On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:45:39 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>> Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell.
>
>it had the power and the fittings. the only differentiator was handling
>- basically, it was a dog.

Wot?

They tried to sell the RSX as pre-riced, for more money. It's the
marketing that didn't work, not so much the car. The handling on
those old Integras wasn't anything to write home about. I never
actually drove the RSX, ... oh, maybe I test drove one once about
1998, I don't recall, but I'll eat a bug if it handled worse than any
stock Integra.

J.

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:45:39 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell.
>> it had the power and the fittings. the only differentiator was handling
>> - basically, it was a dog.
>
> Wot?
>
> They tried to sell the RSX as pre-riced, for more money. It's the
> marketing that didn't work, not so much the car. The handling on
> those old Integras wasn't anything to write home about. I never
> actually drove the RSX, ... oh, maybe I test drove one once about
> 1998, I don't recall, but I'll eat a bug if it handled worse than any
> stock Integra.
>
> J.
>
>
if you say you test drove the rsx in 98, you'll have been eating more
than bugs!

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:45:39 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell.
>> it had the power and the fittings. the only differentiator was handling
>> - basically, it was a dog.
>
> Wot?
>
> They tried to sell the RSX as pre-riced, for more money. It's the
> marketing that didn't work, not so much the car. The handling on
> those old Integras wasn't anything to write home about. I never
> actually drove the RSX, ... oh, maybe I test drove one once about
> 1998, I don't recall, but I'll eat a bug if it handled worse than any
> stock Integra.
>
> J.
>
>
if you say you test drove the rsx in 98, you'll have been eating more
than bugs!

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:45:39 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> Then Honda redesigned it to the RSX,which was uglier,and it didn't sell.
>> it had the power and the fittings. the only differentiator was handling
>> - basically, it was a dog.
>
> Wot?
>
> They tried to sell the RSX as pre-riced, for more money. It's the
> marketing that didn't work, not so much the car. The handling on
> those old Integras wasn't anything to write home about. I never
> actually drove the RSX, ... oh, maybe I test drove one once about
> 1998, I don't recall, but I'll eat a bug if it handled worse than any
> stock Integra.
>
> J.
>
>
if you say you test drove the rsx in 98, you'll have been eating more
than bugs!

 

On Jul 5, 8:48 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article <KaOdnY1mYNcjBBDbnZ2dnUVZ_rTin...@speakeasy.net> ,
> > jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> >>> well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money.
>
> >> which requires that they satisfy demand, and repeat those sales! how
> >> are they going to do that if they make junk and can't retain?
>
> > But jim, the thing is that they are fulfilling their goal without
> > fulfilling *your* goals.
>
> > But they *are* fulfilling *their* goals.
>
> if their goals are losing share to toyota on the civic vs. corolla,
> failing completely on the rsx and ridgeline, and giving away the vast
> and loyal civic/prelude customer base to subaru, you're dead right -
> they've succeeded handsomely!

Silly question here. I own a '98 and a 2000 Civic (both manual LX) and
test drove newer models (I think one in 2004 and one in 2006). Somehow
I felt that the new ones are not as nice as the ones I have, but was
not able to specifically express what it was. Maybe the new ones are a
little bulkier, a little more tame, maybe something like they're not
as fun as the '98 or 2000.

>From a technical POV, what was changed from the 6th generation (I
think) onward that makes them less fun to drive?

 

On Jul 5, 8:48 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article <KaOdnY1mYNcjBBDbnZ2dnUVZ_rTin...@speakeasy.net> ,
> > jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> >>> well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money.
>
> >> which requires that they satisfy demand, and repeat those sales! how
> >> are they going to do that if they make junk and can't retain?
>
> > But jim, the thing is that they are fulfilling their goal without
> > fulfilling *your* goals.
>
> > But they *are* fulfilling *their* goals.
>
> if their goals are losing share to toyota on the civic vs. corolla,
> failing completely on the rsx and ridgeline, and giving away the vast
> and loyal civic/prelude customer base to subaru, you're dead right -
> they've succeeded handsomely!

Silly question here. I own a '98 and a 2000 Civic (both manual LX) and
test drove newer models (I think one in 2004 and one in 2006). Somehow
I felt that the new ones are not as nice as the ones I have, but was
not able to specifically express what it was. Maybe the new ones are a
little bulkier, a little more tame, maybe something like they're not
as fun as the '98 or 2000.

>From a technical POV, what was changed from the 6th generation (I
think) onward that makes them less fun to drive?

 

On Jul 5, 8:48 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article <KaOdnY1mYNcjBBDbnZ2dnUVZ_rTin...@speakeasy.net> ,
> > jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> >>> well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money.
>
> >> which requires that they satisfy demand, and repeat those sales! how
> >> are they going to do that if they make junk and can't retain?
>
> > But jim, the thing is that they are fulfilling their goal without
> > fulfilling *your* goals.
>
> > But they *are* fulfilling *their* goals.
>
> if their goals are losing share to toyota on the civic vs. corolla,
> failing completely on the rsx and ridgeline, and giving away the vast
> and loyal civic/prelude customer base to subaru, you're dead right -
> they've succeeded handsomely!

Silly question here. I own a '98 and a 2000 Civic (both manual LX) and
test drove newer models (I think one in 2004 and one in 2006). Somehow
I felt that the new ones are not as nice as the ones I have, but was
not able to specifically express what it was. Maybe the new ones are a
little bulkier, a little more tame, maybe something like they're not
as fun as the '98 or 2000.

>From a technical POV, what was changed from the 6th generation (I
think) onward that makes them less fun to drive?

 

gigelus2k3 wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:48 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article <KaOdnY1mYNcjBBDbnZ2dnUVZ_rTin...@speakeasy.net> ,
>>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>> well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money.
>>>> which requires that they satisfy demand, and repeat those sales! how
>>>> are they going to do that if they make junk and can't retain?
>>> But jim, the thing is that they are fulfilling their goal without
>>> fulfilling *your* goals.
>>> But they *are* fulfilling *their* goals.
>> if their goals are losing share to toyota on the civic vs. corolla,
>> failing completely on the rsx and ridgeline, and giving away the vast
>> and loyal civic/prelude customer base to subaru, you're dead right -
>> they've succeeded handsomely!
>
> Silly question here. I own a '98 and a 2000 Civic (both manual LX) and
> test drove newer models (I think one in 2004 and one in 2006). Somehow
> I felt that the new ones are not as nice as the ones I have, but was
> not able to specifically express what it was. Maybe the new ones are a
> little bulkier, a little more tame, maybe something like they're not
> as fun as the '98 or 2000.
>
>>From a technical POV, what was changed from the 6th generation (I
> think) onward that makes them less fun to drive?
>

weights are about the same, perhaps just a little heavier for the more
recent civics. biggest difference is suspension. changed to macpherson
strut up front in 2001. it's a lot more vague in feel and can't corner
as well. ok on freeways though so the freds don't notice much. cheaper
to manufacture hence ubiquity on most cheaper cars.

 

gigelus2k3 wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:48 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article <KaOdnY1mYNcjBBDbnZ2dnUVZ_rTin...@speakeasy.net> ,
>>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>> well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money.
>>>> which requires that they satisfy demand, and repeat those sales! how
>>>> are they going to do that if they make junk and can't retain?
>>> But jim, the thing is that they are fulfilling their goal without
>>> fulfilling *your* goals.
>>> But they *are* fulfilling *their* goals.
>> if their goals are losing share to toyota on the civic vs. corolla,
>> failing completely on the rsx and ridgeline, and giving away the vast
>> and loyal civic/prelude customer base to subaru, you're dead right -
>> they've succeeded handsomely!
>
> Silly question here. I own a '98 and a 2000 Civic (both manual LX) and
> test drove newer models (I think one in 2004 and one in 2006). Somehow
> I felt that the new ones are not as nice as the ones I have, but was
> not able to specifically express what it was. Maybe the new ones are a
> little bulkier, a little more tame, maybe something like they're not
> as fun as the '98 or 2000.
>
>>From a technical POV, what was changed from the 6th generation (I
> think) onward that makes them less fun to drive?
>

weights are about the same, perhaps just a little heavier for the more
recent civics. biggest difference is suspension. changed to macpherson
strut up front in 2001. it's a lot more vague in feel and can't corner
as well. ok on freeways though so the freds don't notice much. cheaper
to manufacture hence ubiquity on most cheaper cars.

 

gigelus2k3 wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:48 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article <KaOdnY1mYNcjBBDbnZ2dnUVZ_rTin...@speakeasy.net> ,
>>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>> well, they are--they exist solely to sell product and make money.
>>>> which requires that they satisfy demand, and repeat those sales! how
>>>> are they going to do that if they make junk and can't retain?
>>> But jim, the thing is that they are fulfilling their goal without
>>> fulfilling *your* goals.
>>> But they *are* fulfilling *their* goals.
>> if their goals are losing share to toyota on the civic vs. corolla,
>> failing completely on the rsx and ridgeline, and giving away the vast
>> and loyal civic/prelude customer base to subaru, you're dead right -
>> they've succeeded handsomely!
>
> Silly question here. I own a '98 and a 2000 Civic (both manual LX) and
> test drove newer models (I think one in 2004 and one in 2006). Somehow
> I felt that the new ones are not as nice as the ones I have, but was
> not able to specifically express what it was. Maybe the new ones are a
> little bulkier, a little more tame, maybe something like they're not
> as fun as the '98 or 2000.
>
>>From a technical POV, what was changed from the 6th generation (I
> think) onward that makes them less fun to drive?
>

weights are about the same, perhaps just a little heavier for the more
recent civics. biggest difference is suspension. changed to macpherson
strut up front in 2001. it's a lot more vague in feel and can't corner
as well. ok on freeways though so the freds don't notice much. cheaper
to manufacture hence ubiquity on most cheaper cars.

 

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:41:08 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>if you say you test drove the rsx in 98, you'll have been eating more
>than bugs!

Huh.

I woulda swore the RSX was already current when I bought the 1999 CL,
but a little Googling suggests you are right in suggesting otherwise.

They say the memory is the second to go.

I test drove the Integra waaay back when. Or maybe it was an Isetta.
Really, what's the difference?

J.

 

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:41:08 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>if you say you test drove the rsx in 98, you'll have been eating more
>than bugs!

Huh.

I woulda swore the RSX was already current when I bought the 1999 CL,
but a little Googling suggests you are right in suggesting otherwise.

They say the memory is the second to go.

I test drove the Integra waaay back when. Or maybe it was an Isetta.
Really, what's the difference?

J.

 

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:41:08 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>if you say you test drove the rsx in 98, you'll have been eating more
>than bugs!

Huh.

I woulda swore the RSX was already current when I bought the 1999 CL,
but a little Googling suggests you are right in suggesting otherwise.

They say the memory is the second to go.

I test drove the Integra waaay back when. Or maybe it was an Isetta.
Really, what's the difference?

J.

 

"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
news:5un093l8brik14por84aoouak4pcj9grt1@4ax.com...
>
> They say the memory is the second to go.
>
> I test drove the Integra waaay back when. Or maybe it was an Isetta.
> Really, what's the difference?
>
> J.
>
>

LOL! The Isetta really was Way Back When. I remember an episode of the
original Alvin cartoon show in which an ostrich mistook an Isetta that Dave
had just bought for an egg and was trying to hatch it. I was about ten years
old and didn't catch the humor. A few years later I saw one parked in our
neighborhood and then I understood.

Mike

 

"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
news:5un093l8brik14por84aoouak4pcj9grt1@4ax.com...
>
> They say the memory is the second to go.
>
> I test drove the Integra waaay back when. Or maybe it was an Isetta.
> Really, what's the difference?
>
> J.
>
>

LOL! The Isetta really was Way Back When. I remember an episode of the
original Alvin cartoon show in which an ostrich mistook an Isetta that Dave
had just bought for an egg and was trying to hatch it. I was about ten years
old and didn't catch the humor. A few years later I saw one parked in our
neighborhood and then I understood.

Mike