My first Civic was the standard promotional hatchback that only came in three colors and cost $8240 with AC out the door in 1991. It was such a value that I bought an 03 Civic Coupe LX when the old one wore out. This was in the 12s and is vanilla and not as much fun to drive and not as good gas mileage and I ahte to say it, but I'm beginning to think the Civic has jumped the skark.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 36
- 91
Actually, Honda's reliability history trumps Toyota's.
Mazda has innovation (rotary) but reliability has sucked.
Nissan's reliability has been worse than Mazda's, plus the styling and interiors are crappy.
Honda does everything well. Nothing perfectly, but everything well.
Toyota is reliable, but duller than dirt.
Mazda and Nissan are sporty, but ergonomics and quality are, at best, hit or miss.
ZV
Mazda has innovation (rotary) but reliability has sucked.
Nissan's reliability has been worse than Mazda's, plus the styling and interiors are crappy.
Honda does everything well. Nothing perfectly, but everything well.
Toyota is reliable, but duller than dirt.
Mazda and Nissan are sporty, but ergonomics and quality are, at best, hit or miss.
ZV
You're simply forgetting that there is nothing wrong with Honda's quality, they're about on par with Toyota. However, they have a much more crisp "young" feel to them, as a company, than Toyota does.
Mediocrity does not get you places in the North American marketplace when it comes to automobiles.
Honda finds a harmonious balance between those three characteristics that you mentioned--and more.
Honda took off because a lot of people don't care about bragging rights. Honda drivers drive something that's more reliable than Nissan, sportier than Toyota, and as innovative as anyone when it comes to designing what's under the sheetmetal. The result is a reliable, well built car with decent acceleration and economy from their four cylinders (compared to other fours), and decent ride and handling.
The first generation Odyssey was well-liked by its buyers: people who had no need for the full-sized version of the mini van--same people who also looked at the small mini vans offered by Mazda and Nissan at the time.
The Prelude held its own in a small but very competetive niche market.
Honda took off because a lot of people don't care about bragging rights. Honda drivers drive something that's more reliable than Nissan, sportier than Toyota, and as innovative as anyone when it comes to designing what's under the sheetmetal. The result is a reliable, well built car with decent acceleration and economy from their four cylinders (compared to other fours), and decent ride and handling.
The first generation Odyssey was well-liked by its buyers: people who had no need for the full-sized version of the mini van--same people who also looked at the small mini vans offered by Mazda and Nissan at the time.
The Prelude held its own in a small but very competetive niche market.
<fob><vtec whore> because integra's became the rsx. only car close enough to an integra type r that you can buy here is the rsx-s, even then it's still not integra type r. reason why they didn't bring it over was supposedly because of emission problems. however, 2005's rsx-s has many parts that are itr reinforced parts. even the gear ratio is closer to what the itr is. vroom vroom. ;p 3y3 4m th3 pwnz0rs cuz 0f VTEC. VTEC 4 l1f3. </vtec whore> </fob>
too lazy to correct grammar. ta ta.
too lazy to correct grammar. ta ta.
My mom owned a camary once.
the transmission needed to be replaced twice within 125k. mile
and there were a hole bunch of ther problems too
in contrast my ddad's 86 subaru lasted 240k miles with less than routine maintance.
ever since then i have hated toyota's.
go subaru !
Well on the other hand, name a really good reason for the average joe not to buy a Honda. Not that it'll break down. Not that it drives like a boat. Not that it doesn't have extremely high quality for the money. Their designs aren't ground-breaking, but not a lot of people want cars with cutting edge design. Hondas work, and work well in all respects.
honda has its own niche being a youthful car with sporty looking and good reliability. I owned an accord and that car NEVER gave me problems, just drive and go every time. All I had to worry about was filling gas in and the regular oil change/service.
At the time I bought the accord (1998) I never considered a camry because it was much older looking and I thought it was an old person's car. Actually I still think the current camry is geared toward older people.
Nissan was also youthful, but I think it didnt have the quality back in the 1998, maybe now it does, and actually I kind of like their cars now.
mazda was nowhere back then.
I feel now honda is becoming like toyota, and mazda is taking honda's old place. The new 4 door accord is as bloaty as a camry, and the 2 door one is just not as sporty as the older versions. However the s2000 is pure sex.
At the time I bought the accord (1998) I never considered a camry because it was much older looking and I thought it was an old person's car. Actually I still think the current camry is geared toward older people.
Nissan was also youthful, but I think it didnt have the quality back in the 1998, maybe now it does, and actually I kind of like their cars now.
mazda was nowhere back then.
I feel now honda is becoming like toyota, and mazda is taking honda's old place. The new 4 door accord is as bloaty as a camry, and the 2 door one is just not as sporty as the older versions. However the s2000 is pure sex.
I had a 99 toyota camry that I had to put a tranmission in (granted, it was only ~$600 installed for a tranny out of an 01 Lexus).
I've put over 300,000 miles on GM products and never done much more than a brake job
I'd still buy Toyota or Honda if I were buying new, but mostly for the resale value
I realize it's anecdotal, but while we're spewing milages, my brother's '88 Accord has 245,000 miles on it and is still going strong. He's the 2nd owner, all service records, never any major work done on the engine or transmission.
My Dad's Camry has 190,000 miles on it and needed to have the headgasket replaced, probably due to an overheat by the previous owners, but don't know for sure. Again, 2nd owner, all service records.
In reality though, it's luck of the draw. You have to look at the overall average, as all cars are going to have problems.
On average, Honda cars are reliable.
My Dad's Camry has 190,000 miles on it and needed to have the headgasket replaced, probably due to an overheat by the previous owners, but don't know for sure. Again, 2nd owner, all service records.
In reality though, it's luck of the draw. You have to look at the overall average, as all cars are going to have problems.
On average, Honda cars are reliable.
If you do overall comparison rating/score, you might have honda as a winner.
Based on your logic, Ferrari, Austin and Hummer are all bad.
Based on your logic, Ferrari, Austin and Hummer are all bad.
suse920
Diamond Member
- Feb 7, 2005
- 6,889
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: rmrf
Originally posted by: suse920
fixedOriginally posted by: rmrf
or the uglyness of subaru's
:| BOOO :|
TEH way An SUV is Suppose to be YO!!!! So SUVs are supposed to be modeled after airplanes? Not all Suburus are ugly, but damn the tribeca is one ugly mofo.
That's a misconception there. Honda has by far the better fuel economy lineup than Toyota does. It's only because of the Prius and the Synergy engine being licensed to other cars that everyone thinks Toyota is more fuel conscience than Honda.
For what I want to do in a car, Subaru > All of them.
Mitsubishi EVO wasn't so bad either when I drove it. Didn't try the MR, just the VIII.
Mitsubishi EVO wasn't so bad either when I drove it. Didn't try the MR, just the VIII.
iversonyin
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2004
- 3,303
- 0
- 76
1. Honda is no worse in term on reliability when compare to Toyota. And Civics are sportier looking than Corolla, also Civics have more leg rooms in the back. And yes Civic has a little bit better mpg than Corolla.
2. True, the Maxima and 350Z are both good looking. BUT in the price range of Maximas, you have to compare with Acuras. as for 350Z, Honda has S2000. If i want a coupe, i would go for the Z, but if i want convertible, i would go S2000 over the Z convertible.
3. "Design" is subjective. I like the new accords and c06 civic design. and no Mazda design isnt consistantly better. I can't stand the look of the old Millenia, 626. Its not til recently they revamp their design.
4. Again, as you said, their minivan only failed for 1st gen, which they fix afterward. Now its one of the best selling minivan
Mediocroity? Isn't that what you want when you buy a Japanese car (not the luxury brand ei: Lexus)? Do you expect luxury level of Bently? Performance of Lambo? Prestige of BMW,MB? All that in the price of $20000?
What do you want from Honda? Are you hurt that they actually find a market segment in North America that they can satisfy?
Honda is popular due to a good balance on look, reliability, handling, fuel economy, and performance. I have to say Toyota come very close but their handling sucks, Nissan is not reliable enough, and Mazda wasn't that well built until recently.
It is kind of "jack of all trade, master of none".
It is kind of "jack of all trade, master of none".
iversonyin
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2004
- 3,303
- 0
- 76
But it sitll yield better mpg then Corolla!
Honda has their hybrid. Insight and Civic Hybrid. Also Civic Natural Gas.
and Hybrid Accord with 250hp that yield about 30mpg. Come on, give it up Honda haters
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter