Do people still have that opinion of Ford (or American cars for that matter)? I mean I'm sure they do since Mercedes and Audi still carry their 90's stigma around with them, but I thought most car people were over this by now.

There are only a very few makes/models where I worry about reliability... but Ford has not been one for at least a decade or more...

 

If the Type R comes to NA, I'd have to give a SLIGHT edge to the Honda because well, as much e-hate I've thrown their way of late (esp. the RE: NSX), I still want to see Honda be awesome and blow my robot off.



And well, the 'Ring video had me at hello. So, the Type R...but, ONLY IF it comes to NA. Otherwise, it's yet another vaporcar in my books and I'll happily take the Ford.

 

RS. I trust the company that builds turbocharged WRC cars over the company who makes lawnmowers to make a more reliable non-NA 300hp engine any day of the week.

 

On their website it says you have to call for the price because "Too low to show". But when I checked nationally on cars.com, the lowest price I found was $32,060 (msrp $35,305)

 

I would never pay 30K for a FORD even if my life depended on IT

 

That's some close-minded thinking, right there.

 

Fords advertising has all been "we're so awesome now, we're just as good, if not better than the Japanese in terms of reliability". Oddly enough, the people I know working as mechanics at a ford dealer, and another who's the general manager of a ford dealer don't agree with those statements at all. They say nothing really has changed. Do they look better? Absolutely. Are they more reliable? Only if you believe the advertisements.

The issues come from one of two sources- either bad design of components, are shitty assembly/manufacturing. The first can be fixed. The latter likely will not change, unless you force the auto unions out.

I just looked online at the 2015 Focus "predicted" reliability, and it has a score of 2.5/5 from JD Powers. 2014 is the same.

 

Yes, except the team that builds crazy rally cars likely has very little to do with production vehicles. The rally teams are swamped year round.

That being said, if that's the bar you're going by, I'd say Honda's F1 experience is far greater than Ford's rally, as those engines scream to astronomical RPM and are turbo'd also. Let's also not forget they put out astronomically more power than a WRC car.

Let's not forget the turbo RDX has been around since 2007 and they continue to run well.

But yes, all honda does is builds lawn mower engines with no other major experience

 

When I worked for Acura the majority of the techs drove audis and none had anything good to say about Acura. When all you fix is acuras, you tend to not hold them in high regard, I'd guess it's the same everywhere. When I worked for Porsche, there was just a tech and a shop foreman/Porsche mastertech. The lone tech drove an ap1 s2000 and bashed all things porsche.

 

Fair enough, but Ford still doesn't fair well in the various reliability reports.

And the honda/acura mechanics I know all drive Hondas and acuras.

 

Wait... people believe advertisements as fact?

No... I'm talking real world here. I worked at a Ford dealer for a while after we sold our businesses. I also know tons of friends with Fords... and overall they have very little issues. My boss actually traded in her Lexus hybrid for the Ford Fusion hybrid and not only loves the car better, but it's been bullet-proof. I believe we even have some Ford owners on this forum who love their cars and haven't had issues.

And if I was buying a truck... Ford or Chevy all the way. I'd buy a Raptor in a heartbeat and not worry about going 300k+ miles...

 

To each their own, I suppose. Most cars these days don't generally have issues until after the first 4 or 5 years of ownership. I'm not surprised your boss' new Ford isn't having issues at the moment.

It seems Acura screwed the pooch on that one, with their entire lineup having issues right out the gate.

 

Fwiw, the fact that honda builds lawn mower engines is one if the reasons I was sold in the brand many any years ago.

Lawn mowers, weed whackers, portable generators, motorcycles, dirt bikes, 4 wheelers, jet skis, out board motors for boats, snow blowers....

They are the Honda MOTOR company. If it runs on an internal combustion engine, they probably make it and have a history of longevity.

 

I guess seeing how many people here would simply choose the Focus over the Civic is indicative enough of why Honda doesn't want to bring the CTR over. I thought there would be way more people wanting it. Guess I was wrong.

 

I think it really depends on where you live and the type of people that live there.

In Asian areas, Domestic brands are still playing catch up big time in perception. Younger Asians care about brand and older Asians care about reliability. They never gave any chance to domestic brands since the 90s.

But I personally know some Asians who only buy Domestic brand because they think "Ermerica Cas ah safa den Japan nes" and they are built with thicker steel and super heavy like a tank, which is also an old perception.

 

Golf R, anyone?

 

I think the main problem with the ctr in the states is that those who lust for it can't afford it and those who can prefer something else. It was a similar problem with the mugen si, almost everyone who came into the dealership and lusted for it was was unable to afford it.

It's not profitable making cars young folks love but can't afford.

 

Right, so then honda gives the enthusiasts something more affordable (ie: the Si) and everyone complains it's not enough. So where's the happy medium?

 

Ford, duh.

 

The medium is WRX $26k, GTI $25k, Focus ST $24k, and other performance model of the econo box in the same market.

You can't call it a performance model when you throw a 4 banger Accord engine in there and call it a day. That is like almost as bad as a Scion tC with Camry's 4 banger.

At least all the old Si all had high rev tuned 1.8/2.0L engines that you can't find in the accord or TSX. So Si was different. Now it is just another car that share the same engine with accord, ilx, tlx, CRV and pretty much any other 4 cylinder Honda.

 

I was going to say the same thing. To each their own. For me, if I was in the market for each car, I'd drive both and pick the one I liked best...

As for when cars have issues, you're probably right... but honestly, I don't really know people with older cars... so tough to really tell.


I think that's just it and you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Those who lust after it can't afford it, and those who can afford it don't lust after it.

This is a hypothetical discussion about these two cars which is why I chose one, but in the real world... I wouldn't buy either. I can think of many other places to spend $30k-$35k before I'd buy either of these....

 

I agree with this. It's tough to make a definitive call either way, without test drives, looking at prices etc., but the CTR excites me more than the Focus RS. That body and the 'Ring video - Wow.

I'd love to get some seat time in both cars.

Isn't that the same problem that the Evo/STi had? But they still sold relatively well.

 

Yah except we are talking about Honda here...

 

Not to my knowledge. The Evo and sti both had a serious rally pedigree and sold quite well. You got a lot of bang or the buck with those cars, I'd go as far to say dollar for dollar they were the most bang for your buck under $40k.

The ctr would just be lacking in many areas at the price range.

 

Jesus Christ. It's a 300hp FWD car that looks like it's from Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift. The RS is going to kill it in every performance category and be a better car inside as well.

All this said, I'd get a Golf R over either of them as it's better than both!

 

This is the thing. i Think the word type R by itself will sell at least 1000 units a months... 300hp turbo Honda with name that says Type R? it just created its own prestige.

I personally think there is still a big market at $30k (fully loaded of course) but at 35k.... hard to sell a civic at 35k...

 

Your correct it is and When I said it I was thinking of my own personal experience with Ford. And that was over 10 yrs ago. Ford has improved immensely since then. So I will retract my previous statement

 

I've driven a Saab SPG with about 225-250 turbocharged horses, it was a tire smoking, torque steering, terminal under steering monster. I've also been a passenger in a 500+whp civic. I think you are severely over estimating the capabilities I a fwd platform and the market for the ctr in the us.


I'm not saying it's a bad car, I'm just guessing it falls into Acura zdx or Lamborghini LM002 sales numbers stateside.

 

For information sake:


Here are the WRX/STi per monthsales numbesr starting in October 2014



2085-oct

2707-nov

2816-dec

2431-jan (2015)

2359-feb

 

I know you're a Honda fanboy... but why would you bring up F1 (which 1. Honda hasn't had engines in since 2005 and 2. used NA V8's) and the RDX (which was SOOOOO SUCCESSFUL with the turbo that they don't even sell it with one anymore)?

 

Considering the replies of others, I'd say it certainly is. The exterior of the 2 alone already made up the minds of some.

 

Yeah lets all be ignorant and forget for a moment that honda has had a hand in F1 racing since the 60s and provided amazing engines for teams like McLaren, Lotus, and Tyrrell.

 

1. Honda ran V8s in F1 from 2005 to 2008.
2. Honda has run V6s and V12s as well. It's likely Taco is referring to their huge success as an engine supplier in the 80s. They were the sole supplier of 6 consecutive constructor & 5 consecutive drivers Championships with a V6 Turbo.

Hence maybe why people are excited to see McLaren return to having Honda build their engines again after their major success with them.

 

If the Type R is really going to come to the States and be sold as Civic Type R, it better not be around $35K due to the haters' perception.

I personally love both cars and their designs. And I normally don't give a shit about what others think about my car, so I wouldn't mind paying $35k for a car that is fun as hell to drive regardless of which model it is under.

BUT you can't deny the fact that people will make fun of others who will pay $35K for a Civic regardless of the performance #.

 

Got it.

 

So glad they are experts in V6 turbos because that technology has trickled down to their CVT NA 2.4L Accords

 

Let's just get that Honda F1 and Ford WRC stuff out of the thread.. there's really no point to talk about that except for trolling purpose.

 

A WRC car has a lot more in common with a street car than an F1 car does. WRC cars have a direct street counterpart, yes the WRC car is beefed up but there are many shared parts from race car to street car. F1 cars are the pinnacle of engineering yet a teams success on an F1 track doesn't trickle down to street cars.

Personally I think the conversation is valid but it doesn't help the honda crowd. The ctr will have exactly 1 thing in common with a honda F1 car and that's the logo on the hood.

 

Oh, I'm 100% sure it's a valid subject to be discussed but judging from the recent posts in this thread, it's just going to be a trolling subject.

I've been on AZine for long enough to know it.

 

whether if this is a market for a 30k CTR (assuming it is even coming to US) is debatable. No one will know for sure until it gets to the dealer.

As many know, i hate torque and under steering feel of FWD that is why my primary DD since 03 has always been RWD 6mt. (2 G35C, 2 S2k, 1 G37C and 335)

with that being said, if we are strictly talking about FWD Capabilities, it is very capable. I am not over estimating anything as i have seen enough Civic HB and CRX on the track that put Viper and Z06 to shame.
I am not FWD expert but i know with a light weight FWD car and enough camber and other suspension tunings can be made just as capable as RWD.

But the feel is a completely different subject.