not about Honda Fit...but why better Honda's overseas?
 

why is that Europe and other countries get better looking Honda's then we do in the U.S?
I mean the least they can do is offer those models....ex. the Honda Civic 3-door and 5-door are HOT!!!

Official Honda Civic Type R Site | Images

look at the f*cking cockpit!! it's 100x's better than the Civic's instrument panel and dash we get here.
and with the success of the diesel powered Volkswagen Jetta, it's time for Honda to offer us diesel versions of their cars.
there was talk back in 2008 that Honda was going to bring over the diesel Honda Accord, Civic, CR-V and Acura TSX in 2009. never happened.
probably because of the economy...but still
ok...had to get that out. they probably figured because many American's are so dumb and close minded that we should get the boring-looking models..well what about us intelligent and open minded Honda drivers?

I have to admit I think to an extent I agree.

I don't know why not ONLY Honda but so many automakers are resistant to change. In the US, The Fit get's no Sunroof option, no digital climate control, no HUD. It also seems like Japanese automakers think they MUST upsize small vehicles in the US with every style refreshing. They just slowly or rapidly..Scion XB..get bigger and bigger.

I wanted to buy new, so I did not really have a choice. But I regret my new generation FIT doesn't have the refresh mode available with the seats, and I wish it would of been available with a factory sunroof.

The US is a huge market. Why it does seem we are getting 2nd class status with offerings and often styling makes no sense to me.

From what I understand, Honda exists in a slightly different market sector in Europe, and Japan. Basically, you are paying more for them over there compared to a lot of other cars, and hence, more features, nicer quality, and more refined looks to fit that strata.

Car companies have a strategy for each market in the world, obviously. They rely on Acura to separate out the two in America, and with that separation, they are able to get away with cheapening the Honda brand to fit whatever profit structure they need, while leaving their higher end products untouched. If they could make more money doing things over here like they do in other countries, they would. It's out fault we won't pay for quality goods.

Because Americans are a bunch of fat, whiney, pansies..lol We cant take stiff chassis, tight seats, less sound deadening, less fuel economy, etc.

We basically get pussified versions of damn near ever car.

Yeah, all people in the U.S. are concerned with is the amount of of cup holders and the ability of the car to run on regular fuel yet go from 0 to 60 under 6 seconds unless the good stuff is free.

In countries with higher fuel excises and generally more condensed infrastructure, the entire market is shifted towards smaller vehicles. This means, in essense, that the market demographic served by an A-class in Europe is served by a B or C class in the US, a C class in Europe is served by a D or even E class in the US. (I have experience in Europe, and none in Japan/Korea, hence I'm mainly referencing Europe here)

(For reference:
A = city car/mini
B = subcompact
C = compact
D = midsize
E = standard size)

What happens then, is a car that is designed as a nice family car in the Euro markets, such as the VW Golf or Renault Megane, ends up as a compact runabout here (the Megane is a platform twin to the Nissan Sentra).

A car such as the Jazz, which while far from luxurious, is considered a nice meat and potatoes supermini (i.e. sorta like a mini, but larger), is viewed as almost a microcar in the US... and compared to the bulkier, softer-suspended vehicles that are our main fare, goes from comparatively boring and pedestrian in the Euro market to a zippy little spitfire here.

So, why are the cars "nicer" abroad? I wouldn't say they are - they simply invest features and content into smaller vehicles. An Accord EX-L V6 is a pretty damn nice car, but would never sell in most Euro markets as a volume seller. And amusingly, the 'sport-sedan' TSX (Accord in Europe) is regarded as a boring car for old people.

This does present a conundrum for the Detroit automakers - when trying to compete with compact and subcompact cars, they didn't traditionally have good solid B/C class cars with engineering at the level expected in the US midsize-fullsize market, from which to simply remove content and provide a good cheap, very refined compact car. They usually would try to engineer a cheap car from the ground up, resulting in vehicles like the Neon, Omni, Cavalier.

This seems to be changing: Chrysler is doing extensive business with Fiat these days (which may even result in Fiat owning Chrysler). Ford has put extensive work into the shared global platforms with Mazda (C1 - Mazda3, Ford Focus for example). The 2011 Focus will finally be on the C1 instead of the aging circa 1999 platform. GM.. well, they have good products in their Opal/Vauxhall lines, but seem unable to successfully bring them over.

The tendency to upsize small cars isn't really american, but mostly european imo. European sub compacts were small before, but they almost all make around 4 meter now (new polo, 207, clio III, fiesta, Grande Punto), while many sub compacts we have here (accent, yaris, aveo) make around 3m85. There is just the versa that is sold at the price of a small car but that is actually a compact.


And I think we didn't get the euro civic for many reasons. It's built in UK, so they would probably have to open a new factory here in USA. The built quality isn't that great, many people complain about the rattles and poor fit and finish. It's certainly more expensive to make than the usdm civic, which isn't especially cheap already. And the older civic sold very well (best seller in Canada for years), why would they change a winning formula? I agree it's sad we don't have it, it looks much better and it's more roomy, but I understand why we don't have it. Acura should sell it instead of the CSX however.

Less fuel economy? We have many V6 and V8 while averywhere they have small diesel engines...
And most european small cars made a big jump in confort, noise level, ride quality, and equippement. European buy "fully loaded" small cars because of the price of the gas and the small parking places. So instead of buying a well eqquiped camry, they will take a well equipped peugeot 207, but it's not because they love small cars, it's just because a bigger car doesn't respond to their needs. Here, there is a plenty of room and gas is cheap, so why someone would save 2-3k$ to buy a fit over a civic or even a Sonata, and load it with tons of things? They just have to get a civic LX or a Sonata and they're happy, more standard features, more room, more comfort etc.
People here who buy a small car usually buy it for the super low pricetag and fuel efficiency, because they're poor, so they don't care about having a sunroof. The geo metro 1.0 was terrible for european standards (and cheaper than their cars), but sold decently here (in Canada at least), same for the accent and aveo sold from 10k$, and the yaris, which isn't so bad (good compromise between comfort/price/economy).

This simply isn't true. Otherwise, what you are saying is that Honda would be taking a loss to offer the sunroof, and I'm not sure anyone could offer proof of this.
I would have paid for factory sunroof on my fit. And I believe others will want them on their small econo cars because the versa, fiesta, and soul all have moonroof options (those are the only three I looked up, Im sure there are many more).

I have a feeling this excuse is limited to honda fit message boards only.

Back to the topic- i love the look of that civic! The interior photography really impressed me too, I bet they had more than a dozen lights illuminating that scene!

Man I'm glad that Euro Civic Type R didn't get to US because that thing is ugly. Now if that is the FD2 Type R then I would say why not?

At least Honda should offer "Acura FIT" as upscale FIT. I would love to see a turbo in a FIT as in Acura RDX.

Honda CR-V vs Acura RDX

A turbo (or some powerful N/A) has nothing to do with luxury, it's just that Honda doesn't see any use for one in this car, it doesn't even exist in Japan. I'd like to have the 4wd (with M/T) more than a turbo.
The luxury Fit is called Mercedes class A, but it's not sold here.

They ditched the RSX for the TSX, replacing a Acurized Civic for an Acurized European Accord - it seems pretty clear that they don't want smallish cars in the Acura lineup. I wonder if the success of the Mini will prod them at all; Honda tends to wait an exceptionally long time before jumping on the bandwagon - how long did it take them to join the large SUV, pickup, 2 seat roadster, etc. markets (Pilot in 2002, how long after the Explorer became a hit? Pickup after how many years of Tacomas and Tundras? S2000 after the Miata, Z3/Z4, etc. had been on the market?)

Agreed - I'd love to have a sunroof. Not sure if I love it enough to pay $1000+ to have one put in. If I pay off the car any time soon, I'll be less likely to be tempted by the sirensong of a tradein, and might consider it. Going from no payment to payment is a whole lot harder to impulsively justify than going from payment to equal payment.

(Come on reenlistment bonus...)

The Honda beat was there on time. The NSX too. The insight mk1 was too early. The civic Wagon (4wd) was too early too. The civic vx and crx HF also..

cars are viewed differently in different cultures and markets. honda feels that giving souped up civics and other low end car Type-R will not have the mass market interest in USDM...that's all.

most folks would say why pay $30K for a slow Civic-R when you can buy a Camaro??! this and that and that and this.

You Americans think you have it bad, try being a Canadian car buyer. We're considered a sub-group to the American market so we're stuck with most of the limitations you get, plus get the "privilege" of paying 10-20% more, pre-tax, than you for the same (lack of) features.

Yeah, just went today and looked at the new Honda CR-Z. In the States it comes with a grey colored fabric interior only. In Europe you can get leather as an option.

my theory is north americans have a preference for larger vehicles, so manufacturers intentionally keep the lower models barebones to upsell consumers on the upmarket models. i.e. want more luxury? buy an accord. whereas in europe there is a strict demand for vehicles with small footprint so they load it up with options.

as far as cool brand new vehicles, i think the us might have more stringent crash and emissions requirements...making it a small hurdle to immediate bring a model stateside

Yeah. I would have loved an Airwave. :( Infact I just had a dream the other night that I got one.. (which was weird considering I hadn't thought/read about them in a long while!)

Honda�b�¡‚܂Ŕ̔„‚µ‚½ƒNƒ‹ƒ}�bƒGƒAƒEƒFƒCƒu
Honda Airwave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could have used that extra length/space!

Bingo! Enthusiasts on the internet whine about "why we cant get..." , but running any company is about making a profit. The Americas have lots of space and relatively cheap fuel, with diesel usually more expensive than gasoline. US/Canadian buyers favor automatic transmissions overwhelmingly and are cheap.

I predict the Ford Fiesta will fail again in this market unless gasoline takes another sudden spike in price. We only got the Fit at all for the same reason.

Having said that, I hardly consider even the base Fit "barebones" compared to even the Civic DX and it is way better equipped than the Versa 1.6 or Yaris. Still, a Fit EX-L would be the same kind of mistake Ford is making with the Fiesta SES. A few will buy the upscale model but demand will fall off rapidly.