In 2005 it sold 17,572 but this year it sold 11,501 . I think that it might be too late to save this generation but I hope Honda/Acura can turn this around in 2 years like Lexus did for the IS300. I have to move up from TSX sooner or later & the TL is too small a step so if the next RL is not a smash I may have to go to Lexus ...

 

Sales don't bother me - I like the uniqueness of the RL and not seeing one on ervery corner like I do the TL. The marketing of the RL has been lackluster.

 

i still find it funny how people use the "i like it 'cuz it's rare" line of reasoning.

i doubt many people bought the car knowing that it was a poor seller and because it was goign to be "rare"

but i guess if you're gonna look at bad sales in a positive light, then there's the silver lining.

 

That logic just depends on a few factors in my book. For instance, I got the new 2004 TSX bc it was the 1st year ever for it & I knew I would be rare on the road; keep in mind I was coming from a 98 Honda Accord so I was sick of seeing my car everywhere & yes, I did walk up to the wrong car in the parking lot a few times. Nowadayz, I see more & more TSXs & it does get under my skin a bit so I can understand why some people like to be rare .

On the flip side, I would only want a car that is rare bc of certain reasons like low production or high costs; not rare bc nobody wants it or it is a bad car. Unfortunately, it seems like the RL falls on the latter but its not like the RL is such a bad car people are going to be laughing @ it on the road -- well maybe some Lexus or BMW owners but not the average person.

 

Yes, it is nice to be unique and have a "rare" car. The downside is lack of/or minimal aftermarket support, not to mention higher costs on parts.

 

I see 5-series everywhere around my area, but only a few new GS's and M's. I see a handful of RLs in my area also.

As well as the GS's and M's sell over the RL's, i'm surprised that I don't see that many at all. I don't see that many E-classes either.

Depending on your area, even decent sellers can be "rare".

 

acura's overall sales are up something like 14% over last year, i wouldn't worry too much guys!

 

Actually, although Acura sold in excess of 200,000 cars for the second consecutive year, overall sales were down 3.7% for 2006 vs. 2005.

STORY

LL

 

To start with, aren't luxury vehicles sales in the US down overall?

Also, RL sales are down 2006 vs. 2005, but what's the 5-year trend? That's how you detect outliers.

 

I don't buy cars (yes BUY, not LEASE) based on other people's expectations. If I did, I would lease a Benz or BMW like everybody else.

 

The RL is NOT a bad car. It merely isn't under the BMW, MB or Lexus badge. If it was I GUARANTEE its sales would be huge.

I love when people equate poor sales to a product's quality. One of the stupidest things humans do that asinine mentality is everywhere in this world.

 

Exactly. Anyone who cares about this from any standpoint other than say poor resale (ie they care they are driving an unpopular car that the masses wont go orgasmic over) has serious insecurity problems and shortcomings in many other areas of their lives.

 

In contemporary American society, unfortunately, we tend to confuse quantity with quality. If it is possible, then it MUST be good. However, if that's the case, then American Idol MUST be the best show on television and McDonald's MUST be the best restaurant in the the USA. We've let the tyranny of the majority hinder excellence and even good taste.

Enjoy the car that you prefer. You earned it!

 

You contradicted yourself.

You say that it is "unfortunate" that our society confuses quantity with quality. But to support this, you would have to give us evidence that the most popular restaurant or TV show IS considered the best by "contemporary American society", and I doubt that you would be able to find many people who would support that McD's is the best restaurant or AI is the best TV show.

I disagree with your assertion though. I don't think you can make a generalization that American society confuses quantity with quality. It will always depend on the context of what you are talking about.

In some cases, quantity IS based on quality. In other cases, quantity is based on other things, like value (Hyundais), convenience (MS Windows), or coolness factor (Ipod) or any other number of things that have nothing to do with "quality".

But going back to the RL...It's a quality car for what it is taken by itself and relative to all cars, but the fact that its a poor seller indicates that it is not competitive in one way or another in its segment.

People can claim the "rarity" factor all they want to make themselves feel better, but I doubt if anybody listed "poor seller" under their list of reasons to buy it, and i really doubt that Honda considers "rarity" a positive thing for the RL.

 

LOL if history repeats itself, like the 1 gen RL, the sales decline will continue to the point where the previous RL was selling something like 400 units per month.

 

I was being facetious in my examples.

In some cases, quantity and quality intersect. However, those cases are becoming increasingly rare.

The RL's poor sales could indicate that the car is not competitive, or it could be the BRAND and the dealerships that are not competitive. After all, the Cadillac STS outsold the RL, the Lexus GS, the Audi A6 and the Infinti M. Is it because the Cadillac STS is a superior car to all those I listed or because of other factors such as brand loyalty and fleet sales?

I still stick with the brand theory. Until the luxury car driving public stops perceiving Acura as either a Japanese Volvo or an upscale Honda, it will be hard for Acura to sell cars above a certain price point.

 

Nice straw man argument. You're confusing "people" appreciating the fact that there aren't a million RL's on the road (which would render them generic like BMW 5-series cars in the Boston area) with the reason they bought the car. I don't think anyone has come out and stated that they bought the car because it's "rare." It's a nice side benefit that they aren't ubiquitous. All I car is that Honda/Acura has enough parts to service and maintain the cars through the term of ownership. I'll worry about resale 3-4 years from now.

 

Now that my RL is paid for, I just hope to God I can keep the car on the road as long as possible. Hopefully, the years of usage with no car payment plus low maintainance costs (unlike BMW and Mercedes) will offset the low resale value in the future. In other words, resale isn't EVERYTHING, unless you are leasing the car.

 

From the Honda CEO thread, these are the numbers I compiled based on November sales:

November numbers:
2006 731 (December 2006--703)
2005 1298, year over year decrease 43.7%
2004 1941

2003 441 1G RL
2002 595
2001 1070
2000 1298
1999 1010

YTD November
2006 10,799 (YTD December=11,501, decrease 34.3%)
2005 16,294, decrease 33.7%
2004 6786

2003 6415 1G RL
2002 8857
2001 9790
2000 13,342
1999 12,192

Edited for extra numbers and comments:

I didn't buy the RL based on others' expectations. I bought it because it's a fabulous car at a reasonable price. The Lexus GS series is also tanking this year, sales are down 25%. The M is up 9%, the only exception in the RL's competitive group.

 

The luxury car driving public will stop perceiving Acura as a "Japanese Volvo" or "upscale Honda" when and if Acura stops acting as a "Japanese Volvo" or "upscale Honda". Even Volvo is acting less and less like volvo (offering V8 engines and more "emotional" styling).

There are many different types of qualities, and the importance varies depending on the market segment. Brand image is a quality. And Acura's quality of this is POOR in the $50k segment.

But for some reason Honda doesn't "get it". Like you said before in other threads, it doesn't seem that Honda cares much about Acura. And that's EXACTLY how it seems, because if they did give more of a damn, they would be doing all they can to improve Acura's brand image in order to make the RL successful. But when they make "excuses" instead of changes for not offering more options, for not offering more engine choices, for not offering more drivetrain configurations, for not offering more OF WHAT MOST CUSTOMERS IN THIS SEGMENT WANT, quantitative OR qualitative, then they should lie in the bed that they made.

 

 

Although I don't see many RL's on the road, I've never considered it a "rare" car. To me in terms of cars, rare connotates exclusivity enjoyed by cars say...like the Audi R8. Limited production, waiting lists to buy, etc... In contrast, the RL is rare to be seen on the road, but definitely not due to exclusivity. A check at my local dealer's inventory shows that they've got plenty in their inventory.

On the other hand, I can totally empathize with the "feeling" of exclusiveness by not seeing as many other RL's on the road, as someone had mentioned. The RL isn't actually exclusive by any means, as its "rarity" is cause by poor sales, but it's nonetheless a nice feeling to know that I'm driving a really nice car that isn't seen on every corner a la the 3 series or TL. Yeah, it might not make much sense, but it's a feeling which is completely emotional, so it shouldn't. Of course it's not a good feeling for Acura, as I'm sure they'd like to see many many more RL's out on the road.

 

What does it tell us about the Americam auto buyer that Hummer is the biggest winner in the sales races?
.
.

 

That we love to burn gas?

Although to be fair to Hummer, the increase in sales doesn't tell the real story...it still only sold around 71K cars for the whole entire brand...Honda sells much more Accords than that.

 

The Acura model line-up lacks a larger "flagship" car, which might actually drive RL sales.

The RL simply isn't large enough to be matched up with the LS, Q, A8, 7-series, etc. It fares well against the competition, all of which have more upmarket cars in their lineup.

This has always been the Honda way. Their approach has been to develop sufficient, but not class-leading power, size, performance, and features in a car that does everything well on balance. It is a subtle approach to be sure, but leaves them looking like a wallflower compared to Lexus, and even Infiniti.

I think if customers saw a larger, fully-featured car in the showroom, the RL would benefit. The TL and RL feel similar in the showroom, so anything that distinguishes the RL would probably beef up sales. It could be flawed logic, but I wonder how many potenital LS customers decide that the GS or even ES is sufficient for their needs for less money. How many Q buyers end up in the M? The RL could benefit from that, as would the Acura line-up. Plus they'd be able to snare some LS, 7, A8 customers for their own.

The RL just doesn't give the Acura line-up much "glow". That seems to be what the new MDX is doing, oddly enough, even though it builds on the RL's SH-AWD foundations.

Rob144

 

I agree with Rob144 that Acura could benefit from a full-size flagship. One benefit, especially if the full-size (FS) flagship could somehow share a platform with the mid-size RL, would be a shared engine. It is not practical for Honda to create a V8 or larger engine for just the RL. However, creating such an engine to share between an RL and an FS flagship could work better.

The new MDX is absolutely necessary. Why? Because American loves trucks. Basically, Acura took the Japanese Legend/RL, removed some features that Americans won't miss because we don't pay attention to details, turned it into an SUV (because we love trucks), made it in Canada to save money, and voila! The MDX. I saw one on the road just an hour ago and I must say I'm impressed. The MDX has a great future ahead of it, and Acura will do well as it transitions into an SUV brand.

 

No, the RL does NOT fare well against the competition, as shown by their sales.

I agree, this has always been their approach and that is why people see Acura as more of an "uplevel Honda" rather than its own brand.


Maybe someone buying an LS would consider a GS, but not an ES/IS...these are entry level.

Not a whole hell of a lot. The Q suffered as badly, if not worse, than the RL. Technically, the Q is not even offered anymore, but this has not hurt sales of the M. I don't think the Q attracted enough shoppers, if any, to Infiniti to be advantageous to the M. If anything, I think the G35 probably attarcted more people to infiniti and helped the M.

I think everyone's been saying this for a very long time...Acura needs to expand its lineup upwards (rather than downwards). But unless they develop the NECESSARY hardware (maybe RWD, at least AWD, V8 definitely), they won't have anything to develop for a larger car than the RL.

I just find it very amusing how some people claim that it is "all" brand image, but fail to look behind the reason why the brand image sucks at higher price levels. Lexus didn't get their brand image handed to them, they earned it by developing the right products that could compete with the other luxury makes.

An amateur tennis player wants people to consider him a professional. He may be good, he may even be better than some professional players. He refuses to compete at the professional level though. He will never be considered a professional until he COMPETES at that level.

As long as Acura refuses to develop a V8 and RWD platforms, they are refusing to compete at the LUXURY level, where the majority offer V8s and RWD products. Acura is that amateur tennis player that wants to be considered a professional, yet simply refuses to compete at that level. What, are they scared or something? Until they take a chance and compete, they will always be known as a "near luxury" company just like the amateur player.

Like i said before, if they want people to stop thinking of them as an "uplevel honda", then STOP BEING AN UPLEVEL HONDA!

 

I think RL's would sell a lot more if people knew you could get one for 40-42K. I didn't even look at them when I thought they were 50K. When a friend of mine came home with one for 43K... I decided to go look...and when I looked, I liked. But it took that price range to pull me out of the Lexus dealer.
-NavyDoc

 

The RL's SALES are not competitive with it's competitors' SALES. I think the RL is very competitive with the Lexus GS or Caddy STS, even though cars sell more units.

No, Lexus' brand image wasn't handed to them; they worked at it with advertising, superior customer service, product placement, and event sponsorships. The original Lexus LS was an impressive car for the time, but all the other Lexuses have been uncompetive relative to other cars. For example, at the same time Lexus released the original LS, they released the original ES. The original Lexus ES was literally a rebadged Camry. Their most popular models are based on the same platform as the Camry. And has a Lexus EVER won a car comparison in any magazine?

Brand matters.

 

The RL in my eyes is still the best "bang for the buck"! I came from a 2000 Nissan Maxima, so this was a huge step up for me. I bought the car b/c of value, dependability, style, NAV, and AWD. I looked at the Lexus and Infiniti's...but you would have to spend over $50K for what I got in the 2006 Non-Tech RL. It is also nice to not see one on each corner. I rarely see one on the road..... unlike the TL and TSX, which are less expensive, which could explain that theory.

 

My point on being competitive was that the RL regularly came out on top in most comparison tests with competitive rides, and was a Car and Driver 10 Best when it debuted.

Sales don't necessarily reflect the goodness of the car itself, unfortunately.

I think that Acura priced the car too high, which tended to put a damper on sales (especially with a similarly-sized TL sitting next to it in the showroom). The Acura brand name has a hard time supporting a $50000+ sticker price for a sedan.

We'll have to see how the 2007 base RL does at its lower price point. The tiered model structure hasn't hurt the Infiniti M, so it might help deliver buyers wanting more than a TL without all the gadgets (NAV, cameras, etc).

Rob144

 

Based on sales so far, not much. I believe Acura sold around 700 RLs per month for Nov and Dec of 06. This is down over 40% from last year. I thought the base model would help sales but it doesn't look like it so far. Although two months may not be enough for analysis.

 

I don't think two months is enough for a good analysis. I am not even sure the base model is selling--I still haven't seen a single person come onto this part of the board with one. ("I should have gotten a navi!" as is seen so often on the TL side)...and we are a microcosm of the whole of Acura ownership.

 

I don't know if we are a microcosm of Acura ownership. If an RL owner is so low tech that s/he is willing to opt OUT of the RL's navi, then chances are s/he too low tech to post messages on the Web.

 

So what if the most popular models are based on the Camry? The most popular acura models are based on the Accord. The difference is that Lexus understands something that Acura doesn't...once you move out of the near-luxury segment, value matters less and customer choices and perception matter more. People say that Lexus is a copycat of MB. I'm sure they have no problem with this since it makes them more of a viable alternative to MB.

People say that Infiniti is a copycat of BMW. I'm sure they have no problem with this since it makes them more of a viable alternative to BMW.

In both cases, being a "viable" alternative to an established brand raises their brand image.

the RL is NOT competitive with the Lexus GS or Caddy STS, or any other car in this class because 1) they don't offer the same major choices such as drivetrain or engine, or 2) because Acura's brand sucks.

It may be competitive when compared one specific model vs. one specific model, such as AWD 6-cylinder vs. AWD 6-cylinder, but the car does NOT compete well within the entire CLASS for the 2 reasons stated above. being competitive to only one limited range of buyers in an entire segment with MANY different choices is not being competitive by any means.

Building off my restaurant analogy...let's say that the model range is restaurants. STS, RL, M, A6, 5, E, GS are different restaurants. The RL sells salads (AWD V6) and sodas (minor options). All the other "restaurants" sell salads (AWD V6), but they also offer choices of fatty burgers (V8), greasy fries (RWD), shakes, and sodas (minor option packages). How is the RL restaurant competitive with all the other restaurants?

 

The fact is that anytime the RL went head-to-head with either of those two cars, the RL always has come out ahead.

The interesting thing is that the GS430 (V8) is pretty much a lame duck model that has performance numbers LOWER than the GS350. My understanding is that they arehardly even selling any GS430s lately and if you want one, you have to special order it. So it is back to perception and the fact that Lexus pretty much sells one version of their car even though (on paper) there is a V8 alternative available. It goes to show that it is less about the actual vehicle and more about brand perception.

I disagree with you that the RL is inferior to a comparable car (M35 or GS300/350). I will agree with you that the Acura brand is not on par with Lexus.

 

Acura almost certainly took too long to distinguish themselves from their Honda counterparts. Even my 1995 Legend had Honda badges on the engine and other parts that are highly visible to the consumer.

Honda made little effort to set Acura apart, and that hurt. Lexus made the effort up front to distinguish from Toyota (first ES notwithstanding), and it has paid off in perception.

Given the history, it is now harder for Acura to go upmarket. People think of Acuras first as gussied-up Hondas, then as competitors to Lexus and Infiniti. Of course, the RL *is* a Honda Legend to most of the rest of the world.

I'm not an SUV fan, but I think the MDX is going to set the tone (a better one) for Acura's perception in the marketplace. Maybe that will rub off on the RL.

Rob144

 

FWIW...the RL is a 'buy' if you will drive the car into the ground (due to its terrible resale value). Otherwise, if you will hold on to a car for less then 6 1/2 years (or lease a car), the Lexus, Infiniti, BMW, MB, et al provide a much better value.

 

Anytime? Where are you getting your facts? I remember reading several comparison articles where the RL did NOT come out ahead.

But at least Lexus OFFERS a V8 option, lame duck or not. The mere fact that they OFFER it makes it more competitive because having a V8 in this class is a necessity for the brand image. And brand image is what helps sells cars. Take away V8 sales from the other brands, and the other brand's V6 models STILL outsell the RL.

it IS about brand perception, and if a brand is willing to offer a V8 option to stay competitive with the other offerings in this segment, then they are trying to be competitive. Most sales will be the V6 model, but the mere fact that the RL does not offer a V8 engine in a segment where EVERY other brand does is a disadvantage to the brand image of the RL and hence the entire brand image of Acura.

Basically, the perception is that the Acura "brand" isn't serious about competing at all in this segment. Who wants to buy a $50k car from a brand that isn't serious enough that they won't offer the same BASIC choices as every one of its competitors offer?

And you make my point. I never said the RL is inferior to a comparable car...but the magic word is "comparable". But because the RL does NOT have other drivetrain or engine options, they are NOT competitive with the many other variations in this segment and therefore is NOT competitive in this segment as a whole.

You can go on and on about how the RL is competitive with "comparables" all you want, but the fact remains that the "comparables" are a narrow part of a larger segment, and not being able to compete within the entire segment is not being competitive.

 

My next car will most likely be a used RL and I will probably end up driving it into the ground. I thought about a used 2nd gen MDX (at the end of 2008 when my lease runs out), but I'm not keen on SUVs.