2012 Civic NOT RECOMMENDED by CR

[2005Explorer]

I have not read the article, but the rumor around the net right now is that Consumer Reports did not recommend the 2012 Civic and had some very harsh words about materials, fit and finish and other complaints. It scored so poorly in their tests that they gave it a not recommended rating.

 

Now I have not read the test so I don't know exactly what they didn't like about it, but it sounds like Honda made a step backwards on the new Civic. Now I expect it will keep selling fairly well just because it is a "Honda" but it sounds like Honda might be needing a wake-up call soon.

[jasonj80]

I have not read the article, but the rumor around the net right now is that Consumer Reports did not recommend the 2012 Civic and had some very harsh words about materials, fit and finish and other complaints. It scored so poorly in their tests that they gave it a not recommended rating.

 

Now I have not read the test so I don't know exactly what they didn't like about it, but it sounds like Honda made a step backwards on the new Civic. Now I expect it will keep selling fairly well just because it is a "Honda" but it sounds like Honda might be needing a wake-up call soon.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/consumer-reports-dumps-honda-civic-2011-08-01?siteid=yhoof2

 

It got its ass kicked - only 61 points.

Edited August 1, 2011 by jasonj80

[jasonj80]

duplicate

Edited August 1, 2011 by jasonj80

[PREMiERdrum]

More, from USA Today:

 

In a big blow to Honda, Consumer Reports magazine not only says the Honda Civic LX is no longer on its recommended list, but it put out a statement to blast that message to the world.

 

"The highly anticipated redesigned Honda Civic LX, whose predecessors have often been Consumer Reports' highest rated small sedans as well as Top Picks in five of the last 10 years, now scores too low to be Recommended by the leading automotive testing organization," the closely watched non-profit consumer publication writes.

 

Yikes. CR says:

 

The redesigned Civic LX's score dropped a whopping 17 points to a mediocre 61 from the previous generation's very good 78. It scored second-to-last in CR's ratings of 12 small sedans, followed only by the recently redesigned Volkwagen Jetta.

 

Consumer Reports' testers found the 2012 Civic to be less agile and with lower interior quality than its predecessor. It also suffers from a choppy ride, long stopping distances, and pronounced road noise.

 

But hold on. There's a "positive side." The Civic has "decent" rear-seat room, and it achieved 30 miles per gallon overall, which gives it the second-best fuel economy in its class—behind only the Toyota Corolla's 32 mpg, according to the magazine.

 

"While other models like the Hyundai Elantra have gotten better after being redesigned, the Civic has dropped so much that now it ranks near the bottom of its category," said David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports' Auto Test Center. No reply yet from Honda.

 

LINK - USA Today

[ANTAUS]

And the Corolla is another vehicle that took a step backwards, as well as the Jetta...

[PREMiERdrum]

Honda press release...

 

Statement from American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 8/1/2011:

 

In a broad sense, we disagree with Consumer Reports' findings. Without question, the small sedan segment is more competitive than ever. In virtually every way, the completely redesigned 2012 Civic is a step forward. The new Civic excels in areas that matter to small-car customers, including fuel efficiency, safety, and reliability. Among the Civic's greatest competitive strengths, is a smooth and efficient powertrain that, in Consumer Reports testing returned, "... an impressive 30 mpg overall on regular fuel and 47 mpg on the highway." Also noted in Consumer Reports findings, the Civic excels in the area of safety, with a long list of important features standard on all trim levels, and a class-leading 'Top Safety Pick' rating from IIHS. Lastly, the Civic has a stellar reliability history with Consumer Reports, and we are confident that the new Civic will be a reliability leader as well.

[CKNSLS]

And the Corolla is another vehicle that took a step backwards, as well as the Jetta...

 

Step backwards or not both are selling...for now.

[NickF1011]

Step backwards or not both are selling...for now.

 

Focus and Cruze outsold them both last month if I recall. Unheard of in the small car market over the past 2 decades.

[PREMiERdrum]

Focus and Cruze outsold them both last month if I recall. Unheard of in the small car market over the past 2 decades.

 

Yep...

 

C-segment

Chevrolet Cruze: 24,996

Ford Focus: 21,385

Hyundai Elantra: 19,992

Toyota Corolla: 18,872

Honda Civic: 17,485

VW Jetta: 14,513

Mazda3: 8,612

Kia Forte: 8,191

Nissan Sentra: 8,077

Dodge Caliber: 3,929

Subaru Impreza: 2,762

Suzuki SX-4: 1,105

 

LINK - Auto News and Commentary

[630land]

It used to be GM and Ford fans making excuses, now it's the aging Gen X Honda-Toyota fans. 'It's cuz of the earthquake' "But they have a good reputaion', or my favorite, clinging to the 90s" Well, back in 1991, they were way better than domestics'

[jpvbs]

I can imagine the Honda marketing spin on this - "Consumer Reports says the Civic is better than the VW Jetta!"

 

That might work for awhile until people realize what the new Jetta is.

[grbeck]

First Car and Driver, and now Consumer Reports. Remember the wailing about the bias these publications supposedly were showing for Toyota and Honda? The cries that the staffers must be receiving buckets of cash from these respective companies in exchange for the good reviews of their products?

 

Or...perhaps they really did build better vehicles, and that's why they were rated highly by these publications.

Edited August 2, 2011 by grbeck

[timmm55]

 

 

Or...perhaps they really did build better vehicles, and that's why they were rated highly by these publications.

 

They did, around 1985. And did so for a decade. But slowly everyone caught up to their quality. Like Volvo's safety reputation, it became the benchmark. Then, another decade to deal with the perceptions.

[PREMiERdrum]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moQmv5BqgAQ

[grbeck]

They did, around 1985. And did so for a decade. But slowly everyone caught up to their quality. Like Volvo's safety reputation, it became the benchmark. Then, another decade to deal with the perceptions.

 

The domestics and the Europeans had not caught up to Honda-Toyota quality by 2000. They really only reached that goal around 2005, and it was mainly Ford and parts of GM. Definitely not Chrysler.

Edited August 3, 2011 by grbeck

[RichardJensen]

Remember the wailing about the bias these publications supposedly were showing for Toyota and Honda?

You want proof of bias, I'll give it to you:

 

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2006/01/nissans-mississippi-plant-is-having-problems.html

 

"But it is a little bit worrying when the worst plant in the U.S. is actually a Nissan import plant."

 

Those are the words of David Champion, director of automobile testing at CU, and there's your goddamn bias right there.

[grbeck]

You want proof of bias, I'll give it to you:

 

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2006/01/nissans-mississippi-plant-is-having-problems.html

 

 

 

Those are the words of David Champion, director of automobile testing at CU, and there's your goddamn bias right there.

 

That's it?! For the record, I've read several kind words from him regarding Ford's recent efforts to improve quality, too.

 

The simple fact is that, until very recently, Toyota and Honda built better cars than their major competitors. Other manufacturers may have scored better on one or two metrics (VWs on fun-to-drive, for example), but were wanting in other areas that simply overwhelmed their positive attributes.

 

This was reflected in the ratings that their products received from publications as diverse as Car and Driver and Consumer Reports. It was not the result of "bias," as was repeatedly bandied about on this site and others. The simple, dull, unremarkable fact is that Honda and Toyota won comparison tests because they built better cars, not because testers were secretly in love with those companies or receiving brief cases full of cash from shady corporate types. The only bias was against crappy cars (hence, the poor scoring of several Chrysler products) or half-hearted efforts (various Ford and GM cars in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and the new Civic).

 

Now, Ford is building dramatically improved vehicles, and, miracle of miracles, it is outscoring the former champs in several comparison tests. GM is doing well, too, when it rolls out a product that shows some real effort.

 

Unless you are going to argue that a 2000 Taurus really was better than a 2000 Accord or Camry...let's just say that I can hardly wait for that argument.

Edited August 3, 2011 by grbeck

[aneekr]

And the Corolla is another vehicle that took a step backwards, as well as the Jetta...

Current generation (E140) Corolla's road test score was fairly decent in Consumer Reports' evaluations; Corolla LE's score was the same as Kia Forte EX, just below Nissan Sentra 2.0 SL and Subaru Impreza 2.5i and just above Ford Focus SE, Mazda 3i Touring, and Chevy Cruze 1LT. Among the C-segment cars CR has tested, the Corolla still has the best observed fuel economy at 32 mpg overall.

[NickF1011]

Far too much emphasis on fuel economy. The Corolla is a LAST PLACE entry in my book. 1-2 mpg over the competition isn't enough to overlook the other glaring deficiencies.

[RichardJensen]

That's it?!

Why is it 'disturbing' to him that the worst quality would be reported at a Nissan plant?

 

How could such a bit of news possibly be 'disturbing' to an UNBIASED person?

[RichardJensen]

Face it, bias exists. You can pretend it doesn't, and you can also put on a parka and pretend its cold outside in Florida.

[RichardJensen]

Other manufacturers may have scored better on one or two metrics (VWs on fun-to-drive, for example)

Please tell me what instrument you use to take this metric.

[97svtgoin05gt]

What's funny about this is in my estimation, the Honda huggers will immediately dismiss CR for this thrashing the Civic took while they blew smoke up everyone's *ss for years about what CR said about their precious Hondas.

[grbeck]

Face it, bias exists. You can pretend it doesn't, and you can also put on a parka and pretend its cold outside in Florida.

 

Richard, when you can show how this bias affected the final test results, and the Ford or GM products were really were better than comparable Toyota and Honda products in question, please let us know. Until then, cries of "bias" are just a smokescreen for the fact that these companies for many years made superior products, and that is why they regularly won comparison tests. Now they are either resting on their laurels, or the competition has improved at a very quick pace, but the bottom line is that their products no longer regularly win comparison tests.

 

The fact that Consumer Reports is willing to condemn a former favorite - in pretty strong words, and on the public record, no less - pretty effectively refutes the charges of bias. If the publication were that biased in favor of Hondas, it would have either fudged the results, or suddenly changed the criteria to ensure that the Honda would win no matter what. Well, that didn't happen.

 

Face it, Honda and Toyota for years produced superior products, and that is why they won comparison tests in everything from Consumer Reports to Car and Driver. The only bias I see is bias in favor of well-engineered, refined products.

 

And I'm still waiting for proof that the 2000 Taurus really was better than the 2000 Accord or Camry.

Edited August 3, 2011 by grbeck

[grbeck]

Please tell me what instrument you use to take this metric.

 

"Metric" in this case means a quality or trait that can be measured and used to rate an automobile. For example, reliability and handling are two metrics that are used to judge a vehicle. VWs typically scored well on the second, but not on the first.