Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Where is Honda taking Acura?

1235722

Comments

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I think it is about time Acura got a new FR platform for its cars, TL and above, to offer a reincarnated CL as well. SH-AWD is impressive, but its advantages get overwhelmed by the added weight (hurts straight line performance, and fuel economy, two of the things many shoppers evaluate via spec sheet) and cost (another “concern” that shows up on base price on the sticker). It works in vehicles like MDX where one almost expects AWD system and not so much about 0-60 or quarter mile runs, or even fuel economy.

    IMO, 2008 provides a great opportunity for Acura to adopt that route since TL is due for a redesign, and RL could also afford one instead of going thru a mid-model cycle refresh. And Acura will be set for a global stage.

    FF platform on Acura limits Honda’s possibilities (much like the Civic Si versus RSX issue). And if Acura were to offer a CL, IMO, it should start fresh with a new platform. TL and RL can eventually join (or be there with it right from the beginning). I don’t mind TSX continuing to share platform with Accord, but it should have an SH-AWD option to go with a more powerful engine and sport tuned chassis.

    As for the old CL, the primary issue was that the TL looked sleeker than the coupe which looked like an ordinary sedan. Coupe buyers generally go for more style, something CL lacked. Styling works as an incentive worth giving up the practicality of a sedan. For that reason, I doubt the 2008 Accord sedan will be as aggressively styled as the Coupe Concept we just saw at NAIAS. Although I hope it isn’t too “run of the mill” since it is about time Honda stopped worrying about stepping on its own toes and in the process allow others to join the party.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    For buyers who shop on spec sheet, the want easily overrides needs. 17 cu ft trunk looks much better than 14 cu ft. And when automotive reviewers go about assigning points, they remember to take away points for smallish trunk. It doesn’t seem to matter why a car has less trunk (or cabin) space. What does matter is that it doesn’t.

    IMO, Accord is just the right size for its class. And more importantly, for me, it drives like a smaller car. But in the land of excesses, people are buying H2’s where the cabin feels like an expanse of football field.

    To market something successfully, Honda has to do what it takes, and that, unfortunately, could also mean larger dimensions. In John Mendel’s words
    “It's therefore our intention to bring the next generation Accord to market as the boldest ... roomiest ... most refined ... and most exhilarating car in the segment. Indeed, a new benchmark.”

    “Boldest” would be very subjective. “Most refined” throws another dimension. I don’t expect Accord to be as isolating and soft as Camry, but refinement can come in other forms too (better feedback and handling qualities without being harsh as virtually all sportier cars tend to be). “Roomiest”, however, is an interesting statement to make. Accord already is about as roomy as others, if not better. Perhaps he implies adding an inch or half here and there to keep up. I doubt Accord will grow much if at all (it could actually shrink a little on the outside, if not noticeably) because eventhough the sedan is designed in the USA and primarily for this market, it is also offered in several other markets including Japan (sold as Inspire) where exterior size can be an issue.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    To me, the 94-97 Accord has about the perfect exterior size.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Oh, lots of issues brought up with that one, Robert.

    "I think it is about time Acura got a new FR platform for its cars, TL and above, to offer a reincarnated CL as well."

    Your suggestion for an FR platform for both the TL and RL makes sense on the showroom floor, but I doubt it's workable on the factory floor.

    The TL is highly profitable because it can be built in the same plant as the Accord. Both are high volume vehicles being build in NA where they are sold. You muck with that platform sharing; you muck with everything.

    I think pulling the RL onto an FR platform is more workable. Yes, it will require retooling, but it would be on a much smaller scale. The platform and assembly line might also be used for a Honda competitor to the Avalon and eventually a large coupe for Acura. (Maybe one of those 4-door coupes like MB has created.)

    "SH-AWD is impressive, but its advantages get overwhelmed by the added weight... and cost. It works in vehicles like MDX where one almost expects AWD system..."

    Ditto. I think SH-AWD is both more effective and easily accepted by consumers with the CUVs in Acura's fleet.

    That said, I do think Acura can continue with the TL as a FF vehicle in base trim and add an AWD trim for sporting enthusiasts. You mention the added weight of SH-AWD and I agree that is a concern. However, Acura is steadily growing larger V6s along with a V10 and potential V8.

    Realistically, all that's required is a DOHC 3.5 with VCM to power the current TL-S with SH-AWD. That would probably provide all the power and fuel economy needed. In the future, they might need something larger to keep competitive with the hp wars, but they already have the 3.7 on tap. By then, the RL and MDX may be ready for the V8 or V10.

    Furthermore, they can shave some weight by producing an AWD CL and advance the notion of AWD performance at the same time. With the "NSX replacement", Acura has another chance at promoting SH-AWD and making it more acceptable to the public.

    "As for the old CL, the primary issue was that the TL looked sleeker than the coupe which looked like an ordinary sedan."

    Correct. The CL had a sedan body with a stubby tail and a coupe greenhouse. The bottom was too chunky for the top. The TL had better proportions because the body, tail, and greenhouse all worked together to create a long body line.
  • user777user777 Member Posts: 3,341
    those '94-97 accords, they were nice cars. i liked the look and size. i like the look and dimensions of my '02 as well.

    that '07 accord concept has a front and back end that i don't think are particularly pretty. maybe it's just me. too much of other vehicles in the thing, and less and less honda pedigree cues for this guy. i wish it looked more like the civic in the front end myself. dimensionally, it all looks wrong to me. but what do i know?

    i also like the look of my 2nd gen ODY. the '05s and on just seem to have a heavy blunt nose and bloated love handles.

    it seemed to me as though the acuras were more honda-like than honda. maybe intentional?

    anyway, i personally don't think pulling cues from other non-honda vehicles: making them beefier, chunkier, squat, wide, challenging, etc makes sense for the bread and butter shoppers that are looking for reliability, utility and value. i guess it's a good thing i'm not a designer.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    If there is something I find weak in current Civic, it is its front end.

    OTOH, Honda got almost everything right with the Accord concept IMO. Every piece seems to fit together, and even though you may see a lot of vehicles in its you would be hardpressed to not see a lot of any other vehicle (there is only so much you can change without coming up with something as drastic as Aztek or the ovaloid Taurus which actually looked like Infiniti J30).

    The only major deviation in the Accord Coupe concept is adoption of fastback style (the way the roofline meets the rear). The front seems to be an evolution of older Honda design elements. The rear is angular too, and designed to flow with the front. The tail lamp seems to be borrowed from 2002-2003 TL but revised to match the shape of the trunk lid on the inside and match the side of the headlamp on the side (and use the 2004+ TL-esque character line for it).

    The grill is something that surprised me. Honda has rarely used the hexagon (last time... 2003-2005 Pilot), although it is something I have wanted them to adopt since pentagrill is for Acura and having no-proper-grill makes the front look rather incomplete (an issue with 2003-2005 Accord and in fact, with Accord in the past too where the grill has always been "weak"). I was expecting more along the lines of Stream/Odyssey (Japanese market), or in the worst case (thankfully it didn't happen)... something like the current Accord/Civic.

    As for the small Accord, those 1994-1997 were TSX sized, and there is no way Honda could have continued to use that size and compete well, much less lead, in the family sedan segment. Even with the size that Accord has, if you take note, a lot of comparisons put Accord down for being on the smaller side (in terms of less legroom or trunk size or whatever). Good marketing requires addressing issues like that.
  • user777user777 Member Posts: 3,341
    you hate the civic front end. i think it is great. really great in fact. i'm not a fan of the back end though.

    thing is, for the '06, it matches the acura front end and the accord. they telegraph similar pedigree i think.

    the accord isn't a dodge charger or chrysler 300, and shouldn't look like one. oh and the doors and the fenders of the accord proto look like a mustang to me.

    it's all wrong.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I don't know about the doors (don't look closely enough to assign a brand to the design), but fenders on the new Accord Coupe concept resemble my 1998 Accord's, and are virtually identical to the fenders in Acura TSX.

    The rear of the coupe is simply a squarish iteration of the roundish theme in Civic Coupe (and both have a horizontal line that lines up with the bottom of the tail lamps).

    This concept has the right mix of square and round themes, unlike the last iteration that got over-rounded in some areas. The squarish shape to design elements also make it look very Honda to me. Down to the shape of the badge (most automakers use round badges or some form of curves), I have associated squarishness as a part of Accord DNA. I see that even in the lettering used for Accord.

    The grill's overall appearance reminds me of 1992-95 Legend, in that it also seems to lean forward a little (that may be considered a design element shared with likes of Charger, Mustang, and also BMWs from the early 90s). It is also very similar to 1992-93 Accord (again, a car that relied heavily on squarish design elements with some rounding offs). This Accord concept is as close it gets to those early 90s Hondas, and also to late 90s Hondas that we never saw (the European/Japanese Accord).

    Not sure where the Charger, 300 or Mustang similarities, as you said, factor in. The most "Charger" I see is limited to the shape of the tail lamp, but you see that in a lot of cars, including Lamborghini Gallardo and the newest iteration of Murcielago. Actually, in Accord, it looks like a revised version of the tail lamp from 2002-2003 TL.

    In the past, virtually all Honda grills have left a lot to be desired. The ones I have either liked or was ok with have not been seen beyond CR-V and Odyssey. Pilot was headed in the right direction with the 2003-2005 iteration when it used the hexagonal grill, but I don't like the current version. Civic's grill, as does current Accord's, leaves a lot to be desired as well. Perhaps, I am not a big fan of the chrome mustache.

    I also detest the grill on the CR-V, which appears to have been inspired by Lexus RX but Honda took it a step further an incorporated a styling element that might be the future (lower grill extending under the headlamps) but in case of CR-V it looks unfinished. If you want to see a better finished version of the same concept, look for 2008 Focus's grill.

    As far as the new Accord's grill is concerned, there is one thing I would have changed. The "cuts" at the corner would look better if they lined up with the lower line of the headlamp (i.e. if they had less angle to it to allow a better flow from headlamps to the grill). Or, perhaps, had Honda used "softer corners" instead like was done for Pilot (2003-2005).
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I think it will make greater economic sense to let TL and RL (and a CL) share FR platform. TL commands large enough sales that it should be economically feasible and beneficial from market perspective to move to FR platform. I don’t know about the “lines” in Marysville but perhaps some of them could be reserved for FR cars and the rest used as they already are. Well, thinking about it further, even RDX could use the same FR platform, and we might be talking a large volume of cars here, as many as 150K units and that might be about 40% of the capacity at Marysville.

    A dedicated or low volume FR platform will continue to hurt RL, in terms of cost.
  • user777user777 Member Posts: 3,341
    to respond to your question- the front of the recently shown accord accord coup concept, being sort of blunt seems more like a dodge charger or chrysler 300 to me than a honda. maybe there are other cars it's more like, but those i see on the roads and i don't care for them in the least but that's what flashed before my eye. :cry:

    IMHO, honda accords should have pointier front ends like the sporty acura brethern, not stubby blunt ones.

    who designs this stuff, comic book hero fans? :shades:

    the point about the mustang - do you not see the cues i see in the door and fender from the side? that deep cut and the three line... that is like trademark ford mustang.

    the roof line looks like i don't know - i don't have a good vehicle geometry vocabulary so i'll pick something, a nissan 350z perhaps, only not as nice.

    the small side glass? that's not functional. that's appearence - again more like the nissan 350z than accord. accords are FUNCTIONAL.

    onto acura...
    oh, let's see, i just took a look at the accura RDX and MDX. oh yuck (how do i think you are ugly, let me count the ways).

    now the csx/tsx... i like their look very very much. i may have to "buy up" if the accord line gets all messed up. :lemon: wait, maybe that's intentional - honda makes the civic more like the accord, phases the accord out, and pushes loyal buyers to the csx/tsx.

    look, i'll never be able to afford a lamborghini (sp?), lotus, ford gt.

    i hope they don't mess the accord up like this. one vote no.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    that '07 accord concept has a front and back end that i don't think are particularly pretty.

    Straight-on front view with shapes of fenders, hood and headlights look good. But, upper grille does not match lower grille, upper grille shape/texture not complementary to fender/hood/headlight lines. Also, cutouts for fog lights are fighting fender/hood/headlight lines. As experiment, print-out front view and wipe out upper and lower grilles and foglight cutouts and start over, just like you might have done in high school study room. Think that almost any body could have done a better job on that front end.

    I had a 98 Accord LX V6, and I think that straight ahead front view of it was very clean and lines were well integrated. Would be interesting to see that front end grafted onto the 07 concept. Think that it would flow very well with rest of car.

    Who the heck is doing front ends of Pilots, Odys, Ridgelines, 07 Accord concept to make them look so ungainly.

    i also like the look of my 2nd gen ODY. the '05s and on just seem to have a heavy blunt nose and bloated love handles.

    Would agree. Have a 2000 Ody EX and prefer exterior styling and interior over latest gen. Current ODY front looks like bug eyes.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,439
    keep in mind that there are new pedestrian safety regulation coming into effect that require mor blunt noses and higher hood lines. The days of low "cowcatcher" front ends are over.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    keep in mind that there are new pedestrian safety regulation coming into effect that require mor blunt noses and higher hood lines. The days of low "cowcatcher" front ends are over.

    Would seem that blunt noses and higher hood lines would be more likely to injure a pedestrian.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I don’t think the blunt nose has as much to do with pedestrian safety as it is with contemporary styling (we’re likely to see more of that nose in more vehicles shortly). If it were just about pedestrian safety, Civic would have it too. Honda’s approach to pedestrian safety involves a uniquely designed hood collapse system. Perhaps it is the upcoming regulation (not sure where and when) that is said to require more space between the engine and the hood. So, a straight up nose may not just be for contemporary styling.

    I had a 98 Accord LX V6, and I think that straight ahead front view of it was very clean and lines were well integrated.

    I have a 1998 Accord EX and if there was something I would change in the car from day 1, it was the grill which was merely an opening. It looks cheap while the rest of the styling is very nice and has aged exceptionally well.

    I liked the European/Japanese market Accord’s grill from the same generation (1998-2002) much more pleasing and unlike ours, it was "complete".
    image

    If you look closely, the new Accord’s front is similar to 1998-2002 Euro/Japanese Accord (with subtle changes, of course). And it appears to be an evolution of 1992-95 Legend's (stubby nose with top of the grill slightly leaning forward) and 1992-1993 Accord (also a straight up nose with squarish theme all over). The primary difference between the Honda/Acura of the early 90s and 2008 Accord is that now the nose is taller (thanks for crash tests needs etc, can’t have those low slung fronts anymore). The grill’s shape is reminiscent of 2003-2005 Pilot (a hexagon) but with sharp edging instead of soft nudges at the bottom sides.

    The hexagonal theme for the grill is something I have wanted to see Honda adopt for years (as opposed to not having a theme at all, a big issue with Honda) because they can’t (and shouldn’t) use pentagrill when Acura does. While hexagonal shape to the grill goes back to Honda’s first car (S500). Finally, it seems, the want has been fulfilled. But, Honda hasn’t stuck with a theme so won’t be surprised not to see it again, for a while.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    The front end doesn’t seem to be as blunt as it is in Charger and Mustang, and some cars on the way out. It is definitely not as “high”, nor does is it as square as it appears from the frontal shot (at an angle the front is slightly rounded off). The overall appearance is closer to that of 1992-95 Legend (imagine it with slightly larger hexagonal grill). But then, I am judging from pictures. And in fact, most people will try to relate the style to cars they see around from now than go back and look at older styling even if it were to come from Honda’s own cars.

    But this wouldn’t be the first time Honda has adopted some design elements going back 8-12 years. In fact, they seem to do it more often than not (the shape of tail lamp in 1998 Accord sedan seems to have come from 1987 Prelude’s, while 1998 Accord Coupe’s was clearly inspired by NSX that preceded it by 8-9 years, 1999 TL clearly derived its styling from 1992 Legend, 2001 CL and 2004 Accord Coupe seem to have used 1996-1998 Acura TL rear end styling and so on).

    the point about the mustang - do you not see the cues i see in the door and fender from the side? that deep cut and the three line... that is like trademark ford mustang.

    No I don’t. Here are pictures to make my point:
    image
    image
    image
    image
    Note that in TSX, current Accord and in 2008 Accord, the fenders transitions smoothly and over to the headlamps and has a flat edging designed to enhance the perception of a larger wheel (also seen in 1998-2002 Accord). Mustang has that flat edge too, but the fender doesn’t transition smoothly, instead has a defined line over it. Mustang’s actually resembles the fender that you might notice in a Mercedes.

    the roof line looks like i don't know - i don't have a good vehicle geometry vocabulary so i'll pick something, a nissan 350z perhaps, only not as nice.

    Just like "hatchback" styling that we usually talk about, "fastback" is another styling widely used design element. Before it was used in 350Z, you would have seen it in Audi TT, Tiburon, and umpteen dozen other cars already on the streets. It is also part of styling in likes of Ferrari 456GT. This would be the first time Accord Coupe is getting that style.

    "Fastback" styling isn't limited to coupes. Cars like MB's CLS are representative of the similar concept applied to sedans. The shape helps improve coefficient of drag, but would almost certainly compromise rear seat headroom. For practicality reasons, I am almost sure that we won't see it in Accord sedan.
  • user777user777 Member Posts: 3,341
    yes. you have artculated what i could not about the front end of the concept vehicle. thank you. gosh i think a survey of honda accord owners would find a good number like me thinking ugly too.

    i like your idea about sending the designers to study hall. please skip the dose of comic book mags though.

    honda has been known to show something and actually produce something else. maybe they want to demonstrate a willingness to tweak / freshen things but not let on as to exactly what'd they will do.

    oh, i hope so.

    as far as i'm concerned, that accord concept is every car BUT an accord in appearence. take the "H" badge off the front and what have you got?

    i dunno. THAT's the problem.

    the Ridgeline? i'm ok with the front end there, but design wise, when i see one... i think what a blatent borrowing of the avalanche concept, even if it's a better avalance than an avalance. ;)

    we are in agreement on the pilot and the ody front end. they are even using lenses that look like bug eyes. reminds me of toyota - i think even mazda is using lamps like that - bow wow. who designs these things

    no no no honda. i like the front end on my '02 accord and my '03 ODY much much much better. you can tell the vehicles share common pedigree.

    but back to the acuras, oh that RDX and MDX look really bad. are they trying to copy the porche cheyennes or VW touregs? :sick:

    i think pulling elements being tried by other manufacturers is ok and all, but they are moving style-wise in the wrong direction as far as this consumer is concerned.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    "Would seem that blunt noses and higher hood lines would be more likely to injure a pedestrian."

    I'm not sure what's being done in the US, but the regulations in the UK are requiring things like: 2+ inches of space between the top of the engine and the hood. This is done so that the hood can compress and "cushion" the impact of a pedestrian's body and head.

    To create that cushion, designers often need to raise the hood and stylists have to work around it. Honda, and others, have worked no active hoods which actually push upward upon impact to increase the cushioning.

    Other concerns in frontal impacts include the direction where a body is thrown. Designers want the pedestrain tossed forward, not off to the side. If a person is hit by a car and tossed off to the side, they may impact something on the side of the road (pole, tree, etc). Or they get run over a second time by the car in the next lane. If thrown forward, they land on the road ahead of the original car which should already be braking.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,439
    it is actually safer to be hit flush and pushed forward, than to have a low nose essentially scoop you up at the ankles and roll up up the hood onto the windshield, since you then get rolled back when the car stops!

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    Jag has a active hood/bonnet system on the new XK. Pyrotechnic charges pop the hood up to absorb energy when a pedestrian is hit.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I actually like the way Honda started with description of 2005 Odyssey's styling...

    "While a casual observer may consider a vehicle's body as the exterior styling and the metal pieces that create the overall shape, the importance of the body goes much further."

    So true. On Pedestrian safety in the Odyssey...
    "Honda's commitment to safety extends to pedestrians as well as vehicle occupants. To help reduce pedestrian injuries in the event of a collision, the Odyssey's hood and fender areas were designed to deform if contacted by the head of an adult or child pedestrian. Energy-absorbing collapsible hood supports, wiper arms and fender mounts allow substantial deformation in an impact, allowing the engineering team to meet its target for pedestrian safety."

    Honda has developed its own pop-up hood system too (link)
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    I've been reading quite a few opinions on the styling of the Acura ASC concept. That topic is completely subject to taste, but the car does propose some other interesting ideas about Acura's direction.

    Does this group think Acura needs (or would benefit from) an exotic or semi-exotic?

    If so, will a front-engined AWD car with more of a GT flavor do the trick? Or should they go with a more tried-n-true mid-engined RWD platform?
  • danilodanilo Member Posts: 69
    How about this for Acura,

    TSX: keep it about the same adding a small v6 $28,990

    TL: Morph it into a two door and call it the "new CL" $33,990 (SH-AWD would be nice)

    RL: Another morphing with slight changes decreasing it's size a few inches and call it the "new TL" $38,990

    Now the need for a larger RL with V8 power makes sense. $49,990

    Keeping these pricepoints will no doubt bring more buyers to the Acura line-up
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    a V-10 RL, and make up for the current RL?! :-P

    $49,990 sounds about right. Maybe knock a couple hundred pounds out of that sucker with lightweight materials, while you're at it.

    I am sure if Acura does a new CL, it will just be a TL with two doors, like last time. They can skip it as far as I'm concerned, but then I don't rule the market! ;-)

    I wish they would do a hardtop S2000, luxed up a bit but not a ton for the Acura clientele, and maybe throw in that turbo four from the RDX that everyone loves so much. That would give it less peaky power output, more appropriate for the "luxury" set.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Even if Acura could somehow squeeze it under the hood, $28,990 for TSX with small V6 isn’t happening (unless Acura starts to make some of the currently standard features as a part of optional package). TSX already carries an MSRP of $28,090 (which would undoubtedly go up by 1-2% even without a redesign).

    Speaking of “small V6”, it can mean anything, from 2.5-liters to 3.2. In fact, there would be no packaging advantage to it since Honda is unlikely to create a V6 solely for TSX. In the past Honda’s 2.5/V6 (offered in Japan from 1998 to 2002) was simply a de-stroked version of the 3.0-liter V6 in Accord. While it was rated 200 HP/6200 rpm and 178 lb-ft/4600 rpm using old SAE standards, it is closely matched by the current 2.4/I-4 in Japanese market (200 HP/6500 rpm and 171 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm). On the downside, it won’t return the fuel economy that the 2.4 does.

    IMO, if Acura must take V6 route, it ought to be at least 3.0 in the TSX (given the curb weight). That said, I see no problem with 2.4/I-4 continuing to be the base engine. TSX is doing reasonably well with that engine and in that price range.

    What should happen is another engine option on top of base. While I would prefer V6 myself, if packaging is an issue, 2.3 turbo would work as well. And throw in SH-AWD for good measure. We’re talking about a substantial bump from the base price, but even at $33K-$35K, with sport tuned chassis, it will offer a great value.

    TL and RL need to move to a FR platform. A CL based off the same would be icing on the cake. Not only would this allow Acura to get noticed more and certainly with added performance, it will allow them to be free, as would be true for Honda under it. SH-AWD is great, but expensive and heavy option. It would work as an option, not as a standard feature to be sold in large volume cars.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    During my participation in a poll by Acura on the ASC, I made it a point to tell them that if there must be an NSX successor, it should qualify as one. While a “luxury GT” (I choose to call it that) based on the ASC might garner more sales and looks good, I just don’t like the sound of it being called “NSX successor”. Worse, if it must carry SH-AWD.

    Sure, it can act like a billboard for Acura to showcase the capabilities of SH-AWD at its best, but in the process I am wondering if it ties in anyway to any of Honda’s major racing efforts (F1, IRL and now, ALMS). That’s something I will miss if Honda strays away from its light weight, mid-engine, rear drive, no-non sense formula.

    NSX may not have broken sales record, but that wasn’t the point of the car. It had a mission and came out in flying colors.

    That said, I am not averse to a FR (or FA, if Acura considers that 250 lb doesn’t hurt in anyway rather helps) luxury GT coupe based on ASC. But it will be nice to have "NSX" too even it meant using a V8 engine as opposed to V10. Sure Honda could still advertise Odyssey on a race track as being race inspired, but it should also offer something Honda racing fans can relate to.

    Unfortunately, we are about as unlikely to see NSX AND a luxury GT like ASC in the near future as we are to expect the GT to sell for $35K... an impossible dream.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    Maybe the ASC could be Acura's top of the line luxury GT to compete with Lexus' LF-A, BMW's Z8 (heard it's coming back) and MB's SL AMG and make the next NSX carrying Honda's badge. This way the NSX wouldn't have the burden to carry the "luxury" image of Acura and could be a true no nonsense super car. S-2000 could really use a big brother in Honda's lineup anyway...

    The only downside I see from this is: Nobody is going to consider a Honda as a supercar, much like what the original NSX faced when it debuted almost 20 years ago.
  • danilodanilo Member Posts: 69
    I would think if we are doing SH-AWD the TSX would need the extra torque of a six cylinder. Keeping it FWD would allow a four banger to suffice. the issue is to keep up with the competition and keep with the value. TSX at 33-35 grand would price it high enough for consumers to look elsewhere. That is what happened to the RL which had marginal sales due to it's hefty price.

    SH-AWD is heavy and expensive. Maybe it should be reserved for the upper Acuras
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Given that TSX already weighs about 3300 lb, adding SH-AWD with a normally aspirated I-4 or even a small V6 wouldn't be a good idea. However, I suggest turbo I-4 similar to RDX's. Now consider TSX with sport tuned chassis and 240-280 HP/260-280 lb-ft, with NAV and every feature that TSX already has, for $35K.

    If a consumer chooses to look elsewhere after all that, its their choice. I won't (in fact, I would be driving it today instead of my TL). Thats a lot of car for that money.

    As for RL, three mistakes from Acura...
    - Staid styling
    - Lack of aggressive gearing where 6AT would have helped
    - Lack of lease deals (how many people "buy" cars in this price class?)

    Even two of those three would have helped Acura immensely with RL.
  • danilodanilo Member Posts: 69
    Again, for $35 grand, the mass will look elsewhere. I admire your loyalty and while the TSX would be a little screamer, at $35 grand it simply will not sell as well. At that price, you are flirting with BMW 3 series. New 328Xi loaded at just under $40grand. So, V6, yes and SH-AWD, no, Price at $30 grand.
  • danilodanilo Member Posts: 69
    As for the RL, I think the reason it struggled was due to it's great price difference from the TL when it came out. Most consumers could not justify the price difference. TL at 35 grand vs RL at 53 grand sticker prices. $18 grand is a huge jump for any consumer to justify. Might be why the TL is doing so well.....
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    My loyalty aside (btw, picking up TSX over TL isn't exactly a representative of that), but look at the fact that people aren't overlooking TL today even though it costs $34-36K. Which car do you think would be comparable to the performance of that SH-AWD/TSX of mine? I'm talking 240-280 HP/260-280 lb-ft, AWD, and luxuries (including NAV) at $35K.
  • ggesqggesq Member Posts: 701
    The TSX needs to flirt with the 3 series. Put that RDX turbo engine and match it with SH-AWD and people will IMHO pay 35k for a "loaded" alternate to the 3 series which will be about 5 grand higher.

    Where else will the masses look? Folks are already paying that much for a "loaded" IS250.
  • ggesqggesq Member Posts: 701
    robert- good point. I think it will sell w/ those kind of credentials.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    If the TSX is going to compete with the 3 series then the turbo-4 won't cut it. In order to upmarket the TSX Acura needs a V6 with HP around 300 and torque around 280 lb-ft/s plus the SH-AWD and loaded with navi at around $35K. If Acura wants to go bolder then drop a turbo into that 3.5L V-6 to make it 350 HP and charge $37K with navi and $35K without it.

    I've always see TSX as Acura's 3er fighter and they should upmarket TL and RL to compete with the likes of 5er/E/GS and 7er/S/LS, respectively. This case Acura would have a complete sedan lineup without introducing another model.

    As for IS250, I've always puzzled why would anyone pay close to $40K for one, AWD or RWD. However, those IS250s are flying out of Lexus dealers' lot left and right, it outsells IS350 close to 3:1.
  • ggesqggesq Member Posts: 701
    IMHO, the TSX w/ the turbo 4 and AWD can compete competitevely w/ the IS 250 and the 328i.

    I do agree with you that if Acura wants to compete w/ the 335i it really does need to drop a V6 w/ 300hp in the TSX and price it at 35k loaded.
  • danilodanilo Member Posts: 69
    Let's be realistic here people. The TSX is Acura's "entry" model for lack of a better term. Simply adding more power and SH-AWD will not make it compete with BMW. If you drive the TSX along side your TL there is a substantial difference in handling. The BMW is designed to be driven and driven hard with the primary focus being the handling capabilities. Acura is designed to be a value oriented luxury vehicle. Don't mistake value for cheap which Acura is not. The TSX needs to be less expensive than BMW. This is what makes them more appealing. While adding more power is definitely needed, I would think a six with the same hp/tq as a four would be more appealing. SH-AWD is simply not needed to make it a success. Now the TL needs AWD. And a few more ponies :shades:
  • ggesqggesq Member Posts: 701
    huh? What makes you say that adding more hp and AWD will not make it capable of competing w/ the 3er? No doubt that the 3er is the benchmark in handling and driving dynamics but other companies like Acura and Lexus need to learn by example. There is obviously a market for a luxury oriented sport sedan and IMHO Acura, Lexus, and any other company should emulate BMW in any way possible insofar as driving dynamics is concerned. Consumers already cross shop these vehicles. Acura needs to take the performance aspect to the next level and take a bigger chunk of the 3er's market share.
    IMHO Acura needs to go beyond being referred to as a value oriented luxury vehicle. Honda has the technology already in the S2000. If they only used that technology in its offerings Acura would be a serious player in the enthusiast market.
    I bought my TL because it is an excellent mix of performance, luxury, technology and value. The purpose of this forum is not to compare a BMW and Acura. There's a separate forum for that.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    The TSX is Acura's "entry" model for lack of a better term. Simply adding more power and SH-AWD will not make it compete with BMW

    Why not? 3-series is BMW's entry model as well. Those 2 should be very comparable if TSX gains in size, power and handling (SH-AWD).

    If you drive the TSX along side your TL there is a substantial difference in handling

    TSX actually handles better than TL, smaller in size, more nimble and precise. The downside of it is the lack of power.

    The TSX needs to be less expensive than BMW

    335i is MSRP at $38.5K for the strip-down base model. I don't see a 35K MSRP TSX loaded with navi, 300 HP V6 and SH-AWD anymore expensive than that.

    I would think a six with the same hp/tq as a four would be more appealing

    If you want the same HP and torque as the four why even bother for a V6? A V6 with same HP/tq will only hurt the FE and not help the performance a bit. Also, a V6 putting out around 200 HP is pretty pathetic now a day and that's why I still don't understand why IS250 sells as good as it is.

    SH-AWD is simply not needed to make it a success.

    If Acura is going to market the TSX as their entry level sports sedan then SH-AWD is definitely needed. A sports sedan with FWD will always be looked down at and not winning those enthusiasts' votes.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Interesting that you bring up "value" so much. One of the prime reasons that BMWs do well (especially the "entry level" like 3-series in the USA) is the value oriented lease deals.

    Acura may be perceived as a value oriented brand, and it was definitely true ten years ago when Integra accounted for every 2 of 3 Acura sold. It is not true anymore. Not unlike Lexus, and BMW, Acura's core models (TL and MDX now) sit squarely in $35K to $45K price class.

    All that said, I see no reason to oppose the idea that TSX could use a higher trim at about $6K premium to offer something that base model doesn't. Thats power. And to put it down appropriately, SH-AWD. Let BMW do its thing. Acura should do its thing.
  • jblaze13jblaze13 Member Posts: 152
    I think Acura should add the RDX engine and SH-AWD as options to the TSX. I'm not sure they can engineer this into existance with the current SH-AWD platforms being AWD only. Perhaps the "TSX-S", as I'll call it, can have a different platform from the regular TSX that it can share with an AWD TL. This will definitely add some design and manufacturing costs to the line-up but it may be worth it. The entry level BMW and Audi are all over the board with what you can have. The Audi offers FWD as a base on the A4. Acura doesn't have to abandon its current TSX base to move up market.

    I drove the RDX last week and it is a relatively quick vehicle. I imagine this engine could do wonders for the TSX with 600 pounds less weight. Granted the options will take away some of that weight difference.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    That pic of the Accord looks like a combo the 98-02 model and the 04+ TSX in the headlights to me.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    From what I see on the top photo the roofline and hood do remind of the Charger. The back end shape reminds of the late 90's-present Hyundai Tiburons as said in your post. In my opinion the headlights width needs to be shortened a little bit because headlights look too long in widith from the side view. That top photo the Accord concept it looks mean looking though look a stealth fighter jet. Headlights look like the Acura Vigor from the side view I'm seeing. The Vigor always had those long headlights.

    "But this wouldn’t be the first time Honda has adopted some design elements going back 8-12 years. In fact, they seem to do it more often than not (the shape of tail lamp in 1998 Accord sedan seems to have come from 1987 Prelude’s, while 1998 Accord Coupe’s was clearly inspired by NSX that preceded it by 8-9 years, 1999 TL clearly derived its styling from 1992 Legend, 2001 CL and 2004 Accord Coupe seem to have used 1996-1998 Acura TL rear end styling and so on)."

    The 1999 TL style was derived from the Legend. where do you see that? 2001 CL and 04 Accord coupe have bubley back ends as opposed to the 96-98 TL which has a more boxy back end. Maybe the headlights of the 01 CL kinda have a 96-98 TL influence but the tailights are totally different on the the 01 CL as opposed to those on the 96-98 TL. The accord Coupe the headlights and grille are totally different from the Legend.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    "Problem with last CL and previous gen Acura coupe and last 2 gen Accord coupes was proportion. There is just something wrong about the profiles. They don't look quite right. Kind of blocky, tall."

    The 98-02 accord coupe was fine looking. The current Accord Coupe I agree it just doesn;t look right. The 2nd gen CL(01-03) I own one of them.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    I should also add the opening for the fog lights looks too big and the grille needs to be stretched out maybe a little to touch the headlights. The whole front end looks like "I'm gonna eat you for lunch".
  • danilodanilo Member Posts: 69
    As stated, It will take MORE than just HP and AWD to compete. The TSX is still based on the civic platform, And while that might not be so bad, it surely does not dictate such a hefty price. At current. it is a nice blend of luxury and yes value. Acura/Honda is and has maintained a "value" approach to their vehicles. That is what makes them a success. "I bought my TL because it is an excellent mix of performance, luxury, technology and value" So what if the TL were as pricey as the say BMW? Would it still be a good "value"?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I'm not sure they can engineer this into existance with the current SH-AWD platforms being AWD only.
    SH-AWD in its current form is adapted to be used in Honda's global midsize platform. In fact, the very first demonstration of SH-AWD was show using Japanese market Inspire (which is the American Honda Accord).
  • danilodanilo Member Posts: 69
    Well, I have to agree with you on that one. Keeping the TSX alone and having a TSX-S maybe with the additions you are suggesting at a premium.

    "Value" meaning bang for the buck, not cheap.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    It will definitely take more than just horsepower to compete with BMW 3-series. In fact, it isn't too difficult to beat BMW in power game. The 328i (which when equipped with cold weather package, nav, CD-changer, and leather can cost $40K-plus) has only 230 HP and 200 lb-ft.

    In fact, I don't want Acura to follow BMW. I want them to be themselves, like Honda did with S2000. They didn't take "lets put six cylinder engine and have the fastest car out there" route. They stuck with their formula going back as much as 34 years before the S2000 was launched.

    If there is one drawback TSX has today, it is from somewhat lack of power. Turbo charged I-4 (or V6 if possible) would address that, plus SH-AWD takes the game to whole another level where that power will actually be more meaningful. If it were solely about power, Accord can hold its own.

    BTW, Civic doesn't use Honda's global midsize platform. TSX uses that. Once again...
    -Economy Platform: Honda Fit
    -Compact Platform: Honda Civic, Acura CSX (basically a Civic).
    -Midsize Platform: Honda Accord, Acura TSX/TL/RL
    -Compact Light Truck Platform: Acura RDX, Honda CR-V
    -Midsize Light Truck Platform: Acura MDX, Honda Odyssey/Pilot/Ridgeline

    S2000 uses its own platform. There's the entire North American Honda/Acura lineup/platform for you.
  • danilodanilo Member Posts: 69
    TSX handles better that TL? What? Better Balance. 300 ponies will be hard to fit into the current TSX and stuffing that much engine will no doubt change the weight ratio which is why the TSX handles so well. SH-AWD could add some weight to the rear but will it be enough? I still do not see it as standard. Maybe an option. I agree RWD and sports sedans go hand and hand. Oh and a six cylinder vs a four as a rule(I'll get blasted for this) has a more useable torque curve and HP. Four's tend to work harder and need the rpm's way up. I have seen six's getting better MPG that four's
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I don't see Charger using a fastback roofline that 2008 Accord coupe does (as do several cars including Audi TT, 350Z, MB CLS, Ferrari 456GT and even Hyundai Tiburon which was lambasted as being a blatant copy of the Ferrari). The adoption of fastback roofline is about where similarities with Tiburon end, IMO. I don't see *any* similarity at the tail.
    In fact, from what I've seen in the pictures, the Accord Coupe is an edgier version of the Civic Coupe's rear end which is rounded off. Perhaps one of the attempt was to help perceive it as being less bloated (and stylists have definitely succeeded in that regard).

    I see glimpse of 1992-1995 Legend in 1999 TL, in the tail, including the tail lamp itself. I said that when the car first came out.

    Between 1996-98 TL, 2001-2002 CL and 2003-2007 Accord Coupe, the similarities are quite pronounced. Sure, the 1996-98 TL was boxier, but the design elements were still carried forward in the CL and the Accord. Something as subtle as a horizontal crease that runs along the trunk lid, and the overall shape of the tail lamps. Its not "identical", its similar.
Sign In or Register to comment.