Headline I thought I'd never see

in today's paper, from Reuter's:

"Reviving Honda
After harsh criticism of its new Civic, the automaker has turned to its
engineering staff to reclaim its mojo"

wow, it only took, what--20 years?

They spent the last 20 years deliberately destroying everything they
knew, but suddenly they realize that what they used to know and execute
before they trashed the engineering focus was profitable after all?
That the alternate path they went down was wrong?

yeah. Not believing it. This has all the signs of desperate MBAs going
through the standard marketing playbook.

Here's a question to ponder: CAN they walk the walk? WILL they walk
the walk? Or is this just marketing crap? Are they down to wagging
their marketing tongues this way because they know that their actions
have spoken louder than their reputation over the last 20 years?

Maybe in 20 years, I'll consider looking at the results of this "back to
engineering" philosophy--because I don't think they have what it takes
to build that back up in any kind of hurry, if at all. But I don't get
a good feeling about this. This is just trash talk from their marketing
department, as dictated by the same assholes who trashed the engineering
focus to begin with.

Hey, Honda--bring back the NSX. Bring back a car that competes with
Scion, for God's sake. Anything.

On 3/21/12 6:58 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> in today's paper, from Reuter's:
>
> "Reviving Honda
> After harsh criticism of its new Civic, the automaker has turned to its
> engineering staff to reclaim its mojo"
>
> wow, it only took, what--20 years?
>
> They spent the last 20 years deliberately destroying everything they
> knew, but suddenly they realize that what they used to know and execute
> before they trashed the engineering focus was profitable after all?
> That the alternate path they went down was wrong?
>
> yeah. Not believing it. This has all the signs of desperate MBAs going
> through the standard marketing playbook.
>
> Here's a question to ponder: CAN they walk the walk? WILL they walk
> the walk? Or is this just marketing crap? Are they down to wagging
> their marketing tongues this way because they know that their actions
> have spoken louder than their reputation over the last 20 years?
>
> Maybe in 20 years, I'll consider looking at the results of this "back to
> engineering" philosophy--because I don't think they have what it takes
> to build that back up in any kind of hurry, if at all. But I don't get
> a good feeling about this. This is just trash talk from their marketing
> department, as dictated by the same assholes who trashed the engineering
> focus to begin with.
>
> Hey, Honda--bring back the NSX. Bring back a car that competes with
> Scion, for God's sake. Anything.


If you're so down on Honda, why do you hang out in this NG? After all,
most car makes have their own NG-- so why not post there where you can
make happy noises, instead of whining?

Just sayin'....

--
You're all worthless and weak. Now drop and give me 20.

On 3/21/2012 3:54 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> Reality bites, don't it?
>
> But reality it is, and reality is what Honda has to live with.

Elmo is on fire again. ;-)

cameo wrote:
> On 3/21/2012 3:54 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Reality bites, don't it?
>>
>> But reality it is, and reality is what Honda has to live with.
>
> Elmo is on fire again. ;-)
>


....and probably rightly so. Only thing is I think that the mojo was
lost beginning with the '84 models though I must concede that a good
part of *that* was due to guv'ment interference..

JT

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in news:elmop-
:

> in today's paper, from Reuter's:
>
> "Reviving Honda
> After harsh criticism of its new Civic, the automaker has turned to its
> engineering staff to reclaim its mojo"
>
> wow, it only took, what--20 years?
>
> They spent the last 20 years deliberately destroying everything they
> knew,



They spent the last 20-years very publicly and explicitly concentrating on
"safety" and "green", at the cost of performance and excitement.



> Hey, Honda--bring back the NSX.


They're already working on that.
<http://www.acura.com/future/NSX#1.>



--
Tegger

On 03/21/2012 03:58 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> in today's paper, from Reuter's:
>
> "Reviving Honda
> After harsh criticism of its new Civic, the automaker has turned to its
> engineering staff to reclaim its mojo"
>
> wow, it only took, what--20 years?
>
> They spent the last 20 years deliberately destroying everything they
> knew, but suddenly they realize that what they used to know and execute
> before they trashed the engineering focus was profitable after all?
> That the alternate path they went down was wrong?
>
> yeah. Not believing it. This has all the signs of desperate MBAs going
> through the standard marketing playbook.
>
> Here's a question to ponder: CAN they walk the walk? WILL they walk
> the walk? Or is this just marketing crap? Are they down to wagging
> their marketing tongues this way because they know that their actions
> have spoken louder than their reputation over the last 20 years?
>
> Maybe in 20 years, I'll consider looking at the results of this "back to
> engineering" philosophy--because I don't think they have what it takes
> to build that back up in any kind of hurry, if at all. But I don't get
> a good feeling about this. This is just trash talk from their marketing
> department, as dictated by the same assholes who trashed the engineering
> focus to begin with.
>
> Hey, Honda--bring back the NSX. Bring back a car that competes with
> Scion, for God's sake. Anything.

and at this point, something that competes with hyundai/kia - they're
getting pretty good pretty damned fast.

i agree with you - at this point, it's just talk, and talk costs mba's
nothing. a couple of years back they brought out the "new crx", the
crz. and what a pile that is. as for the new nsx, there's supposed to
be one being designed here in kalifornistan right now, but we'll have to
wait and see if that's just marketing blather or not. [and does the
american public really want stuff "designed" here??? all we seem to do
for car "design" is do the mba marketing retard thing and **** up safety
by making perfectly unambiguous amber rear turn signals red so they can
be confused with brake lights, and make faux mufflers with two exit
pipes from a single feed pipe.]

tegger has been drinking the kool-aid if he believes the hype about
honda being "focused on green". the 96-2000 civic hx outperforms the
newer civic hybrids by quite some margin, and my 89 civic is more
economical than the fit - i.o.w, their walk doesn't match their talk.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:01:46 -0700, jim beam > wrote:

>> Hey, Honda--bring back the NSX. Bring back a car that competes with
>> Scion, for God's sake. Anything.

Well that they are, if Jerry Seinfeld and Jay Leno can be believed.

>and at this point, something that competes with hyundai/kia - they're
>getting pretty good pretty damned fast.

Yep.

>tegger has been drinking the kool-aid if he believes the hype about
>honda being "focused on green". the 96-2000 civic hx outperforms the
>newer civic hybrids by quite some margin, and my 89 civic is more
>economical than the fit - i.o.w, their walk doesn't match their talk.

So it's newer safety regs that keep them from just re-issuing 1980s
frames with more modern engines?

I was actually just going to post about the late unlamented Accord V6
hybrid from a couple years back, how about just keeping up with the
Jones's with an Accord hybrid I4 - AND KNOCK 500 POUNDS OFF IT.

Hey, I actually saw two Volts on the road today, setting a new
American record.

J.

JRStern > wrote in
:

>
> I was actually just going to post about the late unlamented Accord V6
> hybrid from a couple years back, how about just keeping up with the
> Jones's with an Accord hybrid I4 - AND KNOCK 500 POUNDS OFF IT.


That's exactly the point. Modern "safety" regulations -- especially the
newer side-impact regs -- make it difficult to impossible to build a light
car of any size.

Everything these days is 400-500 lbs heavier than the same size was 20
years ago, and all of that has gone into the structure, airbags, ABS, etc.

Take a look at the roof pillars, window sizes, and beltlines on a new car
and compare them against a 1992 model. The new cars have tree-trunks for
pillars, gun slits for windows, and beltlines up to your nose. Visibility
sucks.

You can have "safety", and you can have lightness, but you can't have both
unless you start using materials and processes that would put the price out
of reach of the average consumer.


--
Tegger

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:26:01 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
wrote:

>> I was actually just going to post about the late unlamented Accord V6
>> hybrid from a couple years back, how about just keeping up with the
>> Jones's with an Accord hybrid I4 - AND KNOCK 500 POUNDS OFF IT.
>
>
>That's exactly the point. Modern "safety" regulations -- especially the
>newer side-impact regs -- make it difficult to impossible to build a light
>car of any size.
>
>Everything these days is 400-500 lbs heavier than the same size was 20
>years ago, and all of that has gone into the structure, airbags, ABS, etc.
>
>Take a look at the roof pillars, window sizes, and beltlines on a new car
>and compare them against a 1992 model. The new cars have tree-trunks for
>pillars, gun slits for windows, and beltlines up to your nose. Visibility
>sucks.
>
>You can have "safety", and you can have lightness, but you can't have both
>unless you start using materials and processes that would put the price out
>of reach of the average consumer.

Well, but that's where the challenge is now for Honda or anybody.

I guess the question is to what degree the new standards make sense?
I've never heard that the old, ligher Hondas had any reputation as
death traps.

I believe the air bags are a total waste of money and can really only
be counterproductive, I guess with all the side airbags and crap that
might be a hundred pounds - and more than a thousand dollars, right
there. So if that's a sign, then probably 95% of the new standards
are garbage.

J.

On 03/22/2012 08:07 AM, JRStern wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:26:01 +0000 (UTC), >
> wrote:
>
>>> I was actually just going to post about the late unlamented Accord V6
>>> hybrid from a couple years back, how about just keeping up with the
>>> Jones's with an Accord hybrid I4 - AND KNOCK 500 POUNDS OFF IT.
>>
>>
>> That's exactly the point. Modern "safety" regulations -- especially the
>> newer side-impact regs -- make it difficult to impossible to build a light
>> car of any size.
>>
>> Everything these days is 400-500 lbs heavier than the same size was 20
>> years ago, and all of that has gone into the structure, airbags, ABS, etc.
>>
>> Take a look at the roof pillars, window sizes, and beltlines on a new car
>> and compare them against a 1992 model. The new cars have tree-trunks for
>> pillars, gun slits for windows, and beltlines up to your nose. Visibility
>> sucks.
>>
>> You can have "safety", and you can have lightness, but you can't have both
>> unless you start using materials and processes that would put the price out
>> of reach of the average consumer.
>
> Well, but that's where the challenge is now for Honda or anybody.
>
> I guess the question is to what degree the new standards make sense?
> I've never heard that the old, ligher Hondas had any reputation as
> death traps.

the late 80's hondas were pretty much at the top of the game in that
regard. great crash resistant frames, no abs, no airbags - and
economical because of the weight savings.


>
> I believe the air bags are a total waste of money and can really only
> be counterproductive,

they're good for a very limited percentage of the population - the
people that drive hunched up close to the wheel. but i think darwinian
natural selection of those people from the gene pool is a good thing -
and certainly not one worth the nation wasting billions of dollars to
oil despots for.


> I guess with all the side airbags and crap that
> might be a hundred pounds - and more than a thousand dollars, right
> there. So if that's a sign, then probably 95% of the new standards
> are garbage.

i couldn't agree more. all the time, money, weight and gasoline wasted
lugging about "side impact protection" that is not a significant
proportion of road impacts, and is pretty much impossible to /really/
protect since there is no room for an adequate crumple zone, is just
insane.

i'll say it again to be boring - if passenger safety was the /real/
objective, we'd all have tubular safety cages, 6-point harness and
helmets in our cars. then we could drive our 1600lb vehicles into the
barrier at 200mph and walk away. just like indy.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum