Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
06-14-2006 | 12:17 AM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 04:04:23 +0000 (UTC), "TeGGeR®"
<tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:
>jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>> it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>
>>> Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>> have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>
>
>No.
>
>
>
>>>
>> good question! dealers are all about selling the expensive stuff.
>> stuff that's cheaper and reliable isn't favorite.
>
>
>
>Why would they sell the cheap stuff? Margins aren't as good. If you were a
>dealer, you'd be doing the same thing. Make hay while the sun shines.
>Tomorrow it might rain. Some of these dealers are run by people who
>remember 1991.
>
>
>
>> i ask the same
>> question about hatchbacks.
>
>
>
>Hatchback sales dropped like a rock in the early '90s. They were decidedly
>uncool then.
uncool maybe, but about 10x more pratical (and often smaller)
>
>Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are producing them
>again. Station wagons are coming back too.
>
i like wagons (or estates as I know them better)
<tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:
>jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>> it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>
>>> Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>> have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>
>
>No.
>
>
>
>>>
>> good question! dealers are all about selling the expensive stuff.
>> stuff that's cheaper and reliable isn't favorite.
>
>
>
>Why would they sell the cheap stuff? Margins aren't as good. If you were a
>dealer, you'd be doing the same thing. Make hay while the sun shines.
>Tomorrow it might rain. Some of these dealers are run by people who
>remember 1991.
>
>
>
>> i ask the same
>> question about hatchbacks.
>
>
>
>Hatchback sales dropped like a rock in the early '90s. They were decidedly
>uncool then.
uncool maybe, but about 10x more pratical (and often smaller)
>
>Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are producing them
>again. Station wagons are coming back too.
>
i like wagons (or estates as I know them better)
06-14-2006 | 12:46 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
> dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>
>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>
>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>
>
>
> No.
maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
the hx's is quite superb.
>
>
>
>
>>good question! dealers are all about selling the expensive stuff.
>>stuff that's cheaper and reliable isn't favorite.
>
>
>
>
> Why would they sell the cheap stuff? Margins aren't as good. If you were a
> dealer, you'd be doing the same thing. Make hay while the sun shines.
> Tomorrow it might rain. Some of these dealers are run by people who
> remember 1991.
but it's not just initial sales. the "downstream" income is considerable.
>
>
>
>
>>i ask the same
>>question about hatchbacks.
>
>
>
>
> Hatchback sales dropped like a rock in the early '90s. They were decidedly
> uncool then.
huh, i've heard dealers say that many times - but the fact remains that
here in california, you can't buy a hatchback civic for love nor money.
[and just try buying a crx sometime!!!!] there's loads around, but
people never sell. retention doesn't seem to be a feature of an
unpopular vehicle to me. i think dealers simply repeat the garbage
spewing from the marketing morons that had honda produce red rear turn
signals...
>
> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are producing them
> again. Station wagons are coming back too.
wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
> dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>
>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>
>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>
>
>
> No.
maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
the hx's is quite superb.
>
>
>
>
>>good question! dealers are all about selling the expensive stuff.
>>stuff that's cheaper and reliable isn't favorite.
>
>
>
>
> Why would they sell the cheap stuff? Margins aren't as good. If you were a
> dealer, you'd be doing the same thing. Make hay while the sun shines.
> Tomorrow it might rain. Some of these dealers are run by people who
> remember 1991.
but it's not just initial sales. the "downstream" income is considerable.
>
>
>
>
>>i ask the same
>>question about hatchbacks.
>
>
>
>
> Hatchback sales dropped like a rock in the early '90s. They were decidedly
> uncool then.
huh, i've heard dealers say that many times - but the fact remains that
here in california, you can't buy a hatchback civic for love nor money.
[and just try buying a crx sometime!!!!] there's loads around, but
people never sell. retention doesn't seem to be a feature of an
unpopular vehicle to me. i think dealers simply repeat the garbage
spewing from the marketing morons that had honda produce red rear turn
signals...
>
> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are producing them
> again. Station wagons are coming back too.
wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
06-14-2006 | 12:46 AM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
> dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>
>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>
>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>
>
>
> No.
maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
the hx's is quite superb.
>
>
>
>
>>good question! dealers are all about selling the expensive stuff.
>>stuff that's cheaper and reliable isn't favorite.
>
>
>
>
> Why would they sell the cheap stuff? Margins aren't as good. If you were a
> dealer, you'd be doing the same thing. Make hay while the sun shines.
> Tomorrow it might rain. Some of these dealers are run by people who
> remember 1991.
but it's not just initial sales. the "downstream" income is considerable.
>
>
>
>
>>i ask the same
>>question about hatchbacks.
>
>
>
>
> Hatchback sales dropped like a rock in the early '90s. They were decidedly
> uncool then.
huh, i've heard dealers say that many times - but the fact remains that
here in california, you can't buy a hatchback civic for love nor money.
[and just try buying a crx sometime!!!!] there's loads around, but
people never sell. retention doesn't seem to be a feature of an
unpopular vehicle to me. i think dealers simply repeat the garbage
spewing from the marketing morons that had honda produce red rear turn
signals...
>
> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are producing them
> again. Station wagons are coming back too.
wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
> dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>
>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>
>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>
>
>
> No.
maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
the hx's is quite superb.
>
>
>
>
>>good question! dealers are all about selling the expensive stuff.
>>stuff that's cheaper and reliable isn't favorite.
>
>
>
>
> Why would they sell the cheap stuff? Margins aren't as good. If you were a
> dealer, you'd be doing the same thing. Make hay while the sun shines.
> Tomorrow it might rain. Some of these dealers are run by people who
> remember 1991.
but it's not just initial sales. the "downstream" income is considerable.
>
>
>
>
>>i ask the same
>>question about hatchbacks.
>
>
>
>
> Hatchback sales dropped like a rock in the early '90s. They were decidedly
> uncool then.
huh, i've heard dealers say that many times - but the fact remains that
here in california, you can't buy a hatchback civic for love nor money.
[and just try buying a crx sometime!!!!] there's loads around, but
people never sell. retention doesn't seem to be a feature of an
unpopular vehicle to me. i think dealers simply repeat the garbage
spewing from the marketing morons that had honda produce red rear turn
signals...
>
> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are producing them
> again. Station wagons are coming back too.
wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
06-14-2006 | 12:46 AM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
> dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>
>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>
>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>
>
>
> No.
maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
the hx's is quite superb.
>
>
>
>
>>good question! dealers are all about selling the expensive stuff.
>>stuff that's cheaper and reliable isn't favorite.
>
>
>
>
> Why would they sell the cheap stuff? Margins aren't as good. If you were a
> dealer, you'd be doing the same thing. Make hay while the sun shines.
> Tomorrow it might rain. Some of these dealers are run by people who
> remember 1991.
but it's not just initial sales. the "downstream" income is considerable.
>
>
>
>
>>i ask the same
>>question about hatchbacks.
>
>
>
>
> Hatchback sales dropped like a rock in the early '90s. They were decidedly
> uncool then.
huh, i've heard dealers say that many times - but the fact remains that
here in california, you can't buy a hatchback civic for love nor money.
[and just try buying a crx sometime!!!!] there's loads around, but
people never sell. retention doesn't seem to be a feature of an
unpopular vehicle to me. i think dealers simply repeat the garbage
spewing from the marketing morons that had honda produce red rear turn
signals...
>
> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are producing them
> again. Station wagons are coming back too.
wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
> dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>
>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>
>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>
>
>
> No.
maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
the hx's is quite superb.
>
>
>
>
>>good question! dealers are all about selling the expensive stuff.
>>stuff that's cheaper and reliable isn't favorite.
>
>
>
>
> Why would they sell the cheap stuff? Margins aren't as good. If you were a
> dealer, you'd be doing the same thing. Make hay while the sun shines.
> Tomorrow it might rain. Some of these dealers are run by people who
> remember 1991.
but it's not just initial sales. the "downstream" income is considerable.
>
>
>
>
>>i ask the same
>>question about hatchbacks.
>
>
>
>
> Hatchback sales dropped like a rock in the early '90s. They were decidedly
> uncool then.
huh, i've heard dealers say that many times - but the fact remains that
here in california, you can't buy a hatchback civic for love nor money.
[and just try buying a crx sometime!!!!] there's loads around, but
people never sell. retention doesn't seem to be a feature of an
unpopular vehicle to me. i think dealers simply repeat the garbage
spewing from the marketing morons that had honda produce red rear turn
signals...
>
> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are producing them
> again. Station wagons are coming back too.
wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
06-14-2006 | 01:46 AM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:46:26 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
wrote:
>TeGGeR® wrote:
>> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>> dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>
>>
>>>Dan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>>
>>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
>vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
>system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
>highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
>the hx's is quite superb.
>
My guess is they want to ripped people off by selling the "Hybrids." I
laugh at my friends who bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid and is getting
about 50 mpg. I told them my old Honda Civic HX used to give me 40-45
mpg and that's without paying the ridiculous $7,000+ surplus just to
get a "hybrid."
Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
can get 5 more mpg?
wrote:
>TeGGeR® wrote:
>> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>> dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>
>>
>>>Dan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>>
>>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
>vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
>system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
>highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
>the hx's is quite superb.
>
My guess is they want to ripped people off by selling the "Hybrids." I
laugh at my friends who bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid and is getting
about 50 mpg. I told them my old Honda Civic HX used to give me 40-45
mpg and that's without paying the ridiculous $7,000+ surplus just to
get a "hybrid."
Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
can get 5 more mpg?
06-14-2006 | 01:46 AM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:46:26 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
wrote:
>TeGGeR® wrote:
>> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>> dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>
>>
>>>Dan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>>
>>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
>vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
>system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
>highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
>the hx's is quite superb.
>
My guess is they want to ripped people off by selling the "Hybrids." I
laugh at my friends who bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid and is getting
about 50 mpg. I told them my old Honda Civic HX used to give me 40-45
mpg and that's without paying the ridiculous $7,000+ surplus just to
get a "hybrid."
Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
can get 5 more mpg?
wrote:
>TeGGeR® wrote:
>> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>> dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>
>>
>>>Dan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>>
>>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
>vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
>system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
>highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
>the hx's is quite superb.
>
My guess is they want to ripped people off by selling the "Hybrids." I
laugh at my friends who bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid and is getting
about 50 mpg. I told them my old Honda Civic HX used to give me 40-45
mpg and that's without paying the ridiculous $7,000+ surplus just to
get a "hybrid."
Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
can get 5 more mpg?
06-14-2006 | 01:46 AM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:46:26 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
wrote:
>TeGGeR® wrote:
>> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>> dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>
>>
>>>Dan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>>
>>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
>vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
>system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
>highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
>the hx's is quite superb.
>
My guess is they want to ripped people off by selling the "Hybrids." I
laugh at my friends who bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid and is getting
about 50 mpg. I told them my old Honda Civic HX used to give me 40-45
mpg and that's without paying the ridiculous $7,000+ surplus just to
get a "hybrid."
Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
can get 5 more mpg?
wrote:
>TeGGeR® wrote:
>> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>> dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>
>>
>>>Dan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>>
>>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
>vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
>system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
>highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
>the hx's is quite superb.
>
My guess is they want to ripped people off by selling the "Hybrids." I
laugh at my friends who bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid and is getting
about 50 mpg. I told them my old Honda Civic HX used to give me 40-45
mpg and that's without paying the ridiculous $7,000+ surplus just to
get a "hybrid."
Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
can get 5 more mpg?
06-14-2006 | 01:58 AM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
Dan wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:46:26 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>>>jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>>>dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
>>vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
>>system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
>>highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
>>the hx's is quite superb.
>>
>
>
> My guess is they want to ripped people off by selling the "Hybrids." I
> laugh at my friends who bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid and is getting
> about 50 mpg. I told them my old Honda Civic HX used to give me 40-45
> mpg and that's without paying the ridiculous $7,000+ surplus just to
> get a "hybrid."
>
> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
> can get 5 more mpg?
>
>
my thoughts exactly.
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:46:26 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>>>jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>>>dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
>>vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
>>system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
>>highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
>>the hx's is quite superb.
>>
>
>
> My guess is they want to ripped people off by selling the "Hybrids." I
> laugh at my friends who bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid and is getting
> about 50 mpg. I told them my old Honda Civic HX used to give me 40-45
> mpg and that's without paying the ridiculous $7,000+ surplus just to
> get a "hybrid."
>
> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
> can get 5 more mpg?
>
>
my thoughts exactly.
06-14-2006 | 01:58 AM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
Dan wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:46:26 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>>>jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>>>dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
>>vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
>>system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
>>highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
>>the hx's is quite superb.
>>
>
>
> My guess is they want to ripped people off by selling the "Hybrids." I
> laugh at my friends who bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid and is getting
> about 50 mpg. I told them my old Honda Civic HX used to give me 40-45
> mpg and that's without paying the ridiculous $7,000+ surplus just to
> get a "hybrid."
>
> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
> can get 5 more mpg?
>
>
my thoughts exactly.
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:46:26 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>>>jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>>>dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
>>vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
>>system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
>>highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
>>the hx's is quite superb.
>>
>
>
> My guess is they want to ripped people off by selling the "Hybrids." I
> laugh at my friends who bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid and is getting
> about 50 mpg. I told them my old Honda Civic HX used to give me 40-45
> mpg and that's without paying the ridiculous $7,000+ surplus just to
> get a "hybrid."
>
> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
> can get 5 more mpg?
>
>
my thoughts exactly.
06-14-2006 | 01:58 AM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
Dan wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:46:26 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>>>jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>>>dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
>>vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
>>system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
>>highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
>>the hx's is quite superb.
>>
>
>
> My guess is they want to ripped people off by selling the "Hybrids." I
> laugh at my friends who bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid and is getting
> about 50 mpg. I told them my old Honda Civic HX used to give me 40-45
> mpg and that's without paying the ridiculous $7,000+ surplus just to
> get a "hybrid."
>
> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
> can get 5 more mpg?
>
>
my thoughts exactly.
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:46:26 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>>>jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:V_-
>>>dncvl8IPatBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Seems like every few years Honda will produce Civic HX, and then drop
>>>>>it almost as immediately as they roll them out.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why? I love the CVT transmission and the fuel efficient VTEC they
>>>>>have. What gives? Are they not selling?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>maybe, but i don't understand why. as someone that's owned a cvt
>>vehicle, i can say from experience that it's a very good and efficient
>>system. it's "odd" not to have the notchy old shift going on, but it's
>>highly effective nevertheless. reliable too. and the fuel economy of
>>the hx's is quite superb.
>>
>
>
> My guess is they want to ripped people off by selling the "Hybrids." I
> laugh at my friends who bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid and is getting
> about 50 mpg. I told them my old Honda Civic HX used to give me 40-45
> mpg and that's without paying the ridiculous $7,000+ surplus just to
> get a "hybrid."
>
> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
> can get 5 more mpg?
>
>
my thoughts exactly.
06-14-2006 | 09:23 AM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
news:FcKdnTeXwuo-CRLZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@speakeasy.net:
> TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are
>> producing them again. Station wagons are coming back too.
>
> wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
They certainly do.
But US government policy heavily favors SUVs. It didn't mean to, though.
Favoritism was an unintended consequence of attempting to
*punish car owners*. Repeal the favoritism and SUVs may go by the wayside.
Then again, maybe they won't. People like the room, status, and perceived
safety of a big vehicle. People *worldwide* tend strongly to buy big cars
when not prohibited by government social engineering policy from doing so.
American government policy starting in the '70s was, specifically and
explicitly, designed to make people buy cars that were much smaller than
what they traditionally had bought. Since loopholes were left for vehicles
defined as "commercial", automakers saw an opportunity and began marketing
those to car buyers. The first automaker to exploit the loopholes was
American Motors, with its 1980 Eagle 4WD.
Look at the wheelbases, curb weights and engine displacements of modern
SUVs. It's absolutely amazing how close they conform to car buyers'
traditional preferences. In short, nothing has changed over the decades,
just the shape...and the governmental fist-in-your-face.
I believe minivans would stay regardless of policy, as too many people like
their undeniable utility (much more utile than a sport "utility" vehicle).
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:FcKdnTeXwuo-CRLZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@speakeasy.net:
> TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are
>> producing them again. Station wagons are coming back too.
>
> wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
They certainly do.
But US government policy heavily favors SUVs. It didn't mean to, though.
Favoritism was an unintended consequence of attempting to
*punish car owners*. Repeal the favoritism and SUVs may go by the wayside.
Then again, maybe they won't. People like the room, status, and perceived
safety of a big vehicle. People *worldwide* tend strongly to buy big cars
when not prohibited by government social engineering policy from doing so.
American government policy starting in the '70s was, specifically and
explicitly, designed to make people buy cars that were much smaller than
what they traditionally had bought. Since loopholes were left for vehicles
defined as "commercial", automakers saw an opportunity and began marketing
those to car buyers. The first automaker to exploit the loopholes was
American Motors, with its 1980 Eagle 4WD.
Look at the wheelbases, curb weights and engine displacements of modern
SUVs. It's absolutely amazing how close they conform to car buyers'
traditional preferences. In short, nothing has changed over the decades,
just the shape...and the governmental fist-in-your-face.
I believe minivans would stay regardless of policy, as too many people like
their undeniable utility (much more utile than a sport "utility" vehicle).
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
06-14-2006 | 09:23 AM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
news:FcKdnTeXwuo-CRLZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@speakeasy.net:
> TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are
>> producing them again. Station wagons are coming back too.
>
> wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
They certainly do.
But US government policy heavily favors SUVs. It didn't mean to, though.
Favoritism was an unintended consequence of attempting to
*punish car owners*. Repeal the favoritism and SUVs may go by the wayside.
Then again, maybe they won't. People like the room, status, and perceived
safety of a big vehicle. People *worldwide* tend strongly to buy big cars
when not prohibited by government social engineering policy from doing so.
American government policy starting in the '70s was, specifically and
explicitly, designed to make people buy cars that were much smaller than
what they traditionally had bought. Since loopholes were left for vehicles
defined as "commercial", automakers saw an opportunity and began marketing
those to car buyers. The first automaker to exploit the loopholes was
American Motors, with its 1980 Eagle 4WD.
Look at the wheelbases, curb weights and engine displacements of modern
SUVs. It's absolutely amazing how close they conform to car buyers'
traditional preferences. In short, nothing has changed over the decades,
just the shape...and the governmental fist-in-your-face.
I believe minivans would stay regardless of policy, as too many people like
their undeniable utility (much more utile than a sport "utility" vehicle).
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:FcKdnTeXwuo-CRLZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@speakeasy.net:
> TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are
>> producing them again. Station wagons are coming back too.
>
> wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
They certainly do.
But US government policy heavily favors SUVs. It didn't mean to, though.
Favoritism was an unintended consequence of attempting to
*punish car owners*. Repeal the favoritism and SUVs may go by the wayside.
Then again, maybe they won't. People like the room, status, and perceived
safety of a big vehicle. People *worldwide* tend strongly to buy big cars
when not prohibited by government social engineering policy from doing so.
American government policy starting in the '70s was, specifically and
explicitly, designed to make people buy cars that were much smaller than
what they traditionally had bought. Since loopholes were left for vehicles
defined as "commercial", automakers saw an opportunity and began marketing
those to car buyers. The first automaker to exploit the loopholes was
American Motors, with its 1980 Eagle 4WD.
Look at the wheelbases, curb weights and engine displacements of modern
SUVs. It's absolutely amazing how close they conform to car buyers'
traditional preferences. In short, nothing has changed over the decades,
just the shape...and the governmental fist-in-your-face.
I believe minivans would stay regardless of policy, as too many people like
their undeniable utility (much more utile than a sport "utility" vehicle).
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
06-14-2006 | 09:23 AM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
news:FcKdnTeXwuo-CRLZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@speakeasy.net:
> TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are
>> producing them again. Station wagons are coming back too.
>
> wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
They certainly do.
But US government policy heavily favors SUVs. It didn't mean to, though.
Favoritism was an unintended consequence of attempting to
*punish car owners*. Repeal the favoritism and SUVs may go by the wayside.
Then again, maybe they won't. People like the room, status, and perceived
safety of a big vehicle. People *worldwide* tend strongly to buy big cars
when not prohibited by government social engineering policy from doing so.
American government policy starting in the '70s was, specifically and
explicitly, designed to make people buy cars that were much smaller than
what they traditionally had bought. Since loopholes were left for vehicles
defined as "commercial", automakers saw an opportunity and began marketing
those to car buyers. The first automaker to exploit the loopholes was
American Motors, with its 1980 Eagle 4WD.
Look at the wheelbases, curb weights and engine displacements of modern
SUVs. It's absolutely amazing how close they conform to car buyers'
traditional preferences. In short, nothing has changed over the decades,
just the shape...and the governmental fist-in-your-face.
I believe minivans would stay regardless of policy, as too many people like
their undeniable utility (much more utile than a sport "utility" vehicle).
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:FcKdnTeXwuo-CRLZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@speakeasy.net:
> TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>> Recently they've enjoyed a resurgence, and manufacturers are
>> producing them again. Station wagons are coming back too.
>
> wagons make sense. /way/ more sense than suv's.
They certainly do.
But US government policy heavily favors SUVs. It didn't mean to, though.
Favoritism was an unintended consequence of attempting to
*punish car owners*. Repeal the favoritism and SUVs may go by the wayside.
Then again, maybe they won't. People like the room, status, and perceived
safety of a big vehicle. People *worldwide* tend strongly to buy big cars
when not prohibited by government social engineering policy from doing so.
American government policy starting in the '70s was, specifically and
explicitly, designed to make people buy cars that were much smaller than
what they traditionally had bought. Since loopholes were left for vehicles
defined as "commercial", automakers saw an opportunity and began marketing
those to car buyers. The first automaker to exploit the loopholes was
American Motors, with its 1980 Eagle 4WD.
Look at the wheelbases, curb weights and engine displacements of modern
SUVs. It's absolutely amazing how close they conform to car buyers'
traditional preferences. In short, nothing has changed over the decades,
just the shape...and the governmental fist-in-your-face.
I believe minivans would stay regardless of policy, as too many people like
their undeniable utility (much more utile than a sport "utility" vehicle).
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
06-14-2006 | 09:24 AM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
Dan <dantheman98@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uf8v82pet0pla95l64fn1tjbtbpq62n2c6@4ax.com:
>
> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
> can get 5 more mpg?
People don't buy hybrids for their mileage per se. They buy them in order
to make a social statement.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:uf8v82pet0pla95l64fn1tjbtbpq62n2c6@4ax.com:
>
> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
> can get 5 more mpg?
People don't buy hybrids for their mileage per se. They buy them in order
to make a social statement.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
06-14-2006 | 09:24 AM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why Honda doesn't continue the HX line?
Dan <dantheman98@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uf8v82pet0pla95l64fn1tjbtbpq62n2c6@4ax.com:
>
> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
> can get 5 more mpg?
People don't buy hybrids for their mileage per se. They buy them in order
to make a social statement.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:uf8v82pet0pla95l64fn1tjbtbpq62n2c6@4ax.com:
>
> Maybe HX is too efficient. Think about it, if a person only cares
> about gas mileage, and he can get a HX for around $15,000; then why
> would he want to shell out $22,000 to get a Honda Hybrid? Just so he
> can get 5 more mpg?
People don't buy hybrids for their mileage per se. They buy them in order
to make a social statement.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/