jhr3uva90

Going RWD is necessary, not because that's what Infiniti did, but because that is what EVERY luxury brand is doing. Only Acura and Audi are relying exclusively on FWD/AWD and both brands are struggling. The top 4 luxury brands in the US all have mostly RWD cars.

neuronbob

I still think that if Honda/Acura can come up with a way to saave weight in other places, SH-AWD will be the way of the future. It will be less expensive than creating a new RWD platform.

We'll see what actually happens in the next two years, which is when the 4G TL arrives. I still think Acura needs more frequent marketing to get that all-important mindshare in the luxury business.

jhr3uva90

You are correct, putting AWD on a FWD platform is cheaper than creating a new RWD platform. However, the problem is in perception. The masses out there preceive AWD as being something you use for snow and hills. Therefore, people in places where it isn't snowy and hilly like Texas don't perceive the need for AWD, so they don't buy AWD cars. For example, the DC-metro area and the SF-bay area have similar customers with similar demographics. So why is the RL apparently more popular in DC than SF? Because it never snows in the SF area, so people don't perceive the need for an AWD car.

SH-AWD might help Acura win the battle against high production costs, but might cause them to lose the luxury car war.

CL6

RLs don't sell for a variety of reasons. A great car will sell no matter what. The fact that not all Acura dealerships are 'Lexus nice' hurts a tad but it's not really a big reason. People go where the good cars are.

I never asked for a Base RL with Plood. I don't know anybody that did. Don't assume that this was a decision driven from the bottom (dealerships) up. The Base RL will just be a less expensive, slower selling car instead of a more expensive, slower selling car.

The RSX sold many units and should have been upgraded to become nicer. Lexus started out with that boy racer IS and upgraded that vehicle until it's extremely nice. Honda spent their time doing the Civic instead of doing the RSX. Now 5 years of branding is dead. Good job!

Acura had a plan. The MDX... TSX...TL. They did not 'fall into' success with the MDX. That car was designed from the ground up to be a great car. Those all were great plans. They blew it after that because they had nothing else in the pipeline. Who kills your Halo Car then, because Toyota and Nissan are coming out with one, you decide to bring it back to life?

They have to take chances. Sometimes they pay off (new MDX) sometimes they don't (RDX) but if you play it safe you end up with an RL and few customers.

mrdeeno

imagine that Acura, BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, etc. sold fast food instead of cars.

people want fatty burgers with super greasy fries and a supersized non-diet soda.

You walk into a BMW store, you get a fatty burger, super greasy fries, and a supersized non-diet soda.

You walk into a Lexus store, you get a fatty burger, super greasy fries, and a supersized non-diet soda.

You walk into an Acura store, "Oh, we're sorry...we don't sell fatty burgers or super greasy fries, we only sell salads because it's healthier!"

Acura is not giving the consumers in the $50k segment what they want. I think ALL Acura dealers out there...the EYES and EARS of Acura, the people who TALK to the customers, feel that Acura needs a V8 in their upper end models. They are the ones that see customers walking away and buying from a brand that offers options, other engines, other drivetrains, etc. But the people in control think they are somehow "enlightened" by the success of the TL, MDX, and all their Hondas, that they think they know better than their customers in the $50k range. Little did they realize that they haven't had any customers in the $50k range to be "enlightened", so they end up with the current RL and it's poor sales.

Acura, if you want to be in the business of selling fatty burgers, then sell fatty burgers, not salads.

jhr3uva90

A great car will not necessarily sell no matter what. Anyone who has ever been to high school knows the difference between the popular and the good (or the quality).

The masses of people don't just go where the "good" cars are. They go where they will be treated well. Customers (especially female customers) will go where they don't feel threatened, where they will feel comfortable, where they will feel like stars. Lexus did not become America's most popular luxury brand by making cars with the most gadgets for the money, or high-performance cars like BMW. In fact, until this year, the most popular luxury car in the USA was a Lexus SUV/minivan that shares a platform with a Toyota Camry.

Branding is important, perception is important, buying experience is important. In retail, branding gives Target a chance to compete againist Wal-Mart, while so many other stores have been killed by Wal-Mart. Branding, perception, and buying experience are the reasons why Apple Computer, Inc. stock is worth substantially more than Dell stock. It's why Tiffany's and Nordstrom's continue to stay in business. It's why Lexus is #1 in the USA, and it is what Acura needs to succeed.

jhr3uva90

P.S.: As of right now, people who want $50K cars will generally NOT think about Acura, even if Acura offered full-sized cars with V8 engines. Acura must build the brand!

neuronbob

I love this analogy, mrdeeno. Maybe it will help the Acura executive types who, I'm sure, peruse our board.

I'll add one more layer to the analogy. In order to sell the salads and fruits in any fast food store, you have to attract customers wiht the fatty burgers, super greasy fries and supersized non-diet sodas. Once there, they may opt for the healthier fare instead but like to know that the greasy stuff is there if they want it.

BMW, Lexus, and Infiniti all make V8s with each of their RL competitors. However, they sell mostly the V6 versions. It'd likely be the same with Acura. Instead of coming out with a decontented base RL, they should have stuck a V8, even another company's V8, into a $55k, sub-6 second 0-60, top-level RL with 20 inch Mugen wheels. Call it the Mugen V8 (or M1 if you prefer). In fact, it's already been done by Mugen in Japan. Bring that $hit over here!!!!! I'd be happy to, um, take one for the Acurazine team and test drive that puppy like I stole it. Honda has precedent with the new Mugen Civic.

EDIT: 2005 TOV article on V8 Mugen Legend Max

wstr75

CL6, I agree with your RSX comments. Brand name recognition is worth a lot and killing off brand name/products like RSX and Legend is terribly counter-productive. The new Civic coupe is selling like hotcakes. A revised RSX would have likely done well in our current "gas conserving while having performance fun market". Management . . . . . it all gets back to management. The guy at the top (Acura) is the one who influences the organization. He/she is not taking chances and is not clamoring for additional design time/research resources, etc. and you guys selling the cars are today paying the price. Maybe the poor sales of the RL and RDX will "pimp slap" management into taking action. The new prototype designs shown on the AutoWeek site looks fantastic. http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1003/1057/FREE

jhr3uva90

Killing the RSX was a great idea! You cannot be preceived as a luxury brand when you are selling a $20K car. Also, the Legend name was overshadowing the Acura brand, there were many people who did not know the Legend was an Acura. The alphanumeric naming convention has worked for Lexus, Mercedes, and BMW, and now Cadillac is making a gradual transition to alphnumeric nomenclature. The problem is that Acura has done nothing to bring excitement to the Acura name. An NSX replacement might help, as would a true luxury sedan. Also, I cannot emphasize enough how the dealer experience must be made consistently good. Again, look at other boards at people who stopped buying Acura and started buying other brands. It wasn't the cars themselves, although that transmission fiasco didn't help. It was the dealership experience and the brand perception. People think other brands are more luxurious and they are treated that way by the sales and service personnel at dealerships. Not only does Acura sell cars that cost less than Hondas, their dealerships tend to be barely better than a typical Honda dealership.

The Legend hurt brand name recognition. The RSX hurt brand perception. Now that Acura has rectified those problems, they still have a long way to go to build the brand.

kenny5

Jhr3uva90, I agree with you. Acura should not sell $20k cars. Look at VW's Phaeton (spelling?) as an example. It was a high-priced but phenomenol car, but it was sold in VW dealerships that also sell $15k cars. You cannot attract high rollers into a nondescript dealership and expect them to ante up the big bucks. I am sure many of us have visited Mercedes, BMW, Audi and Lexus dealerships, and the experiences were quite different. Equally important is post-sale customer service experience, which I believe is not Acura's strong point.

jhr3uva90

Yes, Lexus dealerships are especially adept at treating you like a king. When I went to test drive the Lexus GS back in March of 2005, I really felt taken care of at Lexus of Alexandria. Also, when I sat in the GS, I KNEW I was sitting in a $50K. However, in retrospect, it wasn't the car, I was actually getting $50K treatment from the sales staff.

The local BMW dealership didn't coddle me quite so much, but the salesperson was incredibly knowledgable about BMW cars and driving in general (he had been to some special driving school). That really impressed me.

Mike Nelson was my Acura salesman at Radley Acura. He's excellent, but overall, the service is inconsistent. Some of the sales people are tacky and don't really know wha they are selling. I shouldn't have to tell an Acura salesman how the RL works. Fortunately, I didn NOT have the problem with Mike, but did with some other folks. Plus, when it comes to the service department, it really came down to what team you ended up with. Some were talented, some were incompetent, and that was within one service department!

Now that I live in CA, I go to Acura of Serramonte. So far, things are good. My only complaint is that the sales people and staff are young! I feel like they should be selling Civics instead of luxury cars, but they aren't bad people.

There's a lot that Acura needs to do to separate its brand from the Honda brand. The dealership experience is the most obvious, at least that's how it seems to me. Then they need to promote not just individual Acura models, but the overall Acura brand. Cadillac is starting to do that, and Lexus has been doing that from day one.

Here a question: when is the last time any of you received an Acura magazine?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

It seems like the next TL is going to be AWD since the next Accord is likely to be AWD. Anyways, I agree with most of the points people have made here. It would be nice if Acura could train its sales people more; make them more knowledgable about the cars at the very least. It's funny how some sales people call a TL as TSX!

neuronbob

It HAS been quite a while. I don't remember when I got the last one. Summer? Spring?

Mike_TX

Jhr3uva90, I mostly agree with you.

There's no question the dealership is a key element in the equation, since perception is a huge part of the whole business of selling an upscale product. But that alone isn't enough to sell it, either. I can walk into a Mercedes dealership and feel really nice and special, but I still don't want their cars (well, maybe a CLS ...).

I agree with you completely on the RSX. It's almost an embarassment that the same pepole who sell my RL would sell a pocket-rocket type car for 18-year-olds. I think it was a good step in the direction of appealing to a more mature, sophisticated buyer.

But I guess I'm also a little weirded out by Acura's focus on SUV's. Yeah, I know they're still pretty popular, and everyone has them, and they have a good profit margin, but for godssake, they're trucks. I'd really rather they have a truck division in a separate building, with its own showroom. That would really focus energy on the cars.

Then, put an RL up on a slightly raised platform in the middle of the showroom, with spotlights shining on it and a video about the car's features looping on a huge screen on a wall behind it. Maybe even make the spotlights revolve, causing little sparkles of light to glint off the chrome and show off the metallic in the paint. Scatter some TL's and a TSX or two around, but sell the RL as the flagship it is rather than hide it out on the lot somewhere and push TL's and TSX's.

Too many dealers treat RL's like lefthanded stepchildren rather than trying to actively market them. They stick them in the back of the showroom (if they have one inside at all), behind the SUV's and TSX's with aftermarket 19's and spoilers.

That makes the RL stand out as an awkwardly pricey car in a mid-priced car dealership, when it should be the other way around. The dealership should be an "RL dealership" which also offers lesser-priced cars for young people and folks with smaller budgets. That's how Lexus and BMW and Mercedes operate, and it by damn works!
.
.

jhr3uva90

I think part of the reason why dealers treat the RL like "lefthanded stepchildren" is because that's how Acura corporate treats the RL. I really think the RL is like Acura's unwanted orphan that Honda in Japan left at their doorstep.

The RDX, on the other hand, is being treated like what it is: a true Acura creation. And Acura seems to be treating the MDX like their true flagship.

allykahn

iTrader: (1)

One of the biggest problems that I see in the Philadelphia area is that Acura dealers are not sole Acura dealers. What I mean is that they are paired with Volkswagen in the same building. So if I'm looking for an Acura, I can take ten steps over and look at a VW. I have yet to see a Honda dealership set up this way.

allykahn

iTrader: (1)

Acura and VW do have their own individual buildings in Ardmore but not at the Automall.

neuronbob

Same at the dealership I use here in Cleveland. It's an Acura-Volvo dealership, and it's set up so that Acura is at the far end of the building, Volvo the other, and they share the service department, though there's a separate entrance for each. At least there are two luxury marques in the same dealership, not Acura-VW like you describe.

jhr3uva90

See, when Toyota developed Lexus, they required their dealers to sell new Lexus cars in their buildings, and that was it. No Lexus/VW dealerships or Lexus/Pontiac dealerships. If you were going to sell Lexus, you had to commit. Unfortuanely, Acura did not do that. It's almost as if Toyota observed what Honda/Acura was doing wrong so they could avoid making the same mistakes. Also, Toyota originally required Lexus dealerships to call the dealership "Lexus of [Insert City Here]" instead of Jones Lexus. That emphasized the brand name and helped create a more consistent experience.

Again, I wonder if Honda of Japan is satisfied with Acura just being a "so-so" brand. I haven't seen them really put enough effort into making it upscale.

Bartmanhoff

Nice discussion on why Acura and RLs are less popular that the Lexus, Infiniti, etc...but is that really a bad thing for those of us that already have and like our RLs?

I'd like to offer a different perspective. I *like* that I don't see an RL on every corner. I see the same BMW 5 series and 3 series, the same Lexus, and the same Infiniti everywhere I go. I dont want to own something that I see everyone else driving.

Mike_TX

I think many of us agree with that sentiment, but lackluster sales often means a model doesn't get advanced, and sometimes means it doesn't even continue to exist.

And in the meantime, it also translates to lower resale value, which affects trade-in values and lease residuals.

So we all want the RL to prosper, even if it means we "see ourselves" on the street more often.
.
.

neuronbob

Welcome to Acurazine, and we hope you keep posting.

You raise a good point. I, too, enjoy the exclusivity of owning an RL. I've enhanced that exclusivity by modifying it. Even if RL sales doubled, they wouldn't (and shouldn't) hold a candle to TL sales and we'd still have our exclusivity. 1400 cars a month (double the current sales) would be great, but nowhere near the 5-6k TLs sold monthly.

mrdeeno

and a lot of us 2nd gen CL owners said the same thing about 2-3 years into the ownership experience. Then came time to trading up or selling and were horrified at the resale value of a model that suffered from lackluster sales and ultimately a cancellation.

The tranny reputation didn't do much to help, but at least if the CL was a popular and well-selling car, the tranny reputation didn't matter much (as in the case of the TL and MDX and Accords and whatnot that also use the same tranny).

mrdeeno

as well as the M35/45 is supposedly doing, i see maybe 2 or 3 per week in my area, mostly M35x models since I live in a snowy region. I have only seen 1 m45 sport for sure and only 1 other sport model (not sure if it was 35 or 45).

Oddly enough, I see 3 or 4 RLs per week, but I see them pretty often since I think they are all on the same route to work as me.

jhr3uva90

Resale values do matter to people who plan to resell the car. However, some folks intend to pay the car off as soon as possible and keep it for a while. In that case, it is more about reliability than resale value, in my opinion. I'm happy to say that my RL is paid off and I hope to keep my baby for a long time.

The option of a V8 or V10 would be nice, though.

CL6

When I said that it was a poor decision to drop the RSX I linked that point to the original Lexus IS not fitting in at all with their line-up however, with some effort, that car now fits in great, gets a younger customer, and builds name recognition. Imagine if Acura had taken the RSX and turned it into... what a RWD hybrid sports coupe or something crazy like that. The RSX is no longer a stupid little 20k car, is it? Instead, it got killed off.

I own a CL so I know about crappy resale value. RL owners should know about that by now. All of these discussions are good but I think mrdeeno said it best when he wrote about Acura giving people salad when they wants fast food.

~ Acura should have had a new NSX ready to go before they killed of the model.
~ RL should have had some serious upgrades for 07
~ RSX should have been revamped, moved up market
~ Mid-level sports car (the sub-NSX that Vtec calls for) should have been released
~ RDX should have been a hybrid instead of over-priced gas sucking turbo

That would have gotten some stuff going. Thank god for the MDX... while that lasts.

And regarding 'nice' dealerships and not so 'nice' ones... In 1991 you had the NSX, priced at 60k I think (marked up 30 to 40k) sitting next to an Integra (where A/C was a dealer installed option) and a Legend in dumpy dealerships and those sold like hotcakes.

And it's not even close to that situation now. People will come for the right car. To cite an extreme example... look at the Saturn Sky.

jhr3uva90

If Acura had moved the RSX up market, would it have conflicted with the TSX?

Also, in 1991, Lexus and Infiniti were just getting started. The original LS 400 was released in late 1989 as a 1990 model. Competition has gotten much more intense since then. Lexus has had much more time to build its brand and Renault's investment in Nissan has resulted in a resurgent Infiniti. Therefore, we cannot compare 2007 to 1991.

People generally don't know a whole lot about individual cars, they know brands. For example, people don't buy BMW 325's because they are awesome cars. In fact, the 325 is underpowered compared to the similar 330 and now the 335. No, people drive the 325 because of the BMW brand. "Build it and they will come" isn't quite enough in the luxury market, unfortunately.

Again, I think the question is how much does Honda really want to be a presence in the luxury car market. After all, Honda built its car business around inexpensive cars. Maybe they just don't see the true luxury market as a really high priority.

static808

Excellent Discussion. I am curious to see if Honda is really serious about Acura. The introduction of the brand in Japan in 2008 will be huge. Will Honda finally say, "Acura is something we need to have for future success". Right now, they seem happy selling MDX's and TL's...

Another rumor, only a rumor, mentions that in 2008 or 2009, Honda's F1 team will be renamed to Acura F1 to give the nameplate a global presence. That rumor seems to hard digest, but it would put Acura in the same mentions as BMW, Mercedes and Ferrari in the global motorsports world...

neuronbob

If Honda did that, that would be a step in the right direction.

I still say Honda needs to find a way to get Mugen involved, like they did for the new Mugen Civic. Put an Acura RL-S or Mugen Legend Max at SEMA and it will hit the C&D, R&T, and MT crowds immediately. That would put the RL on the map. Then actually place it for sale! Sure it won't sell many copies (except on Acurazine ), but it WILL bring in people to look at what the RL offers, ala mrdeeno's analogy above.

Maybe Acura should pay Touge to take his car with all its mods to Las Vegas for SEMA.

Mike_TX

I guess I have to wonder why, then, they even created the Acura brand. And why they went to the trouble and expense of developing and marketing the RL in the U.S.

Was it just a bad business decision? Did they overestimate the demand for luxury cars? Did they underestimate the competition? Did they just bite off more than they could chew, and are now quietly backpedalling? Are they just bewildered and flat don't know what to do in this segment?

IMO the RL is an entirely competitive car for the segment, with the much-discussed exceptions of the option of V-8 power and a high price tag.

It seems quite clear to us here in this forum what it would take to move the RL into the big leagues. The mystery is why Honda doesn't see it ... or if they do, what's stopping them.
.
.

allykahn

iTrader: (1)

What is the vision for Acura? How can they change the perception that their cars are just beefed up Hondas? Will a V8 make that much of a difference?

I'm not an RL owner, although I am leaning heavily towards that way. I like the fact that there are not many on the road, but I feel that it comes at a cost. Look at the 1st gen RL with crappy sales, boring design etc. It was around for more than seven years I think. Do you guys want that for the current RL? Not much growth just a few add-ons here and there. Honestly, other than a bigger engine, what else could you possibly add other than a RWD platform? And what happens to the RL when the TL gets SH_AWD?

After sitting in a RL, the first thought that came to mind was it should be a little bigger. And that is the problem. If the Rl was bigger (BMW 7series size), Honda would have to go head to head with Lexus and Infinity and they do not want to do that.

Honda needs to do a few things with Acura:
1. Commit to Acura 100%
2. Have sole Acura dealerships that are similar to Lexus
3. Advertise and market the hell out of their cars
4. Get a new design team
5. Make Acura a RWD/AWD platform

dwboston

History is littered with great products that died because companies didn't know or understand how to market or position them. And unfortunately, crappy products that sold well because they were marketed well. It's not as simple as "build it and they will come," especially when dealing with luxury car buyers. The poster who brought up the VW Phaeton is right on the money. Luxury car buyers are buying an experience as much as a car. It's about status as much as the product. Using the NSX and Legend from 1991 as examples isn't relevant in 2007. They were originals and unique then, not so much now. Consumers are much savvier today, have much more information with which to compare products, and have much higher expectations in terms of customer service.

Brands and products need to differentiate themselves from their competitors and also among the company's own offerings. When consumers ask what the difference is between the TL and the RL, the company and the salespeople better have an answer, when the difference in price is $15k - $20k. Acura needs to decide what the brand stands for and what type of customer they are targeting. "Value luxury" is not a bad thing, if that's what Acura is. But the company needs a consistent message and marketing strategy for all of its products. The RSX may have sold well but the car didn't fit with the rest of Acura's line due to the "boy racer" connotation. To use the business school 101 maxim: what is the company's "core competency?" I think there's just too much variation in the customer experience at Acura dealerships compared to the competitors. Good discussion - we need to get some Acura corporate folks here to join in.

lumpulus

Wish I joined this discussion sooner....You people that are knocking the RSX just don't get it. AS the former owner of not less than five Integras/RSXs I feel I can speak with some knowledge about this great car.

Back in 1987 my friend, who is a car nut drove up to my house with his new Integra LS...back then they were going for less than $15k. He let me drive it and I fell in love, and have been buying Acuras ever since, right up the the 05 RSX Type S I just traded for my 06 RL non tech last August.

The RSX/S is a fantastic car, and a BARGAIN for what it costs. The only think it lacked, IMHO was AWD and a bit more HP was needed. When I traded mine in for the RL, the salesman told me he sold it the very next day with zero prep, and for more than they were going to ask for it, so the resale value is excellent. I think an entry level Acura is a GOOD thing for the Marque, and I don't think it detracts from the "luxury" perception of the brand at all.

The thing that sold me on the RL more than anything was what sold me on the RSX initially....It's made in Japan.

lumpulus

dwboston....Check my age...I would hardly call myself a boy racer.

If Acura had manufactured the RSX with AWD I would still be driving one.

wstr75

CL6, I agree with your comments, particularly the ones about the RDX. Two years ago I was looking forward to buying an RDX based on the show car. The RDX that came to the dealership is ugly compared to the show car, did not have the windshield wiperless technology or the cameras for rear mirrors technology and it eats gas "like Jimmy Carter's brother drank beer" (great analogy, by the way). Dadgum Honda has worlds of experience with hybrids and could easily produce a kick-but Acura hybrid. What did we buy instead of the RDX? We bought a RX 400h and its the fastest car from 20 to 70 mph that I've ever owned. Darn thing is almost scary when you punch it at 50 and pass a car because the power unloads in a hurry. That could have been an Acura. The RX 400h cost us a pretty penny, but we did it knowing our energy payback would be a long time coming yet we wanted the whole enchilada (hybrid status, Lexus status, new car, SUV, performance, etc, etc, etc.) That could have been an Acura.

The world is full of near-identical cars. I find it interesting that a high percentage of Acura RL owners on this forum also own Macintosh computers (I've been a Mac driver since 1986). We've got the disposable income, we want things that work 24/7, we want stuff that has a certain elegant efficiency and we want some measure of status, maybe not the talk down to the service manager status that I see some folks exert when having our Lexus serviced, but more than a Buick's status (most of my former rides were Buicks!).

I think CL6 is on the money. He has many years experience selling Acuras and dealing with customers. Think OS 10.5. Acura needs to give us an equivalent car experience to what Jobs is seeking to give us with OS 10.5.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Sometimes I'm not too sure if dropping the RSX line is a really good thing. It's been selling well, people like it a lot, and its resale value is good. It might not fit into the Acura family due to its price, but hold on, why is there a CSX (an upgraded Civic) here in Canada? Its starting price is similar to the RSX. If they make the CSX, why don't they continue making the RSX? Perhaps cut the base and premium models and just keep the Type S? I think the RSX serves the purpose of making the Acura brand sporty. Also, look at Mercedes Benz, they are offering us the B-class which is only 10% more than our CSX. If Mercedes can sell us cheap cars, why not Acura?

Another thing, I don't really thing Acura is focussing all of its effort into the SUV market. There are 2 CUV/SUV in the Acura line-up now. Take a look at Mercedes, they have GL, ML, G, B (I consider this as a mini min-van), R. And Lexus has LX, GX, and RX. Compared with these brands, Acura isn't really offering that many large vehicles. I guess why people think Acura is becoming a SUV company is because they launched 2 of them at almost the same time. Also the fact that the time for a MMC for any of Acura's sedans still hasn't arrived yet, so it seems as though Acura is focusing all of its effort into the SUV market. But guys, do you remember how 3 years ago, Acura launched 2 sedans at the same time? The TL and TSX? And then the next year, the RL? In another 2 years we will see the next generation of these cars.

As for the RL, there's no doubt that it's a superb car. But like what others have said already, it's the marketing and promotion that ruined the car. It can't be a bad car since it has won Car of the Year in Japan in 2005. And similar to the Infiniti M (not sure about Lexus GS though), the RL is also built in Japan, so I don't think where it came from is a major problem.

lflorack

I'm sure the RSX/S is a great car. I'm even sure they sold well. The problem is, it simply didn't fit with the rest of the line -- and it was bringing them down because of it. Luxury car buyers (generally) are not interested in what the RSX/S had to offer. Worse, by having it in the Acuar line, it detracted from the rest of the luxury and near-luxury offerings -- as in, 'If they have the (perceived) boy-racer vehicle in their lineup, how luxurious and prestigious can that RL be?' ...and, therefore, 'I don't want one.' Now, you may not see it that way, but I can tell you, that's the way the majority of the luxury car buyers see it. Also BTW... You may not be a boy-racer, but it's the perception of the vehicle that counts -- especially in the luxury car market.

For another example, take a look at the Volkswagen. Their attempt into the luxury car market didn't make it because most would not pay that much for a Volkswagen -- a car line with too much history that points to NOT being a luxury brand.

I'm not saying by eliminating the RSX/S will suddenly make the remaining Acuras luxry vehicles. It won't. What it will do, is eliminate Acura's association with the RSX -- an inexpensive; non- luxury vehicle.

jhr3uva90

1. It is difficult to commit to Acura 100% when you're also committed to jet planes, motorcycles, and alternative fuel vehicles that won't hit the market until several years from now. Toyota, on the hand, makes cars -- PERIOD.
2. Great idea! I would love to see this implemented.
3. Another great idea!
4. The new design team is already in place. They're the ones who designed the new MDX.
5. I believe they want to make Acuras AWD. Personally, I think they should give customers a choice between RWD and AWD.

synth19

exclusivity is nice, one reason I love my RL.... but unless you are planning on keeping your RL for awhile, this also kills resale. Case in point, look up how much I paid for my used RL... good for me... but not good for a new owner.