Honda / GM Alliance ???

Honda Impala?

In reply to 93EXCivic :

All 10,000 of those NSXs that Honda made are very valuable, sure.  
 

Hondas are already made in North America. People that think they're radically different from most other cars in North America these days are in for another bitter pill to swallow. The only thing that isn't making Honda a domestic automobile is where the corporate headquarters is.
 

Yet, in my direct experience over 25plus years, Honda as a customer is light years better to work with vs. GM.  Absolutely no comparison.  Having a customer (Honda) who is vested in project success vs. another customer (not Honda) who is not primarily concerned with project success is what I have lived thru over multiple programs.  I sincerely hope that Honda’s culture in this regard is not degraded, and as an upside MAYBE GM’s culture is improved.  

In reply to bobzilla :

Ahh you beat me posting that! But I'll raise you a..

MadScientistMatt said:

I want to see GM create mass confusion by reviving the Cavalier name for something that shares platforms with the Civic.

That is positively evil.       I like it!!!!

Honestly cannot understand why Honda would agree to partner with GM.  A lot of opportunities for Honda and their reputation to be hurt by this partnership. I'm a long time Honda owner (currently own 5, including a S2000) and I'm disappointed and it does lessen  my respect for the Honda brand. 

Are any of them newer than the S2000?

In reply to einy (Forum Supporter) :

Translation:  "GM no longer has Opel to get chassis from, so they want to get them from Honda right here in the USA"

IIRC Honda wants Isuzu access in Japan, as well.

DirtyBird222 said:

IMO this dilutes the Honda brand. Being an independent company they've always done things their own way good or bad and it's always separated them from the vehicles designed by committees like the Big 3. I can only imagine how bad GM will screw up future Honda products. 

Honda does more sharing and outsourcing than you may realize.  And if you think Honda vehicles are designed in whole by lone wolves, you may be in for a shock.  I think the last car designed like that was the Mini in the fifties.  It's committees and focus groups all the way down.

ProDarwin said:

bluebarchetta said:

GM's best Civic was the Saturn SL - nice try, but failure. 

As much as the Civic is a better car, I don't know that you can call the SL a failure.  Its sales numbers in the mid 90s were very comparable to the Civic.

The biggest problem with the SL was that Saturn made it for eleven or twelve years in a segment where cars regularly got replaced every four years with mid cycle refreshes.  Aside from detail changes, a 2002 SL2 was a 1991 SL2.  Compare a 2002 Civic to a 1991 Civic, or a 2002 Corolla to a 1991 Corolla. Or a 2002 Escort to a 1991 Escort... okay bad example...

Also GM basically ignored it and Saturn thrived against the odds.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

To be fair the 00 Civic shares basically every thing under the skin with an 88 Civic. And new 01 Civic was a massive downgrade. 

Usually these alliances happen when the companies see some larger threat from a competitor that affects them both.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend etc.  If GM and Ford can get together to design that 10 speed transmission, I guess anything is possible.

ProDarwin said:

bluebarchetta said:

GM's best Civic was the Saturn SL - nice try, but failure. 

As much as the Civic is a better car, I don't know that you can call the SL a failure.  Its sales numbers in the mid 90s were very comparable to the Civic.

I think the fact that Saturn's are no longer made may be part of it also. "Failure" is too strong, but I agree with his point.

Myself, I still prefer the ol' RWD cars and trucks!

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

I think the last car designed like that was the Mini in the fifties.  It's committees and focus groups all the way down.

And there has not been "an 'murican car" made in a VERY long time!!!

In reply to einy (Forum Supporter) :

GM is way too top heavy. Management is not only too big and way too expensive but not particularly successful. While Honda needs to grow globally 

United Honda/GM  offer synergy's they both need 

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

ProDarwin said:

bluebarchetta said:

GM's best Civic was the Saturn SL - nice try, but failure. 

As much as the Civic is a better car, I don't know that you can call the SL a failure.  Its sales numbers in the mid 90s were very comparable to the Civic.

The biggest problem with the SL was that Saturn made it for eleven or twelve years in a segment where cars regularly got replaced every four years with mid cycle refreshes.  Aside from detail changes, a 2002 SL2 was a 1991 SL2.  Compare a 2002 Civic to a 1991 Civic, or a 2002 Corolla to a 1991 Corolla. Or a 2002 Escort to a 1991 Escort... okay bad example...

Also GM basically ignored it and Saturn thrived against the odds.

I loved the S-series.  At one time, I had a '98 SL2 5sp, my wife had an '01 SL2 auto, and my mom had a '95 SL1 auto (she still has a '99 SC1 with only 70K miles on it).  They were reliable cars, easy to work on, and fun to drive with the manual.  They didn't require timing belt replacement and they held up to salty winters.  But the Civic had us beat on refinement and details.  Why was the Saturn rear seat so uncomfortable, even for short people?  Why was the shifter so sloppy, even when new?  Why did they all burn oil?  GM had 12 years to solve that, and all they accomplished was that the '95 SL1 burnt a quart every 600 miles at 100k, while the '01 only burnt a quart every 1500 miles at 100k.  The SL2 handled well, but wouldn't turn in like a Civic.  I say "failure" because Honda introduced the Civic in, what? 1973? - and they're still around, while the S-series never even saw a second generation (as Pete points out).  I'm still a little sad about it.

In reply to 93EXCivic :

I think rarity has something to do with the value of the first-gen NSX.

Total 1st-gen NSX sales in the US (1990-2007): 8,999.

Worst single-year sales for the C4 Corvette was 1992, when 20,479 were sold.

Honest question:  which would get around Mid-Ohio faster, a stock 1992 NSX, or a stock 1992 Corvette?  My guess is it'd be damn close.

ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:

Usually these alliances happen when the companies see some larger threat from a competitor that affects them both.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend etc.  If GM and Ford can get together to design that 10 speed transmission, I guess anything is possible.

I wonder how much of that is the growth of Koreans and Toyota with EV/Hybrids have both GM/Honda worried about their futures? 

STM317 said:

GM is pushing hard into BEVs and battery production. Honda has pretty much nothing in that regard other than the sweet little E citycar that doesn't come to North America, and the Hybrid/PHEV/Fuel cell Clarity which seems to be a bit of a compliance car, oddball.

I'd imagine that Honda brings money to the table and they get access to GM's EV stuff. GM probably gets cash and maybe some fuel cell tech out of the deal in case Hydrogen ever becomes a thing in the consumer market.

I think a lot of the group here is missing this response when interpreting the rest. GM has announced major plans for Battery vehicles and, in July, broke ground on a brand new Battery Manufacturing Facility in Ohio as a Joint Venture with LG Chem. GM has been working the technology/battery side for decades. Partnering with others helps ease the "sunk" cost of the research and facility manufacturing for GM, which should allow the produced EVs to be cheaper than they would otherwise be.

Honda gets to pay for Technology/products that they didn't have to develop at massive expense. This should allow them to sell their product at lower cost, as well - since they don't go through the full  $$ development process.

Any and every "alliance" means sharing information both ways. All of the previous mentions of horrible GM-joint Products seem to be from pre-bankruptcy, and the company has set a new and aggressive direction in the last few years. I see this providing the opportunity for more affordable, higher-quality (2 very different sets of approaches/eyes) EVs in the somewhat-near future, from both GM and Honda. 

How many Forum members have had/enjoyed GM's recent Hybrids/EVs? Both the Bolt and the Volt have seemed to be very good, aside from under-advertised. The EV Market is still looking for strong players, and by all accounts this alliance should open the door for 2 more. My $0.02, as someone in the industry.

I'm with classicJackets on this one.  This all seems like a way to get some of the basic building blocks together and of higher quality and at higher volumes which reduces costs and hopefully improves quality.  This isn't to built Chevy Civics; this is to build a hybrid Civic and a hybrid Trax with the same battery and controller.  And to deliver both at better price points to the end consumer.

Maybe Honda can teach GM how to make a DOHC timing chain engine last more than 60k miles 

RacetruckRon said:

Maybe Honda can teach GM how to make a DOHC timing chain engine last more than 60k miles 

You're kidding, right?

bobzilla said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

I'm in for an LS powered accord.. 

Unfortunately what we'll get will be a Honda Tax. 

FTFY. 

Honda apparently has been lowering their quality for years in anticipation of this merger.