2012 The Honda Civic "NAME" is 40 years old

[al67]

Good to see the Civic reach 40 years old,as It's always been a cracking little car.

Although, don't it make you feel old?

al.

[oldhondas]

Further celebrating our 40 years of civic, old hondas gathered at Motorsport at the Palace with some of us competing too.

Amongst us was Hondas 1st four wheeled production vehicle, the Honda T360 truck. This 1963 example is one of only two known road worthy examples in europe

[Martin Evans]

I imagine the only common part, between the original and the current one, is the badge (Or at least the basic design of it).

[oldhondas]

I imagine the only common part, between the original and the current one, is the badge (Or at least the basic design of it).

So your saying a car designed in 1971, launched in 1972 will have few if no common parts with the 2012 model? Interesting.

[Martin Evans]

It's called an obervation; I worked out that you're saying the name is 40 years old (Quite a few 1970s model names are still popular today, Golf, Fiesta, Polo, Passat; I think the Toyota Corolla goes back to the 1960s). Some cars have been made for forty years with some (If by not necessarily a majority of) common components, the original Mini being one, I expect the original Beetle had a few and perhaps the Morgan 4/4, which originally came out in 1936 and apart from a short gap in the 1950s, has been in production since, mostly with Ford engines of the day. I imagine the Reliant Robin/Rialto line had a number of common parts during the production run of close on thirty years.

My mother's uncle has run Hondas for years (He had Triumph Acclaims in the 1980s) and has a current Civic. I first remember him with a Morris Minor 1000 back in the 1960s; I think he had Marinas in the 1970s.

[Luxobarge]

Much the point I was making in post #2, except Martin has explained it in much more detail.

[oldhondas]

I have a 77 beetle Karmann Cabriolet amongst my current collection (yes i own and have owned other "classics") and i can can say with confidence that there isn't a single screw on there that would have been used on a beetle from 4 decades prior to that but i see the point you are trying to make.If you keep as many parts as you can from the original design it keeps cost down but also at the cost of innovation. I wonder if Triumph, Ford, MG, Morgan or any other manufacturer managed to build an F1 car just four years after it made its first road car and then went onto there first F1 win in 1965.

Ive edited the thread title for those of a pedantic nature.

[loveoldclassics]

I can just remeber those early civics. Also I saw a brand new one to-day and it still looks like a stylish car.

[JPB]

.....I've edited the thread title for those of a pedantic nature.

I think of the Civic (and Toyota's multi-million selling Corolla in its multiplicity of forms from across the years) more as a class concept than as any one model. It was the name that won Honda its reputation for building seriously decent cars in many parts of the world, it's still the second name that comes to most minds when they're asked to name their favourite Honda** and it has kept Bournemouth and many parts of Florida mobile for decades.

I do wonder though; will BMW be celebrating the Mini's 60th birthday in 2019?


**My choice would be that tiny truck. Did I mention that I'm liking that enormously?

[Martin Evans]

I shouldn't be surprised.

The Formula 1 question is interesting and I think Honda scored here because they were used to making motorcycles (Their 4 cyclinder model gave the British motorcycle industry a shock during the 1960s and if it had only handled well, could have really done a lot more damage sooner) and motorcycle engines tend to give a lot of power per unit capacity. In 1965 their F1 car engine was only twice the capacity of their 750 Four.

Of course Grand Prix racing was a different ball game then; bear in mind that Coopers were a garage, who I think built their first 500 in 1947 and in 1959, they were world champions. Perhaps they were fortunate, that in using a motorcycle engine, they discovered the benefits of the mid engined arrangement. Equally remarkable, by todays standards, was the fact that the engine for the 1959 Cooper was made by a firm, who had made fire pump engines (Lightweight at least) and fork lift trucks. Lotus, as another small concern, refined what Cooper started and again used Coventry Climax engines. Granted it was never cheap but I suppose when Cosworth did the DFV (Financed by Ford; I think it cost $323000), that was the sign that big big money was on the way (Even though for a while, many teams were able to buy the DFV thus helping teams like March and Tyrell) and since the 1980s, I don't think that anyone, without access to the budget of a major manufacturer, can hope to win. I wonder what would have happened if Mercedes Benz had stayed in motor racing after 1955; would they have squeezed out the likes of Lotus and subsequently Brabham, McLaren and March Would todays battle of the giants have started sooner On the subject of F1 engines, I always thought the Honda turbo engine, of the mid 1980s, sounded the best (It had a slightly rougher, more off beat note at the top end).

As to Morgan F1 car, well they did win their class at Le Mans in 1962, with the Chris Lawrence prepared Triumph engine (Another outstanding engine with humble origins) but most of Morgan's early GP success, came in the motorcycle world, as the three wheelers were classed as sidecar outfits.