test drove the 2013 civic si

[Re_Invention]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Agree, Honda seems lost these days. I'm sure they're doing fine financially (the Accord and Civic will always be high volume cash-cows), but Honda used to be synonymous with motorsport and affordable, yet lightweight/sporty cars. Now they've killed off nearly all of their affordable, sporty cars (s2k, integra/rsx, nsx, prelude). And the Accord and Civic are no longer the lightest/sportiest offerings in their respective classes. Both cars have gotten bigger and heavier over the years, and have lost distinctive features like double-wishbone front suspension. These used to be the unique features that set Honda apart and reflected their passion for motorsport.

Honda even recently admitted that the last generation Civic was not a competitive product, and had been designed with the global recession in mind for a certain price-point. I can't imagine the passionate Honda of the 1990's making that mistake. Seems the bean-counters have taken over. That's probably good for short-term profitability, but I can't help but think this philosophical shift will come back to bite Honda in the long-run. People used to be passionate about owning Hondas, now there's nothing really to set them apart from other bland car manufacturers. I honestly can't even tell what direction Honda is heading now. Perhaps some sort of environmentally-friendly, pretend-sporty direction?

Honda needs to get their collective heads out of their rears and go back to their roots.

over-dramatic much?!

The Prelude was 3000lbs and cost $23,500 14 years ago. An SH model would've set you back $26,000. That's $35,109 in today's dollars according to the BLS CPI Inflation Calculator. Give or take an 8% "adjustment" you're still looking at a 200 hp, 3000lb FWD coupe 5 speed for $35,000 OTD if it were released today.

The S2000, that was a $32,000 car. Given that same 8% "adjustment" it's a $43,000 OTD price for a 240 hp 2800lb (HEAVIER THAN THE FRS!) convertible, if it were released today.

People keep bringing up the K20 engine.. it was a cool, I love it, but it fails emissions standards dramatically. End of story.

And let's not even get started on the sales numbers of the NSX. Or price!

They are definitely not 'affordable' cars. Maybe you are pining for the modified used market days.. and we never got the good stuff, anyways (Type R with exception of a few hundred for.. one year?).

On the other hand..

Someone mentioned, the Accord Sport comes in a manual. I could be wrong but I don't see the Camry offered in a 'sport' version with a manual. To my knowledge it's just the Accord and the Mazda6 in that category [JDM 4 door sedans with 4 bangers]. What car hasn't gotten bigger and heavier in that respective class?

Let alone the V6 Accord Coupe you can spec in a manual as well, which I'd argue this is the successor to the Prelude. And of course, you've HAD the Civic SI/Acura ILX (RSX) this whole time. I can't think of any other coupe with a V6 and manual that comes out of a Japanese car maker that isn't a luxury brand. I wouldn't say they've lost their way at all, the products given the market are there, and hell, they are now back in F1 with McLaren. It isn't like Toyota has been making fun, affordable cars for the past 14 years that didn't have a direct Honda competitor. No, in fact, Honda kept ON offering after Toyota threw in the towel. It took sleeping in bed with another manufacture [risk reduction] to bring out something cool, and that's the only cool thing they have (and it isn't even fully their own!!!).

Now.. just because you don't like the products, doesn't mean they have or haven't been making them.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Re_Invention

over-dramatic much?!

The Prelude was 3000lbs and cost $23,500 14 years ago. An SH model would've set you back $26,000. That's $35,109 in today's dollars according to the BLS CPI Inflation Calculator. Give or take an 8% "adjustment" you're still looking at a 200 hp, 3000lb FWD coupe 5 speed for $35,000 OTD if it were released today.

The S2000, that was a $32,000 car. Given that same 8% "adjustment" it's a $43,000 OTD price for a 240 hp 2800lb (HEAVIER THAN THE FRS!) convertible, if it were released today.

People keep bringing up the K20 engine.. it was a cool, I love it, but it fails emissions standards dramatically. End of story.

And let's not even get started on the sales numbers of the NSX. Or price!

They are definitely not 'affordable' cars. Maybe you are pining for the modified used market days.. and we never got the good stuff, anyways (Type R with exception of a few hundred for.. one year?).

On the other hand..

Someone mentioned, the Accord Sport comes in a manual. I could be wrong but I don't see the Camry offered in a 'sport' version with a manual. To my knowledge it's just the Accord and the Mazda6 in that category [JDM 4 door sedans with 4 bangers]. What car hasn't gotten bigger and heavier in that respective class?

Let alone the V6 Accord Coupe you can spec in a manual as well, which I'd argue this is the successor to the Prelude. And of course, you've HAD the Civic SI/Acura ILX (RSX) this whole time. I can't think of any other coupe with a V6 and manual that comes out of a Japanese car maker that isn't a luxury brand. I wouldn't say they've lost their way at all, the products given the market are there, and hell, they are now back in F1 with McLaren. It isn't like Toyota has been making fun, affordable cars for the past 14 years that didn't have a direct Honda competitor. No, in fact, Honda kept ON offering after Toyota threw in the towel. It took sleeping in bed with another manufacture [risk reduction] to bring out something cool, and that's the only cool thing they have (and it isn't even fully their own!!!).

Now.. just because you don't like the products, doesn't mean they have or haven't been making them.

Taking S2000, Prelude, and NSX prices, adjusting them for inflation, then stating what horrible values they would be if sold new today for those prices is beyond stupid for any number of reasons which should be obvious. But it's enough for this discussion to say that when those cars were released, they undercut their intended competition by a fair amount. Competition for the S2000 ($33k) was the Boxster ($43k), Z4 ($41k), and TT Quattro Roadster ($40k). The S2000 was cheaper by at least $7k over those cars. When it was released, the NSX ($62k) was designed to match up against the Ferrari 348 ($122k), which it undercut by a huge amount.

Not sure why you brought up the K20 (I didn't), but your point (that it would fail emissions standards today) is irrelevant for this discussion.

Honda used to be synonymous with motorsport in the 1980's and 1990's (six consecutive constructors' championships in Formula 1, six consecutive drivers championships in CART). Honda was also known for being a builder of consumer cars that were light, sporty, and affordable relative to their competition. There's nothing hyperbolic or overdramatic about those statements.

[Burrcold]

[Re_Invention]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Taking S2000, Prelude, and NSX prices, adjusting them for inflation, then stating what horrible values they would be if sold new today for those prices is beyond stupid for any number of reasons which should be obvious. But it's enough for this discussion to say that when those cars were released, they undercut their intended competition by a fair amount. Competition for the S2000 ($33k) was the Boxster ($43k), Z4 ($41k), and TT Quattro Roadster ($40k). The S2000 was cheaper by at least $7k over those cars. When it was released, the NSX ($62k) was designed to match up against the Ferrari 348 ($122k), which it undercut by a huge amount.

Not sure why you brought up the K20 (I didn't), but your point (that it would fail emissions standards today) is irrelevant for this discussion.

Honda used to be synonymous with motorsport in the 1980's and 1990's (six consecutive constructors' championships in Formula 1, six consecutive drivers championships in CART). Honda was also known for being a builder of consumer cars that were light, sporty, and affordable relative to their competition. There's nothing hyperbolic or overdramatic about those statements.

You kindly ignored the percentage adjustment :p. But that's what I accused you of doing with Honda anyways, choosing what you want to see - but I'll bite anyways, why is it a dumb idea (details please, I'm genuinely curious to know) to adjust for inflation and then modify with an (admittedly) arbitrary number when we're talking the hypothetical's of dinosaurs being released today? You'll also note I said if released today and NOT brought over as a continuing generation of a model that has been out. So we're assuming no incentive/cut back and little r&d recovery. You do know what the CPI is, right? It's just an estimate and I didn't perform any specific weighting. So I took an additional %8 OFF the estimated adjustment. I'd say it's a general ball park figure of the car if new today.

I'd argue the S2000 was competing in the class below. The RX8, the 350Z, Crossfire, etc.

The Boxster, Z4, SLK competed in their own pseduo luxury class. Someone buying a Benz wasn't crossing shopping a Honda.

I'd like to hear your opinion on their values if released today as brand new models. If you have one?

My point is these cars were not as cheap/affordable when new as you make them out to be in some false sense of nostalgia (and you're comparing the NSX to a god damn Ferrari... I don't care what it was supposed to compete with, a super car it was not, and that's why it died). And then you chose to ignore everything else I put and reiterated your original statement. Just look at the sales data, look at Honda's continued involvement in motorsport's both at grass roots (I don't remember Toyota leading the B spec series formation.. nope.. that was Honda and Mazda) and the top tier (Formula 1) and everything in between.

The K20 was for someone else, didn't wanna multi quote.

Here's each manufacture's US motorsports page:

http://www.toyotaracing.com/

http://hpd.honda.com/motorsports/

Take from it whatever you'd like.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Re_Invention

You kindly ignored the percentage adjustment :p. But that's what I accused you of doing with Honda anyways, choosing what you want to see - but I'll bite anyways, why is it a dumb idea (details please, I'm genuinely curious to know) to adjust for inflation and then modify with an (admittedly) arbitrary number when we're talking the hypothetical's of dinosaurs being released today? You'll also note I said if released today and NOT brought over as a continuing generation of a model that has been out. So we're assuming no incentive/cut back and little r&d recovery. You do know what the CPI is, right? It's just an estimate and I didn't perform any specific weighting. So I took an additional %8 OFF the estimated adjustment. I'd say it's a general ball park figure of the car if new today.

I'd argue the S2000 was competing in the class below. The RX8, the 350Z, Crossfire, etc.

The Boxster, Z4, SLK competed in their own pseduo luxury class. Someone buying a Benz wasn't crossing shopping a Honda.

I'd like to hear your opinion on their values if released today as brand new models. If you have one?

My point is these cars were not as cheap/affordable when new as you make them out to be in some false sense of nostalgia (and you're comparing the NSX to a god damn Ferrari... I don't care what it was supposed to compete with, a super car it was not, and that's why it died). And then you chose to ignore everything else I put and reiterated your original statement. Just look at the sales data, look at Honda's continued involvement in motorsport's both at grass roots (I don't remember Toyota leading the B spec series formation.. nope.. that was Honda and Mazda) and the top tier (Formula 1) and everything in between.

The K20 was for someone else, didn't wanna multi quote.

Here's each manufacture's US motorsports page:

http://www.toyotaracing.com/

http://hpd.honda.com/motorsports/

Take from it whatever you'd like.

I ignored your 8% adjustment because it was completely arbitrary, as in, there's no factual basis for using 8% as opposed to 15% or 50%. Why is it a stupid idea to take relic cars from the past, adjust their price by a CPI-based inflation number, re-adjust that by another completely arbitrary percentage that you admit you pulled out of your ass, and then try to compare them against new models to assess the value they represented at the time they were released in any meaningful way? The list of flaws in that plan is long. From a quantitative perspective, you're not going to get any kind of comparable or reliable numbers that way. Is the bundle of goods used to create the CPI sufficient to reflect the buying power over the years of the typical purchaser of a S2000? What about the typical purchaser of a new NSX? Not to mention the obvious problem of using a completely arbitrary adjustment figure like 8% on top of the CPI. From a qualitative perspective, the comparison ignores differing constraints faced by manufacturers in both eras, such as government fuel mileage requirements, safety requirements, prevailing economic conditions, etc., as well as differing demands required by consumers of that era (increasing demand for reliability, technology, safety equipment, standard equipment). The comparison doesn't adequately account for advancing technology and the role that plays in cutting costs in r&d, manufacturing, and design. If that doesn't make sense to you, take that to the extreme and imagine comparing a 1970's era Corvette against a modern-era 430hp Corvette (C6) that meets modern safety and emissions standards. You can adjust it by the CPI and any arbitrary percentage you want to blindly pull out of your rear, but the comparison is futile in determining how good of a value the historic Corvette was in its era.

You can argue all you want about the S2000 competing in the class below, but it's a roadster and the only comparable roadsters at the time it was released were the Boxster, Z3/Z4, SLK, and TT Roadster. The 350z convertible was arguably a competitor as well, but that came later. If you wanted a 200+ hp sports car (in the original sense of the word, not the broad definition used today), those were your options at the time. The S2000 was created to be the affordable, practical option in that segment, and it clearly was. There are plenty of published reviews of the S2000 matched up against Boxsters, Z3/Z4's, and it in fact won a couple of those comparisons based on value and performance.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...mparison-tests

Also Honda absolutely targeted the Ferrari 348 when it designed the NSX. That is public fact. All of the reviews compared it to the 348 (and later, the 355). In fact, the NSX was one of the reasons Ferrari quickly released the much-improved 355 because the NSX was comparable to the 348 -- many would argue better -- at a much cheaper cost. It was the affordable, practical car in its segment (hmm, is that refrain starting to sound familiar?) But feel free to ignore facts in stating your points.

Lastly, your question as to whether I know what the CPI is, is pretty hilarious. My dad works at the US DOL as an economist and his sole job is to calculate the CPI. He and I have had plenty of debates about it (I've got an advanced degree in economics). Never know who you're dealing with, eh? Don't assume to know.

[Re_Invention]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

I ignored your 8% adjustment because it was completely arbitrary, as in, there's no factual basis for using 8% as opposed to 15% or 50%. Why is it a stupid idea to take relic cars from the past, adjust their price by a CPI-based inflation number, re-adjust that by another completely arbitrary percentage that you admit you pulled out of your ass, and then try to compare them against new models to assess the value they represented at the time they were released in any meaningful way? The list of flaws in that plan is long. From a quantitative perspective, you're not going to get any kind of comparable or reliable numbers that way. Is the bundle of goods used to create the CPI sufficient to reflect the buying power over the years of the typical purchaser of a S2000? What about the typical purchaser of a new NSX? Not to mention the obvious problem of using a completely arbitrary adjustment figure like 8% on top of the CPI. From a qualitative perspective, the comparison ignores differing constraints faced by manufacturers in both eras, such as government fuel mileage requirements, safety requirements, prevailing economic conditions, etc., as well as differing demands required by consumers of that era (increasing demand for reliability, technology, safety equipment, standard equipment). The comparison doesn't adequately account for advancing technology and the role that plays in cutting costs in r&d, manufacturing, and design. If that doesn't make sense to you, take that to the extreme and imagine comparing a 1970's era Corvette against a modern-era 430hp Corvette (C6) that meets modern safety and emissions standards. You can adjust it by the CPI and any arbitrary percentage you want to blindly pull out of your rear, but the comparison is futile in determining how good of a value the historic Corvette was in its era.

You can argue all you want about the S2000 competing in the class below, but it's a roadster and the only comparable roadsters at the time it was released were the Boxster, Z3/Z4, SLK, and TT Roadster. The 350z convertible was arguably a competitor as well, but that came later. If you wanted a 200+ hp sports car (in the original sense of the word, not the broad definition used today), those were your options at the time. The S2000 was created to be the affordable, practical option in that segment, and it clearly was. There are plenty of published reviews of the S2000 matched up against Boxsters, Z3/Z4's, and it in fact won a couple of those comparisons based on value and performance.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...mparison-tests

Also Honda absolutely targeted the Ferrari 348 when it designed the NSX. That is public fact. All of the reviews compared it to the 348 (and later, the 355). In fact, the NSX was one of the reasons Ferrari quickly released the much-improved 355 because the NSX was comparable to the 348 -- many would argue better -- at a much cheaper cost. It was the affordable, practical car in its segment (hmm, is that refrain starting to sound familiar?) But feel free to ignore facts in stating your points.

Lastly, your question as to whether I know what the CPI is, is pretty hilarious. My dad works at the US DOL as an economist and his sole job is to calculate the CPI. He and I have had plenty of debates about it (I've got an advanced degree in economics). Never know who you're dealing with, eh? Don't assume to know.

Hahah! Well played! :happy0180: It is rightfully BS and color me impressed, you seem to know what you're talking about (definitely more input that I thought of). But to deflect here a bit (or rather, to go back to my original point after the schooling/shock), my opinion on Honda doesn't change and I don't believe there is anything to be nostalgic about. They have been active in motorsport's and they still offer sporty, and let's use your words; affordable, machines compared to the competitors.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Re_Invention

Hahah! Well played! :happy0180: It is rightfully BS and color me impressed, you seem to know what you're talking about (definitely more input that I thought of). But to deflect here a bit (or rather, to go back to my original point after the schooling/shock), my opinion on Honda doesn't change and I don't believe there is anything to be nostalgic about. They have been active in motorsport's and they still offer sporty, and let's use your words; affordable, machines compared to the competitors.

The problem I see is two-fold. First, Honda discountinued the S2000, Prelude, RSX/Integra, and NSX without filling the respective voids left by those cars. And it's not like those cars were SUVs or minivans or passenger cars. They constituted nearly all of the sporty offerings Honda sold over the past 1-2 decades. Now, if you want a sporty Honda, your only option is the Civic SI. That's it, just 1 car. There's a big gaping hole in the enthusiast side of Honda's lineup, especially as compared to the 90's and early 00's when they maintained at least 4-5 enthusiast cars at all times in their lineup (and that's not even counting the Type-R's).

The second problem is that even with its passenger cars, Honda moved away from being the light/sporty option and over the past decade, that's shown. The current gen Accord is huge compared with 1-2 decades ago. The last comparison I saw featuring the Accord, it was the heaviest car in the comparison, even heavier than the Camry. Consumer Reports noted the Accord bloat in their review of the 2011-2012 Accord:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthrea...cord-goes-soft

Even chief engineer of the new NSX, Ted Klaus, acknowledges that Honda moved away from sporty offerings in recent years and is now trying to head back towards that direction:

Q10: (The Car Connection): In general, does the NSX signal the return of performance cars at Honda. Will there be a trickle down effect at Honda leading to the return of more sporty, enthusiast-oriented models?
A10: You're talking to someone that lives and breathes these types of products and I have a mandate from leaders within Honda and Acura to make a halo vehicle. These are the people who are putting the future plans in place. I can't guarantee it, but this is our mindset now. We have a lot of wonderful Honda and Acura products out there right now, maybe not as pure as the S2000, but they put a smile on my face today. This is an opportunity to leverage S2000, NSX and I think that is exactly the direction our company is going.

And here's what someone who works/contracts for Honda says about the current mindset at the company:

The "Passion" that people speak of is slowly being injected. The slow, useless, boring "utilities" are being phased out. Honda knows what it needs to do, and our own President is very very upset that he reads "Honda has lost its way" in every car magazine he puts his hands on. So now......................the market will reap the benefits of a beast that has been awakened.

Honda seems to be learning from its mistakes and is reversing course by introducing some sporty offerings to the market again. It's bringing back the NSX in a few years and mulling over whether to resurrect the S2000. After watching the Civic SI/Type-R get killed in comparisons, they promise re-introduce a new Civic Type-R that will have class-leading performance. They re-designed the current Civic mid-cycle and publicly apologized that the last-gen Civic was sub-par. The current gen Accord has gotten some of its mojo back. So about the best I can say right now is there's reason to be hopeful that Honda is reversing course.

[Re_Invention]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

The problem I see is two-fold. First, Honda discountinued the S2000, Prelude, RSX/Integra, and NSX without filling the respective voids left by those cars. And it's not like those cars were SUVs or minivans or passenger cars. They constituted nearly all of the sporty offerings Honda sold over the past 1-2 decades. Now, if you want a sporty Honda, your only option is the Civic SI. That's it, just 1 car. There's a big gaping hole in the enthusiast side of Honda's lineup, especially as compared to the 90's and early 00's when they maintained at least 4-5 enthusiast cars at all times in their lineup (and that's not even counting the Type-R's).

The second problem is that even with its passenger cars, Honda moved away from being the light/sporty option and over the past decade, that's shown. The current gen Accord is huge compared with 1-2 decades ago. The last comparison I saw featuring the Accord, it was the heaviest car in the comparison, even heavier than the Camry. Consumer Reports noted the Accord bloat in their review of the 2011-2012 Accord:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthrea...cord-goes-soft

Even chief engineer of the new NSX, Ted Klaus, acknowledges that Honda moved away from sporty offerings in recent years and is now trying to head back towards that direction:

And here's what someone who works/contracts for Honda says about the current mindset at the company:

Honda seems to be learning from its mistakes and is reversing course by introducing some sporty offerings to the market again. It's bringing back the NSX in a few years and mulling over whether to resurrect the S2000. After watching the Civic SI/Type-R get killed in comparisons, they promise re-introduce a new Civic Type-R that will have class-leading performance. They re-designed the current Civic mid-cycle and publicly apologized that the last-gen Civic was sub-par. The current gen Accord has gotten some of its mojo back. So about the best I can say right now is there's reason to be hopeful that Honda is reversing course.

I don't see it that way given the market conditions & landscape of competitor offerings - or more specifically, against Toyota. What did Toyota have 10 years ago and what do they have today that is sporty and Honda could/couldn't compete with?

2003
Matrix XRS - Civic SI
Celica GT-S - RSX type S
Solara? - Accord Coupe
MR2 Spyder - S2000
IS300 - TL
- NSX (although I grudgingly put this in )

2008
- Civic SI
- TSX
Solara? - Accord Coupe
- S2000
IS350 - TL

2013
FRS - Civic SI
- ILX
IS350 - TL
- TSX

As for the current 'overweight' Accord, it was considered most fun to drive in this recent comparison;
http://www.edmunds.com/hyundai/sonat...ison-test.html

And here it got 2nd, also praised for fun to drive
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...rd-ex-l-page-6

The current Type R to take on the Ring time, while very cool and interesting, isn't something we'll see. In fact, wasn't that going to be limited to a few hundred production cars? Anyways, point being, whether the product is good or not, the fact that they've offered/still offer to sell a product that can be considered sporty - that's my point. Honda has been doing it in accord (ha.. ha... ha) with the market/competitors [and I'd argue better] and so there's no need to be nostalgic for a brand that's "lost it's way". It isn't like they've turned into Lotus.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Re_Invention

I don't see it that way given the market conditions & landscape of competitor offerings - or more specifically, against Toyota. What did Toyota have 10 years ago and what do they have today that is sporty and Honda could/couldn't compete with?

2003
Matrix XRS - Civic SI
Celica GT-S - RSX type S
Solara? - Accord Coupe
MR2 Spyder - S2000
IS300 - TL
- NSX (although I grudgingly put this in )

2008
- Civic SI
- TSX
Solara? - Accord Coupe
- S2000
IS350 - TL

2013
FRS - Civic SI
- ILX
IS350 - TL
- TSX

As for the current 'overweight' Accord, it was considered most fun to drive in this recent comparison;
http://www.edmunds.com/hyundai/sonat...ison-test.html

And here it got 2nd, also praised for fun to drive
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...rd-ex-l-page-6

The current Type R to take on the Ring time, while very cool and interesting, isn't something we'll see. In fact, wasn't that going to be limited to a few hundred production cars? Anyways, point being, whether the product is good or not, the fact that they've offered/still offer to sell a product that can be considered sporty - that's my point. Honda has been doing it in accord (ha.. ha... ha) with the market/competitors [and I'd argue better] and so there's no need to be nostalgic for a brand that's "lost it's way". It isn't like they've turned into Lotus.

Those are some pretty liberal comparisons you have there I'd also disagree about calling some of those cars (TL, Accord Coupe, ILX) sporty and cheap options. I'll also note that the list of offerings is growing smaller for both companies from 2003 --> 2008 --> 2013.

But the bigger question is, why the specific comparison to Toyota? I'm making an absolute statement about Honda, not a relative comment about how sporty Honda has been relative to Toyota over the years. Looking at Toyota's offerings that you've written out, they seem to have similarly lost some of their sporty models in the 2000's, so a direct comparison between Honda and Toyota might not be the best way to evaluate Honda over the years.

Also for the sake of thoroughness, I'll just point out that the IS-F and LFA seem to be missing on the Toyota list.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

^ Not only that, but Honda was competing with more than just Toyota. Plenty of other automakers out there, so just because the car didn't have a counterpart from Toyota didn't mean that it was uncontested.

[tomato86]

Originally Posted by Chimpo

I'm still not sure what you and everyone else is missing here: HONDA HAS BUILT CARS HERE FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS. The majority of their production mix available in NA is built in NA. Honda / Acura is the most American made car (parts %, build location) you can buy period.
Those 90's cars, yep, many of them built in Ohio. I think you're confusing the "biege plague" with a lack of quality. And sure, their cars have suffered from model bloat just like everyone else. Styling is also subjective, but I conceed that the Acura blade didn't do much for me, although they have toned it down some.
And I still think it's rediculous when people call them out for not having sports cars anymore for a couple of reasons:
(1A) The economy fell apart. Priorities change when you are worried about keeping the lights on. Remember the V10 AWD NSX? No? I do (hint: it was well on its way)... but they killed that when it became apparent in a crushed economy that selling a hyper car may not be the best thing.

(1B) Faulting them for making an econimc depression based Civic? So when the market completely falls apart in about a month, and all the forecasts say "we're f*cked", you want them to sell a nicer but more expensive civic? Can you tell me about the used car market around this time? Here's a refresher: prices started going up because people were buying those instead of new cars. Can you blame Honda for trying to pander to an audience that's broke?

(2) No sports cars. Can't really argue this, but Subaru and Toyota do? So subaru has the WRX/STi which are realistically trim levels on the same car. Past that they have?? Not to mention we couldn't even get a weak-sauce version until 2002? And Toyota: Supra has been dead, Celica has been dead... MR2 has been dead... IS-F is expensive... LFA is out of touch for most people And now between them have the 86 Clones.... OMG THEY BUILD SO MANY SPORTS CARS I NEED MORE FINGERS TO COUNT WITH!

(3) Wanna talk quality? So the clones *deep breath* have rattles and buzzes and broken DI tips and the engine/trac light -o- doom and the thump / bump drivetrain with flywheel rattle and crickets and on and on and on.... and I see your other car is an EVO? Fast, sure, but the car that came from Mitsu with one generation basically in need of a new clutch when new and the other having a horrific around town auto??

TL/DR - no, I stand by my comment that you have no idea what you are talking about with regards to cars built in Ohio.

The s2000, NSX, etc. were not built in Ohio. I'm not sure why you keep harping on building cars in Ohio. They've never built a car like this (the new NSX) in Ohio. Nissan builds the GT-R in Tochigi, etc. I don't trust it, and have my reasons. Disagree all you want but many have the same viewpoint. Honda is being cheap and that's why they're building the car in Ohio, not because of "R&D"

Please spare me the historic lessons, I was once a Honda fanboy (Del Sol, FA5 Si, etc.)

[tomato86]

I mean if you want to get all cute with your "facts", at least make them relevant. If Honda has been "building cars here for 30 years" why were the previous NSX's built in Tochigi and Suzuka? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM BUT DEY HAZ PLANT IN O HAI O??

The s2000? Built in Tochigi and later in Suzuka.

The Integra and RSX? Suzuka.

Prelude? Sayama.

The Civic Type R was mostly built in Suzuka, besides some production in the UK for certain models like the FN2.

So where are the performance models Honda has been building in Ohio for the last 30 years? Maybe there weren't any. That's why this whole thing is ridiculous. Bean counters caused this

Someone on autoblog said it best, I want a Vette from USA, 911 from Germany, and NSX from Japan.

[Re_Invention]

Pound for pound, I see Honda and Toyota being the only two top tier Japanese brands - apples to apples. Responding to global markets/anticipating trends, running successful profitable companies, maintaining brand involvement/recognition, miscellaneous development (aircraft, hybrid, robotics, technology). Nissan/Renault alliance was consciously removed from the equation.

If opening up to other manufactures, I'd throw my hat in the Mazda ring for being consistently the sportiest, with also among the most questionable quality, and in dire financial straits post Ford breakup.

LFA was left out because you could technically not purchase one (right?), very few were made, and in no way does it fall under the affordable category regardless of what comparison you are making to its competitors.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Originally Posted by Re_Invention

LFA was left out because you could technically not purchase one (right?), very few were made, and in no way does it fall under the affordable category regardless of what comparison you are making to its competitors.

Sort of, but not really. They are requiring 24-month leases (except the whole least must be paid up front) in order to prevent people from just buying and selling them immediately afterward for a quick profit. After the end of the lease term, you can turn it on or buy it, like in any other lease.

I think there's a yellow one on sale (or for lease) at South County Lexus, if I'm not mistaken. An associate of mine who is on her seventh Lexus (she's not a bad driver or anything, she's just in her 60s and has money to buy them) said that she got to ride in that dealership's LFA earlier this year.