This is mostly in reference to the US-market Honda Accord.<p>Really, go anywhere outside the US for a while, come back, and you instantly realize how much of an absolute mess the US auto market is. Really, we're largely given substandard products below the $25,000 pricepoint and we have a poorly educated driving public.<p>1) Cheap = junk. This is largely because... cheap has been junk in the US market. You end up with these featureless, plasticky buckets of bolts with half-cocked engines mated to the world's worst transmissions.<p>That's not to say this doesn't happen in the European or Japanese markets either, because cheap junk exists there as well, but you do have some very nice small cars (b-segment and city cars) over there like the Ford Fiesta and the Fiat 500.<p>Of course, the majority of the US consumers look at price as the most important thing. Cheap wins. Look at cars like the Corolla and the Civic and you'll notice their prices haven't budged much over the years... but the quality has taken a noticeable hit. No more soft-touch interior materials. Torsion beam suspensions. More gadgets like power seats, gewgaws, and space, but they're not nice places to be anymore, and with all the weight, they handle like rubbish.<p>2) Want versus need. Everyone seems to think they need a "mid-size" sedan with 4 doors. I had an argument with my sister about this, who's been driving for 13 years now. When's the last time she's used the back seats in her cars for passengers? NEVER. Last time she folded down the rear seats for extra stowage? Twice. When moving. Why would you buy something that you might use once or twice in the lifetime of the vehicle? Considering most Americans finance their cars, you're paying extra every month for 60 months for something you might use ONCE. For that one time, go rent something. It's a lot cheaper and it does the job better than what you bought.<p>The big argument for SUVs? Higher driving position, and ingress/egress issues (real or perceived) in smaller cars. Particularly people with kids. They have one child, and they suddenly feel they need a Tahoe to put in the child seat.<p>Lack of research as well. A huge tendency for folks to walk into a dealership and take the first car they test drive (inadequately), because it's better than what they have simply because it's new. It's terrifying. For most people, it's the 2nd most expensive purchase they'll make in their life and they don't do their due diligence.<p>3) Horrible preconceived notions as the result of poor product. I'm an enthusiast, so I tend to drive... "spirited". Granted, I have cars suitable for it, and for track days. However, I was in a conversation with someone who felt he needed 300HP "in an emergency", and thought that going over 80mph was "really fast".<p>No. 80mph is pretty... well, boring in a car with a decent suspension. It's like doing 40mph in a different gear. Yes, a high-margin SUV or a low-rent budget box (I'm looking at you specifically, Cobalt) with crappy tires will absolutely feel terrifying at 80mph because the tires don't communicate anything predictably and the car is generating significant lift because there's no attention to aerodynamics. In those kinds of cars, yes, 80 is "interesting" due to the lack of communication you get from crappy all-season tires up the steering column.<p>Then there's terrible engines with terrible transmissions, and people who don't understand how they work. Why does the US market Golf (Rabbit) have a 2.5L naturally aspirated 4-cylinder? Because the average American doesn't understand that to get the power out of the smaller displacement engines you have to put your foot down and rev the nuts off of it. So they just throw this half-assed larger displacement engine up-front because people are afraid to put their foot down... the same people who think they need 300HP... in a FWD, 3600lb sedan that will violently torque-steer, and probably end up in a guardrail when they brake mid-corner because they took it way too hot.