Honda to Build a New Plant in the United States

[YSSMAN]

During a major news conference today, Honda announced plans to build a $550 million automobile plant that will employ 2,000 associates on a 1,700-acre tract in Decatur County, Indiana, near Greensburg, 50 miles southeast of Indianapolis. The news comes after months of rumors about another possible U.S. car plant.

No news on what they will be building, but I presume it will probably be some new car that we have no idea about. Maybe the Acura RL/Honda Legend production is moving to the US? Maybe another small-car will be built here?

Either way, I find it funny that no matter what happens, they won't build a plant in Michigan. Honda builds their American cars now in Ohio and Indiniana, all while Toyota is getting set to break ground on a new plant near South Haven, Michigan.

...I still think it is sad that the import car companies can build their cars here in America, but the American car companies can't do the same. It just goes to show how the UAW screwed everything up.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

Good news for the US, as long as the quality behind the H doesn't go down i'm all for it. 👍

I agree with you about the UAW though, our North American companies could be so much more if it wasn't for the UAW's stupid rules.

 

[JCE]

Is this a good thing? I would say it's more of a mixed bag. The reasoning:

• The prices will drop for the US made models, which is a good thing since Hondas are (for the most part) overpriced.
• The quality will drop, I'm sorry but it's obvious the build quality of anything made in North America is lacking from that which is made in Europe and Japan.
• Maybe meaning the US will get newer models as fast as Japan?

I'd say overal this would be ok, I just worry about the quality...and I don't want to hear some American fanboy say "dude the stuff made here is top quality" when it clearly isn't.

 

[YSSMAN]

Hey, maybe if Honda's build quality drops off just a touch more GM could actually flaunt the fact that they have surpassed them (last I checked, Buick and Cadillac were still in the top five, Chevrolet being the next-best, two spots behind Honda).

But not everything made in the US sucks, so I think you are overgeneralizing just a bit. I think part of what you are thinking ties back to the UAW and the fact that they will defend even the most unproductive worker, thus quality suffers in the process. Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Hyundai (just to name a few) from what I understand will not allow their workers to be a part of a union. But why would they need to be in the first place? They get paid well, work a halfway decent work week, and get some decent benefits from what I understand.

The same happened with GM and Ford of course, who were on their knees for the UAW, and would generally give into every demand. But now with the job cuts, hopefully things can turn around a bit at my Michigan factories.

 

[JCE]

But not everything made in the US sucks, so I think you are overgeneralizing just a bit. I think part of what you are thinking ties back to the UAW and the fact that they will defend even the most unproductive worker, thus quality suffers in the process. Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Hyundai (just to name a few) from what I understand will not allow their workers to be a part of a union. But why would they need to be in the first place? They get paid well, work a halfway decent work week, and get some decent benefits from what I understand.

The same happened with GM and Ford of course, who were on their knees for the UAW, and would generally give into every demand. But now with the job cuts, hopefully things can turn around a bit at my Michigan factories.

Actually I agree with the bold statement which is exactly what I was talking about in my statement. 👍 It's precisely because of the UAW that American auto factories are producing sub-par automobiles. I'd actually say that Canada probably has the best quality control of anything made on the North American contienent. And if I were Honda I'd actually be VERY worried about the quality issue. Hyundai has put a target on the back of Honda...and they are catching up with them. The new Sonata is as close to the 4dr Accord in about every way...hell I'd rather own the Sonata than the Accord. If Honda's quality starts to take a beating not only will Hyundai pass them but so will GM and possibly Ford. Which I hope happens...I want GM and Ford to succeed because the more money they make in profit the more research and development is done--and THAT is good for EVERYONE.

 

[1X83Z]

No news on what they will be building, but I presume it will probably be some new car that we have no idea about. Maybe the Acura RL/Honda Legend production is moving to the US? Maybe another small-car will be built here?

As a rule, technologically-advanced cars are not built in the States. Another rule is that slow-selling cars are not built in the market where they're selling slowly...

I'm surprised Honda will build a factory that far north. The general rule is, build a factory in the South to avoid unions. Examples:

- BMW's US plant (Z4, X5) is in Spartanburg, South Carolina
- Hyundai's new plant (new truck? Ha!) is in Mississippi
- Mercedes's US plant (ML-class) is in Alabama
- Nissan's US plant (Titan, Armada) is in Mississippi
- Saturn's plant (Ion) is in Spring Hill, Tennessee

If you build it in the north, the bastards unionize and drive up wages. Why do we outsource jobs? Because of unions. Remember that come election day. That said, Indiana must do okay because Toyota builds the Tundra there and doesn't have any problems.

By the way the statement that American workers equal poor build quality is not one that can be defended with fact. When Mercedes began producing the ML-class here in 1998, build quality was awful, which was attributed to it being produced here, however the BMW models made in South Carolina have been fantastic, as have the Indiana-made Toyota trucks and, so far, Nissan's US vehicles. And meanwhile other, non-US made Mercedes products have absolutely been horrible in the last ten years. So I do not fault American workers, who do seem to build quality products in general.

Don't get me started on the Mexicans though.

And the Brazillians don't even get to make cars for major markets anymore, they were so bad for Volkswagen's image in the mid-1990s. They do, however, make cars for themselves. Ha.

 

[Master_Yoda]

Hondas are (for the most part) overpriced.

There not overpriced.. Hondas are perfectly priced, for such reliability they have. Out of 15 years of owning 3 different models of Accords, we havn't once had a single major problem. But the two American cars we have Dodge Minivan, and a Ford Focus, we have come accross quite a few brake, and engine problems.

And theres a few Hondas that are a great deal, like the Honda S2000, which is cheaper then the Porsche Boster, yet more powerful, better looking, and more reliable. Honda Accords are fast for heavier FF models. The fact it can at least get 135-140mph on a flat road is great, and more then you need. Hondas also have great handling, which just makes it eve more fun! Hondas have anything you need, other then a big bill.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

I agree, the price you pay for a Honda compared to a GM (for example) almost evens out when you add up the price of repairs for the GM in the same amount of time that you'll own the vehicle. Although you'll pay more for the parts needed to repair the Honda, it also evens out by you not having to repair it as much, plus you'll have your vehicle more often since it won't always be in the shop. Honda built this reputation up over many years of excellent design quality, hopefully American workers don't destroy that rep within a few short years.

 

[YSSMAN]

And the Brazillians don't even get to make cars for major markets anymore, they were so bad for Volkswagen's image in the mid-1990s. They do, however, make cars for themselves. Ha.

Hey, I had a Brazillian-made Volkswagen and it wasn't that bad. Granted, she was a Fox, didn't run to good in the winter (well, it was built in Brazil), and most certainly was about as far from German-built as you could get, but she held up well.

Don't they build the current Fox there? Top Gear said the car wasn't too bad, and it is on my list of most-wanted cars here in the US. But, given how cheap the Rabbit is, I suppose it is no longer needed.

 

[1X83Z]

Hondas are (for the most part) overpriced.

Here's how this is going to work.

I'm going to make a counterpoint to your obviously incorrect statement, then you are going to defend it. Okay?

"Overpriced" Honda Accord EX vs. Buick Lacrosse CXS

1. Engine. Honda has a four horsepower advantage (244 vs. 240) over the Lacrosse CXS, which appears negligible until you look at the acceleration times, where the Accord's 0-60 is about 0.6 seconds better than the Lacrosse's. HONDA WINS

2. Fuel economy. Honda w/ standard 5-speed automatic: 20/29mpg. Buick w/ standard 4-speed automatic: 19/27mpg. HONDA WINS

3. Standard features.
- Front side airbags: Standard, Accord - Not available, Lacrosse
- 6-disc CD changer: Standard, Accord - $695 Lacrosse
- Power sunroof: Standard, Accord - $900 Lacrosse
- Heated leather seats: Standard, Accord - $295 Lacrosse
- Satellite radio: Standard, Accord - $325 Lacrosse
- Brake assist: Standard, Accord - Not available, Lacrosse
- Antiskid system: Standard, Accord - $495, Lacrosse
- Dual power seats: Standard, Accord - $350, Lacrosse
- Navigation system: $2000 Accord - Not available, Lacrosse.
HONDA WINS

4. Interior size. Honda has more front head room, front leg room, and rear head room despite being seven inches longer and thus easier to park. HONDA WINS

5. Pricing. So is the Honda really overpriced? Well... the Lacrosse CXS starts at $27300; the Accord EX V6? $27300. They're exactly the same. And check this out: if you optioned the Lacrosse like the "overpriced" Accord EX V6, you'd push the price of the Lacrosse to $30400 and you'd still not have brake assist or front side airbags. And for that price, you could have the Accord with a navigation system (also not available on Lacrosse) and STILL come out over $1000 cheaper than the Lacrosse, which has a shorter powertrain warranty, by the way. HONDA WINS

I'd be glad to compare the Pilot and Odyssey to their competitors too in order to demonstrate that this is not just an isolated comparison, but I think I've quite proved my point.

And yes - the Volkswagen Fox is currently manufactured in Brazil and Mexico for sale there.

 

[YSSMAN]

^ To that I point you to the Volkswagen Rabbit in comparison to the Civic, of which has been noted in the VW Rabbit/Golf News thread in the Auto News section...

I think Hondas are just a titch overpriced, added to the fact that the dealers like to tack on stupid things and won't play ball with the prices of the cars. The dealer expirience alone isn't worth the effort to buy a Honda here in Grand Rapids, but thats just my opinion.

...But I look at it this way. Hondas cost more to insure as well, so the extra bucks you save at the pump are pretty much negated in the long run.

But, thats my opinion...

 

[JCE]

Ok, maybe I needed to be more specific. The Accord is the only Honda that isn't overpriced (minus the Hybrid which is)...so good job picking the obvious winner. The Civic, Ridgeline (POS), Odyssey (maybe not so much), S2000, Pilot, Element (AKA Elephant), and CRV are all overpriced. The Civic is overpriced in the features you get with the price you pay, it's a fact that Honda has kept the price of the new Civic high to get more money from customers because of the "gas prices" scare. I know I recently worked at a Honda dealer. The Ridgeline is the worst "truck" on the market--I don't care what Motortend says. The Pilot is a good SUV but about $2k too expensive. The CRV is a carboard box not worth more than $18k for the EX. The Element is such a horrible car to drive...I actually loathed driving one--and I had one given to me as a company vehicle with free gas and I choose most of the time to take my Focus and pay for the gas myself to refrain from driving one. I hate them so much. The Odyessy probably isn't that overpriced because it's worth the money you spend on it...I like them. I still maintain the S2000 as overpriced about $3k. They are selling for $34k-36k...for that price you can get much better. I'll refrain from using my Nissan bias here and just say you can find even a non-350Z for the same money that is easily a better car--and frankly after driving a new one they have less room than the GTS Viper I drove a few years ago. Just my opinion, I'm not hating on Honda--I just think they are gouging their customers on most of their models. I've seen it first hand.

^ To that I point you to the Volkswagen Rabbit in comparison to the Civic, of which has been noted in the VW Rabbit/Golf News thread in the Auto News section...

I think Hondas are just a titch overpriced, added to the fact that the dealers like to tack on stupid things and won't play ball with the prices of the cars. The dealer expirience alone isn't worth the effort to buy a Honda here in Grand Rapids, but thats just my opinion.

...But I look at it this way. Hondas cost more to insure as well, so the extra bucks you save at the pump are pretty much negated in the long run.

But, thats my opinion...

Spot on. Insurance is high on the Civic and Accord because they are so often broken into or stolen...not to mention Honda's replacement parts and repair costs when they ARE repaired is so high.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'd still say the S2000 is argueably a good deal, but the lack of features overall puts a lot of people off, especially those who are looking for a fun-to-drive sports car. My Grandfather is in love with the car, but given his age, he doesn't want to fuss with a full manul every day, and he is quite dissapointed that Honda has not developed a transmission along the lines of a DSG, SMG, Cambrocasia, F1, etc gearbox, given their F1 racing history.

...But I completely agree that $35K is a lot of money for a car that can only seat two and essentially can only function for six months of the year. Anyone up for the GTO? Audi TT 2.0T? GM Kappa 2.0 DIT? Mustang GT?

---

Don't even get me started on the Civic, as it remains the biggest waste of money in the new car market, IMO. The features list on models at the ammount of money I want to pay ($15-17K) is laughable at best, as the Civic is outdone by not only the Rabbit, but the 3, Cobalt, and even the Versa as well.

 

[JCE]

I'd still say the S2000 is argueably a good deal, but the lack of features overall puts a lot of people off, especially those who are looking for a fun-to-drive sports car. My Grandfather is in love with the car, but given his age, he doesn't want to fuss with a full manul every day, and he is quite dissapointed that Honda has not developed a transmission along the lines of a DSG, SMG, Cambrocasia, F1, etc gearbox, given their F1 racing history.

...But I completely agree that $35K is a lot of money for a car that can only seat two and essentially can only function for six months of the year. Anyone up for the GTO? Audi TT 2.0T? GM Kappa 2.0 DIT? Mustang GT?

---

Don't even get me started on the Civic, as it remains the biggest waste of money in the new car market, IMO. The features list on models at the ammount of money I want to pay ($15-17K) is laughable at best, as the Civic is outdone by not only the Rabbit, but the 3, Cobalt, and even the Versa as well.

That's exactly my point (even though you inserted your GM bias with the GTO ). It is a valid point that for $35k you can get alot of coupes or roadsters that are well worth the money. The TT is every bit the handler as the S2000 in MY OPINION. The GTO and Mustang are good old fashiond muscle cars that look fantastic. And the Sky/Solstice (don't know the numbers) probably handles as well as the S2000 and is cheaper. I bet the Solstice GXP/Sky Redline will outrun the S2000 by enough of an amount that is noticable.

Don't get me wrong here, I do like the S2000, but like the NSX it's just overpriced. And like the NSX does handle VERY well...I just don't think the price you pay is worth it. If the car was $30k it would be a great deal...$34-36k is not.

 

[YSSMAN]

...And I love the S2000 as well, but personally, I couldn't justify spending money on the car unless it was used. It really is as simple as that.

Numers on the Red Line and GXP Kappa cars? They say close to 5 sec 0-60 times, top speeds north of 150-160 (not confirmed), lateral g's on the better side of 0.9g, baisically matching the S2000 in most circumstances.

 

[1X83Z]

Ok, maybe I needed to be more specific. The Accord is the only Honda that isn't overpriced (minus the Hybrid which is)...so good job picking the obvious winner.

Yeah. But the Accord is such a good vehicle.

The Civic

You asked for it.

My boy the ugly Civic EX sedan vs. Volkswagen Jetta 2.5

1. Engine. Does the Jetta have one? Scientists are still looking. The Civic's 140hp 1.8-liter four may have ten less horsepower than the Jetta's 2.5-liter five, but its acceleration is leagues better, because Volkswagen is still deciding what a transmission is. HONDA WINS

2. Fuel economy. The Jetta is surely having a laugh.
- Civic (140hp 1.8L 4-cyl): 30/38 manual; 30/40 automatic
- Jetta (150hp 2.5L 5-cyl): 22/30 manual; 22/30 automatic
Indeed - the Civic's city fuel economy equals the Jetta's highway fuel economy. I barely even believe that. Volkswagen isn't just deciding with a transmission is - it's still trying to figure out what device to use in order to get the engine's power to the wheels. HONDA WINS

3. Standard features. Really the only feature disparity that the Honda has over the Jetta is a power sunroof, a $1600 option on the Jetta. The Jetta has a 6-disc CD changer, though that only tends to run about half the price of a sunroof. Both vehicles are decidedly well-equipped, with split-folding rear seats, all sorts of airbags, air-con, anti-lock 4-wheel disc brakes, and 16" alloys. However the sunroof thing means that HONDA WINS

4. Interior size. Civic has more front head room, more front leg room, and more rear head room. Again, HONDA WINS

5. Pricing. This is the basic kicker. The cars are quite similar. The Jetta has more trunkspace, the Honda's quicker, the Jetta has 6-CD, the Honda has a sunroof. The Honda has better fuel economy and is larger inside, though, and that puts the Jetta out of commission when you consider that the Jetta goes for $21400 and the Civic EX for $19100. It's a $2300 disparity that Volkswagen cannot justify.

Moving right along...

Odyssey (maybe not so much),

Not at all. I don't want to do the comparo though. Just know there's a reason people buy these vehicles.

S2000,

The Porsche Boxster is $11000 more than the S2000. It's slower and it's got less stuff. The Porsche Boxster is the one that's overpriced. Granted, the 350Z blows them both out of the water but it's all a matter of perspective.

Pilot,

No.

Honda Pilot EX-L vs. Chevrolet Trailblazer LT EXT

1. Engine. Yeah, Chevrolet gives Trailby (say: "trailbee" - and how I will refer to it henceforth) more power (291 vs 244) so then why is acceleration better with the Pilot? Because, Trailby weighs about as much as a locomotive, and looks like one too. HONDA WINS

2. Fuel economy. Here's where that more power thing bites Chevrolet in the ass. Honda's fuel economy is 18/24 vs. 16/21 with Trailby. Trailby is quite fuel efficient too - Explorer's big engine is even worse than Trailby's. HONDA WINS

3. Standard features:
- Curtain side airbags: Standard Honda, $495 Trailblazer
- Front side airbags: Standard Honda, Not available Trailblazer
- 6-disc CD changer: Standard Honda, $395 Trailblazer
- Leather upholstery: Standard Honda, $1075 Trailblazer (part of a package)
- Satellite radio: Standard Honda, $325 Trailblazer
- Heated seats: Standard Honda, $895 Trailblazer (part of a package)
- Power sunroof: Standard Honda, $800 Trailblazer
- Automatic climate control: Standard Honda, $625 Trailblazer (part of a package)
HONDA WINS. Does the Trailblazer have anything standard?

4. Interior size. Honda has more front head room, rear head room, rear leg room, and cargo volume. HONDA WINS though Chevrolet has a ridiculous amount of front leg room.

5. Pricing. The Pilot EX-L, which was put here to embarrass the Chevrolet because of its high level of features, is $33000 - admittedly $2700 more than the $30300 Trailblazer EXT LT. However, when the Trailblazer is optioned to equal the feature level of the Pilot, its price jumps some $4600 - to a total of nearly $35000. More modest Pilots exist: the base one is just $27000. HONDA WINS

So there's that.

Element (AKA Elephant), and CRV are all overpriced.

Neither vehicle is overpriced. Do the comparison yourself though, I'm all comparisoned out.

 

[1X83Z]

Numers on the Red Line and GXP Kappa cars? They say close to 5 sec 0-60 times, top speeds north of 150-160 (not confirmed), lateral g's on the better side of 0.9g, baisically matching the S2000 in most circumstances.

Too bad we know those stats are crap. What's the real 0-60, 6.2 or so?

 

[YSSMAN]

1) I was talking about the RABBIT Not the Jetta 2.5 sedan.

Standard features on the 2006 VW Rabbit Two-Door include:

ABS; 4-wheel
Air Bags; side impact (front)
Air Bags; head (front and rear)
Air Conditioning (manual) Not on Civic
Crusie Control Not on Civic
Door Locks (Power) Not on Civic
Exterior Mirrors (Heated) Not on Civic
Exterior Mirrors (Power) Not on Civic
AM/FM with Single CD Not on Civic
Remote Entry Not on Civic
Seates, 6-way driver, adjustable (manual) Not on Civic
Seats, 4-way passenger, adjustable (manual)
Seats, Rear Folding
Seats, Rear 60/40 split Not on Civic
Security System, Alarm Not on Civic
Steering Column, 4-way adjustable
Steering, power (speed sensitive)
Tire, Full-size spare Not on Civic
Wheels, 15"
Windows, Power with Pinch Protection
Windshiled Wipers with Variable Intermitent Wipers Not on Civic

All of that, for $14,990 on the Rabbit 2.5 coupe that is only $430 more than the Civic... You wan't to tell me why again that the Civic isn't overpriced?

---

As for the GM SUV versus Honda Pilot, wait for the Saturn Outlook to rock Honda's cage. A more powerful V6 combined with the 6T70E automatic should fix your engine problem, and fuel economy should be about equal between the two.

Standard features list? Nothing is completely solid on all of the Outlook's features, but I'd expect that the majority of what comes standard on the Honda will come on the Saturn as well.

 

[1X83Z]

First off.

I don't care if you were talking about the Rabbit, I was talking about the Jetta. In fact I began writing my long-ass post before you posted yours - it was just coincidence that I chose to compare it to the Jetta.

Why compare Jetta to Civic? I'll tell you something the Rabbit's missing that the Civic's got standard: four freaking doors. Apples will be compared to apples, oranges to oranges. And crap like the Mitsubishi Lancer will simply be shunned. By the way, though the Rabbit may be a better version of the Jetta, the Jetta outsold the golf by a margin of more than five to one. Don't forget that...

By the way you're using the wrong Civic for that comparo - the feature list is much more identical if you bump it up to the LX, not the POS DX that humans don't even buy.

No Saturn.

Will ever.

Equal the features.

Of a Honda.

Sorry - GM can't seem to figure out that buyers want both POWER and FEATURES at a REASONABLE PRICE. Except on the Corvette, where they've figured it out quite well.

 

[YSSMAN]

Ouch, someone sure hates GM and Volkswagen!!!

1) I was comparing the Rabbit and Civic DX on price, and is that not what it is all about? Trim levels don't matter when your budget is limited to $16K for a brand new car. And yes, the Rabbit does come with four-doors, but the price bumps upward to $16,990 and comes with a few other extras as well.

...So then, what's your point? The Rabbit still undercuts the Civic not only in price and standard features, but also in utility as well. What are you going to tell me next, the Honda has VTEC? lol!

2) Don't underestimate the new Saturn. They aren't looking to play around anymore as the cheapo, bottom-run GM brand anymore. Combine the Sky, Aura, Outlook and possibly the Astra as well against the Honda lineup in the US, and you are looking at a full-scale war unlike anything the US vs Japan deal has seen since World War II.

So I ask that you think about it for a moment, as the Outlook could completely undercut the Pilot just as the Rabbit did with the Civic.

Care to take a peek at the early Outlook stats?

Generals Motors has introduced its much-aniticipated Saturn Outlook SUV, which rides on the same platform as the Buick Enclave. Outlook offers seating for up to eight and combines the capability of an SUV with carlike driving characteristics. Powering the Outlook is the GM 3.6L V-6 VVT. The engine features variable valve timing, designed for high fuel economy, low emissions and exceptional smoothness. The uplevel XR model (with dual exhaust) provides an estimated 267 horsepower (199 kw) and 247 lb.-ft. of torque (335 Nm). The single-exhaust XE model is rated at an estimated 265 horsepower (198 kw) and 244 lb.-ft (331 Nm) of torque. The engine is backed by a new, fuel-saving Hydra-Matic 6T75 six-speed automatic transmission. Outlook is available in front-wheel drive and all-wheel drive models.

Outlook can be configured for seven or eight passengers, including two front bucket seats, a 60/40-split second-row bench (three passengers) or two second-row captain’s chairs (two passengers) and a 60/40-split third-row bench seat (three passengers). Leather seating surfaces are available.

GM’s industry-first Smart Slide feature is standard on all second-row configurations, allowing quick and easy access to the third-row seating area. The second-row seat cushion flips up while the seatback slides forward, effectively compressing the space occupied by the seat. It operates with one hand and enables adjustable fore/aft positioning of the second-row seat. When adjusted rearward, the second-row seat provides more legroom for taller passengers; when adjusted forward, it provides more storage space.

Outlook also offers generous cargo room, including an estimated 116.9 cu. ft. (3310.6 L) when the second- and third-row seats are folded. In fact, Outlook even offers an estimated 19.7 cu. ft. (557.9 L) of cargo space behind third-row seat when it’s in its upright position – capacity many other SUVs and crossovers cannot come close to matching. Also, a covered rear cargo convenience center allows items to be stored out of sight beneath the rear cargo floor. In addition, Outlook’s second- and third-row seats fold flat for even more cargo-carrying capacity.

Outlook rides on a long, 118.9-inch (3020.7 mm) wheelbase and wide, 67.28-inch (1709 mm) front/rear tracks – a combination that enables an exceptionally smooth ride and stable handling. Sharp ride and handling reflexes also are supported by independent front and rear suspensions. The front suspension features a MacPherson strut design, with a direct-acting stabilizer bar. Isolated mounting points help reduce noise and vibration. The rear suspension uses a compact, state-of-the-art linked “H” design, which also has an isolated mounting system that reduces noise and vibration transmitted to the passenger compartment.

A strong body-frame integral structure is the foundation for Outlook’s responsive chassis systems. The structure is reinforced in numerous areas with high-strength steel, including a stiff steel cross-car beam welded across the floor between the B-pillars. It also uses dual-phase steel is select areas, such as the lower engine compartment rails.

NEVER.

UNDERESTIMATE.

GENERAL.

MOTORS.

(or Volkswagen)

 

[JCE]

Yeah. But the Accord is such a good vehicle.



You asked for it.

My boy the ugly Civic EX sedan vs. Volkswagen Jetta 2.5

1. Engine. Does the Jetta have one? Scientists are still looking. The Civic's 140hp 1.8-liter four may have ten less horsepower than the Jetta's 2.5-liter five, but its acceleration is leagues better, because Volkswagen is still deciding what a transmission is. HONDA WINS

2. Fuel economy. The Jetta is surely having a laugh.
- Civic (140hp 1.8L 4-cyl): 30/38 manual; 30/40 automatic
- Jetta (150hp 2.5L 5-cyl): 22/30 manual; 22/30 automatic
Indeed - the Civic's city fuel economy equals the Jetta's highway fuel economy. I barely even believe that. Volkswagen isn't just deciding with a transmission is - it's still trying to figure out what device to use in order to get the engine's power to the wheels. HONDA WINS

3. Standard features. Really the only feature disparity that the Honda has over the Jetta is a power sunroof, a $1600 option on the Jetta. The Jetta has a 6-disc CD changer, though that only tends to run about half the price of a sunroof. Both vehicles are decidedly well-equipped, with split-folding rear seats, all sorts of airbags, air-con, anti-lock 4-wheel disc brakes, and 16" alloys. However the sunroof thing means that HONDA WINS

4. Interior size. Civic has more front head room, more front leg room, and more rear head room. Again, HONDA WINS

5. Pricing. This is the basic kicker. The cars are quite similar. The Jetta has more trunkspace, the Honda's quicker, the Jetta has 6-CD, the Honda has a sunroof. The Honda has better fuel economy and is larger inside, though, and that puts the Jetta out of commission when you consider that the Jetta goes for $21400 and the Civic EX for $19100. It's a $2300 disparity that Volkswagen cannot justify.

Moving right along...



Not at all. I don't want to do the comparo though. Just know there's a reason people buy these vehicles.



The Porsche Boxster is $11000 more than the S2000. It's slower and it's got less stuff. The Porsche Boxster is the one that's overpriced. Granted, the 350Z blows them both out of the water but it's all a matter of perspective.




No.

Honda Pilot EX-L vs. Chevrolet Trailblazer LT EXT

1. Engine. Yeah, Chevrolet gives Trailby (say: "trailbee" - and how I will refer to it henceforth) more power (291 vs 244) so then why is acceleration better with the Pilot? Because, Trailby weighs about as much as a locomotive, and looks like one too. HONDA WINS

2. Fuel economy. Here's where that more power thing bites Chevrolet in the ass. Honda's fuel economy is 18/24 vs. 16/21 with Trailby. Trailby is quite fuel efficient too - Explorer's big engine is even worse than Trailby's. HONDA WINS

3. Standard features:
- Curtain side airbags: Standard Honda, $495 Trailblazer
- Front side airbags: Standard Honda, Not available Trailblazer
- 6-disc CD changer: Standard Honda, $395 Trailblazer
- Leather upholstery: Standard Honda, $1075 Trailblazer (part of a package)
- Satellite radio: Standard Honda, $325 Trailblazer
- Heated seats: Standard Honda, $895 Trailblazer (part of a package)
- Power sunroof: Standard Honda, $800 Trailblazer
- Automatic climate control: Standard Honda, $625 Trailblazer (part of a package)
HONDA WINS. Does the Trailblazer have anything standard?

4. Interior size. Honda has more front head room, rear head room, rear leg room, and cargo volume. HONDA WINS though Chevrolet has a ridiculous amount of front leg room.

5. Pricing. The Pilot EX-L, which was put here to embarrass the Chevrolet because of its high level of features, is $33000 - admittedly $2700 more than the $30300 Trailblazer EXT LT. However, when the Trailblazer is optioned to equal the feature level of the Pilot, its price jumps some $4600 - to a total of nearly $35000. More modest Pilots exist: the base one is just $27000. HONDA WINS

So there's that.



Neither vehicle is overpriced. Do the comparison yourself though, I'm all comparisoned out.

My comparison is like YSSMAN said vs the Rabbit. The Rabbit would easily win out due to it's standard feature list. The interior in the new Civic is not a selling point but a counter-selling point--or anti-selling point if you will. The Civic is a great econobox but my point still stands, Honda PURPOSELY overcharges for it. That can never be refuted because it's true. If Honda lowered the price at least $1000 it would be a good deal...and if lowered $2k it would be a great deal.

The Odyssey (like I said) is probably not overpriced--but adding extra luxuries on it like rez and nav boosts the price up quite a bit...

I said I liked the Pilot...and you even admit the price is a little bit high when spec'd out. When fully spec'd out with every available option I'll venture a guess that the Honda is more. I still maintain if Honda didn't mark the Pilot up the $1500-2000 it would be a really good deal. Again, I really like the Pilot.

Nothing anyone can say about the CRV or Element will ever change my mind. I am CLOSED-MINDED in regards to these two POS. They aren't worth the materials they are made with in my opinion.

I don't hate 85% of Honda, I (like alot of other people BTW) think they are priced on average $1000-2000 too much on everything but the Accord (non-Hybrid). I really don't want anyone to think I'm just a Honda hater, I'm not. My opinion is a legitimate beef. 👍 Now let me see the flames that has ensued as I've been typing between you and YSSMAN. 👍

*edit*
When the Astra comes to American shores I guarantee it will sell well and take some customers away from Honda, Toyota, Nissan, GM, and Ford. That Astra certainly looks better than any hatchback here.

 

[YSSMAN]

...Didn't I say we have been missing some flames up in herrrre?

I'm calling Honda out for what it is, but not calling them a bad name by any means.

Honda and Toyota both changed the way that automakers will be building their cars for probably the next few decades. Demanding levels of quality and safety above and beyond the standard was really (and strangely) something new, especially when the two took hold on the American market in the 1980's.

...But, Honda and Toyota have become lazy with quality, and like JCE3000GT has pointed out, now can charge more for their products simply because they are Hondas or Toyotas... And he should know, he used to work for a Honda dealer.

My proof? The folks at the local Honda dealer actually thought they could pull the wool over my eyes and try to sell me a Honda Civic EX for more than a comparibly equipped Mazda 6i. Ha, nice one Honda! Their reasoning? Its a Civic, and it's better than any Mazda, I kid you not...

Prices are prices folks, and untill Honda and Toyota get back into the pricing game, I could predict that they may eventually lose out on sales because of their ability to overcharge with fewer features.

Quite frankly, that exprience I had at Honda that day has scared my opinion of the company for quite some time. Added to that, when I was last there (about a month ago) checking out the Fit, I was pretty much ignored, and thus I have decided to take my business elsewhere.

 

[1X83Z]

Ouch, someone sure hates GM and Volkswagen!!!

I don't have automotive biases.

1) I was comparing the Rabbit and Civic DX on price, and is that not what it is all about? Trim levels don't matter when your budget is limited to $16K for a brand new car. And yes, the Rabbit does come with four-doors, but the price bumps upward to $16,990 and comes with a few other extras as well.

The problem with comparing the two "on price," as you did, is that the Rabbit you posted almost exactly split the difference between the Civic DX and the Civic LX. In fact, the infinitely better Civic LX is just $1800 more than the crappy DX model. It'd make a world of difference in the comparo - especially because the Civic is quicker and fuel economy is an absurd 35% better. You'd make that $1800 back in fuel savings and stoplight races (yeah, wagered ones) with Rabbit owners in like three years.

...So then, what's your point? The Rabbit still undercuts the Civic not only in price and standard features, but also in utility as well. What are you going to tell me next, the Honda has VTEC? lol!

I agree I agree. I'm not even going to argue the Civic is better than the Rabbit (I haven't seen final pricing for the Rabbit anyway). But here's one thing you should agree on: both the Rabbit and the Civic are close competitors, and most importantly, they're both at the top of the compact car game. Neither vehicle is a bad value. The Civic may be a bad value compared to the Rabbit, but it's a good one versus the Jetta - and at the end of the day, the Civic, Rabbit, and Jetta are three of the three best small cars. Subaru Impreza, Mitsubishi Lancer, Chevrolet Aveo, Toyota Yaris, Kia Rio? Give me a break.

Care to take a peek at the early Outlook stats?

Anything the 3.6-liter V6 goes into is automatically 10% more expensive than its competition. See my comparison between the Lacrosse and the Accord. GM can't seem to understand the simple theory of competition as it relates to that damn engine.

I said I liked the Pilot...and you even admit the price is a little bit high when spec'd out. When fully spec'd out with every available option I'll venture a guess that the Honda is more. I still maintain if Honda didn't mark the Pilot up the $1500-2000 it would be a really good deal. Again, I really like the Pilot.

Honda does not offer options. Don't you know that? That's what makes Hondas such good deals: what you see is what you get. This has changed a bit lately, because DVD and nav have become Honda options, although if you ask Honda (can you ask an entity a question?) it will tell you that "Honda Pilot EX-L with DVD player" is a trim level. Swear to god. And no - the Trailblazer will be the more expensive of the two. I just did the comparison, for God's sake!

Nothing anyone can say about the CRV or Element will ever change my mind. I am CLOSED-MINDED in regards to these two POS. They aren't worth the materials they are made with in my opinion.

I'm not going to argue. On a personal level I hate the CR-V with a passion, because I believe that "Real-time AWD" is a complete load of ****. But on paper, it's a good car, if you can get past its underpowered engine. Basically, it's the small SUV for the quiet, unassuming types. Low on power, high on fuel economy, no V6, and small. Acceleration is surprising though - mid 8s to 60 makes it competitive with various six-cylinder small SUVs. Element is just a CR-V except for a bit less money.

...But, Honda and Toyota have become lazy with quality, and like JCE3000GT has pointed out, now can charge more for their products simply because they are Hondas or Toyotas... And he should know, he used to work for a Honda dealer.

Ugh. How many freaking comparisons do I have to do? This is plainly FALSE. Honda offers MORE features and MORE everything else than competition at an EXTREMELY fair price. It's not their fault their reputation has become such that people THINK they're marking up cars for no reason. They DON'T do that - they're not BMW, for God's sake.

 

[YSSMAN]

^Points taken, but I must continue to respectfully disagree. Alas, it's bedtime, and I'm up about an hour and a half later than expected.

...See you all by noon tomorow...

 

[JCE]

Ugh. How many freaking comparisons do I have to do? This is plainly FALSE. Honda offers MORE features and MORE everything else than competition at an EXTREMELY fair price. It's not their fault their reputation has become such that people THINK they're marking up cars for no reason. They DON'T do that - they're not BMW, for God's sake.

I must respectfully disagree. I, afterall, repeatedly said, that I worked for a Honda dealer and trust me when I tell you they DO infact as a whole rip the customers off. You NEVER see cars being sold for invoice or $250-500 over invoice like I see all day everyday in a Ford dealer and the Nissan dealer when I sold cars there. I mean, you can't be serious when you say Honda isn't marking up the Civic to make more profits because of the whole gas crisis? It's not that they are marking up the cars for no reason...they have a reason...a legitimate one. I guarantee if I walked into a Honda dealer, Chevrolet dealer, Ford dealer, Toyota dealer, or a Nissan dealer I guarantee every one of those dealers but Honda will take more off of the price when they know I'm a serious shopper. Let me let you in on the secret to Honda's thinking here having worked for a dealer. Honda knows that their customers are going to buy Hondas so they don't need to do anykind of price wars...hell they almost NEVER offer a 0% or a 1.9% APR because they know that their bread and butter are previous Honda owners who will pay whatever to get into a new Honda. These other dealers are trying to compete with themselves so they have to offer more discounts to try and take the market share away from the others. Honda doesn't play by these rules, they'll make money for eternity on repeat business. This is a good thing for the other automakers in my opinion because they have more of a choice now than I've seen in the last 15 years. Honda could never get a "new" customer again and still be profitable on repeat customers. And anyway it's time for me to refrain from continuing this conversation. Between YSS, you, and I we've pretty much covered this topic. 👍

 

[1X83Z]

I must respectfully disagree. I, afterall, repeatedly said, that I worked for a Honda dealer and trust me when I tell you they DO infact as a whole rip the customers off. You NEVER see cars being sold for invoice or $250-500 over invoice like I see all day everyday in a Ford dealer and the Nissan dealer when I sold cars there.

Re-read this statement. It's laughable. You're calling cars ripoffs because they're not selling for invoice! Try this on for size: the cars don't sell for invoice because there's enough DEMAND so that they can sell for MSRP! For christ's sake, the reason that Fords all go for invoice or slightly above is because every single Ford currently on sale is an also-ran in every single market in which it competes. This simply isn't the case for Honda, which builds a world-class minivan, midsize SUV, small sedan, and, most of all, midsize sedan. And for the record: the manufacturer's suggested retail price includes markup - the dealer is the one who chooses, based on demand, whether to follow the MSRP.

In essence, Honda sells cars at MSRP or north because that's what demand dictates.