_Helios_

Luxury car in the most abstract sense simply means better than your common car. Any level of detail beyond that is purely subjective. The most common cars are the Accord and Camry, base price $20,000, Corolla & Civic $16,000, Ford Fusion $20,000, etc. The lowest end Acura base price is $29,000 and the average is about $40,000, so if you don't want to call that luxury then what convoluted term would you prefer people use?

winstrolvtec

There is far more to an Acura than just many standard features. The thud of a door or aggressive low end torque is not necessarily a staple for a luxury vehicle. An Audi doesn't crash test any better for it and more low end torque does not mean it is any faster, it's more of an engine and design characteristic than whether or not it is luxury.

Don't confuse different style or approach with not being luxury just because the only luxury you may be accustomed to is from Audi or that is what you prefer. No one here is saying Audi is lesser for having their own style, there are pros and cons to every brand and it is up to the consumer to decide which is best suited for their tastes and needs but that doesn't make one's preference or brand choice better than someone else’s.

Many Acura owners would be disappointed with the lack of high reliability, resale, safety and value vehicles there are in the luxury segment especially those from what are often labeled Tier 1 brands. My opinion is that you should be the best in most of those key areas before you can be called Tier 1. That doesn't mean Acura does not have work to do also just that it doesn't mean only a few areas should be used to define better, everything should be looked at from an overall perspective and when you do that nothing is really better but instead different.

Because everyone has their preference and opinion and all brands have different philosophies it is impossible to determine just where the brands fall into order from best to worst. I guess the most objective way to look at it would be to use sales and in the US Acura is fourth behind Lexus, BMW, and MB. While that may not be the final say in this regard, it is a fair assessment of how they actually measure up.

George Knighton

I really have to take a moment to register a complaint about the obviously contentious phraseology you are using, and the way that you present an obviously completely subjective opinion as a known fact or otherwise the only way to regard an issue.

It's simply not fair.

It's an old Internet trick, and you think that because nobody has the time and energy to argue with you that you've made your point.

It's just not the case. People look at comments like this and shake their heads, and move on without comment.

It's a shame.

Acura themselves do not consider that they are marketing to the same people who would normally buy a luxury car.

Acura intend to be "logical" performance, "logical" luxury, or (if you will) luxury performance.

It could end up being one of those Subaru-type "you get it or you don't" things, but that is fine.

We also have to realise that one of the reasons that the Acura marque exist in North America is so that former Honda owners have a place to go as they progress in life. The former owner of a DC2 Integra Type R, or the former owner of an HFP Accord 6-6 Coupe, is not necessarily looking for a luxury car.

He's just looking for a better [sic] car.

_Helios_

I have no idea what you're talking about. It seems that you found some time to respond.

?

Acura regards its cars as "luxury" and "luxurious" in its press releases.

Acuras are priced similar to other luxury cars and are similarly equipped.

Word on the street is their new marketing slogan is ""Smart Luxury".

Your assertion that Acuras are "better" but not "luxury" is laughable, subjective and nonsensical.

_Helios_

winstrolvtec put it pretty well. I've seen these arguments on the internet before. A lot of people seem to have built up an idea of what luxury means in their minds; it has to have wood trim, it has to have a V8, RWD, whatever. None of it is true. It's a very broad term.

George Knighton accuses me of passing unproven assertions as fact, but this idea that "luxury car" must fill some narrow European aesthetic is just that, and unproven assertion.

The remark that a "tier 1" brand should deliver both performance AND reliability is a very interesting point I had not considered.

YetiTL

True! For me wood trims = cars for gramps. I wouldn't have bought the TL if it came with wood trims. I like the edgy and techno style much better, it's the 21st century people!

FWIW, my uninformed opinion is that Audi, BMW and MB aren't even Tier 1 either, more like Tier 2. I mean this is no Porshe, Lambo, Ferrari or Aston Martin. And there is no problem with that! Who gives a f**k about tier 1,2,3,4,10zx1?!? DId you get your money worth? Are you happy with your purchase? Yes? then it's all good! Why do we take so much time splitting hair about some vague, non-documented topic is beyond my mortal comprehension...

I agree with Winstrolvtec, Tier 1 should have top notch reliability: building a quick car is rather easy but building it to last hundreds of thousands of miles is a great objective! I mean, if my Omega or Rolex watches broke twice per year or my tailored suit would rip due to poor material quality, I would be mad....same goes with cars.

Tier 1 should equal very high quality or else it's just a lunatic fancy!

My very !
-YetiTL