you think chery is next honda?

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> >
> > 1998 Toyota Sienna.
>
> That gen Sienna doesn't even really compete with the big boys.

About the same size as the std Caravan and not much smaller than the
1999 Ody. That first generation Sienna sold pretty well for being
non-competitive.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article >,
> SoCalMike > wrote:
>
>
>>>is a nation of robots. They take someone else's idea and usually improve on
>>>it. THAT was my point.
>>
>>even then it took a full TEN YEARS for japan to build a minivan on a FWD
>>car platform, like chrysler did.
>
>
> It actually took 15 years for them to build a *competitive* minivan.
>
> For 15 years, ChryCo owned the minivan market. Introduced in the 84
> model year, it just kept getting better.

i think chrysler just copied the french.

this thing:

http://www.matrasport.dk/Cars/Espace/history.html

was the leader in minivans in europe and it came out in 77/78.
suspension was a damned sight better than the garbage on that chrysler
thing too. and check out this:

http://www.matrasport.dk/Cars/Espace.../espaceF1.html

> It wasn't until 1999 that
> Honda brought out the Odyssey and finally competed, finally broke the
> Japanese out of their scared mindset (they were too scared to bring out
> something that REALLY competed with the ChyrCos; witness all those
> small, ugly, relatively speaking crummy vans).
>
> The Japanese sometimes can't--or rather, won't--even copy something
> that's wildly successful, because they're too busy looking at the other
> Japanese companies and waiting for someone else in their world to blink.
>

On 26 May 2006 03:52:30 -0700, wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Or perhaps they're so risk adverse that until they're assured success
>> >they tend not to engage.
>>
>> That doesn't sound like Honda.
>>
>> I think that in Honda's case, they were following an orderly expansion
>> plan.
>
>Risk adverse vs. orderly expansion plan.
>Maybe "orderly expansion" is just an effort to decrease risk.
>What do you think?

No, it is an effort to maintain sanity. You have a plan and, as long
as it is working, you stick to it. Running after every opportunity,
even if it is a good one, disrupts the bigger growth plan.

By any rational judgement, Honda has been growing just about as fast
as possible. Keep in mind, twelve years before the Chrysler minivans
arrived, Honda only made cars with air-cooled engines.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> > >
> >Risk adverse vs. orderly expansion plan.
> >Maybe "orderly expansion" is just an effort to decrease risk.
> >What do you think?
>
> No, it is an effort to maintain sanity. You have a plan and, as long
> as it is working, you stick to it. Running after every opportunity,
> even if it is a good one, disrupts the bigger growth plan.

Well, I offer the following -
Ridgeline, Pilot, MDX, Element
as Honda running after a market.

I submit these distractions have significantly hurt Honda's car
development.

> By any rational judgement, Honda has been growing just about as fast
> as possible.

No, IMHO they'd have a complete set of killer cars if they hadn't
squandered resources on their lame "trucks."

Honda's figured it was less risky to build trucks to capture USA sales
than it was to build a better Civic, Accord or Prelude. The Prelude is
gone, the last Civic was so bad they had to do a major redesign
(Corolla still outsells Civic) and the Accord is having a tough sell as
a Japanese sporty sedan against Mazda 6 and Altima competition (let
alone challenging the Camry as top seller).

Honda was so risk adverse they abandoned their car plan, took up a
truck plan and now has a lot of ground to make up.

ACAR wrote:
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>>>Risk adverse vs. orderly expansion plan.
>>>Maybe "orderly expansion" is just an effort to decrease risk.
>>>What do you think?
>>
>>No, it is an effort to maintain sanity. You have a plan and, as long
>>as it is working, you stick to it. Running after every opportunity,
>>even if it is a good one, disrupts the bigger growth plan.
>
>
> Well, I offer the following -
> Ridgeline, Pilot, MDX, Element
> as Honda running after a market.
>
> I submit these distractions have significantly hurt Honda's car
> development.
>
>
>>By any rational judgement, Honda has been growing just about as fast
>>as possible.
>
>
> No, IMHO they'd have a complete set of killer cars if they hadn't
> squandered resources on their lame "trucks."
>
> Honda's figured it was less risky to build trucks to capture USA sales
> than it was to build a better Civic, Accord or Prelude. The Prelude is
> gone, the last Civic was so bad they had to do a major redesign
> (Corolla still outsells Civic) and the Accord is having a tough sell as
> a Japanese sporty sedan against Mazda 6 and Altima competition (let
> alone challenging the Camry as top seller).
>
> Honda was so risk adverse they abandoned their car plan, took up a
> truck plan and now has a lot of ground to make up.
>
well said! could not agree more.

On 26 May 2006 19:04:17 -0700, "ACAR" > wrote:

>
>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> > >
>> >Risk adverse vs. orderly expansion plan.
>> >Maybe "orderly expansion" is just an effort to decrease risk.
>> >What do you think?
>>
>> No, it is an effort to maintain sanity. You have a plan and, as long
>> as it is working, you stick to it. Running after every opportunity,
>> even if it is a good one, disrupts the bigger growth plan.
>
>Well, I offer the following -
>Ridgeline, Pilot, MDX, Element
>as Honda running after a market.
>
>I submit these distractions have significantly hurt Honda's car
>development.

I agree that Honda's car development dropped off the curve for a
while. It seems to be improving now. Honda is a lot bigger company
now than it used to be. It has the resources to carry out development
on multiple vehicle lines.

I personally wish that people (or at least people without a legitimate
reason) would stop buying SUVs,. But there seems to be a persistent
market and the MDX and Pilot are pretty good choices if you are
looking for that kind of vehicle. You can't blame Honda for wanting
to have a vehicle in this category.

If the idea of an SUV is a little dim-witted, these quasi pickup-SUV
trucks (eg. Ridgeline and Avalanche) are downright moronic. I don't
think the market is that big either. For what it's worth, the Honda
is definitely the best (least insane) choice among these.

Element is actually in a nice little niche. It could be excellent if
the execution were a little less cute and the size increased a notch
or two.



>
>> By any rational judgement, Honda has been growing just about as fast
>> as possible.
>
>No, IMHO they'd have a complete set of killer cars if they hadn't
>squandered resources on their lame "trucks."
>
>Honda's figured it was less risky to build trucks to capture USA sales
>than it was to build a better Civic, Accord or Prelude. The Prelude is
>gone, the last Civic was so bad they had to do a major redesign
>(Corolla still outsells Civic) and the Accord is having a tough sell as
>a Japanese sporty sedan against Mazda 6 and Altima competition (let
>alone challenging the Camry as top seller).
>
>Honda was so risk adverse they abandoned their car plan, took up a
>truck plan and now has a lot of ground to make up.

"Chinacarforums" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> hondas are amazing cars...but what do you think about chinese cars like
> zhonghua and chery....china will eventually create better engines and
> styling methods than japanese..
>
> check http://www.chinacarforums.com
>
>

How come I didn't see many of those even in China. They are mostly VWs and
Hondas.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> We were concerned the Civic might keep growing old with the baby
> boomers and die off," says Honda Chief Engineer Toshiro Morita, who
> headed the latest Civic redesign. He says the car had lost its edge
> and had become like a "big rounded ball."

it was starting to resemble a low-rent sentra. especially from the back!
at least the corolla looked semi-sporty, and could pass for an
entry-level lexus.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 22:16:57 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>In article . com>,
>>"ACAR" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, I offer the following -
>>>Ridgeline, Pilot, MDX, Element
>>>as Honda running after a market.
>>>
>>>I submit these distractions have significantly hurt Honda's car
>>>development.
>>
>>Hear hear.
>>
>>The beancounters took over at Honda, and Honda paid the price. Ugly
>>cars, unprecedented transmission problems--not once, but twice IN A ROW
>>with different transmissions, even.
>>
>>I think the beancounters have been forced aside lately, though. We'll
>>see.
>
>
> No executive team at Honda ever lasts very long. The constant,
> voluntary turnover at the executive level is a Honda tradition. The
> latest CEO took the office in 2003 and will probably
>
> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05252/568685.stm
>
> ** Quote **
>
> We were concerned the Civic might keep growing old with the baby
> boomers and die off," says Honda Chief Engineer Toshiro Morita, who
> headed the latest Civic redesign. He says the car had lost its edge
> and had become like a "big rounded ball."
>
> About the same time, Honda CEO Mr. Fukui, who took over in 2003, was
> trying to rid the company of its conservatism. He says in an interview
> that Honda was afflicted by "big-company disease" in the way it
> develops technology, conducts product-planning and markets its
> vehicles.
>
> Stung by weak sales, top Honda executives began rethinking the Civic
> three years ago. When Mr. Fukui took over as CEO, he broadly
> encouraged this kind of endeavor and pushed Honda to embrace what he
> called "a smell of danger."
>
> Meanwhile, company managers pledged to stay out of the Civic redesign,
> recalls Mr. Morita, the chief engineer. "They told me on so many
> occasions that they no longer understood what moved young buyers and
> that they were willing to give me and my team free rein in designing
> the next generation Civic," he recalls.
>
>
> Honda tries to revive the Civic's virtues
>
> Friday, September 09, 2005
> By Norihiko Shirouzu, The Wall Street Journal
>
> ** End Quote **
>
> Management concedes marketing decisions to the Chief Engineer. That
> is so typically Honda that I am not too worried about the future.
>
>
thanks for that interesting and informative post! particularly
fascinating to see management describe the recent trend in honda
engineering as "conservative", when in reality it was extreme bean
counting and chasing the tail-spin of detroit as if it were a "Good Thing".

please please please honda, let the next generations of vehicles
[particularly civics] get back to doing what they did best - the "wolf
in sheeps clothing". and please please please honda, bring back a
wishboned crx. hatchback.

wrote:
>
> IMHO the Avalanche has an excuse; it can tow. It might make an
> excellent "fifth wheeler." But the Ridgeline...yuppie trucklet.

if all you wanna do is haul a couple dirt bikes to the desert, itll do
that. not many people tow anything, ever.
>
>> Element is actually in a nice little niche. It could be excellent if
>> the execution were a little less cute and the size increased a notch
>> or two.
>
> Gross vehicle weight reveals how poor a design Element is. Probably
> serves well as an urban light delivery vehicle.
>
> Chasing these "trucklet" niches is exactly the wrong course. All the

seems to work for scion.