Hybrid envy?

[bluezipper]

Ok donut you might have an inside edge on the numbers, and statistics, but you still underestimate the X-factor. I'm glad you all enjoyed my rant, but none as much as I!!! Donut don't you dare get rid of your "impractical" cars for a woman. If you love them they are part of you, and if she can't love the cars she doesn't love you. Women are a dime a dozen; cool cars are hard to come by.(with the obvious exception of my wife of course) The only grief I got when I came home from buying the Z on a whim without her prior consent was that I ran out and bought the car she wanted without her. We had talked about it, but I'm a trigger man. lol I have to barter for time to drive my own car now.

[bluezipper]

So we were just driving arond in the Z last night, yes the wife was at the wheel, and we saw a 2012 Prius. From the back it is starting to look a whole lot like a CR-Z. Sportier triangled LED tail lights, and even the split hatch is more Z like in proportion. Things that make you go hmm...

As far as the practicality of the Z. Yes I am the exception that may prove "the rule" as you say donut, but so are you my man, and you are the guy that tells car companies to build the banal, ugly, die a thousand deaths from boredom cars in the name of practicality. Maybe Honda decided to quit listening to you, and instead looked in your garage to choose what kind of car to build? You say "Statistically you should built a 4 door meat wagon, that gets as good a mileage as possible. The styling must reflect passive maturity, and economy." Yet you wouldn't own that car. You are the X factor. Maybe Honda decided to quit listening to bean counters, and start observing them?

[holeydonut]

I'm not personally asking auto companies to make boring cars (look at my cars).

What I'm saying is that the reason people have the "hybrid envy" that was referenced is because the CR-Z is so atypical. being said, people expect the CR-Z to completely kick butt with MPG. Why else would buyers sacrifice so much functionality to get a car that is marginally better than a regular car in terms of MPG?

The observation about car-buyers not understanding the CR-Z's MPG is totally right. And their lack of understanding prevents most people from rationalizing the CR-Z as a smart purchase. The relatively low MPG # is a deal breaker in their mind. It's not something to ridicule others about - because it is a concern for Honda and fans of Honda in the long run.

I don't like seeing automakers waste money chasing things that don't make sense. Because when you have a big failure, it makes it difficult to rationalize a future novel car for fear of repeating mistakes. It's great for buyers to have had a Ridgeline, Crosstour, and CR-Z to choose from, but think of all the other car ideas that got axed because Honda didn't put money in the alternative programs (ie: S2000 replacement or a RWD sedan or a top-notch new powertrain)

I want to see fun cars that also make the automaker money. Because then they'll build more fun cars. I hope Honda doesn't kill all their fun cars and become some lesser-version of Toyota. But prospects aren't good if cars like the CR-Z have such a low peak worldwide sales volume with such paltry margins.

It's great for you guys that Honda went out of their way to make the CR-Z. It's bad news for fans of Honda when Corporate counts their beans and realizes they got hosed with the CR-Z as a complete product. Next time, they won't entertain the idea of making a novel car.

Want to visually see Honda scaling back on upcoming new vehicle launches? Look at Honda's capital expenditures per year in recent years for their automobile business.

Honda Worldwide | Investor Relations | Financial Data | CAPEX, Depreciation, and R&D

You see that precipitous fall off after 2009? It's because Honda bet big on some cars and put a ton of things to market over the years leading up to 2010/2011. It's not like they opened a ton of large assembly/manufacturing facilities during this 5 year period. All that was going toward supplier tooling, stampings, and in-site manufacturing machines that are unique for each new vehicle coming out.

It takes about 2 years of capex to result in a new car being launched. If you have a void in 2010/2011; it means you won't have much showing up in 2013/2014.

[bluezipper]

How dare you ask me to think outside my box, but... Ok.

I still do not think the CR-Z would be considered a complete failure. What if it had launched in '06 or '07 before wall street robbed us personally and then talked their butt buddies in congress into robbing us again, but completely blind this time? I'm sure Honda didn't expect the whole world economy to just up, and die between '09 and '12. Perhaps the fact that it has, has made sales hard for any niche product. I mean they aren't moving Civics, or Accords either, but it isn't because they aren't great looking practical cars. It's because on average no one has any money. $18K would be an awesome deal, on a new CR-Z as a price point, but if you can't buy beans, or pay the rent. It's still too much money. I hope Honda doesn't look at the Z as a failure either because this is a crappy environment to launch any product that can't be eaten, or burned for warmth.