

The Evolution Of The Honda Accord - quoderat
http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/07/the_honda_accor.html

======
Retric
There seems to be a trend of introducing new cars at the low end vs. high end.
Few people want to buy the same car as last time if it's slightly more
cramped. But paying a little extra in a few years for a slight upgrade
probably seems like a great idea.

I think the other interesting trend would be looking at the Accord, Civic, and
Fit in their first model years.

------
MrFoof
This is mostly in reference to the US-market Honda Accord.

Really, go anywhere outside the US for a while, come back, and you instantly
realize how much of an absolute mess the US auto market is. Really, we're
largely given substandard products below the $25,000 pricepoint and we have a
poorly educated driving public.

1) Cheap = junk. This is largely because... cheap has been junk in the US
market. You end up with these featureless, plasticky buckets of bolts with
half-cocked engines mated to the world's worst transmissions.

That's not to say this doesn't happen in the European or Japanese markets
either, because cheap junk exists there as well, but you do have some very
nice small cars (b-segment and city cars) over there like the Ford Fiesta and
the Fiat 500.

Of course, the majority of the US consumers look at price as the most
important thing. Cheap wins. Look at cars like the Corolla and the Civic and
you'll notice their prices haven't budged much over the years... but the
quality has taken a noticeable hit. No more soft-touch interior materials.
Torsion beam suspensions. More gadgets like power seats, gewgaws, and space,
but they're not nice places to be anymore, and with all the weight, they
handle like rubbish.

2) Want versus need. Everyone seems to think they need a "mid-size" sedan with
4 doors. I had an argument with my sister about this, who's been driving for
13 years now. When's the last time she's used the back seats in her cars for
passengers? NEVER. Last time she folded down the rear seats for extra stowage?
Twice. When moving. Why would you buy something that you might use once or
twice in the lifetime of the vehicle? Considering most Americans finance their
cars, you're paying extra every month for 60 months for something you might
use ONCE. For that one time, go rent something. It's a lot cheaper and it does
the job better than what you bought.

The big argument for SUVs? Higher driving position, and ingress/egress issues
(real or perceived) in smaller cars. Particularly people with kids. They have
one child, and they suddenly feel they need a Tahoe to put in the child seat.

Lack of research as well. A huge tendency for folks to walk into a dealership
and take the first car they test drive (inadequately), because it's better
than what they have simply because it's new. It's terrifying. For most people,
it's the 2nd most expensive purchase they'll make in their life and they don't
do their due diligence.

3) Horrible preconceived notions as the result of poor product. I'm an
enthusiast, so I tend to drive... "spirited". Granted, I have cars suitable
for it, and for track days. However, I was in a conversation with someone who
felt he needed 300HP "in an emergency", and thought that going over 80mph was
"really fast".

No. 80mph is pretty... well, boring in a car with a decent suspension. It's
like doing 40mph in a different gear. Yes, a high-margin SUV or a low-rent
budget box (I'm looking at you specifically, Cobalt) with crappy tires will
absolutely feel terrifying at 80mph because the tires don't communicate
anything predictably and the car is generating significant lift because
there's no attention to aerodynamics. In those kinds of cars, yes, 80 is
"interesting" due to the lack of communication you get from crappy all-season
tires up the steering column.

Then there's terrible engines with terrible transmissions, and people who
don't understand how they work. Why does the US market Golf (Rabbit) have a
2.5L naturally aspirated 4-cylinder? Because the average American doesn't
understand that to get the power out of the smaller displacement engines you
have to put your foot down and rev the nuts off of it. So they just throw this
half-assed larger displacement engine up-front because people are afraid to
put their foot down... the same people who think they need 300HP... in a FWD,
3600lb sedan that will violently torque-steer, and probably end up in a
guardrail when they brake mid-corner because they took it way too hot.

