dom

knavinusa

And here is the problem. Ugliness is not a good substitute for blandness. Acura is obviously struggling to find a design language, and their attempt to make the monstrous beak into their design cue just hasn't worked.

Also, the 3G TL and 1G TSX were anything but bland. Otherwise they wouldn't have sold as many cars as they did.

pokin

Honda/Acura suits - so much talk, so little action. Every other week, there is a new plan, direction or road map.

CarbonGray Earl

Acura doesn't have baggage? Does he mean they aren't constrained by a coherent direction or vision like having the Ultimate Driving Machine, the Pursuit of Perfection, or even Zoom-Zoom?

That's spin....let's see some results for once.

LuvMyTSX

Until I see some new products on the lot, all this is

They change direction every month, so you can't take anything they say seriously.

elessar

Yeah, well I hope they realize it ain't just the ZDX crap-back style that's polarizing. Their problems started with the power plenum grille, back when they first slapped it onto the '09 RL refresh. Here's hoping they kill it with extreme prejudice.

Edit: Polarizing is really the wrong word for it, anyway. To be polarized, you need to have people who love it as well as people who hate it. Maybe they're counting themselves.

elessar

How's that working out for Lexus these days?

Moog-Type-S

Honda/Acura

...wake me when they produce something of interest.

neuronbob

They got the message!

Now don't F up the next RL!

Moog-Type-S

^^....scared that the statment means a very vanilla design for their future cars ala 1996–2004 RL

Colin

I would be interested in hearing how many direction changes you've perceived in the last 23 years?

krio

Colin

No really, how many do you perceive? List where you think they've made a significant change in direction and I'll share where I perceive they've changed.

PG2G

I actually like the design of the ZDX, I do see how it is very polarizing though. I think the ZDX would make an incredible coupe if it was lower and smaller.

dom

Obviously not 23, probably not even 3. But there have been quite a few of these types of reports from Acura over the last few years, complete with executive and higher up quotes that have made things seem like they're flip flopping. I'm now to the point that I won't care until I actually see something.

neuronbob

I like the ZDX as well.....but if they are going to continue to use that grille they are going to have to modify it. I don't mind the angular style (um, hello? I have a CTS?) but it needs to be better visually integrated.

Moog, I think that after the TL experience, Acura will try to shoot for something unique that is somewhere between vanilla and in-your-face. I hope they have learned their lesson.

Personally, I can hardly wait for what is in the product pipeline the next 18 months. Especially the next RL. A good-looking, 400 hp hybrid (I know, pie-in-the-sky) would be a great counterpoint to my brute-force, V8, gas-gobbling muscle car.

I also liked reading about Acura's bringing a smaller car back to the mix. Make it good-looking, give it a turbo-4, call it "Integra", that brings back some of the old folks from the 90's who recognize the name.

I so want Acura to come back strongly from the doldrums and I know I will be an Acura owner again eventually.

fsttyms1

Its like every month acura/honda state their direction or something about a specific car just to flip flop over and over till we get something that is nothing like what they originally said. Ill believe honda when they say something and actually follow thru with it. (like the most recent statements)

CarbonGray Earl

^I wish they could take the Precision Crafted Performance tagline back as their company slogan. IMO, those were the company's most coherent years. May or may not be the best sales-wise, but we sure as heck knew what to expect when we got into Integra's (shift better than 911s, remember?), Legends, and the pinnafarina-designed NSX.

Besides, if Acura wanted create an aura of luxury, why didn't they fight to get this branded as an Acura?

Colin

I thought we were talking about the brand philosophy and direction? Cause that is what we're talking about, they don't change direction every month over the last 23 years.

elessar

I think what everybody's talking about is how they famously pronounced they were going to be a Tier 1 Luxury brand like Maybach, with a V8-powered flagship, and then scrapped that.

Also weren't they going to be pushing diesel engines for better fuel economy? Or was that just wishful thinking on the part of AZ readers? I honestly don't remember. But they were definitely not going to go the hybrid route and now there will be a hybrid TSX. So that's 2 significant changes.

And then going for the "bleeding edge" or "curving edge" styling, or whatever the hell they called the TL's design language... and now backpedalling on that (hopefully, according to this latest article) for less polarizing styling... that's 3.

Oh yeah, they also phased out their smaller cars by going Integra -> RSX -> nada and bloating the TSX to the point where it almost matched the previous TL in terms of size, features and price; same with the TL -> RL... and now they're going to reintroduce a smaller model, so that's 4.

And how about the NSX? Killed the old one, had a new one fairly close to production and then killed that as well. I would call that 5 major changes in direction that were quickly reversed within the last few years.

Colin

^^ Those are (IMO) better described as model changes and not brand changes. (why I was asking for clarification) I'd describe a 'major change' as one that philosophically affects several model lines simultaneously.

I count ~four major changes in direction/philosophy.

1) 1987 Acura launches with "Precision Crafted performance" moniker. (not a change, but a starting point)

2) 1993 Lexus (launched in 91) makes Acura change from 'sporty cars' to more 'luxury oriented' vehicles and drop the names for the next gen of sedans (to start in 95-96)

3) 1999 Acura realized that this wasn't working and went to a 'value oriented' model that included the '99 TL. IMO, this philosophy served them right up to 2006 when (as noted) they last sold 200K cars.

4) 2008 Acura decided to launch the infamous Tier 1 plans that included the NSX replacement, ZDZ (as a bit of a transition product), and the RWD chassis (probably never intended it to be exclusively RWD but probably RWD biased AWD)

5) 2010 Smart Luxury. With the 'new' focus of value and efficiency (to include hybrids). Hopefully this is a return to the sensibilities of 1999-think.

So in ~23 years of existence which includes 276 months, I don't see how anyone can argue that they've flip flopped every month. Personally, I see four major shifts in the direction of Acura. Is that still too many? I think so, but best and most productive years were probably between 1987-1993 and then 2000 and 2006. Arguably better (overall) than Infiniti or Audi can claim over the same period. They just need to get their shit together and go back to making 'bland' (as all reviewers have said over the years) looking, quality cars that represent a good value in the market place.

elessar

I see your point about model changes vs. brand changes. I think what's got people over here up in arms is... well, look at your timeline. Major changes were happening every 6 years at first, then every 9, but the last 2 have come within 2 years. I understand this has a lot to do with the "carpocalypse," gas prices, recession, etc. but it still seems a bit dizzying to people who follow the brand closely.

A-freakin-MEN!

dom

Have you seen the revised grille on the 11' TSX Wagon? A small but significant change IMO. I think it looks pretty good. Lets just hope that carry that over to everything else.

Colin

^^ I am hopeful they find a way to get that 'restraint' into the TL. Of course, to get it 'right' they'd have to cast new dies for the front fenders and hood (which is aluminum). I can't recall any time they've done that much at a MMC.

I know the RL got a now hood and trunklid, but the fenders remained the same. Did the MMC Accord from the last gen get new rear fenders to go with the trunk/bumper change?

dom

Can't be certain but I'd bet that the rear fenders and trunklid on the 06 Accords was chagned vs the 03-05. The lights were simply far too different for those peices to remain unchanged.

It also appears as though the front bumper on the 11' TSX is different than the 09-10. There's now space between the grille and lights. Not sure if re-tooling a plastic bumper is as involved as aluminum but its a positive sign towards a new TL grille.

Moog-Type-S

I'd like to see Acura walk the line between elegant and sporty.

Colin

Yeah, plastic bumpers are relatively easy and inexpensive compared to sheetmetal. The same goes for things like lighting assmeblies etc. The last gen Accord was the only example I questioned and I think you're right. The Accord did get a new trunk and rear fenders for the MMC. Of course with the Accords higher volume, you could afford to do this a little easier.

CarbonGray Earl

I kinda wish that Acura would stay at what they do best. If you look at that philosophy overview Colin provided, Acura always goes back to a value luxury, or value sporty luxury philosophy. In part, I think its because Acura can't absolve itself from its ties to Honda unless it does something truly drastic...which Tier 1 was supposed to do, but given the environment, not feasible (and grandiose regardless).

As Moog said, I'd like to see them stick around the elegant and sporty realm. It would be nice to see them make a real effort at making a sporty version of each vehicle, as opposed to the 'tech' version...heck, if Toyota can do a sporty version of a minivan, why can't I see Acura do it with a TSX?

With the economy and CAFE standards being what they are going to be, sporty 4 cylinder cars will be commonplace. This, IMO, is the enviroment in which Acura's core philospophies and its ties to Honda should help it thrive. They should be who they are and always have been since day 1.

fsttyms1

You are right, it hasnt been the past 23, only the past10 or so. The first 13 years they actually had direction. Now they are lost.

fsttyms1

x2

Colin

I'd even narrow that down to the last 6 years. And then consider the changes in the industry in the last 3. I started with Acura when the slogan was changed from "Precision Crafted Performance" to "the True Definition of Luxury.... Yours". Most of the younger posters (appear) to lack enough perspective to post meaningful things at times. The years between 93-99 were far worse than they are now. Really.

We had those terrible 1st Gen TLs, 1st Gen CLs, aging Integras, the NSX was approaching 80K and virtually unsellable, and NO Acura SUVs, only the SLX (Isuzu). IMO, things are not really pretty right now (no pun intended) but the TL is largely a victim of an ill-timed move upmarket right when the economy collapsed. The TSX continues to be strong and the MDX as well. The RDX is no worse than the CL (sales wise) and the same goes for the RL. The ZDX is another victim of bad timing, but it will do better than the NSX (volume wise).

fsttyms1

All very valid points, but i dont buy into the economy reason as much. Many other brands are doing well and going up the past few years while acura is kinda stagnant, where i think that they could be doing better with a better design team, better marketing (lord knows just about every make has better more compelling tv adds than acura does to get people into the showrooms.)

LuvMyTSX

Well, I haven't been following them very long, pretty much only since about 2005 when I joined here. But in recent memory, there was the new NSX development, then after several changes, it finally got canceled. Then there was the diesel push, they were supposed to use diesel in several vehicles. Then it changed to hybrids. And then there was the whole Tier 1 move, which was canceled before it ever had a chance to materialize. Now it's "Smart Luxury"...whatever that means. We can't forget about the cancellation of the RSX so they could move up as a brand, now they're saying they might want to build on the RSX and bring back another small vehicle to replace it.

I know I'm probably forgetting a few other things as well. But it's like they have ADD. Or they just don't know WTF they are doing. Either way, they really appear to be a mess, quite honestly. I'm not usually one to pick on them too much (or any other car company) because I'm just not really that into it, but the perception after watching them just the past 5 years, at least to me, is that they really do not know what they are doing.

Of course, a company must change through time to adapt to new business climates and whatnot, but to change direction what seems like every month, is just throwing them into a tizzy, makes them appear disorganized, and ultimately they get nowhere fast because they can't decide on a clear strategy. Just my opinion, but it seems I am not alone in my thinking.

Colin

I think I answered most of that in an earlier post. I was not referring to model changes but brand or philosophical changes. However, regarding the points I've clicked out of your reply. Some of my point was exactly what you said (and I wasn't intentionally singling due out), when you've only been following the brand for a short period of time statements like "they change directions every month" lack real weight. This is not a criticism per se, but rather an attempt to offer some perspective.

I think they'd do believe they know what they're doing. (This is also a response to fsttyms1 and his thought that the economy is not the sole reason) I agree, the economy is not the only reason but I believe it has affected the sales of the TL more than its competitors for several reasons. Some of this goes back to the 1999 TL which was an incredibly successful car. It was universally hailed as an extraordinary value, well made, but bland. When it was time for a replacement, Acura introduced the 2004 TL at a base price that equaled the previous versions' Type S model. This strategy was incredibly successful as well. Because the economy was doing so well, most of my second generation TL buyers willingly (and happily) ponied up the 3000-4000 dollar difference.

As with the second generation TL, the 3rd generation TL was regarded as an excellent value and a well made car. The major knocks on it were: 1) it was FWD 2) it needed more power and 3) the styling was bland. So, with the fourth generation Acura set out to address all of these things and they took a page from the playbook. As before, the base model would start around the outgoing car's top model (Type S) and a higher performing version would be offered above it. 1) SH-AWD replaced FWD for the performance model 2) 305 horsepower replaced 289 horsepower and 3) the styling was dramatically changed (obviously not for the better according to most)

So where did the wheels come off? It's hard to say but this is my theory. 1) somebody moving from a 2003 TL Type-S into a base third generation TL would have gained a good number of features including 10 extra horsepower. However, somebody moving from a third generation TL Type-S into a base fourth generation would have sacrificed features. Not good. 2) as noted, the attempts to "fix" the bland styling appear to have backfired. 3) and finally, styling aside, the top models of this TL are significantly better than anything we have offered. However this comes at a price.

Since 2000, customers have willingly paid more money as long as they were getting more car and this fueled Acura's growth through the first half of the decade. However, this upward price march, coupled with the failing economy, conspired to cripple the new TL. And this is why I say it affected the TL more than our competition. Because we were known for value (based on the previous two generations of TL) and right when the brand was trying to wean people away from that notion, the economy crashed. So where Acura should have been the 'go to' brand for people adjusting their spending, they were confronted with the most expensive Acura's we've ever sold. Some buyers are able to see that although more money, they're still a pretty good value relative to the competition. However, there were fewer sales as some did not see it that way.

And so this brings us back a full circle. "Smart Luxury" sounds an awful lot like the thinking that produced the 1999 TL. As you said "a company must change through time to adapt to new business climates" and I see this as a result. Anyway, sorry for the long post, I'm going to be on vacation (LA and Cucamonga) and I wanted to reply now because writing this from an iPhone would have been impossible.

phile

I don't think model changes and brand directions changes are as mutually exclusive as you think. Wouldn't the model changes affect the brand changes? If Acura switched to RWD models, would that not equate to a change in direction for the brand as well? Hasn't getting rid of a sub-sub-entry-entry-entry level (or whatever they're called nowadays) model like the RSX signify a greater reach for true luxury status for the brand?

Colin

^^ Not sure what you're trying say, but IMO, changes in the brand philosophy affect models (like dropping the RSX to move upmarket) and not the other way around. IOW, they didn't drop the RSX and they say "what now... I guess we can move upmarket" Anyway. that's how I see it.

JS + XES

iTrader: (1)

whatever Acura these days

JS + XES

iTrader: (1)

i mean couple years back when they had RSX type-S, CL type-S, 3G TL, RL... I loved it, but now

SSFTSX

well Honda has $4b of operating profit in 2009. It earns more money than any other automaker even surpassing VW group. this with very aging model line up.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hon...ort-2010-04-22
Honda operating profit to rise 90%: report

VTEC Racer

Wasn't Honda supposed to go out of business last year?