It is possible that when the tree huggers on the left coast realize that the electricity that is running their Tesla is coming from coal or natural gas powered power plants, the demand may fade. They can delude themselves into believing they are saving the environment, but the average Honda is infinitely cleaner than a coal burning generator.

 

 

Hydrogen fuel cell for the win! Something that Honda's actually working on.

 

Take it from an M owner, I don't think you will be happy going from and RL to an M. I love my car, but road noise, crappy Bluetooth, and navi just drive me nuts. I looked at the GS, but hated wooden steering wheel, hate that mouse controller and find the interior design does not flow from dash to center console well. The huge LCD screen is impressive and the car is very quiet and smooth.

 

And just so it's not lost in the discussion, Tesla paid back the entire loan early.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/...nt-loan-early/

 

I am impressed with Honda's environmental stewardship, not just with the stuff coming out of the exhaust, but from the materials inside the cabin and the chemicals that make up new car smell:

http://www.healthystuff.org/findings.021512.cars.php

 

Yes, I saw that too. LOL, they're probably paying it off with money raised from their IPO. Kind of like a Ponzi scheme? Anyway, as I said I think they're doing a good job of pointing the way. I doubt they would be here if not for the government money however. What if Tesla had gone the way of Solyndra? The government would be out their money, shareholders would lose their money, and Elon Musk would go on to something else.

 

That's a pretty wacky list but it is interesting nonetheless. Thanks for posting!

 

My brother just leased a 2014 Tech (Pomegranate Pearl-beautiful color). I drove it about 30 miles yesterday and I am very impressed with the ride and refinement of this vehicle. Those that do not consider this car are short sighted. It has all of the bells and whistles and is an overall excellent vehicle that offers tremendous value. You fly under the radar with this great car and if you are secure and comfortable in your own skin and enjoy knowing what you have rather than what others think about what you have-this is the car for you.

The day he picked his car up they had just delivered another, so they are starting to move them it seems.

 

Elon Musk put in $100M of his own money and if the thing had tanked, he would have lost it. The $465M was a loan, not a grant. Yes on much better terms than market, but I don't really want to debate funding innovation by the government either.

Honda could easily raise way more than that through bonds and equity if it chose to and give it to Acura.

But really, I mentioned the Tesla example not to debate funding or tax dollars or profit only as an example of some bold ideas and innovation, creativity or whatever you want to call it; and how I don't accept the excuses of why they shouldn't try. I'd like to see them get their mojo back from the 1G MDX and 3G TL and build some killer vehicles that sell. They are capable of it; they just seem to have lost their way.

 

That's the main reason I didn't buy a M, but the 3G GS. It was quiet, comfortable had good pick-up, but was without a soul and kinda boring. Sold it with only 20K miles on it. Sometimes I think should have bought the M instead. .

 

I commented on Tesla only because of your initial assertion that they used start up money. I guess what I haven't been able to convey is that although this was a government loan, is it really that different from a grant? Let me explain what I'm thinking and if I'm incorrect in this, somebody please correct me. The way I see it, if Tesla went bankrupt they do not have to repay the loan. IMO, this allows a company to "dream big" and go for broke because there is no real downside to failure. Making it essentially, free money.

In Acura's situation, if they were to get $465 million from the government, and they squandered it, Honda would still be on the hook to repay the loan. From this viewpoint, for Tesla it was a grant, for Honda it would have been a loan. Of course, Honda never received such money from the US government so the playing field isn't exactly level.

As for Honda "losing their way" I think that it's a mixed bag. Much of whether you feel that way could the depend on what you feel "their way" actually is. However, it's difficult to deny that sales have been a little soft, especially compared to 2004 through 2007. It's also true that the last two or three years have seen increases in annual sales even if critical acclaim hasn't followed.

 

The same rules apply to everybody except if something is written in the loan agreement. If a company goes bankrupt it depends on the seniority of the debt in which order they claim any assets or what's left. Typically equity holders get totally wiped out and bond or debt holders get pennies on the dollar. This would no different than if Honda went under (or GM for that matter )

Your logic on no downside is flawed though. If Tesla fails Musk loses all his equity and the company (including his personal investment). If Honda takes a swing and has to write off $500M, it hurts but is not fatal. Their balance sheet suffers and they take a valuation hit until they can recover. In a sense it is less risky for established companies to bet big since it is not a all or nothing gamble, but generally these big companies are conservative looking only at the next quarter.

Governments make loans to companies like Telsa because they can't get affordable financing elsewhere because of the risk. They do it in order to foster innovation and develop new industries and sectors in the country to make it more competitive and to foster employment in a new industry. I don't wish to debate the merits of such programs here.

 

I get that Musk loses his 100 million investment, but he doesn't repay 465 million out of his pocket does he? This is why it's easier for him (which is not to say it was easy).

In the end, it's a moot point since Honda never received any money from the government. We'll never know what they might have dreamed up. But in the end, Honda is conservative. Always have been. They like to put product where other people are not, because they know they have to be careful with their resources.

This is why they haven't been bailed out by the US government (GM), bailed out then sold to Fiat (Chrysler), or Renault (Nissan), or China (Volvo), or Ford (Mazda [yes, I know Mazda is independent again]), or just plain out of business (Saab). So they may not always do what we would like them to do, but at least they're still Honda.

 

That's not true. Total emmissions are less especially from natural gas plants.

 

Not to belabor this and get into a detailed discussion on capital structure, but no equity holder is responsible for debt unless they guarantee it. Generally it is much harder for smaller companies to finance anything than larger ones. If Honda wanted to invest in EVs or any innovation for that matter it would be generally easier for them than a start up. Whether they chose to is another question.

 

So this past weekend I went with a friend as he test drove the 2014 RDX & MDX. Both are very nice cars & I can see why they sell. I thought my 2004 TSX had soft-touch plastics but the dash on those 2 were almost sponge like.

For the RDX: surprised there were no rear vents - the big hole made it even more obvious. I wish that they at least put a cover on that compartment to make it look nicer. Interestingly, the backseat leather was much softer than the front.

I really liked the big dial on the MDX - it had some spike/stud bling around it. The 1-touch folding of the 2nd row seats was a lot more loud/violent that I would have liked in a luxury vehicle - a smoother movement would have been nice.

Back on topic: the sales lady said that she was delivering a Krell package RLX the next day & all dealers in my area seem to sell 2 or 3 a month which is pretty good considering they usually only have 4 or 5 on hand. There are no advances anywhere, I hope they start building those again soon. Have yet to see a base/navi so that I can check out the non-wood grain interior.

 

1 shy of 500

 

Ding, ding, ding.

Tell them what they have won, Johnny.

A the question to Honda/Acura is, are the RLX sales meeting expectations? At least they are better than the RL. Poor TL in a nose dive.

 

I cannot agree more with GoHawks

The RLX sells poorly?? Should anyone be surprised at this?? Derivative/bland/boring style and a $60K+ front driver?? Are you kidding me??

Japanese automakers (except for Lexus, in part) do not know how to sell luxury vehicles, period.

They do approach the luxury market with the same strategy how they attacked the mainstream market (and been very successful on that space), offering long term reliability and value for the money...guess what?? These things do not sell in the premium space.

Most luxury car buyers lease their vehicles and trade them within 3 years or so do they do not give a damn to long term reliability...it is someone else problem, they are not interested in the "I drove my Legend for 300K miles without any trouble" concept.

Halo/expensive vehicles and performance version does build the brand, its reputation, its prestige and "desireability" factor...the Germans are master at this....beginning from how they organize the dealership experience.

The 3 Series would not be the myth that it is without the M3, Mercedes would not sell as many unremarkable C-Class without the fabulous CLS or the unreachable for the masses AMG models in their lineup.
How many Quasimodo looking, conjunctivitis eyes 1 Serie Coupe BMW would sell if it weren't for the roundel badge and the fun to drive experience??

Recently a divorced woman entered a Bay Area Mercedes dealer and told the salesman right away "I can afford a $700 lease payment after my divorce....what car can I get??" How you suppose to compete on "value" or technical features against this mindset from some of the general public when it comes to the luxury market??

If you cannot/do not want to build sport cars, coupes and super sedans you cannot be taken seriously in the luxury space this is the short end of it. Japanese luxury marques vehicle lineup is pathetic compared to the Germans, way less choice of models.

Heck even on the other side of the spectrum (maximizing values) the Koreans are eating Acura lunch...Hyundai did not go through the effort and expenses to build a luxury division but you can get a fully loaded Genesis R-Spec for 46K (I drove it, it is an astonishing car for the money with top notch build quality)....in other words, a 550i competitor for less than a base 528i money....how do you compete with that Acura?? Your RLX is not any more exciting to look at than a Genesis, it is as much as derivative of others. If you are going after the not so much brand obsessed, Hyundai beat you to it by a mile....

Acura is a royal mess.....the 4th gen TL (I own a 6 speed maual SH-AWD) is a fantastic sedan, incredible performance for the money...just terribly marketed and positioned....

In order to defend the RL (which had the same size and engine so it was stupid to keep it around) the TL was "decontented" of some of the tech gadgets and wood/luxury trims so it could not go head to head as a full fledged 5 Series fighter "forcing" the car to compete in price with the much smaller and agile 3 Series and the A4..a "tweener" car that did not let anybody fully happy...and the RL did not sell anyway....

The TSX was left in some sort of limbo....not capable to compete as a truly entry level luxury sedan with its FWD only layout (in a potential SH-AWD form it would have been a perfect fully fledged competitor to the Audi A4) as a matter of fact the TSX is substantially a slightly smaller Accord (it is based on the Euro Accord) on every aspect, a generalist sedan...it had no reason to exist.

"Smart luxury" do not sell Acura, do you get it??" You can always build cleverly engineered hybrids and so on but give to the general public the cars to get salivating after....roadsters, coupes, V8, RWD, an S Class figher, etc....

With the 4G, the Acura started a new bold design language, very polarizing but at least distinctive (I love the car). After an initial disappointment in sales, Acura crapped their pants and rushed a mild refresh and probably with the TLX will abandon completely that style.....well if the TLX will look anything like the RLX my current TL will be my first and last Acura....no consistency, weak, confused brand.

Do you remember the outrage when the BMW 5 Series E60 came around?? The "BMW stands for Bangle Must Go (Bangle Muss Weg) in German" expression?? Well the E60 turned out to be the best selling 5 Series in history...leave time to the people to "digest" a new design language.

Granted, as someone not interested in a badge, my wallet is happy that with my TL SH-AWD I did pick up a practical 535 contender at a 3 Series price but as an impartial observer, this is not the way you sell luxury vehicles...not the way to fatten the company bottom line and enjoy juicy profit margins.

Is not that difficult to fix yourself Acura...just copy God Damned Cadillac!!!

I'm leaning more and more towards considering a CTS (the new seems incredibly gorgeaous) as a replacement for my TL down the road....still nervous about their long term reliability record (I do not lease and I keep my cars for a while) because of the company disastrous recent past but I feel I should reward them for sticking to their guns in term of distinctive styling and for building a new lineup of truly remarkable cars, both style and engineering substance...and sales are returning!!!

 

I think we already had this discussion.

That being said, a 1519.4% increase is nothing to sneeze at. Based on that percentage increase, I think it was prudent for Acura to start selling the RLX with P-AWS instead of waiting for the hybrid version to be ready. Also, now that Acura has proven they can sell a car with P-AWS, I hope this feature will appear in the upcoming TLX.

 

2 devastating reviews of the RLX

One from Consumer Report

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...to-excite.html

The other from the LA Times

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may...eview-20130511


...and, unfortunately, I agree with both...who Acura is thinking to impress here??

Whatever money they spent on the development of this things, as far as I'm concerned, they flushed it in the toilet....

 

The research money won't be flushed down the toilet if the technologies that first appeared in the RLX are added to the TLX and MDX. This is what happened last time with SH-AWD. It just means RL and RLX drivers are guinea pigs for Acura.

 

The problem is that I do not see any particular breakthrough technologies on the RLX anywhere close to what the SH-AWD was at the time of its introduction on the RL.....the RLX is an also run under every aspect more or less....

 

I agree. That's why I have high hopes for the hybrid RLX. Also, I hope actual sales price of the RLX decreases over time. That seems to be important to the RLX's long-term survival.

 

I look at the RLX sales thusly:
- let's throw out the April sales because it included all the pre-sold cars.
- May 273 sold
- June 499 sold
- by my calculation that is an 83% jump in sales in a single month.
- at this rate of growth, the RLX will be selling 10,000 per month by the end of year!!
- the RLX has already outsold the car it is replacing by over 600%
- the only conclusion to be drawn...the RLX is a massive sales success. If you don't agree, please show me another model that has increased sales by 83% in one month and sold more than 6 times as many as its predecessors annual sales in its first 3 months!!!!

The above post was made tongue in cheek and meant simply as a way to get a dig in at the RLX haters.

 

^^^^^

Please type sarcasm in red.

 

1,519% increase is just a statistical anomaly due to the very very low number of RL's sold a year ago. Looking at the absolute number of 499 is a better indication.. not a bad number at all. If it stayed at this level I think Acura would call it a success.

But meanwhile the neglect of the TL/TSX has lost 2,115 cars sales from a year ago. That hurt Acura's bottom line far worse than 499 RLX sales helped. At least we are now seeing test mules for the TLX and hopefully the car can help Acura get sedan sales back. Acura sells more SUVs than sedans. Another 8 to 9 months at least until the TLX is on sale. Can Acura suck up 2,000 cars/month of lower sales for that long? I guess they will have no choice.

 

I agree.

The RL's sales had gotten so bad that Acura needed to replace it with SOMETHING, as long as they could maintain whatever profit margin they got from the RL (meaning don't replace the RL with something that was more expensive to manufacture).

The current-generation TL was ugly and ill timed when it was first released. Now it is somewhat less ugly but old. In my opinion, they should have released the new TLX last spring instead of the RLX, and they should have released the RLX a year or so ago. In other words, I think Acura is running behind schedule.
That being said, we have already seen spy shots of the TLX. Maybe it will be released later this year. It needs to be.

In the meantime, Acura is basically an SUV company that happens to make some sedans almost as an afterthought or hobby.

 

^^^ God help them if the sales of the MDX tanks because they will be hooped! You can't put all your eggs on two vehicles! I can't understand why they can't seem to see what everyone here seem to say...Get the ILX with a better/stronger engine and appropriate option package, give a couple, given an exciting and aggressive sedan ( with or without exhaust tips), give us an amazing flagship...I can forgive the RWD platform myself, all in a non complicated packaging scheme (a la Canadian style) and keep your reliability up. Surely that can't be too much to ask for from the first luxury Asian company to come to NA.

PS....If you are recruiting, please let me know.

 

Maybe Acura should:

1. Make an SUV below the RDX.
2. Make improvements to the ILX like you all have stated.
3. Make a new TLX that combines the new technology from the RLX in a car that resembles a modernized version of the 3rd generation TL.

Maybe these moves can help Acura a bit without committing to a full-size RWD sedan.

 

Frack You

 

I don't know if neglect is the best descriptor. These are clearly at the end of cycle so lower sales are expected. These things are cyclical, and Acura is readying the SE trim to spice up the last of the 2013 TL sales. I don't see that Acura's portfolio is that unbalanced. Afterall, America buys more SUVs than cars and has for some time so proportionally, it makes sense. Consider Infiniti, IMO, they are the 'real' one trick pony:
G= 4600 units in June (includes coupes and sedans)
M= 500
EX= 150
FX=450
JX= 2300


I suppose that you never really get back the 1.5 development years lost to the tsunami, earthquake and Thai flooding? BTW, while we quibble about our cars, the residents are still struggling with the aftermath.
(from Mar, 2013) http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...-after/100469/

1. A small(er) SUV based on the Fit could be a great replacement for the TSX wagon should that platform disappear as expected.
2. Not just here, but Acura themselves have hinted to this as well.
3. A TL selling 40-60K a year would be greatly welcome! I think a coupe version could add the extra 10K a year that is needed (over the current model).

 

Why they had to replace the RL with "something"?? They should have killed it and leave the TL as the Acura flagship.

Infiniti killed their Q45 flagship sedan without replacing it, the M did become the new flagship.

You cannot support 3 sedan segments (TSX, TL, and RL) with basically one platform (the Accord).

If Acura did not want to commit to the expense of a brand new platform, they should give up on having a sedan in a higher segment than a TL.

Acura mistakes are too many to mention even without taking in consideration the lack of new platforms.

- Make the TSX a truly A4 and 3 Series fighter introducing SH-AWD versions and a less anemic base engine (scrap the naturally aspirated 2.4 for a turbo unit) and probably even a coupe version.

- No DI engines

- Antiquated/inefficient automatic transmissions

- Make the TL a fully fledged A6 5 Series fighter, raising the luxury level inside and gadgets and introducing a V6 turbocharged Type S version and maybe a hyper tech V6 + electric motor Type R version.

- Kill the RL for good

- Bring back the NSX as a halo car and a successor to the S2000.

I really don't know what they are thinking in Acura corporate headquarter, they do not need much to fix the brand malaise.

 

It's already hard for Acura to be classified as a luxury brand without a 7 series competitor. If you cut RLX, then there will be nothing to compete with the 5 series level.

Acura, according to rumour, is cutting TSX and TL and combine them as the TLX. So technically, the Accord will support two models only.

It's hard to judge whether having a dedicated platform for the RLX or TLX is worthwhile. Infiniti M has its RWD platform and yet it's still selling poorly. It's been poor since 2010 when the 4th gen was launched. And we are talking a model not only with RWD, but with optional V8, AWD, and hybrid setup. The RLX right only has one single choice - FWD, V6.

The TLX is supposed to be the real A4/3series/C fighter.

Acura has DI engines, just not all of them have.

Acura automatics are outdated in terms of gear count, but in terms of efficiency and NVH, they are just fine. Otherwise, these cars wouldn't be producing such good dyno numbers.

RLX is supposed to compete with 5 series/E/A6.

NSX will be the halo car, but it won't be the successor of S2000. NSX is NSX. S2000 is S2000. No comparison at all.

 

Tha was my point...the TSX should have competed with the 3 Series and A4 (with its current FWD only layout and choice of engines it cannot) and let the TL, or whatever name they choose, free to compete head on with the 5 Series/A6/MB E Class

That's right, if even the excellent Infiniti M sold poorly (I wonder why, it is gorgeous) and it is indeed a very good car with all the right features, so you can imagine if a not soo good car has any chance to sell decently...and the M blows the RLX out of the water...

It is not in its current form, no matter what Acura thinks.

Maybe it's time to speed it up....

Acura autos are pathetic compared to the currently best in the industry, gear change logic is slow....the automatic TL SH-AWD is full one second slower than the 6MT...a 4 banger 240 hp 528i is faster...pathetic indeed..

We will see how that plays out...do not hold your breath....

That was my point, again...Acura needs the NSX AND a S2000 successor (meaning a relatively inexpensive 2 seater/roadster).....

 

Again, marketing. By that I mean "product," "place," "price," and "promotion." Yes, Acura could and probably should come up with a RWD sedan product -- if they can do so profitably. I think Acura should also change the place where they sell it. That means encouraging the dealerships to become more upscale and knowledgable. Also, they should sell directly to livery services and rental car companies like Cadillac and other car manufacturers do. If Acura continues to make the RLX in its current form, they should drop the MSRP, or at least keep the price exactly the same over the lifespan of this generation. And of course, they need to work on their promotions.

Just my meager two cents.

 

'Neglect' in the sense that they prioritized their resources on the RLX and NSX, neither of which are going to be big money makers. Sure they are developing technology, and let's face it, for the TLX to be competitive just about all the RLX's tech (maybe minus the PAWS and SH-SH-AWD) will need to be in the TLX. But they could have developed the tech for the TLX for the same costs and not take the hit of actually building and marketing the RLX. I really hope they can get the TLX to market quickly. Both the Q50 and new IS went on sale just about the same time and both have all the modern bells and whistles and attractive styling. The TLX could have beat them by a few months.

The SE trim is a curtain call for this model. Too little and too late to appreciably impact sales at this point.

Yes the earthquake/tsunami was a huge impact. But in their recovery they choose where to put their resources.

My wife's family lives in Japan and I don't think the rest of the world realizes just what a huge catastrophe that was.

A TLX Coupe could be killer. Even if they don't sell a lot, I can imagine it would look great and attract attention to the brand. Even give it its own name. But sadly I doubt Acura will build it. I bet it would sell more than the station wagon.

 

Honda just debut the DI engines last year, whereas most top auto makers have been used them for ages. This "late arrival to the market" does more damage to the Acura "Advance" image than good.

Acura's competitors have been implementing 7-speed and 8-speed auto boxes in more and more models, whereas the Acura's crown jewel is still the 6-speed auto box.

"Just fine" is not sufficient in this highly competitive auto market. It is well known that the more forward gear ratios in an auto box, the better it is the acceleration due to the closer gear ratios, and also the better it is the fuel economy due to the high ratio top gears.

If the Acura 6-speed auto box already works well in the Acura vehicles, a 7-speed or 8-speed will work even better providing even better acceleration and even better gas mileage.

If the Acura 6-speed auto box can produce good dyno numbers, a 7-speed or 8-speed will produce even better dyno numbers.

There is no reason for Honda to satisfy itself just at the 6-speed level.

 

Lately I feel it hasn't been so much 'Acura Advance' but more like 'Acura Good Enough'

- Can we still sell the car with a 6-speed tranny? Would 7 be better? Maybe but 6 is good enough.
- Do we need rear vents in the back of our luxury SUV? It might be better for the image of the car and make our customers experience in the rear seats better, but people will still buy it.. so put a little cubby hole there instead and call it 'good enough.'
- Height adjustment on the passenger seat? Most of our customers are exactly the same height and that seat height adjustment is really tricky... we'll still sell them without it, so let's call it 'good enough.'
- 2.0L engine in a car that reviewers say are underpowered? Well someone is buying them so it is 'good enough' no worries. Don't want to sell too many, it is hard work to build these things.

If the goal of the brand is to be 'good enough' then this works. But luxury brands are noting about being 'good enough' you pay extra to be better. If you want good enough you buy the CRV, if you want luxury/better, you buy the RDX. Good enough will not get them more market share.