3 ms·
"Josh's problem is with the way MG put it. He framed it as "Mercedes vs Honda". There's a strong, implicit class implication there." Except that you can get a
by jonhendry 15y ago
"Josh's problem is with the way MG put it. He framed it as "Mercedes vs Honda". There's a strong, implicit class implication there."
Except that you can get a cheap used Mercedes for less than a new Honda, if you can't afford a new Benz and value the workmanship (or brand) enough to take the risk. And Honda made the NSX. There are Acura models priced in the same ballpark as lower-end new Mercedes.
Honda had a Formula 1 racing team until 2008. It was sold off, and was eventually bought by Mercedes Benz.
So the 'class' question is muddled, to say the least. Unless you think the NSX is the car of the proletariat and a 1990 Mercedes with 100,000 miles is the vehicle of the 1%.
- mladenkovacevic 15y agoI'm not sure if you're being humorous but if not then this over-analysis of the analogy doesn't really serve any useful purpose. For all intents and purposes Mercedes=quality+luxury while Honda=cheapy+functional and this was the primary meaning behind the analogy utilized in Siegler's article.
- jonhendry 15y agoI'd say Honda = affordable and dependable, not especially luxurious or loaded with features, but not necessarily cheap either. There are Honda models that start near $30k, and other models that start around $20k but have configurations over $30k. I'd think Kia or Hyundai would would be seen as the "cheap" brand. And the Honda company certainly doesn't shy away from serving the luxury market with their Acura brand. In any case, the comparison of Mercedes vs. Honda was about fit and finish and creature comforts, not price. It works just as well when comparing a loaded, well-kept $9000 used Mercedes to a brand-new $15,000 Civic.