The current TL has great market precsence right now. The styling and interior quality is there for it to be a success in the market right now. Thats why Honda or Acura(whatever)sells so many TL's. The Legend was a good car and the styling was good too. The 96 TL there was no style to the back end of the car. Thats what killed sales of that car in my opinion. It didn't look sporty enough. The last generation TL mainly sold on value: The under 30K price tag.
I have seen photo's of the new RL and it looks to be promising. The interior quality is there for it to a success. I haven't seen a clear view of the back end of the car to have an opinion yet. The front end looks A-1 however.
While Audi and BMW go to be ugly and overstyled Acura is going in the right direction with their styling. Think back to the late 90's when the Audi and BMW were ahead of Acura in styling. Those days are long over. Of course there are issue's with Honda styling. Its funny to watcg BMW and Audai just self-destruct. Who would have thought that would ever happen? Not me. Only Nissan and Hyundai would scare Honda's exec's in Japan right now. Judging Mazda sales of late it doesn't look Honda should be scared of Mazda anytime soon.
I keep repeating this message time after time, but it can be fun. So, I will do it, again!
Honda has been fond of using letters. In fact, that is how the company started... with a Dream. Okay, I lied. Let us stick to cars now.
Prototype "X190" was followed by "S360" and the first Honda automobiles that reached the market were, T360 (truck with 360 cc engine) and S500 (sports car with 360 cc engine). S600, S800, L800, N... etc. followed.
Fast forward to early 70s, when CVCC gained appreciation. "Honda CVCC" got transformed to "Honda Civic". Of course, Accord (1976) and Prelude (1978) never had to deal with the naming issue.
Acura arrived with the Legend (I love the way it sounds), and Integra of course. But then, "NSX", the new sports car (N: Neo; SX: Sport) joined the party. Let us blame NSX for it to start the craze. Well, I believe it also was the first car to bring the Acura "precision caliper" logo to practice (and in more than one way). But, that is another story, for another time.
In 1991, Honda makes an attempt to give the NSX, some company with the FSX Concept. The AWD system used in the FSX can be considered a conceptual predecessor to the SH-AWD. But, FSX doesn’t get to production. In 1992, “Vigor” does. The trio (Integra, Vigor and Legend) plus one (NSX) continued thru 1995. Then Honda showcases a few concepts, with more mixed signals.
1995 brings Acura CL-X, Honda SSM and Honda Argento Viva concepts. Legend is due for a redesign, and it transforms into 3.5RL. Vigor is due for makeover, and it is now called 2.5TL. An additional engine is offered (3.2/V6 from Legend) with cosmetic changes to have 3.2TL.
In the mean time, Acura has the SLX (part of vehicle exchange deal between Honda and Isuzu Honda gets Trooper and Rodeo, Isuzu gets Odyssey and Domani), and MY1997 brings 2.2CL and 3.0CL.
Now, in the longer run, NSX won out and got 2.2CL/3.0CL, 2.5TL/3.2TL, 3.5RL, SLX to its side. Integra continued its run thru redesign, all by itself. By the time it changed to RSX, MDX had joined in as well, but SLX had to leave. And Acura decided to drop the numeric part from the “name”.
“Legend” is a great name. The “sound of a Legend” or “style of a Legend” has a ring to it. But, it made sense to either have a name “name” or let letters form a name (sounds funny).
I’m okay with Acura using letters, as long as they make sense. So far they do. I’m not sure about “RDX” though, which is supposed to be the next entry.
And hopefully, someday, a Legend will arrive, sitting above Accord, and below TL to serve as a full size performance sedan, while TL moves on to serve a mid-size mid-luxury class, with RWD or AWD.
I'm not so sure that the V8 and RWD were significant in impeding the Acura brand name. The Legend had neither, yet did well in establishing itself.
But I do agree that the lack of a "real" flagship was an issue. I just think that was a problem for the 3.5RL more than the Legend. As was the presence of the entry-level Integra. While the Integra was a great little car, it has never been a luxury car. Too bad it sold so well. ;-)
That said, Acura seems to be back on track.
Ditching the design of the 3.5RL in favor of the new sportier 2005 RL still does not supply an uber-lux flagship, but it removes a stain from the company's image. It allows Acura to compete in the echelon above the TL even if it's not the highest tier.
The new TL and MDX are positioned well in their respective markets and both are successful.
The TSX provides a new entry-level vehicle with far more panache than the RSX. And the RSX is a step up from the old Integra.
So it appears that the brand is climbing the social ladder. Acura may never meet Lexus, MB, and BMW on a level playing field, but they can win a huge chunk of marketshare. In doing so, they will earn brand equity.
Sorry, I was unaware the discussion was focused only on current models. I mentioned the CRX (along with the others) to show that Honda has never been consistent with using names vs numbers. The decision to do that with the Acura brand was well after Honda-branded cars were using numbers.
has announced recently that it intends to put AWD in lots more of its future vehicles, which I think is the mandatory minimum if it really wants to "climb the social ladder" as some have mentioned. The new RL, while at 300hp, is still only at 260 lb-ft or so, and people with big bucks don't like to rev to get their power (hence the obsession with big engines), so when Acura finally decides to go for it with an honest shot at S-class/7-series/Q/LS buyers, it had better be a much bigger engine than the present 3.5.
In the meantime, it should start by making sure it is on top of its own heap: Saab, Volvo, what else? Not to mention making sure it is always at least one step ahead of some of its similar non-premium rivals such as Mazda.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
With Mercedes announcing its move to make AWD standard in S-Class beginning with 2005, it appears, AWD has a potential to be the standard tomorrow.
Good to see Acura disclosing its intentions about applying SH-AWD in more than one car.
I have often disagreed with the notion of having to rev high. As a matter of fact, most V8s around are being pushed to deliver enough power to define the ongoing horsepower war. 6400 rpm or so (to achieve peak power) is becoming a norm in this class.
That said, I see no reason why RL should be said to have “only” 260 lb.-ft when others offer 214-230 lb.-ft. Yes, they have a lower starting price point, but I somehow doubt buyers in this class would rather have stripped luxury cruiser than a loaded one.
It is not just the starting price point that we should focus upon, but also the ending. In RL’s cases, there happens to be just one point, and that happens to be the start for some V8 powered competition.
Yeah, the new RL kinda splits the difference between most V6s and the V8s out there. But enthusiasts will always look at the V8 numbers even if the buyers are shopping V6s. It's as if the V6s are invisible.
I think Honda, for once, should just go ahead and develop a 4.6/V8, just to convey a shut up message to those who keep bringing it up. If it can be anything like the 3.5/V6, expecting 400 HP/350 lb.-ft wouldn’t be a big deal. Just throw in VCM to compensate for the fuel economy and the SUT/MDX could use a detuned version of the same block.
"yeah, but" arguments. If Acura wants buyers to consider the RL alongside such entrants as the S/7/Q/LS, then it is trying to sell a luxury car on price. The S-class buyer says "wow, I have a V-8 and world class accomodations in a rear-driver that can beat yours in every performance test", to which the RL buyer responds "yeah, but I got mine cheaper".
"I got mine cheaper" doesn't exactly cut it in this league. That is why I was saying RL isn't up to the standards of the rareified over-$50K class. And of course, it also isn't over $50K in price. So that is fine. But Acura will need to do one better to have a serious contender for the upper echelons...and that will probably require a V-8, or a V-6 with huge helpings of hybrid electric help, or some such thing. Maybe a V-10 turbodiesel is in Honda's future??!! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But is RL a direct competitor to S-Class or Lexus LS? If it appears to be, then the dice favors Acura! And speaking of Q45, it is a forgettable car, probably underrated but goes on to show that having a V8 (most powerful at that) in this class isn't going to cut it.
And speaking of RL, yes it is priced at $49K, where some V8 offerings "start". But, do buyers in this market really want V8 and let go of features they can afford to stay "under" $50K? I doubt it. For that reason, you could put a $16K options package on a $56K LS430.
There is a reason, cars like BMW 525/530, E320 and GS300 exist. And Infiniti felt the need to compete with a V6, rather than offer a V8 at a low starting price.
Should Acura offer a V8? Sure. But is that all there is to this class? Nope.
"But is RL a direct competitor to S-Class or Lexus LS?" No, that whole discussion stemmed from the initial proposition that Acura needs to go one better than it has done historically if it hopes to compete with those models. And it needs to compete with those models before it can properly be considered in the luxury leagues of MB/BMW/Audi/Lexus (and possibly Infiniti).
Maybe it doesn't want to move upscale. Right now it is making very juicy profit margins on cars like the TL that were not new from the ground up, but rather extensively reworked versions of other models (in the TL's case, the Accord). However, their rhetoric of late has been that they do intend to move the brand upscale.
After all the car mags speculated an initial price of around $48K for the RL, and Honda announced "a price well under $50K", it was disappointing to see that price turn out to be $49,740. Is that "well under $50K"?
Of course, it is still just barely on the cusp between the prices of the V-6s and the V-8s of its major competitors. I hope it sells, because I like Honda for its engineering emphasis in its vehicles. Certainly the old 3.5RL was slightly shaming for Acura, and this new car is up to par for the brand. That is a good thing.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Juicy profit is the end game in doing business. The approach can vary. Honda has opted to be conservative, but that is nothing new. It has worked in the past, and well enough to put this (perhaps the youngest) kid on the block among major automakers in the world. So, do they have a reason to leave aside their long held philosophy?
To get to the point of going one up on others, is simply a matter of perspective. Do you think, if Honda delivered a V8 powered sedan like Infiniti Q45, it would be going one-up on the competition? Or do you think it will be playing the same game, but with a different set of competitors that the current RL has? Speaking of Q45, what exactly do you think has the car helped Nissan with? It remains a forgettable car despite the stuff it is loaded up with. There is more to doing business than doing something that everybody does.
Another issue you seem to have brought up here is platform sharing. I have never understood the point of making it a point of contention. I’m willing to bet that less than half the participants in these boards have no clue as to what a platform really is! A while ago, Townhall had a thread on it, and that gave me plenty of clue.
Honda has become an industry benchmark in a few things, and running lean and smart, is one of them. Intention of developing a platform is to span a variety of vehicles. It is the quality of platform that matters. The basic elements, making for Honda’s global midsize platform leave absolutely nothing in terms of sophistication to compete. Except may be that it is oriented for front drive vehicles. But there comes AWD to rescue, and not your run of the mill AWD system either.
Let me address another issue that seems to have conflicting elements. And that is the price of the RL. Some say that RL continues to target “value”. And some say it is too pricey. Well, which of the two do you think it is? This car is loaded to the brim, just like any other car in this segment (and above) should be! Do you really think it makes sense to have stripped models in this price class to boast a low starting price? I don’t. I don’t see a point of economy pricing above the near luxury entrants.
I somehow doubt that people looking into $40-50K price class run out of money at $42K, and will settle in for the stripped versions. 2005 Lexus GS300 starts at $41K, but you need another $6K to get premium stuff cars in this class should have (a premium audio system, xenons, and leather seats of course, you wouldn’t want a Lexus with cloth seats, would you?). At $47K, you get 220 HP, and 2WD. Do you think 2006 Lexus GS300 with AWD will cost $42K while being loaded to the brim? Load up Cadillac STS to approach the level of features in RL, and you will be hitting $49K. The top line V8 version goes into the mid 60s.
RL is squarely targeting luxury sedans that carry sales volume for its automakers in this price class. Mercedes E320 is one of those cars, powered by a 221 HP V6, and “starts at” $49K.
Acura needed to have a good entry level sedan. TSX is taking care of that part, in a way Vigor (1992-95) or 2.5TL (1996-98) never did. After an unsuccessful beginning to the 3.2TL era in 1996, the 1999 TL revived it. And today, it is one of the best selling car in the mid-30s ($34-36K)... at a 30% premium above TSX.
RL was almost redesigned (per a report) in 2001, after its 5-year stint in the market (1996-2000). Over that period, it didn't sell as well as the Legend it replaced. The Legend competed in a price range of about $36K-$40K in 1992-95 (perhaps comparable to $40-$45K today) averaging about 35K units/year. The RL started at $41K and eventually hit $45K price mark (so price class didn’t really change in the nine year stint of the outgoing RL) but sold in fewer numbers, averaging a little more than 15K units/year for the first five years, and a little below 10K units/year over the last four.
After the scratched off redesign in 2001, the RL was long overdue for a redesign, so this had to happen. And here it is, and it ain’t a half hearted approach, IMO, a 14 year old concept car (FSX) brought to production line! Now, here is an interesting part. While the TL comes at a 30% premium above TSX, the RL comes at a premium of about 30% over the TL! So, perhaps, in due time, we will see a car above RL, in low to mid 60s.
well some of that was not quite accurate - all the GS cars come with leather for instance. Much more crucially, if I were cross-shopping the $49K RL, it would be with the $48K GS430, that has a V-8 with 300 hp/325 lb-ft at almost 300 pounds lighter. They are similarly-equipped, except for the NAV, which adds $2000 to the Lexus.
Now I fully concede that if you as a buyer are specifically seeking AWD, the RL is the one for you among cars in this class. AWD's popularity is on the rise.
But what of the 2006 GS that you mention? That will include the AWD option, will be lower-priced (and lower-powered) in the V-6 variant, and that is before you start to talk about the other luxury cars coming on the market in the next year or two.
My question to you is, if you were looking for this type of car today, what would YOU be cross-shopping with the RL? Cars that are approximately in its price range, right? The Europeans are priced higher by at least 10-15%, and the Lexus/Infiniti/Cadillac options are similarly priced.
Infiniti, BTW, has tragically suffered from the worst brand launch in history (leading to little name recognition in the marketplace) combined with weird advertising for many years and 4-cylinder base offerings until recently. The Q, a rock solid car and good value, has little "sporty" to talk about until very recently, and I still would not put it head tohead with the best Europeans.
Also, please do not misunderstand - I do not criticize Honda in any way for doing extensive platform-sharing to produce some of the current Acuras. The TSX is perhaps the best example, and hit a sweet spot in the market to judge by the response. But it could be time for something totally new from the ground up if Acura wants to take on the Europeans (and Lexus?) in the premium luxury category (cars currently over $50K, speaking VERY broadly), for which they will need something above the RL in the line-up (no, the NSX doesn't count!).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well some of that was not quite accurate - all the GS cars come with leather for instance. No they don't. Leather is a $1,660 option on GS300.
Much more crucially, if I were cross-shopping the $49K RL, it would be with the $48K GS430, that has a V-8 with 300 hp/325 lb-ft at almost 300 pounds lighter. They are similarly-equipped, except for the NAV, which adds $2000 to the Lexus. GS430 has more features than GS300, and has a starting price point of $48K to go with its V8. So, why does Lexus even bother selling a weak GS300 that costs almost as much as the base GS430? Does it surprise you that V8 accounts for only 15% of GS sales?
Let us take GS430 and RL head on. Have you compared features that RL has at its MSRP to those that GS430 has at its base MSRP, and vice versa? If GS430 has 300 HP V8, RL gets you 300 HP V6 coupled to a fantastic “all-weather” AWD system.
I would rather have the AWD system than two additional cylinders with a little more low end grunt. Beyond this, you would end up spending $3-4K more to match up to the stuff that RL already has, included in its base price. And that’s your V8 premium.
But what of the 2006 GS that you mention? That will include the AWD option, will be lower-priced (and lower-powered) in the V-6 variant
Do we know the pricing? Also, AWD in RL is more than an AWD system. I’m really curious to personally see if all that has been said is true.
My question to you is, if you were looking for this type of car today, what would YOU be cross-shopping with the RL? Cars that are approximately in its price range, right? The Europeans are priced higher by at least 10-15%, and the Lexus/Infiniti/Cadillac options are similarly priced.
With $45-50K in mind, I would look for a topped out luxury sedan that stands out in more ways than one. Actually, I might after all.
Oh, and Infiniti is a prime example of V8 hoopla. You’ve got to have the right product, and marketing strategy. Cylinder count isn’t going to cut it.
they will need something above the RL in the line-up.
I agree. Companies want to grow nowhere, but up. TL may be next in line to slot closer to RL. With SH-AWD and couple of additional frills, it could compete in $34-$40K price class (from the current $34-36K slot).
is another one of those phantom Toyota products. They exist in the brochure, but not in the real world. You are correct that it does skew the equation if you are looking at straight lowest MSRP (gee, wonder why they even pretend to make it...)
Perhaps, to prevent sticker shock, and to differentiate a little more from the upper trim (GS430 in this case).
In case of RL, Acura is delivering what people expect in a car in this class. On the surface, it seems to play against it, hence it comparison to V8 models costing as much (again, "base models"). But a typical buyer couldn't care less about it. If he/she is out to get a car, they will want the works.
Toyota loads 'em up with expensive "options", while Acura delivers all the goods for one price, no choices.
But that GS430 has the standard leather you mentioned, as well as almost 25% more of that "low end grunt" you also mentioned. AWD does not ALWAYS trump RWD - here in California I would rather have RWD in a car like these - big, heavy.
Anyway, I am not in love with the Lexus, it just makes a rather obvious comparison, and STS would be another. My side point is merely that Honda has turned out a really good car here, worlds better than its predecessor and at least competitive in its segment. Is it a knock-out? No, I don't think so. But it is very good.
MY MAIN POINT was where does Honda go from here with the Acura brand? They have milked the Accord platform for all it's worth. They can bring AWD and more power to the TL and the TSX, heck even the RSX in future if they want to, but the RL is currently their flagship and it already has the AWD and a power rating that is approaching the pragmatic limits of a V-6 engine. What WILL be next? Honda has said that the Acura brand is headed up. I do love juicy speculation! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
AWD does not ALWAYS trump RWD - here in California I would rather have RWD in a car like these - big, heavy.
True. But is SH-AWD your run of the mill AWD system? It is designed to be an all-weather system, unlike most others. It will help you in SoCal, as it would in Minnesota.
And, as I mentioned earlier, AWD has already trumped RWD in big and heavy Mercedes S-Class. Mercedes figured that 30% of S-Class were being sold with AWD, so going forward, they opted to make it standard!
They have milked the Accord platform for all it's worth.
Is it an Accord platform? Or is it a Legend platform? Or, is it a global midsize platform? Platform isn't a car. It is a basis for a variety of cars.
And a good platform has a top-down design, regardless of how it appears in the market. Ever wonder why Accord, TSX and TL are as heavy as they are? The reasoning would be similar to the "heaviness" of 350Z in the Nissan FM-platform.
Designing a platform involves understanding of cars that will use it. A good design will follow the needs of the top model, and go down from there (instead of applying patches going up).
That said, only Honda knows if the global midsize platform has reached its limit, or if it could still span V8 power. If VW could, why not Honda?
"...the RL is currently their flagship and it already has the AWD and a power rating that is approaching the pragmatic limits of a V-6 engine. What WILL be next? Honda has said that the Acura brand is headed up." - Nippononly
One thing about being a Honda fan. I've learned that you should never say an engine has reached its limit.
That said, I agree the RL is probably as high on the food chain as Acura will go in the next few years. It's quite possible we'll see an RL with V8 power via electric supercharging (IMA) in the next few years. And we'll see additions to the TL and TSX. But Acura has pretty solid footing in the sedan department. I doubt we'll see another sedan marketed above the RL. At least, not until 2010.
Instead, Acura will continue to build in other areas. The MDX will get a boost up-market much like the TL got a boost with its redesign. The rumored RDX crossover should arrive within a year or two. These vehicles will solidify what Acura has gained in recent years. Then the NSX will come along to add icing to the cake.
In short, I expect more growth in the middle market rather than at the very top. That IS "heading up" for them, as the bulk of their sales came from the Integra and TL which were their entry level cars a few years back.
An important consideration for any business is to grow. And to achieve that goal, you don’t have to follow a standard route. By the time the new RL gains steam, Acura will have to worry about redesigning RSX, and is supposedly working on a smaller SUV (RDX?) for launch within a year. Then, there is the NSX, and some people are clamoring for CL revival (me included). MDX would be due for redesign sometime soon, and TSX/TL will be ready for revisions.
This will still leave room for a full size luxury sedan (RL is a midsize). But to get to that point, Acura has plenty of growth to consider in the segments it already competes in, and then in areas that it doesn’t.
IMA powered RL is a strong possibility to address the needs (or wants) of those who desire more low end grunt. An electric motor is going to address that need (or want) better than adding some displacement via two additional cylinders. The premium of adding IMA wouldn’t be any more, even with additional refinement and potential use of ultra capacitors instead of batteries, than the premium automakers charge for V8 (compared to their six cylinder counter parts).
The complementary nature of a gasoline ICE and an electric motor remains to be harnessed to a reasonable level.
No, I agree, one should never try to tell Honda an engine has reached its limit. But note that I said "pragmatic limit", which is to say I am sure Honda could squeeze more power out by raising the redline, but luxury buyers as I mentioned before do not really like to drive their gigantic sedans like F1 cars. Or maybe they could increase its size to a 4.0 and grab another 50 hp that way. I like your idea best - add the electric assist. CO2 limits are going to drop after all, what with the new California CARB legislation.
To me, adding AWD to lots of models and adding a luxury cute-ute to the line are not "moving upscale" as Honda has announced, but I for one do not think Honda really needs to shove the Acura line upmarket right now. It has a very comfortable spot to sit right where it is. Let the money flow...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I've been wondering if SH-AWD is designed to "integrate" IMA in the future. Even if it is not, I wouldn't be surprised to see Honda work in that direction. As a matter of fact, SH-AWD and the hybrid AWD system showcased in Acura DNX (Honda Dualnote) do have certain commonalities.
And if this is a possibility, some of the "AWD weight" could be compensated for by "IMA weight" and that could make things interesting. Besides, IMA would also add power!
And this methodology could actually help cars like TSX more than they would RL, given that TSX may not get a V6. Perhaps, something along the lines of the Acura RDX concept (2.4/I-4 + IMA = 250 HP AWD).
And there is a strong possibility that Honda will eventually move towards DI engines. And Honda may be developing a new line of engines of the future to use it, incl V6. At that point, perhaps, it will make more sense to develop a V8 out of it... V8 + VCM + DI -> superb combination. Perhaps, we could still throw IMA into the mix. ;-)
Although the old RL was never considered a huge success, it sold at 15K units/year pace for the first five years in market (1996-2000) while competing in $42-45K price class which could translate to today’s $48K. The 1992-95 Legend was a greater success, selling at 35K units/year. It competed (mostly) in $40-43K price bracket (adjusting for inflation, this could translate to the new RL’s price bracket), although it also had a lower cost model at $36K.
If we consider the numbers above, 20K/year sounds like a conservative number and the RL may beat the target. However, I’m not sure how competition and consumer approach in this price class today compared to the same from a decade ago, would affect the overall picture. Regardless, 20K/year is a strong possibility, and above that rests on several other factors.
Well, I don't think pushing the redline is always necessary. And it's not like Honda's V6 engines are as high-revving as their I4s.
Adding AWD and a luxury cute ute was not what I meant above. Acura is moving upscale with the luxury focus in their cars. The addition of an excellent sound system, standard NAV (and a superior NAV at that), richer interior materials, active noise suppression, and other tweaks are where the move is happening.
I don't think Acura is going to move upscale by adding a new class of vehicles at the top of their line-up. Instead they are boosting the image of the cars within their respective classes.
Given the way Honda designs their hybrids, there's no reason (or need) to design around the drivetrain. The IMA motor is inserted between the engine and the transmission. The AWD system goes between the transmission and the wheels.
The trick to making IMA work is not adjusting the drivetrain, it's finding room for the batteries.
IMA set up in Dualnote had three electric motors for a total of 100 HP. One of them was mounted like it is in the current (production) IMA offerings with the mid-mounted gasoline engine. The two other were mounted “in-wheel” (front wheels in this case). Here is a schematic of the same (in this case, during a less than aggressive turn, ATTS is sending part of energy from the front-inside wheel to recharge the ultra-capacitor pack).
I agree on the battery (or ultra-capacitor) storage issue. But, it is possible that a way may be devised (eventually) to store them somewhere out of the way (also as packaging size decreases). In BMW’s hybrid concept, the UC-pack was mounted in the door (not sure about feasibility of that from safety point of view, though).
In powerful and larger vehicles like RL, SH-AWD would make perfect sense, even with a traditional IMA. I was wondering if Honda has already planned for a SH-AWD equivalent without a driveshaft from the ICE to the rear axle, instead let the rear wheels have their own power plant.
But with power plant, there will be a need for some kind of transmission, and that is where my interest comes in. The ATTS in SH-AWD has an integrated planetary gear box (“acceleration device”). So in essence, SH-AWD has two transmissions, a conventional transmission to control it all, and a planetary gearset to manipulate rate of rear wheels. I wonder if the planetary gear set was used in some way in DNX/Dual note for torque multiplication.
If it were, we could have a recipe for a hybrid AWD system, good for lower end models like RSX and TSX (more power and AWD from an integrated unit) where either adding AWD and a larger displacement engine (for more power) will have more defined cost and weight penalties (relative to the price tag and weight of the vehicles).
Acura RDX prototype’s drive train holds a lot of promise for a future hybrid AWD TSX. In that case, 190 HP K24A and 60 HP (rear wheel mounted) electric motors were utilized for the AWD set up, for 250 horses. It will be interesting to see if the rumored small SUV is indeed the RDX getting to production in its advertised form.
Raising the engine speed isn’t always the answer to more power though. You can see it executed perfectly in all Acura V6 engines. Now, displacement will put a limit on how much torque an engine can generate, but if you end up maximizing the period over which most of the torque is generated, you can get more power at a lower engine speed.
For example, compare Cadillac’s 3.6/V6 (STS) to Acura’s 3.5/V6 (RL). The Cadillac V6 has to rev to 6500 rpm to get its 255 HP. OTOH, Acura’s V6 gets its 300 HP at 6200 rpm. Not only is Acura V6 getting 45 HP more, it is getting it done at a lower rpm. In fact, the Acura V6 delivers about 255 HP at just 5200 rpm.
Honestly, I didn’t expect Acura to get 300 HP at just 6200 rpm from a 3.5-liter V6. To put a perspective on this, Jaguar 4.2/V8 delivers 294 HP at 6000 rpm, and the Acura 3.5/V6 will be delivering just as much power at that engine speed! Of course, 20% additional displacement would help the V8 deliver more low end grunt, but it loses its advantage at the top end to the broader torque curve of the Acura V6.
In case of RL, top end power isn’t really an issue. But since people are comparing it directly to V8 powered cars with 4.2-liter displacement or more, and for couple of reasons (loaded to the brim MSRP and “300 HP”), having just 3471 cc at disposal doesn’t help at the bottom end. This is an area where IMA could come to rescue.
If Honda were to implement a 25% more powerful version of the IMA system in Accord Hybrid, in the RL, off-idle torque output could jump to over 300 lb.-ft. And I somehow doubt 300 HP @ 6000 rpm and 310 lb.-ft @ 1000 rpm will have many people complain, the best of both worlds, besides the expected improvements in fuel economy and emissions.
While we talk about Honda’s run, what do you guys think about a looking back once in a while? It appears that a new CRX may be on the horizon! So, I did a little research and some fact finding yielded some interesting facts for 1983 CRX from Honda’s (JDM) website: 1.3-liter Curb Weight: 1670 lb 80 HP/85 lb.-ft 0-62 mph: 11.9s Quarter Mile: 18.2s Fuel Economy @ 40 mph: 78 mpg (33 km/liter)
For the US market, I would scratch off the 1.3-liter engine (although Honda has an equivalent engine today, delivering 86 HP/88 lb.-ft and powers the immensely successful, Honda Jazz in Europe).
And Honda also has a 1.5-liter engine that is standard in JDM market Fit (Jazz) at 110 HP/105 lb.-ft. Perhaps an “Si-R” trim with 125-150 HP, and a curb weight of 2000 lb. would be a great recipe for going back to the basics of delivering a pocket rocket, at a reasonable price.
with the enormous number of new emissions and safety requirements that have arisen since 1983 (which were fewer in Japan then and now), and the weight of the hardware it takes to address them, could the 2005 version still be 2000 pounds? Others here have said no, I would say it is unlikely, but I will cheer on Honda in the effort. That would definitely be my next car if they could produce it with a 7 second 0-60.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I believe 2000-2100 lb. CRX is possible. Honda Jazz/Fit (5-door HB) weighs about 2200 lb.
Insight is another illustration of that possibility. While aluminum-alloy et al are used to keep the curb weight under 2000 lb, there simply isn't enough room for that measure in a small car like it.
Besides, Insight's weight savings are more than compensated for by a (relatively) heavy IMA setup (Civic Hybrid has a more compact/lighter package).
And even if it ends up weighing as much as Jazz, a 150 HP engine will make it a sub 7s car! Of course, handling performance will have to be underlined as well.
Toyota MR-S was at 2195 lb. Insight is at 1881 lb (with auto climate control). So, 2000-2100 lb. for a CRX is possible.
To provide another perspective, Mini “One” (3-door) in UK is said to have a curb weight of 1065 kg (2340 lb). By comparison, Honda Jazz (UK) has a curb weight ranging from 987 kg (2170 lb) to 1035 kg (2280 lb).
But when you look at how light a UK model can be, and how heavy ours are, well, that only supports my theory than a CRX for the USA would likely be heavier, probably around 2300 lbs.
Insight is an extreme case.
I guess they could start with that car and widen the track (a lot).
What does the current Si weigh? Seems like a more natural start. But it's not very popular, would a CRX based on that sell well?
The Insight carries batteries and the MR-S is a convertible. Both add weight to a car. So, yeah, I think that 2,000 lbs is "doable". But I expect we'll see something closer to 2,200 lbs. (Fine by me.) Even the last generation -93 CRX Si weighed in around 2130 lbs.
I think the key to making a new CRX is keeping up with the hype of the old. The only people who care about the original CRX are the enthusiasts. They will have an inflated view of what the car was like. Therefore a new one needs to match the hype, not the reality of the old.
For my list:
1. It needs to be light in comparison with today's cars.
2. It needs to be a 2 seater HB.
3. It cannot be expensive (preferably less than $18K).
4. It must be relatively easy to mod, which means compatible with other Honda engines.
Civic Si is a completely different car. In fact, current Civic HB (3 and 5 door) are considerably heavier than their coupe/sedan counterparts. I doubt CRX will be based off the lighter and more expensive platform that Civic uses.
I'm sure Jazz will be the starting point, whenever it happens. As far as engine choices go, Jazz (5-door HB) and CRX (3-door HB/2-seat) can (and will) share drive train, starting with (potentially) 1.5-liter engine with 110 HP (standard engine in Japanese Jazz).
Hopefully, CRX will go a step further to have an Si model, with 140-160 HP. With only 2200 lb., it would still be a recipe for a fast pocket rocket.
"Hopefully, CRX will go a step further to have an Si model, with 140-160 HP" If they are serious about doing a CRX, it has to have this, with the powertrain lifted straight and intact out of the Civic SI. Imagine how potent that would be if it were dragging 500 less pounds in weight around!
They could also give it the 110 hp Fit engine - this could sub for the gas-sipper HF they used to have (but no more carburetor, thank goodness!).
And in this market, that is probably it. No need for the three trim levels they used to have (in other words, nix the DX for this gen) - the sales volume just won't support three disparate kinds.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
1. I think we may see Integrated Motor Assist on the Acura RL within two years. The result is that the vehicle that will sport better fuel efficiency and more more engine torque than the RL does now with the 2005 model. The Accord Hybrid sedan may be a sign of things to come from the RL.
2. I have this feeling that the Honda Fit/Jazz that will arrive in the US market as a 2006 model will NOT be the Fit/Jazz sold in Japan and Europe. It may be an all-new model that will easily garner excellent IIHS and EuroNCAP safety test ratings, will be slightly bigger than the Fit/Jazz (to better accommodate American-sized passengers and to accommodate side curtain airbags), and will likely use a new i-VTEC 1.5-liter I-4 engine rated at 115-120 bhp that will have very high fuel efficiency and also pass the requirements for California Air Resources Board's Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle (PZEV) emissions certification. The new Fit/Jazz will be unveiled at the Detroit International Auto Show in January 2005 and will at first be built at Honda's new assembly plant in Brazil for the US market.
3. The US market will see something derived from the Honda Edix/FR-V that is just now being introduced in Japan and Europe. Honda has stated they are working on a new smaller SUV for the Acura brand, and the Acura RDX small SUV--if anyone here remembers the Acura RD-X concept car from two years ago--will most likely be an Edix/FR-V derivative. It could also mean that we may a Honda-badged version, a vehicle that will likely replace the CR-V, given that the Edix/FR-V could easily be adapted to use 4WD.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see RL get electric assist in the near future either. Addition of electric motor could imply multi-faceted improvements and would make up for Honda not offering V8 motor in the car. The added cost of hybrid power train would be easier to mask in a luxury sedan, in a class where a package itself could cost as much.
Regarding Fit/Jazz (I hope it is called Jazz), I doubt about the size. Civic is large enough for the purpose, and Jazz is said to be almost as roomy as Civic 5-door hatchback although in a smaller exterior package. I do think that Jazz will arrive when the Japanese/European models are ready for redesign (next year?).
Acura RDX (not necessarily the name, but the vehicle) has been announced for production. It will be interesting to find out if it builds upon the RDX prototype showcased couple of years ago (a 250 HP AWD hybrid), or follows a traditional route. Honda hasn’t announced the platform yet. I don’t think it will resemble FR-V in anyway, especially if Honda chooses to use a V6. With hybrid option, it could (and retain a large enough interior volume, besides having the power).
CR-V itself will be due for redesign (MY2007) around the time “RDX” is expected to be launched. They might share a platform.
At this time, we do know that RDX will be manufactured in Ohio. It could be at East Liberty or Marysville. In the past, it was easier to guess the platform, if we knew where the vehicle would be manufactured. The implementation of flexible manufacturing process doesn’t allow that.
Honda has announced partial movement of Accord’s production to East Liberty early next year. Could this be to make room for the Acura SUV next to Acura TL at Marysville?
Because Honda wants to take the Civic more up market with the 2006 model, which means the new Civic will be roomier and definitely more powerful than the current Civic model.
Alas, that means the Civic will be more expensive, so in order to fill the gap for lower-end Honda buyers they'll bring over the Honda Fit, possibly powered by the 1.5-liter I-4 i-VTEC engine I mentioned above. We'll see both hatchback and four-door sedans of the Fit.
Presence of Fit will help fill in the void under Civic. It might also allow Honda to improve Civic along the lines of Accord, subtlety at lower end and aggressive at the top.
Feature content is definitely going to go up. Remains to be seen if Civic finally gets 150-160 HP 2.0 i-VTEC, at least in the EX trim.
"Remains to be seen if Civic finally gets 150-160 HP 2.0 i-VTEC, at least in the EX trim."
Nah, it won't. Doesn't fit with what the Civic is supposed to be. Right?
I hope it gets a smaller engine. You don't really "need" the 1.7L. A 1.5L would work just fine, on the other hand, you don't really "need" the 1.5L either. They should just drop a 900cc in there, or something from one of their lawnmowers.
Comments
I have seen photo's of the new RL and it looks to be promising. The interior quality is there for it to a success. I haven't seen a clear view of the back end of the car to have an opinion yet. The front end looks A-1 however.
While Audi and BMW go to be ugly and overstyled Acura is going in the right direction with their styling. Think back to the late 90's when the Audi and BMW were ahead of Acura in styling. Those days are long over. Of course there are issue's with Honda styling. Its funny to watcg BMW and Audai just self-destruct. Who would have thought that would ever happen? Not me. Only Nissan and Hyundai would scare Honda's exec's in Japan right now. Judging Mazda sales of late it doesn't look Honda should be scared of Mazda anytime soon.
You know what I mean. ;-)
Honda has been fond of using letters. In fact, that is how the company started... with a Dream. Okay, I lied. Let us stick to cars now.
Prototype "X190" was followed by "S360" and the first Honda automobiles that reached the market were, T360 (truck with 360 cc engine) and S500 (sports car with 360 cc engine). S600, S800, L800, N... etc. followed.
Fast forward to early 70s, when CVCC gained appreciation. "Honda CVCC" got transformed to "Honda Civic". Of course, Accord (1976) and Prelude (1978) never had to deal with the naming issue.
Acura arrived with the Legend (I love the way it sounds), and Integra of course. But then, "NSX", the new sports car (N: Neo; SX: Sport) joined the party. Let us blame NSX for it to start the craze. Well, I believe it also was the first car to bring the Acura "precision caliper" logo to practice (and in more than one way). But, that is another story, for another time.
In 1991, Honda makes an attempt to give the NSX, some company with the FSX Concept. The AWD system used in the FSX can be considered a conceptual predecessor to the SH-AWD. But, FSX doesn’t get to production. In 1992, “Vigor” does. The trio (Integra, Vigor and Legend) plus one (NSX) continued thru 1995. Then Honda showcases a few concepts, with more mixed signals.
1995 brings Acura CL-X, Honda SSM and Honda Argento Viva concepts. Legend is due for a redesign, and it transforms into 3.5RL. Vigor is due for makeover, and it is now called 2.5TL. An additional engine is offered (3.2/V6 from Legend) with cosmetic changes to have 3.2TL.
In the mean time, Acura has the SLX (part of vehicle exchange deal between Honda and Isuzu Honda gets Trooper and Rodeo, Isuzu gets Odyssey and Domani), and MY1997 brings 2.2CL and 3.0CL.
Now, in the longer run, NSX won out and got 2.2CL/3.0CL, 2.5TL/3.2TL, 3.5RL, SLX to its side. Integra continued its run thru redesign, all by itself. By the time it changed to RSX, MDX had joined in as well, but SLX had to leave. And Acura decided to drop the numeric part from the “name”.
“Legend” is a great name. The “sound of a Legend” or “style of a Legend” has a ring to it. But, it made sense to either have a name “name” or let letters form a name (sounds funny).
I’m okay with Acura using letters, as long as they make sense. So far they do. I’m not sure about “RDX” though, which is supposed to be the next entry.
And hopefully, someday, a Legend will arrive, sitting above Accord, and below TL to serve as a full size performance sedan, while TL moves on to serve a mid-size mid-luxury class, with RWD or AWD.
But I do agree that the lack of a "real" flagship was an issue. I just think that was a problem for the 3.5RL more than the Legend. As was the presence of the entry-level Integra. While the Integra was a great little car, it has never been a luxury car. Too bad it sold so well. ;-)
That said, Acura seems to be back on track.
Ditching the design of the 3.5RL in favor of the new sportier 2005 RL still does not supply an uber-lux flagship, but it removes a stain from the company's image. It allows Acura to compete in the echelon above the TL even if it's not the highest tier.
The new TL and MDX are positioned well in their respective markets and both are successful.
The TSX provides a new entry-level vehicle with far more panache than the RSX. And the RSX is a step up from the old Integra.
So it appears that the brand is climbing the social ladder. Acura may never meet Lexus, MB, and BMW on a level playing field, but they can win a huge chunk of marketshare. In doing so, they will earn brand equity.
In the meantime, it should start by making sure it is on top of its own heap: Saab, Volvo, what else? Not to mention making sure it is always at least one step ahead of some of its similar non-premium rivals such as Mazda.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Good to see Acura disclosing its intentions about applying SH-AWD in more than one car.
I have often disagreed with the notion of having to rev high. As a matter of fact, most V8s around are being pushed to deliver enough power to define the ongoing horsepower war. 6400 rpm or so (to achieve peak power) is becoming a norm in this class.
That said, I see no reason why RL should be said to have “only” 260 lb.-ft when others offer 214-230 lb.-ft. Yes, they have a lower starting price point, but I somehow doubt buyers in this class would rather have stripped luxury cruiser than a loaded one.
It is not just the starting price point that we should focus upon, but also the ending. In RL’s cases, there happens to be just one point, and that happens to be the start for some V8 powered competition.
"I got mine cheaper" doesn't exactly cut it in this league. That is why I was saying RL isn't up to the standards of the rareified over-$50K class. And of course, it also isn't over $50K in price. So that is fine. But Acura will need to do one better to have a serious contender for the upper echelons...and that will probably require a V-8, or a V-6 with huge helpings of hybrid electric help, or some such thing. Maybe a V-10 turbodiesel is in Honda's future??!! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And speaking of RL, yes it is priced at $49K, where some V8 offerings "start". But, do buyers in this market really want V8 and let go of features they can afford to stay "under" $50K? I doubt it. For that reason, you could put a $16K options package on a $56K LS430.
There is a reason, cars like BMW 525/530, E320 and GS300 exist. And Infiniti felt the need to compete with a V6, rather than offer a V8 at a low starting price.
Should Acura offer a V8? Sure. But is that all there is to this class? Nope.
No, that whole discussion stemmed from the initial proposition that Acura needs to go one better than it has done historically if it hopes to compete with those models. And it needs to compete with those models before it can properly be considered in the luxury leagues of MB/BMW/Audi/Lexus (and possibly Infiniti).
Maybe it doesn't want to move upscale. Right now it is making very juicy profit margins on cars like the TL that were not new from the ground up, but rather extensively reworked versions of other models (in the TL's case, the Accord). However, their rhetoric of late has been that they do intend to move the brand upscale.
After all the car mags speculated an initial price of around $48K for the RL, and Honda announced "a price well under $50K", it was disappointing to see that price turn out to be $49,740. Is that "well under $50K"?
Of course, it is still just barely on the cusp between the prices of the V-6s and the V-8s of its major competitors. I hope it sells, because I like Honda for its engineering emphasis in its vehicles. Certainly the old 3.5RL was slightly shaming for Acura, and this new car is up to par for the brand. That is a good thing.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
To get to the point of going one up on others, is simply a matter of perspective. Do you think, if Honda delivered a V8 powered sedan like Infiniti Q45, it would be going one-up on the competition? Or do you think it will be playing the same game, but with a different set of competitors that the current RL has? Speaking of Q45, what exactly do you think has the car helped Nissan with? It remains a forgettable car despite the stuff it is loaded up with. There is more to doing business than doing something that everybody does.
Another issue you seem to have brought up here is platform sharing. I have never understood the point of making it a point of contention. I’m willing to bet that less than half the participants in these boards have no clue as to what a platform really is! A while ago, Townhall had a thread on it, and that gave me plenty of clue.
Honda has become an industry benchmark in a few things, and running lean and smart, is one of them. Intention of developing a platform is to span a variety of vehicles. It is the quality of platform that matters. The basic elements, making for Honda’s global midsize platform leave absolutely nothing in terms of sophistication to compete. Except may be that it is oriented for front drive vehicles. But there comes AWD to rescue, and not your run of the mill AWD system either.
Let me address another issue that seems to have conflicting elements. And that is the price of the RL. Some say that RL continues to target “value”. And some say it is too pricey. Well, which of the two do you think it is? This car is loaded to the brim, just like any other car in this segment (and above) should be! Do you really think it makes sense to have stripped models in this price class to boast a low starting price? I don’t. I don’t see a point of economy pricing above the near luxury entrants.
I somehow doubt that people looking into $40-50K price class run out of money at $42K, and will settle in for the stripped versions. 2005 Lexus GS300 starts at $41K, but you need another $6K to get premium stuff cars in this class should have (a premium audio system, xenons, and leather seats of course, you wouldn’t want a Lexus with cloth seats, would you?). At $47K, you get 220 HP, and 2WD. Do you think 2006 Lexus GS300 with AWD will cost $42K while being loaded to the brim? Load up Cadillac STS to approach the level of features in RL, and you will be hitting $49K. The top line V8 version goes into the mid 60s.
RL is squarely targeting luxury sedans that carry sales volume for its automakers in this price class. Mercedes E320 is one of those cars, powered by a 221 HP V6, and “starts at” $49K.
RL was almost redesigned (per a report) in 2001, after its 5-year stint in the market (1996-2000). Over that period, it didn't sell as well as the Legend it replaced. The Legend competed in a price range of about $36K-$40K in 1992-95 (perhaps comparable to $40-$45K today) averaging about 35K units/year. The RL started at $41K and eventually hit $45K price mark (so price class didn’t really change in the nine year stint of the outgoing RL) but sold in fewer numbers, averaging a little more than 15K units/year for the first five years, and a little below 10K units/year over the last four.
After the scratched off redesign in 2001, the RL was long overdue for a redesign, so this had to happen. And here it is, and it ain’t a half hearted approach, IMO, a 14 year old concept car (FSX) brought to production line! Now, here is an interesting part. While the TL comes at a 30% premium above TSX, the RL comes at a premium of about 30% over the TL! So, perhaps, in due time, we will see a car above RL, in low to mid 60s.
Now I fully concede that if you as a buyer are specifically seeking AWD, the RL is the one for you among cars in this class. AWD's popularity is on the rise.
But what of the 2006 GS that you mention? That will include the AWD option, will be lower-priced (and lower-powered) in the V-6 variant, and that is before you start to talk about the other luxury cars coming on the market in the next year or two.
My question to you is, if you were looking for this type of car today, what would YOU be cross-shopping with the RL? Cars that are approximately in its price range, right? The Europeans are priced higher by at least 10-15%, and the Lexus/Infiniti/Cadillac options are similarly priced.
Infiniti, BTW, has tragically suffered from the worst brand launch in history (leading to little name recognition in the marketplace) combined with weird advertising for many years and 4-cylinder base offerings until recently. The Q, a rock solid car and good value, has little "sporty" to talk about until very recently, and I still would not put it head tohead with the best Europeans.
Also, please do not misunderstand - I do not criticize Honda in any way for doing extensive platform-sharing to produce some of the current Acuras. The TSX is perhaps the best example, and hit a sweet spot in the market to judge by the response. But it could be time for something totally new from the ground up if Acura wants to take on the Europeans (and Lexus?) in the premium luxury category (cars currently over $50K, speaking VERY broadly), for which they will need something above the RL in the line-up (no, the NSX doesn't count!).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
No they don't. Leather is a $1,660 option on GS300.
Much more crucially, if I were cross-shopping the $49K RL, it would be with the $48K GS430, that has a V-8 with 300 hp/325 lb-ft at almost 300 pounds lighter. They are similarly-equipped, except for the NAV, which adds $2000 to the Lexus.
GS430 has more features than GS300, and has a starting price point of $48K to go with its V8. So, why does Lexus even bother selling a weak GS300 that costs almost as much as the base GS430? Does it surprise you that V8 accounts for only 15% of GS sales?
Let us take GS430 and RL head on. Have you compared features that RL has at its MSRP to those that GS430 has at its base MSRP, and vice versa? If GS430 has 300 HP V8, RL gets you 300 HP V6 coupled to a fantastic “all-weather” AWD system.
I would rather have the AWD system than two additional cylinders with a little more low end grunt. Beyond this, you would end up spending $3-4K more to match up to the stuff that RL already has, included in its base price. And that’s your V8 premium.
But what of the 2006 GS that you mention? That will include the AWD option, will be lower-priced (and lower-powered) in the V-6 variant
Do we know the pricing? Also, AWD in RL is more than an AWD system. I’m really curious to personally see if all that has been said is true.
My question to you is, if you were looking for this type of car today, what would YOU be cross-shopping with the RL? Cars that are approximately in its price range, right? The Europeans are priced higher by at least 10-15%, and the Lexus/Infiniti/Cadillac options are similarly priced.
With $45-50K in mind, I would look for a topped out luxury sedan that stands out in more ways than one. Actually, I might after all.
Oh, and Infiniti is a prime example of V8 hoopla. You’ve got to have the right product, and marketing strategy. Cylinder count isn’t going to cut it.
they will need something above the RL in the line-up.
I agree. Companies want to grow nowhere, but up. TL may be next in line to slot closer to RL. With SH-AWD and couple of additional frills, it could compete in $34-$40K price class (from the current $34-36K slot).
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
In case of RL, Acura is delivering what people expect in a car in this class. On the surface, it seems to play against it, hence it comparison to V8 models costing as much (again, "base models"). But a typical buyer couldn't care less about it. If he/she is out to get a car, they will want the works.
But that GS430 has the standard leather you mentioned, as well as almost 25% more of that "low end grunt" you also mentioned. AWD does not ALWAYS trump RWD - here in California I would rather have RWD in a car like these - big, heavy.
Anyway, I am not in love with the Lexus, it just makes a rather obvious comparison, and STS would be another. My side point is merely that Honda has turned out a really good car here, worlds better than its predecessor and at least competitive in its segment. Is it a knock-out? No, I don't think so. But it is very good.
MY MAIN POINT was where does Honda go from here with the Acura brand? They have milked the Accord platform for all it's worth. They can bring AWD and more power to the TL and the TSX, heck even the RSX in future if they want to, but the RL is currently their flagship and it already has the AWD and a power rating that is approaching the pragmatic limits of a V-6 engine. What WILL be next? Honda has said that the Acura brand is headed up. I do love juicy speculation! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
True. But is SH-AWD your run of the mill AWD system? It is designed to be an all-weather system, unlike most others. It will help you in SoCal, as it would in Minnesota.
And, as I mentioned earlier, AWD has already trumped RWD in big and heavy Mercedes S-Class. Mercedes figured that 30% of S-Class were being sold with AWD, so going forward, they opted to make it standard!
They have milked the Accord platform for all it's worth.
Is it an Accord platform? Or is it a Legend platform? Or, is it a global midsize platform? Platform isn't a car. It is a basis for a variety of cars.
And a good platform has a top-down design, regardless of how it appears in the market. Ever wonder why Accord, TSX and TL are as heavy as they are? The reasoning would be similar to the "heaviness" of 350Z in the Nissan FM-platform.
Designing a platform involves understanding of cars that will use it. A good design will follow the needs of the top model, and go down from there (instead of applying patches going up).
That said, only Honda knows if the global midsize platform has reached its limit, or if it could still span V8 power. If VW could, why not Honda?
One thing about being a Honda fan. I've learned that you should never say an engine has reached its limit.
That said, I agree the RL is probably as high on the food chain as Acura will go in the next few years. It's quite possible we'll see an RL with V8 power via electric supercharging (IMA) in the next few years. And we'll see additions to the TL and TSX. But Acura has pretty solid footing in the sedan department. I doubt we'll see another sedan marketed above the RL. At least, not until 2010.
Instead, Acura will continue to build in other areas. The MDX will get a boost up-market much like the TL got a boost with its redesign. The rumored RDX crossover should arrive within a year or two. These vehicles will solidify what Acura has gained in recent years. Then the NSX will come along to add icing to the cake.
In short, I expect more growth in the middle market rather than at the very top. That IS "heading up" for them, as the bulk of their sales came from the Integra and TL which were their entry level cars a few years back.
This will still leave room for a full size luxury sedan (RL is a midsize). But to get to that point, Acura has plenty of growth to consider in the segments it already competes in, and then in areas that it doesn’t.
IMA powered RL is a strong possibility to address the needs (or wants) of those who desire more low end grunt. An electric motor is going to address that need (or want) better than adding some displacement via two additional cylinders. The premium of adding IMA wouldn’t be any more, even with additional refinement and potential use of ultra capacitors instead of batteries, than the premium automakers charge for V8 (compared to their six cylinder counter parts).
The complementary nature of a gasoline ICE and an electric motor remains to be harnessed to a reasonable level.
To me, adding AWD to lots of models and adding a luxury cute-ute to the line are not "moving upscale" as Honda has announced, but I for one do not think Honda really needs to shove the Acura line upmarket right now. It has a very comfortable spot to sit right where it is. Let the money flow...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And if this is a possibility, some of the "AWD weight" could be compensated for by "IMA weight" and that could make things interesting. Besides, IMA would also add power!
And this methodology could actually help cars like TSX more than they would RL, given that TSX may not get a V6. Perhaps, something along the lines of the Acura RDX concept (2.4/I-4 + IMA = 250 HP AWD).
And there is a strong possibility that Honda will eventually move towards DI engines. And Honda may be developing a new line of engines of the future to use it, incl V6. At that point, perhaps, it will make more sense to develop a V8 out of it... V8 + VCM + DI -> superb combination. Perhaps, we could still throw IMA into the mix. ;-)
Yet they didn't really compete with each other, for buyers or even on price.
I don't see the RL chasing S class or 7 series buyers. Maybe GS shoppers, maybe.
But really I think they will try to get people moving up from loaded Accords and other Acuras, and there are *plenty* of those folks.
I predict the RL will do just fine carving out its own niche.
-juice
If we consider the numbers above, 20K/year sounds like a conservative number and the RL may beat the target. However, I’m not sure how competition and consumer approach in this price class today compared to the same from a decade ago, would affect the overall picture. Regardless, 20K/year is a strong possibility, and above that rests on several other factors.
Adding AWD and a luxury cute ute was not what I meant above. Acura is moving upscale with the luxury focus in their cars. The addition of an excellent sound system, standard NAV (and a superior NAV at that), richer interior materials, active noise suppression, and other tweaks are where the move is happening.
I don't think Acura is going to move upscale by adding a new class of vehicles at the top of their line-up. Instead they are boosting the image of the cars within their respective classes.
The trick to making IMA work is not adjusting the drivetrain, it's finding room for the batteries.
I agree on the battery (or ultra-capacitor) storage issue. But, it is possible that a way may be devised (eventually) to store them somewhere out of the way (also as packaging size decreases). In BMW’s hybrid concept, the UC-pack was mounted in the door (not sure about feasibility of that from safety point of view, though).
Just power the rears with in-wheel motors (similar to the RD-X). Allow them to vary the power from left to right.
In powerful and larger vehicles like RL, SH-AWD would make perfect sense, even with a traditional IMA. I was wondering if Honda has already planned for a SH-AWD equivalent without a driveshaft from the ICE to the rear axle, instead let the rear wheels have their own power plant.
But with power plant, there will be a need for some kind of transmission, and that is where my interest comes in. The ATTS in SH-AWD has an integrated planetary gear box (“acceleration device”). So in essence, SH-AWD has two transmissions, a conventional transmission to control it all, and a planetary gearset to manipulate rate of rear wheels. I wonder if the planetary gear set was used in some way in DNX/Dual note for torque multiplication.
If it were, we could have a recipe for a hybrid AWD system, good for lower end models like RSX and TSX (more power and AWD from an integrated unit) where either adding AWD and a larger displacement engine (for more power) will have more defined cost and weight penalties (relative to the price tag and weight of the vehicles).
Acura RDX prototype’s drive train holds a lot of promise for a future hybrid AWD TSX. In that case, 190 HP K24A and 60 HP (rear wheel mounted) electric motors were utilized for the AWD set up, for 250 horses. It will be interesting to see if the rumored small SUV is indeed the RDX getting to production in its advertised form.
For example, compare Cadillac’s 3.6/V6 (STS) to Acura’s 3.5/V6 (RL). The Cadillac V6 has to rev to 6500 rpm to get its 255 HP. OTOH, Acura’s V6 gets its 300 HP at 6200 rpm. Not only is Acura V6 getting 45 HP more, it is getting it done at a lower rpm. In fact, the Acura V6 delivers about 255 HP at just 5200 rpm.
Honestly, I didn’t expect Acura to get 300 HP at just 6200 rpm from a 3.5-liter V6. To put a perspective on this, Jaguar 4.2/V8 delivers 294 HP at 6000 rpm, and the Acura 3.5/V6 will be delivering just as much power at that engine speed! Of course, 20% additional displacement would help the V8 deliver more low end grunt, but it loses its advantage at the top end to the broader torque curve of the Acura V6.
In case of RL, top end power isn’t really an issue. But since people are comparing it directly to V8 powered cars with 4.2-liter displacement or more, and for couple of reasons (loaded to the brim MSRP and “300 HP”), having just 3471 cc at disposal doesn’t help at the bottom end. This is an area where IMA could come to rescue.
If Honda were to implement a 25% more powerful version of the IMA system in Accord Hybrid, in the RL, off-idle torque output could jump to over 300 lb.-ft. And I somehow doubt 300 HP @ 6000 rpm and 310 lb.-ft @ 1000 rpm will have many people complain, the best of both worlds, besides the expected improvements in fuel economy and emissions.
1.3-liter
Curb Weight: 1670 lb
80 HP/85 lb.-ft
0-62 mph: 11.9s
Quarter Mile: 18.2s
Fuel Economy @ 40 mph: 78 mpg (33 km/liter)
1.5-liter
Curb Weight: 1760 lb
110 HP/100 lb.-ft
0-62 mph: 8.8s
Quarter Mile: 16.2s
Fuel Economy @ 40 mph: 61 mpg (26 km/liter)
For the US market, I would scratch off the 1.3-liter engine (although Honda has an equivalent engine today, delivering 86 HP/88 lb.-ft and powers the immensely successful, Honda Jazz in Europe).
And Honda also has a 1.5-liter engine that is standard in JDM market Fit (Jazz) at 110 HP/105 lb.-ft. Perhaps an “Si-R” trim with 125-150 HP, and a curb weight of 2000 lb. would be a great recipe for going back to the basics of delivering a pocket rocket, at a reasonable price.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Insight is another illustration of that possibility. While aluminum-alloy et al are used to keep the curb weight under 2000 lb, there simply isn't enough room for that measure in a small car like it.
Besides, Insight's weight savings are more than compensated for by a (relatively) heavy IMA setup (Civic Hybrid has a more compact/lighter package).
And even if it ends up weighing as much as Jazz, a 150 HP engine will make it a sub 7s car! Of course, handling performance will have to be underlined as well.
Don't forget the 5mph US bumpers, those add weight and length.
I bet it would be more like 2300 lbs. Look at the Mini Cooper, it's heavier than that, even.
-juice
To provide another perspective, Mini “One” (3-door) in UK is said to have a curb weight of 1065 kg (2340 lb). By comparison, Honda Jazz (UK) has a curb weight ranging from 987 kg (2170 lb) to 1035 kg (2280 lb).
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Insight is an extreme case.
I guess they could start with that car and widen the track (a lot).
What does the current Si weigh? Seems like a more natural start. But it's not very popular, would a CRX based on that sell well?
-juice
I think the key to making a new CRX is keeping up with the hype of the old. The only people who care about the original CRX are the enthusiasts. They will have an inflated view of what the car was like. Therefore a new one needs to match the hype, not the reality of the old.
For my list:
1. It needs to be light in comparison with today's cars.
2. It needs to be a 2 seater HB.
3. It cannot be expensive (preferably less than $18K).
4. It must be relatively easy to mod, which means compatible with other Honda engines.
I'm sure Jazz will be the starting point, whenever it happens. As far as engine choices go, Jazz (5-door HB) and CRX (3-door HB/2-seat) can (and will) share drive train, starting with (potentially) 1.5-liter engine with 110 HP (standard engine in Japanese Jazz).
Hopefully, CRX will go a step further to have an Si model, with 140-160 HP. With only 2200 lb., it would still be a recipe for a fast pocket rocket.
But yes, price will have to be kept in check.
If they are serious about doing a CRX, it has to have this, with the powertrain lifted straight and intact out of the Civic SI. Imagine how potent that would be if it were dragging 500 less pounds in weight around!
They could also give it the 110 hp Fit engine - this could sub for the gas-sipper HF they used to have (but no more carburetor, thank goodness!).
And in this market, that is probably it. No need for the three trim levels they used to have (in other words, nix the DX for this gen) - the sales volume just won't support three disparate kinds.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
1. I think we may see Integrated Motor Assist on the Acura RL within two years. The result is that the vehicle that will sport better fuel efficiency and more more engine torque than the RL does now with the 2005 model. The Accord Hybrid sedan may be a sign of things to come from the RL.
2. I have this feeling that the Honda Fit/Jazz that will arrive in the US market as a 2006 model will NOT be the Fit/Jazz sold in Japan and Europe. It may be an all-new model that will easily garner excellent IIHS and EuroNCAP safety test ratings, will be slightly bigger than the Fit/Jazz (to better accommodate American-sized passengers and to accommodate side curtain airbags), and will likely use a new i-VTEC 1.5-liter I-4 engine rated at 115-120 bhp that will have very high fuel efficiency and also pass the requirements for California Air Resources Board's Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle (PZEV) emissions certification. The new Fit/Jazz will be unveiled at the Detroit International Auto Show in January 2005 and will at first be built at Honda's new assembly plant in Brazil for the US market.
3. The US market will see something derived from the Honda Edix/FR-V that is just now being introduced in Japan and Europe. Honda has stated they are working on a new smaller SUV for the Acura brand, and the Acura RDX small SUV--if anyone here remembers the Acura RD-X concept car from two years ago--will most likely be an Edix/FR-V derivative. It could also mean that we may a Honda-badged version, a vehicle that will likely replace the CR-V, given that the Edix/FR-V could easily be adapted to use 4WD.
Regarding Fit/Jazz (I hope it is called Jazz), I doubt about the size. Civic is large enough for the purpose, and Jazz is said to be almost as roomy as Civic 5-door hatchback although in a smaller exterior package. I do think that Jazz will arrive when the Japanese/European models are ready for redesign (next year?).
Acura RDX (not necessarily the name, but the vehicle) has been announced for production. It will be interesting to find out if it builds upon the RDX prototype showcased couple of years ago (a 250 HP AWD hybrid), or follows a traditional route. Honda hasn’t announced the platform yet. I don’t think it will resemble FR-V in anyway, especially if Honda chooses to use a V6. With hybrid option, it could (and retain a large enough interior volume, besides having the power).
-juice
At this time, we do know that RDX will be manufactured in Ohio. It could be at East Liberty or Marysville. In the past, it was easier to guess the platform, if we knew where the vehicle would be manufactured. The implementation of flexible manufacturing process doesn’t allow that.
Honda has announced partial movement of Accord’s production to East Liberty early next year. Could this be to make room for the Acura SUV next to Acura TL at Marysville?
Alas, that means the Civic will be more expensive, so in order to fill the gap for lower-end Honda buyers they'll bring over the Honda Fit, possibly powered by the 1.5-liter I-4 i-VTEC engine I mentioned above. We'll see both hatchback and four-door sedans of the Fit.
Feature content is definitely going to go up. Remains to be seen if Civic finally gets 150-160 HP 2.0 i-VTEC, at least in the EX trim.
Nah, it won't. Doesn't fit with what the Civic is supposed to be. Right?
I hope it gets a smaller engine. You don't really "need" the 1.7L. A 1.5L would work just fine, on the other hand, you don't really "need" the 1.5L either. They should just drop a 900cc in there, or something from one of their lawnmowers.