The Cressida was a nice car, and one of Toyota's first attempts to provide an American-like medium-to-large sedan to compete with the Detroit cruisers of the period. But it wasn't particularly successful in the marketplace, and, of course, led to the Avalon whch replaced it. The 1Gen 1994-1999 Avalon, BTW, was a superb product.....it was, of course, a stretched and even more-refined version of a platform that you and I both agree on was also superb...the 3Gen Camry.

The 94 Celica really poured on the looks, with those four big round headlights and the beautifully-done body curves, but Toyota also dropped the All-Trac AWD option that year and used some rather wimpy Corolla-based engines. Even the GT model only had 130 HP and even less torque. The base ST version, at 105-110 HP, was clearly underpowered.....(even by my conservative standards). The following generation Celica GTS, in 2000, used the 180 HP VVT-i four (still without much torque), but, IMO, looked and felt like a Hot-Wheels toy car....it was cheaply built.

Absolutely. Totally agreed. But, IMO, older buyers (and even some younger ones) who like softer-riding, more conservative sedans are being virtually ignored. The relentless push to cars with stiffer underpinnings has left them with very few options today. That is why I think the latest Impala is going to do very well with people who otherwise wouldn't be looking at a new Chevy. . It, virtually alone today among today's mainstream, reasonably-priced sedans, offers a nice serene ride (and, even better, combines that comfortable ride with snappy, quick-steering ratio handling). That, it does not only as good or better than its sister Buick Lacrosse, but also better than the disappointing Cadillac XTS....all three cars are on the same platform.

 

think that's too general. and 55-65 is no longer 'old'. of course most are still working. TONS drive coupes and convertibles, having no need for a boring family sedan any longer. TONS can now buy something sporty, where they couldn't have in the past. i've worked with many execs who drove porsches, miatas, MB SL, bmw 3/6 series coupes, etc. or yes, they finally decided to get a modern american muscle type car, camaro, corvette, charger, mustang, etc.

i disagree - and believe the auto press is now largely irrelevant unless you're including everyone with a camera and a youtube account now.

disagree again. while younger buyers are REALLY important, because they represent both current and future revenue and brand affinity, manufacturers target different vehicles at every demographic, just as they always have.

 

No it doesn't.

 

yeah, Passat has aged even worse than Camry.

 

actually, i have read in one of the PR's for one of Toyota's cars that they still need to appeal to older population as 55 is not old anymore and they all drive for quite a lot longer than that these days.

 

Vanilla done right is the new Accord. Nothing jumps out at you with the design, no overdone grille, no unnecessarily swoopy profile. But DAYAM, with the 18" wheel option and the LEDs it's one SHARP looking family sedan.

Trying to convince a friend to buy one, but only if he goes for the Touring package with the 18"s and LEDs.

I'm hoping the new Camry will have the new Corolla LED lowbeams. Those really make the new Corolla stand out when you check it out in the rear view mirror after you passed it on the highway going 90 in a 100km/h zone...

 

I completely agree. The Accord shines in nearly all categories now, which is refreshingly great for struggling Honda.

One point, the Touring package comes with 17" alloys. To get the 18's, you are stuck with the Sport model, which doesn't have the LED drl's.

 

Sorry, I mean the Canadian model Touring package, which has those features. And not just DRL, but LED low beams with dual projectors. HOT!

 

Struggling Honda, am I missing something? Sure they don't have much on offer for enthusiast but they have the mass market covered very well.

 

Yeah Honda is doing very well. Struggling?,,

 

Honda has 3 cars doing well, Civic, Accord, CR-V which accounts for most of their sales….

 

I think the Pilot and Oddysey does pretty good too.

 

Honda has more than 3 cars doing well.

The Pilot and Odyssey also do very well, as does the Fit. The rest of their product line are all niche vehicles, the Ridgeline, the CRZ, Element, Insight,

Odyssey outsold Sienna in 2013....and when you compare the Grand Caravan & Town & Country separately the Odyssey was the best selling minivan in the US in 2013.

Fit outsold Yaris 2 to 1 in 2013...

Pilot sells almost identically to the Highlander, Highlander bested it by 1,000 units....the Highlander is old but IMHO the Pilot is a terrible vehicle.

I know you'e not a Honda fan, but facts are facts. Honda is doing very well, and their success in the marketplace is hardly limited to Civic, Accord and CR-V. In fact they are leading or within a few thousand units of leading in sales in 6 segments...I'd hardly call that "struggling".

 

I had one of these tailgate me the other (rainy) night. I could not tell very well what car it was. From far away, I thought it was an LS. When it got closer I thought it was a hybrid GS. Interestingly we ended up in the same restaurant.

I too think Honda did it right this time. It's been a long time since they produced a good looking car, the last gen Prelude IMO. To this day I still think it looks good.

 

If you look at a percentage of sales, those 3 models are most of their sales. Honda incentives are up compared to the past where they didn't need them. I'm not disagreeing they are not doing well, I am just stating these things.