Honda CEO acknowledges Acura issues
12-28-2006, 12:40 PM
#81
Senior Moderator
I don't think the guys here are really knocking the RSX, but knocking why this car was branded an acura. It's all about perception. It doesnt matter that the integra/rsx was a great car, it hurt the overall perception of acura. IMHO, it should have been a honda.... personally, I would have loved to see the S2k an acura with a slightly nicer interior.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
12-28-2006, 12:41 PM
#82
Three Wheelin'
Right, the RSX should be under the Honda brand.
12-28-2006, 12:43 PM
#83
Alpha Geek
Again I beg to differ about the RSX not being a luxurious car...It was definitly the most "luxurious" car in it's class, IMHO. to me, it was a luxo entry level sports coupe.
To me, if the RSX didn't belong in the Acura lineup by some people's definition, than neither does the NSX.
To me, if the RSX didn't belong in the Acura lineup by some people's definition, than neither does the NSX.
12-28-2006, 12:44 PM
#84
Senior Moderator
Funny, I'm in Toronto right now until NYE... market in Canada is completely different then the states. Imports are priced quite a bit higher in Canada then in the US, secondly, income isnt as disposable as it is in the states. If you look at some of the numbers, the civic is the #1 selling honda in Canada, but in North America, the accord sells the best. CSX is an glorified civic, it's the ultimate entry level "lux" car and fits the market here perfectly (based on what I said above). Funny, some ppl in the US will say the same about the TSX.. go figure. As far as the RSX goes, yes.... a sporty car does help... but do it right and STEP UP the interior and make it RWD.
and btw.. I have not seen one RL here in Canada yet.
and btw.. I have not seen one RL here in Canada yet.
Originally Posted by iforyou
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.
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.
12-28-2006, 12:51 PM
#85
Senior Moderator
I'm sorry, but having cloth seats on the RSX as the standard package does not scream out luxury to me. Most luxurious in it's class? Compared to what?
Originally Posted by lumpulus
Again I beg to differ about the RSX not being a luxurious car...It was definitly the most "luxurious" car in it's class, IMHO. to me, it was a luxo entry level sports coupe.
To me, if the RSX didn't belong in the Acura lineup by some people's definition, than neither does the NSX.
To me, if the RSX didn't belong in the Acura lineup by some people's definition, than neither does the NSX.
12-28-2006, 12:52 PM
#86
I agree with the previous 5 bullet statements and add a 6th.
6. High performance in all aspects including optimal fuel economy.
Note: Toyota is somehow getting better fuel consumption out of its V-6 and V-8 offerings than Acura. The ES 350/Avalon/Camry V-6 and TL have essentially the same 0 - 60 numbers, car weight, car aerodynamics but the Toyota offerings get better real world gas mileage. Why? Six speed transmissions? Look at the new LS 460's EPA gas ratings. It's a darn big car yet it has a better 0-60 time than the RL and better fuel mileage than the RL. Why can't Acura/Honda get the same numbers?
Before you kick me off the board as a perceived Lexus sympathizer, I'm currently driving a 2002 RL and looking for a great deal on a 2005 RL. Why? Because I'm more of an Acura guy than Lexus. I'm also a used car buying kind of guy and at the rate the RL is depreciating its looking like a better value proposition to wait another six months to a year to get my hands on a sweet, sweet RL (looking forward to the bluetooth, navigation and SH-AWD system). The other aspect is the RL is not too high status looking which fits my small town, small company personna. I just like to get as much bang for my buck as possible and to have some fun at the same time. The guy that posted yesterday with 116K miles on his 2005 RL got my attention more than any post seen here in the past two months. Mercedes used to sell itself as having prestige AND near indestructible cars (remember the 100K badges and how they featured cars with 500K miles, etc. in their ads?). Acura can carve out a similar marketing niche for trouble-free technology, performance and sensible investment (gas mileage, insurance, repairs, depreciation, etc.).
I think Acura is driving down the macho route with its SH-AWD and darn near gargoyle design treatments (RDX, MDX). Honda is the femine route, Acura is the macho route. Several car brands are going down these paths. Take a look at recent Mercury commercials. Mercury is definitely aiming for the female buyers. Dodge is way out there with its macho brand orientation and it shows in the surveys. Come to think of it, a 175 mph Dodge Charger does sound pretty cool. Acura's macho choice is a-ok with me, just make Acura's cars more enticing than BMW, Lexus and now, Infiniti.
6. High performance in all aspects including optimal fuel economy.
Note: Toyota is somehow getting better fuel consumption out of its V-6 and V-8 offerings than Acura. The ES 350/Avalon/Camry V-6 and TL have essentially the same 0 - 60 numbers, car weight, car aerodynamics but the Toyota offerings get better real world gas mileage. Why? Six speed transmissions? Look at the new LS 460's EPA gas ratings. It's a darn big car yet it has a better 0-60 time than the RL and better fuel mileage than the RL. Why can't Acura/Honda get the same numbers?
Before you kick me off the board as a perceived Lexus sympathizer, I'm currently driving a 2002 RL and looking for a great deal on a 2005 RL. Why? Because I'm more of an Acura guy than Lexus. I'm also a used car buying kind of guy and at the rate the RL is depreciating its looking like a better value proposition to wait another six months to a year to get my hands on a sweet, sweet RL (looking forward to the bluetooth, navigation and SH-AWD system). The other aspect is the RL is not too high status looking which fits my small town, small company personna. I just like to get as much bang for my buck as possible and to have some fun at the same time. The guy that posted yesterday with 116K miles on his 2005 RL got my attention more than any post seen here in the past two months. Mercedes used to sell itself as having prestige AND near indestructible cars (remember the 100K badges and how they featured cars with 500K miles, etc. in their ads?). Acura can carve out a similar marketing niche for trouble-free technology, performance and sensible investment (gas mileage, insurance, repairs, depreciation, etc.).
I think Acura is driving down the macho route with its SH-AWD and darn near gargoyle design treatments (RDX, MDX). Honda is the femine route, Acura is the macho route. Several car brands are going down these paths. Take a look at recent Mercury commercials. Mercury is definitely aiming for the female buyers. Dodge is way out there with its macho brand orientation and it shows in the surveys. Come to think of it, a 175 mph Dodge Charger does sound pretty cool. Acura's macho choice is a-ok with me, just make Acura's cars more enticing than BMW, Lexus and now, Infiniti.
12-28-2006, 12:55 PM
#87
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 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.
.
.
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.
.
.
From my personal opinion, let me give you an analogy to what i think happened with Acura and the RL (since you all know how I like analogies).
Think of the movie "The Ringer" with Johnny Knoxville. He pretended he was "special" so he can join the special olympics because he thought he woudln't need to put much effort in to win.
that's what I think happened with the RL. Through the success of the TL, TSX, MDX, and all their Honda models, I think Acura felt they didn't need to put much effort into the RL for it to succeed. For all those that say that Acura didn't put much effort into it, I agree. But i disagree when they say Acura did this because they didn't see the RL as that important.
I think Acura sees the RL as very important, but were so cocky that they didn't feel any more effort was needed for it to succeed. They felt like Johnny Knoxville did when entering the special olympics..."The RL will kick everyone's ass! It's just want people want! It's gonna be a huge success! No other car in this class can live up to its value or performance or SH-AWD! More effort? We don't need no more stinkin' effort...it's PERFECT the way it is!"
I think they were utterly shocked by how poorly the RL is doing, just like Johnny Knoxville realized how competitve the "special" kids really were in the special olympics. But unlike JK, Honda's pretty good at trying to "save face" by downplaying dissappointment by touting corporate traditions and whatnot.
12-28-2006, 01:03 PM
#88
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by lumpulus
Again I beg to differ about the RSX not being a luxurious car...It was definitly the most "luxurious" car in it's class, IMHO. to me, it was a luxo entry level sports coupe.
To me, if the RSX didn't belong in the Acura lineup by some people's definition, than neither does the NSX.
To me, if the RSX didn't belong in the Acura lineup by some people's definition, than neither does the NSX.
The RSX is "definitely" more luxurious than these 2, right?
12-28-2006, 01:15 PM
#89
Three Wheelin'
Actually, I see the RL differently from how mrdeeno sees it. I see it as a car that Acura had little input into developing, but Acura was forced to sell it anyway. Honda created the RL in Japan and intended it for Japanese drivers, then they forced it upon Acura in the USA to sell. That's part of the reason why Acura doesn't seem to be putting much effort into promoting the RL, because they didn't want the car in the first place.
Remember, Honda in Japan originally proposed the design for the new TL. Acura REJECTED that design and went with their own design. Honda Japan then took the rejected design and used it the current Legend, which was forced upon Acura to sell as the RL. I'm sure the Legend appeals to Japan and possibly other Far East Asian nations, but it doesn't really take American tastes into consideration.
Remember, Honda in Japan originally proposed the design for the new TL. Acura REJECTED that design and went with their own design. Honda Japan then took the rejected design and used it the current Legend, which was forced upon Acura to sell as the RL. I'm sure the Legend appeals to Japan and possibly other Far East Asian nations, but it doesn't really take American tastes into consideration.
12-28-2006, 01:23 PM
#90
Three Wheelin'
One more thing: the main reason why the RDX and RL are not fuel efficient is because of the SH-AWD system, which is heavier than most AWD setups. The system adds considerable weight to the cars, which decreases fuel efficiency. Acura tried to compensate for that in the RDX by giving it a 4 cylinder turbo engine. That weight is the reason why I don't think the TL should have SH-AWD. Honda should just stop bullshitting and make a RWD car.
Does the RX 400h come with AWD?
Does the RX 400h come with AWD?
12-28-2006, 01:38 PM
#91
AcurAdmirer
I've gotta say - I don't agree with everything everyone is saying in this thread, but it's one of most intelligent and sincere collections of postings I've seen on AZ in a long time.
I rate this thread a "10" out of 5 possible points.
.
.
I rate this thread a "10" out of 5 possible points.
.
.
12-28-2006, 01:39 PM
#92
Three Wheelin'
Yup, this is way different from Temple of VTEC.
12-28-2006, 01:54 PM
#93
Alpha Geek
Originally Posted by synth19
I'm sorry, but having cloth seats on the RSX as the standard package does not scream out luxury to me. Most luxurious in it's class? Compared to what?
12-28-2006, 01:55 PM
#94
Alpha Geek
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
"luxo entry level sports coupe", like a 3-series coupe or a G35 coupe, right?
The RSX is "definitely" more luxurious than these 2, right?
The RSX is "definitely" more luxurious than these 2, right?
Luxury doesn't have to be synonimous with "expensive".
12-28-2006, 01:58 PM
#95
Originally Posted by jhr3uva90
Yup, this is way different from Temple of VTEC.
I used to love visiting TOV. But the people there are turning it into Clublexus et al. I only go there for news now, don't even bother reading the forums. And besides, the layout stinks.
12-28-2006, 02:04 PM
#96
Senior Moderator
Hi. I said standard. Never once mentioned the Type S. I believe the non-S had leather as an option.
Originally Posted by lumpulus
Um, My RSX had Leather seats....standard on the RSX/S
12-28-2006, 02:09 PM
#97
Senior Moderator
quite a bit. RSX MSRP around 20-24k, G35 & 3 series closer to 30k, nicely equiped....well over 30k.
Agreed, and this is just my opinion...but there is no way you can put the RSX in the same class as a G35c or 3 series.
Luxury doesn't have to be synonimous with "expensive".
Originally Posted by lumpulus
And how much more expensive are these two cars than the RSX?
Agreed, and this is just my opinion...but there is no way you can put the RSX in the same class as a G35c or 3 series.
Originally Posted by lumpulus
Luxury doesn't have to be synonimous with "expensive".
12-28-2006, 02:15 PM
#98
Alpha Geek
Why not? I would agree with you on the current 3 series, but the previous generation 3 Series I had no problem keeping up with, and the G35 I could run rings around....granted this may have been the driver.
12-28-2006, 02:41 PM
#99
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by lumpulus
And how much more expensive are these two cars than the RSX?
Luxury doesn't have to be synonimous with "expensive".
Luxury doesn't have to be synonimous with "expensive".
Again I beg to differ about the RSX not being a luxurious car...It was definitly the most "luxurious" car in it's class, IMHO. to me, it was a luxo entry level sports coupe.
You were talking about within a class range, not a price range.
12-28-2006, 02:43 PM
#100
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by jhr3uva90
Does the RX 400h come with AWD?
12-28-2006, 02:44 PM
#101
Senior Moderator
I'm not talking about racing here. My main point is the rsx is a poor example of a entry level luxury coupe. It lacks in technology and luxury; which in my opinion are key if you are going to argue what defines a sporty lux car. The RSX is a nice car with SOME lux features.... that's it. Let's not make this car something it's not.
For around 20k, I think the RSX is as good as you can get. Now, if you wanted to price it close to 30k, that would be ridiculous unless you offered better options, navi, heated seats, more power, a more refined and updated looking center console, better interior materials, rwd, etc. etc. Anyways, we are getting WAY offtopic here, but I think your earlier comment that price doesn't necessarily define luxury is on point. To get back on point, that is why we all love the RL. 
For around 20k, I think the RSX is as good as you can get. Now, if you wanted to price it close to 30k, that would be ridiculous unless you offered better options, navi, heated seats, more power, a more refined and updated looking center console, better interior materials, rwd, etc. etc.
Anyways, we are getting WAY offtopic here, but I think your earlier comment that price doesn't necessarily define luxury is on point. To get back on point, that is why we all love the RL.
Originally Posted by lumpulus
Why not? I would agree with you on the current 3 series, but the previous generation 3 Series I had no problem keeping up with, and the G35 I could run rings around....granted this may have been the driver.
12-28-2006, 02:48 PM
#102
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by synth19
Agreed, and this is just my opinion...but there is no way you can put the RSX in the same class as a G35c or 3 series.
I don't think the RSX was in the same class as the G35c or 3-series coupe. But lumpulus considers the RSX a "luxo entry level sports coupe", and if he considers it an "luxo entry level" coupe, then he would have to consider the g35c or 3-series as part of that class.
The CL was an "entry level-luxo" or "near-lux" sports coupe, not the RSX. The RSX was just a mid to upper-range sports coupe (similar to Prelude) that was sold under a premium badge.
12-28-2006, 02:50 PM
#103
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by lumpulus
Why not? I would agree with you on the current 3 series, but the previous generation 3 Series I had no problem keeping up with, and the G35 I could run rings around....granted this may have been the driver.
12-28-2006, 03:21 PM
#105
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,493
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
Yea, Canada is a totally different market than the States. The imports here are way more expensive. Most of my friends buy cars from the States, and after all the taxes, they are still paying less. The interior of the CSX, if you go for the base model, is 90% the same as a normal Civic EX. And IMO the interior of the RSX looks nicer. But yea, it would be great if they upgrade the interior to an even higher level, along with the powertrain. Also, not all Mercedes, Lexus, BMW have leather interior. Some examples are Mercedes B200 and Lexus IS250.
Wstr75, the reason why the new Toyotas are getting better fuel economy is due to their new engines. Toyota just launched a new GR series of V6 engines. These engines have the latest technologies from Toyota, namely direct-injection, DOHC, dual VVT-i, and Toyota's D4-S twin injection system (this combines traditional port injection and direct injection). On the other hand, the J-series has been out for at least 10 years and so its technologies are undoubtly outdated when compared to the GR series. For instance, the J-series only has VTEC (not even i-VTEC) at the intake side (or exhaust side, I don't remember), SOHC, and port injection. As a result, when it comes to efficiency, the J-series can't match the GR series. But the J-series still compares well with the VQ engines in terms of fuel efficiency. The TL even gets better mileage than the G35, while the RL gets about the same mileage as the M35 (even though the M35 is lighter and has less hp). I'm not sure about the new Lexus engine, but if I remember correctly, it's a also a new engine (or at least newer than the RL's). Anyways, I totally agree that Acura/Honda can market their cars for trouble-free technology, performance and sensible investment (gas mileage, insurance, repairs, depreciation, etc).
mrdeeno, I think Honda has already learned its lesson with the 1st gen RL years ago. With the 2nd gen RL, I think they went with the right approach - to develope a luxury car that is also sporty. I must say the 2nd gen RL is a whole lot better than the 1st one. While the 1st one was boring and it wasn't even powerful enough, the 2nd one is really a big improvement. In fact, it's so good that it won 2005 Car of the Year in Japan. If Honda didn't put in the effort, the RL wouldn't have won that award. Sure it might not be the best effort from Honda, but I think it's a bit unfair to say that Honda wasn't trying at all when desiging the 2nd gen RL. That is, if they spent more time doing market research and promotion, and also have a V8 option, the 2nd gen RL would've been a lot better in terms of sales.
As for fuel efficiency for both the RL, like I've said before, it's not that bad afterall. It's better than both M35 and M35x. As for the RDX, its fuel economy is on par with the CX7 and Murano if not better. But of course, I expected it to be better.
Wstr75, the reason why the new Toyotas are getting better fuel economy is due to their new engines. Toyota just launched a new GR series of V6 engines. These engines have the latest technologies from Toyota, namely direct-injection, DOHC, dual VVT-i, and Toyota's D4-S twin injection system (this combines traditional port injection and direct injection). On the other hand, the J-series has been out for at least 10 years and so its technologies are undoubtly outdated when compared to the GR series. For instance, the J-series only has VTEC (not even i-VTEC) at the intake side (or exhaust side, I don't remember), SOHC, and port injection. As a result, when it comes to efficiency, the J-series can't match the GR series. But the J-series still compares well with the VQ engines in terms of fuel efficiency. The TL even gets better mileage than the G35, while the RL gets about the same mileage as the M35 (even though the M35 is lighter and has less hp). I'm not sure about the new Lexus engine, but if I remember correctly, it's a also a new engine (or at least newer than the RL's). Anyways, I totally agree that Acura/Honda can market their cars for trouble-free technology, performance and sensible investment (gas mileage, insurance, repairs, depreciation, etc).
mrdeeno, I think Honda has already learned its lesson with the 1st gen RL years ago. With the 2nd gen RL, I think they went with the right approach - to develope a luxury car that is also sporty. I must say the 2nd gen RL is a whole lot better than the 1st one. While the 1st one was boring and it wasn't even powerful enough, the 2nd one is really a big improvement. In fact, it's so good that it won 2005 Car of the Year in Japan. If Honda didn't put in the effort, the RL wouldn't have won that award. Sure it might not be the best effort from Honda, but I think it's a bit unfair to say that Honda wasn't trying at all when desiging the 2nd gen RL. That is, if they spent more time doing market research and promotion, and also have a V8 option, the 2nd gen RL would've been a lot better in terms of sales.
As for fuel efficiency for both the RL, like I've said before, it's not that bad afterall. It's better than both M35 and M35x. As for the RDX, its fuel economy is on par with the CX7 and Murano if not better. But of course, I expected it to be better.
12-28-2006, 03:43 PM
#106
"Toyota just launched a new GR series of V6 engines. These engines have the latest technologies from Toyota, namely direct-injection, DOHC, dual VVT-i, and Toyota's D4-S twin injection system (this combines traditional port injection and direct injection). On the other hand, the J-series has been out for at least 10 years and so its technologies are undoubtly outdated when compared to the GR series. For instance, the J-series only has VTEC (not even i-VTEC) at the intake side (or exhaust side, I don't remember), SOHC, and port injection. As a result, when it comes to efficiency, the J-series can't match the GR series."
Honda prides itself on being a GREAT engine builder (motorcycles, autos, marine, auto, lawnmowers and now biz jets!). Why on earth did they drop the ball and fall behind Toyota? Makes no sense and can only be explained by upper management dropping the ball re: R & D focus. If Mazda can offer cars with direct injection, why can't Honda/Acura?
Honda prides itself on being a GREAT engine builder (motorcycles, autos, marine, auto, lawnmowers and now biz jets!). Why on earth did they drop the ball and fall behind Toyota? Makes no sense and can only be explained by upper management dropping the ball re: R & D focus. If Mazda can offer cars with direct injection, why can't Honda/Acura?
12-28-2006, 04:01 PM
#107
CLS 6MT Navi
Historically, Acuras have been value-oriented near-lux cars. Acura is not a true lux nameplate. Perceived image means more as you get up to the RL's price.
The RL needed a lot more image work, real and perceived, (and marketing!) to standout and compete with more established prestige makes like Lexus and the Germans. Anyone with the money for a Phaeton would buy an Audi, not a VW. Actually the RL's biggest detractor is probably the TL. The RL did not differentiate itself enough at it's pricepoint for most buyers.
Can Acura be perceived as both? I hope Acura can continue to find it's own niche and offer something that no other brand has. I don't want to pay for a name or prestige. I want a great car that no one else is making.
Would I buy an RL?, well, yes, but for $40k. If it had 2 less doors I'd pay more.
I personally don't think Lexus or BMW offer enough at their pricepoints. I'm not really a luxury car buyer anyway.
The RL needed a lot more image work, real and perceived, (and marketing!) to standout and compete with more established prestige makes like Lexus and the Germans. Anyone with the money for a Phaeton would buy an Audi, not a VW. Actually the RL's biggest detractor is probably the TL. The RL did not differentiate itself enough at it's pricepoint for most buyers.
Can Acura be perceived as both? I hope Acura can continue to find it's own niche and offer something that no other brand has. I don't want to pay for a name or prestige. I want a great car that no one else is making.
Would I buy an RL?, well, yes, but for $40k. If it had 2 less doors I'd pay more.
I personally don't think Lexus or BMW offer enough at their pricepoints. I'm not really a luxury car buyer anyway.
12-28-2006, 04:08 PM
#108
10th Gear
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
I'll admit that I was very disappointed in Acura at first. For the first 6-months, it was the worst car I had ever purchased. But now, after working through the initial quality control issues, I really like the car and the unique blend of technology, power & SH-AWD.
Looking around at what's available on the market today, there are faster cars, and more luxurious cars, more technologically advanced cars, but not a lot of cars that offer the blend that the RL provides. For the cost of the RL (even before the current discounts), I don't find any cars that better meet the sporty/technology/luxury/power balance.
12-28-2006, 04:15 PM
#109
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by iforyou
mrdeeno, I think Honda has already learned its lesson with the 1st gen RL years ago. With the 2nd gen RL, I think they went with the right approach - to develope a luxury car that is also sporty. I must say the 2nd gen RL is a whole lot better than the 1st one. While the 1st one was boring and it wasn't even powerful enough, the 2nd one is really a big improvement. In fact, it's so good that it won 2005 Car of the Year in Japan. If Honda didn't put in the effort, the RL wouldn't have won that award. Sure it might not be the best effort from Honda, but I think it's a bit unfair to say that Honda wasn't trying at all when desiging the 2nd gen RL. That is, if they spent more time doing market research and promotion, and also have a V8 option, the 2nd gen RL would've been a lot better in terms of sales.
they felt that the car was so well done that they didn't need to put anymore effort into it. This is what I think went through their heads, "This car is SO hot, it even won 2005 Car of the Year in Japan! When we brand it and sell it as an Acura RL, it'll totally kick ass! We don't need to put anymore effort into the car, or into marketing or anything else, this car will DOMINATE and sell itself, like our TL and MDX and TSX are doing!"
But now, I think what's going through their minds is,
"WTF! This car won 2005 Car of the Year in Japan! People should be all over it in the U.S.! WTF is it selling so badly? It should be dominating the competition!! STUPID CONSUMERS!!!" I truly believe they were blindsided and believed that the RL would dominate, and are truly pissed off at how bad its doing (but of course they put on a "face" that says otherwise...because we all know, Honda doesn't make mistakes. Tranny problem? They meant for that to happen!). i think claims that this car is a "niche" car, or that it is just an experimental platform for new technologies, or whatever else is just a way to justify and "save face" rather than admit that sales really suck.
12-28-2006, 04:20 PM
#110
Three Wheelin'
Actually, Honda learned their lesson in 1994. Back then, they made one Honda Accord and tried to sell the same identical car around the world. That Accord was designed and engineered with the Japanese and European markets in mind, and then they tried to hoist that car on the United States. That Accord did not sell up to expectations. That's why, ever since 1998, there has been one Honda Accord for the USA (North America) and another Honda Accord for Japan and Europe. That Euro-Japanese car is known in the US as the Acura TSX.
12-28-2006, 04:56 PM
#111
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,493
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
Originally Posted by wstr75
"Toyota just launched a new GR series of V6 engines. These engines have the latest technologies from Toyota, namely direct-injection, DOHC, dual VVT-i, and Toyota's D4-S twin injection system (this combines traditional port injection and direct injection). On the other hand, the J-series has been out for at least 10 years and so its technologies are undoubtly outdated when compared to the GR series. For instance, the J-series only has VTEC (not even i-VTEC) at the intake side (or exhaust side, I don't remember), SOHC, and port injection. As a result, when it comes to efficiency, the J-series can't match the GR series."
Honda prides itself on being a GREAT engine builder (motorcycles, autos, marine, auto, lawnmowers and now biz jets!). Why on earth did they drop the ball and fall behind Toyota? Makes no sense and can only be explained by upper management dropping the ball re: R & D focus. If Mazda can offer cars with direct injection, why can't Honda/Acura?
Honda prides itself on being a GREAT engine builder (motorcycles, autos, marine, auto, lawnmowers and now biz jets!). Why on earth did they drop the ball and fall behind Toyota? Makes no sense and can only be explained by upper management dropping the ball re: R & D focus. If Mazda can offer cars with direct injection, why can't Honda/Acura?
12-28-2006, 04:56 PM
#112
Originally Posted by Bartmanhoff
Looking around at what's available on the market today, there are faster cars, and more luxurious cars, more technologically advanced cars, but not a lot of cars that offer the blend that the RL provides. For the cost of the RL (even before the current discounts), I don't find any cars that better meet the sporty/technology/luxury/power balance.
12-28-2006, 05:04 PM
#113
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,493
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
And the fact that it won this award probalby supports my point even further...it made them even cockier about the car and they put even less effort into it when they sold it as an Acura RL.
they felt that the car was so well done that they didn't need to put anymore effort into it. This is what I think went through their heads, "This car is SO hot, it even won 2005 Car of the Year in Japan! When we brand it and sell it as an Acura RL, it'll totally kick ass! We don't need to put anymore effort into the car, or into marketing or anything else, this car will DOMINATE and sell itself, like our TL and MDX and TSX are doing!"
But now, I think what's going through their minds is, "WTF! This car won 2005 Car of the Year in Japan! People should be all over it in the U.S.! WTF is it selling so badly? It should be dominating the competition!! STUPID CONSUMERS!!!" I truly believe they were blindsided and believed that the RL would dominate, and are truly pissed off at how bad its doing (but of course they put on a "face" that says otherwise...because we all know, Honda doesn't make mistakes. Tranny problem? They meant for that to happen!). i think claims that this car is a "niche" car, or that it is just an experimental platform for new technologies, or whatever else is just a way to justify and "save face" rather than admit that sales really suck.
they felt that the car was so well done that they didn't need to put anymore effort into it. This is what I think went through their heads, "This car is SO hot, it even won 2005 Car of the Year in Japan! When we brand it and sell it as an Acura RL, it'll totally kick ass! We don't need to put anymore effort into the car, or into marketing or anything else, this car will DOMINATE and sell itself, like our TL and MDX and TSX are doing!"
But now, I think what's going through their minds is,
"WTF! This car won 2005 Car of the Year in Japan! People should be all over it in the U.S.! WTF is it selling so badly? It should be dominating the competition!! STUPID CONSUMERS!!!" I truly believe they were blindsided and believed that the RL would dominate, and are truly pissed off at how bad its doing (but of course they put on a "face" that says otherwise...because we all know, Honda doesn't make mistakes. Tranny problem? They meant for that to happen!). i think claims that this car is a "niche" car, or that it is just an experimental platform for new technologies, or whatever else is just a way to justify and "save face" rather than admit that sales really suck.
12-28-2006, 05:21 PM
#115
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DC area
Age: 56
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I first saw the RL at the Washington Auto Show a couple of years ago. I was at once struck by its combination of luxury, performance, and technology. As many others here have indicated I and several of my car fanatic friends have noticed Honda/Acura has struggled with how to market the RL.
Imagine my surprise when I opened the new Car and Driver magazine and started thumbing through it. On the page following the Contents, there is a 2-page spread on the RL. The ad is pushing the technology of the car, with phrases like, "... the Acura RL is the first luxury automobile worthy of the Chief Technology Officer." Maybe they are starting to get a clue about marketing.
Imagine my surprise when I opened the new Car and Driver magazine and started thumbing through it. On the page following the Contents, there is a 2-page spread on the RL. The ad is pushing the technology of the car, with phrases like, "... the Acura RL is the first luxury automobile worthy of the Chief Technology Officer." Maybe they are starting to get a clue about marketing.
12-28-2006, 05:39 PM
#116
My only car is a Bus
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,254
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
As I said... let's say the RSX was introduced in the 2007 model year as a RWD (or AWD), Hybrid + 4 cylinder, et al and the starting price was $30,000.00. Why would Acura not go something like this? Are they not a 'sporty' division? Do they not need a coupe? Instead, the RSX was killed off.
The Phaeton was a good example but you have to look at VW's leadership. The same person who pused the Phaeton on VW also pushed the Buggatti, which will apparently be left to die. Also, how was the Phaeton different from the Audi A8? The Phaeton was doomed from the beginning. The RSX, on the other hand, sold even after the Civic came out.
The RSX as I described above would not compete with the TSX at all. Or turn the TSX into a coupe and call it the RSX. Why was this not done?
This is but one piece of evidence I see as showing that nobody knows how to grow Acura! Combine this with the fact that Honda is befuddled about the RL (they were in denial so at least they've moved beyond that), the NSX was allowed to die, and the RDX is a gas sucker (even though its numbers are close to BMW's X3 EPA numbers), as well as other things and here we are.
And Acura thinks they can grow the RL by dumbing it down? This is another thing that gives me pause.
The Phaeton was a good example but you have to look at VW's leadership. The same person who pused the Phaeton on VW also pushed the Buggatti, which will apparently be left to die. Also, how was the Phaeton different from the Audi A8? The Phaeton was doomed from the beginning. The RSX, on the other hand, sold even after the Civic came out.
The RSX as I described above would not compete with the TSX at all. Or turn the TSX into a coupe and call it the RSX. Why was this not done?
This is but one piece of evidence I see as showing that nobody knows how to grow Acura! Combine this with the fact that Honda is befuddled about the RL (they were in denial so at least they've moved beyond that), the NSX was allowed to die, and the RDX is a gas sucker (even though its numbers are close to BMW's X3 EPA numbers), as well as other things and here we are.
And Acura thinks they can grow the RL by dumbing it down? This is another thing that gives me pause.
12-28-2006, 06:09 PM
#117
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by CL6
As I said... let's say the RSX was introduced in the 2007 model year as a RWD (or AWD), Hybrid + 4 cylinder, et al and the starting price was $30,000.00. Why would Acura not go something like this? Are they not a 'sporty' division? Do they not need a coupe? Instead, the RSX was killed off.
The Phaeton was a good example but you have to look at VW's leadership. The same person who pused the Phaeton on VW also pushed the Buggatti, which will apparently be left to die. Also, how was the Phaeton different from the Audi A8? The Phaeton was doomed from the beginning. The RSX, on the other hand, sold even after the Civic came out.
The RSX as I described above would not compete with the TSX at all. Or turn the TSX into a coupe and call it the RSX. Why was this not done?
This is but one piece of evidence I see as showing that nobody knows how to grow Acura! Combine this with the fact that Honda is befuddled about the RL (they were in denial so at least they've moved beyond that), the NSX was allowed to die, and the RDX is a gas sucker (even though its numbers are close to BMW's X3 EPA numbers), as well as other things and here we are.
And Acura thinks they can grow the RL by dumbing it down? This is another thing that gives me pause.
The Phaeton was a good example but you have to look at VW's leadership. The same person who pused the Phaeton on VW also pushed the Buggatti, which will apparently be left to die. Also, how was the Phaeton different from the Audi A8? The Phaeton was doomed from the beginning. The RSX, on the other hand, sold even after the Civic came out.
The RSX as I described above would not compete with the TSX at all. Or turn the TSX into a coupe and call it the RSX. Why was this not done?
This is but one piece of evidence I see as showing that nobody knows how to grow Acura! Combine this with the fact that Honda is befuddled about the RL (they were in denial so at least they've moved beyond that), the NSX was allowed to die, and the RDX is a gas sucker (even though its numbers are close to BMW's X3 EPA numbers), as well as other things and here we are.
And Acura thinks they can grow the RL by dumbing it down? This is another thing that gives me pause.
But still, it needs to DEFINE itself and STICK TO IT. And whatever it defines itself as, it should NAIL THE PRODUCTS to that definition. EVERY single product should have that definition in its DNA.
Look at Lexus...EVERY car (currently) has the Lexus DNA for being a plush and luxurious alternative to Caddy and MB. That's why the previous IS300 sucked...it didn't have that DNA and didn't fit into the brand. The current one does a much better job of not being "boy racer".
Look at Infiniti...EVERY current infiniti introduced after Ghosn took over has the same DNA...a reliable and very convincing alternative to sporty BMW. The Q is the only pre-ghosn infiniti and its sales suck.
Then look at all the established Euro makes like MB and BMW. There is a certain DNA in those brands, and when they try to stray (318ti, C coupe, etc.), those models suffer in sales. Mini works because Mini is sold under a different brand.
Acura needs this. Are they sporty as they claim? Sure, but then they offer no coupes. Are they as techy as they claim? Sure, but only for a couple months until the competition releases the same features. Are they a "value" luxury brand? Sure, but how much does value really count at $50k?
They need to figure out EXACTLY what they want to be and stick with it. When they claim to be a value conscious brand and release a $50k V6 sedan, it confuses the market. When they claim to be a performance brand but get rid of all their sporty coupes, not to mention the NSX, it confuses the market.
And whatever they choose to be, as long as they stick to it, no one will criticize. If they want to stick to being a "value" brand, then do it...and that means no cars or SUVs listing over $45k. If they want to be a techy brand, then they have to put in technology that wont' be available for YEARS in any other car. If they want to be a performance brand, then they should offer higher performance editions of all their cars and offer coupes with higher performance than their sedan counterparts.
If they want to sell salads, then they should SELL salads and not pretend they sell fatty burgers.
12-28-2006, 06:15 PM
#118
Three Wheelin'
If Acura offered a car with RWD or AWD, hybrid + 4 cylinder for $30K, why eve bother calling it an RSX? Why not just give the new car a new name?
The US market for a pricey coupe is limited, unless that couple has a strong brand name such as the BMW. The Lexus SC, their only coupe, has always been a niche product at best. The simple fact is that Americans LOVE their SUV's. The main reason why Lexus is the top selling luxury brand in the US is because Toyota understands this. That's why Lexus was the first luxury brand to sell 3 separate product lines of SUV in the USA.
Acura is on the right course by having two separate SUV product lines. The problem is that the traditional Acura customer, like his Honda-buying brethren, is price sensitive. That's econ-speak for "cheap bastard."
Do you think BMW fans put much thought into the fuel efficiency of an X3? Of course they don't. If they cared about fuel efficiency, they wouldn't be driving an SUV. But Honda/Acura fans want EVERYTHING for their money. They got the RDX, which has more feature content than an X3 and better handling for less money. So what do Honda/Acura fans do? They bitch about fuel efficiency and don't buy the car. Meanwhile, Lexus can take a Camry, turn it into the RX 300 SUV and it becomes the top-selling luxury vehicle of 2004 and 2005. On top of that, most of the RX's sold aren't even AWD!!! That is the power of brand.
So Honda needs to decide what they want do with Acura, but they also need to be willing to lose fans.
The US market for a pricey coupe is limited, unless that couple has a strong brand name such as the BMW. The Lexus SC, their only coupe, has always been a niche product at best. The simple fact is that Americans LOVE their SUV's. The main reason why Lexus is the top selling luxury brand in the US is because Toyota understands this. That's why Lexus was the first luxury brand to sell 3 separate product lines of SUV in the USA.
Acura is on the right course by having two separate SUV product lines. The problem is that the traditional Acura customer, like his Honda-buying brethren, is price sensitive. That's econ-speak for "cheap bastard."
Do you think BMW fans put much thought into the fuel efficiency of an X3? Of course they don't. If they cared about fuel efficiency, they wouldn't be driving an SUV. But Honda/Acura fans want EVERYTHING for their money. They got the RDX, which has more feature content than an X3 and better handling for less money. So what do Honda/Acura fans do? They bitch about fuel efficiency and don't buy the car. Meanwhile, Lexus can take a Camry, turn it into the RX 300 SUV and it becomes the top-selling luxury vehicle of 2004 and 2005. On top of that, most of the RX's sold aren't even AWD!!! That is the power of brand.
So Honda needs to decide what they want do with Acura, but they also need to be willing to lose fans.
12-28-2006, 07:04 PM
#119
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: gotham, new york
Age: 60
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The problem is that the traditional Acura customer, like his Honda-buying brethren, is price sensitive."
This is exactly the point I tried to make in my very first post on this thread -- which is -- I believe Acura's customer-base consists primarily of value-minded consumers who like luxury and performance, but are willing to settle for less than what the prestigous nameplates offer, if the price is right. This is NOT a bad thing, but it will not elevate Acura to the same level of recognition as MB, BMW, Audi, Lexus, or even Infiniti. Just now, I looked at Infiniti's website and tried to find out what Infiniti wants its potential customers to compare the M35 with. Not to my surprise, RL is not there, but Audi A6, BMW 530 and Lexus GS are named as "comparables."
As many of us have noticed, the lack of focussed marketing strategy has definitely hurt the RL -- Acura's flagship. But the RL itself has shortcomings when compared with the flagships of the top name brands, which is the reason for its lackluster sale. The high rollers (and there is a market for high rollers, albeit not large) do not want the RL, for lack of prestige and short in ultra luxury and performance.
So, it is going to be a big test and calculated maneuver for Acura, if it wants to be in the same league as its Japanese brethen -- Lexus for luxury, and Infiniti for performance. Right now, Acura is neither, and its attempt in crossing the luxury-performance bridge has not been very successful.
As jhr3uva90 has astutely noted, Acura may lose some of its fans (particulary RSX lovers) if it desires to reinvent itself as a serious player in the arena of prestigous nameplates with bona fide ultra luxury and performance cars, including SUVs.
Do we WANT Acura to go that route? Speak up and be heard, Acura executives may be listening very closely.
This is exactly the point I tried to make in my very first post on this thread -- which is -- I believe Acura's customer-base consists primarily of value-minded consumers who like luxury and performance, but are willing to settle for less than what the prestigous nameplates offer, if the price is right. This is NOT a bad thing, but it will not elevate Acura to the same level of recognition as MB, BMW, Audi, Lexus, or even Infiniti. Just now, I looked at Infiniti's website and tried to find out what Infiniti wants its potential customers to compare the M35 with. Not to my surprise, RL is not there, but Audi A6, BMW 530 and Lexus GS are named as "comparables."
As many of us have noticed, the lack of focussed marketing strategy has definitely hurt the RL -- Acura's flagship. But the RL itself has shortcomings when compared with the flagships of the top name brands, which is the reason for its lackluster sale. The high rollers (and there is a market for high rollers, albeit not large) do not want the RL, for lack of prestige and short in ultra luxury and performance.
So, it is going to be a big test and calculated maneuver for Acura, if it wants to be in the same league as its Japanese brethen -- Lexus for luxury, and Infiniti for performance. Right now, Acura is neither, and its attempt in crossing the luxury-performance bridge has not been very successful.
As jhr3uva90 has astutely noted, Acura may lose some of its fans (particulary RSX lovers) if it desires to reinvent itself as a serious player in the arena of prestigous nameplates with bona fide ultra luxury and performance cars, including SUVs.
Do we WANT Acura to go that route? Speak up and be heard, Acura executives may be listening very closely.
12-28-2006, 07:10 PM
#120
Three Wheelin'
The biggest problem with the Acura RL is that it is an ACURA. People who can afford $50K cars are generally not even thinking about Acuras. As I've said in other threads, if the Acura RL was a Lexus RL, it's sales would be much higher. In fact, I think the Acura RL is a more capable car than the competing Lexus GS, and apparently many car reviewers agree with me, since the Lexus has never won a comparison against the RL (or any other car for that matter). The biggest problem is the Acura name brand, which basically draws Honda fans like us.