Honda struggles to move the once-hugely-popular Accord
03-16-18, 03:48 PM
#91
Lexus Test Driver
Not 100% positive, but the new Accord's hybrid offering hasn't been available yet. Or it may have just gone on sale. Perhaps your friend has the previous model? Not hearing about the hybrid would make sense if it hasn't been on the market yet.
03-16-18, 04:45 PM
#92
Fuel economy is rated 47 MPG.
In past, Honda did not produce many, it was really hard to find and thus low volume seller... new model should at least sell 2k-3k per month.
03-16-18, 05:13 PM
#93
If your referring to a 2018 model they just came out. My friend has a 2017 model which hasn't changed any.
03-16-18, 09:49 PM
#94
According to the Detroit News, Honda's big problem in moving new Accords is their being stingy with incentives. The average incentive for the 2018 Camry is $2900 while the Accord average is $1200. Honda also does not do fleet sales so there are no rental Accords out there. The same low incentives are now affecting the CR-V sales.
03-17-18, 12:57 AM
#95
I own a N54 335i coupe, delivered Dec. 2006. They were saying the same thing you are, back in 2007, 2008, 2009, as a matter of fact CR put it on the most unreliable and avoid lists. Then, suddenly, they recommended it for 2010. With all this negative hype, I decided to go against what I believed my entire life, and I negotiated off list (Lexus is crazy in this dept my buddy did it) and got a 7/100 extended warranty (factory). Nothing broke. That's how the warranty was designed. My ABS/DSC hydro did break out of the 7/100, and yes, that would have been $4,200 at the dealer, so I had no choice but to DIY, and was out almost $500 as I had to buy some line wrenches, a Motive bleeder, Dot 4 fluid, and the factory software to do the ABL bleed.
This is what you said, apparently none of the below applied to my car. For pete's sake, this vehicle has a true dual exhaust, if anything, engineers won over bean counters back then. I would have to vehemently disagree with you, and that comes from actually owning the vehicle for over 11 years.
**** poor engineering, cheap *** materials under the hood(lots of low bid crap plastic parts to break like vacume lines, radiators, water pumps, electrical connectors), extended oil change intervals(where turbo motors need more frequent oil changes), all of this led to a "special service campaign"(aka recall), where BMW replaced 2 pages worth of parts on these engines with redesigned pieces.
This is what you said, apparently none of the below applied to my car. For pete's sake, this vehicle has a true dual exhaust, if anything, engineers won over bean counters back then. I would have to vehemently disagree with you, and that comes from actually owning the vehicle for over 11 years.
**** poor engineering, cheap *** materials under the hood(lots of low bid crap plastic parts to break like vacume lines, radiators, water pumps, electrical connectors), extended oil change intervals(where turbo motors need more frequent oil changes), all of this led to a "special service campaign"(aka recall), where BMW replaced 2 pages worth of parts on these engines with redesigned pieces.
If you actually read my post, I was ragging on BMW's twin turbo V8, not their twin turbo inline six like your car. I actually love BMW's inline sixes, the old naturally aspirated ones and the newer turbo powered models. I still think though that BMW specs some ****ty cheap parts though like plastic water pumps, plastic radiators, plastic vacume lines. These have been issues on BMW for DECADES, yet they still don't fix them/spec better/longer lasting parts.
As for your DIY fix, most people aren't as mechanically inclined as you are. That $4200 bill at the dealer, maybe along with a couple of other problems could lead somebody to junk/scrap or unscrupulously sell their 7 to 15 year old BMW, even if it doesn't have a lot of miles on it.
Getting back on topic to the Accord, I still maintain the Civic is the reason for lame Accord sales. Its about 90% as nice/roomy/powerful as a base model Accord, if Honda is doing better deals on the Civic, the Accord isn't worth the premium, at least when you compare base Accord to decently/well optioned Civic. And you know how people love their bells/whistles now days, for a lot of people its all about how much tech you can get in a car for the cheapest price, and the Civic definitely wins in that department.
Last edited by Aron9000; 03-17-18 at 01:01 AM.
03-21-18, 01:28 AM
#96
Yes, some research showed that you are (now) correct. First time, though, I can ever remember the Accord and Civic being on a common platform since they were first sold here in the 1970s. There's no doubt that the Civic, though, has grown enormously.....IMO it is now a mid-size car.
Yes, a Benz 2.0T has very good flattish torque curve, is powerful, yet is six cylinder-like in smoothness.
Absolutely true. Accord's troubles are in styling, plus the market's shift in demand to utility vehicles.
In the last quarter of 2017, compact sales dropped to 486,244, while compact utility vehicles rose to a whopping 806,341.
Similarly, midsize sales dropped to 453,359, while midsize utility vehicles rose to 542,547.
The large car segment was only 100,989, while large utility vehicles was a good 342,525.
Small pickup trucks was only 116,828.
Though large pickup trucks were 642,674.
Premium compacts like Audi A3 etc, were only 19,351. Premium compact utility like X1 were 31,966.
Premium midsize like 3 Series were 116,607. Premium midsize utility like NX were 130,842.
Premium large like E Class were 79,062. Premium large utility like RX were a whopping 151,720.
Premium limmo like S Class were only 16,363. While premium full size utility were 34,507.
Thus, utility vehicles selling magnificently over traditional sedans/hatchs/wagons.
While the compact utility segment containing the RAV4 and CRV is presently the most popular segment, with second place being the large pickup trucks, while third place goes to midsize utility vehicles like Highlander etc.
Traditional compact and midsize vehicles segment including new Accord take fourth and fifth place respectively.
I myself don't like utility tall wagons, because I prefer the ride comfort, quietness, handling, performance & fuel efficiency of a sedan, however I guess the mass public, despite land size becoming smaller, homes are becoming larger and larger in square feet, indicating newfound efficiency, and in the same way, utility vehicles like RAV4 and Highlander have copious interior volume, despite a modest foot print compared to the GM and Ford large sedans of the 1970's...
.
Absolutely true. Accord's troubles are in styling, plus the market's shift in demand to utility vehicles.
In the last quarter of 2017, compact sales dropped to 486,244, while compact utility vehicles rose to a whopping 806,341.
Similarly, midsize sales dropped to 453,359, while midsize utility vehicles rose to 542,547.
The large car segment was only 100,989, while large utility vehicles was a good 342,525.
Small pickup trucks was only 116,828.
Though large pickup trucks were 642,674.
Premium compacts like Audi A3 etc, were only 19,351. Premium compact utility like X1 were 31,966.
Premium midsize like 3 Series were 116,607. Premium midsize utility like NX were 130,842.
Premium large like E Class were 79,062. Premium large utility like RX were a whopping 151,720.
Premium limmo like S Class were only 16,363. While premium full size utility were 34,507.
Thus, utility vehicles selling magnificently over traditional sedans/hatchs/wagons.
While the compact utility segment containing the RAV4 and CRV is presently the most popular segment, with second place being the large pickup trucks, while third place goes to midsize utility vehicles like Highlander etc.
Traditional compact and midsize vehicles segment including new Accord take fourth and fifth place respectively.
I myself don't like utility tall wagons, because I prefer the ride comfort, quietness, handling, performance & fuel efficiency of a sedan, however I guess the mass public, despite land size becoming smaller, homes are becoming larger and larger in square feet, indicating newfound efficiency, and in the same way, utility vehicles like RAV4 and Highlander have copious interior volume, despite a modest foot print compared to the GM and Ford large sedans of the 1970's...
.
So long as Honda's CR-V, HR-V, and Pilot sales are up (or they're working on more CUVs) then that should help offset the lesser Accord Sales. Honda was able to do an emergency refresh on the 2012/2013 Civic, no reason they couldn't reshape the fascia if that's all this boils down to.
The previous generation Civic, which was introduced in April 2011 for the 2012 model year, began development in late 2006/early 2007. Just following the very successful redesign in October 2005 for MY 2006. The problem that Civic team had was in 2007-2008, their deadline by February 2008 was to settle on a final design and receive management approval for it.
The team were required to invite Honda management to review the engineering-led changes to the design the first week of July 2008 and sign-off on the car's final design freeze, in preparation for its October 2010 launch, as a 2011 model year car. Just at that time in 2008, the refreshed 2009 Civic range had been introduced as a place-holder, to typically freshen the car and stylistically evolve it towards Honda's plans for the next model.
During the Lehman Brothers and overall economic collapse in 2008, Honda CEO Ito became very paranoid. Changes were ordered by CEO Ito the following day of his July 2008 evening review of the final design to de-content the 9th generation Civic and delay it half a year from introduction from October 2010 to March 2011. Begrudgingly, the Civic team followed his orders, completing design freeze by early 2009 (prototypes B&W photo & testing below). Now Honda could no longer again delay nor alter the design of the 2012 Civic, to ensure it met its requisite program targets, thus guarantee its Job 1 date set for January 2011.
In April 2010, well after testing of prototypes was underway, management was forced by Civic senior project leader Jay Guzowski to have an about face and realize the de-contenting and dumbing down of the new Civic was an egregious mistake. They voted to restore the 2008 proposals for the "2011 Civic", but strict deadlines made it that the 2012 model had to stay on schedule for April 2011 launch. Seeing that the car would arrive early in the 2012 model year, a decision was made to extend the 2012 model year and have it run for 19 months from April 2011 to November 2012, to allow time from 2010 to mid-2011 (2012 for coupe), for the same development team to design a heavily facelifted Civic for MY2013 (sedan) and MY2014 (coupe).
Honda usually has a different team for mid-cycle updates, but were lucky to have the original team from overall development to stay on and improve the car with greater resources. Honda really toiled over the Civic nameplate back then, as even while developing this facelift early in overlap with the incoming model generation itself in 2010-11, Honda began development of an all-new 10th generation model (MY 2016) and new modular architecture at the same time. They had 2.5 generations of Civic in development (9th, 9.5th, and 10th for MY 2016).
The reality is, to do what Honda did with that quick Civic facelift, wouldn't work with this generation Accord, unless they have already made such a decision during development back in 2016. At earliest a facelifted Accord, wouldn't arrive until MY2020. It would take 2 years to do that from planning to launch, considering that it took them 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years to update the Civic sedan and coupe for the 2013 and 2014 model years respectively, after committing to that plan in 2010.
The team that developed this Accord, have been reassigned already at this point. Basically Honda knew that 2012 Civic was failure in execution as early as 2010, while they didn't really see the weakness of the new Accord until AFTER launch in fall 2017. Basically the Civic team had a much bigger head start, unlike with the latest Accord which has been more dependent on media and public feedback. It is much better to catch any weaknesses, before the car hits the market. As turnaround time will stifle your ability to react to market forces.
The new 2018 Accord design was frozen in mid-2015 (during reveal of 2016 refresh), so no one outside Honda knew if they would like the styling Honda even quietly approved back then. The first public evidence of this car, was in the summer of 2016 and even then, very deeply camouflaged to hide the design for another whole year. Until reveal last summer, no one concretely knew what Honda had designed, until 2 to 2.5 years after they made those styling decisions back in 2015. So, the only feedback Honda got was from the last 8 months since reveal and market response, just 4-5 months of disappointing sales.
Similarly in January 2015, Hyundai announced they were "doing" a major facelift for the newly launched 2015MY Sonata (Spring 2014 intro), but had to base this on market performance or post-development observation in 2014, so the turnaround still took 3 years from launch to implement in 2017 for MY 2018. Despite it being on schedule for 2018MY for mid-cycle, people were quick to predict/comment they were going to rush a facelift very early on for MY 2016 or '17, which never happened. The improvements to the Sonata arrived with typical product life-cycle cadence at mid-point, after being finalized in late 2015.
In summary, early facelifts do not work, if the problems are discovered well after sales have begun. Honda got lucky with USA-based product planners, engineers, and designers making their voices heard in Japan during latter development in April 2010, to fix ex-CEO Ito's mistakes from July 2008 and ensure the 9th generation didn't flop after the 2012 model year. Ito really pushed Honda to overcome his bad decisions and it shows with the current Civic, despite resigning in shame.
I haven't read through all the responses, but IMO the new Civic is stealing a lot of Accord sales, especially on the bottom end. You get almost as much car space wise, with the same engine in some trims, for a few thousand dollars less than the Accord. Both are built to the same exacting standard, the interiors are equally nice in that under $25,000 price range.
As for dealers complaining about the Accord having bad lease rates, maybe the rates on Civics are a lot better, thus more sales. IMO you don't give up that much moving from an Accord to the Civic, the gap between those cars in terms of refinement and interior/trunk space has shrunk dramatically IMO.
As for dealers complaining about the Accord having bad lease rates, maybe the rates on Civics are a lot better, thus more sales. IMO you don't give up that much moving from an Accord to the Civic, the gap between those cars in terms of refinement and interior/trunk space has shrunk dramatically IMO.
If you actually read my post, I was ragging on BMW's twin turbo V8, not their twin turbo inline six like your car. I actually love BMW's inline sixes, the old naturally aspirated ones and the newer turbo powered models. I still think though that BMW specs some ****ty cheap parts though like plastic water pumps, plastic radiators, plastic vacume lines. These have been issues on BMW for DECADES, yet they still don't fix them/spec better/longer lasting parts.
As for your DIY fix, most people aren't as mechanically inclined as you are. That $4200 bill at the dealer, maybe along with a couple of other problems could lead somebody to junk/scrap or unscrupulously sell their 7 to 15 year old BMW, even if it doesn't have a lot of miles on it.
Getting back on topic to the Accord, I still maintain the Civic is the reason for lame Accord sales. Its about 90% as nice/roomy/powerful as a base model Accord, if Honda is doing better deals on the Civic, the Accord isn't worth the premium, at least when you compare base Accord to decently/well optioned Civic. And you know how people love their bells/whistles now days, for a lot of people its all about how much tech you can get in a car for the cheapest price, and the Civic definitely wins in that department.
As for your DIY fix, most people aren't as mechanically inclined as you are. That $4200 bill at the dealer, maybe along with a couple of other problems could lead somebody to junk/scrap or unscrupulously sell their 7 to 15 year old BMW, even if it doesn't have a lot of miles on it.
Getting back on topic to the Accord, I still maintain the Civic is the reason for lame Accord sales. Its about 90% as nice/roomy/powerful as a base model Accord, if Honda is doing better deals on the Civic, the Accord isn't worth the premium, at least when you compare base Accord to decently/well optioned Civic. And you know how people love their bells/whistles now days, for a lot of people its all about how much tech you can get in a car for the cheapest price, and the Civic definitely wins in that department.
Last edited by Carmaker1; 03-21-18 at 01:56 AM.
03-21-18, 12:53 PM
#97
Pole Position
I have driven the new Accord with the 2.0 Turbo and the new 10 speed auto. It is a massive improvement over the last generation Accord. My wife drives a V-6 Accord coupe and the new turbo engine is smoother and faster. If the headline said "Honda is having trouble moving the new C-RV" I would be surprised. The fact that sales of a family mid-sized sedan are down should not be a surprise to anyone. The US buying public has decided that a CR-V is a better family mover than an Accord. They have also decided (based on sales) that an RX is a better entry level luxury vehicle than an ES. As an RX350 owner I guess I'm also guilty. My decision was based on pre-surgery back issues, but my 2016 RX350 has proven comfortable, roomy, and totally reliable. Now that my back is fixed, my next car will likely be a Genesis G90 or K900. My wife will likely change her beloved Honda for a Stinger.
03-21-18, 12:56 PM
#98
Pole Position
I bought my V6 Accord, not because of power, not because it's more "fun", no, I bought My V6 Accord because it is just a much nicer car than the I4. They cannot be compared.
03-24-18, 10:05 PM
#100
Not surprised, the car is one of the uglier ones I've seen from Honda. I think the only car that beats it in the ugliness department is their sad *** pile of junk called the Fit.
Second, some people prefer a strong V6 to the I4 Turbo..............
I really liked my 2006 Accord V6 EX Coupe................wonderful car, solid 3.0 engine, nice styling. (Traded it on for the IS-F)
Second, some people prefer a strong V6 to the I4 Turbo..............
I really liked my 2006 Accord V6 EX Coupe................wonderful car, solid 3.0 engine, nice styling. (Traded it on for the IS-F)
03-25-18, 06:59 AM
#101
i doubt it is as simple as just offering big incentives... they have a big backlog to clear and obviously it will be combination of both.
03-25-18, 07:56 AM
#102
Lexus Fanatic
The incentives are not the answer. The low end price is just a little too high. Toomuch content and the combination of being stuck with a turbo 4 and no option for a larger 6. I am 100% convinced Honda will offer a model with less content and perhaps a NA I4 for the next model year. The new Accord hybrid is going be $4K less.
03-25-18, 11:12 AM
#103
03-26-18, 12:18 PM
#104
Bingo! That is the major reason right there. Honda felt so bad about the 9th generation Civic, being too much an evolution of the previous (2005-11) and overdid it with the current Civic. I foresaw this happening, when Honda reported in 2013, that the "next" Accord would use the same modular architecture as the incoming Civic. I was even more skeptical, when it became obvious how similar the two are, upon Accord reveal last summer. The Civic is in ways, better than the Acura ILX, so it is not surprising people would rather just buy a loaded Civic over an Accord. The Civic getting the flagship treatment over the Accord and select Acura models to a degree, certainly doesn't help things. Why should the Civic be debuting a new modular architecture, instead of the Accord in the first place?
03-26-18, 01:16 PM
#105
spwolf is right, V6's only make up some 8% of Camry sales.
Mike is right, V6's are for power and refinement.
Lexus2000 is right, the Accord's styling is hideous.
JDR76 is right, Honda Accord and CR-V sales fell across the board recently.
Last year, the more attractively styled compact Civic reached an all time record sales of 377,286 units across the USA; hands down outselling the ageing Corolla with only 308,695.
Thus, maybe the hideous styling of Accord is holding sales back, or perhaps its larger size - relative to the Civic and Corolla.
Mike is right, V6's are for power and refinement.
Lexus2000 is right, the Accord's styling is hideous.
JDR76 is right, Honda Accord and CR-V sales fell across the board recently.
Last year, the more attractively styled compact Civic reached an all time record sales of 377,286 units across the USA; hands down outselling the ageing Corolla with only 308,695.
Thus, maybe the hideous styling of Accord is holding sales back, or perhaps its larger size - relative to the Civic and Corolla.
They failed to take heed of BMW's lesson learned when doing the Gran Turismo (first generation (2011-2013). Everything was BMWish except for the back end.
Go figure, now a lot of sport backs are emulating the BMW look they did 7 years ago. BMW's redesign is a response to chasing the media opinions and still fails, and they try to adapt the GT look platform into a muscular X4 or X6 look.
Tweaking the back end may be necessary if it is Aztek ugly and BMW overcooked a good thing into 3 car lines trying to chase an A7/S7 look or differentiate with a muscular set up.
Honda's failing is the front looks like someone took a bat and smashed or blunted it's nose.
Every time they do the retro to today's generation commercial, it makes it more obvious how much the front makes an impression. It's a signature look and Honda lost it.
Front ends can be an easy fix if everything else stays the same. The one big caveat is the honda 'sensing' equipment gets in the way (it looks like a 4x4 inch plate in the bottom middle area). We have a combination of a tech advancement + design fail here. Something had to give, and blunt nose look is what we have unless newer technology makes it more seamless. Honda execs have some major thinking to be stuck with this saftey driven hideousness for 3-4 more years or do some cosmetic design surgery and take the 2018 model year as a learning lesson.