

I like the taller small cars, if I want an MGB roadster there's
already the S2000. I look at the current Porches as a little retro in
staying so low. The new motors are so much better, a little extra
wind resistance, even a *little* extra weight, are OK.

How 'bout this, a new Prelude would make a great new Honda vehicle to
experiment with low weight technologies, like the Lotusii.

http://lotuscars.com/Elise.aspx

Civic Si engine, Accord-derived composite chassis, << 2200 pounds,
maybe 4wd option, << $40k list.

For Acura, I *still* say put in a 4-liter V8, make it an RL-class
sedan << 2800 pounds (V8 drivetrain is still gonna be heavy), but at
that power/weight ratio it would also fly. Probably $60k range. Put
a few solar cells on the trunk for good luck! :)

Needless to say, both would get outstanding mileage, for the class.

.... though I see that Lotus is only listed at 24/29. With Honda
tuning (and some loss of zoom) I'd think a two-seater like that could
go 29/36 or better - current Si sedan lists at 23/32 @ 3000 pounds.
Hmm, oddly enough, the specs are almost the same for the coupe.
Error?

J.

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

On 5 Jul 2007 22:12:23 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>> Well, I agree with the others here, that today's Accord coupes deliver
>> whatever it is you think you'd get out of a Prelude.
>
>Put a 1998-2001 last generation Prelude next to an Accord coupe,and the
>Accord will be bigger and taller.(and heavier) IMO,significantly different.
>The older 1990 Prelude was much closer to the Accord.
>Then there was that wierd Prelude inbetween them.....
>
>Even the defunct RSX was sportier than any Accord.

I like the taller small cars, if I want an MGB roadster there's
already the S2000. I look at the current Porches as a little retro in
staying so low. The new motors are so much better, a little extra
wind resistance, even a *little* extra weight, are OK.

How 'bout this, a new Prelude would make a great new Honda vehicle to
experiment with low weight technologies, like the Lotusii.

http://lotuscars.com/Elise.aspx

Civic Si engine, Accord-derived composite chassis, << 2200 pounds,
maybe 4wd option, << $40k list.

For Acura, I *still* say put in a 4-liter V8, make it an RL-class
sedan << 2800 pounds (V8 drivetrain is still gonna be heavy), but at
that power/weight ratio it would also fly. Probably $60k range. Put
a few solar cells on the trunk for good luck! :)

Needless to say, both would get outstanding mileage, for the class.

.... though I see that Lotus is only listed at 24/29. With Honda
tuning (and some loss of zoom) I'd think a two-seater like that could
go 29/36 or better - current Si sedan lists at 23/32 @ 3000 pounds.
Hmm, oddly enough, the specs are almost the same for the coupe.
Error?

J.

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

On 5 Jul 2007 22:12:23 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>> Well, I agree with the others here, that today's Accord coupes deliver
>> whatever it is you think you'd get out of a Prelude.
>
>Put a 1998-2001 last generation Prelude next to an Accord coupe,and the
>Accord will be bigger and taller.(and heavier) IMO,significantly different.
>The older 1990 Prelude was much closer to the Accord.
>Then there was that wierd Prelude inbetween them.....
>
>Even the defunct RSX was sportier than any Accord.

I like the taller small cars, if I want an MGB roadster there's
already the S2000. I look at the current Porches as a little retro in
staying so low. The new motors are so much better, a little extra
wind resistance, even a *little* extra weight, are OK.

How 'bout this, a new Prelude would make a great new Honda vehicle to
experiment with low weight technologies, like the Lotusii.

http://lotuscars.com/Elise.aspx

Civic Si engine, Accord-derived composite chassis, << 2200 pounds,
maybe 4wd option, << $40k list.

For Acura, I *still* say put in a 4-liter V8, make it an RL-class
sedan << 2800 pounds (V8 drivetrain is still gonna be heavy), but at
that power/weight ratio it would also fly. Probably $60k range. Put
a few solar cells on the trunk for good luck! :)

Needless to say, both would get outstanding mileage, for the class.

.... though I see that Lotus is only listed at 24/29. With Honda
tuning (and some loss of zoom) I'd think a two-seater like that could
go 29/36 or better - current Si sedan lists at 23/32 @ 3000 pounds.
Hmm, oddly enough, the specs are almost the same for the coupe.
Error?

J.

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

In article <Xns9964B960789EBjyanikkuanet@64.209.0.85>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

> Put a 1998-2001 last generation Prelude next to an Accord coupe,and the
> Accord will be bigger and taller.(and heavier)

If Honda continued to make the Prelude today, put today's 'lude against
a 98-01 'lude, and today's car would be bigger and heavier.

Fact.

So?



> Even the defunct RSX was sportier than any Accord.

Ever driven a current model V6 Accord coupe w/manual trans?

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

In article <Xns9964B960789EBjyanikkuanet@64.209.0.85>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

> Put a 1998-2001 last generation Prelude next to an Accord coupe,and the
> Accord will be bigger and taller.(and heavier)

If Honda continued to make the Prelude today, put today's 'lude against
a 98-01 'lude, and today's car would be bigger and heavier.

Fact.

So?



> Even the defunct RSX was sportier than any Accord.

Ever driven a current model V6 Accord coupe w/manual trans?

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

In article <Xns9964B960789EBjyanikkuanet@64.209.0.85>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

> Put a 1998-2001 last generation Prelude next to an Accord coupe,and the
> Accord will be bigger and taller.(and heavier)

If Honda continued to make the Prelude today, put today's 'lude against
a 98-01 'lude, and today's car would be bigger and heavier.

Fact.

So?



> Even the defunct RSX was sportier than any Accord.

Ever driven a current model V6 Accord coupe w/manual trans?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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

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!

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

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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

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!

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

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!

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

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?