cp3117

Yours is definately the most surprising statement. Do you not get Road and Track, Car and Driver etc etc in NJ ???

There are many comparo's where Acura's are compared to Buick, VW, Nissan etc etc. Some are even compared to the entry level tier one vehicles. The problem though is far to often that the Acura is continually losing the comparo's and are often commented on not being luxurious enough. This is why I stated they are more comparable to mainstream brands (they can still be cross-shopped etc with other entry level luxury vehicles though) and I have never said that a TL or an A4 are not entry level competitors, its just IMO that the A4 is more luxurious.....You have to admit that there are some serious luxury issues when a low package mainstream VW CC is deemed to be more luxurious than a higher (so-called Luxury brand) Acura TSX.

As far as the general public cross shopping Acura. Any consumer can technically cross shop anything they like but the majority of people I know that have purchased an Acura never seriously cross shopped with the tier one brands. If someone wants to cross shop a TL vs a 535i they can fill their boots for all I care but when they come on here and then claim that its the same vehicle and $20+k less.....well they are just trying to justify their purchase and probably never intended on purchasing the higher value vehicle anywayand really should have been looking at an RL instead.

You make some good points as usual Docboy but as I mentioned above and over the years I have been here I have never said that entry level vehicles like the A4, C-Class etc arent competitive with other entry vehicles like the TL

The comments from Edmunds are generally directed towards the performance of the TL vs the 535 and in particular the low volume 6MT. There are other vehicles that can also perform as good as a 535 but it doesnt mean the luxury standard is there. I have read reviews where someone compared the new Impreza WRX STi to an Audi S4 based on performance but it doesnt mean they are the same from a luxury standpoint just because they may have fancy Nav's, leather, etc etc.

Many people here want to always compare the 4G TL to the 535i and claim great value status but people dont seem to remember that the RL is what Acura designed to compete with the 535i and even Acura's marketing material backs my point.

MARKET SUMMARY

Key 6-cylinder competitors in the RL's segment include the Audi A6 3.0 Quattro, BMW 535i, Lexus GS 350 and Mercedes-Benz E350.

http://www.hondanews.com/channels/ac...l-introduction

While the TL is generally marketed towards the A4, 3 series with the exception that it does mention the A6 and 5 Series etc but this is obviously the base models and mostly due just to its size. Many here have already stated this doesnt mean its automatically a direct competitor but from an Acura marketing standpoint it makes sense.

I am not sure why but you do have a lot of bias and anger towards the Audi brand. Even when proven that Audi uses real leather as standard equiptment you still refuse to accept it.

The reason why i didnt respond to your lack of knowledge about the Audi brand is because your reasoning for your knowledge was because you lived in Europe . Im sorry but I know many people born and raised here in NA and they dont have a clue about GM, Ford etc.

Your comment about how VW made up Audi in the late 70's just like how Honda made up Acura etc is so far from the truth its like say saying VW made up Bentley, Lambo etc and that they didnt actually purchase the companies. (If i remember correctly Audi AG purchased Lamborghini even though they are all under the VW group umbrella......

Although i didnt really quote or misrepresent anything I can see where you could have mistaken what I said and I apologise for that. The TL and CC comparison was from a R&T comparo done last year I believe.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/co...c-3.6l-4motion

I hear ya......

I have owned many of the Shadow lines years ago and a CR 125 and a 250R Trike. All very good machines and some of the best bikes out there.

cp3117

Are you actually serious with that statement ??

The best place to look when trying to get an unbias view on any forum is the problems section.

Over the years you have had the most bias views about Acura compared to other brands in the 4G section. The 4G section is where the most bias information is when trying to get info on a certain vehicle someone may want to purchase (On any forum not just Acurazine), but there are exceptions.

This doesnt imply to everyone and some of the more credible people that give views on both sides fairly are Technocat, Docboy, etc.........and look what happens when someone like Techno gives a fair review both positive and negative about an Acura, Audi or any other brand. He's generally attacked by yourself and others when voicing a valid negative fact or opinion about Acura.

Im sorry, but I would sooner get my info regarding reliability and quality about a brand/model from the problems section or by someone that gives honest reviews regardless of the brand. Im honestly tired reading another bias statement after bias statement from yourself where you always try to spin a negative fact about an Acura product (especially the 4G) into something where Acura purposely designed it that way because its superior for whatever reason/opinion you believe.......but in turn it is an open forum and you have every right to post whatever you like.

Myself and others here can see the positive and negative side of Acura (overall mostly positive). You really need to try and do the same.


I hope your not reffering to the recent thread created in the last few days.

The funny thing is that its basically 50/50 right now where people are having a great experience and the other half having a horrible experience which basically confirms my earlier point.

Yes, I agree and the OP should have his answer.

You cant get any clearer than what Acura management and CEO's have been stating for 2 years now about their "Luxury" status. Although you will still get the odd few with the usual smokescreen stating...."but but but reliability, safety, crashtest ratings" etc etc even though the competition can be equally competitive in those areas as well and really has nothing to do from a luxury standpoint.

winstrolvtec

Are you saying you have seriously considered a 4G for a new vehicle purchase? Just to be clear what cars do you own?

You are correct biased info does come out of the 4G section in a positive light but so does biased info in a negative light because those who have isues are not happy. That is no less of a nuetral stance, just look at all the bitter folks in Automotive news and Car Talk sections from the early 2000's who had Acura tranny issues, over ten years later and they still haven't gotten over it. That is more than uncalled for bais towards a new product which does not have tranny issues and they are not even familiar with.

Doc is credible, Techno not so much he has owned nothing but Audis over a 15 years with exception to a short run with a TL but respectively, I listen to what he has to say. Ok doesn't it sound strange that you want to get unbiased reviews from the PROBLEMS section and not also the regular sections as well? You want an unbiased review, I have never had a single issue with an Acura product for over 10 years so add that to your list of Acura problems. That is IMO less baised than someone who has a problem if not me who is the "fanboy" than use the countless new owners who are very happy.

I don't know what your problem is, we simply state where the car is great and also displays where it falls short. You just don't like what you are hearing, obviously. There is no mistaking Acura's position on crash test, resale and reliability, cost effectiveness. There is no mistaking how large the TL is and how performance oreinted it is. It's luxury level is average IMO for entry level but it still belongs there and no it's not on the same luxury level of a 5 series which does cost $20k more comparably equipped but that doesn't mean it doesn't or can't excel in other areas. The problem is you are trying to define a luxury standard by your opinion and something objective out of the subjective luxury.

Sure cars like the CC, Avalon, Maxima, etc are luxurious for the mainstream because they are slotted as the most premium mainstream product (which Honda and others do not have) those brands offer so naturally they will resemble entry level luxury. Everything else is largely subjective, please let me know where I am mistaken with anything above.

You make it sound as though others have no problems and don't also have pages of issues from actual owners. If anything Acurazine is the most popular Acura forum base and the 4G problems section is rather small in comparison to others, yes some may also sell more but many competitors don't and still have a larger problems section. Balanced statement on my part.

You also act as if you don't spin things in favor of others. The A4 2.0T is weak sauce but how many times have you completely defended it but objectively, it's true and that's just one example. You want to discuss, lets discuss, but please don't act like you are any better or less biased. I think my summary above proves my neutral stance on the TL and the reality of the situation but why you insist that it's wrong is beyond me. You should check yourself before you try and call others out.

I hope by horrible experience you mean they have one or two rattles which I have never been in a car that didn't have at least one or some kind of quality issue, no matter how small. I think that confirms my earlier post regarding your position here.

saturno_v

This is going to be my last post on this thread, I did already gave my farewell to the other I was writing on and I'm leaving Acurazine for good.
I thought it was a place where we could discuss about technology, brand issues, comparing with the competiton, etc... It did not turn to be exactly that way...if you even attempt to defend the brand you are labeled as "fanboy", no articulate debate, no counterpoints...there is a lot of anger directed at the brand which I frankly do not understand, at least not completely...sorry not my cup of cake...however I do not want to comment further on this.

Dislaimer: I'm not a brand loyalist or, worse, fanatic, this is my first Acura and if the next time around a company will offer a more compelling package for my needs and wants I will switch without the blink of an eye.

However, here you go, my final "debate" I promise....

The only comparison that I saw, so far, between an Acura and a Buick was for the TSX on Car & Driver, however the same C&D list as top competitors for the TSX the Audi A4, the Lexus IS, the Lincoln MKZ, the Saab 9-3 and the Volvo S40

Here you go:



Link: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/..._tsx-road_test

So maybe is that some models of VW and Buick moved upscale (the CC and the CXL) rather than Acura going down.....

The main problem with Acura (and that makes them losing comparos) at the moment is the polarizing style...look at the High and Cons, for example in the snippet of the TSX I just posted.

I like that better..."IMO".....everybody has opinions.

The CC is indeed a very nice car, VW is trying to move upmarket since long time (the Phaeton, the W8 Passats, the top end Touaregs, etc..)

To be honest, IMHO, I find the CC interiors a bit more luxurious, rich and with a nicer style than a comparable Audi A4....general feeling, personal taste.

If I had some interest in remaining on this site, I would take the time some day to take a picture of an Acura dealer used car lot and you would see quite few Lexuses, BMWs or Audis, etc...

I did cross shopped the 5 X-Drive Series (and I'm not the only one), first of all I did not like it as much (inside and out), second no manual transmission, third I felt that it was not worth the price difference (again, IMHO)
While the mainstream press does not mention the 5 series as a general top competitor for the TL (some do but not as main competitor) Acura intentions was to slot the car exactly between the 3 Series and 5 Series and between the A4 and the A6, the TL basically compete between the upper end of the spectrum for the 3 and the A4 (330, 335 and S4) and the entry level 5 and A6 (528, 535 and A6 3.2, 3.0T)

This is a snippet of a press relase from Acura found on Hondanews.com

====================================

LUXURY MARKET STATUS
The 2011 TL enters the competitive luxury market at an ideal time as the segment in which it competes is expected to remain strong into the next decade. Available with the largest and most powerful engine in TL history, along with the sport-driving focused SH-AWD® system (the world's first torque-vectoring AWD system when introduced in 2000), the 2011 TL competes with vehicles such as the Audi A4 and A6, BMW 3-Series and 5-Series, Infiniti G35 and M35, Lexus ES, GS and IS sedans, and the Mercedes-Benz C-Class and E-Class.

=======================================

This is coming from Acura, not from me....

Link to the article: http://hondanews.com/channels/acura-...ra-tl-overview


I totally agree that the RL, at the moment, IMHO, has not many reasons to exists in its current form...just more luxurious interiors, same interior space and external dimensions, same powertrain is not enough to differentiate, again IMHO.


[quote]
The comments from Edmunds are generally directed towards the performance of the TL vs the 535 and in particular the low volume 6MT.
[quote]

My opinion is that the comments from Edmunds seems to confirm Acura intentions...the TL can compete with the entry-mid level 5 Series, I do not think the 6MT has nothing to do with it.

I do not have "anger" against Audi...I just had consistent bad experiences with them (and some other othe people that I know including another family member) and I think that if you ask a premium price you should be held to a higher standard also when it comes to reliability...

Other than that, personally I find Audi styling boring, I do not find their current interiors appealing in design, nor elegant, not particularly luxurious (this last is directed at the A4) they did made gorgeaous, elegant rich interiors in the past. I personally do not think they are worth the extra dollars but people pay for them so if they are happy everybody is happy....no anger at all I just do not currently like their current cars but I'm ready to change my mind in the future.

Another issue I noticed is that many Audi owners (maybe coincidence, who knows) seems to be a little bit on the "I feel superior and exclusive" side in your face with not many actual facts to back that up...again my impression and feelings, I may be wrong...and I shoudl not let that getting under my skin too much... :-)

I apologize, my mistake, forgive me....I lumped them together with Mercedes (on the C-Class) and BMW (3 Series)

True...and you live in Northamerica and probably are not very well informed about Audi .

I frankly do not understand that comment.

Bentley was constantly making luxurious cars for decades before VW bought them up.

Lamborghini since its venturing in the automotive world made only top end exotic cars.

Let me give you an introduction about Audi.

The Audi brand was born in 1909 when one of the founders of another car company, Horch, was forced out of the firm.
In the early 30's the company was acquired by the owner of another manufacturer and it was merged with other 3 firms (including the original Horch) forming the short lived Auto Union corporation (the 4 rings logo) with each company selling their cars under their own brand name.
Audi never produced particularly luxurious high end cars (Horch instead did for few years) nor it was particularly innovative..it did win few sporting events.

Under the Auto Union banner (which it was not a commerical brand) were built racing cars (the Silver Arrow era) that for a short period of time between 1935 and 1937 were very successful in competitions.

The WWII put basically an end to Auto Union in its current form.

A new Auto Union was founded after WWII with loans from the Marshall Plan, it produced economical cars and small motorcycles. Ironically, the company was acquired by Daimler-Benz in 1958. The plan for Daimler was to use the company to sell mass market economical models and later on develop front wheel drive cars, relatively new at the time.
However, because of lack of profitability, Auto Union was sold to VW in the 60s.

VW initially used large part of the production capacity of the company to increase the production of the Beetle.
The brand name Audi was resurrected at the end of the 60s, with VW continuing the original Daimler-Benz plan to use the company to develop front wheel drive mass market cars. In 1969 VW acquired an economical supermini car manufacturer called NSU and decided to merge it with Audi.
NSU and Audi models were sold at the same dealerships.
VW used the NSU brand in its attempt to commercialize its patented Wankel engine with disastrous results. The car, the Ro80 was very good looking but reliability was horrendous...it was dropped after few years.
The first Audi car arrived in the US in 1970.

In the early 70s Audi powertrains, suspensions and styling started to be used in new FWD VW models (K70, first Passat, the Polo supermini, Audi 50 supermini, etc...).
Around that time there was a big reorganization effort at VW and it was decided that Audi, from that moment on, would become the premium brand for VW. Ferdinand Piech spearheaded the effort with the clever dusting off and marketing of the long past tenuous Auto Union/Horch connection.
The first somewhat luxurious Audi model was introduced in 1976, the Audi 100 (C2)...from that moment on the rest is history (Audi still had several problems in the United States with the failure prone Audi 100/200/5000, the C3 series, which marred the brand reputation for years)

So Audi is nothing more than an premium brand of VW, there is a lot of component sharing with the parent company and a very tenuous connection, at best, with a somewhat short lived past with occasional sparks of glory.

I usually put a little more effort in exposing my arguments than just "you are wrong"

Bear in mind....I do not think that even Bugatti or Maybach for that matter have the heritage and prestige of Mercedes or BMW...they were short lived early 19th century luxurious brands, dead for decades and decades and cleverly re-used to introduce very high end vehicles, no corporate or historical connection with the original companies.

It is just the just outgoing model (plus you can imagine all the engine and suspension sharing)....I still have to see Mercedes or BMW doing that at that level....as far as I know, Mercedes gave in the past the right to use some of their VERY old platforms and engines to produce cars destined to limousine use in Asia. Mercedes sells some of its diesel engines to some car companies.

The issue was not if something was born as "Audi" or as "VW", that is a moot point anyway (same corporate umbrella) but just the full scale sharing of components that, in my view, does not give Audi the aura of exclusivity that BMW and Mercedes can claim (on top of their vastly superior consistent historical heritage)...again this doesnot mean that current Audi cannot be as luxurious...luxury is one thing, brand image an heritage is another.


I do not follow much the SUV market, what I can tell you is that when we got the Tribeca for my wife years ago, we cross shopped with the V6 Touareg (one of the most common cross-shopping at that time in that segment)
At that time the luxury SUV in the VW family, in that particular segment, was the Porsche Cayenne 3.2

Motortrend mentioned the Subaru Tribeca as a Touareg competitor..Subaru is not a premium or luxury brand.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...eca/index.html

Car & Driver put the Touareg V6 on a test with the Ford Explorer, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Mitsubishi Montero, Nissan Pathfinder and Toyota 4Runner, hardly premium or luxury names....

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...mparison_tests

Now, it is possible that VW moved the Touareg upscale (They got the Cayenne up there already so what's the point??) and I'm unaware of.

On the other side, certain vehicles are considered borderline luxury or premium...maybe some consider the Tribeca a luxury SUV (from a non premium brand) similarly to the Maxima being considered by some (including specialized press) as a luxury or near luxury car even if it comes from a mainstream brand....I just think that in some automotive segments or for some particular car the characterization (falling in one or the other category) is highly subjective.

Finally, the only "gripe" (if we can call that, again I'm not a brand loyalist) with Acura is that they refused so far to take the brand in the higher segments where I believe they could do extremely well...I think that if Acura competed with the other brands across the entire spectrum a lot of the "anger" I saw on this site would evaporate even at the current production models...


That said, guys has been a pleasure meeting you and good luck for the future...it has been a short and let's say..."intense" experience....happy Acurazine to everyboy I'm out.


Cheers.

winstrolvtec

I actually like this post as it can sum up both sides of the debate. It is very true that the competition can be equally competitive in those areas but I don't think that they are all exactly there in all of the phases combined but very competitive nontheless, not bad at all, and that is also true that Acura is equally competitive in luxury although often regarded as having a little less (but not paying for it at the same time) but still largely competitive there just the same. That's really the point.

Most cases those areas really have nothing to do with luxury, I agree, which is the topic but not many actual consumers stop at the perceived level of luxury in buying a car. The luxury aspect (which at the same time you usually pay more for) makes the car more or less luxurious, not necessarily a better car just because of that while superior resale, reliability, crash test and things along those lines, makes the car a great car, usually better, regardless of luxury position or amount. That should clear up both sides of the debate. It mostly trade offs and comes down to preferences and priorities, with cost factored in, nothing more or less.

MyCarIsntInMyWifesName

I guess I simply do not understand what you're saying with this statement. The Seat Exeo is a cheapened, decontented Audi, not the other way around as you originally said. You said, and I quote, "Many Audis are luxury VWs." You later used the Seat as an example. That's why it your comment was incorrect. I'm not trying to chew you up, just stating the facts.

But it actually isn't moot because they aren't the same thing. Audi has their own set of engineers and designers. VW is interesting in that many of their brands have completely different engineers serving their specific brand. Many use cross pollination much more heavily, like Ford or GM.

I agree with your relations and heritage comment.

There's a difference in what you're comparing however. Many middleclass SUVs can be equipped to be as expensive and as feature laden as some luxury SUVs. CarandDriver compared the GMC Envoy to the Lexus GX several years ago. Is the GX a middleclass SUV? No, but like I said you can equip vehicles to compete closer than you might think.

TechnoCat

As my daily driver. In my household, (which has been a single significant other, though which one changed a while ago), we've had in the last 14 years...

• The four Audis
• Two Subarus
• One Saturn
• One Chevy
• The Acura
• Three Toyotas (SUV and trucks)
• Three Fords
• One Mercedes

Some of these didn't last long - the Chevy truck, though purchased new, wasn't reliable enough. The first Suby was pre-owned and had some issues. The second one was fantastic, except for the rattles/squeaks. The Saturn wasn't so good. The Toyotas were bone-solid reliable but unexciting.

In addition, I've been in (and done some driving of) BMW and Porsches a lot, and have had a lot of time in long-term (2+ weeks) rentals in the "luxury" class, including some other Mercedes, Lincoln MKZ (liked it), several Cadillacs (not so much), Chrysler 300 upscale model (hated the handling, otherwise okay genericar), Dodge Magnum station wagon (one wheel drive - who thought that up!) and some other odd ones.

Not that it matters. You don't consider me credible because I don't agree with you. At least be honest about it.

winstrolvtec

I believe you are credible but not the most credible as you don't have any more of a nuetral position on the matter than myself, most don't. Your view of luxury really surrounds Audi and their approach as that is the only consistent luxury ownership experience you have had. Not saying that my luxury ownership experiences are any better but I can find as many areas and details in the A4/S4 that you find in the TL to make the case that it is a lesser luxury vehicle just the same but the difference is I have never said the A4 is a lesser luxury vehicle or tried to stress that idea, so I don't know if it's an issue with either car necessarily or maybe it's more the different perspective or perceptions.

Where you see a lagging luxury experience in the TL because of all the areas and details you regularly mention, I don't see more areas of luxury in an A/S4 than a TL at the same time, especially when built to the same prices. In an A6, 5 series, RL and the rest, there is absolutely more luxury than a TL as there is a line drawn (in my mind at least) of how much of the term luxury can be defined subjectively but also objectively. In the entry cars I see many different approaches, draws, and trade offs but not enough that I could make a case for one being more luxury than the other. That even includes those who consider the G below the TL in that regard where I don't. Those comparisons of luxury are more subjective, an Accord compared to an S class is more objective.

The only issue is that I am not sure you consider or view what I do as also being less luxury in the A4 or more luxury in the TL and vice versa. So like you have said before, it really has little or no meaning. It seems luxury on a close or similar level has more to do with perception and image than it does with anything really related to the car itself and that is probably a huge part of why Acura is not viewed as highly when it comes to luxury in each segment they compete in because they don't have that image.

TechnoCat

I believe I have a more neutral position than you... I have, in the last 12 months, bought both. That's about as neutral as possible. And while you and I see the Acura TL on different sides of the "luxury" line, since Acura Corporate agrees with me (I've posted cites where they have backed away from "luxury" previously), again I think that makes me a bit more neutral.

My main challenge with the TL SH-AWD was not in the omission of features, but in the failure to follow them all the way through. It has nice seats, but a terrible head restraint. iPod interface that isn't fully implemented. Nav that doesn't integrate to the phone book. Loud hard to partially open sunroof. No folding seats. AWD lacks a flat trunk floor. Exposed styrofoam. Subaru-like rattles. But I do agree that it has the major checkboxes and, for the money, a LOT more performance than Audi. It's a fast, solid, reliable, large feature-laden sports-sedan. Where I think your neutrality falls down is that you aren't satisifed that it can be all that - you want to have it be an Audi beater too... in every category But the Audi A4 doesn't claim to be a large fast sports-sedan. That's not where it beats the TL SH-AWD. So it shouldn't be surprising that the A4 does something better. A neutral observer would be willing to credit that.

Mr Marco

saturno_v “This is going to be my last post on this thread, I did already gave my farewell to the other I was writing on and I'm leaving Acurazine for good.
I thought it was a place where we could discuss about technology, brand issues, comparing with the competiton, etc... It did not turn to be exactly that way...if you even attempt to defend the brand you are labeled as "fanboy", no articulate debate, no counterpoints...there is a lot of anger directed at the brand which I frankly do not understand, at least not completely...sorry not my cup of cake...however I do not want to comment further on this.”
Here is something that might explain the issues with AZ,
From BBspot.com
Wednesday, August 5 12:00 AM ET

Study Confirms 82% of People Online are Assholes
By Brian Briggs

Palo Alto, CA - Researchers at Stanford University have confirmed what many of us have suspected for years: that 82% of people online are assholes.Rajit Dhamanpour, a professor of sociology at Stanford, headed the research group that conducted the study. "We ran the study over a period of three years using surveys, direct observation and other methods to gather our data," said Dhamanpour. "My hypothesis that everyone online was an asshole was disproved, but I'm still happy with the results."Not everyone is an asshole though. The study showed that 5% of people are "assfucks" and 3% are "asshats" (see chart). The remainder of the population was spread between a variety of other categories like "dickwads," "retards," and "buttmunches." Surprisingly "jerks" only made up 0.5% of the online population.It's not all bad out there though. "Nice people," "kind souls," and "normals" each gathered 0.001% in the results.Internet user Eric Burston said, "I don't know what the fuck is wrong with that dickhead (0.8%), but he obviously has been surfing on a different Internet than I have. Everyone I meet is a fuckface (1.2%), except for my clan members."Dhamanpour said the Internet just mirrors what we find in the offline society. "You'll find a lot of assholes in your everyday life as well," said Dhamanpour. "Like just this morning I didn't go when the light turned green for one second and this asshole behind me lays on his horn."The research might lead to more public service announcements asking people to refrain from being assholes, but a similar ad campaign in 1974 increased the asshole population by 3%."I'm not sure what can be done about this problem," said Dhamanpour. "If you ask me, we should just kill all those motherfuckers (1.5%)."The study was conducted under a grant by the National Jerkwad Council and the Coalition for a Less Dicky America.

jasonwdp10

your rude replies to my (and others) posts and your general rudeness on these forums says you're part of that 82% anyways.

GOOD RIDDANCE saturno_v

Mr Marco

^HA! I couldn't agree with you more! I'm a complete asshole.

As far as the car debate goes, I'm saving my money for a personal driver. I am already crazy as a Sarah Palin on the rag, and drive like an Italian. Who cares what kind of car it is...I just want blacked out windows in the back so I can snort big "Biker" size lines of cocaine en-route to the strip-club.

jasonwdp10

actually.. that whole msg was directed at saturno_v!

compewterbleu

Wow, what a thread. All those pubs are a bunch of jibba-jabba about nothing. They gray the area between brands when it suits the need of the advertiser( the manufacturer lining their pockets). S-4, we all read and know the deal, we also understand the "peer pressure affect" and "the snob affect." With that said enjoy your Audi's.

winstrolvtec

Where you're off is that Acura uses smart luxury to describe their overall brand approach to luxury not overly related to the amount of luxury perceived within each vehicle in class. Trying to be as objective as subjective can be, the TSX is below the competition in luxury, the TL is right there for entry competiton, the RL is right there, the MDX as well, the RDX a bit below, and the ZDX is there as well although it prabably only has one true competitior.

Smart luxury is a good way to play off not offering a full comliment of vehicle's and variants that others have and it's a way to escape the RWD, V8 image, and true luxury and sport flagship, again not really having much to do with perceived level of luxury indivdually. As far as the brand as a whole, sure, I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean an Acura vehicle can't be up to luxury standards of a direct competitor. Your wrong to assume that and that is my point of the whole image and perception discussion.

I am sorry I just don't see more luxury in an A4 with it's share of luxury shortcomings. You like to list these areas of lacking so called luxury in the TL, by your definition of that, but I don't think folding seats are luxury related, nor is a flat trunk because they are actually utility and you can find Tier 1 labelled cars that also share in that and rattles are not a constant or a given. I have none but could find an A4 that does and the oppsoite is true as well but that is not related to luxury more like quality and is more on an individual vehicle basis, not in general.

Full ipod integration is actually a feature so more features as you have said are not necessarily more luxury but could be and could even fall under technology of which the TL has plenty that the A4 does not have either. The sunroof being noisy is luxury related but I haven't seen one person here to agree with that observation or opinion and it's obviously related to the sunroof size differences which could be considered more or less luxurious depending on how you look at it (which is perception) or maybe it is a trade off but if the noise level is subjective as is the head restraint comfort (mine is great) how much of a case can be made for it being luxury?

There is a major flaw in your discussions and it's how you always approach it from a personal position not a generalized one and that makes for far less nuetrality than everyone else. Your position is this is how the vehicle affected me negatively so that must be the case for everyone and you want to attempt to list them all under the term luxury and that is not where they all belong. You contradict yourself by placing image, utility, technology, quality, and features under the term luxury but when someone else attempts to use those or relability, resale, value, or crash test you say it has nothing to do with a luxury position, how's that for a double standard? I actually agree with that though but so is the case for the many areas you constantly list.

It's simple to see your perspective on the matter. Everything the TL lacks, and mostly by your opinion with the fact that it is a Honda/Acura, is why it is not as luxurious but everywhere the A/S4 excels, also mostly by your opinion, it has to be considered luxury because it is simply more luxurious to you because it's an Audi and that is one of the most biased positions on the entire forum and internet. You are as welcome to be here as anybody else but also just the fact that you are here harping over the same stuff since day one, after you have moved on from the TL, without a change in tune, is even more evidence of that.

compewterbleu

You will never win with the TechnoKitty, his body is here in our dimension, but his brain is an alternate delusional universe of Katniptonia. I can't recall the post but he pretty much said his views and taste were superior to any mere Acura 4G owners, where is Wonder Dog when you need him! "HELP, SAVE US WONDER DOG!"

TechnoCat

I do, very much, thank you. Excepting the seating problems, I mostly enjoyed the TL SH-AWD 6MT also. All cars have shortcomings (yes, both Audis and Acuras included), and both the TL and the S4 are great fun rides better than anything around 20 years ago.

TechnoCat

That makes a certain amount of sense. I don't know anything about the TSX, but it is notched below the BMW/Audi class.

I don't fully follow you on features vs luxury. How are you defining luxury? You've mentioned size frequently, but that's very wrong; small Porsches and Mercedes are more luxurious than most large cars. I prefer cars a bit smaller than the TL for parking reasons, though the TL's cameras made it easier. (The S4 has camera and audio warnings, a nice touch.)

In other words, when you say I come at this from a personal rather than generalized position, what would be the generalized position in your view? Excluding size and "value", how are you measuring "luxury"?

winstrolvtec

Your question is more to my point that when cars are positioned closely, it's very hard to make a case for one being more luxurious without opinion, highly subjective matter, and even perception.

I don't see value or size as luxury necessarily but there are times when that can be considered. For instance, if someone says luxury is about excess, or more than average, or added content, then you can make the case for extra size (and not just size alone) when it's bigger than the average vehicle in it's class range.

Then you see an added touch like audio warnings with back up camera but that could be under features and not necessarily luxury because we see many mainstream cars with more features than how most actually buy entry and mid level luxury cars, which is base with little to no additions. The luxury car is still considered the luxury car regardless.

In keeping with that theme it would also appear that a base mid level at around the same cost as the fully loaded top of the line entry is still usually regarded as the more luxurious car or the next level up. So that rules features and content out. So maybe it's perception, quality and refinement, base price, size, and position combined.

I don't believe size is necessarily a part of differentiating luxury in a higher level but I can tell you that in most cases, in order to be considered the next one up in terms of luxury you do also need added size, but not always.

So considering all this, that brings me to my idea of luxury which is whatever makes the base 5 series more luxurious than a loaded top of the line 3 series or what makes the highest Accord trim less luxurious than an base A4. I would imagine that is the baseline level of quality and refinement throughout, including build and materials. Personally that is where I see a lot trade offs in a given level (position) but not entirely more or less but then again that is almost as subjective as the term luxury is.

bta719

Interesting discussion with some good points made. Too bad that one dude had to take his toys and go home.

lesha

according to brand reputations and people's vanity:
((BMW=Mb) > Audi) > (Acura, Infiniti, Lexus) > (Honda, Toyota, Nissan)

Otherwise buy what you like. BMW owner says that BMW is better than Mb and Mb owners say that Mb is better than BMW. Acura, Infinity and Lexus owners argue for their cars with respect to the other 3.

Glashub

What does it do to the debate when Hyundai offers state of the art features, real wood and yards of leather, a V-8, Lexicon sound system (Bentley is the only other car to have this) in a solid but derivative car for a price that is very sensible?

To me it says that BMW, Audi and MB marketers did a good job of branding people. Getting in their heads.

Consider this: Anybody who could afford a $300 lease could drive the above prior to the recession. And many did. I knew factory workers driving BMW's. So much for the luxury crowd.

I used to sell Rolls and Bentley. Those are luxury cars bought by people who have real money. Anything else is just a car with with more or fewer features vying for a middle class with pretensions.

lesha

but same goes for everything else. You can go to wallmart and get a pair of jeans for 30 bucks that will be comfortable, wear for a long time, protect and keep your legs warm, etc.., but people still go to nordstom and buy designer jeans for $200+ that will not to a better job than a pair from wallmart.


Hyundai might offer all the above stated features, but at the end of the day you are still driving a Hyundai. And offering same features as Mb or BMW does not mean being = to Mb or BMW.

Also, you are over exaggerating, $300 lease on a BMW?, I don't think so. Maybe on some special deal, very low end bmw with no options. But any respectable BMW costs 50K+ and will be more than double $300 per month before or after the recession.

smarty666

Oh so by your standards, the 3-Series isn't respectable? Man, better tell all the mags and companies that drool and give the 3-Series hand over fist awards on a regular basis that its not that great and not respectable!

Glashub

I was over exaggerating. But you know as well as I do that a lot of people were driving those cars only because they were leasing to anybody just like they were giving "liar" home loans....and MB started stretching their line to accommodate everyone they could.

The lease may have not been $300/mo but they were offering dirt cheap leases.

I maintain that if the Hyundai offers everything that a “luxury” car should offer and people are still buying German cars then it’s because of branding or foolishness with money.

I’m not against branding. MB, et al make a statement the Genesis won’t make but really if one didn’t car about what people thought when seen in the car, then the Genesis is the most sensible direction to go.

But we all want to make a statement.

I remember reading an article about how MB was forced to use cheaper glues to hit a price point and maintain a margin because the German auto worker is among the highest paid in the world. That opened my eyes.

So how to you maintain a margin when economic forces are eroding it? You create a perception by selling people high margin “features” and pile them on year after year. It’s a dog and pony show.

Every manufacturer has to hit a price point and margin and thanks to what we’ve learned on the internet and the tracking developed here, they are able to measure everything and they know how to monetize from every angle.

Acura doesn’t offer the features of other manufacturers so they put their money and focus into certain areas and market that as value. They all do.

I’ve been driving 46 years. I need to have a certain involvement with the driving experience and features. I don’t want/need “blind spot warning” for example. I want to look over my shoulder, I want to be engaged.

If don’t want to be stripped of reasons to be awake and aware and driving. But some people want all the warnings and features they can get. More power to them. Their needs are different.

smarty666

Defintiely agree with the every owner of a specific make is going to like that and defend it over others. I try not to do that b/c I've had many different car makes that they all have their pros and cons compared to other makes so its all relative.

It still amazes me why people put Audi in such high regard in this country b/c granted they are improving, and I like them personally the best of the German 3, they just do not have the reputation, image, sales, etc that MB, BMW, and Lexus have in this country. If anything, I would redo your ranking as follows:

(BMW, MB, Lexus) > (Audi, Infiniti, Cadillac, Acura) > (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc)

Just my

Colin

My take on this discussion: the day that Acura is able to sell "less content for more money" they will be equal to BMW, Mercedes and Lexus. As it stands, they are forced to market the brand with the exact opposite. "more content for less money".

I think that Acura's current difficulties with the TL are largely based on the fact that the cars are getting too expensive to show a large difference in money. My experience here shows that if the Acura gets within 3 to 4000 dollars of the [insert competitor of choice], it becomes much more difficult to sell. Add in the controversial styling and you see the results.

vybzkartel

That's more like it!

lesha

3 series is very respectable, one of my cars is a bmw 3 series and with options its 50K+. how did you get an idea from my reply that 3 series is not respectable?

lesha

I actually agree with you on the redone version of my rankings. However, if I had a choice I would take A5, A4 or Q7 over any of the rival Lexus counterparts, while you ranked Lexus higher than Audi. But, this is my personal choice.

lesha

You speak the truth. Simple analogy, my friend just picked up fully equipped MDX with blind sport, the collision avoidance feature, nav, etc..., for 45K. Did he really want an X5? Yes!, Would X5 with same options cost him 15-20K more, Yes!, he got a great car with same options for less money! and probably more reliable than bmw, but at the end of the day, bmw remains a bmw and acura remains acura, and until acura figures out how to get "ahead", it will remain this way.

smarty666

Because the majority of 3-Series are in the high 30s and 40k ranges when in base and semi loaded versions which is what I was referring to. I was just kidding around as well based on your statement, that is all!

smarty666

Oh I agree, but unfortunately, my rankings and that is not based on my personal preferences. Its on the status, image, and reputation the luxury companies in THIS country currently have. I too do not find anything currently from Lexus interesting or wowing me. They are just pure luxury vehicles and their driving dynamics don't suit my driving style and preference. I personally would take a A4 or Q5 over a IS and RX any day of the week. Just better looking and more fun to drive then the latter from Lexus. Mercedes to me is too similar to Lexus and I'm not particularly liking their styling at the moment and nothing there is doing anything for me either.

I personally love Audi's styling both inside and outside. The thing that has kept me away unfortunately is their still lackluster reliability, or more specifically, the chance of getting a problem littered vehicle. Plus, their customer service and dealership experience is no where near the level of Lexus, BMW, or MB and if I'm going to take a chance on one of their vehicles, I'd like it to have that level of dealership and service.

It's tuff, I like their styling so much now and they have gotten better then where they were, I might take a chance next time around so I will have to see.

BMW is finally in a styling direction I like as well and will check them out after years of ignoring them.

Next time around, probably will be shopping BMW, Audi, and Infiniti! Maybe Lexus, if the next gen IS gets bigger and have better handling and more refined BMW like ride, but I'm not holding my breath on that one!

winstrolvtec

This. Not implying the car is somehow inferior because of the glue they use, I don't see that but between the exchange rates, their labor costs, import taxes, etc, it's easy to see why they are often considered overpriced. Sure there are plenty of arguments that you pay more so you get more and I don't disagree entirely, some times that's true when you're talking about a German luxury automobiles, but the price is not necessarily all a pure reflection of more.

They simply can't match the Japs (and Americans) in delivering an as cost effective product that also nets them decent profit so they have to charge more and the consumer has to make that up for them. Acura takes that one step further by including most of the features standard and driving costs down more.

More power to German brands for being able to do so but that's why you see so many of their consumers sacrifice not only features and content to keep the price relative but also what many consider to be superior reliability, resale, crash test, and lower cost maintenance, mostly for the sake of the badge, but the latter areas may be becoming less of an issue but the cost is not.

I agree but I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing as more and more are trying to find cheaper alternatives to just about everything, on top of the market that already existed for that. True, many want X5's and end up with MDX's and I wouldn't mind a 5 series but got a TL instead and not necessarily because these folks can't afford them, it's because they don't seem worth the extra cost when comparably or similarly equipped. In their own regard Acura is also ahead, it's just not the same approach.

TechnoCat

It's a meaningless debate anyhow. Very few people have had a new, e.g., a TL SH-AWD and an S4 very close to each other. Those of us who have and liked one over the other are called biased because these discussions occur in fanboy forums, not in laboratories.

I had a 2010 TL SH-AWD 6MT. Traded it in (at huge loss) for S4. There's a big cost differential, but also the TL 6MT was a big step down from my previous Audi A4Q 3.0, in my perception. The Audi has a more composed ride, better AWD, is quieter and better finished. This applies to the S4 also. But in the minds of many here, the TL is the better car because you get the same features (i.e. Nav - ignore that it can't load the address from your phonebook, or iPod - ignore the inability to quickly scroll to the end of a long list of tracks, artists, or do any search... there are many of these)... you can get the same checkboxes of feature names for a lot less money. Anything the TL doesn't do well is not important, anything someone values more in the Audi is a "personal bias".

And to some degree that makes sense. The TL is, checkboxwise, not terribly different from a BMW 5-series. But if you are accustommed to an Audi or BMW, the TL isn't in the same league. If you are happy in a TL, the difference to an Audi or BMW will be meaningless to you.

(I leave Mercedes out because I've got a wide variety of experiences with them here and abroad, and think of Mercedes as G.M. - a brand of all qualities and finishes, some of which are as nice as high-scale BMW/Audi, and some as utilitarian as low-end Volvos.)

I don't think it's just the German marketing. It's just that some like what the Germans put into cars that the Japanolux brands lack still, while others don't consider anything missing.

LessisBestmakingendsmeet

Is it just me but if the Honda CEO said they don't compete why is anyone going against what he is saying???

It is far beyond marketing. Marketing has played a good part but the luxury leaders do offer the products and technology. We can easily say its "Acura marketing" to make people chose it over a Honda.

winstrolvtec

But you make a case against what you are also guilty of doing yourself. The areas that are objectively superior in the TL you don't see or value much because they are not of great importance to you but still there nontheless. That is personal bias just like size, handling, precedence for reliabilty, and value are also pesonal bias. With many of our situations, it's not that we didn't consider what was missing in the TL, it's just that what little more was offered (and less at the same time) elsewhere it is not worth the premium charged by opinion.

Why you always list these little areas that you consider better in the Audi but don't also consider the same for the TL as they also do exist and many of them as well, is beyond me and pretty much sums up your position here IMO. It also proves the point that it is actually very little for an extra $15k but afterall this is a fanboy site and anyone who comes here to discuss opposing views must also be a fanboy to even bother in the first place.

TechnoCat

You just don't seem capable of comprehending this.
Size is not luxury.
Never has been. There are larger cheaper cars than the TL.
Value also is not luxury; if it were, Mercedes would never have been considered a "luxury" brand.

I agree that luxury marques should be reliable, and that Acura has that. So does Honda, and until recently, Toyota. Hyundai is reliable. That is important, but not sufficient.

But no matter how much you wish to put it there, the TL is not a luxury car by dint of its size. BMW 5-series owners are not cross-shopping it, and Porsche 911 owners are not envying it as a "luxury" upgrade.

JM2010 SH-AWD

You destroy your credibility when you make unsupported comments like this. There are posters on this forum, myself included, who either cross-shopped the BMW 5 with the TL-AWD or who traded/sold their BMW 5s for a TL-AWD.

TechnoCat

Actually I rather suspect that among unbiased observers (i.e. excluding Saturno, Winslo and computerbleu), I raised it. After all, your sign is a 1992 Acura and a 2010 Acura. I doubt anybody seriously believes you cross-shopped your $37K Acura with a $65K BMW while driving an 18-year-old Acura.