Under fire from a surging Hyundai that seems bent on winning the fuel economy PR battle, Honda is bringing back the HF trim-level for a non-hybrid 2012 Civic that will get an “EPA-estimated 41 MPG on the highway.” That’s two EmmPeeGees better on the freeway than the standard 2012 Civic Sedan or Coupe (with the same 140 HP), which Honda estimates at 39 MPG. Still, that’s considerably less than the 45 MPG combined that Honda claims for the 2012 Civic Hybrid, in order to leave room for the 41 MPG combined Insight. Meanwhile, the 200 HP Civic Si gets a 31 MPG estimate, a number that will likely fail to impress a world that’s getting used to 300 HP muscle-coupes offering similar numbers (in case you’re wondering, Honda hasn’t released City MPG estimates). And then there’s the question of looks… provided you can spot the changes from the outgoing model. Still, conservative looks and a palate of efficiency levels sound like a safe bet for a traditional segment leader.
Wow. Maybe my friend who is still driving the CRX HF she bought new in the late 1980s will finally cave in and buy a new one.
I think this is a great idea and predict they will sell well.
Is it impressive that they achieve this with a 5 speed auto or conversely sad that they dont have a 6 speed? They are also achieving the mpg without DI or FI (as does the Elentra albeit with 6 speeds).
Personally, I think it speaks volumes of the engineering underlying the 1.8 that it can achieve such mileage without much refinement over the past 6 years.
And lastly, how amazing is the Corolla’s real world mileage with only a 4 speed auto? Does anyone know if the current Corolla engine employes Valvematic?
The current Corolla uses VVTLi, and yes, it gets amazing mileage—even real-world—despite having a four-speed automatic.
I’m not completely sold by multigear automatics. The few I’ve been in spend a lot of time shifting a reach for the high gears at a moment’s notice. If I wanted that, I’d get a car with a (smaller, lightler, simpler) CVT.
As far as I can tell, the engine/transmission package is the same as the previous model. I don’t know if they’ve changed any internal gear ratios.
With an auto tranny here is the recipe to get better mileage: Lock the torque converter at the soonest possible moment (the transmissions in commercial vehicles do it as soon as the vehicle moves away from a stop) and upshift as early as possible, and downshift as reluctantly as you can get away with. The driving experience becomes less than pleasant, but that’s how it’s done.
VVTL-i was only in the previous gen Corolla XLS, not the current model.
VVTL-i is the Toyota equivalent to iVTEC, VVTi has no variable lift.
The Elantra sold in the US does not come with an GDI engine and makes the 40mpg highway figure for every model not a special edition model like the Civic, Focus or Cruze. The Accent is supposed to come with the 1.6 GDI engine so its mileage should be even better as its smaller and lighter.
The Elantra does have its own version of variable valve timing and does come with a 6 speed auto or manual.
The Carollas mileage is far from amazing and now trails the bottom of the barrell at only 34 highway with it’s underpowered 1.8 and outdated 4 speed automatic.
The only mileage numbers worth reading are those from Consumer Reports. Owner reports and magazine comparos aren’t apples to apples. The federal treadmill isn’t even driving.
And in those numbers the Corolla is top of its class by 4+ mpg.
How? When the development cost will be spread over millions of them they can afford to do it right.
Why am I not impressed? Our 1988 Mazda 626 with a 2.2 liter 110hp engine would routinely get 35+ mpg on the highway. And that thing was a tank. Why on earth does a Honda Civic need 140hp? And why does the HF only get 40 mpg? Shouldn’t we have come much farther in the last 23 years with efficiency and weight reductions? I find 40 mpg incredibly underwhelming.
For my fellow Canadians… this is a great site to compare vehicle mileages (both mpg and L/100km)…. as rated by Natural Resources Canada….
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuelratings/ratings-search.cfm
This should sell well if gas continues its climb. The idea of a car that has sacrificed sub 8 second 0 to 60 times for efficiency makes a lot of sense. Much as power and size has eclipsed the needs of many buyers, a hard reversal in the name of mileage will have pretty good appeal to the car as an appliance crowd. Smart move. Now re-engage that great Honda engineering team that has been on an extended sabbatical and you will kick Hyundai’s a$$
>>> ,,, a hard reversal in the name of mileage will have pretty good appeal to the car as an appliance crowd …<<<
Or maybe those who think of a car as a machine. Or a tool. A tool gives satisfacation in proportion to how well it suits its purpose. If your method of merging off the on ramp requires a sub 8 sec 0-60 time, this car may me frustrating to you. But if not, this could be the transportation tool for you.
I read an article about a guy who was restoring a beautiful Jag roadster. He said when new this sleek beauty’s 0-60 time was just under 10 secs. Tom McCahill raved about the new Chevy V8 in ’55, because that little rocket’s time was sub-10.
The line for the future, which I recently read somwhere, went something like this: It’s more fun to drivea car at 80 percent of capacity than 20 percent. jmho
>>> “The idea of a car that has sacrificed sub 8 second 0 to 60 times for efficiency makes a lot of sense.“<<<
Heck yeah. Having started my driving career with 12-15 second, 0-60mph-time vehicles, I have to shake my head, disappointed at the human race for their idiotic thinking: that today’s high MPG cars have to do 8.0 seconds or less, 0 to 60mph. Huh? Do the drivers need that while they’re texting on their cell-phones, trying to pull into traffic??
There are plenty of limited access highways around here with a 55 mph speed limit, and a 70 mph real-world speed, that have very short entrance ramps. So, yes, some of us do still appreciate the ability to accelerate from 0-60 mph in a brisk fashion.
Proper observance of traffic and good reaction times will beat using the powertrain to pull into traffic every time. In fact, I see very few people using 100% power to pull into traffic. I am willing to buy a 12 second 0-60 time vehicle to gain 5+ MPG, because I am capable of properly using it. I don’t need an excessive powertrain as a crutch.
Which is why it makes total sense to offer optional engines up in power and down in power as well. You can make the choice at to what serves your needs as you see fit. I tend to prefer extra power, but so many folks I know would gladly trade those few seconds for more MPGs. I actually appreciate the sub 8 second speed in my Altima Hybrid, but I wonder how much better the mileage would be if it took 12 seconds to his 60…
Odds are you would get most of the mileage advantage of the lower output car simply by accelerating slower. F=MA for you physics buffs.
Throttled ICE engines are at their theoretical maximum efficiency at full throttle, low RPM. Injection maps which default to extra-rich at WOT mean that the practical limit is more like 3/4. But “floor it and short shift” is likely to lead to better mileage than “creep up to speed”. (Of course, this technique requires that you control the transmission, not the other way around.)
Where I’m at, the norm is to wander up onramps at 45mph, “merge” at that speed, and then spend the next couple of miles gradually getting to speed.
I never had any trouble merging from even the shortest ramps with my 95hp, 98 ft/lb Suzuki Sidekick. 300 hp is not needed for onramps. Only brains and an ability to plan farther ahead than the leading edge of your hood.
Steve65- Your analysis is correct in the context of pumping losses and the interplay with acceleration enrichment, and it is not the whole story.
BMW did a study many years ago that focused on pumping losses and supports your idea, but the marginal benefit is small.
The impact of acelleration rate can be of much greater magnitude in the fuel consumption equation. You can prove it to yourselves with the instantaneous fuel consumption display, if you car has one. Some of the drop in mileage is due to acceleration enrichment, but that does not explain all of it. No matter how you cut it, there is no getting around the laws of physics. Faster acceleration causes higher fuel consumption because the rate of doing work is higher.
Is it just me or does it seem like every Honda design starts off its model life looking fairly clean and nice, but through the yearly tweaking gets uglier and uglier until the next model redesign happens. The last gen Accord started out nice and clean but then they started tweaking it and it got uglier and uglier. Same thing with most of the Acura designs. This civic is the same. It hasn’t changed much, but it just looks odd now.
I think the current civic was half cool and half weird when issued. It has not changed visibly, to me.
I thought the same thing. The first designs seem to be clean and attractive. The later embellishments seem unnecessary to me. Maybe it’s entropy.
“Is it just me or does it seem like every Honda design starts off its model life looking fairly clean and nice, but through the yearly tweaking gets uglier and uglier until the next model redesign happens. The last gen Accord started out nice and clean but then they started tweaking it and it got uglier and uglier. Same thing with most of the Acura designs.”
It’s just you! The 2011 Accord is more appealing than the 2008 (with some well-placed chrome in the front grille) and I don’t think I even need to mention the 2012 Acura TL redesign as being a marked improvement.
So GM gets hammered for creating an “Eco” version of the Cruze that gets 42 MPG on the highway and Honda a few months later drags out the old HF badges with – a special option package to squeeze out every last drop of MPG.
Oh, and the porky Cruze still gets better MPG with just 2 less HP under the hood.
Toyota and Honda better get it together considering Ford, Hyundai, Kia and Chevrolet are doing it better.
That is the way it goes around here. Some never want the facts to get in the way of their opinions. Like your screen name. Are you an Aussie?
I had the chance to drive a 2010 Commodore SV6 SIDI V6 from Sydney to Melbourne and back last fall, oops, I mean autumn. Took a slow spin around Bathurst the day after the race. Sorry I missed it.
The Comodore is an incredible car with the DI V6, I’d love to have a 6.2L or better yet an LSA! It is a heart breaker that we no longer have the Pontiac G8 in the U.S. My ownly hope is a used one.
Eco Cruze probably has twice the torque of the Civic. Besides you don’t drive horsepower, you drive torque.
My 2007 Saturn Sky can see low 40’s with it’s aftermarket turbo 2.4 liters. That’s when I being very good and focusing on easy driving even with 245mm tires, 18″ wheels and aerodynamics of a brick!
@Norm> This coming from a guy who (presumably) rides an sv650? :)
Exactly what I was thinking. Honda’s great announcement was, “We failed to match the larger Cruze.” By the way, the Cruze with a 100k powertrain warranty, no short service intervals at an expensive, arrogant Honda dealer, and no timing belt to rip apart a $1000 hole in your wallet.
For the record, the Civic’s engine doesn’t have a timing belt, either.
The Cruze also has a Chevy badge…and in the real world that isn’t necessarily a plus.
My wife’s 1999 Cavalier died at 113,000 miles (and the air conditioning had conked out at about 50,000 miles, as it had for other people with Cavaliers).
My mother-in-law’s 1999 Malibu was dead at 99,000 miles, thanks to GM’s infamous faulty intake manifold gaskets on the V-6. The heater controls weren’t working properly, and the car had other niggling faults.
Her current 2004 Malibu has the clunking intermediate steering shaft, the key fob quit working, and it feels older with 60,000 miles on the odometer than my 2003 Accord does with 149,000 miles on the odometer.
Before anyone says, “GM has changed now!,” I seem to recall people saying that when those cars were introduced, too. For that matter, I seem to recall GM saying it when the front-wheel-drive A-bodies came out in 1982, when the W-bodies debuted in the late 1980s, when Cadillac rolled out the Northstar V-8, when the Olds Aurora and Intrigue were introduced, when…
I can’t say I’m an expert on the current Honda use of timing belts, but I have seen that to some date they are willing to have the general public’s engine shatter due to the belt breaking, without even a warning light to announce a $1000 belt change. How Honda can maintain their favorable reputation while belts break, transmissions fail, fuel systems get contaminated by poor metals, the harsh ride, the high noise level, the arrogant/expensive dealers, the minivan power doors that repeatedly quit, is beyond me. I guess anyone will drink the Import Kool-Aid, until they don’t. Times have changed.
The online gripe websites for Honda, Acura, Toyota, Lexus, Mercedes, VW, Audi, Subaru, BMW… are hilarious. “Oh. Oh. Have we been so duped!”
“The Cruze also has a Chevy badge… and in the real world that isn’t necessarily a plus…”
I don’t know what’s worse – a Chevy badge stuck to a Chevy, or a Chevy badge stuck to a Daewoo.
“So GM gets hammered for creating an “Eco” version of the Cruze that gets 42 MPG on the highway and Honda a few months later drags out the old HF badges with – a special option package to squeeze out every last drop of MPG.”
Hmmm. Let’s see.
Direct-injection engine – check.
Turbo charger – check.
Downsizing engine – check.
Six-speed auto transmission – check.
Active aerodynamics – check.
Seems to me GM has pretty much pull out every trick up its sleeves.
Chevy Cruze Eco 1.4L A6 EPA rating: 26/37 mpg.
Result: pathetic.
Honda Civic HF A5: est. EPA highway rating: 41 mpg.
Direct-injection engine – nope.
Turbo-charger – nope.
Engine downsizing – nope.
State-of-the-art 6 speed auto transmission – nope.
Active aero-dynamics – not a chance.
Bragging right, not much.
Do I need to worry about intake valve deposits? No.
Do I need to worry about where to find proprietary dexos engine oil? No.
So, at the end of the day, why should I be tempted to be GM’s guinea pig?
SV650 said: “Eco Cruze probably has twice the torque of the Civic. ”
Wow, may I ask what have you been smoking?
Cruze 1.4L turbo engine: 138-hp and 148 lb-ft of torque.
In all fairness, the Cruze is probably just catching up with the Civic (and Corolla) when it comes to fuel mileage, and the fact that both have attained such great performances in this regard with non-turbo, naturally aspirated engines is quite impressive if you ask me. Further, Honda (and Toyota) have both accomplished this with engines that have proven to be highly reliable, and the word is still out on the Cruze (and other direct injection, turbo models).
Philosophil- Just catching up?
2011 Cruze LS 1.8L 26 city 36 hwy
2011 Civic sedan 1.8L 26 city 34 hwy
2011 Cruze Eco 1.3L 28 city 42 hwy
The 1.3L turbo, standard in all but Cruze LS, develops 9 more ft-lbs of torque at only 1,850 RPM compared to Honda’s highest output Civic SI 2.0L which has to get to 6,100 RPM to do that. Cruze 1.3T produces 20 ft-lbs more torque than the HF’s peak of 128 fr-lbs at 4,300 RPM. Cruze’s 15% torque advantage only tells part of the story. There is simply no comparison. For any of you tech heads. Turbocharging increases the thermodynamic efficiency of the Otto cycle, or spark ignition engine. It bridges part of the gap between Otto cycle 25% and Diesel cycle 30%. Thermodynamic efficiency means how much of the energy in the fuel is converted to work.
GM’s powertrains have been ranking very high on quality for a number of years.
JD Power’s latest data, 2010 model year discloses that the Chevy Cobalt matches Civic in overall mechanical quality and beats Civic’s powertrain mechanical quality 3.5 to 2.5.
No one need worry about being a “guinea pig” with 5 year 100,000 mile powertrain warranty coverage.
@ doctor olds I don’t recall saying anything about torque (where the Cruze’s turbo gives it the obvious advantage) or drivetrains. I was talking only about engines and fuel economy, and as you have clearly shown, the numbers bear me out. The Civic and the Cruze LS (which are both their ‘standard’ vehicles) have almost identical numbers, and the Civic has achieved this without direct injection or turbo in an engine that has proven to be very reliable overall. This is what I was referring to as ‘impressive.’ Further, I never said anything about the reliability of the Civic’s or the Cruze’s drivetrain, but referred only to the engine.
There must be a reason Honda has chosen to avoid going down the turbo/direct injection route (at least to this point, and the same applies to Toyota). One good reason has no doubt been that they’ve been able to achieve good fuel numbers and considerable reliability without them. Honda engines are known generally for their reliability and I wonder if at least part of the reason they have avoided turbo and direct injection up to this point might relate to concerns about the long term reliability of those features.
As far as I’m concerned, the jury is still out on the long term reliability of the Cruze’s turbo engine, as well as all the new turbo/direct injection models (e.g., Ford, Nissan, Hyundai, etc.). It will be interesting to see as well whether Toyota decides to follow the turbo trend, or whether it continues to rely upon the same engine styles that have served them so well for so long.
dr olds: “2011 Cruze LS 1.8L 26 city 36 hwy
2011 Civic sedan 1.8L 26 city 34 hwy
2011 Cruze Eco 1.3L 28 city 42 hwy”
1. For the record, I think the engine Cruze Eco use is 1.4L turbo, not 1.3L.
2. Aren’t we talking about the 2012 Civic, not the 2011 Civic?
3. Did you forget to mention the fuel mileage you listed are for manual transmission only? I think over 90% vehicles bought by Americans are auto transmission.
According to Fueleconomy.gov:
2011 Cruze 1.8 A6 22/35 (-4/-1 city/hwy vs. M6)
2011 Cruze 1.4 Eco A6 26/37 (-2/-5 vs. M6)
2012 Civic est. hwy mileage non-HF/non-Si: 39 mpg; HF: 41 mpg.
Finally, 2011 Civic 1.8 A5 25/36 (-1/+2 vs. M5)
I am interested to know why Honda can squeeze an additional 2 m.p.g. in hwy driving from A5 vs. M5 while, GM loses 5 m.p.g. in hwy driving from its supposed most fuel efficient small car offering.
P.S. Note how close the 2011 Cruze Eco A6 fuel mileage (26/37) is when compared with that of 2011 Honda Civic A5 (25/36).
Is GM ahead? May be, but only ahead barely, when compared with a 2011 Civic that was first debuted more than five years ago and will be replaced soon.
@Norma- You are correct, Cruze is a 1.4L, not 1.3L! My typing and proof reading failing!
I got fuel economy from Brand websites. Chevy provides only one set of numbers, which do not distinguish manual vs. auto. I didn’t mean to mislead. Shame on me for assuming they are the same! You are also right that most Americans prefer automatics.
I compared same 2011 model year numbers because I did not find 2012 Honda numbers on their site, or at http://www.fueleconomy.gov . We don’t know what Chevy’s 2012 numbers will be, as far as I can tell.
I still think it is remarkable that the heavier Cruze economy surpasses the up-coming HF. GM may have caught Honda, to fall behind again in 2012 on popularly equipped models, but that remains unknown until all official 2012 mileage ratings are available.
This won’t help Honda’s fortunes much; they need new sheetmetal to make an impression. Not that the Civic is bad-looking, but the HF will be rather indistinguishable from other model years.
I am disappointed with the Honda’s engine choice for the Civic Si. I was looking forward to Honda improving the K-series engine and really hoping that they would create something like the engine in the Mugen Civic Type R. That would be a perfect foil to the turbo charged compacts everyone is coming out with. Ah well.
The 2.4L is a K-series engine; the same one in the TSX. But I see your point, and would have like to see the K23 from the RDX here.
Oops, nice catch psar. I have to brush up on my honda engine codes!
I’m bit concerned about this, as well. The TSX is about as nice as a 4 gets for a luxo/sport, but unless Honda lighten the flywheel or something, it isn’t as playful and responsive as I would like for an Si engine.
I’ve always liked the Si for the perceived “lightness” of the driveline, even if it has never been that powerful. The TSX just comes across as a bit too deliberate, and not nearly as fun to dart around traffic in.
IMHO the speedo/tach layout need to go, can’t believe they still use that mess.
That’s what I thought when I first saw the two-tier layout at the ’06 Auto Show. Then I owned an ’08 Civic EX and recently an ’08 Civic Hybrid (both gone now). The layout works very well in actual use. The RPM gauge in my case (both automatics) almost never got looked at as is the case with probably over 90% of the general population. The Speedo being way out there causes me to be able to see it much easier than in the conventional location, it is really almost line of sight and requires much less refocusing. And, as an added benefit :-) my 7-yr-old daughter (in the back seat behind the driver) is now able to read digital numerals backwards as they were always reflected in the side window at night…).
All of the dash buttons are within easy reach and angled towards the driver. The main issue I always had with the interior was the handbrake, located on the side of the console/tunnel it is exactly where my knee would rest (in discomfort). Never really got used to that part of it.
The combination of steeply raked windshield, multi-level dash, and flashing digital stuff also creates a cacophony of reflections and glare on the windshield day and night. In my week-long rental, I found it exhausting to look at.
I agree it takes less effort to see the speedo, but the trade-off is that you always have digital numbers flickering in your line of sight. 90% of the time I just want to look at the road. The Civic IP crosses the line from useful to intrusive.
A better solution would be to offer a customizable head-up display for displaying various info unobtrusively on the windshield. But with an OFF switch.
Nothing about the dash works for me this time around. I usually am not too concerned with petty aesthetics but this is a bit too much for me. Now to be fair, they may have captured the dash at a bad angle. But still, look at how the navi system is tilted vs its plastic housing vs the climate control. Also, the top tier of the dash looks awkwardly offset from the bottom. The asymmetric vents don’t seem to have a theme either seeing as how they are all skewed and different sizes. The console appears to twist for no good reason and don’t get me started on the nipples protruding from in front of the non-functioning vent windows.
I like Hondas and I am still going to test drive one in case its a better car in person, but I am really not expecting to buy this particular version.
Agreed. The dash is a disaster. Compare that to the near perfect dash ergonomics and look Honda achieved in the mid 90’s.
Mid 90’s? No way. They had it way before then. I used to have a 91′ Accord. And the interior in that was beautiful beyond belief. Two tone dash, nice materials, nice lines, superb seats… In the late 90s a friend bought a newer Accord. Whatever model it was that replaced the 90-93 or 94 era Accords. And it was like it was no longer a desirable car except for the people just buying a name.
Honda’s decline started 1995.
IMHO Dash designs have gotten far to jazzy and baroque, with glare inducing metal surfaces to boot. the general design theme ten years ago was more functional.
BORING! Next!
What’s up with the windows on the front doors near the a-pillars? It’s got the 80s jeep side-windows thing going on.
It does look awkward but the side mirror placement forces that design, versus giving the mirrors a more forward mounting point near the base of the A-pillar.
That’s an interesting look: the A-pillar starts its climb well before the door break line. Is that for windshield aerodynamics? I had not noticed that trend until now. Ford’s Fiesta shares the same pocket window design. Perhaps a mirror set into the forward wedge area produced a large enough vision obstruction to force that more complex solution set.
Honda could at least start or re-start a trend: Opening vent windows. What a concept! Make it useful.
I wish manufacturers would give us those little triangle windows that you could open and create a direct fast moving flow of outside air to the driver or passenger to help keep you cool when moving at sub highway speeds without needing to use air con.
The slopped windshield and tiny side window ahead of the door are for style only. You can hardly see through the side window from inside the car. It would look pretty bad if that space was just filled in, though.
GM started dropping vent windows with the 1969 model year for cleaner styling (and cost savings), and industry followed. There were complaints from those who missed the ventilation.
Nothing new under the sun 40 years later.
Style trumps function in quest for sales.
@Felis
You are correct about the side window. This is a better plan than blocking forward vision with the mirror in that space.
The only thing that strikes me about the styling is the ride height. Overall the design looks almost identical, but the previous version was much, much lower with a very narrow clearance between the tire and wheel arch. This new one looks like it got jacked up into 4×4 mode. Hopefully it will look more normal in person.
What’s the term? Dead cat space was it? Older Hondas didn’t have much of that. Oh right, no engine update for the Si either, of course since that wasn’t badly needed or anything. This thing looks like a Neon and a Sentra got busy together. Honda has lost their way. It almost seems like they’re purposely trying to make every succeeding generation uglier than ever before. What the hell is going on? Seriously.
Honda can’t match Cruze fuel economy despite being smaller and less powerful!
Honda is a great company, but they will have increasing trouble with their tiny scale compared to the consolidating industry giants.
GM has three of the top 10 selling cars in January.
No other maker has more than 2 and Ford, only 1.
Impala (probably fleet sales?) out sold any Honda model, just above Civic.
Both Malibu & Cruze outsold Accord which fell to 9th place from perennial 2nd after Camry.
February will tell if this is a temporary blip, or the start of a trend.
Toyota is solidly in first place with Corolla/Matrix (why do they get to call two car lines one?) at the top and Camry 2nd.
Doctor: In regard to your comment about vent windows above, I remember “Astro-Ventilation” very well, and didn’t like that change to what was happening in the car industry before I joined the USAF in 1969. I thought “A-V” was a scam, as the “fresh” air you got thru A-V was not really fresh at all – just like if you turn on the blower now when it’s warm, and you get all the hot air that blows across the engine. I hated that concept and at the age of 17, I smelled a rat! Please give us more insight as to the changes in the industry and reasons behind them when the opportunity arises. I truly enjoy your comments.
Thanks Zachman- Same year I went off to “The West Point of Industry”. ha ha ha
You know then that most cars did not have a/c, a standard on everything today.
I liked the cleaner look, but the functionality was missed. Olds went to an adjustable vent in the kick panels that let in some air, but there were times when turning that vent window almost backwards was orders of magnitude better than turning (no pwr windows) the window down.
Do you remember the 1971 full size cars had cool looking louvered openings in the middle of the deck lid? It especially complemented the radical new body style. It was the first time I thought an 88 coupe was cool!
Next year, it was gone, an engineering snafu that let dust into the trunk in rare, but repeatable conditions they had not tested for.
Tooling to build millions of decklids had to be changed. Every division had their own, and Chevy was selling around a million of them a year before CAFE pushed them to Cutlasses and other mid size cars.
Really not that expensive a tooling change, I suppose, but still dumb and wasteful.
All because of a styling change that had the additional attraction of saving costs. At least it looks that way to me!
A/C standard now, it is also a moot point. Interesting to read the comments around the topic, though.
Toyota is the only company that seems to get away with calling two vastly different cars out as one model combining it’s sales so of course it’s going to make a good showing. So if GM combined the Silverado/Sierra full size pickups as one and claimed “best selling full size pickup” status GM would be dead wrong even though they are virtually identical!
What’s really ironic is that GM eliminated front-door vent windows after introducing them as a design triumph some 40 years prior.
I never found them to seal properly, which created an irritating, high-pitched whistling noise unless you constantly kept the hold-down latch in perfect adjustment. Since I lived in a warm, very humid climate where air conditioning was pretty much universal by the mid-1970s, I didn’t mess them very much. However, I can see where they’d be useful in other parts of the country. Also, smokers seemed to love them; I can remember my folks holding their cigarettes near an open vent pane, allowing the smoke and ashes to be sucked out of the car very efficiently.
The Accord was the 5th best selling car in January. It has often been the 2nd best selling car, but it almost never outsold the top selling vehicles, know as Ford’s F-series and Chevy’s Silverado. The other vehicle that bumped it on the overall list as opposed to the car list is the Honda CR-V. Neither the Cruze nor the Malibu outsold the Accord or the Civic last month, although the Impala did, perhaps making up for other companies efforts at reducing fleet sales. The Wards list doesn’t count the Crosstour in the Accord’s totals, but the Honda website specifies that it is called the Accord Crosstour. Of the 10 best selling vehicles, Honda has the CR-V, the Accord, and the Civic. GM ‘only’ has the Silverado and the Impala. It is no hardship, as the Silverado sold better than any car. Toyota had the Corolla and the Camry. Ford had the F-series and the Fusion. Nissan had the Altima. That’s 10.
http://www.examiner.com/autos-in-national/best-selling-cars-of-january-2011-picture
@CJinSD- Honda, too, is playing the CAFE game with Crosstour. It is classed as an SUV on http://www.fueleconomy.gov At least Toyota Matrix is also classified as a car along with Corolla.
That’s why Wards does not include Crosstour with Accord sales volume. Crosstour is not classified as a car, it is a truck! Honda probably does this to offset the poor fuel economy of their other SUV’s and the Ridgeline. Honda’s own website treats Crosstour as a separate model, although it does have a small Accord badge on it too.
Accord was the 9th best selling CAR in January after holding 2nd place for 2010. It may be a temporary, 1 month aberration, but it is quite a change from past performance.
doctor olds: Both Malibu & Cruze outsold Accord which fell to 9th place from perennial 2nd after Camry.
The Malibu is on its way to becoming a fleet queen, too. The latest figures I saw put the Malibu’s fleet sales as a percentage of its total sales at about 30 percent, compared to about 2-4 percent for the Accord.
geeber- i cringe, i saw your earlier post-painfully aware of those failings. GM’s Small Car Group took over the Olds HQ Campus in ’84 reorg and is where the cars you mention were designed, and a lot of them manufactured.
GM has proclaimed “we have it right now” so many times, it is no wonder no one believes them, “the boy has cryed wolf too many times”.
I still believe GM really is differently structured today, with different culture and most importantly, different systems. No, l am not preaching they’re perfect, and i want to make clear that this is not any overnight change thanks to our government.
Roger Smith’s reorganization of ’84 sliced and diced the divisions and systems developed over many years of operation. Olds was already 87 years old, and had risen to unparallelled success despite premium prices – 1 in 4 midsize cars was a Cutlass, 1 in 10 of all cars were Oldsmobiles. We outsold Chrysler Corp and had 10 day periods we beat Ford Division with half the dealers.
We did not have trouble selling, we had trouble building enough to meet demand.
We sold more cars in a smaller market than any nameplate does now. in full disclosure, trucks held far smaller share than today. My point, Olds satisfied customers by giving them what they wanted and making sure the inevitable field problems were 1-recognized as quickly as possible, 2-corrected immediately and 3-remembered with institutional change to make sure they were not repeated.
The Olds systems went out the window in ’84 and I am sure the same was true of all the other divisions as well. By ’88, we were still finding holes. A decade later in ’98, we were still consolidating engineering and quality. But, by 2008, we knew when one cam pulley broke and within days had people at the supplier in Europe jumping through their @sses to tell us if there could be anymore and where they are in the manufacturing system. In the interest of quality, we have shut down 7 truck plants with the discovery of one screw that broke to make sure we could not ship a bad one to a customer. Think of turning off a $50+Billion a year money machine. That’s not even $2M a work day!
A low tech purchased commodity.
The internal change is real, they systems are far better, and , at least all objective measures say our quality is about as good as any, better than many. Only time will tell if my optimism is justified. They have certainly let me down in the past.
It’s funny you mention Oldsmobile, because my parents were loyal Eighty-Eight owners. They had a 1967 Delmont 88, followed by a 1976 Delta 88 Royale, a 1982 Delta 88 Royale, 1988 Delta 88 Royale, a 1991 Eighty-Eight and a 1995 Eighty-Eight with the supercharged 3.8. All of which provided faithful service.
The 1967 model, in particular, was one tough car. It replaced a 1965 Chevrolet Bel Air wagon that was okay, but even as a kid I remember noticing how much of a step up the Oldsmobile was compared to the Chevrolet.
Until 2000, I had a 1972 Cutlass Supreme Holiday coupe, which was another great car. The Rocket V-8 was tough and durable, although emissions controls had sapped some of the power. I was a member of the Oldsmobile Club of America until about 2004.
Some of us are hard on GM because we have driven and experienced the products from the Glory Days, and wonder what happened. This is a company that faced lots of challenges, but had so much going for it – strong brand identities, loyal customers, strong dealer bodies for each division and talented employees. What happened?!
Tearing up the traditional division structure is what ultimately killed Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and I suspect eventually it will do the same to Buick. It seemed like a smart move at the time, but it was honestly GM committing suicide right before our eyes.
I feel like Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes standing at the head of Lady Liberty and screaming. Cept in my case it would be a giant “Oldsmobile Rocket Logo.”
Educator Dan: I’ve waited all day for that comment!
Educator Dan- Great comment! esp the Planet of the Apes analogy. Evokes many, many bad memories.
It was like watching a train wreck in slow motion, except we were inside the train and it took decades to play out. If you have seen the recent Movie “Unstoppable”, a little like Denzel, lots of folks were trying to avert the Hindenburg like crash GM went through in Fall ’08.
BOC Group VP -Stemple came to Lansing and told us the reorganization would be like tearing down you house and rebuilding it while you are still living in it.
A city under seige ould be a more apt comparison. GM had 800,000 people and comprised
4% of the U.S. GDP at one time.
I wouldn’t worry about Buick. It is making a lot of money and is the largest selling brand in China. There will be a lot more money to invest in the brand. There is an old saying, you gotta feed all the puppies. GM ran out of money to feed all of them, but there are only 4 left now.
I hope Akerson is not as bad as some reports imply, but as my wise Uncle Jon said, “If the media gets it right, it is purely by chance.” Only time will tell.
It was like watching a train wreck in slow motion, except we were inside the train and it took decades to play out.
When GM hit the wall and it became clear that a bankruptcy was going to happen, the prevailing question was “who could have imagined that GM would ever come to this?” My response was along the lines of “well, I expected a few years earlier, but it’s been obviously coming for a long time.” It was clear to me by the early 90s the GM was dead, and it was just inertia preventing the head from noticing and the body hitting the ground.
Thanks for the input, geeber. I didn’t have that fact.
I have been seeing a lot of reports that GM retail sales are growing much faster than their overall sales.
That leads me to believe, conversely, that fleet sales share of business must be declining.
It is probably no surprise that I want that to be true!
The Malibu is an older design…I believe a revamped version is scheduled for launch by Chevy in either 2012 or 2013.
I like puting this scenario out there as a means of guaging what we really feel about some of the latest car technology we have seen enter the auto market the past few years along with the sexy designs around them(8 speed automatics, forced induction with direct injection, torque vectoring rear differentials, auto-levelling bi-level xenons, rain sensing wipers, etc)…
“If you had to take your family across northern alberta at minus -40 or go on a lengthy trip across some very desolate places AND the car you are in has 100,000+ miles; which car would you TRUST to get you to your destination safely without hiccup?
For me:
Give me the 4 speed Coroalla,the 5 speed Civic, or a W Body Impala ANY DAY…. no thank you turbo charged cruze, no thank you eco boost Flex, no thank you twin power 5 series, no thank you supercharged DSG S4… I actually want to arrive at my destination with all systems working…. remember, I am talking about out-of-warranty cars.
I would gladly give up a few mpg for less complexity especially if we are talking used vehicles….My only exception to that that would Acura/Lexus…. I wouldtrust Acura in a SH-AWD MDX or a SH-AWD TL or a GS350 AWD all day long and I actually applaud them (Honda) for not resorting to DI, DSG, or FI to meet their performance/efficiency targets….
suspekt- good point, but that is why they are not meeting their targets. technology is the only answer
Car and Driver has tested the Cruze turbo, and it was neither as quick nor as efficient as a 2007 Honda Civic LX. Maybe Honda is meeting their goals, since they don’t have to offset as many gas guzzlers and their products are set up for real world efficiency instead of the EPA lab. The Cruze turbo returned 25 mpg in the real world, comparable to Car and Driver’s results for the Civic Si, which torque or no torque is two to three seconds quicker to 60 than a turbo DI Cruze. The 1.8 Civics of the now ending generation split the difference between a turbo Cruze and an Si in a straight line while returning 28 to 31 mpg in Car and Driver’s use. Technology is only the answer if your goals are arbitrary and your engineering capabilities routinely fail to measure up in finesse.
@CJinSD-Wards Auto world January 2011 sales report shows Accord in 9th place on the list of top ten cars:
Perhaps they don’t include the Crosstour?
WARDs Auto World January 2011 Top Ten Cars and Trucks
Cars
Trucks
Corolla/Matrix
20,581
F Series
35,806
Camry
18,145
Silverado
28,172
Altima
16,454
CR-V
16,339
Impala
15,188
Escape
13,973
Civic
14,634
Equinox
12,847
Fusion
14,346
Ram Pickup
12,197
Malibu
14,102
RAV4
11,196
Cruze
13,631
Sierra
10,627
Accord
13,456
Rogue
9,423
Sonata
13,261
Edge
8,918
So Honda is playing a GM style game with MPG? We can’t have a gas powered car that gets better MPG than our hybrid or our disaster of a dedicated hybrid (Insight) so we’ll make it just good enough so one single model can check off the list, 40 MPG. Traditionally HF versions were strippers as part of the effort to squeeze every drop of economy.
The more I learn about the 2012 Civic, which as I understand is supposed to be a major update, not a light dusting of the design cobwebs the less impressed I become.
I miss the Hondas/Acuras of the early 90’s in particular. Stylish, solid, a blast to drive, and you can’t kill one.
I never thought I’d see the day that the Americans and the Koreans would be killing the Japanese on fuel economy and horsepower/torque output on smallish 4 banger engines.
And as very correctly pointed out in the story 200 HP and 31 MPG in the Si isn’t going to resonate with anyone who really is performance minded and does any kind of cross shopping. Even ooooo it’s a V-TEC has lost its lustre.
Come on Honda, get it together.
Special editions to reach 40 MPGs+ for advertising purposes is a bit of a disappointment – no matter who does it. It a clever tweak of the current model but I wouldn’t call it “all new”. Maybe Honda’s R&D budgets are getting cut but they are starting to make Ford and GM look like progressive high-tech companies.
I think it comes back to the trade-off between incremental sales increase (or decrease?) and the cost of doing so…. This is a very important point here….
What did cost Hyundai to engineer their new GDI engine family? What did cost to engineer the new Sonata/Elantra platforms? Take those two questions and compare them against the incremental sales volume they achieved from the massive expenditures….. I honestly cant say I know the answer. Yes, their volume is wayyyyyy up but at what cost? How profitable is each unit they move when you have to amortize in the platform engineering costs? Again, I dont know the answer. Could it be they are chasing volume before profitability? Again, I dont know…
I think the Civic is another example of Honda taking a calculated risk. They are not willing to spend the extra dough to get the regular civic at or above the 42mpg mark. They know that the best shareholder value is achieved by leveraging the existing platforms (engines/chassis) to their maximum potential.
People should in fact be amazed that they are able to pull this off… They should be amazed at the inherent engineering brilliance built into their engine families… They aren’t wasteful using huge sums of capital to capture headlines and sales…. They know their target volumes… They know the production volume (a band, not a specific number) they need to maintain in order to keep the factories and the overall operation profitable…
It may piss off enthusiasts but I think getting the 2.4 litre unit in the Civic is perfect… The potential of that motor is huge…. easily a 110hp/litrw unit… NATURALLY ASPIRATED….
They just need to do a couple relatively simple things to placate the enthusiasts:
1. Drop the k series in a CRZ-R
2. Drop the RDX turbo in a Civic R
3. Consider SH-AWD and the gem of the 3.7 for Honda…. wont happen, but it ludicrous to put such great technology against such small volume
just my 2 cents….
Where is the hatchback version? It looks like a little more aggressive / chiseled which is a good thing, the dash seems to be an improve over the last one which (if I remember correctly) was even busier. The tiny “vent” window seems to serve no purpose, the doors drop straight down so it shouldn’t need that little triangle. My ’85 Civic Hatchback got 30 mpg so in 40 mpg today seems like a let down, this thing should be hitting 45 by now. Still waiting for Honda to drop a turbo in Civic and really turn heads.
As a current owner of a ’97 Civic (and a previous owner of a ’94 Integra) I only bemoan the direction that Honda is going. I think this new Civic is actually worse (from a design standpoint) than the previous generation. The front is more conventional with the upright grille with simple bars going from headlight to headlight (don’t get me started on bird-beak Acuras) and the rear lights that are extraordinarilly ordinary. The lower grille of the 2-door looks especially ugly and it does not harmonize with the upper half. Overall, it looks like the previous generation with glass house smoothed over and the front and rear ends subjected to serious abuse with an ugly stick.
The Civic was once the only bright spot in Honda’s line-up. Now they all suck. Not only that, their TV commercials suck too, big time.
C’mon Honda, we deserve better than this.
““The Cruze also has a Chevy badge…and in the real world that isn’t necessarily a plus.
My wife’s 1999 Cavalier died at 113,000 miles (and the air conditioning had conked out at about 50,000 miles, as it had for other people with Cavaliers).
My mother-in-law’s 1999 Malibu was dead at 99,000 miles, thanks to GM’s infamous faulty intake manifold gaskets on the V-6. The heater controls weren’t working properly, and the car had other niggling faults.
Her current 2004 Malibu has the clunking intermediate steering shaft, the key fob quit working, and it feels older with 60,000 miles on the odometer than my 2003 Accord does with 149,000 miles on the odometer.
Before anyone says, “GM has changed now!,” I seem to recall people saying that when those cars were introduced, too. For that matter, I seem to recall GM saying it when the front-wheel-drive A-bodies came out in 1982, when the W-bodies debuted in the late 1980s, when Cadillac rolled out the Northstar V-8, when the Olds Aurora and Intrigue were introduced, when…”
Hopefully GM has turned the corner and are now building cars that are as reliable, fuel-efficient and durable as their Japanese competitors. Hopefully they really mean it this time, unlike all those other times in the past.
But forgive my skepticism, because whenever our daughter’s Cavalier needs replacement parts the ghosts of Chevys past come back to haunt me— especially whenever I go to the wrecking yards and find that (even though Japanese car sales over the last few decades have been in the same ball-park as domestic sales) there are acres of Cavaliers and Grand Ams (not to mention Chrysler Neons and Intrepids) from which to pick parts.
But conspicuous by their relative absence at these same yards are junked Toyotas, Hondas, Mazdas and Nissans. And even those are typically averaging 5 years older than their domestic junker counter-parts.
There’s your proof, and I rest my case. This is why I haven’t bought domestic in a very long time. This is why I drive Hondas. And this is why, even though the Cruze might have a very small germ of a chance of being GM’s messiah, I’m not biting.
One word… stagnation.. I expected more from the new Civic…
Hmmm… An anecdotal ramble.
Cruze weighs 3200 pork pie pounds. Honda Civic weighs 2750. Advantage Honda.
Since any moving object is possessed of kinetic energy, it stands to good reason that it takes less energy to accelerate it at a given rate (usually traffic governed) to a given speed. It is a linear relationship to mass. So, the Honda requires less energy to get to a given speed. Ergo, better mileage.
As I sit here, typing with newly-filed fingernails, having just had mine torn by a Cruze’s ridiculously poorly-designed interior door pull (it’s sloped the wrong way, GM), I decided to investigate real world mileage on True Delta. Hmm.., Honda Civics average about 30 to 34 mpg US already, if you believe their owners. The SI model, only about 26, about the same as the one Cruze reporting, a turbo.
I’ve been fascinated by this thread, seeing that all the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork, pushing their points-of-view. I drive a Legacy GT, whose average for me has been 23 for 3 years, so I could care less about these C segment cars personally, although I would appreciate the Cruze boosters writing to Subaru on my behalf to inform them that the increased thermodynamic efficiency of my turbo engine should make it get better mileage than the standard Legacy of the exact same displacement, despite the GT engine running slower at cruising speeds. But I digress.
Possessed of a spirit of minor adventure, I decided to take a look at these cars yesterday, since I had the day off. I didn’t look at Civics — enough people at work have them and average 33 mpg or 8 l/100km. Same with the Corollas. There are enough of these beasts around that we know what mileage they really get. And it’s good. Real world good.
The new Elantra. Weight 2800 lbs. Looks, er, interesting. Nice interior to behold, all hard, though. Real world, it’s noisy and pounds and jiggles over bumps and potholes. (Quite unlike the Elantra Touring a friend has — that’s much nicer) Didn’t like the steering much. Um, Hyundai need to get out the firmware update kit for this beast. It would drive me crazy. This is an unrefined vehicle and will no doubt sell on looks alone. The engine, an almost clone of the Civic’s even down to bore and stroke, but tuned a bit higher, is not in my considered view even close to being as refined as a Civic. Scratch that one for Auntie May. We’ll all have to wait and see whether its real world fuel mileage actually comes even close to the Civic’s. What’s that you say? Can’t hear you. Great salesman though.
Over to VW, where I’ve avoided setting foot for almost 30 years, due to an unfortunate 10 month experience with an original new 1980 Jetta. A piece of crap doesn’t even begin to describe that thing. Ahem. Well, anyway, new Jettas everywhere in the showroom, hiding in plain sight. They are anonymous. For some reason, the cheapest one was 7 grand more than the come-on Canadian price of $17K including delivery. The interior sucks the big one all right, bonk bonk plastic, but a big back seat. TDI models a coupla K more – I thought they were supposed to have the Golf rear suspension for the extra moola. Look underneath. Nope, they all had the beam axle. Window sticker on the TDI — 61 mpg highway (our big Imperial gallon, you know), but 4.7 l/100 km is good.
Hop in a Golf alongside, and you know it’s better quality in about two seconds. Anyway, I like my bosses’ new TDI wagon, and he gets great mileage, averaging about 6l/100km. Nice salesman – offered me a ride on Saturday. Well, I’m here now, Bill. Saturday, not so good.
Drive on down to the Chevrolet store. Admission, I haven’t been in any Chev store since 1977 when I thought I’d like a 350 Nova four speed manual, and a Master Salesman advised me that a 305 automatic with bench seats would suit me just fine. Gee thanks, bud! Not wishing to tell the man off for not listening, I left and almost bought a Renault 30 V6. Thank god I didn’t.
Today, I’m met by a very well-dressed attractive older woman, who informs me that she’s a greeter. Shades of WalMart! I’m lead to a Cruze with open hood and the teeny turbo engine on view. Iron block? Argh! Rear drum brakes on turbo. The car is a dead ringer for my Legacy in size, inside and out, and almost in weight. Then I attempt to close the door and ruin two fingernails. Poor design there for me. Fluffy fuzzy-wuzzy fabric on the dash. Nice interior though, although driver’s seat a bit narrow. Stand around, stand around, can’t get a drive because salesmen tied up selling trucks. Leave biting my fingernails to some semblance of normality.
Off to Subaru to look at Imprezas and the new Forester chain-driven DOHC engine. These cars have the cheapest interiors of any I’ve seen. Yuck. Forget ’em. And the worst predicted mileage, which I’m sure will come true.
Anyway, to complete this ramble, I’ll make a prediction. The Civic and Corolla will get better mileage than the Cruze in the real world, and the Elantra needs help all round.
TrueDelta and CR will tell the tale, but light weight brings its own rewards.
Best seats and interior I sat in all day? Sonata turbo — if it had AWD, I’d be interested. I really don’t want to spend my time correcting steering under acceleration. Also, don’t know how Hyundai paint their vehicles, but all the Hyundais have real gleaming paint and make the other manufacturer’s wares look dowdy.
Most down salesman I met all day? Kia folk — no Optimas for another two months at least in Canada, while the Hyundai people are coining gold with the new Sonata.
What a great post! Thanks for that.
I agree with your ‘real mileage’ comments by the way. Both the Corolla and the Civic do exceptionally well in that regard, and it will be interesting to see whether the Cruze, Elantra, and so on can live up to their hype.
I’m not a Honda or Toyota ‘fan boy’ as it were (I drive a 03 Jetta and my wife a Grand Caravan if that matters). I just like to give credit where credit is due.