April 2006
E = 3,778
5 = 3,699
M = 2,417
GS = 2,336
A6 = 1,555
RL = 1,031

vs

March 2006
5 = 5,265
E = 3,884
M = 2,629
GS = 2,483
STS = 2,217
A6 = 1,699
RL = 1,117

Source: http://www.clublexus.com/forums/show...5&page=1&pp=15



5 series - What happened here? Last month BMW sold ~5200 of them, thats a pretty sharp drop.

M35/45 - Glad to see it doing well. My favorite out of the rest of them.

RL - Sad to see it doing so poorly. Hopefully the less loaded RL coming out in the summer will help it get gain some sales.

 

that's a huge drop!

 

Maybe they were NOT offering a good lease deals for the 5 series in April. BMW was offering lease "specials" on the 3's. The 325i for example was $389 for 36 months with $3K + down and 10K miles/year here in CA. That probably cut into the 5 sales if their leases were not as attractive.

 

Lol, it was funny reading the club lexus guy's posts about the GS losing to the M, just to reassure themselves in thier "supremacy". I mean, why would Toyota limit production output of the GS(one of their excuses), if their goal is to sell alot of them? Its not like the GS lost to the M by alot.

 

Weak ... my bro has a GS300AWD and it's really nice but I was perplexed at how soft the brakes were. Took it in to the dealership and he was told it was "within spec". ??? This is the first ever Lex that had brakes that soft. My car at over 60,000 miles has more feel and bites more than his practically new brakes.

Meanwhile, I did test drive a M35 in the fall and it felt just fine. Good brakes, good acceleration, quiet interior. I wonder how the sport suspension would be?

When I read that article about Toyota's woes (ie new Camry and Avalon) ... maybe there is less luster to the Lexus "high quality" armor. But I don't think there is a correlation -- Camrys / Avalons are assembled in Kentucky while the GS is assembled in Japan.

 

Yeah, that's really a huge dip for the 5. I'm pleased to see the M do better than the GS for the second month in a row (M's my favorite). Still, they're practically neck and neck. I love my dad's '06 GS300. It's a nice ass car. I just enjoyed the M a bit more (it's has a stiffer ride) when we test drove it.

 

Personal obersvation on the E60 5 series: I see boatloads of the 530i and few M5s (...just saw a silver one in Weehawken and a black one in midtown NYC yesterday) but have yet to see a 550i. And after having driven the 545i, I am REALLY starting to like the E60 more than the M.....and I am a Nissan guy!!

 

All the folks who normally buy such a car had to pay uncle Sam.

 

I don't think a less loaded version is the answer for the RL. If they could simply take the original Legend design and update that type of styling for the 2007 car market, the would sell a ton. The current bodystyle simply doesn't hold a candle to the likes of the M, 5 series GS, etc..

 

[QUOTE=SeCsTaC]STUPID 5 MINUTE RULE!!

^^ I'm not saying it should look like a 95 Legend, but the design of that car said luxury. Imagine if it had not been changed to the current RL.. A current design based off the mid 90's style would look something along the lines of the new Lexus LS (in my head, at least )... only with Acura flair.

 

According to the dealers who post on other sites, Acura won't allow competitive lease deals (which is what really moves these cars). That's why you see people posting on the RL forum about getting one for like 42K-43K, that's a whopping discount!

 

hello it was tax month. retail stores take a hit too around this time because of tax season. I don't think these numbers are that mcuh to be looked into because of that.

 

I think there is a discord between dealers/consumers and Acura corporate.

Dealers are the ones that are selling the RL at discounted prices while Acura maintains the "MSRP". Dealers are the ones that deal directly with consumers and what their likes/dislikes are concerning purchase and lease prices, features, style, etc, and they are the ones that do what needs to be done to move product, such as lower sale prices.

Acura corporate, OTOH, probably holds the RL in higher esteem than dealers and consumers and are still scratching their heads as to why it is not selling as well as they hoped. They are probably not allowing competitive lease deals because they are saying, "What?! This is RL. MSRP and lease rate competitive already! BUY NOW! American no like? American SOOOO stupid! YOU BUY! RL no sucky sucky! RL goooood. You no buy? You duuuuuumb!"

 

What's even funnier is you could easily replace RL with "V8" or "RWD coupe". Acura...

 

If it was really because of tax season, why didn't this translate across the board?

i'd typically agree, but if you notice, most competitors in this segment remained relatively even (within several hundred) from March to April, except for the 5-series which took a 1500+ unit dive from March sales numbers.

Maybe the IRS had undercover agents try to figure out what car people were driving...if they saw a BMW in your driveway, you AUTOMATICALLY qualified for AMT!

 

by the IRS

 

more with the rwd v8 talk. i want to see how much of the competitors sales are made up of v6s. that should finally shut people up about "RL needs a v8"

 

Even if only half of GS and M sales were V8's the V6 versions of those cars would still outsell the RL.

I doubt half were V8's, maybe 25%? which makes RL sales look even worse by comparison.

 

Halo effect.

Acura didn't need a $90k car that lost money on every sale either (all of several hundred per year!)...but they offered it because it gave the brand a certain "image" which contributes to sales.

Same with a v8. Automakers don't offer it because it contributes to sales/profit margins directly, but because it portrays the brand as being able to compete more effectively against what the competition has to offer.

None of these cars need a V8 (shit...none of them need a v6/I6 for that matter). But all of these cars NEED a V8 if they want to have a fighting chance of competing with the best sellers in this segment.

If Acura is tired of the RL and A6 competing for least sales in this segment, Acura NEEDS a V8.



Analogy: You get a high school diploma. You can get a job at your local franchised restaurant or hardware store and make a living. It's not the best living, but it's a living. You don't NEED more than a high school diploma.

But then a job opens up at XYZ company for an entry level position stating "HS diploma required". Hey, YOU have a high school diploma, so you submit an application. Unforutnately 5 other people with Associates and Bachelor degrees also submit applications. You had enough to get into the running, but do you really think you have a fighting chance against the competition?

 

15% is the number that Acura was throwing around when rationalizing for the lack of a V8.

 

:ibmyinnocentcommentturnsthisthreadintoanother"Hon daneeds/doesn'tneedaV8"thread:

 

I wonder if the fact that the RL and A6 are the only two in that list that are only available with AWD means anything.

 

Probably. RL, when Acura was more optimistic, was slated to be a 20K unit a year vehicle. The Audi is 24K unit a year. And nobody's on waiting lists for those two, so I don't think it's one of those artificial limited supply deal. They just realize the market isn't that big for AWD, and fortunately for their sake, they were pretty much right on the money.

Although...the previous RL, sans AWD, sold in similar numbers in its heydays (before slipping to the dismal 400 unit/month sales volume).

 

Well, at the going rate of sales, the lower the number Acura throws around, the WORSE it makes the RL look in terms of sales competition to the big-3-J...which is the real competition for all intents and purposes.

let's go with 15% and April sales...

RL: 1031
M: 2417
GS: 2336

V6 sales (estimated 85% of total, rounded up to nearest whole unit)
RL: 1031 (100% since they have no v8)
M: 2055
GS: 1986
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So at 15% of V8's sold, the RL is still selling under the competition. But then IF Acura comes out and says that the % of V8's sold is actually 10%, further strengthening their position against developing a V8:

V6 sales (90% of total, rounded up to the nearest whole unit)
RL: 1031
M: 2176
GS: 2103

This makes the RL look even worse relative to V6 competitors because as the % estimate for V8 decreases, the % estimate for V6 units for the competition INCREASES.

 

but unfortunately, these are the only 2 FWD based models at an AWD/RWD only party...so they pretty much have no choice but to stay AWD.

let's say for example that either the GS or M were offered ONLY as AWD models and sold poorly, they could "decontent" them into RWD models...not so for the RL or A6.

 

I already made that point in post #18 but thanks for doing the math.

 

where do you think I got the idea to actually do the math?

 

So whats the answer here?

The others sell so well and the RL so poorly because...

A) They also offer a V8
B) Because they're also available in RWD as well as AWD
C) Because they have inspired styling
D) Have option packages
E) Favorable lease rates
F) All of the above

IMO the answer in obvious, all of the above.

 

This explains why my sister in law, got a 2.6% financing on a 530Xi a month ago.

 

when other automakers sense "weakness" in sales, they pounce on it with lease incentives or special financing.

I remember after test driving the RL last August (after knowing people have been getting RLs for $42-43k), the dealer called me up to offer me a special "promotion" Acura was doing to move the RL in preparation for the 2006 models to arrive, $1500 off MSRP, no questions asked!

man, that was a sweet deal that I regret not taking advantage of.

I think Honda overall has been caught up on being the lowest incentive automaker lately and its going to their heads.

Only people who are "in the know" know about getting the RL for $42-43k...while most people are still being told "These things are selling like hotcakes, we try to stick to MSRP!", which is exactly what I was told.

 

No, it's because it's overpriced

 

Two things.

The 5 went through model change in march (2007 was released to production in march).

In addition, there is a service campaign on all 5 series due to struts issues. So there are about 3 weeks of backup at VDC since mid april. Hence BMW has not been able to deliver 5 series at rate it liked. This will also probably affect their may sales number. But it should show a big rebound after that as service campaign gets done. The west coast cars that are effected by the service campaign just hit port end of april and will continue through mid may.

Nothing to do with incentive nor sales being slow. Just happened at bad time when BMW switched model year and have issues with struts assembly.

 

Congrats to the M in beating out the GS for the second month in a row

 

 

Goes to show that you don't need pedigree if your cars are hot enough. It helps, but you can do without it. Cases in point: the M and the G. It'll be really interesting to see Infiniti do this with the Q, since that's where the heritage shit is really played up.

 

Even with mid lux sedans, brand prestige plays a big role. I mean the M tops out at about 60k already. This just shows that infiniti still has that brand prestige appeal even with its past failures. That and the fact the M is an awesome car. But you are right, in the Q's segment it will be alot harder. I mean you'll have the 7 series, s-class, the LS460, A8, etc. to compete with. If infiniti releases a ground breaking product, Im sure it will compete well. They better get it right this time around though as this is the last product in the infiniti line that needs to be redone

 

just make a bigger, stronger and luxurier version of M, and fix that rear. then badge it Q.


current Q is absolutely horrendous.

 

The current Q (like the current B15 Sentra) is a carryover from the previous generation of Nissans. Like NASA's space shuttle, the Q has been upgraded to the Nth degree but, is in need of a replacement at this point.

 

I think I'm in the small percentage who happens to like the Q's styling. Think the interior could be far better, though.

 

I think the Q's interior and exterior were sufficient for when it was introduced. The rest of the car were also sufficient. But similar to the RL's problem, "sufficient" may get you an invitation to the race but doesn't guarantee you can compete with the top runners.