"The RL is lost cause. The name is dead. They need to kill "RL" and release a new car with a different set of letters and a new mission in life."
The RL isn;t a bad car it just lacks the sharp exterior styling that the TL has. There isn;t any more heardroom in the RL vs the TL to justify the 50K price tag of the RL vs the mid 30K price tag of the TL. In conclusion, the car needs sharper styling and more headroom.
I agree. Name can be revived. Two of the great examples include, interstingly enough, the TL (which was a dud until the MY1999 arrival when the car started to fly off the lots), and the Infiniti M.
Although it's true that Aura was the "car of the year," Saturn sold a little over 19,000 of them last year. Meanwhile, Honda sold 360,000 Accords and Toyota over 400,000 Camrys.
Sure the RL nameplate could be saved, but why bother? You always want to launch a vehicle with every advantage you can afford to give it. The name "RL" has become something of an anchor. They have little to lose by ditching it. They have nothing to gain by keeping it.
I mean, GM could create a new crossover and name it "Aztek", but why start the car with one strike against it?
Robert, there are degrees of "dudiness". The first TL was a four-year dud. By the time the RL gets another FMC, it will be a thirteen year dud.
And, for the record, I too believe the RL is a nice car, if a bit unremarkable. However, in the $40-60K range, I think a car needs to be remarkable in some manner. It's simply too compromised. A more conservative buyer might appreciate the handsome, if not sexy, styling and the performance. But that same buyer would likely be turned off by the lack of space in the back and trunk. A sportier buyer might not care about the rear seating and trunk, but be turned off by the conservative styling, lack of a V8, and moderate performance.
I think Acura built a car that offends very few, but also makes very few drool.
Toyota and Honda release their family sedans and set the benchmarks for the family sedan category. Then, over the course of 3-5 years, the competition learns and begins to match them. Then Toyota and Honda release new sedans and the bar is raised once more.
This is nothing new for either company. There is always the chance that one will trip up, but odds are against it.
A short and close ratio 6AT in the RL would have done a lot to help the RL on performance front. It is no slouch when comes 0-60 (C&D has tested RL twice doing 0-60 in 6.3s and 6.4s). The problem is, numbers don't matter when a person goes for test drive, prepared to feel 290-300 HP (most still associate power only with thrust, rarely with speed), and comes back disappointed. Thanks to that tall and wide gear ratios that Acura decided to go with. It doesn't help that the car tips the weighing scale at 4000 lb.
That is, if a person finds the car exciting enough to even go for a test drive. While the car is nicely detailed overall styling from a distance doesn't evoke emotions. More aggressive styling would have helped get past the first hurdle for the RL that Acura is still trying to establish itself as a luxury brand.
And there was no need to make the car smaller on the outside compared to the old. Sure, it is as big on the inside, but what was needed was bigger (not same). This was the third issue.
I hope Acura has learnt these lessons, and may be more, and will do something about it. A good start will be to look at FR possibility. Make SH-AWD optional. People complain about having to spend $3K extra afterall. :P
Shoulda, woulda, coulda... Too late to close the barn door, the cow is already gone. Only one chance to make a first impression. Yatta, yatta, yatta... They cold do a number of things to the current RL, but I doubt it would change perception in time to save the car.
The car needs to start with a clean slate. A clean slate deserves a name without any baggage.
This just reminded me of the lessons learnt from a story involving Honda’s first sedan (H1300). Here is a link to the story which is well worth a read. An excerpt:
"Engineering is simply a tool by which we create a product the customer wants to buy. However, we became so zealous in our approach that we subordinated the car's original purpose. Instead, it all became an exercise in engineering, which was supposed to be a tool. That mistake was the most important lesson we learned from the H1300."
It seems to me, Honda repeated that mistake with the RL (to a much lesser extent, RDX). And while Honda prides itself in being small to be able to maneuver itself better, I think it also should consider taking stubbornness out of the equation and especially if they want to see Acura establish itself as one among the best luxury brands.
Speaking of which, so far the few Auras I've seen on the road look pretty good. I've seen 3- 2 base XE models and an uplevel XR the other day...
The spot IS Honda's to lose, but I doubt Honda would give up their bread and butter so easily. I'm sure they have something surprising in store for the 2008 Accord...
With RDX, Acura could have - avoided omission of trivial features like lack of power seats - front end styling could have been cleaner (like the prototype did) - choice of drivetrain. Turbo-4 is fine, but IMO, 3.5/V6 makes more sense (just see how many people are complaining about turbo whine, which coincidentally seems to be another technical detail that was deliberately incorporated... did Acura need that?) - Proper option packages. I can see $2K increments, $4.5K package is rather steep to get additional features.
My point was that the Aztek was a failed car (big time). Why would GM introduce a brand new car and use the Aztek name? It doesn't matter how good the new car is, the first reaction from anyone listening would be a groan.
Well, the RL isn't a failure on the same scale, but it is a big disappointment. So, same principle applies. Why name the next car RL? That would be like stepping up to the plate with one strike against you.
As for the drool remark, same deal. I'm talking about the performance, luxury interior, features, styling... the whole package. Very little about the package will make anyone drool. Many people will be content with it. It doesn't let you down in any big way. But it fails to inspire awe.
But, again, this is an Acura subject in a Honda thread.
The RDX and RL both have their flaws, but I don't see how they are the same flaws.
It seems to me the RL was built by making every compromise possible. Not too sexy, not too bland. Not a float-mobile for the Buick-crowd, but not sporty enough for the driving enthusiast. Not so big that it's clumsy, but not big enough to carry 5 in comfort. Compromise, compromise, compromise... to the point where it pleases no one.
Meanwhile, the RDX targets a very narrow market. It's all about sporty driving. (Oh, that baby can corner!) The sheet metal is so much about style it's a little over-styled. The engine is the kind of thing that fans of the Evo, WRX, and modded cars would like. The interior is the kind of place a techno-gadget fan would love to spend time. The target audience is so specific, they're having a hard time finding buyers.
Was reading my Acura Style mag last night, they were going on and on about how the turbo four in the RDX gives "the power of a V-6 with the economy of a four". No it doesn't! EPA 19/23? Give me a break. The RAV4 with the 3.5L can keep up with the RDX (in a straight line) and does a good 10-20% better for fuel economy, as I am sure RDX would if it employed the 3.5 V-6, CERTAINLY the 3.0 from the Accord.
The RDX has the power of a V-6 with the fuel economy of a V-8. Just check out the new 300+ hp V-8s among the other luxury brands...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I don't think Lexus RX350 is using a V8. It gets about the same mileage as RDX.
Simply due to the difference in AWD system, you can't directly compare Rav4 to RDX, in part thanks to EPA rating procedures. Its for similar reasons the same V6 doesn't show Rav4-like fuel economy in RX350.
You know what, I was going by fuzzy memory, so after your comment I went and checked, and you're right - most of the V8s do worse than the RDX. This leads me to the following conclusion: the fuel economy of today's fleet of crossovers REALLY SUCKS!
And as for the RDX itself, OK, it has the power of a V-6 and the fuel economy of a V-6. Still makes Acura's ad-speak sound absurd, but not quite as absurd as I thought.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The RDX would probably do a lot better with a 6 speed automatic and a steeper overdrive. That turbo four should build plenty of torque so that it can pull a steep 6th gear overdrive.
I've heard through the GV that the RDX is going to inherit a manual gearbox with its mid-cycle makeover. I really think that option will entice a few more buyers while improving real world mileage.
I think BMW has dropped the Manual option in the X3 so that would make the RDX the only vehicle in its class with a manual. I know Land Rover won't offer a manual in the US market. :mad: :sick:
The RDX has a power driver's seat. It's just the passenger who's left unmoved. Acura did the same thing when they launched the TSX, but gave pwr to the passenger with the MMC.
Frankly, it stank of cost-cutting with that car and seems worse with the more expensive RDX. Though, the RDX was supposed to be sold to younger singles. So, even though I don't like that choice, I can understand it.
For me, it's just another example of what an unbalanced package the RDX is. Mind-blowing stereo, but no memory seats. :confuse:
Fuel economy for the turbo is on par with other vehicles of its ilk. The RDX is geared to be a performance vehicle from 1st all the way through 5th. The CX-7 gets 1 mpg better, but achieves that with a 6AT and sacrifices in performance.
We've seen this sort of thing with other performance-oriented Hondas. There are a number of V6-powered family sedans which will tie or better a Civic Si in 0-60 and EPA testing. However, when you goose the throttle in 3rd or 4th gear, the driving experience in an Si adds a chapter not told in the story of the tests.
My problem is that I expected better. I mean, I've been reading about Honda for a long time and how they will consider a turbo, then reject it for various reasons. When it was rumored that they'd finally given a turbo the green light, I figured it was going to be something special. I guessed they wouldn't use a turbo unless they had completely eliminated lag and truly were able to get good fuel economy. I was thinking about stuff like fancy hybrid-electric pre-spooling systems or something like that. I expected something revolutionary.
That the RDX's turbo could deliver better fuel economy figures- especially when compared with the 3.0L V6 in the Accord, or even the 3.5 that goes into the Pilot and Odyssey.
I never knew that the RDX didn't have a power passenger seat. Acura should really add that feature during the MMC...
"My point was that the Aztek was a failed car (big time). Why would GM introduce a brand new car and use the Aztek name? It doesn't matter how good the new car is, the first reaction from anyone listening would be a groan."
I don;t think your theory of no matter how good the new car is the first reaction from anyone would be a groan. Like I said before the RL is not a bad car it just needs more sportiness in the exterior styling, more interior room and a 5k in price cut right now. Look at the first generation TL(96-98) it didn;t sell well at its 33K price tag. For the redesigned 1999 TL Honda slashed the list price under 30K and it sold well(before the Type TL S model came in 2001 as an 02 model) although the bland styling remained despite a beef up in the styling on the 02 model refresh on the TL. For the 2004 TL its selling well at 34K-35K price tag and is one of the best looking cars on the road maybe I think so the RL name can be resserected I think.
"As for the drool remark, same deal. I'm talking about the performance, luxury interior, features, styling... the whole package. Very little about the package will make anyone drool. Many people will be content with it. It doesn't let you down in any big way. But it fails to inspire awe."
Features-well everything comes standard in one model trim so thats pretty good. I agree with on the interior theme and styling its nothing to go goo-goo-gaga over. I agree with you too that people would be "content" on owning an RL and it doesn't inspire aw.
You know a couple young people I have talked too in their 20;s(age-wise) love the RL. One person was saying the styling(was kinda plain I think)but he looked everything else about the car I think but than again thats not the RL's target age-wise(people in their 20's.)
Any engine's fuel economy will be reflected by the amount of power it is used for. The turbo may be an I-4, but its output is similar to a 3.5/V6's. Had Acura used 3.5/V6 instead, I doubt it would have been better, probably the same.
6AT would have helped, but as far as performance goes, I didn't feel the need for it in RDX as I feel in RL and MDX where people anticipate the feel of a 290-300 HP motor.
I hope, Acura's restrain from going 6AT is for a very good reason, that they have something impressive in store for the future, one that is also thoroughly tested for reliability. Well, thats a hope!
Honda is bringing back the CRX! It'll be a compact 2 seater, with a 1.8L 160 hp engine and a chassis tuned for sporty driving. It will be offered as both solid top and targa coupe.
No, wait... that's not quite right...
Honda is bringing back the Del Sol! It'll be a compact 2 seater, with a 1.8L 160 hp engine and a chassis tuned for sporty driving. It will be offered as both solid top and targa coupe.
Which announcement do you think would get a bigger rise out of Honda performance enthusiasts?
Oh GAWD! Are you kidding? I never want to hear about the silly little del sol again. OTOH, I would be first in line for a proper rendition of a future CRX. But coupe-happy Honda had better offer a hatch. That's what the CRX was, and I wouldn't be interested in a CRX with a cockpit the size of a Miata's. I liked the extra space inside the CRXs.
Geez, I NEVER should have sold mine. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
In North America, del Sol would at least ring a bell but it won't in Europe because the "CRX successor" was still called "CRX" (not del Sol).
Speaking of which, I remember reading about 1998 CRX in Autoexpress, their complaint that Honda should have made the car what it really looks like... a mid engine rwd car. I agreed with the idea, knowing that Honda has done things like that in the past, and the best known example is Honda Beat, with FF arrangement taken midship for a MR sports car.
And THATs the way, I think the next CRX should be.
Fair enough, but the Del Sol was around more recently. And even though it wasn't around all that long, it obviously left an impression on enthusiasts like Nippon. :shades:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Honda Motor is recalling 81,000 of its 2004 and 2005 Accord sedans because of problems that could cause an airbag-related sensor to fail. No injuries have been reported because of the issue.
SEEE! once again, I knew nothing about this recall on Honda. Never heard anything on the radio, never read ANYTHING in the newspaper! I'm told over and over there is no media bias against GM/Ford products.. Yeah right! :mad: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=119264
Media seems to cover GM/Ford on the bright side too. Let me ask you, how many times have you heard about Honda FCX in news? Thats right, even though it is the only commercially available fuel cell vehicle. You probably have heard more about concept vehicles from Ford and GM's hywire though.
Profit at Honda climbed 8.8 percent for the most recent quarter on strong sales in North America, Europe and Asia, prompting Japan's No. 2 automaker on Wednesday to raise its full-year profit forecast slightly.
I agree with you. About the only places that have covered the FCX were the magazines and Edmunds.com- nothing on CBS, nothing on ABC, etc. I do hear a lot about the Volt and the Hy-Wire, plus Dan Rather did a 60 minutes report on the Hy-Wire, while I don't think he ever did one on the FCX...
Comments
The RL isn;t a bad car it just lacks the sharp exterior styling that the TL has. There isn;t any more heardroom in the RL vs the TL to justify the 50K price tag of the RL vs the mid 30K price tag of the TL. In conclusion, the car needs sharper styling and more headroom.
They just might for the 08' Malibu and the current Aura was car of the year.
Honda, better deliver something great if they plan on keeping that #2 spot. It's Honda's to loose.
Rocky
Rocky
I agree its Honda to lose.
Sure the RL nameplate could be saved, but why bother? You always want to launch a vehicle with every advantage you can afford to give it. The name "RL" has become something of an anchor. They have little to lose by ditching it. They have nothing to gain by keeping it.
I mean, GM could create a new crossover and name it "Aztek", but why start the car with one strike against it?
Robert, there are degrees of "dudiness". The first TL was a four-year dud. By the time the RL gets another FMC, it will be a thirteen year dud.
And, for the record, I too believe the RL is a nice car, if a bit unremarkable. However, in the $40-60K range, I think a car needs to be remarkable in some manner. It's simply too compromised. A more conservative buyer might appreciate the handsome, if not sexy, styling and the performance. But that same buyer would likely be turned off by the lack of space in the back and trunk. A sportier buyer might not care about the rear seating and trunk, but be turned off by the conservative styling, lack of a V8, and moderate performance.
I think Acura built a car that offends very few, but also makes very few drool.
Toyota and Honda release their family sedans and set the benchmarks for the family sedan category. Then, over the course of 3-5 years, the competition learns and begins to match them. Then Toyota and Honda release new sedans and the bar is raised once more.
This is nothing new for either company. There is always the chance that one will trip up, but odds are against it.
That is, if a person finds the car exciting enough to even go for a test drive. While the car is nicely detailed overall styling from a distance doesn't evoke emotions. More aggressive styling would have helped get past the first hurdle for the RL that Acura is still trying to establish itself as a luxury brand.
And there was no need to make the car smaller on the outside compared to the old. Sure, it is as big on the inside, but what was needed was bigger (not same). This was the third issue.
I hope Acura has learnt these lessons, and may be more, and will do something about it. A good start will be to look at FR possibility. Make SH-AWD optional. People complain about having to spend $3K extra afterall. :P
The car needs to start with a clean slate. A clean slate deserves a name without any baggage.
"Engineering is simply a tool by which we create a product the customer wants to buy. However, we became so zealous in our approach that we subordinated the car's original purpose. Instead, it all became an exercise in engineering, which was supposed to be a tool. That mistake was the most important lesson we learned from the H1300."
It seems to me, Honda repeated that mistake with the RL (to a much lesser extent, RDX). And while Honda prides itself in being small to be able to maneuver itself better, I think it also should consider taking stubbornness out of the equation and especially if they want to see Acura establish itself as one among the best luxury brands.
The spot IS Honda's to lose, but I doubt Honda would give up their bread and butter so easily. I'm sure they have something surprising in store for the 2008 Accord...
The Aztek was flat out ugly car though.
"I think Acura built a car that offends very few, but also makes very few drool."
But the 5 Series styling doesn't want to make me drool either if the RL"s exterior styling is what you are talking about.
Why? what mistakes did you think they made with the RDX? I think the exterior styling is ok but it could have looked a little better though.
- avoided omission of trivial features like lack of power seats
- front end styling could have been cleaner (like the prototype did)
- choice of drivetrain. Turbo-4 is fine, but IMO, 3.5/V6 makes more sense (just see how many people are complaining about turbo whine, which coincidentally seems to be another technical detail that was deliberately incorporated... did Acura need that?)
- Proper option packages. I can see $2K increments, $4.5K package is rather steep to get additional features.
My point was that the Aztek was a failed car (big time). Why would GM introduce a brand new car and use the Aztek name? It doesn't matter how good the new car is, the first reaction from anyone listening would be a groan.
Well, the RL isn't a failure on the same scale, but it is a big disappointment. So, same principle applies. Why name the next car RL? That would be like stepping up to the plate with one strike against you.
As for the drool remark, same deal. I'm talking about the performance, luxury interior, features, styling... the whole package. Very little about the package will make anyone drool. Many people will be content with it. It doesn't let you down in any big way. But it fails to inspire awe.
But, again, this is an Acura subject in a Honda thread.
It seems to me the RL was built by making every compromise possible. Not too sexy, not too bland. Not a float-mobile for the Buick-crowd, but not sporty enough for the driving enthusiast. Not so big that it's clumsy, but not big enough to carry 5 in comfort. Compromise, compromise, compromise... to the point where it pleases no one.
Meanwhile, the RDX targets a very narrow market. It's all about sporty driving. (Oh, that baby can corner!) The sheet metal is so much about style it's a little over-styled. The engine is the kind of thing that fans of the Evo, WRX, and modded cars would like. The interior is the kind of place a techno-gadget fan would love to spend time. The target audience is so specific, they're having a hard time finding buyers.
Was reading my Acura Style mag last night, they were going on and on about how the turbo four in the RDX gives "the power of a V-6 with the economy of a four". No it doesn't! EPA 19/23? Give me a break. The RAV4 with the 3.5L can keep up with the RDX (in a straight line) and does a good 10-20% better for fuel economy, as I am sure RDX would if it employed the 3.5 V-6, CERTAINLY the 3.0 from the Accord.
The RDX has the power of a V-6 with the fuel economy of a V-8. Just check out the new 300+ hp V-8s among the other luxury brands...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Simply due to the difference in AWD system, you can't directly compare Rav4 to RDX, in part thanks to EPA rating procedures. Its for similar reasons the same V6 doesn't show Rav4-like fuel economy in RX350.
And as for the RDX itself, OK, it has the power of a V-6 and the fuel economy of a V-6. Still makes Acura's ad-speak sound absurd, but not quite as absurd as I thought.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think BMW has dropped the Manual option in the X3 so that would make the RDX the only vehicle in its class with a manual. I know Land Rover won't offer a manual in the US market. :mad: :sick:
Frankly, it stank of cost-cutting with that car and seems worse with the more expensive RDX. Though, the RDX was supposed to be sold to younger singles. So, even though I don't like that choice, I can understand it.
For me, it's just another example of what an unbalanced package the RDX is. Mind-blowing stereo, but no memory seats. :confuse:
We've seen this sort of thing with other performance-oriented Hondas. There are a number of V6-powered family sedans which will tie or better a Civic Si in 0-60 and EPA testing. However, when you goose the throttle in 3rd or 4th gear, the driving experience in an Si adds a chapter not told in the story of the tests.
My problem is that I expected better. I mean, I've been reading about Honda for a long time and how they will consider a turbo, then reject it for various reasons. When it was rumored that they'd finally given a turbo the green light, I figured it was going to be something special. I guessed they wouldn't use a turbo unless they had completely eliminated lag and truly were able to get good fuel economy. I was thinking about stuff like fancy hybrid-electric pre-spooling systems or something like that. I expected something revolutionary.
What we got is nice. But it's far from inspiring.
I never knew that the RDX didn't have a power passenger seat. Acura should really add that feature during the MMC...
A 6-speed automatic might be nice too...
"My point was that the Aztek was a failed car (big time). Why would GM introduce a brand new car and use the Aztek name? It doesn't matter how good the new car is, the first reaction from anyone listening would be a groan."
I don;t think your theory of no matter how good the new car is the first reaction from anyone would be a groan. Like I said before the RL is not a bad car it just needs more sportiness in the exterior styling, more interior room and a 5k in price cut right now. Look at the first generation TL(96-98) it didn;t sell well at its 33K price tag. For the redesigned 1999 TL Honda slashed the list price under 30K and it sold well(before the Type TL S model came in 2001 as an 02 model) although the bland styling remained despite a beef up in the styling on the 02 model refresh on the TL. For the 2004 TL its selling well at 34K-35K price tag and is one of the best looking cars on the road maybe I think so the RL name can be resserected I think.
"As for the drool remark, same deal. I'm talking about the performance, luxury interior, features, styling... the whole package. Very little about the package will make anyone drool. Many people will be content with it. It doesn't let you down in any big way. But it fails to inspire awe."
Features-well everything comes standard in one model trim so thats pretty good. I agree with on the interior theme and styling its nothing to go goo-goo-gaga over. I agree with you too that people would be "content" on owning an RL and it doesn't inspire aw.
You know a couple young people I have talked too in their 20;s(age-wise) love the RL. One person was saying the styling(was kinda plain I think)but he looked everything else about the car I think but than again thats not the RL's target age-wise(people in their 20's.)
6AT would have helped, but as far as performance goes, I didn't feel the need for it in RDX as I feel in RL and MDX where people anticipate the feel of a 290-300 HP motor.
I hope, Acura's restrain from going 6AT is for a very good reason, that they have something impressive in store for the future, one that is also thoroughly tested for reliability. Well, thats a hope!
No, wait... that's not quite right...
Honda is bringing back the Del Sol! It'll be a compact 2 seater, with a 1.8L 160 hp engine and a chassis tuned for sporty driving. It will be offered as both solid top and targa coupe.
Which announcement do you think would get a bigger rise out of Honda performance enthusiasts?
Geez, I NEVER should have sold mine. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Speaking of which, I remember reading about 1998 CRX in Autoexpress, their complaint that Honda should have made the car what it really looks like... a mid engine rwd car. I agreed with the idea, knowing that Honda has done things like that in the past, and the best known example is Honda Beat, with FF arrangement taken midship for a MR sports car.
And THATs the way, I think the next CRX should be.
Let's have Honda add a second axle to the rear of every single car they make. Then they can be both RWD and 4-wheel drive at the same time!
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=119264
Rocky
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=119264
Profit at Honda climbed 8.8 percent for the most recent quarter on strong sales in North America, Europe and Asia, prompting Japan's No. 2 automaker on Wednesday to raise its full-year profit forecast slightly.
Rocky
Not a great month despite the title.