Play what game? The Ferrari and Miata game? Why no BMW game? That game makes more sense than the Ferrari and Miata game.
No, it doesn’t. First, I would prefer Honda to lead rather than follow. But more importantly, cars like NSX and S2000 are not supposed to keep Honda afloat. Honda’s game is play it safe and sell cars that more people would appreciate, instead of a few. But it doesn’t hurt to have fun at times, does it? That’s where cars like NSX and S2000 come into play. And hopefully, there will be another between the two.
BMW has had to play the game as well. Mini is helping right now (and it ain’t a rear driver, is it?).
A BMW fighter would sell much better than the NSX and S2000, so I'm not sure what your point is here.
Would it sell better than TSX and TL already do? If not, what would be the point?
If Honda can spend money developing "boutique" cars, why can't they develop a RWD platform for the RL and TL? Is FWD a selling point for these cars?
I’m sure Honda could deliver a RWD platform and a V8 for the finishing touch. But, again, what would be the point? If something doesn’t help in the bottom line, does it make sense to invest?
FWD is, sometimes, a selling point. And in case of RL, Acura is going AWD way (and may do so for TSX and TL as well) to extend the selling point to where it doesn’t currently.
"No, it doesn't. First, I would prefer Honda to lead rather than follow. But more importantly, cars like NSX and S2000 are not supposed to keep Honda afloat."
Yet they still make them.
"But it doesn't hurt to have fun at times, does it?"
No it doesn't. Where's the Acura 3 or 5 series?
"Would it sell better than TSX and TL already do? If not, what would be the point?"
What's the point of the NSX and S2000?
"If something doesn't help in the bottom line, does it make sense to invest?"
Apparantly it does. Witness the NSX and S2000....but, I believe that a BMW fighter WOULD help the bottom line.
nippononly RSX would make a great "next Honda Prelude", eliminating the 160 hp engine of course
Ideal RSX, IMO K24A (200-220 HP) & SH-AWD, while keeping the size as compact as possible to keep the curb weight down (under 3000 lb.), and sell for $25-30K alongside TSX as its coupe version.
"I am saying that if you can justify the S2000 and NSX, then you should have NO trouble justifying a BMW fighter."
First of all, the decision to build the NSX was made back in 1980-something. Way before the 3 Series became the benchmark that it is today.
Heck, back then, the Legend was a benchmark. Why didn't BMW build a FWD, V6 only sedan? Why didn't they answer the low cost, high thrills Integra Type R?
The S2000 is a BMW fighter. It's a Z roadster fighter, and, if I may say so, it left the Z sitting in the parking lot.
A BMW "sedan" fighter would kill TSX and TL sales. Both Acuras are far cheaper for Honda to produce. Heck, the TSX is practically a carbon copy of the European Accord. They were already building it. The TL is simply a heavily modified Accord. Cheap, cheap, cheap! Building a 3 Series competitor would have required a whole new line, new parts contracts, and far higher R&D costs.
Given what I know of profit margins on Honda cars, I think it's a pretty safe bet that Honda makes more money on each TL they sell than BMW does on their 3 sedan. Frankly, the only reason why BMW makes big money is because of how much they can overcharge for the 3 Series. Acura does not have the brand cache to overcharge like that.
I mean, sure, they would have made a few million more with the addition of a 3 clone. But they would have lost just as much in TL sales.
"A BMW "sedan" fighter would kill TSX and TL sales."
Not if the TSX and TL WERE the BMW fighters.
"Building a 3 Series competitor would have required a whole new line, new parts contracts, and far higher R&D costs."
They did it for the S2000.
"Heck, the TSX is practically a carbon copy of the European Accord. They were already building it. The TL is simply a heavily modified Accord. Cheap, cheap, cheap!"
And you wonder why "Acura does not have the brand cache to overcharge like that."?
Robert - You're contradicting yourself there, buddy.
You justified the S2000 and NSX with the notion that they aren't supposed to keep the company afloat (financially), and that some cars are about fun (not profit).
Then you go and say this:
"If something doesn’t help in the bottom line, does it make sense to invest?"
Icon cars work when they promote the ideals of the company. Chrysler can get a boost from the hemi, but Honda would not. Mazda can use rotary power to call up nostalgia. Chevy can use nameplates like GTO. It's not just a matter of building any old high-perf automobile. It needs to be an auto that illustrates the company values. That's why the S2000 and NSX work.
You'd kill off 2 million in profit to make 1 million with a car that is harder to produce?
"They did it for the S2000."
Not really. The S2K does not compete with any other Honda. Nor did it require a mass-production facility. The S2k is made in the same facility where the NSX and Insight are built. It's a low volume, boutique shop. In order to recoup design costs for a 3 Series competitor, they'd need a complete high-volume line, a whole new factory.
And you wonder why "Acura does not have the brand cache to overcharge like that."?
No, I don't wonder. It's obvious. but you don't start with one car and expect it to change overnight.
"You'd kill off 2 million in profit to make 1 million with a car that is harder to produce?"
Where are these numbers coming from? Or are they just guesses?
"In order to recoup design costs for a 3 Series competitor, they'd need a complete high-volume line, a whole new factory."
Would RWD really mean a whole new factory? AWD is essentially FWD+RWD considering the need for a rear differential and driveshaft. The packaging might be different between AWD and RWD (transversely mounted vs. longitudinally mounted engines) but I'm not sure that would necesitate a new factory. Even if they did need a new factory, it'd be the perfect place to build RWD RLs and TLs.
"No, I don't wonder. It's obvious. but you don't start with one car and expect it to change overnight."
Well, you're right on that one. Acura should have made the RL RWD a long time ago, about when the LS400 was introduced.
Now that I think about it, Ford is now building RWD Mustangs at the Flat Rock factory, which historically has ALWAYS built FWD vehicles. If Ford can do it, I don’t see why Honda couldn’t.
Robert - You're contradicting yourself there, buddy S2000 and NSX are showcase cars. Taking them off the shelf isn't going to hurt Honda's bottom line. And thats what I meant.
Simply put, a whole new production line, to manufacture vehicles using a specific platform. Honda builds TL and Accord in Marysville, Ohio. That plant, supposedly, has the capacity to build 340K Accords, and about 60K TL. Until recently, the only way for Honda to balance Accord and TL/CL production was by importing additional units of Accord.
With establishment of flexible production facility, Honda could produce cars from different platforms on a single production line. With TL setting the pace for more than 60K units/year, Honda is moving some Accord production to its East Liberty plant.
I believe the other midsize platform production line may be in Japan (Honda moved Euro Accord production to Japan in 2002, and converted its Swindon-UK plant to produce CRV/Civic). And that may be the source for TSX and the new RL.
Where would Honda produce enough vehicles to justify a new RWD platform? And even if Honda did produce RWD platform cars, somewhere, in what way (other than personal bias) would it help Honda’s bottom line? The best I can think of is, selling 60K RWD TL instead of 60K FWD TL. Does this help the bottomline? Nope, and worse, if you consider additional investment that might be needed (and “may” require price to go up).
I hope Honda goes V6 across the Acura sedan line up, and throws in SH-AWD. That seems to be a logical move to me, as of now. In the future, they could do it, as new production facilities are added and additional vehicles are as well.
"S2000 and NSX are showcase cars. Taking them off the shelf isn't going to hurt Honda's bottom line."
So they're not really helping Honda's bottom line either. Wouldn't building "bread and butter" cars instead of the NSX and S2000 help the bottom line....or is that factory only capable of building "showcase" cars?
"And even if Honda did produce RWD platform cars, somewhere, in what way (other than personal bias) would it help Honda’s bottom line?"
What way does the S2000 and NSX help Honda's bottom line?
"The best I can think of is, selling 60K RWD TL instead of 60K FWD TL. Does this help the bottomline? Nope, and worse, if you consider additional investment that might be needed (and “may” require price to go up)."
IMO, Honda could charge more for a RWD TL and even if it didn't help the bottom line it would do a lot to improve the "brand cache"....a lot more than what the S2000 and NSX are doing for the "brand cache". Ford didn't *need* to keep the Mustang RWD. The bottom line would definately look better in the short run if they just switched it over to FWD because that's what Flat Rock was set up for in the first place. But they kept it RWD. And I know what you're going to say: "But a pony car is supposed to be RWD". Yup, and so are luxury/sport sedans. Acura's flagship car being FWD is just as blasphemous as a FWD Mustang.
Do you realize that all cars would suck if the bottom line was the only thing important to automakers? Really, would Honda be where they are today if the beancounters always had more say than the engineers? How does Honda's racing program help the bottom line?
I realize that you cannot ignore the bottom line, but it should not be the only thing an automaker is focused on.
So they're not really helping Honda's bottom line either.
Not directly. Their presence in the lineup is more for “advertisement” need than for the survival game. They’re simply “halo” cars for the Acura/Honda lineup.
Wouldn't building "bread and butter" cars instead of the NSX and S2000 help the bottom line....or is that factory only capable of building "showcase" cars?
You’re correct. The facility where S2000 and NSX are built (Insight was added later) is supposedly a “specialized facility” with very limited production volume. If I remember correctly, it started out as a R&D facility for Honda’s racing efforts. May be with closure of Insight production, there will be a production line available for another small volume sports car sharing mechanicals with S2000 or NSX!
IMO, Honda could charge more for a RWD TL and even if it didn't help the bottom line it would do a lot to improve the "brand cache"....a lot more than what the S2000 and NSX are doing for the "brand cache".
Charging more isn’t always the right thing to do. It could force lower volume, and in the end, they might just balance each other out.
Believe it or not, Honda already has a brand cache, at least in North America. Even in Europe, where it is growing up, Honda is regarded high in the automotive world. Unfortunately, brand cache doesn’t seem to come from “value offerings”, a reason why Mercedes seems reluctant to offer A-class here in the USA, or why it might be a bad idea for Ferrari to offer a cheap sports car. The end game in any business is to make money.
But a pony car is supposed to be RWD". Yup, and so are luxury/sport sedans. Acura's flagship car being FWD is just as blasphemous as a FWD Mustang.
Not really. Acura isn’t building cars for drag strips. Outside of drag strips and racetrack, there is no “need” for RWD, or even AWD. At least in case of AWD, you could make an argument for bad weather scenario. It is the “want” that probably prompted Acura to re-build its flagship with AWD layout.
I realize that you cannot ignore the bottom line, but it should not be the only thing an automaker is focused on.
“Should” is an interesting word. Unfortunately, it doesn’t bode well with the need to do business. What else do businesses exist for, if not for the bottom line?
That being said, I just read that Pontiac is struggling to move its GTO, and that car has an inventory turn around of 168 days! That is probably worse than it was for Aztek. So much for RWD and V8.
Yes, those number are examples, not samples from the ledger. Honda has never built such a car, so there is no ledger on the subject. I assumed that would be pretty obvious.
Lemme put that to you another way. Does platform-sharing save money? Yes.
Is it a good bet that the platform-sharing used with the Accord and TL saves money? Yes.
Do you seriously think that developing a completely new platform, not shared with any other vehicle, and not fit to be used in any future vehicle would be cheaper than using platform-sharing? I hope not.
One of the prime benefits to using a RWD platform is the ability to place the front axle (almost) anywhere up in front of the engine. This allows the car to be balanced 50/50 as is often preferred. A FWD car cannot do that. The engine and transmission are connected directly to the front axle and cannot be "shifted" fore and aft to create a better balance. An AWD vehicle based on a FWD chassis cannot do that, either.
The short of it is, no, an AWD car is not just FWD and RWD welded together. That only works on Junkyard Wars. The chassis (if it's any good) needs to be well-balanced and built from the ground up as a RWD design.
Would this require a whole new factory? Maybe not. But it would require an entirely new production line. The difference is minimal. If Honda were going to attempt to expand on this chassis, it would certainly require a whole new facility.
If the goal is to provide better performance, there are cheaper ways to do it. The A-spec TL already provides more performance than 90% of the market will ever use. Add an ordinary AWD system to the car and the TL could make the performance gap between the G35 sedan and the TL becomes pretty slim. If SH-AWD lives up to its potential, it may eliminate the difference for as little as $2-3K from the customer's pocket.
Compare that with the cost of RWD... no contest.
As for the Stang, do they still build FWD models on that line? I'm doubting it. Are you suggesting that Honda eliminate all of their Accord production for North America to build a car worth less than 60,000 units a year?
"Believe it or not, Honda already has a brand cache, at least in North America."
But what about Acura? How's Acura's brand cache compared to say, uh, I dunno, Lexus? It doesn't compare. Why?
"Not really. Acura isn’t building cars for drag strips. Outside of drag strips and racetrack, there is no “need” for RWD, or even AWD."
Somebody go tell this to BMW, MB, Audi, Lexus, and Infiniti.
"That being said, I just read that Pontiac is struggling to move its GTO, and that car has an inventory turn around of 168 days! That is probably worse than it was for Aztek. So much for RWD and V8."
Is the reason for the GTO's slow sales because it's RWD and V8? What about the Mustang?
"The short of it is, no, an AWD car is not just FWD and RWD welded together."
That's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that if Honda is going AWD now, they're going to need changes at the factory, just like if they went RWD.
"As for the Stang, do they still build FWD models on that line? I'm doubting it."
Of course not on the same line. Geez. But yeah, they are still building the Mazda6 there. My point was that Ford didn't need a new factory when they closed down river rouge (where the stang used to be built), they adapted Flat Rock for Mustang production. River rouge used to build model Ts and Ford was able to update the plant though the years to accommodate production of newer designs (primarily the Mustang) without having to tear it down and start over. If river rouge built model Ts and Mustangs and everything in between, then building a RWD TL at an existing plant isn't a stretch at all.
"Are you suggesting that Honda eliminate all of their Accord production for North America to build a car worth less than 60,000 units a year?"
No, I'm not suggesting that. If Ford can build RWD Mustangs right next to FWD Mazda6s, why can't Honda build RWD TLs next to FWD Accords?
Newcar - You're talking about completely separate lines under one roof. They might as well be different factories. The beauty of platform-sharing is that they can use the same types of hardware to build the cars.
Platform sharing costs less. Can you dispute that?
"I was trying to say that if Honda is going AWD now, they're going to need changes at the factory, just like if they went RWD."
Well, yes. Of course there will be some changes. Just like with any redesign. But there are "some changes" and there are "complete overhauls".
Adding AWD is a matter of hooking up a transfer case to the tranmission, adding a driveshaft, and a rear differential. That's a modification to existing parts and an existing line. Going to RWD is a completely new line.
This 3 series argument is essentially a one car version of a larger debate. People want to see Honda get into new markets. Some want RWD luxury cars, others want V8-powered, ladder frame trucks, and yet another group wants Honda to go back to light-weight econo-boxes. Everyone seems to think that their favorite car is the holy grail of the industry.
There are dozens of niches that Honda does not fill. To say that any one of them is a huge failing is absurd.
But what about Acura? How's Acura's brand cache compared to say, uh, I dunno, Lexus? It doesn't compare. Why? Acura invited trouble in the mid-90s going to relatively docile offerings. Still, Acura sells, because it is an Acura. Lexus, IMO, is an old person’s brand, kinda like Cadillac. Even in that case, two vehicles that carry its sales are, FWD ES330 and FWD/AWD RX330.
Somebody go tell this to BMW, MB, Audi, Lexus, and Infiniti.
Yep, as soon as someone starts comparing a luxury sedan to a muscle car! Isn’t it interesting though, that you mention Audi up here? What is up with that? Do we have a RWD Audi around?
Is the reason for the GTO's slow sales because it's RWD and V8?
Beats me. Whatever the reason(s), RWD and V8 ain’t helping it. Same could be said for Infiniti Q45 (since the day it was launched) and current M45. Obviously, more goes in defining success, doesn’t it?
I was trying to say that if Honda is going AWD now, they're going to need changes at the factory, just like if they went RWD. No. Going RWD would require a new platform, and a new production line. Global midsize (Accord, TSX, TL and next RL) and global light truck (Odyssey, Pilot and MDX) were likely developed with VTM-4 (or its variant of, including SH-AWD) implementation.
No, I'm not suggesting that. If Ford can build RWD Mustangs right next to FWD Mazda6s, why can't Honda build RWD TLs next to FWD Accords?
One factory does not mean same production line. You could have one big factory with several production lines serving different platforms. The key here is “platform”.
Current approach is flexibility, and platform sharing provides that. That’s the future.
"Platform sharing costs less. Can you dispute that?"
I never have disputed that and never suggested otherwise. It's easy to win a debate when you make points that aren't being debated. I realize that platform sharing costs less, but I also realize that platform sharing isn't the end-all be-all. If it was, every car company would only have one platform.
"Acura invited trouble in the mid-90s going to relatively docile offerings. Still, Acura sells, because it is an Acura. Lexus, IMO, is an old person’s brand, kinda like Cadillac. Even in that case, two vehicles that carry its sales are, FWD ES330 and FWD/AWD RX330."
First of all, the reason why Acura doesn't have the same brand cache as Lexus is because it never had a competitive flagship. IMO, Acura could've killed Infiniti if they tried. Of all the Japanese makers, they were first to the luxury market, yet they are last as far as brand "cache" IMO. What's up with that? Second of all, the ES330 and RX330 may be the Lexus sales leaders, but Lexus would not have the reputation it has without it's RWD offerings. In other words, the ES330 and RX330 benefit from having cars like the LS430 in the same showroom.
"Beats me. Whatever the reason(s), RWD and V8 ain’t helping it."
Is it hurting the sales? Would cars like the Mustang, Miata, all BMWs, etc. sell better if they were FWD?
"One factory does not mean same production line. You could have one big factory with several production lines serving different platforms. The key here is “platform”."
Thanks, but I never suggested that RWD and FWD cars can be built on the same line. Of course Ford had to make changes to one of the Flat Rock lines because the only cars they used to build there were the FWD Cougar and 626. My original point still stands: Honda would not need to build a new factory. I never said they wouldn't need a new platform.
"Isn’t it interesting though, that you mention Audi up here? What is up with that? Do we have a RWD Audi around?"
Well, I should've left Audi out, but then again, they don't have a FWD V6 flagship like Acura.
I would love a RWD Honda engined sedan about the size of the TSX. Keep the same engine and it would be nirvana on wheels.
The GTO ain't sellin cause it's ugly, plain, and you can't even get a sunroof in em. How can you have a $30K performance GT cruiser without a sunroof?
I'll buy the "Honda doesn't have to do RWD" mantra. But they could at least do a AWD version. They have experience in this setup and it can be adapted from current offerings. I mean you can only feed so much power through the front wheels and even the lowly Accord V6 is starting to hit a ceiling.
I understand the benefits of keeping the number of different platforms to a minimum, but as an enthusiast and a Honda fan, I've never understood why Honda didn't want to compete with the luxury big dogs. Like I said before, Honda was the first Japanese automaker to move upscale. Just imagine what the Legend would've been like now had Acura went RWD/V8 back when the LS400 and Q45 came out. What if the Vigor had been RWD and had an available I5 with one extra cylinder? The engine was already longitudinally positioned, it would've been PERFECT for RWD. What if???? Would Infiniti still exist?
Infiniti built a whole new platform for the G35, the FM platform.
They are selling a whole bunch of cars off that platform and I'm sure those profits justify the investment Infiniti made. Those are profits that Honda could have made if they moved faster.
Varmint, your argument that Honda can make more money leveraging off of existing FWD platforms is of course correct.
But Newcar's point (I believe) is that Honda could still have made money building a RWD platform to compete with BMW (witness Infiniti), and once the costs of building such platform are amortized, Honda would be competing in more markets and making money off of all of them.
Also, if you're going to make boutique cars in a boutique factory, why not make the BMW 3 or 5 series killer? Then use the experience and R&D from that boutique factory to make a production factory for the 3 or 5 series killer.
Newcar - I pushed on the issue of costs and platform sharing because you were questionning my point about profits per car being higher with a shared FWD layout. The basis for that point is the reality that platform sharing is cheaper.
Could Honda could make a profit with a RWD design? Yes.
Could Honda can make a bunch more money with a FWD design? Yes.
How is that? Platform-sharing.
I'm looking at the April and YTD sales figures for the TL and the competition. This is the site I'm using. Sometimes they goof things up, but they've recently updated their info, so I think it's correct.
The TL is currently outselling every RWD car in it's class, including the 3 Series sedan. Now I know that the 3 is an old car and the TL is a new one. But the TL is also besting the relatively new G35 sedan, Cadillac CTS, and even the lux-boat ES330 sedan. None of which are particularly old.
Given that the FWD TL probably has a higher profit margin than a theoretical RWD version would, how can you say the FWD TL is a bad idea?
Saugatak - Yes, I believe that Honda could make money with a RWD platform, but such a car would cut TL sales in half. They'd trade a highly profitable car for a less profitable vehicle. By sticking with a FWD design and working with AWD, they have the chance to have their cake and eat it, too.
As for the boutique factory, it does not have the capacity to crank out 60-80K units per year. They build cars "by hand" at this facility.
I guess the key thing is Honda's production. If they have limited production, I agree it probably makes better business sense to stick with FWD TL.
If they had greater production capacity, they could make the FWD TL (design it to be more cushy and luxurious to get the Lexus market) and then a RWD TL (for the sporty market).
This may result lower short term gains, but I'd argue the long term benefits of being in multiple markets would be worth it. Look at Toyota's benefittnig from being in just about every market segment.
"Could Honda could make a profit with a RWD design? Yes.
Could Honda can make a bunch more money with a FWD design? Yes.
How is that? Platform-sharing."
How is it that you know this with certainty unless you are a Honda insider? Nissan has successfully used the FM global PLATFORM in front and rear wheel drive iterations, and produces plenty of cash flow from it. Nissan's FM global is an example of a PLATFORM SHARING relationship which can be manipulated for either front or rear wheel drive. Why should we make excuses and say that Honda cant do it in a cost effective manner, when they seem to be able to do everything else as such?
The TL is outselling many vehicles in its class, yes. But you contend the G35, CTS, and ES330 arent that old? The ES330 will be entering its 4th model year soon. Thats pretty old in this competitive segment, and the G35 and CTS were fairly early MY 2003 arrivals, IMO.
Very interesting conversation here. Thank you to all. Well... most.
"How is it that you know this with certainty unless you are a Honda insider?"
Considering the rampant speculation and imaginative scenarios being thrown around in this forum, "knowing things with any degree of certainty" is clearly a very low priority when making claims here. Varmint's claims are pretty low on the speculation scale compared to many other claims I've seen here recently.
"The TL is outselling many vehicles in its class, yes. But you contend the G35, CTS, and ES330 arent that old? The ES330 will be entering its 4th model year soon. Thats pretty old in this competitive segment, and the G35 and CTS were fairly early MY 2003 arrivals, IMO."
All of those cars are "aging" very gracefully... their age hasn't negatively affected their sales performance in the slightest. In fact, sales for both the G35 and ES330 are up 25% through April compared to last year, and the CTS is up 13%. So the cars that the TL is outselling are hardly waning designs crying for replacement... on the contrary, sales for all 3 cars are on a significant upswing, despite a climate in which overall auto sales are at best lackluster. They may be approaching middle age, but they clearly have lots of life left in them.
Nissan has successfully used the FM global PLATFORM in front and rear wheel drive iterations, and produces plenty of cash flow from it. Nissan's FM global is an example of a PLATFORM SHARING relationship which can be manipulated for either front or rear wheel drive.
The FM must be one hell of a platform if it can do both. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as both a FWD and RWD platform. And I know for a fact that ever car produced off the FM platform is RWD.
Nissan 350Z, G35, FX35/45, M35/45 are all RWD or AWD/RWD.
newcar31 but I also realize that platform sharing isn't the end-all be-all. If it was, every car company would only have one platform.
That would be the ideal situation, but not practical. The current trend is to reduce platforms, by all automakers, to a minimum that is needed.
First of all, the reason why Acura doesn't have the same brand cache as Lexus is because it never had a competitive flagship.
I disagree. Flagships don’t necessarily build brand cache. For that matter, NSX could be considered Acura flagship! I would. BMW’s 7-series gets little attention, it is all about 3-series, and to some extent 540i (now 540). Audi A8 was a lost soul, and the new design seems to be getting more attention.
Acura could've killed Infiniti if they tried. Infiniti had RWD and V8, and was nowhere compared to Acura (even in the mid-90s). Even now, Infiniti is all about G35 (the entry level offering), and have little or no help from “the flagship” that is Q45.
Second of all, the ES330 and RX330 may be the Lexus sales leaders, but Lexus would not have the reputation it has without it's RWD offerings. In other words, the ES330 and RX330 benefit from having cars like the LS430 in the same showroom.
Not because LS430 was RWD. Believe me, nobody cares about ES330/RX330 being front drivers. Lexus is about pampering, and creating snob appeal, and that got the brand an image.
My original point still stands: Honda would not need to build a new factory. I never said they wouldn't need a new platform.
You still don’t get it. The recently implemented flexible manufacturing process will be useless, unless it can include RWD platform to go with it. But then, why go with all the hassle when you have the elements in place?
Well, I should've left Audi out, but then again, they don't have a FWD V6 flagship like Acura.
Considering RL as Acura’s flagship, that is no longer going to be true since it will be AWD.
saugatak Infiniti built a whole new platform for the G35, the FM platform.
Nissan could invest aggressively because it had to, and it had cash flow to do so (courtesy: Renault). Honda has to tread carefully when it comes to investments. When things settle down for Nissan/Infiniti, and Honda/Acura continues business as usual, only then we can compare things properly. For now, Acura is still doing better than Infiniti.
If they had greater production capacity, they could make the FWD TL (design it to be more cushy and luxurious to get the Lexus market) and then a RWD TL (for the sporty market).
I would hate to see Acuras go cushy. Front driver doesn’t have to be cushy. Bad idea (ask Acura about its mid-90s mishaps). TL is good as is, for “touring” purpose (after all it is Touring Luxury sedan). For “sporty market”, Acura could use AWD.
merc1 I wonder if the market continues to move towards rwd and stays there for another 10-15 years will Honda decide to go rwd? I won’t be surprised a bit, and would love to see Honda do that. But, I also see there is no current business “need”. There is plenty of growth to be had with the current set up.
alpha01 FM platform does not support FWD vehicles. The engine is shared, not the platform.
...the Insight or has it been phased-out in favor of the hybrid Civic? Is Honda's hybrid system different from Toyota's? Is is superior or equal to Toyota's system?
Toyota's system is mainly for "city cars" while the Civic Hybrid gets it's best mileage on the highway. Toyota's sytem makes more sense in Japan where there's less room to roam.
"I disagree. Flagships don’t necessarily build brand cache."
We'll have to agree to disagree. Even if the Infiniti Q45 wasn't a sales sucess, it helped the Infiniti brand to not be known as just a bunch of rebadged Nissans.
"Not because LS430 was RWD."
Do you really believe that? Do you think the LS still would've been compared to Mercedes when it was introduced if it were FWD with a V6? Would Lexus have the same cache without the Mercedes comparisons? Would they have the same cache if all Lexuses were rebadged Toyotas?
"If they had greater production capacity, they could make the FWD TL (design it to be more cushy and luxurious to get the Lexus market) and then a RWD TL (for the sporty market)" - Saugatak
Yeah, that's a suggestion I can agree with. I have two concerns with that.
1. Honda may have bigger fish to fry. They do have limited resources. Whether they should be devoting those resources to hybrids, safety technology, the bargain performance market (Civic Si), the uber-sport market (NSX), or trucks is a concern to weigh against the need for multiple luxury sedans.
2. After having scored such a hit with the last TL Type S, making the TL a luxo barge would send mixed signals. Acura suffered an image problem through the 90's. In their shoes, I would be hesitant to risk alienating an existing base of TL buyers. A move like that is possible, but it would take considerable time.
Given the time and resources, I could see Acura taking that route. Yes, this is speculation. But I don't think they are quite ready for it.
Lexus LS is compared to Mercedes S-Class, because it was intended to under-cut the Germans by offering similar features. Kind of "value orientation". If it rode like it does, and offered pampering like it does, and under cut a comparable Mercedes, it wouldn't matter which wheels it were driving. For that matter, it AWD itself could have made all the difference.
In case of Q45, it doesn't help to "differentiate" if there is no sales. May be you see a point in "differentiation", I don't.
Well, the NSX doesn't generate any meaningful sales, but I think it sets Acura apart from Lexus.
I think the Q ship would have been a good way to promote the brand IF it hadn't failed to be a real contender. As an also-ran in the face of the LS430 and 7 series, it just didn't register. I mean, it could have failed in the sales race and still defined the brand if it had offered something unique. But it didn't. It's just another RWD V8-powered wannabe.
In contrast, the NSX failed, but provided a very vivid picture of what Acura could do. People notice that car even if they'd rather buy something else.
"Lexus LS is compared to Mercedes S-Class, because it was intended to under-cut the Germans by offering similar features. Kind of "value orientation". If it rode like it does, and offered pampering like it does, and under cut a comparable Mercedes, it wouldn't matter which wheels it were driving. For that matter, it AWD itself could have made all the difference."
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. There would be no Mercedes comparisons had the LS been FWD with a V6 EVEN IF it still rode like it does, and offered pampering like it does. If it had been FWD/V6, it would've been written off by the automotive press as another Continental, Legend, etc.
"Well, the NSX doesn't generate any meaningful sales, but I think it sets Acura apart from Lexus."
Most people don't even know what an NSX is let alone who makes it. My parent's neighbor got a used one recently and my Mom and Dad thought it was a Ferrari. I told them it was an NSX, made by Acura, and she said she's never heard of it. My Dad remembered, but I had to refresh his memory. He didn't think they still made them. The NSX has been around for 14 years, so much for brand recognition.
"If it rode like it does, and offered pampering like it does, and under cut a comparable Mercedes, it wouldn't matter which wheels it were driving."
Gosh, this is so ridiculous that I have to respond to it again. Why do BMW and MB continue to use RWD if the statement in quotes above is true? The Mini handles pretty darn good and it's FWD, why not switch all BMWs over to FWD? It's cheaper. The bottom line would be better.
"My parent's neighbor got a used one recently and my Mom and Dad thought it was a Ferrari. I told them it was an NSX, made by Acura, and she said she's never heard of it."
Well, for that matter, my mom wouldn't know a BMW 5 or 7 Series if it ran over her. So anecdotes about brand recognition really prove nothing for either Acura or BMW. In many cases, brand recognition is at least somewhat dependent on some level of interest in related product categories.
"Well, apparantly some people in here haven't been there or heard that. Don't even try to pretend like that article isn't relevent."
The article is nothing more than one person's opinion. Expressing that person's attitudes and priorities. Attitudes and priorities that not everyone shares.
I never said that it wasn't relevent... I just said that for most of us, myself included, this is old news. And it doesn't change a thing.
Just because some of us understand the direction that Honda and Acura are taking with its FWD platforms and consider it to be a viable, if not perfect, option doesn't mean that we don't understand the benefits of RWD. There's no call for you to talk down to me.
And you might want to consider toning down the imperious attitude just a notch.
Why do BMW and MB continue to use RWD if the statement in quotes above is true?
And why do BMW and MB offer AWD? May be the answer is there!
The Mini handles pretty darn good and it's FWD, why not switch all BMWs over to FWD? It's cheaper. The bottom line would be better.
There you go! Did you say Mini handles pretty darn good (in the same sentence as "it's FWD")? Wonder why Mini isn't a rear driver. Makes more sense, doesn't it?
And before I forget, the Legend had a car that had established itself, and is still remembered and makes the current RL look bad. It didn't matter which wheels the car had powered, it was a fantastic car, nonetheless. I don't see as many passionate LS400 drivers (from the early 90s) as I do Legend drivers. That speaks for itself, IMO.
"Imperious attitude? What kind of attitude would this statement represent then?
"That's old news....Been there, heard that. Nothing new."
That's a comment about an article, which I dismissed as old news. I'm not talking down to anybody, nor am I demanding that someone else comply with my idea of correct behavior. I'm just saying that the article is not important or breaking news, IMO. How is that imperious? It's just expressing an opinion about an article. It says nothing demeaning about you.
This is significantly different from your "command" to "Don't even try to pretend like that article isn't relevent." That's demanding, that's talking down to someone, and THAT'S what I call imperious.
If you want to stop demanding things of me that you have no right to demand, we can stop talking about each other and resume talking about the cars.
Comments
Play what game? The Ferrari and Miata game? Why no BMW game? That game makes more sense than the Ferrari and Miata game.
No, it doesn’t. First, I would prefer Honda to lead rather than follow. But more importantly, cars like NSX and S2000 are not supposed to keep Honda afloat. Honda’s game is play it safe and sell cars that more people would appreciate, instead of a few. But it doesn’t hurt to have fun at times, does it? That’s where cars like NSX and S2000 come into play. And hopefully, there will be another between the two.
BMW has had to play the game as well. Mini is helping right now (and it ain’t a rear driver, is it?).
A BMW fighter would sell much better than the NSX and S2000, so I'm not sure what your point is here.
Would it sell better than TSX and TL already do? If not, what would be the point?
If Honda can spend money developing "boutique" cars, why can't they develop a RWD platform for the RL and TL? Is FWD a selling point for these cars?
I’m sure Honda could deliver a RWD platform and a V8 for the finishing touch. But, again, what would be the point? If something doesn’t help in the bottom line, does it make sense to invest?
FWD is, sometimes, a selling point. And in case of RL, Acura is going AWD way (and may do so for TSX and TL as well) to extend the selling point to where it doesn’t currently.
Yet they still make them.
"But it doesn't hurt to have fun at times, does it?"
No it doesn't. Where's the Acura 3 or 5 series?
"Would it sell better than TSX and TL already do? If not, what would be the point?"
What's the point of the NSX and S2000?
"If something doesn't help in the bottom line, does it make sense to invest?"
Apparantly it does. Witness the NSX and S2000....but, I believe that a BMW fighter WOULD help the bottom line.
RSX would make a great "next Honda Prelude", eliminating the 160 hp engine of course
Ideal RSX, IMO K24A (200-220 HP) & SH-AWD, while keeping the size as compact as possible to keep the curb weight down (under 3000 lb.), and sell for $25-30K alongside TSX as its coupe version.
First of all, the decision to build the NSX was made back in 1980-something. Way before the 3 Series became the benchmark that it is today.
Heck, back then, the Legend was a benchmark. Why didn't BMW build a FWD, V6 only sedan? Why didn't they answer the low cost, high thrills Integra Type R?
The S2000 is a BMW fighter. It's a Z roadster fighter, and, if I may say so, it left the Z sitting in the parking lot.
A BMW "sedan" fighter would kill TSX and TL sales. Both Acuras are far cheaper for Honda to produce. Heck, the TSX is practically a carbon copy of the European Accord. They were already building it. The TL is simply a heavily modified Accord. Cheap, cheap, cheap! Building a 3 Series competitor would have required a whole new line, new parts contracts, and far higher R&D costs.
Given what I know of profit margins on Honda cars, I think it's a pretty safe bet that Honda makes more money on each TL they sell than BMW does on their 3 sedan. Frankly, the only reason why BMW makes big money is because of how much they can overcharge for the 3 Series. Acura does not have the brand cache to overcharge like that.
I mean, sure, they would have made a few million more with the addition of a 3 clone. But they would have lost just as much in TL sales.
Not if the TSX and TL WERE the BMW fighters.
"Building a 3 Series competitor would have required a whole new line, new parts contracts, and far higher R&D costs."
They did it for the S2000.
"Heck, the TSX is practically a carbon copy of the European Accord. They were already building it. The TL is simply a heavily modified Accord. Cheap, cheap, cheap!"
And you wonder why "Acura does not have the brand cache to overcharge like that."?
You justified the S2000 and NSX with the notion that they aren't supposed to keep the company afloat (financially), and that some cars are about fun (not profit).
Then you go and say this:
"If something doesn’t help in the bottom line, does it make sense to invest?"
Icon cars work when they promote the ideals of the company. Chrysler can get a boost from the hemi, but Honda would not. Mazda can use rotary power to call up nostalgia. Chevy can use nameplates like GTO. It's not just a matter of building any old high-perf automobile. It needs to be an auto that illustrates the company values. That's why the S2000 and NSX work.
You'd kill off 2 million in profit to make 1 million with a car that is harder to produce?
"They did it for the S2000."
Not really. The S2K does not compete with any other Honda. Nor did it require a mass-production facility. The S2k is made in the same facility where the NSX and Insight are built. It's a low volume, boutique shop. In order to recoup design costs for a 3 Series competitor, they'd need a complete high-volume line, a whole new factory.
And you wonder why "Acura does not have the brand cache to overcharge like that."?
No, I don't wonder. It's obvious. but you don't start with one car and expect it to change overnight.
Where are these numbers coming from? Or are they just guesses?
"In order to recoup design costs for a 3 Series competitor, they'd need a complete high-volume line, a whole new factory."
Would RWD really mean a whole new factory? AWD is essentially FWD+RWD considering the need for a rear differential and driveshaft. The packaging might be different between AWD and RWD (transversely mounted vs. longitudinally mounted engines) but I'm not sure that would necesitate a new factory. Even if they did need a new factory, it'd be the perfect place to build RWD RLs and TLs.
"No, I don't wonder. It's obvious. but you don't start with one car and expect it to change overnight."
Well, you're right on that one. Acura should have made the RL RWD a long time ago, about when the LS400 was introduced.
S2000 and NSX are showcase cars. Taking them off the shelf isn't going to hurt Honda's bottom line. And thats what I meant.
Simply put, a whole new production line, to manufacture vehicles using a specific platform. Honda builds TL and Accord in Marysville, Ohio. That plant, supposedly, has the capacity to build 340K Accords, and about 60K TL. Until recently, the only way for Honda to balance Accord and TL/CL production was by importing additional units of Accord.
With establishment of flexible production facility, Honda could produce cars from different platforms on a single production line. With TL setting the pace for more than 60K units/year, Honda is moving some Accord production to its East Liberty plant.
I believe the other midsize platform production line may be in Japan (Honda moved Euro Accord production to Japan in 2002, and converted its Swindon-UK plant to produce CRV/Civic). And that may be the source for TSX and the new RL.
Where would Honda produce enough vehicles to justify a new RWD platform? And even if Honda did produce RWD platform cars, somewhere, in what way (other than personal bias) would it help Honda’s bottom line? The best I can think of is, selling 60K RWD TL instead of 60K FWD TL. Does this help the bottomline? Nope, and worse, if you consider additional investment that might be needed (and “may” require price to go up).
I hope Honda goes V6 across the Acura sedan line up, and throws in SH-AWD. That seems to be a logical move to me, as of now. In the future, they could do it, as new production facilities are added and additional vehicles are as well.
So they're not really helping Honda's bottom line either. Wouldn't building "bread and butter" cars instead of the NSX and S2000 help the bottom line....or is that factory only capable of building "showcase" cars?
"And even if Honda did produce RWD platform cars, somewhere, in what way (other than personal bias) would it help Honda’s bottom line?"
What way does the S2000 and NSX help Honda's bottom line?
"The best I can think of is, selling 60K RWD TL instead of 60K FWD TL. Does this help the bottomline? Nope, and worse, if you consider additional investment that might be needed (and “may” require price to go up)."
IMO, Honda could charge more for a RWD TL and even if it didn't help the bottom line it would do a lot to improve the "brand cache"....a lot more than what the S2000 and NSX are doing for the "brand cache". Ford didn't *need* to keep the Mustang RWD. The bottom line would definately look better in the short run if they just switched it over to FWD because that's what Flat Rock was set up for in the first place. But they kept it RWD. And I know what you're going to say: "But a pony car is supposed to be RWD". Yup, and so are luxury/sport sedans. Acura's flagship car being FWD is just as blasphemous as a FWD Mustang.
I realize that you cannot ignore the bottom line, but it should not be the only thing an automaker is focused on.
Not directly. Their presence in the lineup is more for “advertisement” need than for the survival game. They’re simply “halo” cars for the Acura/Honda lineup.
Wouldn't building "bread and butter" cars instead of the NSX and S2000 help the bottom line....or is that factory only capable of building "showcase" cars?
You’re correct. The facility where S2000 and NSX are built (Insight was added later) is supposedly a “specialized facility” with very limited production volume. If I remember correctly, it started out as a R&D facility for Honda’s racing efforts. May be with closure of Insight production, there will be a production line available for another small volume sports car sharing mechanicals with S2000 or NSX!
IMO, Honda could charge more for a RWD TL and even if it didn't help the bottom line it would do a lot to improve the "brand cache"....a lot more than what the S2000 and NSX are doing for the "brand cache".
Charging more isn’t always the right thing to do. It could force lower volume, and in the end, they might just balance each other out.
Believe it or not, Honda already has a brand cache, at least in North America. Even in Europe, where it is growing up, Honda is regarded high in the automotive world. Unfortunately, brand cache doesn’t seem to come from “value offerings”, a reason why Mercedes seems reluctant to offer A-class here in the USA, or why it might be a bad idea for Ferrari to offer a cheap sports car. The end game in any business is to make money.
But a pony car is supposed to be RWD". Yup, and so are luxury/sport sedans. Acura's flagship car being FWD is just as blasphemous as a FWD Mustang.
Not really. Acura isn’t building cars for drag strips. Outside of drag strips and racetrack, there is no “need” for RWD, or even AWD. At least in case of AWD, you could make an argument for bad weather scenario. It is the “want” that probably prompted Acura to re-build its flagship with AWD layout.
I realize that you cannot ignore the bottom line, but it should not be the only thing an automaker is focused on.
“Should” is an interesting word. Unfortunately, it doesn’t bode well with the need to do business. What else do businesses exist for, if not for the bottom line?
That being said, I just read that Pontiac is struggling to move its GTO, and that car has an inventory turn around of 168 days! That is probably worse than it was for Aztek. So much for RWD and V8.
Lemme put that to you another way. Does platform-sharing save money? Yes.
Is it a good bet that the platform-sharing used with the Accord and TL saves money? Yes.
Do you seriously think that developing a completely new platform, not shared with any other vehicle, and not fit to be used in any future vehicle would be cheaper than using platform-sharing? I hope not.
One of the prime benefits to using a RWD platform is the ability to place the front axle (almost) anywhere up in front of the engine. This allows the car to be balanced 50/50 as is often preferred. A FWD car cannot do that. The engine and transmission are connected directly to the front axle and cannot be "shifted" fore and aft to create a better balance. An AWD vehicle based on a FWD chassis cannot do that, either.
The short of it is, no, an AWD car is not just FWD and RWD welded together. That only works on Junkyard Wars. The chassis (if it's any good) needs to be well-balanced and built from the ground up as a RWD design.
Would this require a whole new factory? Maybe not. But it would require an entirely new production line. The difference is minimal. If Honda were going to attempt to expand on this chassis, it would certainly require a whole new facility.
If the goal is to provide better performance, there are cheaper ways to do it. The A-spec TL already provides more performance than 90% of the market will ever use. Add an ordinary AWD system to the car and the TL could make the performance gap between the G35 sedan and the TL becomes pretty slim. If SH-AWD lives up to its potential, it may eliminate the difference for as little as $2-3K from the customer's pocket.
Compare that with the cost of RWD... no contest.
As for the Stang, do they still build FWD models on that line? I'm doubting it. Are you suggesting that Honda eliminate all of their Accord production for North America to build a car worth less than 60,000 units a year?
But what about Acura? How's Acura's brand cache compared to say, uh, I dunno, Lexus? It doesn't compare. Why?
"Not really. Acura isn’t building cars for drag strips. Outside of drag strips and racetrack, there is no “need” for RWD, or even AWD."
Somebody go tell this to BMW, MB, Audi, Lexus, and Infiniti.
"That being said, I just read that Pontiac is struggling to move its GTO, and that car has an inventory turn around of 168 days! That is probably worse than it was for Aztek. So much for RWD and V8."
Is the reason for the GTO's slow sales because it's RWD and V8? What about the Mustang?
That's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that if Honda is going AWD now, they're going to need changes at the factory, just like if they went RWD.
"As for the Stang, do they still build FWD models on that line? I'm doubting it."
Of course not on the same line. Geez. But yeah, they are still building the Mazda6 there. My point was that Ford didn't need a new factory when they closed down river rouge (where the stang used to be built), they adapted Flat Rock for Mustang production. River rouge used to build model Ts and Ford was able to update the plant though the years to accommodate production of newer designs (primarily the Mustang) without having to tear it down and start over. If river rouge built model Ts and Mustangs and everything in between, then building a RWD TL at an existing plant isn't a stretch at all.
"Are you suggesting that Honda eliminate all of their Accord production for North America to build a car worth less than 60,000 units a year?"
No, I'm not suggesting that. If Ford can build RWD Mustangs right next to FWD Mazda6s, why can't Honda build RWD TLs next to FWD Accords?
Platform sharing costs less. Can you dispute that?
"I was trying to say that if Honda is going AWD now, they're going to need changes at the factory, just like if they went RWD."
Well, yes. Of course there will be some changes. Just like with any redesign. But there are "some changes" and there are "complete overhauls".
Adding AWD is a matter of hooking up a transfer case to the tranmission, adding a driveshaft, and a rear differential. That's a modification to existing parts and an existing line. Going to RWD is a completely new line.
This 3 series argument is essentially a one car version of a larger debate. People want to see Honda get into new markets. Some want RWD luxury cars, others want V8-powered, ladder frame trucks, and yet another group wants Honda to go back to light-weight econo-boxes. Everyone seems to think that their favorite car is the holy grail of the industry.
There are dozens of niches that Honda does not fill. To say that any one of them is a huge failing is absurd.
Acura invited trouble in the mid-90s going to relatively docile offerings. Still, Acura sells, because it is an Acura. Lexus, IMO, is an old person’s brand, kinda like Cadillac. Even in that case, two vehicles that carry its sales are, FWD ES330 and FWD/AWD RX330.
Somebody go tell this to BMW, MB, Audi, Lexus, and Infiniti.
Yep, as soon as someone starts comparing a luxury sedan to a muscle car! Isn’t it interesting though, that you mention Audi up here? What is up with that? Do we have a RWD Audi around?
Is the reason for the GTO's slow sales because it's RWD and V8?
Beats me. Whatever the reason(s), RWD and V8 ain’t helping it. Same could be said for Infiniti Q45 (since the day it was launched) and current M45. Obviously, more goes in defining success, doesn’t it?
I was trying to say that if Honda is going AWD now, they're going to need changes at the factory, just like if they went RWD.
No. Going RWD would require a new platform, and a new production line. Global midsize (Accord, TSX, TL and next RL) and global light truck (Odyssey, Pilot and MDX) were likely developed with VTM-4 (or its variant of, including SH-AWD) implementation.
No, I'm not suggesting that. If Ford can build RWD Mustangs right next to FWD Mazda6s, why can't Honda build RWD TLs next to FWD Accords?
One factory does not mean same production line. You could have one big factory with several production lines serving different platforms. The key here is “platform”.
Current approach is flexibility, and platform sharing provides that. That’s the future.
I never have disputed that and never suggested otherwise. It's easy to win a debate when you make points that aren't being debated. I realize that platform sharing costs less, but I also realize that platform sharing isn't the end-all be-all. If it was, every car company would only have one platform.
"Acura invited trouble in the mid-90s going to relatively docile offerings. Still, Acura sells, because it is an Acura. Lexus, IMO, is an old person’s brand, kinda like Cadillac. Even in that case, two vehicles that carry its sales are, FWD ES330 and FWD/AWD RX330."
First of all, the reason why Acura doesn't have the same brand cache as Lexus is because it never had a competitive flagship. IMO, Acura could've killed Infiniti if they tried. Of all the Japanese makers, they were first to the luxury market, yet they are last as far as brand "cache" IMO. What's up with that? Second of all, the ES330 and RX330 may be the Lexus sales leaders, but Lexus would not have the reputation it has without it's RWD offerings. In other words, the ES330 and RX330 benefit from having cars like the LS430 in the same showroom.
"Beats me. Whatever the reason(s), RWD and V8 ain’t helping it."
Is it hurting the sales? Would cars like the Mustang, Miata, all BMWs, etc. sell better if they were FWD?
"One factory does not mean same production line. You could have one big factory with several production lines serving different platforms. The key here is “platform”."
Thanks, but I never suggested that RWD and FWD cars can be built on the same line. Of course Ford had to make changes to one of the Flat Rock lines because the only cars they used to build there were the FWD Cougar and 626. My original point still stands: Honda would not need to build a new factory. I never said they wouldn't need a new platform.
"Isn’t it interesting though, that you mention Audi up here? What is up with that? Do we have a RWD Audi around?"
Well, I should've left Audi out, but then again, they don't have a FWD V6 flagship like Acura.
The GTO ain't sellin cause it's ugly, plain, and you can't even get a sunroof in em. How can you have a $30K performance GT cruiser without a sunroof?
I'll buy the "Honda doesn't have to do RWD" mantra. But they could at least do a AWD version. They have experience in this setup and it can be adapted from current offerings. I mean you can only feed so much power through the front wheels and even the lowly Accord V6 is starting to hit a ceiling.
They are selling a whole bunch of cars off that platform and I'm sure those profits justify the investment Infiniti made. Those are profits that Honda could have made if they moved faster.
Varmint, your argument that Honda can make more money leveraging off of existing FWD platforms is of course correct.
But Newcar's point (I believe) is that Honda could still have made money building a RWD platform to compete with BMW (witness Infiniti), and once the costs of building such platform are amortized, Honda would be competing in more markets and making money off of all of them.
Also, if you're going to make boutique cars in a boutique factory, why not make the BMW 3 or 5 series killer? Then use the experience and R&D from that boutique factory to make a production factory for the 3 or 5 series killer.
Could Honda could make a profit with a RWD design? Yes.
Could Honda can make a bunch more money with a FWD design? Yes.
How is that? Platform-sharing.
I'm looking at the April and YTD sales figures for the TL and the competition. This is the site I'm using. Sometimes they goof things up, but they've recently updated their info, so I think it's correct.
http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svsedan.asp
The TL is currently outselling every RWD car in it's class, including the 3 Series sedan. Now I know that the 3 is an old car and the TL is a new one. But the TL is also besting the relatively new G35 sedan, Cadillac CTS, and even the lux-boat ES330 sedan. None of which are particularly old.
Given that the FWD TL probably has a higher profit margin than a theoretical RWD version would, how can you say the FWD TL is a bad idea?
Saugatak - Yes, I believe that Honda could make money with a RWD platform, but such a car would cut TL sales in half. They'd trade a highly profitable car for a less profitable vehicle. By sticking with a FWD design and working with AWD, they have the chance to have their cake and eat it, too.
As for the boutique factory, it does not have the capacity to crank out 60-80K units per year. They build cars "by hand" at this facility.
I guess the key thing is Honda's production. If they have limited production, I agree it probably makes better business sense to stick with FWD TL.
If they had greater production capacity, they could make the FWD TL (design it to be more cushy and luxurious to get the Lexus market) and then a RWD TL (for the sporty market).
This may result lower short term gains, but I'd argue the long term benefits of being in multiple markets would be worth it. Look at Toyota's benefittnig from being in just about every market segment.
I wonder if the market continues to move towards rwd and stays there for another 10-15 years will Honda decide to go rwd?
Eventually I think they're going to have to do a rwd platform that will support a variety of vehicles.
M
Could Honda can make a bunch more money with a FWD design? Yes.
How is that? Platform-sharing."
How is it that you know this with certainty unless you are a Honda insider? Nissan has successfully used the FM global PLATFORM in front and rear wheel drive iterations, and produces plenty of cash flow from it. Nissan's FM global is an example of a PLATFORM SHARING relationship which can be manipulated for either front or rear wheel drive. Why should we make excuses and say that Honda cant do it in a cost effective manner, when they seem to be able to do everything else as such?
The TL is outselling many vehicles in its class, yes. But you contend the G35, CTS, and ES330 arent that old? The ES330 will be entering its 4th model year soon. Thats pretty old in this competitive segment, and the G35 and CTS were fairly early MY 2003 arrivals, IMO.
Very interesting conversation here. Thank you to all. Well... most.
~alpha
M
Considering the rampant speculation and imaginative scenarios being thrown around in this forum, "knowing things with any degree of certainty" is clearly a very low priority when making claims here. Varmint's claims are pretty low on the speculation scale compared to many other claims I've seen here recently.
"The TL is outselling many vehicles in its class, yes. But you contend the G35, CTS, and ES330 arent that old? The ES330 will be entering its 4th model year soon. Thats pretty old in this competitive segment, and the G35 and CTS were fairly early MY 2003 arrivals, IMO."
All of those cars are "aging" very gracefully... their age hasn't negatively affected their sales performance in the slightest. In fact, sales for both the G35 and ES330 are up 25% through April compared to last year, and the CTS is up 13%. So the cars that the TL is outselling are hardly waning designs crying for replacement... on the contrary, sales for all 3 cars are on a significant upswing, despite a climate in which overall auto sales are at best lackluster. They may be approaching middle age, but they clearly have lots of life left in them.
The FM must be one hell of a platform if it can do both. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as both a FWD and RWD platform. And I know for a fact that ever car produced off the FM platform is RWD.
Nissan 350Z, G35, FX35/45, M35/45 are all RWD or AWD/RWD.
but I also realize that platform sharing isn't the end-all be-all. If it was, every car company would only have one platform.
That would be the ideal situation, but not practical. The current trend is to reduce platforms, by all automakers, to a minimum that is needed.
First of all, the reason why Acura doesn't have the same brand cache as Lexus is because it never had a competitive flagship.
I disagree. Flagships don’t necessarily build brand cache. For that matter, NSX could be considered Acura flagship! I would. BMW’s 7-series gets little attention, it is all about 3-series, and to some extent 540i (now 540). Audi A8 was a lost soul, and the new design seems to be getting more attention.
Acura could've killed Infiniti if they tried.
Infiniti had RWD and V8, and was nowhere compared to Acura (even in the mid-90s). Even now, Infiniti is all about G35 (the entry level offering), and have little or no help from “the flagship” that is Q45.
Second of all, the ES330 and RX330 may be the Lexus sales leaders, but Lexus would not have the reputation it has without it's RWD offerings. In other words, the ES330 and RX330 benefit from having cars like the LS430 in the same showroom.
Not because LS430 was RWD. Believe me, nobody cares about ES330/RX330 being front drivers. Lexus is about pampering, and creating snob appeal, and that got the brand an image.
My original point still stands: Honda would not need to build a new factory. I never said they wouldn't need a new platform.
You still don’t get it. The recently implemented flexible manufacturing process will be useless, unless it can include RWD platform to go with it. But then, why go with all the hassle when you have the elements in place?
Well, I should've left Audi out, but then again, they don't have a FWD V6 flagship like Acura.
Considering RL as Acura’s flagship, that is no longer going to be true since it will be AWD.
saugatak
Infiniti built a whole new platform for the G35, the FM platform.
Nissan could invest aggressively because it had to, and it had cash flow to do so (courtesy: Renault). Honda has to tread carefully when it comes to investments. When things settle down for Nissan/Infiniti, and Honda/Acura continues business as usual, only then we can compare things properly. For now, Acura is still doing better than Infiniti.
If they had greater production capacity, they could make the FWD TL (design it to be more cushy and luxurious to get the Lexus market) and then a RWD TL (for the sporty market).
I would hate to see Acuras go cushy. Front driver doesn’t have to be cushy. Bad idea (ask Acura about its mid-90s mishaps). TL is good as is, for “touring” purpose (after all it is Touring Luxury sedan). For “sporty market”, Acura could use AWD.
merc1
I wonder if the market continues to move towards rwd and stays there for another 10-15 years will Honda decide to go rwd?
I won’t be surprised a bit, and would love to see Honda do that. But, I also see there is no current business “need”. There is plenty of growth to be had with the current set up.
alpha01
FM platform does not support FWD vehicles. The engine is shared, not the platform.
~alpha
We'll have to agree to disagree. Even if the Infiniti Q45 wasn't a sales sucess, it helped the Infiniti brand to not be known as just a bunch of rebadged Nissans.
"Not because LS430 was RWD."
Do you really believe that? Do you think the LS still would've been compared to Mercedes when it was introduced if it were FWD with a V6? Would Lexus have the same cache without the Mercedes comparisons? Would they have the same cache if all Lexuses were rebadged Toyotas?
Yeah, that's a suggestion I can agree with. I have two concerns with that.
1. Honda may have bigger fish to fry. They do have limited resources. Whether they should be devoting those resources to hybrids, safety technology, the bargain performance market (Civic Si), the uber-sport market (NSX), or trucks is a concern to weigh against the need for multiple luxury sedans.
2. After having scored such a hit with the last TL Type S, making the TL a luxo barge would send mixed signals. Acura suffered an image problem through the 90's. In their shoes, I would be hesitant to risk alienating an existing base of TL buyers. A move like that is possible, but it would take considerable time.
Given the time and resources, I could see Acura taking that route. Yes, this is speculation.
In case of Q45, it doesn't help to "differentiate" if there is no sales. May be you see a point in "differentiation", I don't.
I think the Q ship would have been a good way to promote the brand IF it hadn't failed to be a real contender. As an also-ran in the face of the LS430 and 7 series, it just didn't register. I mean, it could have failed in the sales race and still defined the brand if it had offered something unique. But it didn't. It's just another RWD V8-powered wannabe.
In contrast, the NSX failed, but provided a very vivid picture of what Acura could do. People notice that car even if they'd rather buy something else.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. There would be no Mercedes comparisons had the LS been FWD with a V6 EVEN IF it still rode like it does, and offered pampering like it does. If it had been FWD/V6, it would've been written off by the automotive press as another Continental, Legend, etc.
"Well, the NSX doesn't generate any meaningful sales, but I think it sets Acura apart from Lexus."
Most people don't even know what an NSX is let alone who makes it. My parent's neighbor got a used one recently and my Mom and Dad thought it was a Ferrari. I told them it was an NSX, made by Acura, and she said she's never heard of it. My Dad remembered, but I had to refresh his memory. He didn't think they still made them. The NSX has been around for 14 years, so much for brand recognition.
Gosh, this is so ridiculous that I have to respond to it again. Why do BMW and MB continue to use RWD if the statement in quotes above is true? The Mini handles pretty darn good and it's FWD, why not switch all BMWs over to FWD? It's cheaper. The bottom line would be better.
Well, for that matter, my mom wouldn't know a BMW 5 or 7 Series if it ran over her. So anecdotes about brand recognition really prove nothing for either Acura or BMW. In many cases, brand recognition is at least somewhat dependent on some level of interest in related product categories.
And of course it ignores AWD, which I think most of us feel is Acura's future anyway.
Well, apparantly some people in here haven't been there or heard that. Don't even try to pretend like that article isn't relevent.
The article is nothing more than one person's opinion. Expressing that person's attitudes and priorities. Attitudes and priorities that not everyone shares.
I never said that it wasn't relevent... I just said that for most of us, myself included, this is old news. And it doesn't change a thing.
Just because some of us understand the direction that Honda and Acura are taking with its FWD platforms and consider it to be a viable, if not perfect, option doesn't mean that we don't understand the benefits of RWD. There's no call for you to talk down to me.
And you might want to consider toning down the imperious attitude just a notch.
And why do BMW and MB offer AWD? May be the answer is there!
The Mini handles pretty darn good and it's FWD, why not switch all BMWs over to FWD? It's cheaper. The bottom line would be better.
There you go! Did you say Mini handles pretty darn good (in the same sentence as "it's FWD")? Wonder why Mini isn't a rear driver. Makes more sense, doesn't it?
And before I forget, the Legend had a car that had established itself, and is still remembered and makes the current RL look bad. It didn't matter which wheels the car had powered, it was a fantastic car, nonetheless. I don't see as many passionate LS400 drivers (from the early 90s) as I do Legend drivers. That speaks for itself, IMO.
There is a lot more than opinion in that article. The subject of handling behavior in that article is based on fact, not opinion.
"Attitudes and priorities that not everyone shares."
No, not everybody, just MB, BMW, Jaguar, Lexus, Infiniti.
"And you might want to consider toning down the imperious attitude just a notch."
Imperious attitude? What kind of attitude would the statement below represent then?
"That's old news....Been there, heard that. Nothing new."
"That's old news....Been there, heard that. Nothing new."
That's a comment about an article, which I dismissed as old news. I'm not talking down to anybody, nor am I demanding that someone else comply with my idea of correct behavior. I'm just saying that the article is not important or breaking news, IMO. How is that imperious? It's just expressing an opinion about an article. It says nothing demeaning about you.
This is significantly different from your "command" to "Don't even try to pretend like that article isn't relevent." That's demanding, that's talking down to someone, and THAT'S what I call imperious.
If you want to stop demanding things of me that you have no right to demand, we can stop talking about each other and resume talking about the cars.
"I'm just saying that the article is not important"
What exactly ARE you trying to say?