Honda: CR-V News
12-19-2011, 06:16 PM
#721
AZ Community Team
12-19-2011, 09:01 PM
#722
The following 2 users liked this post by phile:
civicdrivr (12-19-2011),
Legend2TL (12-28-2011)
12-27-2011, 11:55 AM
#723
Safety Car
MotorTrend
In the beginning Honda created the CR-V and it sold well. There was no rest on the 7th day, as it existed in a world of dinosaur-size competition, and there was still no rest by day 5840, when Honda unveiled the 2012 CR-V -- long after the dinosaurs fell prey to the meteorite-like impact of rising fuel prices.
The 4th generation 2012 Honda CR-V, Honda's smallest SUV, hosts numerous updates that, when taken apart, might seem minor and inconsequential, but together they make for a vehicle that's more fuel-efficient, more powerful, and larger inside. The new CR-V is the product of meticulous changes from its creator, unlike us damn dirty apes who drive it.
The improvements appear in a range between zero and 5. The CR-V's 2.4-liter inline-4 has 5 more horsepower and 2 more lb-ft of torque, but we challenge you to spot the difference from the driver's seat. AWD models get a fuel economy improvement of 1 and 3 mpg city/highway, thanks to a longer final gear ratio and efficiency increases throughout the powertrain. Weight has been shed in small amounts everywhere, adding up to an 139-pound decrease relative to its predecessor. The result is a CR-V that carries 1.3 fewer pounds per horsepower.
These incremental changes return likewise incremental performance benefits. Our loaded EX-L tester reaches 60 mph in 9.1 seconds, or a tenth faster than the best time we recorded from the previous generation. The difference shrinks to zero at the quarter mile, and there the CR-V is traveling 83 mph. Its 28.8-second figure-eight lap time also matches the previous gen, but most impressive is the CR-V's accurate steering, front-end response, and lift throttle-induced rotation.
Honda's decision to stick with a 5-speed automatic becomes more apparent on the road. Lengthening the final drive (from 4.50 to 4.44) in the name of fuel economy does reduce engine speed at freeway cruising, but it also extends the ratio spread. While choosing one of the 5 long gears goes by unnoticeably in most instances, other functions -- like passing traffic or merging onto the freeway -- highlight the need for more options. The ratio spread provided from a 6-speed transmission would seem a better solution, one some competitors are already using.
While Honda has added more sound-deadening material, engine noise still rings through the cabin during sustained heavy-throttle applications, as in the aforementioned on-ramp experience. The sound is traditional Honda, and it's one enthusiasts might enjoy, but that your mom probably won't. Both will agree to avoid the green Econ button. When engaged, climate controls come on less frequently, and you have access to what feels like a quarter of the gas pedal.
Similarly questionable is Honda's infotainment system, which is divided into a main 6.5-inch screen in the center of the dash and a 5-inch screen not far above. The main screen contains the navigation functions (when so equipped), audio controls, and so on, while the smaller screen shows fuel-economy data, as well as audio information and turn-by-turn prompts. While our initial response to this setup was positive ("Small Stuff," January 2012), the longer we stared at that 2nd screen, the more it felt redundant. Why can't a larger, single screen do everything? In the Civic, the 2nd screen is driver-oriented, sitting in clear view to the right of the speedometer. In the CR-V, it is recessed in the top center of the dash, giving the impression that it might disappear in a fight-or-flight scenario.
The rest of the interior packaging is clever. While exterior length and height have decreased, total passenger volume has increased 0.6 cubic feet and cargo volume behind the 2nd row has increased 1.5 cubic feet. Dropping the rear seat to access that space takes 1 hand: Pull the strap and the bottom flips forward and the seatback drops, giving access to the rear cargo area. In another update, the outer edge of the driver's sideview mirror has a wide-angle partition, providing easy view of the blind spot.
The design of the new CR-V proves largely intelligent. We can offer only minor complaints about some odd mutations, but we can levy the same niggles at wisdom teeth. Questionable (and evolution-relevant) mutations aside, the CR-V remains a solid car in its element, a careful and mostly well-executed update of an already popular and successful product that should carry it far beyond the prehistoric age.
2012 Honda CR-V EX-L
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front engine, AWD
ENGINE TYPE I-4, aluminum block/head
VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT 143.7 cu in/2354 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO 10.0:1
POWER (SAE NET) 185 hp @ 7000 rpm
TORQUE (SAE NET) 163 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
REDLINE 7000 rpm
WEIGHT TO POWER 18.7 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION 5-speed automatic
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 4.44:1/2.51:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO 16.7:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 3.2
BRAKES, F;R 11.7-in vented disc; 12.0-in disc, ABS
WHEELS 6.5 x 17-in, cast aluminum
TIRES 225/65R17 102T M+S Continential CrossContact LX
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE 103.1 in
TRACK, F/R 61.6/61.6 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 178.3 x 71.6 x 65.1 in
GROUND CLEARANCE 6.7 in
APPRCH/DEPEART ANGLE 28.0/21.0 deg
TURNING CIRCLE 37.3 ft
CURB WEIGHT 3451 lb
WEIGHT DIST, F/R 58/42%
TOWING CAPACITY 1500 lb
SEATING CAPACITY 5
HEADROOM, F/R 38.0/38.6 in
LEGROOM, F/R 41.3/38.3 in
SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 58.6/56.4 in
CARGO VOL BEHIND F/R 70.9/37.2 cu ft
TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 3.2 sec
0-40 4.7
0-50 6.8
0-60 9.1
0-70 11.7
0-80 15.4
0-90 20.2
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 4.7
QUARTER MILE 16.9 sec @ 83.0 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 126 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.78 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 28.8 sec @ 0.58 g (avg)
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1900 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE $29,105
PRICE AS TESTED $30,605
TRUE CAR TRUEVALUE PRICE* $29,662
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/yes
AIRBAGS Dual front, front side, f/r curtain
BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/36,000 mi
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 yrs/60,000 mi
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE None
FUEL CAPACITY 15.3 gal
EPA CITY/HWY ECON 22/30 mpg
ENERGY CON, CITY/HWY 153/112 kW-hrs/100 mi
CO2 EMISSIONS 0.78 lb/mi
RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded regular
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front engine, AWD
ENGINE TYPE I-4, aluminum block/head
VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT 143.7 cu in/2354 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO 10.0:1
POWER (SAE NET) 185 hp @ 7000 rpm
TORQUE (SAE NET) 163 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
REDLINE 7000 rpm
WEIGHT TO POWER 18.7 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION 5-speed automatic
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 4.44:1/2.51:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO 16.7:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 3.2
BRAKES, F;R 11.7-in vented disc; 12.0-in disc, ABS
WHEELS 6.5 x 17-in, cast aluminum
TIRES 225/65R17 102T M+S Continential CrossContact LX
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE 103.1 in
TRACK, F/R 61.6/61.6 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 178.3 x 71.6 x 65.1 in
GROUND CLEARANCE 6.7 in
APPRCH/DEPEART ANGLE 28.0/21.0 deg
TURNING CIRCLE 37.3 ft
CURB WEIGHT 3451 lb
WEIGHT DIST, F/R 58/42%
TOWING CAPACITY 1500 lb
SEATING CAPACITY 5
HEADROOM, F/R 38.0/38.6 in
LEGROOM, F/R 41.3/38.3 in
SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 58.6/56.4 in
CARGO VOL BEHIND F/R 70.9/37.2 cu ft
TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 3.2 sec
0-40 4.7
0-50 6.8
0-60 9.1
0-70 11.7
0-80 15.4
0-90 20.2
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 4.7
QUARTER MILE 16.9 sec @ 83.0 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 126 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.78 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 28.8 sec @ 0.58 g (avg)
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1900 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE $29,105
PRICE AS TESTED $30,605
TRUE CAR TRUEVALUE PRICE* $29,662
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/yes
AIRBAGS Dual front, front side, f/r curtain
BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/36,000 mi
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 yrs/60,000 mi
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE None
FUEL CAPACITY 15.3 gal
EPA CITY/HWY ECON 22/30 mpg
ENERGY CON, CITY/HWY 153/112 kW-hrs/100 mi
CO2 EMISSIONS 0.78 lb/mi
RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded regular
12-27-2011, 12:21 PM
#724
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
I saw the CRV last weekend on the road. Its actually not bad looking. The D pillar looks weird though.
12-27-2011, 12:47 PM
#725
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
Isn't the current generation RAV-4 much faster than this CR-V? Just curious.
12-28-2011, 06:48 AM
#726
AZ Community Team
Needs a 6AT but otherwise I like it.
12-28-2011, 01:44 PM
#728
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
Oh I see.
The new CR-V doesn't offer V6, correct?
The new CR-V doesn't offer V6, correct?
12-28-2011, 10:57 PM
#729
My first Avatar....
^
Correct.
Correct.
12-29-2011, 12:29 PM
#730
12-30-2011, 08:59 PM
#732
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
free up more cargo room in the back?
01-03-2012, 11:52 AM
#733
01-03-2012, 12:03 PM
#734
The sizzle in the Steak
If they did, that is a bad strategy.
I don't see customers jumping from the CRV to the RDX when they are cross shopping just to get a V6.
Why buy an RDX starting at nearly $34k when one can buy a vehicle with the same or more features from Kia (Turbo 4), Toyota (V6) for quite a bit less coin?
I don't think that is Honda's strategy. I think Honda frankly sees no need at this point to put a more powerful engine in the CRV class of vehicle. Period.
01-03-2012, 12:11 PM
#735
AZ Community Team
Perhaps Colin can chime in, but I don't think you can fit a J-series into a CRV engine bay.
01-03-2012, 12:36 PM
#736
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
And sales give them no reason to alter that strategy. Although I don't think the option of a V6 CR-V would hurt either. In fact it may even boost sales.
01-03-2012, 04:02 PM
#738
I don't think Honda has ever stated that.
If they did, that is a bad strategy.
I don't see customers jumping from the CRV to the RDX when they are cross shopping just to get a V6.
Why buy an RDX starting at nearly $34k when one can buy a vehicle with the same or more features from Kia (Turbo 4), Toyota (V6) for quite a bit less coin?
I don't think that is Honda's strategy. I think Honda frankly sees no need at this point to put a more powerful engine in the CRV class of vehicle. Period.
If they did, that is a bad strategy.
I don't see customers jumping from the CRV to the RDX when they are cross shopping just to get a V6.
Why buy an RDX starting at nearly $34k when one can buy a vehicle with the same or more features from Kia (Turbo 4), Toyota (V6) for quite a bit less coin?
I don't think that is Honda's strategy. I think Honda frankly sees no need at this point to put a more powerful engine in the CRV class of vehicle. Period.
It's like the Pilot vs the MDX. A fully optioned Pilot is crossing into Acura pricing territory - yet you still can't get HIDs, for example. But on an Acura sedan (TSX for example) cheaper than the Pilot, you get luxury items.
01-03-2012, 05:44 PM
#739
The sizzle in the Steak
^^ HID's are luxury items?!?!? Only Honda thinks that way 
01-03-2012, 05:58 PM
#740
AZ Community Team
Nice try Deb 
, but HID's are standard on all 2012 Acura's but Mercedes Benz thinks HID's are luxury items. Xenon HID's are optional on a $50K E-Class.
http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl.../bodystyle-SDN
A few years back on the previous gen S-class HID's were also optional (now standard) when IIRC they were standard on the Chevy Trailblazer. None the less, AFAIK on non-luxury new cars the majority still use still use halogen bulbs.
, but HID's are standard on all 2012 Acura's but Mercedes Benz thinks HID's are luxury items. Xenon HID's are optional on a $50K E-Class.http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl.../bodystyle-SDN
A few years back on the previous gen S-class HID's were also optional (now standard) when IIRC they were standard on the Chevy Trailblazer. None the less, AFAIK on non-luxury new cars the majority still use still use halogen bulbs.
Last edited by Legend2TL; 01-03-2012 at 06:11 PM.
01-03-2012, 06:05 PM
#741
01-03-2012, 06:05 PM
#742
Moderator
Nice try Deb , but Mercedes Benz feels the same way. Xenon HID's are optional on a $50K E-Class.
http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl.../bodystyle-SDN
, but Mercedes Benz feels the same way. Xenon HID's are optional on a $50K E-Class.http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl.../bodystyle-SDN
01-03-2012, 06:07 PM
#743
Nice try Deb , but Mercedes Benz feels the same way. Xenon HID's are optional on a $50K E-Class.
http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl.../bodystyle-SDN
, but Mercedes Benz feels the same way. Xenon HID's are optional on a $50K E-Class.http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl.../bodystyle-SDN
I remember seeing the M-Class with LED tail lights one night and I said to myself "oh wow they redid the lights, looks cool now" - only to find out when I went on the MB site that LEDs were optional on the M-Class, and that thing is like 60K.
At least Acura is better than that. they may hold out on the Honda models, but you get it with the Acuras.
01-03-2012, 06:12 PM
#744
The sizzle in the Steak
01-03-2012, 06:15 PM
#745
Moderator
Yep. One of the reasons I opted for my 3G TL back in 2006. A similarly equipped BMW 3, or MB C, or Audi A4, would all cost $000's more dollars. Too bad Acura dropped the ball in so many other areas since then. Oh well.
01-03-2012, 06:17 PM
#746
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
01-03-2012, 06:31 PM
#747
AZ Community Team
Then Honda/Acura aint for you, IIRC the only line item option on Honda's and Acura's is Nav and summer tires. The rest are part of trim packages. Always has been though the number of trim packages has been increasing over time to offer a wider trim range.
Last edited by Legend2TL; 01-03-2012 at 06:36 PM.
01-03-2012, 06:35 PM
#748
Moderator
Sidenote - if Honda has this same "we ain't for you" attitude with enough customers (and potential customers) the results will be bad; they don't have the cache to get away with it.
01-03-2012, 06:44 PM
#749
AZ Community Team
1) it tend to provide better value
2) allows cross-shopping between dealers
and some consumers hate it because
1) does not allow personalization
2) have to buy certain features and functions they don't want
but to me they've changed a fair amount when I purchased my TL, I had to wait about a month to get
1) 6MT
2) non-Nav
3) Black paint
4) Camel interior
5) non-summer tire
So in a way my Acura although it had a standard model code was sorta personalized for me. Now Acura's allow much greater range of color combinations. On the 3G TL, black paint had all four color interior's available. It used to be more limited in number of color combinations.
My guess is Honda does this for supply change management, though not many other manufacturers follow it. I've always liked the approach since the trim levels make sense most of the time, though recently Honda stopped selling Accord sedan EX's 5MT. As for line item options, to me most of the time they cost alot more than trim level/option groups unless you're talking domestic manufacturers.
Last edited by Legend2TL; 01-03-2012 at 06:54 PM.
01-03-2012, 06:47 PM
#750
^ you're talking about an Acura, though. the Honda side is pretty bad with these things. I'm not asking for a V8 in a Civic, but I'd like to see better at night with some optional HIDs or something. I like the Acura side, it's much better than a lot of other luxury makers.
01-03-2012, 06:49 PM
#751
Moderator
No one's disputing whether "some" consumers will fall on one side of the issue or the other; that's inevitable. My point is that attempting to force consumers one direction or the other is dangerous, especially in the automotive industry where perceptions regarding brand cache matter so deeply. If Company A attempts to force their customers in a direction of a la carte car buying, but doesn't have the perceived brand capital to do so, it's my prediction that Company A will realize a negative outcome in that effort.
01-03-2012, 06:53 PM
#752
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
You are right. This is why I don't even look at Honda cars when car shopping.
01-03-2012, 07:03 PM
#753
AZ Community Team
I think you may be confused by the meaning of a la carte
Typically that means ordering individual items, which is not the typical Honda/Acura model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%80_la_carte
Typically that means ordering individual items, which is not the typical Honda/Acura model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%80_la_carte
No one's disputing whether "some" consumers will fall on one side of the issue or the other; that's inevitable. My point is that attempting to force consumers one direction or the other is dangerous, especially in the automotive industry where perceptions regarding brand cache matter so deeply. If Company A attempts to force their customers in a direction of a la carte car buying, but doesn't have the perceived brand capital to do so, it's my prediction that Company A will realize a negative outcome in that effort.
01-03-2012, 07:11 PM
#754
AZ Community Team
^ you're talking about an Acura, though. the Honda side is pretty bad with these things. I'm not asking for a V8 in a Civic, but I'd like to see better at night with some optional HIDs or something. I like the Acura side, it's much better than a lot of other luxury makers.
I was recently checking out a Accord and I noticed now the same basic 4 cylinder has two HP ratings for the LX vs. the SE/EX model. I thought that was curious since for the more upscale models they tune (ECU I'm guessing) for more power.
Last edited by Legend2TL; 01-03-2012 at 07:19 PM.
01-03-2012, 08:18 PM
#755
Moderator
I think you may be confused by the meaning of a la carte
Typically that means ordering individual items, which is not the typical Honda/Acura model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%80_la_carte
Typically that means ordering individual items, which is not the typical Honda/Acura model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%80_la_carte
ETA: it was a bad example since it was too close to the mark in terms of the discussion. The point I was trying to make is that an auto company is spending market capital it may not have when it attempts to move its customers in ANY direction relative to how cars are purchased.
Last edited by ttribe; 01-03-2012 at 08:24 PM.
01-03-2012, 08:39 PM
#756
AZ Community Team
Wasn't sure since previously you posted against trim levels (or fixed selection) at Acura and described some consumers as being against it as a negative.
Then you stated "If Company A attempts to force their customers in a direction of a la carte car buying, but doesn't have the perceived brand capital to do so, it's my prediction that Company A will realize a negative outcome in that effort.". So you did a 180 in your a la carte analogy to line item optioning so it was confusing to say the least to read.
I think every buyer is different in this area, but to me it's not a major decision factor. The base car is more important to me than the how the options are selected or packaged. So despite the tech and whatever packages the 4G TL have to offer, the 3G TL was a better choice to me since it's a nicer car overall.
Then you stated "If Company A attempts to force their customers in a direction of a la carte car buying, but doesn't have the perceived brand capital to do so, it's my prediction that Company A will realize a negative outcome in that effort.". So you did a 180 in your a la carte analogy to line item optioning so it was confusing to say the least to read.
I think every buyer is different in this area, but to me it's not a major decision factor. The base car is more important to me than the how the options are selected or packaged. So despite the tech and whatever packages the 4G TL have to offer, the 3G TL was a better choice to me since it's a nicer car overall.
Good grief...I know what "a la carte" means; I was using it as an example. Notice how I was speaking in general terms about "Company A." I was doing so to make a point.
ETA: it was a bad example since it was too close to the mark in terms of the discussion. The point I was trying to make is that an auto company is spending market capital it may not have when it attempts to move its customers in ANY direction relative to how cars are purchased.
ETA: it was a bad example since it was too close to the mark in terms of the discussion. The point I was trying to make is that an auto company is spending market capital it may not have when it attempts to move its customers in ANY direction relative to how cars are purchased.
Last edited by Legend2TL; 01-03-2012 at 08:52 PM.
01-04-2012, 01:18 AM
#757
I just wanted to jump in on the whole "no V6 in the CRV, but the RDX will have a V6" issue.
Why, then, did Honda have an I4 and a V6 in the Accord when the TL always had a V6? And for the longest time the TSX only had a 4-cylinder as engine choice.... but more on that in a bit.
I know you can't make excellent market decisions in each and every facet of the auto business but c'mon.... quit making excuses for Honda or any other car company for that matter. Things like this and the lack of a 2WD version/multiple engine choices for the Ridgeline, the non-existent/ineffective marketing of the RL, the half-assed dropping in of a V6 in the TSX, etc. I think they forever and always will be catching up to Toyota. The V6 in the 2G TSX midway though the model cycle reminds me of them putting in the 2.7 V6 from the late-80s Legend for mid-90s Accord.
Volkswagen recently made the Passat bigger, lowered the quality of some interior materials, decontented the car, and lowered the MSRP..... it ended up winning Motor Trend's Car of the Year. Honda did almost the same things with the Civic, and it placed 9th out of 11 in a comparison, and now they are doing an early refresh. At the very least, maybe this is a sign that they will be less complacent and risk-averse and get out there a little more.
Almost everyone here complained about the Civic interior from spy shots.... and to think the CEO demanded it be delayed and redesigned.
Why, then, did Honda have an I4 and a V6 in the Accord when the TL always had a V6? And for the longest time the TSX only had a 4-cylinder as engine choice.... but more on that in a bit.
I know you can't make excellent market decisions in each and every facet of the auto business but c'mon.... quit making excuses for Honda or any other car company for that matter. Things like this and the lack of a 2WD version/multiple engine choices for the Ridgeline, the non-existent/ineffective marketing of the RL, the half-assed dropping in of a V6 in the TSX, etc. I think they forever and always will be catching up to Toyota. The V6 in the 2G TSX midway though the model cycle reminds me of them putting in the 2.7 V6 from the late-80s Legend for mid-90s Accord.
Volkswagen recently made the Passat bigger, lowered the quality of some interior materials, decontented the car, and lowered the MSRP..... it ended up winning Motor Trend's Car of the Year. Honda did almost the same things with the Civic, and it placed 9th out of 11 in a comparison, and now they are doing an early refresh. At the very least, maybe this is a sign that they will be less complacent and risk-averse and get out there a little more.
Almost everyone here complained about the Civic interior from spy shots.... and to think the CEO demanded it be delayed and redesigned.
01-04-2012, 07:09 AM
#758
AZ Community Team
That was a good example with the Passat, I was looking at one at the VW dealership and agree they did a good compromise job of lowering the price and content. My parents have a 2012 Civic LX and it's price didn't come down despite some cheaper looking interior plastic, although a few new features were also added. Can only imagine what the previous design was like.
Lately I think Honda has focused too much on more mainstream approaches to it's products (as you say emulating Toyota), this worked very well for mini-vans and SUV's but not well for sedans and they've abandoned sportscars. The lowering of quality interior pieces and add into that a disastrous F1 campaign.
At the very least Honda has openly acknowledged problems in Honda (too boring) and Acura (product positioning). It will be interesting to see what happens in 2-3 years with some of the next gen MDX, Accord, RL as to whether they can execute on a new strategy that moves them back to their fundamental roots of providing vehicles that are fun to drive.
FWIW, the 1G TL had both a inline 5 cylinder and a V6 (C-series) when the Accord had a inline 4 cylinder and a V6 (C-series).
Lately I think Honda has focused too much on more mainstream approaches to it's products (as you say emulating Toyota), this worked very well for mini-vans and SUV's but not well for sedans and they've abandoned sportscars. The lowering of quality interior pieces and add into that a disastrous F1 campaign.
At the very least Honda has openly acknowledged problems in Honda (too boring) and Acura (product positioning). It will be interesting to see what happens in 2-3 years with some of the next gen MDX, Accord, RL as to whether they can execute on a new strategy that moves them back to their fundamental roots of providing vehicles that are fun to drive.
FWIW, the 1G TL had both a inline 5 cylinder and a V6 (C-series) when the Accord had a inline 4 cylinder and a V6 (C-series).
I just wanted to jump in on the whole "no V6 in the CRV, but the RDX will have a V6" issue.
Why, then, did Honda have an I4 and a V6 in the Accord when the TL always had a V6? And for the longest time the TSX only had a 4-cylinder as engine choice.... but more on that in a bit.
I know you can't make excellent market decisions in each and every facet of the auto business but c'mon.... quit making excuses for Honda or any other car company for that matter. Things like this and the lack of a 2WD version/multiple engine choices for the Ridgeline, the non-existent/ineffective marketing of the RL, the half-assed dropping in of a V6 in the TSX, etc. I think they forever and always will be catching up to Toyota. The V6 in the 2G TSX midway though the model cycle reminds me of them putting in the 2.7 V6 from the late-80s Legend for mid-90s Accord.
Volkswagen recently made the Passat bigger, lowered the quality of some interior materials, decontented the car, and lowered the MSRP..... it ended up winning Motor Trend's Car of the Year. Honda did almost the same things with the Civic, and it placed 9th out of 11 in a comparison, and now they are doing an early refresh. At the very least, maybe this is a sign that they will be less complacent and risk-averse and get out there a little more.
Almost everyone here complained about the Civic interior from spy shots.... and to think the CEO demanded it be delayed and redesigned.
Why, then, did Honda have an I4 and a V6 in the Accord when the TL always had a V6? And for the longest time the TSX only had a 4-cylinder as engine choice.... but more on that in a bit.
I know you can't make excellent market decisions in each and every facet of the auto business but c'mon.... quit making excuses for Honda or any other car company for that matter. Things like this and the lack of a 2WD version/multiple engine choices for the Ridgeline, the non-existent/ineffective marketing of the RL, the half-assed dropping in of a V6 in the TSX, etc. I think they forever and always will be catching up to Toyota. The V6 in the 2G TSX midway though the model cycle reminds me of them putting in the 2.7 V6 from the late-80s Legend for mid-90s Accord.
Volkswagen recently made the Passat bigger, lowered the quality of some interior materials, decontented the car, and lowered the MSRP..... it ended up winning Motor Trend's Car of the Year. Honda did almost the same things with the Civic, and it placed 9th out of 11 in a comparison, and now they are doing an early refresh. At the very least, maybe this is a sign that they will be less complacent and risk-averse and get out there a little more.
Almost everyone here complained about the Civic interior from spy shots.... and to think the CEO demanded it be delayed and redesigned.
Last edited by Legend2TL; 01-04-2012 at 07:16 AM.
01-04-2012, 05:43 PM
#759
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
I don't think Honda has ever stated that.
If they did, that is a bad strategy.
I don't see customers jumping from the CRV to the RDX when they are cross shopping just to get a V6.
Why buy an RDX starting at nearly $34k when one can buy a vehicle with the same or more features from Kia (Turbo 4), Toyota (V6) for quite a bit less coin?
I don't think that is Honda's strategy. I think Honda frankly sees no need at this point to put a more powerful engine in the CRV class of vehicle. Period.
If they did, that is a bad strategy.
I don't see customers jumping from the CRV to the RDX when they are cross shopping just to get a V6.
Why buy an RDX starting at nearly $34k when one can buy a vehicle with the same or more features from Kia (Turbo 4), Toyota (V6) for quite a bit less coin?
I don't think that is Honda's strategy. I think Honda frankly sees no need at this point to put a more powerful engine in the CRV class of vehicle. Period.
The RDX starts at $32.8k. A Rav 4 Limited V6 starts at $2k less. Is that a huge difference? I think it's hard to say. Although it probably doesn't mean much, but at least it's you are getting a Acura rather than a Toyota.
I agree though, Honda doesn't think a V6 is needed in the CR-V as it's selling so damn well already.
01-30-2012, 08:50 AM
#760
Safety Car
Suepr Bowl Commercial