Ask the Car People.SM


Can Honda get its mojo back?

510 messages,  Last post on May 14, 2013 at 7:27 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

What is this discussion about? Automotive News

Messages Page 43 of 51

#420 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [hpmctorque] by keystonecarfan

Oct 01, 2012 (9:17 am)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Sep 29, 2012 10:44 am)
Oldsmobile tried to improve build quality and reliability in the late 1960s and early 1970s at the same time the rest of the industry was getting quite sloppy in those regards.
 
Oldsmobile had a very good reputation through the late 1970s. The 442, for example, was more refined than the other muscle cars, and made at least some attempt to improve handling, which was largely ignored by competitors. The Ninety-Eight was equal to the Cadillacs in many ways, but sold for less money. GM later thoroughly trashed Oldsmobile with shared drivetrains, the underdeveloped Oldsmobile Diesel and the X-car fiasco.
 
Oldsmobile benefitted from the inspired leadership of John Beltz in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Unfortunately, he died from cancer in 1972 at the age of 46. Many felt that he had John DeLorean's smarts and product savvy without the huge ego, which meant that he could have gone to the top at GM. One wonders how subsequent GM history would have played out if he had achieved that goal.
 
The interesting part is that many of the people who today drive Honda Accords, Odysseys and Pilots are the equivalent of those who, in the 1970s, were driving Cutlass Supremes and Delta 88s.

#421 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [benjaminh] by victor23

Oct 01, 2012 (11:28 am)

Replying to: benjaminh (Sep 30, 2012 3:15 pm)
Do you own a Passat?
 
We test-drove just about everything and opted for a CC. Other contenders on my shortlist were Altima, Camry, and, yes, Accord. I hoped to get a Malibu (I like GM creature comforts in general, their nice balance of “fun-to-drive” vs. “pleasure-to-ride”, and Malibu interiors in particular), but it didn’t make our shortlist. I think that for many buyers, Sonata should be a first choice. It looks like Fusion is currently at the top of the reliability rankings.
 
I owned a 95 VW Golf, which was a very nice car. It had its spate of problems, but not more than my previous Fords or other cars, and only one of the Golf problems was electrical. Accords felt like improvement over Golf in all aspects except for the “fun”-factor. Now, the CC feels superior over Accords in almost every aspect. CCs were not very popular so far because they were 4-seaters (starting 2013, not anymore) and have a low roof at the rear. Given how I use a car, these factors were not at all a disadvantage to me.
 
Not to say that I haven’t had any issues during the last 2.5 years, but I still haven’t visited a dealer for reliability-related problems (although I might need to fix a cupholder). I assumed the reliability risks keeping in mind significant recent improvements in reliability across the board, and also the “excellent (or well above-average)” rating of the 09’CC by CR (as far as I know, not anymore). I understand that for guys here who keep their cars for 10+ years it is not enough of an argument; well, that’s a fair concern, I agree. We, however, tend not to keep our cars for that long, or, at least, keeping it long-term is never a purpose. We do intend to keep a Toyota Sienna minivan though (which is 7.5 years old at this point already), mostly because it serves our purposes better than new Siennas and Odysseys.

#422 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [victor23] by benjaminh

Oct 01, 2012 (2:38 pm)

Replying to: victor23 (Oct 01, 2012 11:28 am)
Congrats on your CC! Those are very nice cars. I sat in one at our local Mazda/VW dealer, and I was very impressed at the seeming BMW-esque level of quality and refinement. It's a very, very nice car. The only thing that bugged me is that I'm only 5'10", but in the back seat my head brushed the roof. Still, a really beautiful car, imho, and kind of special because you don't see too many on the road.
 
My guess is that VW has changed its ways the last few years when it comes to quality. I think they saw the formula Toyota and Honda had for success—quality for the masses at a good price—and decided to do their own version of that.
 
Motor Trend just ranked the Passat as still number 1 in their midsize comparison test, even against the 2013 Accord, and so they must be doing something right.
 
I quibble with their test because the Accord got from 0-60 quite a bit faster (7.7 seconds compared to 8.8), and the Accord gets significantly higher mpg.....But, clearly Motor Trend loves the Passat for the quality and fun to drive factor.

#423 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [benjaminh] by victor23

Oct 01, 2012 (3:43 pm)

Replying to: benjaminh (Oct 01, 2012 2:38 pm)
Thanks, Ben! Yes, CC is 'special' indeed, and that was one of the selling points that tipped the scale over a fully loaded Altima: there are just too many Altimas on the road. Bad for VW, good for me. And that is what I said earlier about the low roof and my intended uses: 1. I am shorter than you, and 2. I don't drive in the back seat. I sat there maybe only once, so far.
 
Good luck with your future purchase. It looks like 2013 Accord is indeed a great step forward compared to the previous model.

#424 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [victor23] by benjaminh

Oct 01, 2012 (3:55 pm)

Replying to: victor23 (Oct 01, 2012 3:43 pm)
Another good thing about the CC is that it has the 2.0 turbo, right? That's a special engine from what I hear, and erases one of the weak points of the Passat. The Passat has the not as good 2.5 as standard.
 
But the 2.0 turbo is probably quick! Probably just as fast as the 2013 Accord....Maybe even faster? Don't know.

#425 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [keystonecarfan] by benjaminh

Oct 01, 2012 (4:03 pm)

Replying to: keystonecarfan (Oct 01, 2012 9:17 am)
keystone wrote: "The interesting part is that many of the people who today drive Honda Accords, Odysseys and Pilots are the equivalent of those who, in the 1970s, were driving Cutlass Supremes and Delta 88s."
 
I think you're right!
 
My top of the line 2008 Accord EXL was the direct replacement for our 1988 Olds 98. And not only that they were in some ways similar—luxo barges of somewhat reduced size. And both cars were/are white. The Honda is just a little smaller, more nimble, and handles better than the Olds 98 did, but in some ways they are more similar than you might think! Well, not than you might think, because you've figured it out. The old Oldsmobile people are buying Accords, Passats, Camrys, Altimas, Sonatas, etc. Of course mostly there are whole new generations who started to drive long after Oldsmobile was relevant who buy those cars too.

#426 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [benjaminh] by hpmctorque

Oct 01, 2012 (5:18 pm)

Replying to: benjaminh (Oct 01, 2012 4:03 pm)
I equate the Accord EX-L V6 with the Impala/Caprice, Ford LTD and Plymouth Fury III (?) of yesteryear, while the Acura TL is more the counterpart of the Olds 98, Buick Electra/Park Avenue, Mercury Grand Marquis and Chrysler New Yorker. In other words, the EX-L corresponds to the full size Detroit offerings I mentioned, whereas the TL and its equivalent Detroit barges represent what we now call near luxury. No?
 
As I see it, then, the Cadillac, Lincoln and Imperial were approximately the spiritual predecessors to the Mercedes E and S Classes, BMW 5 and 7, Audi A6 and A8, and Lexus GS and LS. Or, maybe just the MB S-Class, BMW 7er, Audi A8 and Lexus LS.

#427 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [hpmctorque] by benjaminh

Oct 01, 2012 (5:08 pm)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Oct 01, 2012 5:18 pm)
Funny but true!

#428 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [benjaminh] by victor23

Oct 01, 2012 (8:17 pm)

Replying to: benjaminh (Oct 01, 2012 3:55 pm)
But the 2.0 turbo is probably quick! Probably just as fast as the 2013 Accord...
 
Oh yes, this is a beast... Not only 2.0T, but also a DSG transmission. It delivers power like V-6, but feels much more powerful. IIRC, it is rated somewhere around 6.2 s for 0-60, but I am not sure how relevant is this number itself: we are not taking it to drag races. In normal street driving, the most striking feature of turbo is that you get vast amount of power when you need it, starting at below 2000 rpm, while you have to rev up to almost 4000 rpm (Toyota) or well above that (Honda) to get to power. It feels reluctant at first (below 1700 rpm), but is very eager if you shift to the S-mode. But then, in S-mode, it is much thirstier. Overall, when you go for the V-6-type power, you are getting a V-6-type fuel efficiency (mpg numbers are better, but premium fuel is needed). If you keep within speed limits, mpg is much better (I got 38.5 mpg hwy with a/c turned on recently; we were transporting kids and were afraid to be seen as irresponsible drivers by their parents).
 
As far as I know, you can get turbo also on Buick Regal, Volvos, and higher-end Tauruses and Sonatas, of non-luxury rides. Maybe more now: it rapidly becomes a new industry standard.

#429 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [hpmctorque] by andre1969

Oct 02, 2012 (6:09 am)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Oct 01, 2012 5:18 pm)
Or, maybe just the MB S-Class, BMW 7er, Audi A8 and Lexus LS.
 
Funny you'd mention that, because the last time I sat in a BMW 7-series at one of the auto shows, it was a long wheelbase model, and it made me think that about the only old Detroit model that would compete with this would be something like a Caddy Fleetwood 75!
 
Going purely on size, most of what we call midsized today would've been compact back in the 60's. But, in terms of market status, comfort, etc, I'd say you're right that they pretty much fill the same market that your typical Detroit mass-market full-sizer did back in the day.

Messages Page 43 of 51

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement