GoHawks

In reality it does. Again (I know I sound like a broken record) look at the Accord.

My first new car was a '91 Toyota Camry. At the time horsepower-wise it really wasn't that much more powerful than the Accord which was only offered as a 4-cylinder. In many ways the Accord was the more sporty model, but it was constantly criticized for not having a V6 as an option.

Honda would constantly state the a V6 wasn't needed at that they could wring out similar if not comparable performance with a I4.

Argument sound familiar?

Honda finally woke up and introduced a V6. Nothing's changed, the majority of sales still go to the 4-cylinder versions for both models, but it's there if you want it.

Same argument for V8s. Most of the competition offers one, but most sales go to the V6 version.

One of the main reasons why the NSX, as wonderful of a car it was, was never taken seriously. People felt that a near exotic had to have a V8, even though the NSX could could outperform most of it's competitors.

A V8 would instantly make the RL a sales leader, but it will elevate the brand image of Acura.

GoHawks

SH-AWD gives Acura a niche, but the American public is more impressed by displacement and HP numbers. Plain and simple.

Most people don't understand the performance handling aspects of SH-AWD, heck many of the salespeople don't understand it. The fact is that many still feel that AWD is purely for inclement weather.

dwboston

Not to be flip, but "in reality" is conventional wisdom and doesn't mean squat. It's anecdotal observations based on your personal experience. Where is the data that shows that V8 models increase the sales of V6 models? I'm all for a V8, but there needs to be viable business case to justify spending the $ to develop the engine and engineer the cars to handle a V8. It's a huge investment for a very uncertain payoff given the state of the brand and the auto industry as a whole. And maybe Acura thinks it can elevate the brand image with the MDX instead of a V8 RL. The MDX seems to sell very well with no V8 option.

lland

I'm sure they could squeeze one into the MDX, Pilot, and Ridgeline.

LL

GoHawks

Well look at the competition. They all have V6/V8 models, but theit V6 models outsell the RL. Why? not because they're necessarily better cars (in many cases they're not). Those brands though have an elevated brand image.

A v8 solely for the RL doesn't make sense (see my prior posts). A v8 that can be used across the Honda/Acura product line would provide a subjective boost to the brand.

dwboston

But that argument assumes that the V8 is responsible for the brand image. Correlation does not equal causation.

GoHawks

Well out of the Japanese big 3, Honda is the only one without a V8. My guess is that it may not be the only reason, but a contributing factor.

jhr3uva90

Last time I checked, there were more Acuras being sold than Infinitis, despite the lack of a V8.

jhr3uva90

If I'm not mistaken, Camries outsell Accords for a variety of reasons, one of them being that Camries are available in rental-car fleets while Accords are not. Also, creating a V6 just for the Accord would not be practical, but creating a V6 that you could use in an Accord and an Acura TL is very practical, especially when both cars are made at the same plant. It is about economy of scale. Getting to the V8, Honda would have to offer it in many models for it to be practical. Basically, Honda would need to make a larger truck, a larger Acura flagship, etc. to make the V8 (or V10) worth it.

Speaking of a V10, I have a feeling that not only will the new NSX replacement have a V10, but that engine will be used in more than one model.

CL6

Good point but you'll be seeing a diesel in these vehicles before you ever see a V8. I wouldn't be surpirsed if a diesel went in during the MMC in 08.

This discussion goes on every month. Until the RL is designed with the N. American market in mind nothing is going to happen. I expect that ugly Acura design concept to morph into an RL for N. America... but let's hope it's still doesn't have a face made for radio when it does.

jhr3uva90

Even if the RL is designed in North America, I don't think it will be a high seller. I also doubt that the new NSX replacement will be a high seller. Generally people who drive Acuras generally can't or won't drive more expensive cars, and people who can or will drive more expensive cars are not even thinking about Acuras. There are people with disposable income who want status, not sensibility. As one friend said to me, "I don't want a glorified Honda, I want a Mercedes." That's the mentality. People will take a Benz that offers no unique features beyond the name over an Acura. That might be part of the general dumbing down of America, but that's where we are.

phins2rt

But that's all marketing and perception and that is something that should be under Acura's control. Or at least that is something they have the power to change. I don't think any of the more "expensive" cars in the RLs class are better cars. They are just perceived as a better choice. Lexus has been very successful at doing this. It may take a few years but with the the cancellation of the RSX, it looks like Acura is trying to move upmarket. The MDX topped out is over 48K so people may start feeling more comfortable paying that kind of money for an Acura.

VOdoc

A Benz...you mean a glorified Chrysler?? Their quality problems suggest that MB has been pulled down to the lowest common denominator by the merger with a U.S. automaker.

The point about Lexus is correct. Thanks to clever advertising, the public does not perceive their vehicles as gilded Toyotas, which of course they are. Acura's challenge is to create a separate identity from Honda. I like the techie/safety positioning a lot, yet it may not be sufficiently unique.

dwboston

Changing the perception of a brand is not an overnight proposition. "Advance" and SH-AWD are a good start to reposition Acura as a tech/safety/performance alternative to staid Lexus. (The Japanese Audi, but with better quality and perception from being associated with Honda). SH-AWD is great, but the company really needs to drive home the performance angle in addition to the safety/traction benefits. Acura just needs to commit long-term to a strategy and see it through. It's going to take some time.

Mike_TX

Since a lot of opinions are flying around, here's mine:

- It's clear to me Honda/Acura has pretty much given up on the RL. As in 'don't do anything or spend any more money than absolutely necessary to promote this car'.

- Unless they do a major re-design (and soon), this car can't survive, at least in N. America. Spending a ton on designing a completely new car, when the existing one is not selling, is a huge gamble (and Honda isn't prone to gambling).

- If they DO decide to save the RL, it will have to be a larger car, have killer styling, be as high-tech as the current one, and EITHER have a V-8 or have a cutting-edge (like direct-injection and/or turbocharged) V-6 that makes enough power to make a V-8 unnecessary. By that I mean if they offer a V-6 that makes 350-360hp and hauls ass, a V-8 wouldn't be an absolute necessity.

As much as I like my RL, we have to be worried for its future. These are the kind of sales numbers that make a mfr say, "This thing is killing us. Dump it." Nobody can keep on marketing a product that doesn't support itself, so Honda HAS to be scratching its corporate head right now wondering whether to throw more money into this particular hole.

I still say Acura needs a top-line car, and a stunning new RL could re-vitalize sales. But down deep inside, I wonder if Honda has the will to take the risk.
.
.

GoHawks

The difference is that the Legend is selling overseas, so the question is "how much is Honda really losing?".

If the RL were a US model only, then I would tend to agree with you.

I hear the same thing about my Land Cruiser. As legendary as it is, Toyota just doesn't sell that many here, but they sell much more of the LX470, proving agaon that the American public is so gullable. I won't spend $60K for a Toyota, but I'm OK with spending $70K for THE EXACT same vehicle with a Lexus emblem on the hood.

kenny5

I agree that many Acura buyers will not spend more than $50k, because we want most bang for the buck and do not care as much about status or image, unlike those BMW and MB chasers. Acura can save R&D $$ that would otherwise go for development of a V8, and instead can spend it on sprucing up dealership amenities and customer services, offering 5-year maintenance free services (basic stuff such as oil change/tire rotation/annual state inspection), extending warranty period to 10 years, and further improving on their very good V6 and other cutting edge technology, such as SH-AWD, GPS/traffic, BT and DVD-A. I am quite sure that if Acura works on the foregoing, it will lead to increased sales.

IMHO, the V6 that Acura now offers is fast and powerful enough for every day driving. A V8 would just be more wasteful on gas and environmentally unfriendly. We are all aware of global warming, and having a V8 is incompatible with saving mother earth.

P.S. I am not Al Gore!

mrdeeno

so where is the data to back up that an NSX will lead to sales of non-NSX models? Why are they bother working on a successor if there is no "data" or correlation between having a "halo car" and selling more regular models?

There is MORE correlation between having a V8 and a better brand image than there is with having a halo car and a better brand image.

Lexus has NO halo car, yet has a V8 and has better brand image than Acura.
Acura has had a "halo car" and NO V8, yet it's brand image is better than Acuras.

More recent developments...Infiniti has NO halo car, yet has a V8 and has a been able to create a better brand image than Acura.

Then the flip side...Saab has no V8, and they are in the same boat as Acura when it comes to brand image. Volvo, which had no V8 until recently, was in the same boat as Acura.

The correlation is OBVIOUSLY there between a V8 and image. You don't need "numbers" or "data" to back it up...it is that obvious.

mrdeeno

and last time I checked, there were more Toyotas, Hondas, and Nissans being sold than Acuras.

what's your point?

Should we throw Hyundai and Kia into the equation too?

mrdeeno

Correlation does not equal causation, but it is BETTER to go by correlation than whatever excuses Acura has been giving for the past decade.

Even Dick Colliver said that the RL NEEDS a v8.

But i guess you are in line to replace him over there at Honda's American corporate offices, so you would know better whether Acura needs a V8 or not.

jhr3uva90

I thought we were discussing Acura's sales relative to its competition. Although we all wish Acura sold more cars, particularly RL's, at least Acura is selling more cars than some of its luxury-brand competition such as Infiniti. For that matter, there are more Acuras being sold than Audis, Jaguars, Volvos, and Lincolns. The point is that the whole car market is going down right now, with a few exceptions.

Back to the V8 argument. I'm not saying that Acura should never ever have a V8, but I am saying that a V8 RL wouldn't really help sales. A lack of a V8 isn't the RL's biggest problem, in my opinion, but the fact that the RL is an Acura is.

Can Acura change its perception? I don't know. Over the years, other brands such as Lincoln and Buick have tried desperately to change how the public perceives them to no avail. Acura is in a much better position, but maybe the public's perception of the brand is locked in. It will be interesting to see what happens.

mrdeeno

shortsighted...again.

I don't know how to put more simply...

RL's problem is due to Acura's image. Acura's image is due to lack of V8. Therefore, RL's problem is INHERENTLY due to lack of V8.

You keep harping that the RL's problem is due to Acura's image...but you continually FAIL to see past that point. Why haven't you figured to ask WHY they have an image problem and what they need to do to fix that image problem?

Acura's image is MOST LIKELY (90% probability) caused by their lack of a V8 and the excuses that come with why they don't have one.

dwboston

This is one of the more inane statements you've made - and there have been many. All opinion, no fact, but presented as gospel. 90% probability? where does that come from? Acura didn't have any problems selling Legends, MDX's or TL's without a V8 in lineup anywhere. The lack of a V8 has little or nothing to do with the BRAND image. The brand image isn't an engine - it's what Acura stands for. I can see that you're not interested in having an objective conversation about this so I'll stop responding to you. Try to come up with something better than attacking people and rehashing the same opinion-as-fact BS you've been spouting for quite some time here.

dwboston

Given Acura's lack of success recently, there are a lot of folks on this board with good sound ideas who might be better than the current executives at positioning the brand and models with the car-buying public. Excluding you of course.

CL6

Well in 1991, when 'Japanese luxury brand' was still unknown the NSX launched and a few thousand were sold, and this with $30,000 mark-ups. And even at the end only 220 or so NSX were produced per year. I don't think the NSX was ever meant to be a big seller, but I think that it could still sell well.

The TL used to sell 60,000 per year. Surely a redesigned RL could sell 1/3 of that.

And Acura is moving up-market and the 'cheaper' people will slowly die off as they have with Lexus. I think with the right product the RLs can sell.

dwboston

True. Despite all of the tech and build quality differences in the RL vs. TL, it's too close in size (and a lot of the tech is kind of under the surface and subtle) compared to the TL to easily explain away the $ difference between the two. We know the difference because we're enthusiasts. The average person doesn't. A somewhat bigger RL that retains some sportiness, with the tech gadgets (at least available), a V8 option, more distinctive styling from the TL, and a base/Tech model price tag at or below $45k would sell, IMO.

wstr75

GoHawks is right. Honda is selling, what, something like approx. 2000 Legends/RLs world-wide? Let's say they are getting $35,000 per car. Crushing the numbers yields something like $840 million/year for this one model. That's not exactly chump change. There's something like, what, over 600 automobile brands/models available in the global market and there's more coming (Chinese and Indian brands anyone?). This is not to say that the RL shouldn't be enjoying 2000 units/months in the USA, but it is not likely to happen in our increasingly "Balkanized" world.

Those automakers who find a way to make money with lower volumes are the one's most likely to have future staying power. Lexus appears to be doing just that - introducing ever more models many of which are low (GS450h) volume. Acura has done the same in the past (NSX) and may be possibly continuing in that direction today with the RDX and RL. Marketers are calling this trend of making money in micro-niche sectors "The Long Tail". A the very tip of this tail are the mini-micro niche cars like Aston Martin, Lotus. Moving up the tail are brands like Porsche. Further up the tail are brands like Acura, BMW . . . . . . you get the picture. I don't see many Lotuses out there, but somehow the company (now owned by a Malaysian company) keeps going and periodically bringing out new cars all while maintaining an on-going dealer network.

My business is a micro-niche business as are those where many of you, too, work. Small (low volume) can be beautiful if managed correctly.

wstr75

No offense to CL6 or any other folks involved with selling Acuras, but when I was looking for a RL, most of the sales folks (went to four different dealerships) came out and said that they were not as familiar with the RL as they were with the TL. A couple of them were nervous about demonstrating the features, saying they seldom showed the RL. You know the old saw about "when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Could it be that the folks on the sales floor are intentionally/unintentionally wooing folks to the TL and not trying them out with the RL? It's $10K more, has a lot more stuff to demonstrate and is not all that much different in size than a TL. If I were working at a dealership, I'd probably be doing the TL push, too. Maybe the volume answer is something like a killer lease program and a specialized incentive program to both the dealer and the individual salesperson.

dwboston

There's the rub. Honda/Acura hasn't proved recently that they can effectively manage this business.

And what investment do they need to make in engine and model development to achieve that $840 million number? They needed to discount the current RL's to get them out the door, so they're obviously achieving lower margins than planned on it. They have a hurdle rate or ROI target in mind for an investment this big, and it's a matter of comparing it other to projects that have been proposed. Niche businesses are great, but Honda's margins are probably much lower than Aston Martin, Lotus, Porsche, etc. they need volume much more than those other companies you mentioned. Honda is a publicly traded company and needs growth to hit their earnings targets. If Honda came out and proposed selling half as many Acuras the stock would crater. (Scion just did something similar - announced they would sell fewer cars to retain the cachet of the brand). The auto business as a whole is not growing significantly. Emotionaly, I want a V8 for the RL, and for the RL model to continue - but rationally I would understand it if Honda didn't want to spend the $ because of better growth opportunities elsewhere. But that's probably my MBA/CFA background talking.

CL6

No offense. Most sales people know little about the RL or, in fact, any of the cars they sell. I know the car inside and out but I still rarely sell one. I'm sure poor sales people have something to do with it, but I've seen people who know nothing 'sell' all the other cars so I still have to say at least 50.01% is the car's 'fault.'

I'm sorry but the RL just doesn't have much pick-up. Once you're cruising it's a nice experience but when you 'punch it' I am disappointed. My CL seems to have far better scoot.

dwboston

There's something to the adaptive transmission logic that makes the car seem like it doesn't have a lot of zip. I picked my car up at the dealer a few weeks ago on a Saturday after they had replaced the rearview mirror (and disconnected the battery and did the idle learn process). When I got back into the car and drove it that weekend I couldn't believe how fast it felt and how well it accelerated. After a few days of stop and go Boston traffic the car no longer had the same quick pickup or acceleration below highway cruising speeds.

Mike_TX

This isn't gonna be popular, but in case Honda is listening, I will continue to say their (apparent) strategy of stuffing SH-AWD into every Acura product is just going to throw more dirt on their grave.

The simple truth is that the general public does not believe that AWD (of any kind) enhances handling. In fact, most of are familiar with the "axle tramp" or "crabbing" you get with conventional 4WD when you turn a corner. I'll wager that 98.9% of the public equates AWD only with off-road use and the snowbelt. That being the case, the half of the populace below the Mason-Dixon Line see no point in paying extra for it.

I'm telling you, in the South and Southwest, only a very small percentage of buyers opt for AWD or 4WD, unless they are macho truck guys or they are people who think they might some day go off-road at the lake or something. The rest of us wouldn't ever pay the extra bucks for it, especially since it eats into performance and fuel economy. And to be honest, if it had been an option on my RL, I wouldn't have gotten it.

So ... I strongly urge Honda to make SH-AWD an option. Charge an extra $2,000 or so for it like everyone else, and let people make up their own minds. That alone woud reduce the price of an RL a couple grand. It would also make it more attractive to people who just flat don't want it. You guys up North don't understand that, I know, but I still think the RL would be a better all-round car for me (and my part of the country) without it.

Check the sales of M35x's and even Jeep Cherokees and Lexus RX's down here, and you'll find they sell a hundred 2WD's for every 4WD ...
.
.

wstr75

This adaptive transmission stuff is getting a lot of talk in the Toyota/Lexus forums, too. Seems the ES350 has a "flare" that seems like the transmission is missing a shift and it appears to happening to folks who drive moderately and not to those who more frequently stand on the throttle a couple times each week.

dwboston

Good point. I remember visiting friends in Atlanta a few years ago. My buddy's wife had just gotten a new Toyota ForeRunner 2WD. Being from MA I hadn't seen many 2WD SUV's. He said that 4WD's were hard to come by in GA. I guess they don't sell many Subaru's in the South either?

dwboston

Do you have a link for that? I'd love to read it. Thanks!

CL6

Many dealers where there is no snow would like to see, for example, an MDX without the SH-AWD. Acura may cave on that but I doubt they would on the cars.

jhr3uva90

I also agree with GoHawks. Not only does the RL/Legend sell around the world (unlike the TL), but it is based on the Global Mid-size Platform, which reduces both the fixed cost of engineering/development and the marginal costs of manufacturing cars. Acura dealerships might be losing money on the RL, but I don't think Honda Motor Corporation is as adversely affected.

Back to the V8, please let me play devil's advocate. Chrysler makes a V8, so why aren't they considered a luxury brand? Chevrolet also makes a V8 (not to mention the Corvette), so why aren't they a considered a luxury brand? It takes more than a big engine to make a luxury brand, although a big engine does help.

I'm sure we are ALL looking forward to the new GT car with the V10 engine. However, that won't be enough to put Acura on the same level as Lexus among the hoi polloi. Lexus is about IMAGE. You can go to any Lexus dealership in America and be treated like royalty (the same can be said about Caddy). With Acura, it depends on the dealership. Some Acura dealerships are on par with Lexus, and some are barely better than a Honda dealership. That affects the perception of the Acura brand. If you act like you're just a baby step up from Honda, customers will treat you that way.

Acura has taken a step in the right direction by eliminating the RSX. I'm sure a lot of racer boys are hurt because of it. In fact I'm sure they're still bitching at Temple of VTEC. However, it is a move that Acura had to make in order to move upscale.

Also, I think creating the RDX is another good move for the Acura brand -- in the long term. In the short term, Acura has a tough job convincing people to get and RDX over the CR-V. Why do I think it is a good idea in the long term? Just like wstr75 said, it is a niche. The RDX will eventually appeal to young drivers in urban areas, especially urban areas like New York, Boston, and Chicago where it actually snows. All it takes is the right product placement and the RDX will start its ascent. Once the RDX starts to sell in volume, it will help uplift the Acura brand.

Finally, Acura needs to promote itself as a brand. Fortunately, Acura has started doing that with TV commercials, sponsoring on Wall Street Journal podcasts, etc. The Acura name will slowly be implanted in the minds of the affluent techies. "Acura Advance" is a good idea.

So overall, I'm not worried about Acura in general or the RL in particular. The auto industry is suffering right now, with a few exceptions. Even the legendary Carlos Ghosn has announced that Nissan, the comeback kids of cars, is in trouble. Honda/Acura is in fairly good shape by compared to the industry. In the long run, Acura will strengthen itself as a brand. It might never become number 1 like Lexus, but it won't slouch toward extinction like some other luxury brands.

wstr75

The SH-AWD is more than having snow traction. It is a novel approach for taking safety control to the next level - beyond just individual wheel braking. It also is needed for getting high power inputs to the street without torque steer. Here's an example: my Z71 Silverado truck sits and spins on hard acceleration whenever it rains. It is semi-frightening not going forward when you've committed and there's a car (or worse still, a large truck) coming at you and you're still in the intersection. I now punch in the AWD button whenever it's raining. SH-AWD is a bit hard to sell, but could be the thing that puts Acura as the "safe car" mindspace for the upper middle-class public much like how Volvo has owned that mindspace.

jhr3uva90

Your CL (which I used to have) seems to have far better scoot because it is chock full of torque steer. A BMW driver or someone who has advanced beyond FWD would not compliment the CL's "scoot."

Besides, I don't think luxury cars sell based on "scoot." The Lexus RX was the best-selling luxury vehicle in 2005. Does it have "scoot?"

mrdeeno

A V8 does not make a brand a "luxury" brand. But a "luxury" brand is not made without a V8.

taking a certain math class does not mean you will graduate school. But in order to graduate, you must take that class.