siegen

It's ok. Kind of ugly, but not horrible. Kind of reminds me of a boring Lexus/Toyota design.

The forward side vents look like they were an afterthought, the front grille is oddly shaped, and the headlights are too... motorcycle looking. Look at this pic, tell me that doesn't look not right. The back end looks even worse, it looks like something Pontiac would design. I didn't really like the tail lights on the F430 either, although they were tolerable. These are worse. Of course neither of them are as nice as the 360's tail lights were. I will take my 360 Modena in black plz The nice thing is the 360's have come down to about $100,000 now, which means I can almost afford one.

First the Yaris evangelizing, and now this? You do work for Toyota marketting don't you?

The front end looks gayer than the new CRV. The back end isn't much better. This is a step down styling wise from the 430.

I wonder how they will handle the recalls?

If Honda can do the same amount of work with 2,000 employees that it took GM 30,000 to do, then there was something screwed up with the way GM was doing things. How is this benefitting America? Less employee's means lower overhead and less expensive cars.

Didn't mean to sound mean, it was a joke

Name recognition? Definately. The name also carries the history of reliability and value (resale value) that is associated with Honda. There's also mileage, safety, comfort, and interior (which we have yet to see). I'm going to assume it is feature-rich as well.

The Yaris breaking a piggy bank and stealing the money... Haven't seen the commerical, but this is what comes to mind. The Yaris will break the bank (like that article comments on) due to the high price for a bare bones car, and the dealer markup on Toyota's. But after it does that, it will also steal your money since you have to buy all the options to go with it, as it is barebones. In the end, you will wish you bought a Fit since it comes standard with everything you wish you had on the Yaris, but had to pay extra for. Seriously, compare a Yaris and Fit on edmunds or something. Add the $1,710 PQ (power, ABS, etc) and $650 GY (side airbags) packages to the Yaris, and now the MSRP for a base sedan is $14,185 (compared to $13,850 for base Fit), and it still lacks some of the features of the Fit. Thow in the Auto transmissions, the Price of the Fit goes up $75 more than the Yaris (+ $725 vs + $800), but comes with a 5sp Auto instead of a 4sp Auto (and paddle shifters for Sport model). $75 more for another gear in your Auto transmission with paddle shifters if you have the Sport model, now that's a bargin. The Yaris is a joke, but Toyota sure did a good job with the marketting.

Yes, Honda thinks Americans are fools, specially you. I disagree. :AH-HA_wink:

Stop drawing on pictures?

Or off of the previous generation CRVs maybe?

I'll hold off judgement until I see more pictures at different angles. But that bumper looks like it's got a fat lip!

The 2WD version is rated to 18/24. Why are you comparing your personal mileage in a 1987 car to the EPA estimates for a new SUV?

It's all the less fuel efficient vehicles that bring them down. It isn't supposed to punish the big 3, as their reliance on these vehicles (for obviously more than the normal duties of a truck) has punished them enough. Look at Toyota, their "green" image is countered by all of their non fuel efficient V8 vehicles, and this article calls them on that. I've seen a lot of poster's here complain about how Toyota's V8's get a free pass due to their better fuel efficient models. Toyota and Honda's failure to build respectable trucks? Honda only has one, which has slightly exceeded its 12 month sales goal and selling even better so far this year. It may not be "respectible" in your eye's, but for the owners, I'm sure they are happy with them. Remember, it isn't designed to be a big hauler, and doesn't compete with those trucks like the F150 and Sierra. As far as Toyota, I think they have done well with their trucks but don't know many details. They aren't uncompetative, just not quite as good (from a fuel economy standpoint). Obviously a few MPG points isn't enough to sway a person who likes Chevy's, but if they are considering each car equally, it may be enough to make them switch. Since we're comparing mileage: 26/35 Aveo - 33/38 Fit 25/34 Cobalt - 30/40 Civic 24/32 Malibu - 26/34 Accord In Chevy's credit, the 3.5L V6 in the Impala and Malibu do get better EPA mileage than the 3.0L V6 in the Accord, although they are rated 30-40 hp less.

They have to be, to deal with the damn dealer markups!!

Full article.

I wonder if the Europeans consider their 2006 Civic 3 door and 5 door European, as they're only made and sold in Europe.

Found this news bit published by Honda, a copy available here. I thought it somewhat applied to this article, even though it isn't related to Toyota. The full article at that link also gives an information sheet with each of Honda's plants in the U.S. and how many they employ, etc etc.

From looking closer at it, the flash from the camera is making all the lighter colors really bright. So the center console looks crowded with all the white writing. I think in a normal photo it will look fine. Just wait until the professional shots come out of the production interior.

The pics are pretty small. The Temple of Vtec has a couple better pictures here. The interior is in camo as well, so looks bad. That lighting doesn't help. Lots of buttons for lots of features. It's layed out remarkably well for how many there are. That could have gone horribly wrong

Care to elaborate? 600 miles is almost two full tanks on the average car. As long as it is recorded correctly, it is a completely acceptable way to measure a car's MPG. When you start to get into 10k or 40k lifetime measurements for the car, the mileage becomes very dependant on the person's (or team of reviewer's) personal driving habits. It is better for a reviewer to use a more scientific method for determining city mileage and freeway mileage (one that doesn't take a year), and use that as a guideline. Most people aren't going to drive their own car, that they bought with their hard earned money, as hard as a magazine reviewer would for daily to-and-from work purposes. If i worked at a car magazine, and they gave me a car to drive to and from work every day for a year. Do you really think I would baby it like my own car? Would anybody?

The Dodge Dakota is pretty ugly, but honestly I think this thing looks worse.

Well I was seriously thinking about buying a BMW, but now that I know this wonderful fact, I will buy a Hyundai instead. Damn, that's almost as bad as Toyota's marketting. Let's compare that number to another mainstream make, and not a luxury make. Vehicle Stability Assist is standard on all Honda CRVs, Odysseys, Pilots, Ridgelines, S2000s, and V6 Accords. It doesn't look it's an option on Civics or 4cyl Accords though, which is Honda's primary sellers. Among the VSA models, Honda sold a total of 54,326 last month, not including the V6 Accord (which I don't know how to get an accurate number for). That would probably be well over 700,000 VSA Hondas for a year. And there's a definate possibility of Honda making VSA standard on all Accords as the Accord is due for its Full model change within a year. Depending on how much of a response Hyundai gets from this, they may even make it an option for the Civic. It is good that Hyundai is offering this on inexpensive vehicles though. I think they should stress that the most, rather than comparing the volume. Being able to get a cheapo 18,000 sedan with VSA is a good thing. Then again, how many people with underpowered 4cyl compacts really need vehicle stability control? And, how well does their system work?

You don't need to travel 10,000 miles to get an accurate test of mileage. 600 miles is sufficient, assuming they do two individual 600 mile runs, each with 100% city or freeway driving. And with the performane testing seperate. It's up to the consumer to look at the city and freeway figures, and decide how much of each they will be doing, and how aggressive of a driver they are, to figure out what kind of mileage they'll be getting. I think the main problem with reported mileage by these guys, is that they won't always truthfully report the kind of driving they did. And "aggressive" driving or "light" driving can mean two entirely different things between two reviewers. Then there's the problem that not all reviewers follow a strict procedure for getting accurate mileage ratings. Hell, some of the guys even go off of what the mileage guage says.