I think we know the answer to this question......

Honda is now a huge company. It will do what huge companys do. Churn out products that please large numbers of people.

I am sure that many people will buy the car as a economical fun little runabout that gets good mileage and will make a safe hand-me-down for junior when he turns 18.

The fact that people like us who know what understeer is and what it feels like dont like it is maybe 10% of the possible market for the car. And the other 90% would be very turned off by a car that had the ability to oversteer when pushed hard. So they make a understeery little egg because thats what appears to sell.

We dont matter enough to rate highly on the list of priorities for any car being made by a large corporation dealing with a crap global economy. In the best of times very few cars get built for people like us, and in the worst it goes to basically none.

Driving a car with low limits AT it's limits is fantastic fun and great training.

One of my favorite cars of all time is the late 60's early 70's alfa GT. 0-60 in 10+ seconds, little 155 width tires provided corner g's about equal to a steel wheeled roller skate. Only a 5700 rpm redline but can run at redline all day. No one would call it a boring car to drive even though the performance limits are laughable. Carmakers (and many drivers) have forgotten the joy of simple, light and willing.

I agree, driving a well balanced car with low limits is a blast. I just don't like that cr-z. I know I am not a majority of drivers, and i require something a bit different, and get upset every time a true manual trans isn't offered. My wife looks at me funny when i start talking about over and understeer. I just don't like electronically muddied down cars i guess. They could take off that ghey electro shit and get better highway mileage. It is a fail, the fit is infinitely better, more simple, and less to work on. I could come up with a million reasons not to buy it. Maybe we should start making cars.

I used to love Honda. But lately they've:

- bloated the Accord
- made the Civic resemble a spaceship
- diluted the R models
- killed off the S2k and NSX
- killed off the Insight to replace it years later with this crap

I think Mr. Enzo Ferrari once made a similar statement after being disappointed in the chariot he picked for a hillclimb.

If only we had the money.

It does make you thankful for Mazda overall. Show me a sub 30K car that has brakes as good as the RX8 and its overall dynamics. Proves that a strategy of actually making cars that dont suck to drive can work. But its not going to be the money maker that cars like the Accord and Camry are.

Hmmm..

http://content.etilize.com/Large/11964581.jpg
http://www.jayhondaaccessories.com/i..._Civic_2Dr.jpg



Yep.

I don't think Honda's new design aesthetic will grow on me as the bangle-beemers did.

Unfortunately, as with all product design, the aesthetic is a result of constraints (regs., cost, shipping, etc.) and desires - most of which are not the designers or the 'passionate' buyers (in this case, auto enthusiasts). In some cases, directors and their designers can manage these variables as they translate an initial sketch to reality, in other cases they cannot.

Honda's new aesthetic seems like one of those instances where marketing initiates the idea of adding 'more tech' aesthetically. I'm sure the early concepts were compelling, however, filtering design concepts through reality can ready muddle things up. They should have threw in the towell on the aesthetic long before cutting the tools.

In short, I think their line up looks like shit and their CRV looks like a fat chick in pocket-less pants.

-Zach

Somethng in the current Japanese aesthetic sort of world seems to go exatcly that way. Look at the Kei cars and their evolution. I hope they swing the other way soon. I have to remind myself that the Japanese did create the MKIV Supra ( I even like the MKIII), the FD, the NSX, and the 2000GT.