jhr3uva90

The buzz on the Web is that the Acura RLX is a failure. Of course, many of us are disappointed and rightly so. However:

1. How is a car that hasn't even hit stores yet a failure?
2. If the RL/RLX line is such a failure, why has Acura made this car since 1996, while releasing new generations of the car?
3. Why hasn't Acura cancelled the RL/RLX like they did the CL and the ZDX?

KeithL

A couple of observations here. First the buzz on the web is just that, most main stream buyers won't even see that buzz as the buzz in in enthusiast forums, blogs sites.
Acura blew it when they dropped the Legend and the name cache that came with it and the reputation the car had. They have struggled with how to come up with a new flagship car while bogged down with political and financial decisions to not invest in a RWD platform that would allow them to compete with the Germans. Now I am not that against FWD, but Acura at least offered the SH-AWD which really was something that set the car apart. Acura must have a flagship car or it will not be able to exist. The TL, TSX and MDX held the brand up so far, but the TL has struggled with the 4G and the TSX is now getting old. The new RDX is helping as well, but without a flagship the name falls flat. True it is a marketing thing to some extent. I see adds for the Lexus LS all over town and yet that is not their bread and butter car, but it is the face of Lexus. In the end they will never cancel their flagship car, they will flounder around trying to develop a new flagship, unfortunately I feel they have again missed the mark.

wstr75

Great post, Keith. I agree with the Lexus analogy you made about LS being the halo car and the increasing sales volume coming from lesser Lexus offerings. The LS was the company during 1990- 1998. The Legend was Acura during its early days. The RLX is Acura's halo car and also Honda's low volume vehicle for trying out avant guard technology. There will not be many RLX cars on the road, ever. Acura's money is made in their volume vehicles: ILX, TLX, MDX and RDX.

Hey, for those own a very low volume RLX SH-AWD, theirs is the world of true "stealth wealth" as the Acura national manager put it a couple years ago.

dwboston

I said it in the other thread and I'll say it here: Acura's mistake with the RLX is not having the SH-SH-AWD version ready to go right out of the gate. Leading with the FWD version is a massive error. Acura should have led with the AWD version, emphasized all the technology in the car and all the technology it will share with the upcoming NSX, and let people know there is a FWD version as well. You lead with your best, not with a compromise. By the time the AWD version comes in the summer (or later knowing Acura), other cars will have debuted and the car blogs will have moved on. You never get a second chance to wow someone for the first time. It's utterly stupid to debut the lesser car first, but it's exactly what I expect from Acura.

Megatron

I totally agree! I don't see how they approved a decision to introduce the FWD at the debut of the RLX before the SH-AWD one is ready. If the SH-AWD system is not ready, they should just delay the entire introduction of the RLX, not go with the lesser version!

By the time the SH-AWD one is released, all the attention will already be gone from the RLX. It'll be treated as a new "option" while it should really be the other way around.

So sad... I have been a loyal Honda and Acura owner for 25 years and while I am still sticking with them, it pains me to watch them screw themselves over and over again!

sixsixfour

Gotta agree with the RLX having the AWD option right out of the gate. Plus they are trying too hard with too many option combinations. I liked it back when Acura either had a base or a tech model. too many options with their prices within a smidge of each other isnt a good thing. either some will sell like hotcakes while some will lambast and sell none.

RLX should have been at the most a 3-level option to stay competitive:

RLX base Navi FWD $48K
RLX Tech Navi+Krell AWD $52K
RLX Advance Navi+Krell AWD $56K

KeithL

I assume they were in a jam, the SH-SH-AWD tech was probably not ready and the RL was an embarrassment., but then they could have offered the tried and true SH-AWD in all the current FWD cars and release the SH-SHAWD later on as a real uplift. My fear here is they are going to top out the TLX at a lower level than the current TL to force people up into a FWD RLX. Assuming savvy shopper you can usually get $4K off these cars so that makes base RLX around $45-$46K, and if it tanks like the RL you'll see $6-$8K discounts. I would not put it past Acura to figure they will heavily discount the FWD RLX base so that they can get some out there and top the TLX out around $43K and drop SH-AWD from the TLX. Honda clearly has the technical know how they lack in marketing and styling!

The point Honda is missing is the things that made them and Toyota kings are not relevant any more, all cars are very reliable, even Kia, so what will attract the younger buyers will be styling and features.

hondamore

You can add my name to the list of people who feel the SH-SH-AWD had to be a part of the RLX release. I am also assuming that the technology is still being tweaked which is why it wasn't available for the RLX release.

This is a mistake by Acura in that the styling of the RLX certainly isn't going to woo buyers from other brands and isn't necessarily adequate to keep loyal Honda/Acura buyers within the brand when they are able to move up to the luxury segment. Acura NEEDs the technology "bump" to woo new buyers and maintain the loyalists and by the time the AWD version is released it will be too late for many.

In my opinion, Acura's biggest mistake, and the reason for their current woes, goes back to the introduction of the Integra. They had a winner with the Legend stamping a place for Acura in the luxury lexicon, but releasing the Integra at roughly the same time cost them any chance at defining the Acura brand as a TRUE Luxury Brand. How could the Acura brand build any cache or "snob appeal" when the guy down the street just bought an Acura Integra for his daughter for $15,000 or less??? They missed the boat and the Acura brand has been labeled as "just a different Honda" ever since. So, if Honda/Acura executives wonder why they can't sell the RL for $55,000, blame the Integra. Had they introduced an Acura Odessey - a luxury minivan, or an early version of the MDX and kept all vehicles at $30,000 or more, they could have built what Lexus did a few years later. Introducing entry level vehicles to a luxury brand is risky at the best of times, but doing so before they had even established themselves as a luxury brand was pure foolishness.

Just my opinion and nothing more.

dwboston

Another Acura/Honda gaffe was releasing re-badged Isuzu Troopers and Rodeos for their first forays into SUVs. Lets face it, Acura has had a few undeniable all-time hits in the Legend, TL, and MDX, and has had success with the TSX and RDX. But the brand has been horribly mismanaged. It's telling that, more than 25 years after the introduction of the Acura brand, Acura still doesn't know what it stands for. Is it sport luxury, value luxury, the Japanese Audi, or tier 1 luxury? Being a more expensive Honda just doesn't cut it against BMW, MB, and the rest.

Megatron

I totally agree with this as well! Acura sacrificed long-term prestige and high level luxury branding at the expense of more vehicle sales in the short term with their low-priced cars. That started with the Integra. They should have left it with the Legend.

Then I thought they were finally realizing their mistake when the killed the Integra... but then the TSX and ILX!! Ugh... They need to keep ALL Acura vehicles above $35K starting price. As much as I DON'T like this higher pricing, it is the one thing that will change Acura into a real luxury brand. Heck, top of the line Accords are $35K now. There shouldn't be any price overlap with your luxury brand. I can kinda understand with the Odyssey at $40K because there is no Acura minivan, but that's the only exception. Cheap Acura cars are keeping Acura from elevating it's status! They should leave sub-$35K cars to Honda.

christopher1

i agree.. it is a failure!! i will test drive the mule that comes in march but i really wanted the awd but at th $56,000 price with just 3 models(fwd,awd plus,and awd plus,plus) to choose from. is ACURA listening??

jhr3uva90

1. Acura was the 4th selling luxury brand in the USA in 2012. That's important because...

2. Infiniti did EVERYTHING car enthusiasts want Acura to do. They made RWD cars with optional V8 engines. They even had a full-sized flagship for several years. However, not only did the Infiniti brand sell less than Acura (#4), they also sold less than Cadillac (#5) and Audi (#6).

3. The segment that the RLX competes in is OWNED by BMW and Mercedes. No Japanese car has ever defeated the 5 Series or E Class regardless of buzz or car reviews. So if Acura is going to make a car in this segment, I would rather they made a car that was profitable for the company.

4. Marketing, marketing, marketing! The only reason why Lexus sells more cars than Acura is because Toyota has much more money to spend promoting the Lexus brand. That means more sponsorship of jazz concerts, golf tournaments and other "classy" events. That means more commercials. That means more product placements in movies and TV. That means more money to use to encourage Lexus dealerships to portray a certain image. The Lexus LS has almost nothing to do with the Lexus image or Lexus sales. In fact, there are probably some Lexus owners who don't even know what the LS is.

5. Oh, and if Acura's changing the names of their cars damaged the brand so much, how come Cadillac got rid of names like "El Dorado" or "Coupe D'ville?" Why is Infiniti getting rid of the "G37" name?

Just my random thoughts again.

jhr3uva90

Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh in the previous post. I do agree with all of you on one thing: Acura should have released the hybrid AWD version of the RLX first. I'm just guessing that the hybrid could not be ready by spring and that the FWD RLX could not possibly be a worse seller than the 2012 RL.

GoHawks

I COMPLETELY agree!

BDoggPrelude

I agree with Keith. They probably drug their feet on the hybrid-AWD technology and it just isn't ready yet, which makes me wonder when we will actually see the SH-SH-AWD model. I'm sure Acura just didn't want too much down time in between the discontinuing of the RL and the release of the RLX. Seriously though, it's not like they didn't have like 9 freaking years to figure this out or anything. The 2G RL was released in 2004 as a 2005 model. That means that, by the time the RLX comes out, it will have been a full 9 years between models and they've actually used that 9 years to digress in the power train department.

Another problem with this idea is that current RL owners are never going to give up their AWD RL for a FWD RLX. That would be a step backwards, especially since a large majority of the people that purchased the RL new were probably moving up from an older FWD Honda/Acura product. I sure as hell would not trade in my AWD Acura for a FWD Acura. Acura has just completely alienated a huge part of their customer base with this move. I would imagine quite a few RL owners that have owned their cars for 5+ years will see the commercials for the new RL, go into the dealership ready to upgrade, find out that the RLX has traded the SH-AWD that they've come to love for a silly all-wheel-steering system and take their business to the Lexus, Infiniti, BMW or Audi dealership down the street.

For $62,500 you can get a 535i xDrive that has AWD, basically the same amount of horsepower but more torque, just as many options, (that was optioned out to basically what the RLX will have when fully loaded), better performance, more snob status and 4 years/50,000 miles free maintenance...and it doesn't look like a Honda Accord. At Lexus you can option out a GS350 AWD for about $62k with everything the RLX is going to offer in the FWD model. $64k at Infiniti gets you and M37x with everything you can get in the fully loaded FWD RLX. I'm not a fan of the M37x personally, but I think most would agree that the Lexus GS350 and BMW 535i are both significantly better looking vehicles than the RLX. Plus, they come with much better brand recognition, especially the Bimmer.

The RLX will have a couple trick features that these other cars don't offer I'm sure but will it really be enough to make up for the lack of AWD and the overall brand power that companies like Lexus and BMW have over Acura? I doubt it. It definitely won't be enough in cold weather states where people in this price range demand AWD.

It can't be said enough that Honda has been resting on their laurels for far too long. Look at Honda's recent new cars: Accord, Civic and CR-V. All three of these cars can barely be considered evolutionary designs at best. I think the average consumer would have to literally look at a 2012 CR-V sitting next to a 2011 CR-V to be able to tell the difference. Same goes for the 2012+ Civic and the 2013 Accord. Yes, sales are good right now but we'll see what the numbers look like in a few years when these 2-3 year old designs end up looking more like decade old designs. Acura is releasing conservative, boring and evolutionary designs and, at the same time, going backwards from where they were a few years ago. The new RDX looks too much like the old one, (especially in the rear), comes with FWD on the base model and has ditched SH-AWD for the same basic AWD setup that comes with the CR-V. The ILX is a joke. Talk about a huge step back from the TSX. When Acura discontinued the RSX they claimed they were taking steps to go upmarket and stop using lesser Honda platforms. Now we get the ILX that is just a fancy Civic with an Acura badge. The base model ILX has cloth interior, halogen headlights, 150hp and a 5-speed auto. Really? All for the low price of $26,000...$1,000 less than what the TSX originally sold for with 200+hp, leather interior, a significantly better chassis and HID headlights.

Acura used to be able to sell cars based on value, brand recognition and dependability. Unfortunately for them, their cars just don't offer the value they used to when compared to the competition. There really isn't a whole lot more the RLX offers a buyer that cannot be had in other vehicles for significantly less money, (bluetooth, navigation, satellite radio, and Pandora are pretty commonplace these days). For $50k-$60k Acura's brand recognition just doesn't even come close to the likes of BMW, Mercedes, Audi and Lexus. Honda/Acura's build quality and reliability have also taken a step back lately. 10 year old Honda's aren't holding up as well as they used to. Cracking leather, fading paint, broken foglights, etc...it seems like while they just keep charging more for their cars they are actually giving their customers less and less. It's a sad state of affairs if you ask me. I've owned nothing but Honda's and Acura's for a long time now. If something doesn't change drastically I don't see either one of our current cars being replaced with another Acura product.

GoHawks

I understand that the RLX couldn't sell worse than the RL, but is that really your goal?

You want people buzzing about your car. Look at the noise the Cadillac ELR has generated, not to mention the press the ATS has gotten. Saying that, the XTS was a compromise, but most people know the XTS is intended to be a placeholder until they come out with a TRUE RWD based flagship.

The ILX has tainted Acura's reputation it hasn't received good reviews and as someone else said, they should have all their models priced above $30K..

BDoggPrelude

The ILX is a joke. It has been on sale for 8 months now and I have yet to see one on the road. It's ridiculous that you can't get the 2.4L engine with the tech package. Can you imagine being a prospective new Acura buyer and getting into your friend's new ILX? You'd be looking around inside saying to yourself, "this is an Acura"? I would take my money down to the Ford dealership and buy a fully loaded Focus ST before I even thought of buying an ILX.

GoHawks

Again I pretty much agree with everything said. I only differ slightly on your assessment of the Honda brand.

Remember that while style is always important, this segment is more about appliances first, styling and overall performance next.

Now that is changing as the competition is getting fierce with the Fusion, Passat, Kias, Hyundais, Malibus, etc. I still feel though that in that segment the Accord is still the preferred choice. It is one of the better looking, probably the sportiest, and reliable.

For the Acura brand though, they also need to differentiate their cars more from the Honda brand. Lexus only has two vehicles in which they share platforms with Toyota.

Camry/Avalon/ES
Highlander/RX

Acura shares more

Civic/ILX
TSX/TL/Accord
Pilot/MDX/ZDX
CRV/RDX

Even the RLX is on a stretched Accord platform.

I'm really disappointed. I was a diehard Acura fan, and while they will still make reliable cars, the bar has been raised and it will take more than that for them to be considered a true luxury brand.

GoHawks

That's a good point. At least when the Integra was in the lineup it was considered a little pocket rocket. What are you getting with the ILX? You can't get tech, and you aren't getting performance.

The Focus ST is an impressive vehicle.

SSFTSX

CT-200/Prius
GX460/4Runner
LX570/LandCruiser

RLX shares nothing with Accord. RLX has PAWS/Double wishbone suspension/longer wheel base/higher stance.

Even i will not call RDX as CRV based. RDX has far higher road height, width, length than CRV.

GoHawks

I stand corrected, but the platform of the RLX is derived off of the same platform as the Accord, just like the second gen RL did.

Same with the CRV/RDX. Changing the ride height, suspension or features doesn't change the fact that they come from the same platform.

SSFTSX

It is new platform. with larger wheel base. what constitute a new platform?. Any platform having difference in wheel base with different handling characteristics is different.
Avalon/ES/ Camry are same. despite varitions in size.


Lexus ES/Camry/Avalon handle similar with similar tires.
Infact Camry SE handles better than Lexus ES.
Accord Sport does not handle better than TSX.
Honda and Acura has very very clear differentiation in handling. but not in Toyota/Lexus.

Highlander has higher cleaance than RX. It is opposite in CRV/RDX. It is very hard to impart handling into vehicles that has higher clearance.

jhr3uva90

So, should Acura have released a 2013 RL? Would that have been possible considering their wish to build more cars in North America? I think it would more profitable for Honda to start building and selling the USA-manufactured RLX sooner rather than later, especially if they can sell more units of the RLX than the old RL.

BDoggPrelude

Of course the new RLX is going to sell better than the outgoing RL that was in production for 8 full model years, even without the AWD option. Acura sold 379 RL's in the entire 2012 calendar year. It was pretty much the slowest selling sub-$100k car last year. That doesn't mean they are not missing an opportunity now by releasing the RLX as FWD only. Like somebody said previously in this thread, you only get one chance at a first impression. Any buzz the RLX receives upon release is going to be overshadowed by questions about when the real RLX everybody is waiting for is going to be available.

KeithL

I am also guessing the AWD Hybrid costs are high and had they stuck with the proven SH-AWD they could have done that pretty much at the current prices points of the RLX as they have clearly recouped R&D on SH-AWD a while back. Then they could have done like a RLX Type-S with the Hybrid AWD and they might have had a chance. BDoggPrelude hit pricing on the head with the competition, although I priced up a BMW and felt apples to appes it was still way more, but Look at Infiniti, the M sales are slowing as it is in the 3rd year and you can get a M37 discounts $7K+ right now, they keep offering me ridiculous deals right now that it is making it hard not to do another M37 because I can get all that car and save money. Problem is the M37 is falling behind with technology right now so my front runner will likely be the GS350, because pretty much in RWD form and loaded up with everything except F-Sport it is $59K, which is $2K less than loaded RLX and that includes the Mark Levinson sound system. I was really hoping TLX would come soon, but that is looking less and less likely. If the current TL had adaptive cruise I would probably jump on that for now as they are being discounted very well.

GoHawks

I agree. They will sell more RLXs than RLs, but that is hardly a success. You want the RLX to be considered a serious flagship and I'm afraid the RLX will be dismissed.

GoHawks

Just because a car handles differently, has a different suspension setup or has different ground clearance doesn't mean it's a separate platform. So are you telling me that the Accord and TL are different platforms because the Accord is FWD and the TL can be had in SH-AWD? Along with the fact that the TL has different handling characteristics than the Accord?

If you're answer to those questions is YES, I suggest you do some research.

I think we're splitting hairs here. Maybe I should have said "derived" off of the same platform.

It is common knowledge that the MDX, Odyssey and Pilot are derived off of the Accord platform even though each of those vehicles serve a distinctly different purpose and handle differently.

The Highlander, RX, Avalon, and Sienna are all derived off of the Camry platform.

The RL (even though it had SH-AWD) was derived off of the Accord platform, and I'm pretty certain so is the RLX.

GoHawks

With respect to platform sharing, I think these links prove my point.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...e-sorry-page-6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Highlander

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acura_MDX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acura_RDX

TSX69

I think that it is important here to define failure. Some would say that the RLX fails as a flagship bc it does not have a v8 or RWD. I prefer to look at how the car's sales does comparative to its competition (not based upon their sales goals - which Acura has a habit of overestimating).

The RLX should be considered a hit if it sells at the same rate as the M (& I suspect GS after the newness wears off) @ a rate of ~800/month. Considering that it starts in a deep hole, I would consider ~500/month a hit for Acura. @ the very least, the RLX should move as much as the Equus @ ~300/month. Any less than this would mean that they have delivered a vehicle that no one wants in the segment.

I also agree that they should have had the SH-SH-AWD from the start - especially since there is no 2013 model they could have just launched both versions in the fall.

Speaking of sales goals, in my own selfish desires, if they do overestimate it that means that there will be plenty on the lots (see the ILX) and big discounts (I have always said that my next car will have ventilated seats & I will not pay more than $50k so this may work out for me). So there is a silver lining if this car flops ...

GoHawks

I was trying to find some additional information on the RLX platform and I came across this post that I thought did a good job of summarizing Acura's issues.

I could have shamelessly plagerized, but thought better of it.

http://forums.motortrend.com/70/9331...led/page5.html


Acura lacks Tier 1 status for just about every reason that the Tier 1 companies are Tier 1 brands.

- The people don't think they are. This is the biggest hump any car company has to overcome in order to move up the luxury line. The executives and bean counters can think a car is the sun, moon, and stars but if buyers don't - well, that means absolutely nothing.
- Dealership experience. This is where Acura does have a better status than mainstream brands as they offer a better dealership experience. So, kudos to them
- Competitive product: again, not where Acura shines.

Comparing Audi to Acura isn't an accurate assumption. Just because Audi is the "FWD" luxury brand doesn't automatically mean Acura can succeed or that it's "not RWD that's the problem." Audi has years of competitive product, a buyer base, a prestige, a history, a worldwide presence, and so many other things that distinguish it with the other German brands. Audi struggled many years ago to infiltrate the market. They pushed, pushed, and pushed and now ~20 years later have a competitive PORTFOLIO combined with all the other factors.

Slapping some LED headlights and AWD on a car and then selling variations of the Honda Accord platform and importing the European Accord are not going to cut it. They haven't cut it. Just like it hasn't cut it for Lincoln it's not going to cut it for Acura.

The car business is not math. It involves too many complex variables that must all align together. Why do you think Tier 1 luxury brands are what they are? Because it was easy? No.

You can look at pricing, platform, whatever else but even in your head if it makes sense - if it doesn't make sense to the public and the country/world your IDEOLOGY IS THEREFORE INHERENTLY FLAWED. The world and the public do not change their minds based on what one person conjures up in their head.

Companies who sell their "lesser" products in the US will not achieve a status obtained by Mercedes and BMW (to an extent Audi). Historically, they sell only cars in the US that are not based on anything else or are "exclusive" in a sense you can't most of the same car for less somewhere else. It doesn't matter if E-Class' are used as taxis in Germany. They're not in the US. There's no Ford-Lincoln, Nissan-Infiniti, Honda-Acura, or Toyota-Lexus comparison that can be made. BMW and Mercedes (in the past) have not sold their tiny engine, base model cars over in the US because they have a brand status over here they know that they need to keep. I think, as time goes on, there will be some shifting as BMW and Mercedes seem to want to give up some of their exclusive nature with watered down cars and driving their initial cost of entry farther and farther down.

The cheaper you make your cars, the more people buy. The more people buy, the less exclusive they become. The less prestigious your car brand becomes, the less of a luxury brand you may become. It's a natural progression but it takes time. By selling the 320i in the US isn't going to have that giant of an affect on BMW overnight. When they start offering bargain basement FWD cars with puny engines, we may see BMW become just another Infiniti or Acura. That and if their insane pricing structure continues to become even more insane (that's another topic entirely).

The problem is you are comparing incomplete brands to complete brands. Just because Acura and Infiniti are incomplete brands does not put them in the same playing field. Acura has nothing that can compete with the Infiniti M. So, yes the Infiniti M is a competitor to offerings from the Tier 1s because that car can compete with GS/5/E. That does NOT mean that Infiniti as a whole does. It means that car does. Same with the G in 3/IS/C comparison. That car competes the TL does not. Does that mean all of Infiniti competes? No. It means those 2 cars do. Those also happen to be the cars Infiniti imports that do not have Nissan counterparts. Acura has nothing that is not a Honda counterpart in some way.

Stemming off above, a complete brand like BMW, Mercedes, or Audi is that buyers trade up or have the ability to. Someone may start out with a used 3 series. Then trade it for a new one. Then oh hey I got a better job so I go to the 5 series. Oh hey I got married. That means I get an X3/X5. Oh hey I am doing even better now I get the 7 series. Oh hey I want a convertible let's get the Z4. Same for Audi, same for Mercedes. The problem? You can't do that with the non-Tier 1s. You hit a wall. You can go from a TSX to a TL but then where? The RL? Yeah right. The problem is, Acura refuses to admit they need a platform that is differentiated enough to warrant people spending the extra money! Whether or not it's Micky Mouse Drive or what - it has to be distinguished enough. There are CLEAR differences between and E/S and a 5/7 series. Same with the A4/5/8. There is clear progression. Lincoln, Acura, Infiniti, Volvo all are missing it. This is why Lexus has become so successful. They've SUCCESSFULLY modeled the logical progression idea. That, for me, is the most important way to distinguish a luxury brand from the others.

jhr3uva90

Thanks for the article below. I agree with almost all of it. The only small thing I have to disagree with is this: car business, like any business, IS MATH. It really comes down to revenues and profits. If Honda can make more money selling Acuras based on the same global midsize platform as the Honda Accord then why should they invest the capital in making RWD S Class and 7 Series competitors, especially when the market for such cars is shrinking?

When you get right down to it, Acura had the largest US sales increase of any premium brand in 2012. More importantly, they did it without a single RWD vehicle. I have no idea what kind of profit margin Honda making from Acura cars, but it must be good enough to discourage them from going the Infiniti route.

GoHawks

I completely agree with you. If they are making money without making true Tier 1 competitors, then heck, more power to them.

The problem though is that Acura (like Cadillac tried with the XTS), reference the 5 series as a competitor (Cadillac laughingly referenced the S class with the XTS). Although to be fair, the XTS is a stop gap.

I don't care how great you SAY your car is "like" a BMW, if people don't believe it it's not going to sell.

Cadillac seems to be on the right track with the rest of the line. The CTS initially was introduced, especially the second gen, it offered "near" 5 series level performance and content at a 3 series price. It was a 'tweener. Remember that when the second gen CTS-V was introduced it was labeled the fastest production sedan, surpassing the M5. The CTS-V (essentially a Corvette Z06 with a backseat) began to break the image of Cadillac building snooze mobiles. Couple that with the CTS-V competing in in SCCA World championship races and Cadillac had begun to sew the seeds for it to begin to be considered a performance brand, and not the maker of living rooms on wheels.

Now they built the ATS and every reviewer has said that the ATS is right there. Some have dared to say it has eclipsed the the 3 series, others are hesitant, but said that the cars are so close that it is a veritable tie. How did they make the ATS a competitor, they basically copied it (from a weight, handling and perfromance perspective), and the added technology like CUE. Yes CUE has been receiving criticism, but so did i-Drive.

Now that they have established the ATS as a legitmate 3 series contender (notice I didn't say killer), they are going to push the CTS upmarket and stack it up against the 5 series. After that the rumor is that they will then build a legitimate full size flagship to go after the 7 series and S class.

How long has Cadillac been at thiis rebirth? Since the introduction of the first gen CTS back in 2003. The first generation had it's issues and then you had the bankruptcy, but they are staying the course and I think are further along at being considered a BMW/MB competitor than Acura is.

I'm not saying that Cadillac is building better cars, I am saying they are building cars that are most likely to be considered competitors to the Germans because they are copying the Germans.

Sound familiar? That's what Lexus did when they first started out.

Acura on the other hand wants to go down the road of introducing new technology trying to convince people that their formula is better. Sorry but they haven't developed the street cred (as I said before) to define the rules. BMW and Mercedes still own the playbook.

That's OK if Acura wants to go down their own road, especially if they're making money, but they are fooling themselves if they expect to get the BMW and MB owners to follow them down that road.

Megatron

If it's all about Math, then they would just sell more Accords and Civics and be done with it. Why invest in all the capital to have an entire separate brand with separate dealers and parts (even though lots of parts are common between the two)? Without enough separation between the models of the two brands, you get the "glorified Accord" and "Civic with Leather" comments which people use to describe Acura cars. Honda could just as easily make Touring versions of all the Honda models with all the upscale features and that's what they seem to be doing!!! This is what is killing Acura... Honda is going up in class with Touring trims and Acura is not elevating itself even higher to have that separation.

The whole point of a luxury brand is to go upscale and with it, more expensive cars at higher margins with a corresponding decrease in volume so that net profit remains the same or better. Acura seems to not be willing to let go of the high volume cars at lower prices like the Integra, RSX, TSX, and now the ILX. They should just let Honda have those customers and make all Acuras above $35-$40K, with corresponding high-end features and amenities and luxuries that Honda doesn't have.

That's my $0.02

jhr3uva90

Two reasons why Honda doesn't just sell Accords and Civics (and CRVs):

1) To increase economies of scale by extending existing platforms. The more products Honda can make on the same assembly lines with the same platforms, the more the spread our their fixed costs. This also why Apple uses the A5 processors in the iPhone 4/4S, iPad mini, and Apple TV.

2) To allow Honda to introduce new technologies that may trickle down through the product lineup. SH-AWD is a great example of this.

Why did Honda create an Acura brand with Acura dealerships? Because the world was much different in 1986 than it is now. I believe that, if Honda had started selling premium cars now instead of 1986, there would be no Acura brand. I think Honda would do what Hyundai is doing instead.

GoHawks

All valid points, but you can argue that Lexus can do that too, and most view Lexus as a tier I luxury brand.

Again, either Acura needs to differentiate the brand and take it up market, or they need to be content to be where they are and stop trying to compare themselves to the tier I brands.

Again, I am not a hater. I was with the brand for 19 consecutive years, but I think they just are lost now.

jhr3uva90

You're right, Lexus is considered a top tier brand (in the USA, at least). That's because Toyota, one of the largest car companies on earth, had the resources to promote their luxury brand back when the luxury car market was expanding (1990s). On the other hand, I don't think Honda has ever been very good at marketing and probably would still be bad at it even if they had Toyota's resources. I think this is why Lexus is more "upscale" than Acura. Lexus' actual products never differentiated themselves. Their top of the line car was an imitation Mercedes and their bottom of the line car was a rebadged Camry. Toyota just knew how to make lots of commercials plus they understood other marketing tricks such as product placement and event sponsorships.

By the way, this also applies to Toyota's hybrids versus Honda's hybrids. Honda did hybrids first, but Toyota is perceived to have been the originator, because they know how to market the Prius.

What I'm saying is this. I would love to see a full size, RWD, V8 Acura. I also want to see an Acura convertible and a RWD coupe. But even if Honda spent the billions necessary to build these cars, the American general public won't see Acura as tier 1. Why? Marketing, unfortunately.

Megatron

I agree with you about making more products on the same assembly lines with the same platforms, but Honda could have added more models to the Honda brand to do the same thing. It doesn't just have to be Accords, Civics, and CR-Vs. All the Acura models could have been Hondas like everywhere else in the world back in 1986 when Acura was just a North American thing. I think there is still no Acura in Japan.

Trickle down technologies can be treated the same way, through their more expensive Honda cars before the plain jane Ciivics and Accords get them. No need for a separate brand if that was all it is...

I think the management at Acura is trying to hedge their bets by keeping their foot in the door of the lower priced market and fearful of going all in to truly elevate themselves into a Tier 1 brand. They really need to go all in or just get out. Right now, they are stuck in between and as a result, overlapping with Honda products and in essence partly competing with themselves instead of with Lexus or BMW or Mercedes.

I have been (and still is) a 100% Honda and Acura owner for 25 years and trust me, I'm not saying they need to kill Acura. I just wish they would do the right thing for the brand and elevate it accordingly. Kill the cheap models and bring in the real luxury features and vehicles! I mean the new Accord Touring seems way cooler to me than an ILX! The overlap must stop. Heck, the new Accord Touring can even hold it's own in terms of features and specs against the new RLX because of no SH-SH-AWD. That's just so wrong.

jhr3uva90

I agree with you 100%. I'm just saying that back in 1986 it would have been hard to convince Americans to spend money on a HONDA Legend, hence the separate brand. If Honda had tried to sell more expensive cars later, say 2006 instead of 1986, then they probably wouldn't have even bothered with an Acura brand in the USA.

GoHawks

I agree with you.

Here are Acura's missteps in my opinion.

1. Offering a sub $25k car that comes across as nothing more than a rebadged Civic. In the US at least the Integra and RSX looked different, but in Canada it was literally a Civic body rebadged as an Acura. Horrible idea.

2. When Honda introduced the S2000, it should have been introduced as an Acura branded vehicle only. It would have differentiated the brand further.

3. Horrible (actually no) marketing of SH-AWD. Instead Audi and BMW introduced their own version and are getting all the credit.

4. They wait too long to refresh their cars. Eight years between redesigns of the RL is shameful.

5. Designs. Whoever came up with the horrible beak/shield idea should have been fired and the executive who signed off on it too. In my opinion they set the brand back years with that.

6. Not enough differentiation between Honda/Acura models.

You can debate whether lack of RWD and V8 should be included, but I think I gave a good start.

Megatron

I think this entire thread has many many good points!

I hope there are Acura spies here and Acura management reads it and does something about it!