http://www.forbes.com/2004/02/23/cx_dl_0223feat.html

This basically sums up the reasons Acura isn't keeping up.

 

are v8 and rwd confirmed?

are they bringing the legend name back?

what do you think the MPG on it will be

 

Acura has already stated that they never intended on being a Tier One company, until now. They do make really good cars, but when Acura THEMSELVES say they never planned on going Tier One, it doesn't matter what anyone believes. These are just the facts.

 

That wasn't my point. I know what the RL's intended competition is. My point was to show that the RL is always being compared to the cars in a class above it when it NEVER was intended to be in that class. Hence were a lot of the disappointment stems from. The RL competes very well with the Germans. It is built to an extremely high standard and offers the same amount of features as them. How does it not compete? The RL's lack of sales doesn't stem from the RL's shortcomings, but rather Acura's shortcomings. This has been discussed MILLIONS of times on Acurazine. You would be in the EXTREME minority group if you think otherwise.

Once again, an Acura shortcoming, not an RL specific problem.

Again, an ACURA shortcoming for packaging the car incorrectly, not an RL shortcoming.

Well clearly you bought the A6 just for the name. That alone is what justified your purchase because you obviously didn't care for ANY of the luxury features in your luxury car. If you buy cars just for the name, then Acura is obviously not for you. This is what Acura is trying to improve (and we will see what they will do to achieve this in 2010). RL is more reliable, more technologically advanced, built to a higher standard, and has a more powerful engine. It is overall a better car than the A6, and many have said probably the best car in this class. However, it lacks the name.

Option out a German car exactly the same as the RL and then get back to me.

Another reason why Acura has no choice but to go Tier One. Honda's are becoming more and more luxurious. Don't hold your breath for Acura to lower prices. They want to become Tier One. Part of that plan doesn't include a price tag that is much lower than the competition otherwise they would still be considered in the same position that they were always in.

Like I said, option out the cars equally and then talk price. Again, an ACURA shortcoming.

Did you read where I said Acura never intended to compete at eye-level with the TRUE luxury brands? If Acura had RWD and V8, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now!

Bowing to reality doesn't have to be a bad thing. In this case, it will be a very good thing.

Acura's best selling vehicle starts at over $40,000. Clearly people do not have a problem paying close to $50,000 for an Acura as long as it provides what they want.

 

They may have never said they intended on being a tier one company, but they never denied it either. This creates a position of plausible denial because their actions in the past do show they tried to compete with tier one companies, and when they fail they can "save face" by saying they never intended to compete. And their actions clearly SHOW they intended this.

That's like some some random guy who starts running a marathon, then when he drops out, he says he never said he was planning on running the marathon, therefore saving face for his failures.

My opinion is that Acura, since DAY ONE, has been trying to be a tier one company, no matter how much they deny it (in order to save face). Their past and current products demonstrate this. They sure as hell don't know what direction to take to get there, which is why the have failed, and denying that they never "intended" to just saves face in light of their failures.

 

What are you smoking?

TL starts at $33,725
TSX starts at $28,190

I'm not sure about you, but to me $33,725 is definitely not "over $40,000".

 

I assume that s/he means the MDX which starts @ over $40,000 & lately has sold more than the TL ...

 

Oh, my bad.

But considering the TL and TSX together, Acura still sells more sub $35k cars than they do $40k cars.

 

The point is not that bowing to reality is good or not. The point is it takes so much time and effort and criticism before they end up doing it, even though they should have taken the risk and bowed to reality much much earlier and without so much hand-wringing.

Look at the SUV fiasco. When SUV's were coming into style, Honda/acura held out because they felt it was going to be a short lived "fad", even though ALL indicators pointed otherwise. So they rushed to market rebaged Isuzu troopers (Acura SLX) and Rodeos (Honda Passport) and lost out on several years of sales before they could finish design and start production of the MDX and Pilot.

 

While some badge whoring does take place, I think the car itself is what makes it sell. The Infiniti badge was just about dead when the G35 came out - yet that car sold very well. The RL's problem has less to do with screw ups in Acura marketing or the badge and more with the car itself - folks just don't go for the looks and packaging. While the MDX is selling well enough now, and with the addition of the RDX overall sales are OK, I see a further downward sales trend unless the product lineup improves. Acura may get in trouble by relying on SUVs too much for their sales - that's what's killing the big 3 now.

 

Acura said they wanted to be an intercept brand back when the brand first debuted. I don't know what else to tell you. All of a sudden now Acura is some sort of conspiracy theory lololol. If Acura was trying to be Tier One from day one, then we would have RWD and V8 by now. Their past actions showed that they are capable of making a damn good car, but it still wasn't up to the Germans. They were all still FWD and V6 or smaller. Acura has ALWAYS been about value. NOTHING about Acura does or ever did say TIER ONE. You can have your opinions about this but I think you will be overwhelmed finding support because all the evidence goes against your opinion. If you think that what Acura was producing back then was close to Tier One, then my opinion would have to be that you have never had experience with a REAL Tier One car.

 

Like I said, there was really no reality for them to bow to in the past because they NEVER wanted to be a Tier One company. Now, they have no choice but to move Acura to Tier One so they HAVE TO bow down to reality. In the past it was always just what they wanted to do. Now, the tables have turned.

 

I think VTEC Racer said, "Acura's best selling vehicle starts at over $40,000."

not vehicleS.

 

Also, Lexus and Infiniti spent an extra 3 years to research and plan for their debut. They had plenty of time to look at what Acura was doing back then in 1986-1989. While Acura's purpose back then was to sell sportier, more luxurious Japanese cars, Lexus and Infiniti on the other hand went head-on with Mercedes, etc. Lexus succeeded as we all know, while Infiniti didn't. Acura had always been successful in its sportier/more luxurious market, something in between a typical Honda and Mercedes.

 

Please provide source of this. And when I say source, I don't mean current/recent statements, because that would be akin to a guy who failed out of a marathon and saying after the fact that he never intended to really run it in the first place.

Call it what you will, but every company does this to "save face", and I wouldn't put it past Honda/Acura either. Another example is the SUV fiasco I brought up earlier...after the MDX and pilot came to market, they said it took so long because they "wanted to get it right"...which was bullshit because everyone knew they underestimated the popularity of SUVs in the first place. And even ANOTHER example of "conspiracy" theories...the RDX having a turbo i4 engine. Their excuse for not having a V6 was fuel economy, yet the i4 engine gets the same OR WORSE fuel economy than V6 competitors. The REAL reason is that they never intended the RDX (CR-V platform) to handle a V6 because they underestimated the competition. Of course when the critics came they couldn't say they made a mistake in underestimating the competition, they had to give another face-saving reason, such as fuel economy.


The fact that they debuted the brand with a tier 1 competitor (Legend), the fact that they continued to build a tier 1 competitor (RL), the fact that they produced a $80k halo car 4 years after their debut (NSX) CLEARLY indicate they had higher aspirations for the Acura image. The only support otherwise is their failures in achieving tier 1 status. The fact that they tried to do things differently (V6 and FWD) does not indicate they didn't intend to compete with tier 1 brands.

I guess a family that has had a '89 XXX E (forgot the model), '91 MB 560SEL, '94 MB SL500, '00 S500, not to mention I drive a '06 M45 sport, doesn't give me any experience with REAL tier one cars (the Legend was a very adequate competitor to the old E class of its day). But regardless, what does a tier one car have to do with anything? We are talking about tier 1 brands. A BMW 3-series is from a tier 1 brand. The 5-series is from a tier 1 brand. The A6 is from a tier 1 brand. The TL competes DIRECTLY with the 3-series, the RL competes DIRECTLY with the 5-series and A6, etc. etc. How is Acura not trying to compete with tier 1 brands?

Honda is a brand that does not compete with tier 1 brands...they don't have any models that compete with any models from tier 1 brands. Toyota is a brand that for the most part does not compete with tier 1 brands...again, they don't have any models that compete with any models from tier 1 brands. The same CANNOT be said about Acura, which has cars which are in DIRECT competition with models from tier 1 brands.

But whatever...if your opinion is that Acura never intended to be a tier one brand, then you may also believe that I never intended to actually take out that smoking hot girl (rated 9/10) when I asked her out and she turned me down.

 

Or you can say Infiniti never intended to be a tier one brand until after they started succeeding...

 

 

And folks complain about the Hyundai threads...

 

If that's the case, then there's no point of arguing. It's simply stating opinions, not facts.



I agree about the Pilot and MDX thing. But for RDX, keep in mind CX-7 gets even worse mpg. Also, 335i in real world driving gets worse mileage than IS350. So I guess 335i was never intended to compete with IS350? And CX-7 was never intended to compete with RDX?



So in other words, you are saying Acura is not a tier 1 brand that is producing tier 1 cars...sounds very contradicting to me.

 

Also, the fact that they made an Integra first shows that they were intended for a sportier market than Honda, not just luxurious like the Legend. The NSX reconfirmed that intention, ie instead of making a V8 RWD luxury sedan, they went a different route by making the first Japanese MR supercar. Perhaps a car like that even surpassed the level of Tier 1, since I don't recall BMW, Audi, or Mercedes making any MR super cars back then. Its intention to compete in a "different" market was pretty clear, don't you think so?

 

I agree that the RL is a damn good car, but not good enough given it's price and it's competitiveness among others (at $50K they've gonna be luxury ones) within the same price range. Unfortunately it's a cruel world out there, if the car doesn't sell it ain't good enough as a package. Even if the RL has wings, if people don't buy it, there is obviously something wrong with the overall RL package. It is no use being able to compete as a car. It has got to be able to compete as a package. You can blame it on Acura, name, marketing, or even the buyers; but the end result remains the same.

Acura's major shortcomings are the lack of V8 option and RWD for the RL, and set too expensive a price for the lackluster Acura brand image. Had the RL been offered as V6/RWD with a cheap base price, and with V8 and SH-AWD as options, it would become much more attractive to a more variaty of buyers.

The RL's major shortcomings are the acceleration performance which is behind most V6/RWD competitors, and the lack of custom choice of options. As with all makes of AWD hardware available now, AWD is power-robbing and heavy, and is best suited to couple with high torque V8 engines to maintain an adequate level of acceleration performance. The RL's lame and heavy 290hp/256lbft V6/SH-AWD package is simply no match for other V6/RWD competitors. A high-output 350hp V6/SH-AWD would have definitely help here when V8/RWD is unavailable.

On the other hand, a lighter and more efficient V6/RWD RL package would likely have shaved 1 sec off the time sheet. Those seeking maximum performance could opt for the even faster V8/RWD package, while those needed AWD capability could opt for either the slow V6/SH-AWD package or the fast V8/SH-AWD package. All recognized luxury makes have been doing this custom engine and driveline choices, and custom option choice for years to capture a hugh range of car buyers.

Whether I'm in the EXTREME minority group or not doesn't make no differece to the fact that the RL doesn't sell. Why I'm saying this is because I had shopped for $50K cars, and the 2nd gen RL was on my shopping list. Mine is first-hand real life experience; not just BS talks gathered from car forums, or people's think-up opinions who have never gone through a $50K car buying experience.

Fine, if you think I bought the A6 just for the name, so be it. But isn't MB or BMW a even better name than Audi ? If I were to buy just the Audi name, I wouldn't even have considered the RL nor the M35x in the first place. I would just stomp into the Audi dealership and write a cheque for the A6 right away. It would have made my life much simpler. But shouldn't someone who spend $50K for a luxury car concern about the brand name too. The brand name itself carries some prestige which often is not possible to put a price on.

I bought the A6 for it's notorious Quattro AWD, and the fact that I can custom order options according to my liking. It is one of the safest mid-size luxury car in collisions, according to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. My wife had a nasty accident beforehand. It was real lucky that she was driving her dad's E320 at that time when another E320 driver fell asleep, ran a redlight, and broad-sided her dead center at the driver's door at full speed. Her car spinned many times around and finally stopped after hitting a curb, according to the withnesses. The E320's solid construction and multiple side-airbags all helped to save her life. Then I started realizing that life is more important than money, and then buy her a solid mid-size car.

I opted for wood trim, headlight washer, heated rear seats, Xenon headlights, folding side mirrors, backup sensor, bigger wheels, etc. I didn't opt for useless stuffs like keyless start, navi, fancy stereo, S-line body trims, sport suspension, adjustable suspension, etc. The complete option list could easy add more than $10K to the base price of the car. When I'm to spend $50K for a car, I want to do it my way. I don't like being forced to cough out $$$ for stuffs that I don't want as in the full-loaded RL. In my case, my custom A6 was still $3K cheaper than the RL. Giving me loaded options, that I don't want, doesn't really add values to the car. Without custom option ordering put the RL in a very limited customer base. Note that not many Germans car buyers arm their cars to the teeth with options. This puts the fully-loaded RL is big disadvantage especially when buyers are looking for that "3/4 price" deal.

I'm sure there are a whole lot more $50K buyers out there buying the name over the car rather than buying the car over the name, as reflected from the dismay RL sales figure. The RL may be a better car than the A6, but the overall RL package not. Mind you I bought the A6 in the 3.2L-V6-Quattro trim because it's for my wife. If it is for myself, I would either have picked the 4.2L-V8-Q trim or the 5.2L-V10 S6. The RL simply has no upgrade path for my caterogy of buyers. Available V8 and RWD options is the only solution.

As for the name problem, the RL is in even bad shape. People buy car just for the name will always buy the cheapest base model, and the fully-loaded RL becomes way too expensive to compete. However, Acura noticed this mistake and released the cheaper reduced-content RL trim last year. But it is too little, too late.

So the Acura name is bad enough. Why the hell does Honda have to release Tier 1 products after the new NSX which has constantly drifting release date ? Don't worry about the NSX. Start releasing Tier 1 products ASAP to rescue the withering Acura brand image. That's the only way to help sell cars priced in the luxury car price range.

I don't know when the luxury market starts having Tier-1 brands and non-Tier-1 brands. If you go back to the "Honda introduces the Acura brand" news releases some 20 years ago, it would always say Acura was the luxury division from Honda. No Tier-1 non-Tier-1 shit. The problem was that the Acura flagship sedan was released with the V6 FWD layout and remains the same up to this date, where Lexus and Infiniti flagship sedans were introduced with the V8 RWD layout. This put the Acura brand squarely into the near-luxury (or luxury-wanna-be) segment, whereas the Lexus and Infiniti are enjoying their presence among the true-luxury brands with V8/RWD option a must. Seeing this, Honda had been constantly talking about elevating the Acura brand for the past 5 or so years, but still refusing to develop proper V8 and RWD hardware.

So this year Honda invents this Tier-1 non-Tier-1 talk to repeat their intent, one more time again, of elevating the Acura brand. It is basically same shit, different skin.

Remember how Lexus started off with the V8 RWD LS400 with a bargain price tag of $40K, 19 years ago. It was a bargain, it was well built, it was well received. It started to gain fame, it became famous. The car gradully became recoginized, and the brand also gradually became recognized. Over the stretch of years, Lexus gradually improved the LS even more, accompanied with subtle price increases. The LS continues to be highly praised, and the Lexus brand establishes firmly as a true luxury brand. Now the LS starts at $62K and tops out at $104K. It takes 19 years for Lexus to achieve what it is tody, no less.

Similarly, since the RL has never been well received in terms of sales, a $50K price tag will sure scare off many would-be buyers. A $40K price tag will sure lurk more buyers to sample how good the RL package is. Eventually it will gain fame, and be well received in terms of sales. This won't happen in a month nor a year. This is a long process. Remember the word "gradully". It takes Lexus 19 years to do it, and Lexus had started off with the right foot (V8 and RWD).

The reason that I bought my TL-S 7 years ago was that it had 260hp and was adequately equipped for it's price. In fact it had no peers at 260hp at it's price range at that time. That generation TL was praised as best value everywhere and was also the best selling car in it's class continuously for years. However, 2 years later all other competitors had catch up with the TL-S. There hasn't been any no-peers-featured, bargain-priced car from Acura ever since, especially in the hp department.

I have been looking for a new Acura to replace the TL-S. The 2nd gen RL would be a very good choice given 300hp/RWD or V8/SH-AWD, and a $40K base price with custom options. I'm still waiting but my patience is starting to wear thin. One good news is that the 2010 V8 RWD-platform does look appealing.

 

I wouldn't call Infiniti a Tier 1 brand.

IMO, Tier 1 = MB, BMW, and Lexus. Tier 2 = Acura, Infiniti, Audi, Caddy, etc.

 

Question ? Shouldn't there be a Tier-3 ? Acura cannot sell cars >$50K, but the Audi can sell >$50K A6 and A8.

 

I think what you have said is pretty much inline with what VTEC Racer said, it's not the RL's problem, it's Acura, or Honda's problem. The RL is a great car in every way, but its marketing is just awful. Only one engine choice, one drivetrain layout, a "way-too-loaded" base model are its primary problems. Also the 1st gen RL was so unsuccessful that many did not even know it existed at all, meaning people were simply used to Acura's that are $20 -30k. If the 1st gen RL was not a flop, pretty much Acura wouldn't be in this current situation. But then that's the past, and we can't do much about it now.

 

You are reading into something that I didn't say. When did I bring up the RDX competing with other models? I brought up the RDX as an example of Honda/Acura "saving face" when they said they chose to use a turbo i4 instead of a V6. The RDX is criticized for not offering a V6. I am willing to bet that Honda's answer for using an i4 for fuel economy is a "saving face" answer. The real reason is the platform (CR-V, RDX) can't accomodate Honda's current V6, but giving that reason would just make them look bad.


No, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said Acura is producing tier 1 cars. I am saying that Acura's products COMPETE with products from tier 1 brands...ie they are chasing generally the same buyers. For example, the RL is chasing after midluxury buyers who are in the market for 5-series, E-classes, A6's, etc. The RL is not from a tier 1 brand (ie Acura), but it is competing with cars that ARE from tier 1 brands. Now why would an automaker produce cars that are trying to attract tier 1 brands if they have no intention of becoming a tier 1 brand?

The other side of the coin...Honda has no intention of becoming a tier 1 brand, hence they have no cars that compete with models from tier 1 brands.

Get it now? It has nothing to do with whether a car is tier 1 or not. It is about if the BRAND is tier 1 or not, because when you talk of moving a brand upmarket, you aren't talking about a car, you are talking about the BRAND.

Another item for thought...would Hyundai be producing the Genesis sedan (RWD/V8, etc.) if they had no intention of moving upmarket? The intentions of an automaker are clear when you consider who they are trying to compete with. Acura's products demonstrate they are not competing with Hyudani, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. Acura's products demonstrate they are competing with BMW, Audi, Lexus, etc. and this indicates they are trying to develop the same image.

 

100% agree. When Acura prices the RL to be in the Tier-1 product range, consumers will automatically compare the RL with the similarly-priced Tier-1 products, whether Acura likes it or not.

If Acura has no intention to compete with Tier-1 products, Honda shouldn't have produced the RL and given it a Tier-1-product-level price tag. The Acura car line should only releases cars with a sub-$40K price tag or prices the current RL at $40K.

Consumers don't care about the Tier-1/non-Tier-1 terminology nor about Acura's intention. When they want to spend $50K for a car, the RL becomes one of their choices among other true luxury contenders.

 

What I meant is, the RDX isn't the only turbo I4 CUV in the market. Mazda has one too. I don't see how not being able to fit a V6 is a shame or make them look bad, especially since the turbo 4 can produce that amount of torque.

Then I think their intention at the very beginning, in 1986 was very clear. To compete with Tier 1 brands, but not directly. If they were to fight head on, they would have made a V8 RWD luxury sedan like Lexus did. They wouldn't have made the Integra, a fun to drive sporty coupe/sedan that is quite different than the 3 series. They wouldn't have made the NSX under the Acura brand since that car is in the territory of Porsche and Ferrari. I see your point, but do you see where I'm coming from? As time passed by, things changed a bit. They did show some intention to go "more head-on" against the European luxury brands, with the Vigor/TL and a much cheaper price tag, but they still weren't competing directly, and were very successful in doing so. The 1st gen RL was a total failure, no doubt about that, so we can pretty much ignore its existence. In recent years, it wanted to move even more upmarket, that's why they got rid of the RSX, made the 2nd gen RL. In a marketing point of view (advertising, market position, packaging, etc), it's a total disaster, but it's a great a car, and a major improvement from the 1st gen; otherwise, you wouldn't have bought one right? Now, this year, they finally announced, officially that it will go head-on, directly against its European competitors. I think to be fair, let's wait for a few years before we make any conclusion. See if they are doing what they have promised us.

So, again, Acura's products in the past, yes, they were competing against European brands like MB, BMW, and Audi. I understand that point. I mean, people when shopping for luxury cars, they would consider Acura in the list, not Honda, not Toyota. But they competed in a different way, they purposely made their cars cheaper, while being very loaded. They went in the direction of bang for the buck, which was unheard of before in luxury car market. And they enjoyed success for years, as proven my sales figures. When you are going for bang for the buck though, I really can't see how that can relate to building up the image, and this is exactly why Acura's image is not as high as the others. Things have changed now, the Honda cars (as well as Toyota, even Hyundai) like the Accord and Camry have been improving greatly. Acura can no longer occupy that market anymore. Therefore, they now want to go Tier 1. I guess everyone has his/her own view on this. However, this is the way I see it.

 

When you come to think about it, the 2nd gen RL seems to be a test, to test how the market would react to the luxury car market. Of course, one might think that's an excuse, and Honda/Acura, will never admit that either to "save face." But IMO, the RL's name is dead (or has never been alive at all since 1997), so there's really nothing to lose. It's not the core model (or money generator) in Acura's line up. If it succeeded in sales, that's great, if not, then Honda/Acura would know where the brand is sitting at against the others in the luxury car market. Again, one might think that's just an excuse, but that's just my opinion.

 

For mazda, not being able to fit a V6 isn't a big deal, because it's not "premium" model per se, and also because without a V6 in the RDX, even the RAV4 (non-premium model) made the RDX look underequipped. We're not talking about drivability or amount of power or torque, this whole thread is based on image, and the image of a "premium" model with a V6 is much better than that same model with only a 4-cylinder available...turbo or not. Admitting that the platform can't accomodate a V6 makes them look bad because it associates a "can't do it" image, while saying instead that they CHOSE not to use a V6 (for the imaginary fuel economy advantage) makes them look better because their hand was not forced.

Same as if you were surfing and you wiped out...if you said, "I meant to do that" sounds better than "I didn't want to wipe out, but had no choice."

On the bold highlighted in your quote...that's exactly how Lexus built up its image and how Infiniti is currently buidling up its image...bang for the buck. There's a lot more involved than just bang for the buck, but that was a big part of getting Lexus to where they are.

I agree that Acura took a "different way" of competing with the tier 1 brands (which is also the reason for their successes as well as their failures), but they DID and continue to compete with tier 1 brands, and have from day 1, and auto companies don't do that if they don't intend to raise their own image to be considered a serious competitor to the established makes...it just DOES NOT happen if there was no intention. If Honda wanted only a "stop-gap" between Honda and the tier 1 brands, they would have introduced the Legend and integra as Honda's to compete with the "stop-gaps" of Nissan and Toyota.

 

It might be better to have V6, it might sound better, but I don't think it's necessary for a premium car. Mercedes A class uses inline 4 engines. Ok, A class is not being sold in North America. But then the same goes for Mercedes B class. it only uses 4 cylinder engines. I think Mercedes is a tier 1 brand. Ok, B class is too low, what about C class coupe? It uses a supercharged 4 cylinder engine as well. You can argue these cars are not CUV, or they are not very successful in the market, but this is just to show that 4 cylinder engines have been used in tier 1 brands. They could have used the C280 engine but yet they didn't.

They sure did introduce the Legend and Integra as Hondas in other countries but North America. The thing is, 20 years ago, nobody was willing to pay that much for a small car like the Integra, or a luxury car like the Legend because they were from Japan. Honda was too famous for its small and economical vehicles.

Honestly, if we want to find out who's right who's wrong, the only way is to ask Soichiro Honda himself. But he's no longer here with us anymore......

 

There's no problem using 4-cyl engines by tier 1 brands because 1) like you said, they aren't used in the U.S.'s current lineups, and 2) they are ALREADY tier 1 brands...ie they don't NEED to establish any image anymore since it's much easier to attain an image than it is to raise an image.

And if the rav4 didn't offer a V6, then the RDX may be fine off with an i4 because there would not be any cross-comparisons with a "non" premium model. The rav4's natural competitor is the CR-V, but instead there are many comparisons with the RDX instead. How would a TL or TSX look being cross-compared and cross-shopped with a Camry or Altima? I'm sure it happens somewhat frequently considering price ranges, but I think it happened much more often with the RDX and rav4 simply because the rav4 offered the option of a V6 with virtually the same fuel economy as the RDX.

Basically what I'm saying is that the established players can use i4 engines or whatever, even in the U.S. markets (which they currently don't), if they want because they have already established themselves. Acura of course, will use i4 engines either because of platform limitations or because they think they can achieve the same as the established tier 1 brands by going a "different way". Some things "different" may work, but most things won't, as they have realized over 20 years of existence.

 

The RDX's price is low enough that, a fully loaded Rav4 is at around the same level. Then the question comes in, whether to upgrade to a RDX or not. Obviously people won't compare a loaded rav4 to a X3 because that's much more expensive. Also, people don't recognize what the SH-AWD is, or basically lack understanding of basic AWD theories. In their mind, all AWD systems are pretty much the same, most of them don't even know what full-time or part-time AWD is. You have a RL yourself I believe, and I'm sure you know what SH-AWD can do. It's too bad people don't appreciate the benefits of SH-AWD, but I'm sure that won't last long as BMW and Audi are already copying that idea. As far as fuel economy goes, the RDX, is 400lbs heavier than the heaviest Rav4, also, again, the AWD systems are different, those 2 only are enough to explain the fuel economy.

Again, Acura's formula has worked for 20 years already. Sure enough their image wasn't high, but their original goal of selling more luxurious cars than Civics and Accords worked brilliantly.

 

I agree that in terms of selling cars, Acura has been modestly successful so far (if not in terms of profit when compared to the competition), but the question is, going forward, how successful will it be in the future?

I think the fundamental question is, what does Acura really stand for? It's really not worth discussing RL, MDX, or TSX, if the brand doesn't have a clear direction and identity.

Obviously, being upscale Honda can only work so far. Hondas are getting better and better everyday, with all the safety features and gadgets available. I think the Acura brand should have a direction of its own, a direction of EFFICIENT PERFORMANCE.

1. I think for a premium auto maker, RWD is by far THE more most the important feature. I'm not saying that Acura's FWD vehicles don't perform well compared to the likes of Lexus, Audi or Infiniti, but that if Acura has a RWD/RWD based platform, it will do 3 key things:
a) Separation from the Honda brand.
b) Gives Acura opportunity to develop significantly better performing vehicles than its current offerings.
c) Not having to go heavy with AWD and keep increasing weight.
The fact that Honda has done remarkable jobs with the NSX and S2000 indicate that they are quite capable.

2. Acura needs to advance engine and transmission technologies. Unfortunately, Acura is trailing behind the competition (BMW, Lexus, Audi etc.) in these crucial aspects, such as turbo charging and 6 speed automatic. And the Accord hybrid really should have been implemented in Acura vehicles. On the other hand, V8 is much less important.

3. Acura needs to focus on performance of the car, not the gadgets, and carry the message through in its product offerings and marketing efforts. Emphasize the heritage of NSX, Legend, the success of S2000, and the beauty of their manual transmissions.

4. Acura needs to have a better understanding of the luxury market. That translates to offering a variety of options in one car, and offering a variety of products (coupes, convertibles, wagons). People always compare Acura to the likes of Audi in the U.S. or North America, but keep in mind that we are now in the global market, and car companies cannot ignore the emerging markets from China and India. Audi is much more successful in the rest of the world, while no one outside NA cares about Acura

5. Bold and cutting edge designs. Be a leader. Take risks. The MDX is a good example. The refreshed RL and redesigned TSX grille are bad examples.

For people who own Honda and Acura, criticism can be hard to take, but in order for the company to be successful in the long haul, constructive criticism is the first step.

 

I basically with most of your points, I like the direction of "efficient of performance: but I just have a few things that I'd like to add.

I think Acura, or Honda knows what'st going on. They know that the Honda products are getting better every day, and like I said before, the upscale Honda thing will no longer work. I mean, people are already comparing the Accord with the RL. Acura/Honda knows that, and the y are working on fixing this problem.

1.) Yea, before the FWD platform would work. And it did worked brilliantly for the brand in terms of sales. But RWD platform would improve the image, likewise, a V8 or 10. Unfortunately for the brand, that means they need to develop a separate platform. Before, this could not be done because Acura was mainly for the North American market. Sure enough, it's a big market, but when sales were great, Honda did not want to mess it up. Now that Acura will go worldwide, and Honda branded cars are getting better, as well as the competition is even more intense. So indeed, RWD would definitely help, if not a must. I see SH-AWD as a intermediate step.

2.) Engine development seems to be slow lately at Honda. But A-VTEC is on its way, as well as diesel engines. Automatic transmission-wise, Honda sure has a hard time keeping up, considering that almost all other competitors use trannies from Jatco, Aisin, Getrag, or some other brand. However, Honda design their own transmissions instead.

3.) I think Acura should promote the performance in its cars. For example, the TL-S can lap faster than G35S 6MT and IS350 at Willow Springs for 2 seconds. It also laps faster than a G35S 6MT at Adelaide, and is very close to the WRX STi.

4.) Agree lack of options is the main reasons for the failure of the RL.

5.) The RL is ugly, the TSX on other hand looks good to me, but that's probably because I saw the RL first.

 

Is there a minimum unit sale to be considered Tier 2? It's not like they can’t keep the A6 and A8 on the lot. They combined to sell less than 20K units in 2007. Audi's 50K plus sales are weak compared to what I consider Tier 1. Better than Acura, but still weak in it's supposedly Tier 1 class.

 

Audi is doing much better as a brand globally. Don't just look at the U.S. numbers. Have you seen the stock price of the VW group for the last 3 years? It even handily beats BMW. Compare that to Honda and you know the story.

 

Acura isn't global. Audi is Audi either you like them or not. Like me, most in the US don't. Hence the low sales.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever to support either of those opinions. In fact, there is more evidence to suggest the opposite.

 

there may be no explicit evidence to support that they know what's going on, but I think they do yet chose to go a "different way". Unless Honda has been living under a rock for the past 10 years, there's no question what has worked and what has not worked in regard to promoting one's brand image.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not that out of touch with the market and are a smart enough company to know what's going on and what needs to be done to raise Acura's image...but based on recent history I won't give them the benefit of the doubt to actually do it. They would rather fail doing it their "different way" than to succeed copying the methods of others.

 

Please remember that German cars such as MB, BMW, and Audi can be custom ordered, and a lot of buyers are doing so. (As a sidenote, how about a bright yellow A6 or A8. Just slap down a couple hundred dollars and you can have the Audi in your favorite color, all covered under factory warranty. That's the beauty of custom ordering cars.) Those sitting collecting dust in the dealership lots are ordered by the dealerships themselves, and dealerships almost always order fully-loaded cars. This way they can reap big money out of those who are eager to drive away in a new Audi the next day.

A lot of these dealership-ordered fully-loaded cars will meet the similar fate as the gloomy 2nd gen RL. Ding ! Ding ! Ding ! Does it ring the bell, Acura ? The only difference is that these leftover German cars will be heavily discounted only at the end of the model year, whereas the RL will be heavily discounted throughout the whole year.

Minimum sales figure is not a good indicator to decide the Tier level. Hyundai is the luxury arm of the Kia/Hyundai group, in the same way Acura is the luxury arm of the Honda group. But whether the Hyundai's are luxury or not is purely subjective. If sales figure is used to determine Tier level, then Hyundai, with it's 467K total sales in 2007, should be even ahead of Lexus in the Tier-1 category.

A better indicator will be the price of the car a brand is able to sell. The higher the price consumers are willing to buy, the better the brand is.

Hyundai sales: 467,000 units
Lexus sales: 200,334 units (data provided by Mansa24)
Acura sales: 180,104 units (data provided by Mansa24)
Infiniti sales: 127,038 units (data provided by Mansa24)
Audi 93,506 units (data provided by Mansa24)

So Acura, having difficulty selling even a $50K car (another reason why the NSX shouldn't be axed), would automatically belong to a even lower Tier, but definitely above Hyundai.