Kizashi Club

This is relevant only because the cars are sometimes cross-shopped, but I direct your attention to the latest issue of Consumer Reports, which has reviewed several new compact sedans, including the Ford Focus and the Honda Civic. While they like the Focus well enough, they clearly did NOT like the new Honda Civic LX, which they have now rated too low to be recommended. This has to be a BIG disappointment to Honda, whose Civic is one of their best sellers, and has previously been a top recommended pick among compact cars at CR. The Toyota Corolla, another popular compact, has not been significantly changed in almost 15 years, rendering it virtually obsolete in the face of newer competition. It seems that the larger Japanese manufacturers are advancing at such a conservative, glacial place that they are rapidly being outstripped by American brands, the Koreans and smaller companies like Suzuki.

I suggest that Honda didn't suddenly redesign the Civic into a turd.

So we had a customer who's had their 2012 Civic since April, and he called when he got his CR issue. He said he didn't understand; when he looked around the interior of his Civic he didn't think it was 'cheap'; he thought the both ride and steering were superb; his gas mileage is stellar; the car was hushed and quiet on his daily long commute; he wondered what he was missing.
He didn't understand what CR was talking about......

The issue for the Civic and the Corolla is not that they are that BAD, but that other cars in their price class advanced the art of compact cars so much more quickly than Honda and Toyota have. There is no doubt that the Civic feels 'cheap' inside, with hard, shiny plastic, numb steering, and interior materials that don't measure up to those in some of the newer cars like the Focus, the Cruise and the Elantra, or the Kizashi "S" for that matter. for similar money.

I have never worshiped at the altar of hon-duh. I have owned several, bought them new, and they were all crap. Unreliable, boring, overpriced crap. The only one i would even consider, if i could get one cheap, would be the S2000.

tigerbangs54 wrote:The issue for the Civic and the Corolla is not that they are that BAD, but that other cars in their price class advanced the art of compact cars so much more quickly than Honda and Toyota have. There is no doubt that the Civic feels 'cheap' inside, with hard, shiny plastic, numb steering, and interior materials that don't measure up to those in some of the newer cars like the Focus, the Cruise and the Elantra, or the Kizashi "S" for that matter. for similar money.

This is exactly the issue. Well said. Had the Civic offer even a sense of luxury like the Kizashi, I would probably not be posting in this forum.

I was introduced to the Kizzy due to hail damage totaling my '06 Civic. Only had 70k on it and probably would have run forever. I have to thank the powers that be for dumping hail onto that car because I am really enjoying all the comfort fatures of the Kizzy. I was interested in getting another Civic, until I realized I could get more standard features and AWD for about the same price. Only thing I miss is the extra 6-9 mpg, but in the end, the cost difference is minimal! Let's hope Suzuki can become the next reliable "Honda" and re-sale will be high, since Honda seems to hold their value quite well. My insurance gave me 12k for the Civic, so not a bad return on investment. Time will tell.

Hondas retain their resale value well enough, agreed, but if one looks at comparative depreciation data the retention is probably overstated versus other cars. I don't believe anyone solicits and compares actual-sales-price-to-resale figures, but rather all compare list-price-to-estimated resale figures. Thus, if the vehicle typically sells new at a discount then its depreciation will be overstated in comparison. Hondas have historically, I believe, on the whole sold new without any substantial discounts from list.

I purchased Toyota and Honda new in the 80s and 90s. I thought their quality was good compared to other vehicles on the market, but other brands have caught up. I did pay substantially within the first few years for things that would well have been covered under Suzuki's warranty (Toyota - electrical issues; Honda, exhaust issues).

No one here seems to remember the timing belt fiasco of the 80's and 90's Hondas. The rubber belt would break without warning, and the engine would self-destruct, often at only 60-70K. Even today, Honda, Volkswagen, Kia, Hyundai and Toyota continue to use rubber timing belts that require expensive replacement at 60-90,000 miles: a hidden expense that is buried under maintenance costs, and not covered by warranty. At least Suzuki used a timing chain, rather than a belt, that will last the life of the engine.

All new Honda 4-cylinder engines utilize timing chains; the sixes retain timing belts.

Right - and the timing belt replacement estimates on our '92 Accord a couple of years ago at 90,000 miles were not at all cheap - like $900 (with other pertinent belt replacements included together). Maybe it is just our area, but I could not get an estimate for less. In comparison, our '91 240 Volvo wagon timing belt replacement job cost about $250.