Civic Type R 2015

[grambles423]

This is why I don't see myself buying a new car anytime soon.

Why put lux features on what should be "cheap" performance cars?

Why not? Its so commonized now, that the camera is literally pennies when applying to a mass produced vehicle. CRV Touring has it now, 2015 Euro Civic, Acuras...etc etc. It'll be an option on every car by next year I'd bet.

Mazda has it. Chevy is getting there with it. Ford is diving into it.

Most of it now is for NHTSA regulations and making a safer car by applying all of the Front Crash Warnings. We're slowly seeing it pop on on more lower end models and brands.

Blame the Government, not the OEMs. They're tied by what the Federal Regulations allow and how they change literally year by year.

RR View Cameras. Cafe Restrictions, Narrow Offset Crash, Roof Crush. What used to be a private affair is now highly regulated.

I see your point though. Still, most users who want a car like that can easily turn it all off. Its pretty simple but a button push. One could suggest "dead weight" which I often tell those project engineers, but judging by their target audience and sales forecast, it won't matter that people will buy a high performing vehicle, features be damned.

Eventually, we're making excuses for us to stay conventional for something that has already changed since the last decade.

:laugh: yea honda hasnt had anything good since the s2000 days in the US soil... it was great for its time.

3 Top 10 Selling cars (Non-Fleet) for Years and Years and Years is hardly saying Honda is producing crap.

Honda just hasn't produced high performance models in the last few years due to the Tsunami impact to Tochigi R&D, Economic Downfall of 2008. Growing pains are seen now, recovery takes time for a small company (Very small actually ~9.5% market stake) to actually funnel its resources within its own financial means. Toyota, GM, VW are HUGE. I'm talking HUGE. They have enough man power to throw at a project and have a few left over for other development.

These things take time. Plus Honda has NEVER gone to traditional methods of making high performance. It's a nuance that Honda ever took a step into Turbo technology. Keep an eye on it, because if there's one thing that Honda knows, its engines.

Don't forget F1. NSX launch coming soon, Euro Type R, etc. Hermit status achieved, now time to apply to mass produced models.

 

[troyguitar]

Why not? Its so commonized now, that the camera is literally pennies when applying to a mass produced vehicle. CRV Touring has it now, 2015 Euro Civic, Acuras...etc etc. It'll be an option on every car by next year I'd bet.

Mazda has it. Chevy is getting there with it. Ford is diving into it.

Most of it now is for NHTSA regulations and making a safer car by applying all of the Front Crash Warnings. We're slowly seeing it pop on on more lower end models and brands.

Blame the Government, not the OEMs. They're tied by what the Federal Regulations allow and how they change literally year by year.

RR View Cameras. Cafe Restrictions, Narrow Offset Crash, Roof Crush. What used to be a private affair is now highly regulated.

I see your point though. Still, most users who want a car like that can easily turn it all off. Its pretty simple but a button push. One could suggest "dead weight" which I often tell those project engineers, but judging by their target audience and sales forecast, it won't matter that people will buy a high performing vehicle, features be damned.

Eventually, we're making excuses for us to stay conventional for something that has already changed since the last decade.

I was talking more about lux features in general than about cameras in particular, those are not too big of a deal at this point.

Bottom line is lux features add cost and reduce performance - both of which are the opposite of what is desired in a cheap performance car (i.e. anything with a non-premium badge, especially a Civic).

I really hate that the whole industry does this across the board. Want more performance? OK, you can have it - along with tons more standard features for WAY more money! It's semi-understandable in "premium" brands, but still annoying even in those.

I'd potentially be interested, for example, in a new base Golf with the R powertrain. No fancy wheels, no leather, no sunroof, just the 300 hp and awd system.

The same argument could be used for people who do not care about performance - What if I just want all of the lux features and don't care how fast the car is? Why not make a Golf with all of the lux features of a loaded R, but with the base 1.8T+FWD drivetrain?

They are sort of doing this with the new Audi A3, you can get the base model with the 2.0T+AWD and a prestige 1.8T+FWD - but it would be even better if you could get a base model with the S3 (or RS3) drivetrain.

Do people who want performance really all want luxury, and those who want luxury all want performance? Or is the drivetrain stuff just so much more expensive than everything else that it is not cost effective to sell high end drivetrains in a low end car?

 

[grambles423]

I was talking more about lux features in general than about cameras in particular, those are not too big of a deal at this point.

Bottom line is lux features add cost and reduce performance - both of which are the opposite of what is desired in a cheap performance car (i.e. anything with a non-premium badge, especially a Civic).

In terms of performance, useless weight I can understand. But price not so much. Like I said initially. Suppliers make more and can sell it for less. But if it is deemed "useless" then I can understand that statement.

However, the entire non-premium market is moving towards a feature driven segment. You can see it in Mazda, Chevy, and even Ford. Its what the masses want. Unfortunately, this creates the image of technology to the customers, thus the higher models get the higher features.

I really hate that the whole industry does this across the board. Want more performance? OK, you can have it - along with tons more standard features for WAY more money! It's semi-understandable in "premium" brands, but still annoying even in those.

You have to please everyone. Its tough to do. But what does the majority want? Features. Price. MPG. Reliability.

What do the "few" want? Performance, simplicity, reliability, etc.

The game is always about compromises. The target market is pretty well defined and often achieved.

I'd potentially be interested, for example, in a new base Golf with the R powertrain. No fancy wheels, no leather, no sunroof, just the 300 hp and awd system.

The same argument could be used for people who do not care about performance - What if I just want all of the lux features and don't care how fast the car is? Why not make a Golf with all of the lux features of a loaded R, but with the base 1.8T+FWD drivetrain?

They are sort of doing this with the new Audi A3, you can get the base model with the 2.0T+AWD and a prestige 1.8T+FWD - but it would be even better if you could get a base model with the S3 (or RS3) drivetrain.

I completely understand. I really do. I love my GTI for what it is, no bells and whistles (Minus heated seats and a few outliars). Overall its a simple car with its focus on its performance. It does this well in a soft package.

Every time I drive a TLX, RLX, MDX, Touring Models and such on our fleet, I turn off the FCW, ACC, LKAS. I don't often bluetooth my media (Aux cord normally) and I hate when the car tells me things that I don't care about.

However, I can get on board with it all if I can still turn it off. Do I prefer it? Not really, but I would for something that performed that great.

Do people who want performance really all want luxury, and those who want luxury all want performance? Or is the drivetrain stuff just so much more expensive than everything else that it is not cost effective to sell high end drivetrains in a low end car?

These days, they kind of do. While you and I and everyone else on this forum only represent 0.0000005% of a market share, the masses make the money for all car makers.

The key is curbing your sales numbers based off the "mass sold trims" and offering the higher levels that essentially are paid for from those sales.

If Company expects 100,000 Base Grades sold at X Profit. Then anything above base is considered "bonus". What is Company sells 100,000 Mid Grades? Then you have even more money to pay for the cost of performance models.

What if company cannot meet the demand of higher trim models? What if company gets more than expected? Then their market image hurts and customer moves to a different maker.

Ebb and Flow. Compromise and Decision Making. Many many people doing their jobs. Its a team effort and not one person makes these decisions. I would LOVE to see the sales side and what little exposure I have to it, I always get to see the forecast plan for new developments. Much higher paid people make those calls.

I'm but a lowly engineer.

 

[troyguitar]

I'm on board the features/mpg train too, but even from that perspective I can't understand the industry offerings. We bought a new Mazda 3 this year and got as many features as we could with the base motor - but still they reserved several desirable features for the bigger motor. Why not offer all of the features on the base car? Why do I need 20% more power and 10% worse mpg to get HID headlights and rain sensing wipers?

Everyone does that crap. Want full options? Gotta buy the big motor. Want the big motor? Gotta have more other features too.

For a commuter I basically want full options with a tiny motor, and for fun I want the opposite. I can't see any reason to want everything unless you're rich, then you just buy a new S6 and call it a day.

 

[J-Cooz]

I would think a 300hp+ 5 DR Turbo'd vehicle would make the rounds on anyone's radar.

I'd drive it even with a wing. I couldn't care less what people think about what I drive, its fast, flagrant, and delivers pure Honda performance.

Judging by the spy shots, it looks like it has fusion camera with active cruise and other lux features.

 

[BillyBob]

The more I see it, the more I like it.
Have the hatch and sedan now blended into a lift back?

 

[grambles423]

I'm on board the features/mpg train too, but even from that perspective I can't understand the industry offerings. We bought a new Mazda 3 this year and got as many features as we could with the base motor - but still they reserved several desirable features for the bigger motor. Why not offer all of the features on the base car? Why do I need 20% more power and 10% worse mpg to get HID headlights and rain sensing wipers?

I completely understand where you're coming from. I noticed that as well with the Mazda 3 pricing as well.

Most OEMs are moving towards "package" trims instead of option loaded. Higher Trims get the perceived higher features and engines. Trim differentiation is a tough one among the sales people. Its all about $$$ and how they want level the product.

Everyone does that crap. Want full options? Gotta buy the big motor. Want the big motor? Gotta have more other features too.

For a commuter I basically want full options with a tiny motor, and for fun I want the opposite. I can't see any reason to want everything unless you're rich, then you just buy a new S6 and call it a day.

Actually, most people would agree with you about wanting the lower trim levels to have the features. But most also want the price to remain the same too.

Something Hyundai and Kia taught the industry was supplier value and bullying the price to where they wanted it. That's how they offer so many features in a "base" or "mid grade" model.

Premium engines call for premium tag which calls for premium features. That's how the customers want it. I say want....but actually, most don't care. They see LX, EX, EX-L, Touring and think, "Touring...I WANT THAT" or some say "I want Leather" and pay the tag for everything else.

Speaking for Honda, EX models are usually the better value per features. Plus you get Manual options with some of the vehicles.

6MT V6 Sport Accord Sedan, I think there would be market for that.

The more I see it, the more I like it.
Have the hatch and sedan now blended into a lift back?

Euro Hatch is the only offering in the UK right now. No Sedan model.

 

[SnailPower]

Unfortunately Hondas don't have much power from factory. You have to spend 5k and up to feel any horsepower difference. However on the gti, its pure power from factory.

I'm not putting down Hondas. I'm a former Honda owner. If your not boosted, there are barely any gains.

Lol, what? GTI has zero power from the factory. It's actually laughable how slow it is while you got the stupid soundaktor screaming off it's lungs, VTEC style. I'm not sure which is more annoying but at least the VTEC serves it's purpose vs a stupid sound maker.

You can't knock Honda's reliability and solid engines. You also don't need to worry about a water pump failing when you drive it off the show floor.

While I agree that I too may be feeling too old to be driving one of these when they come out with their gigantic wings and all, the performance will be there. If were talking turbo charged AWD with near 300hp, that's a lot of pop for a Honda from factory. Not taking into account the millions of mods that come out after for them with their gigantic fan base.

 

[outshined]

They do offer a completely loaded 1.8 Golf option. I would rather have the totally stripped 300 hp awd version though.

 

[BillyBob]

You can't knock Honda's reliability and solid engines. You also don't need to worry about a water pump failing when you drive it off the show floor.

Agreed on the longevity and reliability. But Honda also doesn't appear to be bumping any numbers. Their cars get heavier every generation, but the engine numbers don't increase.

That's an equation for them feeling "slow and uninspired" down the line.

Though this car looks fast and sounds bad ass in the movie, I want to see what it really does.

And yes, I do like it.. A lot. In fact, that wing sells me because it's so ridiculous.

 

[barische]

Agreed on the longevity and reliability. But Honda also doesn't appear to be bumping any numbers. Their cars get heavier every generation, but the engine numbers don't increase.



That's an equation for them feeling "slow and uninspired" down the line.



Though this car looks fast and sounds bad ass in the movie, I want to see what it really does.



And yes, I do like it.. A lot. In fact, that wing sells me because it's so ridiculous.

This car is gonna be ~290 torque, 280hp so ur argument is only valid for past generations.. I also doubt that honda service dept will royally fuck up an oil change....

 

[D Griff]

I honestly wouldn't mind driving around with that huge, tacky wing and such. Getting looks/attention in cars is fun, that's why people buy classic cars and such. The recent Civics have been kind of fugly but I think I could deal if it was a 300 hp hatch for under $30k in America. If it comes equipped with a manual and similar features to a base GTI or something I'd be pretty happy, not sure that I'll be on the market for a fast, new FWD car at any point soon... maybe if I ever have kids or something though.