Based on pricing, it's pretty clear that the TL has price/value as one of it's prime virtues
Not anymore. And unless Acura avoids a bump in price next year or with the redesign, it will only get worse.
it's very difficult to say (with any car) exactly how the cost-cutting works out.
Yet we like to talk about it in terms of platform sharing and how much it helps cut costs. The only way to draw a conclusion is to look at the price tag of the competition, comparably equipped. G35 is about the same, if not less, than TL comparably equipped and without sharing platform with Altima. RL costs as much as comparably equipped Lexus GS and perhaps more than Infiniti M35 while sharing platform with Accord. So, how does it cost less? Oh, and how we also emphasize on the fact that Acura wants to differentiate itself from Honda. Yet, Acuras must continue a tightly coupled relationship to Honda's best seller (which, in the process, is getting hurt itself).
IIRC, Audi A4 and A6 no longer share platform with Passat (which has apparently been "downgraded" to Golf platform). Yet, A6 likely costs less than RL. There is no point to having a $10K profit margin, if the car is selling with that kind of discount AND the sales volume isn't anything to brag about either.
Acura needs to stop applying patchwork and be more serious AND progressive about its top cars. Thats the bottomline.
1. Acura needs a new powertrain option for their top of the line products. The RL and MDX could use a V8, V6+hybrid, a V10, or some other option. A new tranny for these vehicles would also be a nice addition.
2. They need an SH-AWD halo car. As mentioned in past posts, don't know why they are doing the V10 halo car first, then thinking about the V8 second. The V18 should come first.
Having written that, it is important for Acura to capitalize on SH-AWD while it is still a unique system. A halo car using it will draw attention to the performance potential of lateral torque vectoring and give a boost to any other car using it. So, I list this in the #2 slot.
3. They need a genuine large car platform. I expect it would be RWD. This might be used for three models here in the US. To borrow Toyota's line-up for reference, Acura could build a GS-fighter for the sporting crowd; an LS-fighter for the luxury land-yachters, and Honda could offer a down-market Avalon-fighter.
I think shrinking a large car platform to include the TL gains them nothing except the same kind of compromises they got when they stretched the Accord to make the current RL. No need to repeat past mistakes. If you're going to make a large car, make it large from the ground up.
4. A new V6. Perhaps they can get away with A-VTEC and the current J series for another 5 years, but I think a new base engine is needed.
5. A mid-range sports car. Acura needs a truly sporty car in the $35-45K range. Not a sportee sedan, but a sports car. It could be something like a new coupe with 350ish hp (turbo V6?) and SH-AWD. Using a coupe body style and shortened wheelbase can help reduce weight and allow the stylists to go a little nutty. A convertible "poseur" version of the car would be another welcome addition.
This car need not appeal to everyone, but it needs to be respectable within a niche of enthusiasts. I don't particularly care for the Sti or the Mustang, but I certainly respect them. The idea is not to create a car for the masses, rather it is to provide Acura with an attainable sports car.
Not sure where you’re getting Infiniti M35 for $63K, but you can build M35 on Infiniti’s website complete with AWD and Technology package for $48,550. That is a grand less than RL and without sharing platform with Altima. Given this, and the other price tags you quoted, how is RL any cheaper? One would think it would be substantially less expensive than the rest of the competition that don’t share platform with mainstream cars. Besides, Infiniti M and Lexus GS are selling like hotcakes compared to RL. Could it be due to the fact that one doesn’t NEED to pay for SH-AWD? It is very likely.
Looks like a nice WANT list rather than a practical one.
1. Everything must start from the platform. There is no point to a V8, if the platform doesn’t support it but your priority is the engine (reminds me of the 1995 Accord V6 issue, engine was there, platform wasn’t, hence a patchwork). But, we’re in agreement that Acura should develop a V8, but a V10 and V6+Hybrid?
2. As far as halo car goes, Acura should first figure out what kind of halo it was to build its brand around. SH-AWD? Does it really want to be the Japanese Audi? If SH-AWD hasn’t saved RL, what’s the point in putting all eggs in one basket? The competition doesn’t care. They don’t need to. They can offer something like SH-AWD if there is a substantial shift in market towards that. And until then, they can continue to offer things Acura hasn’t prepared itself for.
3. If a midsize platform can support a compact sedan (TSX) or a coupe (Accord) and a largish midsize (Accord), why couldn’t another midsize platform start it life from the midsize part of the spectrum as opposed to compact and move into large midsize or even full size car (which should be way down on Acura’s priority right now, not number 3).
BTW, Acura didn’t “stretch” Accord to derive RL. Accord is larger than RL on the inside. It may be just that RL is poorly packaged. Now, BMW 5-series is an example of great packaging. And BMW also illustrates platform flexibility at its best. Do you really think there is substantial difference between 3-series, 5-series and 7-series platforms? Actually, 6-series uses a hybrid of 5-series and 7-series platforms.
Oh, and while we talk about Acura trying to separate itself from Honda as much as possible, why would we want an Acura platform in Honda lineup as a mainstream sedan? Besides, if Honda ever did that, offer a larger RWD sedan derived off a full blown luxury sedan and priced it close to Acura TL which is still based on Accord, well, good luck! Wait, there’s a fix. AHM will have to ensure that the Honda is as boring as it can get, to look at, and perhaps drive. The bottom line: Acura and Honda don’t need to fight it out against each other. They don’t need to keep shooting at each other’s toes.
4. I thought drive train was part of your first item. And it isn’t really an Acura priority, it is a Honda as a company priority.
5. A sports car without a platform? Or, must it also use Accord platform? Given the price range and the NEED for SH-AWD, I’m assuming that’s what you would like to see. I can see an Accord Coupe based sports car with SH-AWD for $35K loaded, tipping the scale at about 3750 lb. But I won’t call it a sports car. Acura could use a Sports Coupe though.
6. A TL that continues to hurt Accord, while reflecting Honda mass market roots. And likely getting hurt from the competition in the foreseeable future, while being unable to help RL go somewhere.
You are correct about the M35x. I accidentally selected the premium package instead of the technology package. But to get a similar audio set-up Infiniti requires additional packages bringing the total to $51,580.
There are entire threads devoted to explaining why the RL isn't selling. The car has many faults. I don't think one can blame it on SH-AWD alone. Besides, nearly all A6s are sold as AWD (an option). It would appear that if you're going to go AWD, you might as well go all the way.
SH-AWD won't look so bad if it weren't used as a patch to compensate for platform limitations. Acura should have started with a RWD platform, and offered SH-AWD as an option.
And Acura doesn't need to be "Audi-like". As is apparent with Audi, their formula to offer AWD isn't working either. The brand barely moves 80K units per year and half of it is from A4 (which sells at a pace barely better than TSX).
OTOH, likes of Infiniti (M) and Lexus (GS) and Mercedes (E-Class) and BMW (5-series) have proven that there is a good market in $45-55K price class for midsize luxury. Thats the market Acura has repeatedly tried to hit with RL.
Hopefully, the third time will be a charm, courtesy of a smarter move on their part than resorting to another patch (by way of halo car or simply adding a technology feature or two on top).
BTW, if you add the other package in M35x to upgrade the audio to surround sound which results in a price tag around $51K, you should also add CMBS package in RL which takes its price tag to $53K (the second package in M includes features that CMBS etc brings in RL). So, the Infiniti IS cheaper than RL, comparably equipped. And Nissan is doing it with a unique platform (or is it?;) )
I'm willing to bet everyone else here is as tired of this bickering as I am. So, rather than rebut, I'll focus on the points where we agree.
Acura needs an engine upgrade for their top tier vehicles. You think it needs to be a V8. I agree that's fine, though I'm open to other options.
We both agree that too much platform-sharing between Honda and Acura is a problem. You think the problem lies with the Accord and TL. I think it lies between the Accord and RL.
We both think Acura needs a moderately-priced Sports Coupe.
We both agree that Acura needs a new halo car.
I believe we both agree that Acura needs to improve their image with luxury buyers.
We both think the current RL missed the mark. There are so many reasons why it misses, it's not surprising we don't agree on which is the most important.
I don't think this bickering is an issue. It makes for a good debate, and it is always nice to see counter points. This is not a topic that follows steadfast rules. So, assumptions are ok.
My frustration with Honda is due lack of consistency and focus. It is a company with huge potential and that is bound to raise expectations. I won't be arguing as passionately if we were talking Toyotas here.
One platform (and may be shared at the lowest end of the spectrum), couple of engines, couple of choices of excellent transmission, a compact, a midsize, and a large midsize to borderline full size luxury sedan lineup with a sport coupe and an exotic to top things off aren't too much to ask. I don't care about crossovers, but MDX is a fine entry, and RDX could use minor tweaks for greater appeal.
Acura's indecisiveness is hurting the brand. And as you may have already noticed, about the ASC... the other car that we have discussed. I still can't get past the fact that a company like Honda would give up on a perfect layout for a sports car to satisfy bean counters.
I think Acura's problems is having 3 midsize sedans within pricing range.
CSX - TSX- Nice gap Accord -Tsx -Good if TSX got more luxury and sport TSx-TL -Good if tsx got the turbo TL - Accord - Difference in pricing and options please(Accord Hybrid with nav or Tl with nav)
We both think Acura needs a moderately-priced Sports Coupe.
Hope that there is a 2-door version of the TL soon, just like Infiniti did with G35. The G35 coupe is very elegant and better looking than the sedan (IMO of course). Last time Acura tried a coupe with a V6 (2001,2), it was an ugly duckling CL, and the TL of the same vintage was by far the better styled of the two.
I think that there would be a decent market for a 2-door TL coupe that was styled right with good proportions (not like old CL).
Yeah, I'm on board with that. The styling of the last CL was not pretty. The only thing coupe-ish about it was the roofline. That stacked on top of a sedan body did not work very well.
Lately, Honda/Acura have not done enough to make their coupe products distinct from the sedans. The TL-S left no reason to purchase the CL or CL-S. Even today, the Civic Si (sedan and coupe) are so similar Edmunds and others think the only reason to buy the coupe is styling.
Robert doesn't like it, but I think a completely restyled version of the Accord Coupe concept with a significant power-boost and SH-AWD could appeal to a profitable niche. Sorta splits the difference between boy-racer cars like the Evo or STi and a high-priced machine like the Skyline.
Results would depend very much on execution of the car, but I think Acura can do it if they are willing to put the money down.
Robert doesn't like it, but I think a completely restyled version of the Accord Coupe concept with a significant power-boost and SH-AWD could appeal to a profitable niche. Sorta splits the difference between boy-racer cars like the Evo or STi and a high-priced machine like the Skyline
That Accord concept is just so-so and it does smack of boy-racerish. The profile and rear is not too bad, but the front-end is a hodge podge of shapes. Hopefully what is actually introduced for sale will have been cleaned up somewhat.
A TL coupe should definitely not be boy-racerish. It should be graceful and elegant like the G35 coupe or even the BMW 3 coupe. A TL coupe should be made to appeal to the same type of buyers as the G35 and 3 coupe.
"That Accord concept is just so-so and it does smack of boy-racerish."
Which is why I say the Acura version would have to be completely restyled. The shape and proportion of the Accord Coupe concept was fine. Much better than the shape of the last CL. It's a good start for a mid-price Acura.
That Accord concept is just so-so and it does smack of boy-racerish.
When I see pictures of that concept, I see a strong TL influence. Well, Honda can ill-afford to use Acura-esque lines on the nose, but what they went with, I could not complain about. It is far from being boy-racerish. I find that coupe concept to be very classy, something CL should have looked like.
My only major issue with the Accord Coupe concept is, the front overhang. But, given Honda's approach to mount engine ahead of the front axle on its front drivers, it is virtually unavoidable.
"Acura's indecisiveness is hurting the brand. And as you may have already noticed, about the ASC... the other car that we have discussed. I still can't get past the fact that a company like Honda would give up on a perfect layout for a sports car to satisfy bean counters."
What sports car are you talking about? as far as Acura is concerned wrong with the brand is the RL and the MDX's styling because I think the front end is kinda ugly. THE RDX looks nice except for the front end because I think it should be cleaned up some like you said 2 months ago Robert.
"My frustration with Honda is due lack of consistency and focus. It is a company with huge potential and that is bound to raise expectations. I won't be arguing as passionately if we were talking Toyotas here."
What lack of consistency and focus? The main thing Honda lacks is some eye catching styling aside from the TL. Acura needs a coupe to replace the old CL. The RL needs to be totally redone.
"Robert doesn't like it, but I think a completely restyled version of the Accord Coupe concept with a significant power-boost and SH-AWD could appeal to a profitable niche. Sorta splits the difference between boy-racer cars like the Evo or STi and a high-priced machine like the Skyline."
I guess you could call the Accord Coupe Concept with AWD the Accord Coupe Type R than? In my opinion an Accord Coupe for an enthusiast model(say Tye R) woulds be very very low demand and I don;t think very profitable.
I actually like the MDX, especially the front. And its styling is definitely not hurting, as it has sold well since the launch. Besides, MDX is not a vehicle I would worry too much about, it may have its quirks but is positioned well for now in its class.
RL doesn’t stand out in terms of styling, but that’s not the only reason it isn’t selling well. I don’t see stand out styling in Infiniti M either but that car sells (3 times as well as does RL).
RDX seems to be doing alright. The perception around its sales is largely due to the fact Acura came up with unrealistic goals at 40K units. I think it would do better as a 25-30K unit vehicle than meeting or exceeding 40K units.
Lack of consistency can be seen in a lot of areas, styling, size and orientation in general. This is something I feel may be a part of Honda culture. The root cause may be Acura’s insistence on squeezing as much out of existing platforms as possible. They also need to figure out what they want to be seen: Plush along the lines of Cadillac and Lexus, sporty along the lines of BMW, upgraded from mainstream vehicles like Audi or somewhere in between. There doesn’t seem to be a philosophy with the cars. The light trucks do have it though.
Another demonstration comes in the form of indecisiveness that continues to show up with NSX replacement. Apparently, ASC is history too. Acura shouldn’t try to spend too much time figuring out its identity. All they have to do is look back at the company’s core philosophy and build upon it.
Oh, and a CL based on Accord would be another "patch". Anything along those lines is simply buying time that Acura shouldn't be. Build an image while the brand is due to go global. That would be having a focus, and using a consistent approach.
"I actually like the MDX, especially the front. And its styling is definitely not hurting, as it has sold well since the launch. Besides, MDX is not a vehicle I would worry too much about, it may have its quirks but is positioned well for now in its class."
The 07 MDX only has been out for 5-6 months though. The 03 Accord had terible styling and it killed sales of it(this generation of Accord) in the long run in my opinion. Thus, we don't know how this generation of MDX will sell in the long run.
"RL doesn’t stand out in terms of styling, but that’s not the only reason it isn’t selling well. I don’t see stand out styling in Infiniti M either but that car sells (3 times as well as does RL)."
I agree that its not the only reason that the RL isn;t selling is because of its styling.
"Lack of consistency can be seen in a lot of areas, styling, size and orientation in general. This is something I feel may be a part of Honda culture. The root cause may be Acura’s insistence on squeezing as much out of existing platforms as possible. They also need to figure out what they want to be seen: Plush along the lines of Cadillac and Lexus, sporty along the lines of BMW, upgraded from mainstream vehicles like Audi or somewhere in between. There doesn’t seem to be a philosophy with the cars. The light trucks do have it though."
I think Acura is a compeitor to BMW and Infinti and not Lexus, Mercedes and Caddy. In my mind when I think about Acura as a sport-luxury company like BMW and Infiniti are. I agree Honda needs more platforms. I don;t have a problem with TL using the Accord platform but the RL should have its own seperate platform or TL could have its own platform and share it with the RL but definately not with the Accord. There is no way the RL should use the Accord platform.
""Oh, and a CL based on Accord would be another "patch". Anything along those lines is simply buying time that Acura shouldn't be.""
I don;t know about CL using the Accord platform. I'm undecided wether a CL should use the Accord platform. I think the best way to go is Acura just have a platform that they use for the TL and RL and have a platform for the MDX and RDX but don;t share it(those Acura platforms) with any Honda vehicles. Yeah thats the way Acura should do it in terms of platform sharing.
BTW, I am heavily anticipatig the release of the 08 Accord. Honda needs to put some younger buyers back into the Accord after the 03 Accord(the sedan model) really didn;t hit well with younger buyers.
New MDX isn’t just selling well it is outselling the old from any year. While some may thing the grill is over the top, I think it is one of the few times I would associate passionate styling with Acura. I really don’t understand the big deal is to many with that armor style grill. It is quite common and sometimes people choose to put something like that in their vehicles. The only weak point in MDX styling, IMO, is the plastic on rear bumper. Besides styling, the rest of the vehicle is extremely competitive in its class and all it really needs is a good 6-speed automatic.
While one may be tempted to compare Acura to BMW and Infiniti, Acura has done little to justify its position along those lines. The brand has put limitations on itself by tying itself up with an extremely conservative growth plan. (BTW, isn’t it interesting that we have now started to throw Infiniti into the mix counted as a more established brand than Acura). We know Acura can come up with arguably the best engines, and can do fantastic chassis engineering. The sad part is, they are stuck in their own loop and don’t seem to have a plan to get out of it.
They are also inconsistent if they claim: V8 drinks gas. But so does an AWD system. Claims that light weight is desirable, but the only way they have found to sell RL is with AWD. Claim breakthroughs in reducing drive train losses and then can’t do anything but go with an AWD system which is bound to add to those losses. Honda also claims: transversely mounted engine is more efficient, and then you read a claim from Honda that a particular engine is mounted longitudinally in the motorcycle to reduce drive train losses. So Honda, which is it? Seems to me more of a matter of convenience and living in the present than really having a philosophy.
As far as Accord is concerned, I would think that sales were lost due to styling. But, it is Honda who has created this mess for itself: can’t make Accord look equal, if not more, appealing than TSX and TL.
Accord Coupe concept looks really good, so obviously, Honda is trying to change that. But, that’s the coupe. I’m afraid the sedan may continue to carry a boring appearance, from fear of hurting TSX and TL. And that’s where the problem starts.
We do agree that Acura needs a platform designed exclusively for mid to upper price vehicles: TL, CL and RL. Offer TL with RWD, and SH-AWD as an option. Offer CL with RWD, and SH-AWD as an option Offer RL with RWD, and SH-AWD as an option
Would people pay more for SH-AWD? Well, if Acura believes it can be a selling point, they should make people pay more by choice than try to force it to them and in the process chase away buyers who would be interested in Acuras for other reasons.
I like honda/acura can keep the styling different between brands. Its sad how the Uplander, Montana, Terraza, and Relay all looked alike. I give honda props for keeping it unique.
Am I the only one interested in a hardtop convertible? -Cj
I'm with you on CL. It should be offered as a coupe/convertible (or hardtop convertible).
As far as styling differences between Acura and Honda go, the cars need to be substantially different under the skin first. Styling should not be used as the sole selling point, and to justify a higher price point. A deviation and it will come back to bite Acura, while hurting Honda in the process.
"(BTW, isn’t it interesting that we have now started to throw Infiniti into the mix counted as a more established brand than Acura)."
yeah but Acura still outsells Infinti though.
"As far as Accord is concerned, I would think that sales were lost due to styling. But, it is Honda who has created this mess for itself: can’t make Accord look equal, if not more, appealing than TSX and TL."
Yeah while Honda created its own hole I'll agree but they needed something(Acura TSX) because they needed something to go up against the Mazda 6 and Subaru Legacy back in 2004.
while I;m not exactly asking for an eye-catching styling for the 08 Accord because the Accord has to appeal people who shop Toyota, Chevy, Mazda, and Pontiac but the styling on the 4dr accord sedan should be a rapid improvement over the current generation Accord styling in my opinion.
"We do agree that Acura needs a platform designed exclusively for mid to upper price vehicles: TL, CL and RL. Offer TL with RWD, and SH-AWD as an option. Offer CL with RWD, and SH-AWD as an option Offer RL with RWD, and SH-AWD as an option"
"Would people pay more for SH-AWD? Well, if Acura believes it can be a selling point, they should make people pay more by choice than try to force it to them and in the process chase away buyers who would be interested in Acuras for other reasons."
I think the RL should be RWD since every person on this board is saying that the RL should be RWD. The CL could be RWD but offer an AWD option so I agree with you on that one due to the fact the CL would be a niche model(i.e. low demand.) The TL I don;t know if I'm up for the change to RWD and offering an AWD option. People who opt for the AWD option might not want to spend the extra$$$ for it due to the last 2 generation of TL's in terms of what the TL offered alot for its "value" or "price" if you understand I'm saying. Finally, if offering a RWD TL and customers are not willing to pay for an AWD option on the TL they(acura dealers) could have alot of TL's mounting up on dealers lots. The TL is so important to Acura that they(Honda) can;t risk in my opinion a move to RWD with an AWD option.
Like I said weeks ago, Acura should not rely on the past. The current formula has helped them achieve reasonable sales but does it promise continued success and growth? Infiniti’s duo (G35/M35-45) is handily outselling Acura’s duo (TL/RL). This wasn’t always the case. First generation Infiniti M was a big time flop, the second generation is going head to head against the established Lexus GS, handily outselling the RL and A6, if not the E-Class and 5-series.
While Acura may have outsold Infiniti in the past, but is it possible that it will eventually get caught up? I won’t bet against it, unless Acura gets its head out of the sand in time. The best bet for Acura at this time comes from Infiniti not offering a direct competitor to MDX.
Honda created its own hole I'll agree but they needed something(Acura TSX) because they needed something to go up against the Mazda 6 and Subaru Legacy back in 2004.
And there is another problem. Should Acura target likes of Mazda and Subaru?
But, I didn’t mean TSX as hurting Accord. In its current form, TSX can afford to play in a niche it has going for itself, but again, to grow, there has to be more than what is being offered. I meant TL. If one takes away styling advantages from TL over the Accord, really, there isn’t a whole lot going for the Acura (while it is worsening the market for the Honda). This is coming from a TL owner.
People who opt for the AWD option might not want to spend the extra$$$ for it due to the last 2 generation of TL's in terms of what the TL offered alot for its "value" or "price"
I agree. But for how long a brand sell its vehicle on value and price aspect, especially if the base price is approaching $35K? Most of us don’t realize that the Legend also started to struggle in terms of sales (1992-1995), as its price continued to creep up. Acura sold only 18K units of the 1995, down from 50K units in 1992 which was down from 66K units in 1991! Things can go wrong in a hurry.
If the current formula must stay, the only SH-AWD can be deemed the only savior for the TL, and IMO, that’s dangerous. The real question is, why would Acura want to put SH-AWD? Could it really afford to put a FWD TL in market at $38K and expect it to sell as it did in the past?
Which brings my question. Should Acura release a smaller engine option for the TL as they did in 1996? Seriously, not everyone wants/needs 258hp(Likely to be 280+hp 4 next TL). Yeah it is a performance sedan but look at the bmws.
The 3& 5 series have always offered a choice of engines and both have always sold well. The TLs 2 engines now are two similar. The TL should Have a 215-250 engine and a 280-330hp engine.
Also, I like merceds approach with the C class. 2 engines and two models and the buyer can choose. A 200hp sport, 200hp luxury(Both likely to start at 225 for 08) or 250hp sport or luxury (Likely to Be 300hp).
Mercedes even offers an evenly priced economical diesel. with the lowest hp and highest torque and gas mileage.
Imagine the 2007 Acura Tl with 200hp, 350lb ft of torque, 28MPG city and 38MPG Highway.
Should Acura release a smaller engine option for the TL as they did in 1996?
2.5TL was basically a replacement of the Vigor (much like RSX was to Integra). Acura offered 3.2TL as an upgrade, which has evolved into the TL we have today, while TSX takes place of the 2.5TL/Vigor.
TL doesn't need to go down, but with TSX at the entry level, it could compete in $35K-$45K price class (top it off with a sport tuned, SH-AWD-laden 325-350 HP trim). But the best way to go about this route would be to build it on a new platform. That is something I want to see from Acura.
"Like I said weeks ago, Acura should not rely on the past. The current formula has helped them achieve reasonable sales but does it promise continued success and growth?"
No, probably the formula that Acura has sold on to help achieve growth probably won;t work in the near future because right now we are saying well this Acura car should use RWD and Acura should have some different platforms of their own without using Honda's platforms for the basis of their Acura vehicles.
"Infiniti’s duo (G35/M35-45) is handily outselling Acura’s duo (TL/RL). This wasn’t always the case. First generation Infiniti M was a big time flop, the second generation is going head to head against the established Lexus GS, handily outselling the RL and A6, if not the E-Class and 5-series."
Yeah but the G35 is in its first year of a new generation model and the TL is in its 4th year of its current generation model. I know the G35 only features a mild refresh to the exterior from the last generation of G35(03-06) with mainly the headlights having a different look to them but the 07 G35 I think is different drivability wise than the 03-06 G35. I would think too that once a new TL comes out for the 09 model year it will be a better car than the current G35 is.
As for the M the first gen M didn't stand a chance with the way it looked and one car mag I read said the first gen M drove like an old Cadillac I think which in my opinion isn;t a good thing. If whats your saying is true that the M is outselling the E-Class and 5 Series the Germans have something to worry about let alone Acura.
"I agree. But for how long a brand sell its vehicle on value and price aspect, especially if the base price is approaching $35K?"
I agree about how long can a brand sell a car with a price and value aspect to it especially when it is a luxury vehicle like the TL. A luxury car you would think would sell on prestige mainly but the TL sells on value on price mainly but Acura I think has to change that somehow and someway.
"Most of us don’t realize that the Legend also started to struggle in terms of sales (1992-1995), as its price continued to creep up. Acura sold only 18K units of the 1995, down from 50K units in 1992 which was down from 66K units in 1991! Things can go wrong in a hurry."
Well you said the Legend started to only sell in limited trim levels thus sales went down I thought you said because of it in another post on this thread previously.
"If the current formula must stay, the only SH-AWD can be deemed the only savior for the TL, and IMO, that’s dangerous. The real question is, why would Acura want to put SH-AWD? Could it really afford to put a FWD TL in market at $38K and expect it to sell as it did in the past?"
I don;t know if Acura can put out a FWD TL at 38K and expect it too sell. Thats a hard question and one that Acura (ala Honda) has to figure out.
BTW, the main thing right now Acura has got to get straightened out is the RL.
I think the TSX fills the niche for people looking to buy an upscale sedan, but not wanting the extra power of a hi-po V6.
I also think the TSX was brought over to replace the RSX as the entry-level model for the line rather than any need to compete with the Legacy or Mazda6. That's the sort of comparison Acura is trying to avoid. Just like they wanted to dump the RSX to avoid having the Acura name printed in comparos with the Celica, Civic Si, Golf, and others.
The TL no longer "needs" to be the value player as they have the TSX to fill that role. However, I disagree with the premise that price is the car's primary sales driver in the first place. For two generations, the car has been a sensible choice for people buying an upscale sedan. There are gobs of buyers in the market who don't want a sports car. They might be able to afford an M3, but they can't justify spending that much money on a car when they could put the cash toward a yacht, private plane, or summer cabin. The TL provides enough style, comfort, and driving pleasure to satisfy the demands of a huge portion of the market. Most buyers do not want to go to extremes in any one of those directions. The TL is not only the bargain choice, it is also the practical choice and the balanced choice.
Now, when we get to the RL, we find a disaster worth talking about. I had high hopes for the car based on early reports, but clearly the vehicle is not hitting its mark. Everything about the vehicle is "close, but not quite". There's nothing one can pint to and say, "This is the one reason why the car is failing". Instead there is an extensive laundry list of small problems which whittle away at the car's credibility.
The TL, TSX, and MDX are all fine. In fact they're better than fine. The RDX needs help, but it's a niche vehicle and therefore not a major concern. If there is something in the line that needs fixing, it's the RL.
If honda saw that A5 and wanted to get serious, they would build a new CL.
Give it the TLs front facia, Tsxs rear facia and Accord coupes body and the TLs interior and it looks good.
I say go 3.2l V6 for 260hp to the front wheels and SH-AWD optional. A Type-s (S5) can get the 3.7l v6 and could probably squeeze out about 320hp (Remember the MDX is a porker and still sprints to 60 quickly.) Now it Drives good. Give both a standard Limited Slip Differential and the s a sport tuned suspension.
Options should be standard acura.
Price it at $35k standard and $38k with nav. The Type-s can start out at 40k with standard Sh-awd and have no problems. Now the Hardtop Convertible should start out at 40k for the base and $45k for the Type-s.
$40k for a convertible may sound like a lot but it still undercuts MB's CLK and Volvos C70. In fact, I think that the new 3series cabrio may start out at 40k with only 230hp.
With my Idea, $40k can get you into a convertible with a metal roof with more power than Volvo, less money than the CLK, and a USABLE REAR SEAT :surprise: !
Coupes took a break in the Early 2000s when people retreated to SUVS. Now that gas has gone up and People going small again, coupes are on the rise.
COUPES/CONVERTIBLES ARE IN-AGAIN! With competition from Pontiac's G6 up to Bmw's 6, This CL should do great!
In fact, An AWD convertible will be a first in a while. Acura could beat Audi to it!
The Sports4 concept is the acura TSX in disguise IMO. In fact, I'm speculating that it may be the sedan version of the accord. I think that the TSX will be out and get changed with the TL. The same as in o4. The accord changed in 2003 and TL in 2004. The new accord coming in 08and TL in 09. I wouldn't be surprised if the TSX changed in 2010.
According to Temple of VTEC, the 08 Accord will appear this year and the 4GTL will show up in 2008. The TSX will get a FMC and will be a Spring 08 launch.
If honda were smart, They'd introduce the TL after the accord. The Accord can't afford for something to still its spotlight right away. Plus the new technology that goes into the accord gets time to upgrade and get placed into the Tl.
Still, I see no problem with the accord and TL sharing platforms or being FWD. Acura just needs to expand their model lineup.
Tsx-TL- new Sedan(Ml) with RWD- RWD RL
Think: Tsx IS 3 G TL ES _ (Next I?) ML GS 5 M RL LS 7 (Next Q?)
Its balanced and doesn't for someone to go RWD with the TL.
"If honda were smart, They'd introduce the TL after the accord"
Am I missing something here? That's exactly what Honda IS planning on doing. They will introduce the 08 Accord this year and will introduce the 09 TL next year.
"Still, I see no problem with the accord and TL sharing platforms or being FWD."
I completely disagree about keeping the TL FWD. Honda/Acura can keep the TL FWD if they want to make the TL a complete failure IMHO. The cars that the TL are pitted against are moving forward. The TL needs to move forward too. If the TL does not, cars like the 08 CTS, new G, new C class and the new 3er will start looking better to consumers. Adding SH-AWD as standard equipment or even making it an option is a temporary fix. IMHO, the TL should be RWD w/ an SH-AWD option available for those that drive under more serious weather conditions.
I think FWD is the optimum setup for a coupe/convertible thats designed for passengers. I think the CL should be designed as a touring car like the A5 with a sporting option. A5 is FWD.
The CL and TL should be sharing parts as the TSX is too small. The Tsx would be good for competing with the 3series but i think Acura would benefit more by having A larger more affordable coupe/convertible.
This will allow acura to compete with offering from the Volkswagen Eos to the Lexus Sc430 but mostly the A5, A4, C70, and Eos.
The TL's shape will allow space for rear passengers, cargo, and storage.
I've always though sh-awd was more of a sport AWD system. Maybe honda should make a less complicated, lighter awd system and offer it on the TL, tsx, odyssey, and accord. Especially for the last one as I'm tired of the whole "Fun to drive AWD Fusion" commercials.
It'll keep their weight lower. Everything with Sh-awd weighs over 4klbs.
I honestly didn't meant to bring up the FWD/RWD/AWD tl thing :sick:
I stand on undecided on that issue. There is just too much weight on the front wheels as noted by the rather large turning circle. However the TSX got the sporty handling, they should do it to the TL. My only idea is the TSX's smaller engine. Still, the tsx is more or less 300lbs lighter than the TL.
FWD and AWD doesn't mean it will be a boring drive. Insideline stated that the AWD RS4 was more fun to drive then the m5 with a manual! Watch the video here!
I think that with the right AWD system, Acura could make better FWD cars to outperform bmw like Audi has. Maybe acura should license quattro...
Should acura just sell an updated version of the old VTM-4 in its cars (Accord/TL/TSX/Odyssey) as a relief for people who want AWD but don't want Sh-awd?
"Should acura just sell an updated version of the old VTM-4 in its cars (Accord/TL/TSX/Odyssey) as a relief for people who want AWD but don't want Sh-awd?"
No, no, no.
SH-AWD is an excellent system and the last thing Acura should do after investing all of the money in developing it is dumb it down.
HOWEVER, the majority (perhaps vast) of entry level luxury performance sedan (ELLPS) and luxury performance sedan (LPS) buyers do not need or want AWD of any type in thier car. Check the percentage of buyers of 3 series, 5 series, C-class and E-class that go for the AWD option. Acura's system, good as it is, is particularly penalizing in terms of added weight and lower fuel efficiency.
That is why I believe, as do some others, that RWD versions of the TL and RL should be standard and SH-AWD be an option. In 2004, my TL 6-speed stacked up reasonably well against the 2004 330i. What it gave up in handling, it matched in power and beat in amenities. In 2007, the TL-S 6-speed is essentially no better than my 2004 in spite of a $5k higher sticker (extra hp in FWD chassis goes to waste) and the 335i is a huge improvement in all ways at less of a price increase. Infiniti, Lexus and others haven't stood still either. If anyone thinks the 2007 FWD TL and TL-S are as categorically competitive as was the 2004 TL 6-speed, I respectfully suggest they go out and test drive the competition. Acura is now competing with the likes of the ES and Avalon, but not the performance oriented ELLPS's, which have significantly upped the ante.
P.S. My Acura dealer indicated that they've just started to see the first RL's in need of transmission/drive train repairs. Out of warranty, it is an UGLY prospect.
The best way to improve performance while keeping weight down is to go RWD. SH-AWD is great, but it should be offered as an option in cars, not a standard feature. The real question that must be answered is: What does Acura want itself to be seen as?
As of now, with value and practicality and platform sharing, Acura stands for upscale Honda. One gets better styling (or one could say, Hondas get worse/bland styling from fear of hurting Acura) and a few more features.
If status quo works for Honda/Acura in the future, great, but I won’t bet on continued success at Acura unless they make moves necessary to differentiate the brand from Honda. Acura shouldn’t be chasing Honda customers. It should be luring them as well as customers from established luxury brands.
While TSX is fine the way it is (but does need more flavors), TL, RL and a potential CL could use a new platform, one that is designed to meet Acura’s immediate and future needs. SH-AWD should stay but as an option.
Speaking of SH-AWD, it works wonderfully, even in chassis that’s designed for FWD vehicles and in case of Honda that implies engine placed transversely slightly in front of the front axle (hence greater weight at the nose). I can only imagine its impact in a more balanced chassis with longitudinally mounted engine placed on or slightly behind the front axle.
There really is no point expecting people to pay $2500-$3000 more by making SH-AWD standard (should add about $50-60/month on lease payments) unless they want to. There really is no point asking the engine to pull an additional 250 lb, or sip an additional 1-2 mpg, unless AWD is deemed necessary by the customer. As an option it would work wonderfully. As a standard feature, it only hurts.
VTM-4 is nice improvement over traditional part time AWD systems. Its beyond being just reactive. That said, it won’t make sense in an Acura lineup that already has SH-AWD, while offering same disadvantages as any AWD system does.
And seriously, if I were managing Acura, Audi would be the last company to model the lineup after. Audi’s best seller in America contributes 50% of the company’s sales and barely outsells Acura’s TSX.
TSX: I don’t think TSX was brought over to replace RSX. Those two are as far apart as Vigor (later 2.5TL) and Integra were. One didn’t replace the other. Just before TSX arrived, Acura had: 3.2TL for $29K and 3.2-TL-S for $32K. The next TL was repositioned, and was more like the 3.2TL-S which left a void in under $30K price class. That void was filled by TSX.
But, TSX needs a high performance version. A variety is necessary for its growth. The base model (plus navigation as the only option) will not be enough in a competitive market. It is no longer competing with base 184HP 325i. It is now going against 230 HP 328i. And while it may compete reasonably well in terms of value and reliability against the BMW, it isn’t attracting customers that want more from it, something that can either come from a more balanced chassis or from application of SH-AWD (which won’t be a good idea with normally aspirated four cylinder engine).
TL: Starting at $34K, TL is no longer competes in the value department. Not as much as it did with second generation anyway, when it started around $28K-$29K. At that time, however, people didn’t mind paying MSRP or close to it. Now, TL may have a higher base price, but the only way to sell well is to consider close to invoice pricing (about 10% below MSRP).
Speaking of price, if it weren’t crucial, we won’t see the term “value” being tossed around in the same sentence that also has “Acura” in it. So, either Acura competes on value, or it doesn’t. If former, it better bring enough to the plate because the competition is getting fierce by the year. Infiniti is growing because it is no longer offering rebadged Maxima to compete with TL. It is also offering a coupe that may not be carrying huge sales numbers but it is offering the panache a brand needs to be considered a player in the luxury car market.
And, again, RWD chassis doesn’t make any car a sports car. It simply provides a wonderful foundation that has fewer compromises, translating to better feel and more importantly, perception in the market. Remember, Acura shouldn’t try to be like Honda. So you may ask, how does FR chassis help?
With the FF set up Honda uses, the engine is placed transversely and slightly in front of the front axle. This limits the length of the wheelbase and extends the front overhang. And shorter wheelbase is also prone to greater pitching. While it may offer greater cabin volume, it certainly makes the nose heavier with about 60-62% of the weight sitting on the front tires.
Now, Acura has done a good job at making its cars sporty enough that those seeking touring cars should be perfectly fine. But even that comes with a compromise. The suspension/springs must be tuned to counter the ill-effects of the weight distribution. If these engineers had the benefit of a more balanced chassis, the ride quality will improve And if anybody wonders why, despite of sporty pretensions, BMWs ride doesn’t suffer? The answer is simple: they got the fundamentals right.
Now, FR may have some limitations of its own, and primarily around cabin space. But then, once again, BMW (and even Infiniti) has proven that it is all about packaging and more can be done from less. If FF were great by default, we won’t see cabin size being raised as an issue against RL, while it isn’t a point against the likes of 530i, M35, E350 and GS350.
TSX as entry, TL as mid range and RL as upper range offerings from Acura make huge sense. Continuing to lug on to existing formula is not going to help.
Don't think by going RWD will help TL much in the performance department since in the last R&T comparo, the TL-S actually performed quiet well (0.91g, the highest) against its RWD rivals (G35 Sports, IS350). However, with the RWD setup, Acura could effectively reduce the nose-heavy feel on the TL and make it a much enjoyable drive.
Comments
Not anymore. And unless Acura avoids a bump in price next year or with the redesign, it will only get worse.
it's very difficult to say (with any car) exactly how the cost-cutting works out.
Yet we like to talk about it in terms of platform sharing and how much it helps cut costs. The only way to draw a conclusion is to look at the price tag of the competition, comparably equipped. G35 is about the same, if not less, than TL comparably equipped and without sharing platform with Altima. RL costs as much as comparably equipped Lexus GS and perhaps more than Infiniti M35 while sharing platform with Accord. So, how does it cost less? Oh, and how we also emphasize on the fact that Acura wants to differentiate itself from Honda. Yet, Acuras must continue a tightly coupled relationship to Honda's best seller (which, in the process, is getting hurt itself).
IIRC, Audi A4 and A6 no longer share platform with Passat (which has apparently been "downgraded" to Golf platform). Yet, A6 likely costs less than RL. There is no point to having a $10K profit margin, if the car is selling with that kind of discount AND the sales volume isn't anything to brag about either.
Acura needs to stop applying patchwork and be more serious AND progressive about its top cars. Thats the bottomline.
1. Acura needs a new powertrain option for their top of the line products. The RL and MDX could use a V8, V6+hybrid, a V10, or some other option. A new tranny for these vehicles would also be a nice addition.
2. They need an SH-AWD halo car. As mentioned in past posts, don't know why they are doing the V10 halo car first, then thinking about the V8 second. The V18 should come first.
Having written that, it is important for Acura to capitalize on SH-AWD while it is still a unique system. A halo car using it will draw attention to the performance potential of lateral torque vectoring and give a boost to any other car using it. So, I list this in the #2 slot.
3. They need a genuine large car platform. I expect it would be RWD. This might be used for three models here in the US. To borrow Toyota's line-up for reference, Acura could build a GS-fighter for the sporting crowd; an LS-fighter for the luxury land-yachters, and Honda could offer a down-market Avalon-fighter.
I think shrinking a large car platform to include the TL gains them nothing except the same kind of compromises they got when they stretched the Accord to make the current RL. No need to repeat past mistakes. If you're going to make a large car, make it large from the ground up.
4. A new V6. Perhaps they can get away with A-VTEC and the current J series for another 5 years, but I think a new base engine is needed.
5. A mid-range sports car. Acura needs a truly sporty car in the $35-45K range. Not a sportee sedan, but a sports car. It could be something like a new coupe with 350ish hp (turbo V6?) and SH-AWD. Using a coupe body style and shortened wheelbase can help reduce weight and allow the stylists to go a little nutty. A convertible "poseur" version of the car would be another welcome addition.
This car need not appeal to everyone, but it needs to be respectable within a niche of enthusiasts. I don't particularly care for the Sti or the Mustang, but I certainly respect them. The idea is not to create a car for the masses, rather it is to provide Acura with an attainable sports car.
6. Now you can have your RWD TL.
RL - 49,400
A6 - 50,170
GS - 50,445
M35 - 63,050
Of course, each vehicle will include some hardware and features not included in the others, but I don't think I made any major mistakes.
1. Everything must start from the platform. There is no point to a V8, if the platform doesn’t support it but your priority is the engine (reminds me of the 1995 Accord V6 issue, engine was there, platform wasn’t, hence a patchwork). But, we’re in agreement that Acura should develop a V8, but a V10 and V6+Hybrid?
2. As far as halo car goes, Acura should first figure out what kind of halo it was to build its brand around. SH-AWD? Does it really want to be the Japanese Audi? If SH-AWD hasn’t saved RL, what’s the point in putting all eggs in one basket? The competition doesn’t care. They don’t need to. They can offer something like SH-AWD if there is a substantial shift in market towards that. And until then, they can continue to offer things Acura hasn’t prepared itself for.
3. If a midsize platform can support a compact sedan (TSX) or a coupe (Accord) and a largish midsize (Accord), why couldn’t another midsize platform start it life from the midsize part of the spectrum as opposed to compact and move into large midsize or even full size car (which should be way down on Acura’s priority right now, not number 3).
BTW, Acura didn’t “stretch” Accord to derive RL. Accord is larger than RL on the inside. It may be just that RL is poorly packaged. Now, BMW 5-series is an example of great packaging. And BMW also illustrates platform flexibility at its best. Do you really think there is substantial difference between 3-series, 5-series and 7-series platforms? Actually, 6-series uses a hybrid of 5-series and 7-series platforms.
Oh, and while we talk about Acura trying to separate itself from Honda as much as possible, why would we want an Acura platform in Honda lineup as a mainstream sedan? Besides, if Honda ever did that, offer a larger RWD sedan derived off a full blown luxury sedan and priced it close to Acura TL which is still based on Accord, well, good luck! Wait, there’s a fix. AHM will have to ensure that the Honda is as boring as it can get, to look at, and perhaps drive. The bottom line: Acura and Honda don’t need to fight it out against each other. They don’t need to keep shooting at each other’s toes.
4. I thought drive train was part of your first item. And it isn’t really an Acura priority, it is a Honda as a company priority.
5. A sports car without a platform? Or, must it also use Accord platform? Given the price range and the NEED for SH-AWD, I’m assuming that’s what you would like to see. I can see an Accord Coupe based sports car with SH-AWD for $35K loaded, tipping the scale at about 3750 lb. But I won’t call it a sports car. Acura could use a Sports Coupe though.
6. A TL that continues to hurt Accord, while reflecting Honda mass market roots. And likely getting hurt from the competition in the foreseeable future, while being unable to help RL go somewhere.
There are entire threads devoted to explaining why the RL isn't selling. The car has many faults. I don't think one can blame it on SH-AWD alone. Besides, nearly all A6s are sold as AWD (an option). It would appear that if you're going to go AWD, you might as well go all the way.
I'll be back when I can stop laughing about you writing that sentence.
And Acura doesn't need to be "Audi-like". As is apparent with Audi, their formula to offer AWD isn't working either. The brand barely moves 80K units per year and half of it is from A4 (which sells at a pace barely better than TSX).
OTOH, likes of Infiniti (M) and Lexus (GS) and Mercedes (E-Class) and BMW (5-series) have proven that there is a good market in $45-55K price class for midsize luxury. Thats the market Acura has repeatedly tried to hit with RL.
Hopefully, the third time will be a charm, courtesy of a smarter move on their part than resorting to another patch (by way of halo car or simply adding a technology feature or two on top).
BTW, if you add the other package in M35x to upgrade the audio to surround sound which results in a price tag around $51K, you should also add CMBS package in RL which takes its price tag to $53K (the second package in M includes features that CMBS etc brings in RL). So, the Infiniti IS cheaper than RL, comparably equipped. And Nissan is doing it with a unique platform (or is it?;) )
Acura needs an engine upgrade for their top tier vehicles. You think it needs to be a V8. I agree that's fine, though I'm open to other options.
We both agree that too much platform-sharing between Honda and Acura is a problem. You think the problem lies with the Accord and TL. I think it lies between the Accord and RL.
We both think Acura needs a moderately-priced Sports Coupe.
We both agree that Acura needs a new halo car.
I believe we both agree that Acura needs to improve their image with luxury buyers.
We both think the current RL missed the mark. There are so many reasons why it misses, it's not surprising we don't agree on which is the most important.
My frustration with Honda is due lack of consistency and focus. It is a company with huge potential and that is bound to raise expectations. I won't be arguing as passionately if we were talking Toyotas here.
One platform (and may be shared at the lowest end of the spectrum), couple of engines, couple of choices of excellent transmission, a compact, a midsize, and a large midsize to borderline full size luxury sedan lineup with a sport coupe and an exotic to top things off aren't too much to ask. I don't care about crossovers, but MDX is a fine entry, and RDX could use minor tweaks for greater appeal.
Acura's indecisiveness is hurting the brand. And as you may have already noticed, about the ASC... the other car that we have discussed. I still can't get past the fact that a company like Honda would give up on a perfect layout for a sports car to satisfy bean counters.
I think Acura's problems is having 3 midsize sedans within pricing range.
CSX - TSX- Nice gap
Accord -Tsx -Good if TSX got more luxury and sport
TSx-TL -Good if tsx got the turbo
TL - Accord - Difference in pricing and options please(Accord Hybrid with nav or Tl with nav)
-Cj
Hope that there is a 2-door version of the TL soon, just like Infiniti did with G35. The G35 coupe is very elegant and better looking than the sedan (IMO of course). Last time Acura tried a coupe with a V6 (2001,2), it was an ugly duckling CL, and the TL of the same vintage was by far the better styled of the two.
I think that there would be a decent market for a 2-door TL coupe that was styled right with good proportions (not like old CL).
Lately, Honda/Acura have not done enough to make their coupe products distinct from the sedans. The TL-S left no reason to purchase the CL or CL-S. Even today, the Civic Si (sedan and coupe) are so similar Edmunds and others think the only reason to buy the coupe is styling.
Robert doesn't like it, but I think a completely restyled version of the Accord Coupe concept with a significant power-boost and SH-AWD could appeal to a profitable niche. Sorta splits the difference between boy-racer cars like the Evo or STi and a high-priced machine like the Skyline.
Results would depend very much on execution of the car, but I think Acura can do it if they are willing to put the money down.
That Accord concept is just so-so and it does smack of boy-racerish. The profile and rear is not too bad, but the front-end is a hodge podge of shapes. Hopefully what is actually introduced for sale will have been cleaned up somewhat.
A TL coupe should definitely not be boy-racerish. It should be graceful and elegant like the G35 coupe or even the BMW 3 coupe. A TL coupe should be made to appeal to the same type of buyers as the G35 and 3 coupe.
That won't happen if Acura doesn't go RWD. Coupe buyers are supposed to be more finicky than a sedan buyers.
Which is why I say the Acura version would have to be completely restyled. The shape and proportion of the Accord Coupe concept was fine. Much better than the shape of the last CL. It's a good start for a mid-price Acura.
It's either that or FWD. At least for another 5-10 years. What I'm suggesting "could" be done in 2 years.
When I see pictures of that concept, I see a strong TL influence. Well, Honda can ill-afford to use Acura-esque lines on the nose, but what they went with, I could not complain about. It is far from being boy-racerish. I find that coupe concept to be very classy, something CL should have looked like.
My only major issue with the Accord Coupe concept is, the front overhang. But, given Honda's approach to mount engine ahead of the front axle on its front drivers, it is virtually unavoidable.
What sports car are you talking about? as far as Acura is concerned wrong with the brand is the RL and the MDX's styling because I think the front end is kinda ugly. THE RDX looks nice except for the front end because I think it should be cleaned up some like you said 2 months ago Robert.
"My frustration with Honda is due lack of consistency and focus. It is a company with huge potential and that is bound to raise expectations. I won't be arguing as passionately if we were talking Toyotas here."
What lack of consistency and focus? The main thing Honda lacks is some eye catching styling aside from the TL. Acura needs a coupe to replace the old CL. The RL needs to be totally redone.
Well I guess my car is not pretty than.
"Robert doesn't like it, but I think a completely restyled version of the Accord Coupe concept with a significant power-boost and SH-AWD could appeal to a profitable niche. Sorta splits the difference between boy-racer cars like the Evo or STi and a high-priced machine like the Skyline."
I guess you could call the Accord Coupe Concept with AWD the Accord Coupe Type R than? In my opinion an Accord Coupe for an enthusiast model(say Tye R) woulds be very very low demand and I don;t think very profitable.
RL doesn’t stand out in terms of styling, but that’s not the only reason it isn’t selling well. I don’t see stand out styling in Infiniti M either but that car sells (3 times as well as does RL).
RDX seems to be doing alright. The perception around its sales is largely due to the fact Acura came up with unrealistic goals at 40K units. I think it would do better as a 25-30K unit vehicle than meeting or exceeding 40K units.
Lack of consistency can be seen in a lot of areas, styling, size and orientation in general. This is something I feel may be a part of Honda culture. The root cause may be Acura’s insistence on squeezing as much out of existing platforms as possible. They also need to figure out what they want to be seen: Plush along the lines of Cadillac and Lexus, sporty along the lines of BMW, upgraded from mainstream vehicles like Audi or somewhere in between. There doesn’t seem to be a philosophy with the cars. The light trucks do have it though.
Another demonstration comes in the form of indecisiveness that continues to show up with NSX replacement. Apparently, ASC is history too. Acura shouldn’t try to spend too much time figuring out its identity. All they have to do is look back at the company’s core philosophy and build upon it.
Oh, and a CL based on Accord would be another "patch". Anything along those lines is simply buying time that Acura shouldn't be. Build an image while the brand is due to go global. That would be having a focus, and using a consistent approach.
The 07 MDX only has been out for 5-6 months though. The 03 Accord had terible styling and it killed sales of it(this generation of Accord) in the long run in my opinion. Thus, we don't know how this generation of MDX will sell in the long run.
"RL doesn’t stand out in terms of styling, but that’s not the only reason it isn’t selling well. I don’t see stand out styling in Infiniti M either but that car sells (3 times as well as does RL)."
I agree that its not the only reason that the RL isn;t selling is because of its styling.
"Lack of consistency can be seen in a lot of areas, styling, size and orientation in general. This is something I feel may be a part of Honda culture. The root cause may be Acura’s insistence on squeezing as much out of existing platforms as possible. They also need to figure out what they want to be seen: Plush along the lines of Cadillac and Lexus, sporty along the lines of BMW, upgraded from mainstream vehicles like Audi or somewhere in between. There doesn’t seem to be a philosophy with the cars. The light trucks do have it though."
I think Acura is a compeitor to BMW and Infinti and not Lexus, Mercedes and Caddy. In my mind when I think about Acura as a sport-luxury company like BMW and Infiniti are.
I agree Honda needs more platforms. I don;t have a problem with TL using the Accord platform but the RL should have its own seperate platform or TL could have its own platform and share it with the RL but definately not with the Accord. There is no way the RL should use the Accord platform.
""Oh, and a CL based on Accord would be another "patch". Anything along those lines is simply buying time that Acura shouldn't be.""
I don;t know about CL using the Accord platform. I'm undecided wether a CL should use the Accord platform. I think the best way to go is Acura just have a platform that they use for the TL and RL and have a platform for the MDX and RDX but don;t share it(those Acura platforms) with any Honda vehicles. Yeah thats the way Acura should do it in terms of platform sharing.
BTW, I am heavily anticipatig the release of the 08 Accord. Honda needs to put some younger buyers back into the Accord after the 03 Accord(the sedan model) really didn;t hit well with younger buyers.
While one may be tempted to compare Acura to BMW and Infiniti, Acura has done little to justify its position along those lines. The brand has put limitations on itself by tying itself up with an extremely conservative growth plan. (BTW, isn’t it interesting that we have now started to throw Infiniti into the mix counted as a more established brand than Acura). We know Acura can come up with arguably the best engines, and can do fantastic chassis engineering. The sad part is, they are stuck in their own loop and don’t seem to have a plan to get out of it.
They are also inconsistent if they claim: V8 drinks gas. But so does an AWD system. Claims that light weight is desirable, but the only way they have found to sell RL is with AWD. Claim breakthroughs in reducing drive train losses and then can’t do anything but go with an AWD system which is bound to add to those losses. Honda also claims: transversely mounted engine is more efficient, and then you read a claim from Honda that a particular engine is mounted longitudinally in the motorcycle to reduce drive train losses. So Honda, which is it? Seems to me more of a matter of convenience and living in the present than really having a philosophy.
As far as Accord is concerned, I would think that sales were lost due to styling. But, it is Honda who has created this mess for itself: can’t make Accord look equal, if not more, appealing than TSX and TL.
Accord Coupe concept looks really good, so obviously, Honda is trying to change that. But, that’s the coupe. I’m afraid the sedan may continue to carry a boring appearance, from fear of hurting TSX and TL. And that’s where the problem starts.
We do agree that Acura needs a platform designed exclusively for mid to upper price vehicles: TL, CL and RL.
Offer TL with RWD, and SH-AWD as an option.
Offer CL with RWD, and SH-AWD as an option
Offer RL with RWD, and SH-AWD as an option
Would people pay more for SH-AWD? Well, if Acura believes it can be a selling point, they should make people pay more by choice than try to force it to them and in the process chase away buyers who would be interested in Acuras for other reasons.
Am I the only one interested in a hardtop convertible?
-Cj
As far as styling differences between Acura and Honda go, the cars need to be substantially different under the skin first. Styling should not be used as the sole selling point, and to justify a higher price point. A deviation and it will come back to bite Acura, while hurting Honda in the process.
-Cj
yeah but Acura still outsells Infinti though.
"As far as Accord is concerned, I would think that sales were lost due to styling. But, it is Honda who has created this mess for itself: can’t make Accord look equal, if not more, appealing than TSX and TL."
Yeah while Honda created its own hole I'll agree but they needed something(Acura TSX) because they needed something to go up against the Mazda 6 and Subaru Legacy back in 2004.
while I;m not exactly asking for an eye-catching styling for the 08 Accord because the Accord has to appeal people who shop Toyota, Chevy, Mazda, and Pontiac but the styling on the 4dr accord sedan should be a rapid improvement over the current generation Accord styling in my opinion.
"We do agree that Acura needs a platform designed exclusively for mid to upper price vehicles: TL, CL and RL.
Offer TL with RWD, and SH-AWD as an option.
Offer CL with RWD, and SH-AWD as an option
Offer RL with RWD, and SH-AWD as an option"
"Would people pay more for SH-AWD? Well, if Acura believes it can be a selling point, they should make people pay more by choice than try to force it to them and in the process chase away buyers who would be interested in Acuras for other reasons."
I think the RL should be RWD since every person on this board is saying that the RL should be RWD. The CL could be RWD but offer an AWD option so I agree with you on that one due to the fact the CL would be a niche model(i.e. low demand.) The TL I don;t know if I'm up for the change to RWD and offering an AWD option. People who opt for the AWD option might not want to spend the extra$$$ for it due to the last 2 generation of TL's in terms of what the TL offered alot for its "value" or "price" if you understand I'm saying. Finally, if offering a RWD TL and customers are not willing to pay for an AWD option on the TL they(acura dealers) could have alot of TL's mounting up on dealers lots. The TL is so important to Acura that they(Honda) can;t risk in my opinion a move to RWD with an AWD option.
Like I said weeks ago, Acura should not rely on the past. The current formula has helped them achieve reasonable sales but does it promise continued success and growth? Infiniti’s duo (G35/M35-45) is handily outselling Acura’s duo (TL/RL). This wasn’t always the case. First generation Infiniti M was a big time flop, the second generation is going head to head against the established Lexus GS, handily outselling the RL and A6, if not the E-Class and 5-series.
While Acura may have outsold Infiniti in the past, but is it possible that it will eventually get caught up? I won’t bet against it, unless Acura gets its head out of the sand in time. The best bet for Acura at this time comes from Infiniti not offering a direct competitor to MDX.
Honda created its own hole I'll agree but they needed something(Acura TSX) because they needed something to go up against the Mazda 6 and Subaru Legacy back in 2004.
And there is another problem. Should Acura target likes of Mazda and Subaru?
But, I didn’t mean TSX as hurting Accord. In its current form, TSX can afford to play in a niche it has going for itself, but again, to grow, there has to be more than what is being offered. I meant TL. If one takes away styling advantages from TL over the Accord, really, there isn’t a whole lot going for the Acura (while it is worsening the market for the Honda). This is coming from a TL owner.
People who opt for the AWD option might not want to spend the extra$$$ for it due to the last 2 generation of TL's in terms of what the TL offered alot for its "value" or "price"
I agree. But for how long a brand sell its vehicle on value and price aspect, especially if the base price is approaching $35K? Most of us don’t realize that the Legend also started to struggle in terms of sales (1992-1995), as its price continued to creep up. Acura sold only 18K units of the 1995, down from 50K units in 1992 which was down from 66K units in 1991! Things can go wrong in a hurry.
If the current formula must stay, the only SH-AWD can be deemed the only savior for the TL, and IMO, that’s dangerous. The real question is, why would Acura want to put SH-AWD? Could it really afford to put a FWD TL in market at $38K and expect it to sell as it did in the past?
The 3& 5 series have always offered a choice of engines and both have always sold well. The TLs 2 engines now are two similar. The TL should Have a 215-250 engine and a 280-330hp engine.
Also, I like merceds approach with the C class. 2 engines and two models and the buyer can choose.
A 200hp sport, 200hp luxury(Both likely to start at 225 for 08) or
250hp sport or luxury (Likely to Be 300hp).
Mercedes even offers an evenly priced economical diesel. with the lowest hp and highest torque and gas mileage.
Imagine the 2007 Acura Tl with 200hp, 350lb ft of torque, 28MPG city and 38MPG Highway.
-Cj
2.5TL was basically a replacement of the Vigor (much like RSX was to Integra). Acura offered 3.2TL as an upgrade, which has evolved into the TL we have today, while TSX takes place of the 2.5TL/Vigor.
TL doesn't need to go down, but with TSX at the entry level, it could compete in $35K-$45K price class (top it off with a sport tuned, SH-AWD-laden 325-350 HP trim). But the best way to go about this route would be to build it on a new platform. That is something I want to see from Acura.
sales but does it promise continued success and growth?"
No, probably the formula that Acura has sold on to help achieve growth probably won;t work in the near future because right now we are saying well this Acura car should use RWD and Acura should have some different platforms of their own without using Honda's platforms for the basis of their Acura vehicles.
"Infiniti’s duo (G35/M35-45) is handily outselling Acura’s duo (TL/RL). This wasn’t always the case. First generation Infiniti M was a big time flop, the second generation is going head to head against the established Lexus GS, handily outselling the RL and A6, if not the E-Class and 5-series."
Yeah but the G35 is in its first year of a new generation model and the TL is in its 4th year of its current generation model. I know the G35 only features a mild refresh to the exterior from the last generation of G35(03-06) with mainly the headlights having a different look to them but the 07 G35 I think is different drivability wise than the 03-06 G35. I would think too that once a new TL comes out for the 09 model year it will be a better car than the current G35 is.
As for the M the first gen M didn't stand a chance with the way it looked and one car mag I read said the first gen M drove like an old Cadillac I think which in my opinion isn;t a good thing. If whats your saying is true that the M is outselling the E-Class and 5 Series the Germans have something to worry about let alone Acura.
"I agree. But for how long a brand sell its vehicle on value and price aspect, especially if the base price is approaching $35K?"
I agree about how long can a brand sell a car with a price and value aspect to it especially when it is a luxury vehicle like the TL. A luxury car you would think would sell on prestige mainly but the TL sells on value on price mainly but Acura I think has to change that somehow and someway.
"Most of us don’t realize that the Legend also started to struggle in terms of sales (1992-1995), as its price continued to creep up. Acura sold only 18K units of the 1995, down from 50K units in 1992 which was down from 66K units in 1991! Things can go wrong in a hurry."
Well you said the Legend started to only sell in limited trim levels thus sales went down I thought you said because of it in another post on this thread previously.
"If the current formula must stay, the only SH-AWD can be deemed the only savior for the TL, and IMO, that’s dangerous. The real question is, why would Acura want to put SH-AWD? Could it really afford to put a FWD TL in market at $38K and expect it to sell as it did in the past?"
I don;t know if Acura can put out a FWD TL at 38K and expect it too sell. Thats a hard question and one that Acura (ala Honda) has to figure out.
BTW, the main thing right now Acura has got to get straightened out is the RL.
I also think the TSX was brought over to replace the RSX as the entry-level model for the line rather than any need to compete with the Legacy or Mazda6. That's the sort of comparison Acura is trying to avoid. Just like they wanted to dump the RSX to avoid having the Acura name printed in comparos with the Celica, Civic Si, Golf, and others.
The TL no longer "needs" to be the value player as they have the TSX to fill that role. However, I disagree with the premise that price is the car's primary sales driver in the first place. For two generations, the car has been a sensible choice for people buying an upscale sedan. There are gobs of buyers in the market who don't want a sports car. They might be able to afford an M3, but they can't justify spending that much money on a car when they could put the cash toward a yacht, private plane, or summer cabin. The TL provides enough style, comfort, and driving pleasure to satisfy the demands of a huge portion of the market. Most buyers do not want to go to extremes in any one of those directions. The TL is not only the bargain choice, it is also the practical choice and the balanced choice.
Now, when we get to the RL, we find a disaster worth talking about. I had high hopes for the car based on early reports, but clearly the vehicle is not hitting its mark. Everything about the vehicle is "close, but not quite". There's nothing one can pint to and say, "This is the one reason why the car is failing". Instead there is an extensive laundry list of small problems which whittle away at the car's credibility.
The TL, TSX, and MDX are all fine. In fact they're better than fine. The RDX needs help, but it's a niche vehicle and therefore not a major concern. If there is something in the line that needs fixing, it's the RL.
Its A5 is like the new version of the CL but with an Audi twist.
The A5 has a 3.*L V6 only, stunning interior, 2+2 accommodation, and even AWD. The s5 get V8 power.
Look at the A5 here!
If honda saw that A5 and wanted to get serious, they would build a new CL.
Give it the TLs front facia, Tsxs rear facia and Accord coupes body and the TLs interior and it looks good.
I say go 3.2l V6 for 260hp to the front wheels and SH-AWD optional. A Type-s (S5) can get the 3.7l v6 and could probably squeeze out about 320hp (Remember the MDX is a porker and still sprints to 60 quickly.) Now it Drives good. Give both a standard Limited Slip Differential and the s a sport tuned suspension.
Options should be standard acura.
Price it at $35k standard and $38k with nav. The Type-s can start out at 40k with standard Sh-awd and have no problems. Now the Hardtop Convertible should start out at 40k for the base and $45k for the Type-s.
$40k for a convertible may sound like a lot but it still undercuts MB's CLK and Volvos C70. In fact, I think that the new 3series cabrio may start out at 40k with only 230hp.
With my Idea, $40k can get you into a convertible with a metal roof with more power than Volvo, less money than the CLK, and a USABLE REAR SEAT :surprise: !
Coupes took a break in the Early 2000s when people retreated to SUVS. Now that gas has gone up and People going small again, coupes are on the rise.
COUPES/CONVERTIBLES ARE IN-AGAIN! With competition from Pontiac's G6 up to Bmw's 6, This CL should do great!
In fact, An AWD convertible will be a first in a while. Acura could beat Audi to it!
-Cj- Any Questions, Comments, or Concerns?
-Cj
The 3G TL (2004) was introduced in late 2003.
"The new accord coming in 08and TL in 09"
According to Temple of VTEC, the 08 Accord will appear this year and the 4GTL will show up in 2008. The TSX will get a FMC and will be a Spring 08 launch.
Still, I see no problem with the accord and TL sharing platforms or being FWD. Acura just needs to expand their model lineup.
Tsx-TL- new Sedan(Ml) with RWD- RWD RL
Think:
Tsx IS 3 G
TL ES _ (Next I?)
ML GS 5 M
RL LS 7 (Next Q?)
Its balanced and doesn't for someone to go RWD with the TL.
-Cj
Am I missing something here? That's exactly what Honda IS planning on doing. They will introduce the 08 Accord this year and will introduce the 09 TL next year.
"Still, I see no problem with the accord and TL sharing platforms or being FWD."
I completely disagree about keeping the TL FWD. Honda/Acura can keep the TL FWD if they want to make the TL a complete failure IMHO. The cars that the TL are pitted against are moving forward. The TL needs to move forward too. If the TL does not, cars like the 08 CTS, new G, new C class and the new 3er will start looking better to consumers. Adding SH-AWD as standard equipment or even making it an option is a temporary fix. IMHO, the TL should be RWD w/ an SH-AWD option available for those that drive under more serious weather conditions.
I think FWD is the optimum setup for a coupe/convertible thats designed for passengers. I think the CL should be designed as a touring car like the A5 with a sporting option. A5 is FWD.
The CL and TL should be sharing parts as the TSX is too small. The Tsx would be good for competing with the 3series but i think Acura would benefit more by having A larger more affordable coupe/convertible.
This will allow acura to compete with offering from the Volkswagen Eos to the Lexus Sc430 but mostly the A5, A4, C70, and Eos.
The TL's shape will allow space for rear passengers, cargo, and storage.
-Cj
It'll keep their weight lower. Everything with Sh-awd weighs over 4klbs.
I honestly didn't meant to bring up the FWD/RWD/AWD tl thing :sick:
I stand on undecided on that issue. There is just too much weight on the front wheels as noted by the rather large turning circle. However the TSX got the sporty handling, they should do it to the TL. My only idea is the TSX's smaller engine. Still, the tsx is more or less 300lbs lighter than the TL.
FWD and AWD doesn't mean it will be a boring drive. Insideline stated that the AWD RS4 was more fun to drive then the m5 with a manual! Watch the video here!
I think that with the right AWD system, Acura could make better FWD cars to outperform bmw like Audi has. Maybe acura should license quattro...
-Cj
Should acura just sell an updated version of the old VTM-4 in its cars (Accord/TL/TSX/Odyssey) as a relief for people who want AWD but don't want Sh-awd?
-Cj
No, no, no.
SH-AWD is an excellent system and the last thing Acura should do after investing all of the money in developing it is dumb it down.
HOWEVER, the majority (perhaps vast) of entry level luxury performance sedan (ELLPS) and luxury performance sedan (LPS) buyers do not need or want AWD of any type in thier car. Check the percentage of buyers of 3 series, 5 series, C-class and E-class that go for the AWD option. Acura's system, good as it is, is particularly penalizing in terms of added weight and lower fuel efficiency.
That is why I believe, as do some others, that RWD versions of the TL and RL should be standard and SH-AWD be an option. In 2004, my TL 6-speed stacked up reasonably well against the 2004 330i. What it gave up in handling, it matched in power and beat in amenities. In 2007, the TL-S 6-speed is essentially no better than my 2004 in spite of a $5k higher sticker (extra hp in FWD chassis goes to waste) and the 335i is a huge improvement in all ways at less of a price increase. Infiniti, Lexus and others haven't stood still either. If anyone thinks the 2007 FWD TL and TL-S are as categorically competitive as was the 2004 TL 6-speed, I respectfully suggest they go out and test drive the competition. Acura is now competing with the likes of the ES and Avalon, but not the performance oriented ELLPS's, which have significantly upped the ante.
P.S. My Acura dealer indicated that they've just started to see the first RL's in need of transmission/drive train repairs. Out of warranty, it is an UGLY prospect.
What is wrong with VTM-4? It even has an "unstuck" mode for heavy snow or rain!
Maybe if a torsen center diff was added to VTM-4.... Could be sporty like the bmw. The RS$ was to the M-5!
-Cj
As of now, with value and practicality and platform sharing, Acura stands for upscale Honda. One gets better styling (or one could say, Hondas get worse/bland styling from fear of hurting Acura) and a few more features.
If status quo works for Honda/Acura in the future, great, but I won’t bet on continued success at Acura unless they make moves necessary to differentiate the brand from Honda. Acura shouldn’t be chasing Honda customers. It should be luring them as well as customers from established luxury brands.
While TSX is fine the way it is (but does need more flavors), TL, RL and a potential CL could use a new platform, one that is designed to meet Acura’s immediate and future needs. SH-AWD should stay but as an option.
Speaking of SH-AWD, it works wonderfully, even in chassis that’s designed for FWD vehicles and in case of Honda that implies engine placed transversely slightly in front of the front axle (hence greater weight at the nose). I can only imagine its impact in a more balanced chassis with longitudinally mounted engine placed on or slightly behind the front axle.
There really is no point expecting people to pay $2500-$3000 more by making SH-AWD standard (should add about $50-60/month on lease payments) unless they want to. There really is no point asking the engine to pull an additional 250 lb, or sip an additional 1-2 mpg, unless AWD is deemed necessary by the customer. As an option it would work wonderfully. As a standard feature, it only hurts.
And seriously, if I were managing Acura, Audi would be the last company to model the lineup after. Audi’s best seller in America contributes 50% of the company’s sales and barely outsells Acura’s TSX.
I don’t think TSX was brought over to replace RSX. Those two are as far apart as Vigor (later 2.5TL) and Integra were. One didn’t replace the other. Just before TSX arrived, Acura had: 3.2TL for $29K and 3.2-TL-S for $32K. The next TL was repositioned, and was more like the 3.2TL-S which left a void in under $30K price class. That void was filled by TSX.
But, TSX needs a high performance version. A variety is necessary for its growth. The base model (plus navigation as the only option) will not be enough in a competitive market. It is no longer competing with base 184HP 325i. It is now going against 230 HP 328i. And while it may compete reasonably well in terms of value and reliability against the BMW, it isn’t attracting customers that want more from it, something that can either come from a more balanced chassis or from application of SH-AWD (which won’t be a good idea with normally aspirated four cylinder engine).
TL:
Starting at $34K, TL is no longer competes in the value department. Not as much as it did with second generation anyway, when it started around $28K-$29K. At that time, however, people didn’t mind paying MSRP or close to it. Now, TL may have a higher base price, but the only way to sell well is to consider close to invoice pricing (about 10% below MSRP).
Speaking of price, if it weren’t crucial, we won’t see the term “value” being tossed around in the same sentence that also has “Acura” in it. So, either Acura competes on value, or it doesn’t. If former, it better bring enough to the plate because the competition is getting fierce by the year. Infiniti is growing because it is no longer offering rebadged Maxima to compete with TL. It is also offering a coupe that may not be carrying huge sales numbers but it is offering the panache a brand needs to be considered a player in the luxury car market.
And, again, RWD chassis doesn’t make any car a sports car. It simply provides a wonderful foundation that has fewer compromises, translating to better feel and more importantly, perception in the market. Remember, Acura shouldn’t try to be like Honda. So you may ask, how does FR chassis help?
With the FF set up Honda uses, the engine is placed transversely and slightly in front of the front axle. This limits the length of the wheelbase and extends the front overhang. And shorter wheelbase is also prone to greater pitching. While it may offer greater cabin volume, it certainly makes the nose heavier with about 60-62% of the weight sitting on the front tires.
Now, Acura has done a good job at making its cars sporty enough that those seeking touring cars should be perfectly fine. But even that comes with a compromise. The suspension/springs must be tuned to counter the ill-effects of the weight distribution. If these engineers had the benefit of a more balanced chassis, the ride quality will improve And if anybody wonders why, despite of sporty pretensions, BMWs ride doesn’t suffer? The answer is simple: they got the fundamentals right.
Now, FR may have some limitations of its own, and primarily around cabin space. But then, once again, BMW (and even Infiniti) has proven that it is all about packaging and more can be done from less. If FF were great by default, we won’t see cabin size being raised as an issue against RL, while it isn’t a point against the likes of 530i, M35, E350 and GS350.
TSX as entry, TL as mid range and RL as upper range offerings from Acura make huge sense. Continuing to lug on to existing formula is not going to help.