Really, there is a core of people at TOV who would love for Honda to return to its former engine glory. Some complain, some don't. Some wait expectantly, some move on.
I've pointed it out many times, but Honda has missed out on close to $130-140k over the last decade or so because they weren't producing stuff I wanted. And mind you I wasn't buying extreme or unusual products that you wouldn't expect to find in a full-line automakers arsenal.
I'm still waiting. My S2000 reminds me every time I drive it how great Honda can be. But I can't say I've been disappointed in my dalliances with other brands. If anything I'm better educated and more aware of what I want.
If only the management had a clue at all. The ILX could have been made into an Integra/ILX replacement, and it would actually have a market for itself. Instead, they focused on some weird demographic group that doesn't seem to exist, and the car's initial sales pales in stark contrast to the FR-S/BRZ twins.
RWD based like the S2000 would have been even better, but an entry level sporty FWD Acura priced right ala Integra-ish audience would still sell much better than the overpriced and rather underwhelmingly unsporty ILX. How much does this ILX cost? How much does a FR-S/BRZ cost? Plus they even have 6-speed autos in those, and no wimpy junk like the R20.
adrianchew wrote: If only the management had a clue at all. The ILX could have been made into an Integra/ILX replacement, and it would actually have a market for itself. Instead, they focused on some weird demographic group that doesn't seem to exist, and the car's initial sales pales in stark contrast to the FR-S/BRZ twins.
RWD based like the S2000 would have been even better, but an entry level sporty FWD Acura priced right ala Integra-ish audience would still sell much better than the overpriced and rather underwhelmingly unsporty ILX. How much does this ILX cost? How much does a FR-S/BRZ cost? Plus they even have 6-speed autos in those, and no wimpy junk like the R20.
This really is the root of the problem. It begs the question "how many models is Honda going to produce for niches that just don't exist?"
The ironic thing is that they canned the RSX because it wasn't lustrous enough for their brand cache, so they cancelled it. Sales were also relatively low and decreasing, so this was another example of Honda cancelling a "slow selling" product that sold in droves compared to today's standard.
But get this, then they wait 6 years to introduce a car that has less standard HP, more standard weight, a softer setup, and unquestionably little advancement from the car they killed almost a decade ago. The only place the ILX is unquestionably superior is in feature content. Great. But it has still been basically a decade. Acura can say anything they want, but the reality is that they were hoping to cash in on the ~100,000 per year (peak value) customers that used to buy Integras and RSXs because they finally realized that those luxury intenders were no longer stepping up to other Acura product. Like it or not, the ILX's only purpose was to try and create a gateway for entry level luxury buyers into the Acura brand...you know, like the same thing the Integra/RSX did?
The funny part is that guys like Daniel will sit here and tell you until the end of time that Acura isn't after "those customers," they are focusing on some "Gen Y" demographic that doesn't want a car that is any faster than their 20 year old 300K+ 1990-93 Accord because they only care about features and the "environment." And yet, meanwhile, Toyota launches a car that is nearly as much, has less utility, and less feature content, and they are selling 3 for every one of Acura's 1 ILX... So if Daniel is right, then why do cars like the GTI, BRZ, FRS and several other "sporty" cars outsell the ILX by such a huge margin? But then they will tell you that it is a supply issue because there are "no cars on the lots." The problem with that is that there aren't any BR-Z's or FR-S's on the lots either in abundance, and while Acura might not have a lot of supply, not only is Scion in short supply, but they have a 5-6 month backlog in some cases, which is NOT something Acura can claim about the ILX. So why the discrepancy if the ILX is the car for the times?
I used to not worry about it because Honda typically didn't misfire twice on ANY product. But here they are getting ready to re-misfire on the RLX with a relatively under-powered, under-featured car that will be left to sell on its cheaper price.
The only answer to the above is... what we are doing is right because we have profits.
The whole issue is perfectly stated above by owe. Honda has not significantly raised the bar since friggin' 1997 IMO, and they have zero intention of correcting that. none. why? because we are making a profit, so we must be doing the right thing.
Everything is now "It's good because it is cheaper than a BMW." Leader in nothing, excelling in nothing.
That's perfectly fine for cars such as the Jazzes, Civs & Accords.
There is a sort of nagging cognitive dissonance, in that even the most optimistic projections see 20% of sales in the next decade being 'alternative propulsion' vehicles - including hybrids.
USP is great, but for example with the CR-Z, is it a logical fallacy to assume that by being alt. only, Honda is in effect denying itself 80% of its potential market?
AND that's before one even considers the success of a bespoke sports plank such as the Toyobaru. Although I've never quite seen how Honda COULD realistically improve on the S2000 (and I think the Toyobaru will suffer exactly the same dilemma - beware of making it too refined, or too big, or too powerful!) Honda did actually have a very good plank indeed and it was a success in the US at least. It seems such a waste.
But so too is producing these relatively 'easy' Acurized plank spin-offs that are so poorly received & selling (presumably) below break-even. Unless they really ARE that cheap to make...
And eventually, the anti-halo image WILL impinge on core Honda sales too. The EU market is suffering likewise.
adrianchew wrote: If only the management had a clue at all. The ILX could have been made into an Integra/ILX replacement, and it would actually have a market for itself. Instead, they focused on some weird demographic group that doesn't seem to exist, and the car's initial sales pales in stark contrast to the FR-S/BRZ twins.
RWD based like the S2000 would have been even better, but an entry level sporty FWD Acura priced right ala Integra-ish audience would still sell much better than the overpriced and rather underwhelmingly unsporty ILX. How much does this ILX cost? How much does a FR-S/BRZ cost? Plus they even have 6-speed autos in those, and no wimpy junk like the R20.
This really is the root of the problem. It begs the question "how many models is Honda going to produce for niches that just don't exist?"
The ironic thing is that they canned the RSX because it wasn't lustrous enough for their brand cache, so they cancelled it. Sales were also relatively low and decreasing, so this was another example of Honda cancelling a "slow selling" product that sold in droves compared to today's standard.
But get this, then they wait 6 years to introduce a car that has less standard HP, more standard weight, a softer setup, and unquestionably little advancement from the car they killed almost a decade ago. The only place the ILX is unquestionably superior is in feature content. Great. But it has still been basically a decade. Acura can say anything they want, but the reality is that they were hoping to cash in on the ~100,000 per year (peak value) customers that used to buy Integras and RSXs because they finally realized that those luxury intenders were no longer stepping up to other Acura product. Like it or not, the ILX's only purpose was to try and create a gateway for entry level luxury buyers into the Acura brand...you know, like the same thing the Integra/RSX did?
The funny part is that guys like Daniel will sit here and tell you until the end of time that Acura isn't after "those customers," they are focusing on some "Gen Y" demographic that doesn't want a car that is any faster than their 20 year old 300K+ 1990-93 Accord because they only care about features and the "environment." And yet, meanwhile, Toyota launches a car that is nearly as much, has less utility, and less feature content, and they are selling 3 for every one of Acura's 1 ILX... So if Daniel is right, then why do cars like the GTI, BRZ, FRS and several other "sporty" cars outsell the ILX by such a huge margin? But then they will tell you that it is a supply issue because there are "no cars on the lots." The problem with that is that there aren't any BR-Z's or FR-S's on the lots either in abundance, and while Acura might not have a lot of supply, not only is Scion in short supply, but they have a 5-6 month backlog in some cases, which is NOT something Acura can claim about the ILX. So why the discrepancy if the ILX is the car for the times?
I used to not worry about it because Honda typically didn't misfire twice on ANY product. But here they are getting ready to re-misfire on the RLX with a relatively under-powered, under-featured car that will be left to sell on its cheaper price.
I also feel sad to see the RSX/Integra go. Here are the sales figures of the RSX:
I think we can easily see a trend from the above numbers. I didn't include 2007 number because I think that's the year the production ended. The decline is definitely not due to the economy. Other cars within the Acura line-up were all very steady. I personally feel that decision to can the RSX came from Honda of Japan. The RSX was canned because it doesn't fit the tier-1 image is more of an excuse IMO. I mean there's some truth in it to be honest, as to some people it's more of a boy racer type of car. The 8g Civic Si can do the job just as well, if not better (at least it has LSD!). I remember reading somewhere that in Japan, young people weren't really into cars anymore. Sales of 2-door sporty coupes were declining. I feel this is the real reason.
I think it wasn't a big issue to Honda/Acura at that time to can the RSX. The economy was doing well, and they were thinking about tier-1 and all the FR, V8, V10 stuff. Obviously the economy tanked and none of the above happened. This ultimately led people to think Acura has no direction.
I believe the ILX originally was going to get the ED powertrains right away from launch. But the tsunami/earthquake stopped R&D for a while. I personally think Acura could've simply delayed the launch. Anyways, we are know that with ED, the ILX will be a more desirable car. I'm guessing 170hp, 165lbft of torque with 28/40mpg would be a good estimate of what we can expect for the base car. This should make the car quick enough for its market IMO.
I think the ~100,000 per year figure was from a long time ago. Looking at the RSX numbers, the closest was 2002, and that was not enough 1/4 of 100,000 per year. I don't really think Acura expects to sell 100,000 ILX's......
I personally don't mind the ILX, if it has the ED powertrains. It would be better if an ILX coupe is made. The 2.4 model also needs to be sportier.
Production of BRZ/86 started in March. It's a car destined for worldwide. It's a model co-developed with Subaru. I also think the Gunma plant is dedicated to produce BRZ and 86. The ILX started production later than march. The ILX is for North America only. The ILX is not co-developed with another manufacturer. And the ILX is produced on a Civic assembly line. I think the above are some plausible reasons the BRZ and 86 are doing better. Perhaps honda should also partner with someone else to develop a Honda BR-Z/86.
adrianchew wrote: If only the management had a clue at all. The ILX could have been made into an Integra/ILX replacement, and it would actually have a market for itself. Instead, they focused on some weird demographic group that doesn't seem to exist, and the car's initial sales pales in stark contrast to the FR-S/BRZ twins.
RWD based like the S2000 would have been even better, but an entry level sporty FWD Acura priced right ala Integra-ish audience would still sell much better than the overpriced and rather underwhelmingly unsporty ILX. How much does this ILX cost? How much does a FR-S/BRZ cost? Plus they even have 6-speed autos in those, and no wimpy junk like the R20.
This really is the root of the problem. It begs the question "how many models is Honda going to produce for niches that just don't exist?"
The ironic thing is that they canned the RSX because it wasn't lustrous enough for their brand cache, so they cancelled it. Sales were also relatively low and decreasing, so this was another example of Honda cancelling a "slow selling" product that sold in droves compared to today's standard.
But get this, then they wait 6 years to introduce a car that has less standard HP, more standard weight, a softer setup, and unquestionably little advancement from the car they killed almost a decade ago. The only place the ILX is unquestionably superior is in feature content. Great. But it has still been basically a decade. Acura can say anything they want, but the reality is that they were hoping to cash in on the ~100,000 per year (peak value) customers that used to buy Integras and RSXs because they finally realized that those luxury intenders were no longer stepping up to other Acura product. Like it or not, the ILX's only purpose was to try and create a gateway for entry level luxury buyers into the Acura brand...you know, like the same thing the Integra/RSX did?
The funny part is that guys like Daniel will sit here and tell you until the end of time that Acura isn't after "those customers," they are focusing on some "Gen Y" demographic that doesn't want a car that is any faster than their 20 year old 300K+ 1990-93 Accord because they only care about features and the "environment." And yet, meanwhile, Toyota launches a car that is nearly as much, has less utility, and less feature content, and they are selling 3 for every one of Acura's 1 ILX... So if Daniel is right, then why do cars like the GTI, BRZ, FRS and several other "sporty" cars outsell the ILX by such a huge margin? But then they will tell you that it is a supply issue because there are "no cars on the lots." The problem with that is that there aren't any BR-Z's or FR-S's on the lots either in abundance, and while Acura might not have a lot of supply, not only is Scion in short supply, but they have a 5-6 month backlog in some cases, which is NOT something Acura can claim about the ILX. So why the discrepancy if the ILX is the car for the times?
I used to not worry about it because Honda typically didn't misfire twice on ANY product. But here they are getting ready to re-misfire on the RLX with a relatively under-powered, under-featured car that will be left to sell on its cheaper price.
I also feel sad to see the RSX/Integra go. Here are the sales figures of the RSX:
I think we can easily see a trend from the above numbers. I didn't include 2007 number because I think that's the year the production ended. The decline is definitely not due to the economy. Other cars within the Acura line-up were all very steady. I personally feel that decision to can the RSX came from Honda of Japan. The RSX was canned because it doesn't fit the tier-1 image is more of an excuse IMO. I mean there's some truth in it to be honest, as to some people it's more of a boy racer type of car. The 8g Civic Si can do the job just as well, if not better (at least it has LSD!). I remember reading somewhere that in Japan, young people weren't really into cars anymore. Sales of 2-door sporty coupes were declining. I feel this is the real reason.
I think it wasn't a big issue to Honda/Acura at that time to can the RSX. The economy was doing well, and they were thinking about tier-1 and all the FR, V8, V10 stuff. Obviously the economy tanked and none of the above happened. This ultimately led people to think Acura has no direction.
I believe the ILX originally was going to get the ED powertrains right away from launch. But the tsunami/earthquake stopped R&D for a while. I personally think Acura could've simply delayed the launch. Anyways, we are know that with ED, the ILX will be a more desirable car. I'm guessing 170hp, 165lbft of torque with 28/40mpg would be a good estimate of what we can expect for the base car. This should make the car quick enough for its market IMO.
I think the ~100,000 per year figure was from a long time ago. Looking at the RSX numbers, the closest was 2002, and that was not enough 1/4 of 100,000 per year. I don't really think Acura expects to sell 100,000 ILX's......
I personally don't mind the ILX, if it has the ED powertrains. It would be better if an ILX coupe is made. The 2.4 model also needs to be sportier.
Production of BRZ/86 started in March. It's a car destined for worldwide. It's a model co-developed with Subaru. I also think the Gunma plant is dedicated to produce BRZ and 86. The ILX started production later than march. The ILX is for North America only. The ILX is not co-developed with another manufacturer. And the ILX is produced on a Civic assembly line. I think the above are some plausible reasons the BRZ and 86 are doing better. Perhaps honda should also partner with someone else to develop a Honda BR-Z/86.
A couple of points:
1) RSX sales were largely declining at that point because coupe sales in general were down. It was not a good time for "sporty" coupes, and cars like the SRT-4, WRX etc were changing people's perceptions about whether or not the car could be accepted by enthusiasts. I personally always preferred 4 doors for the extra utility, even if meant slightly more weight. I coveted the Accord Type R and Euro R, the M5, M3 sedans, and ultimately bought a 4 door Si over the coupe. I was more interested in character and fun to drive than number of doors or styling. I like hot rod wagons too, so I am probably in the minority, but the guys who just want fast will swing either way.
2) The RSX did poorly compared to the Integra because of a HUGE enthusiast backlash against the dumbing down of Honda's trademark class leading chassis. I know more than one enthusiast that walked on Honda because of such a seemingly simple thing. 5-7 years ago when people on here were talking about it, I didn't get it, and I didn't agree with them, but they were right. It was the beginning of the end for Honda enthusiasts, because it showed the new Honda was willing to dumb down the foundation of the product to save a few bucks. IMO, the unquestionable advance of the K series over the B series is the ONLY thing that saved that car (and later the 8th gen Si). I guess time will tell now that they are done pillaging what little bit of heritage they had left with a low-revving, low tech Si that still has the crappier suspension...
3) Tier 1 is a marketing term. On that note though, scrapping a whole chassis because you decide to change direction in the powertrain department was not only overkill, it was stupid. The cost had been absorbed, and all they really needed to do was to make the engines smaller. Maybe spend some time and money downsizing the car, or other incremental changes. Then, if the platform was scalable (like ANY modern platform should be), Acura wouldn't have any problems with their perception as an Accord. That is is issue #1. It would allowed for more optional HP if Honda had needed to or so chosen. Or they could have gone with smaller boosted engines, or implemented hybrid some other way, but every car from TSX size up would have had some options on how they wanted to go.
4) The 100K number is old, which is why I said peak (it happened somewhere in the Integra years IIRC). Still it is telling that Acura was able to sell a 7 year old platform at annual volumes exceeding almost the entire current Acura lineup, but now they can't even meet a modest projection of 1/5 that value. I get that the market has fragmented into niches, but not that badly. The 3 and the C class are BOTH managing to sell over 2x what Acura is moving in TSX's. The ILX can barely muster more sales than the about to be replaced A3 (which was a lame duck on introduction as well). The A4, CTS, ES and G are all selling at least 150% of the TSX. Yes, the TSX is cheaper than many, but size wise it is pretty close. So if the "cheaper" part actually works then how is that happening?
5) Also, no offense, but I think you are optimistic on your position of ED engines. First, I don't think it would have more than 160HP (which still only matches the lighter RSX of 11 years ago), but when the next lowest powered serious competitor is running roughly equal power to the 2.4 model (and far more torque), even 170HP is inadequate. The ILX needs a base of 180-200HP to even be able to be taken seriously. Even that is only going to last another couple years at best (rumors are the A3 will bring 220+HP to the game, and that doesn't include the S3 or RS3 that should also come). Ah, but then they can't control the HP they provide because they refuse to provide AWD or RWD, so now they are basically stuck at 200HP due to FWD limitations in a small luxury car that can't be unruly to drive.
Point blank, Acura painted themselves into a corner, and they deserve to reap what they sow. Daniel can now start to take solace in the fact that sales results and product status have reached the levels we said they would years ago, and now sales are slowly starting to reflect that relative to the market place.
What is even more telling (to add some relative perspective), is that Acura essentially showed no mechanical innovation after 1999-2000 and it has still taken well over a decade to get to the point where they are largely excepted as completely inferior to the competition. Such was the lead and the status they held amongst their customers...
I am not sure where this whole "boy racer" bullshit is coming from, but by the definition of the term "boy racer" from the likes of the Reverend Killjoy DanielGR, I can think of MANY brand elevating "boy racer" products.
The Corvette and Mustang are "boy racer" cars. They go fast, are cheap to own and are unquestionably enthusiast focused. I think they even both outsell the CR-Z... I KNOW the Mustang GT does.
Of course, hooligan cars like the RS5, M3 and AMG cars are also unquestionably "boy racer." Hell, look at cars like the AMG Black Edition models. Full carbon fiber body kits with flares, scoops, oversized tires etc? How the hell is that NOT boy racer? And where do Audi, MB and BMW stand in relation to Acura again? Oh that's right, Acura can't even get an invitation to the party.
How about cars like the Ferrari 599 GTO, upcoming F12, 458 Italia (and eventual performance models), Gallardo, Reventon, or 911 fall in? I am pretty sure they are all rather "boy racerish" and yet they clobber the image of Honda in the grand scheme. Even non-car people know what a Ferrari or Lamborghini is... Oh yeah, and some of those outsell the lame-ass CR-Z, even though they cost nearly 10-20x as much. How effing sad is that?
The reality is that Soichiro Honda was a "boy racer" and people like the Reverend Killjoy Danielgr have to try and politically twist the reality of history into something it never was to attempt to justify their completely brainwashed, green fed bullshit. He does after all need SOMETHING that he can help fabricate his nest of lies with. Soichiro had no problems with cars being made more efficient. But then again, he also was very clear about not having any problems with them being fun to own and appealing to "boy racers." He was at least as much of an enthusiast as anyone on this site, and he certainly would NOT have approved of people like Daniel trying to quash any dissent among the enthusiasts who supported the brand for many decades. He also viewed efficiency and "fun to drive" as symbiotic goals. He has been proven by history to be correct, as long as the efficiency isn't driven solely by inherently flawed and incorrect beliefs about the technology driving them (ahem, I am talking to you hybrids...)
So we need to get this Fast and Furious "boy racer" crap out of our heads now, because it is NOT representative of Honda's actual enthusiasts (in fact there were very few Hondas even in that movie).
To be fair, owequitit, there is a group of people within Honda who don't like the "boy racer" image that the modding culture has ascribed to Hondas. However accurate/inaccurate that may be, there is a perception that it is bad for the brand.
Yes, they made the Civic Nation commercials (which surprised the hell out of me because of 1. The fact that there is an element inside Honda that hates that sort of stuff and 2. I think it was a poor attempt to energize that consumer group), but I think that's an outlier.
There are plenty of people inside Honda who "get" the whole modding culture (I think Erik Berkman is one), but ask yourself this:
What do the Integra/RSX, the Prelude, the S2000 and the CRX all share in common?
Answer: Along with the Civic, they comprised the most modded cars in Honda/Acura's lineup. And they're all dead. Kind of makes you wonder about the dumbing down of the performance potential of the 9th gen.......
adrianchew wrote: If only the management had a clue at all. The ILX could have been made into an Integra/ILX replacement, and it would actually have a market for itself. Instead, they focused on some weird demographic group that doesn't seem to exist, and the car's initial sales pales in stark contrast to the FR-S/BRZ twins.
RWD based like the S2000 would have been even better, but an entry level sporty FWD Acura priced right ala Integra-ish audience would still sell much better than the overpriced and rather underwhelmingly unsporty ILX. How much does this ILX cost? How much does a FR-S/BRZ cost? Plus they even have 6-speed autos in those, and no wimpy junk like the R20.
This really is the root of the problem. It begs the question "how many models is Honda going to produce for niches that just don't exist?"
The ironic thing is that they canned the RSX because it wasn't lustrous enough for their brand cache, so they cancelled it. Sales were also relatively low and decreasing, so this was another example of Honda cancelling a "slow selling" product that sold in droves compared to today's standard.
But get this, then they wait 6 years to introduce a car that has less standard HP, more standard weight, a softer setup, and unquestionably little advancement from the car they killed almost a decade ago. The only place the ILX is unquestionably superior is in feature content. Great. But it has still been basically a decade. Acura can say anything they want, but the reality is that they were hoping to cash in on the ~100,000 per year (peak value) customers that used to buy Integras and RSXs because they finally realized that those luxury intenders were no longer stepping up to other Acura product. Like it or not, the ILX's only purpose was to try and create a gateway for entry level luxury buyers into the Acura brand...you know, like the same thing the Integra/RSX did?
The funny part is that guys like Daniel will sit here and tell you until the end of time that Acura isn't after "those customers," they are focusing on some "Gen Y" demographic that doesn't want a car that is any faster than their 20 year old 300K+ 1990-93 Accord because they only care about features and the "environment." And yet, meanwhile, Toyota launches a car that is nearly as much, has less utility, and less feature content, and they are selling 3 for every one of Acura's 1 ILX... So if Daniel is right, then why do cars like the GTI, BRZ, FRS and several other "sporty" cars outsell the ILX by such a huge margin? But then they will tell you that it is a supply issue because there are "no cars on the lots." The problem with that is that there aren't any BR-Z's or FR-S's on the lots either in abundance, and while Acura might not have a lot of supply, not only is Scion in short supply, but they have a 5-6 month backlog in some cases, which is NOT something Acura can claim about the ILX. So why the discrepancy if the ILX is the car for the times?
I used to not worry about it because Honda typically didn't misfire twice on ANY product. But here they are getting ready to re-misfire on the RLX with a relatively under-powered, under-featured car that will be left to sell on its cheaper price.
I also feel sad to see the RSX/Integra go. Here are the sales figures of the RSX:
I think we can easily see a trend from the above numbers. I didn't include 2007 number because I think that's the year the production ended. The decline is definitely not due to the economy. Other cars within the Acura line-up were all very steady. I personally feel that decision to can the RSX came from Honda of Japan. The RSX was canned because it doesn't fit the tier-1 image is more of an excuse IMO. I mean there's some truth in it to be honest, as to some people it's more of a boy racer type of car. The 8g Civic Si can do the job just as well, if not better (at least it has LSD!). I remember reading somewhere that in Japan, young people weren't really into cars anymore. Sales of 2-door sporty coupes were declining. I feel this is the real reason.
I think it wasn't a big issue to Honda/Acura at that time to can the RSX. The economy was doing well, and they were thinking about tier-1 and all the FR, V8, V10 stuff. Obviously the economy tanked and none of the above happened. This ultimately led people to think Acura has no direction.
I believe the ILX originally was going to get the ED powertrains right away from launch. But the tsunami/earthquake stopped R&D for a while. I personally think Acura could've simply delayed the launch. Anyways, we are know that with ED, the ILX will be a more desirable car. I'm guessing 170hp, 165lbft of torque with 28/40mpg would be a good estimate of what we can expect for the base car. This should make the car quick enough for its market IMO.
I think the ~100,000 per year figure was from a long time ago. Looking at the RSX numbers, the closest was 2002, and that was not enough 1/4 of 100,000 per year. I don't really think Acura expects to sell 100,000 ILX's......
I personally don't mind the ILX, if it has the ED powertrains. It would be better if an ILX coupe is made. The 2.4 model also needs to be sportier.
Production of BRZ/86 started in March. It's a car destined for worldwide. It's a model co-developed with Subaru. I also think the Gunma plant is dedicated to produce BRZ and 86. The ILX started production later than march. The ILX is for North America only. The ILX is not co-developed with another manufacturer. And the ILX is produced on a Civic assembly line. I think the above are some plausible reasons the BRZ and 86 are doing better. Perhaps honda should also partner with someone else to develop a Honda BR-Z/86.
A couple of points:
1) RSX sales were largely declining at that point because coupe sales in general were down. It was not a good time for "sporty" coupes, and cars like the SRT-4, WRX etc were changing people's perceptions about whether or not the car could be accepted by enthusiasts. I personally always preferred 4 doors for the extra utility, even if meant slightly more weight. I coveted the Accord Type R and Euro R, the M5, M3 sedans, and ultimately bought a 4 door Si over the coupe. I was more interested in character and fun to drive than number of doors or styling. I like hot rod wagons too, so I am probably in the minority, but the guys who just want fast will swing either way.
2) The RSX did poorly compared to the Integra because of a HUGE enthusiast backlash against the dumbing down of Honda's trademark class leading chassis. I know more than one enthusiast that walked on Honda because of such a seemingly simple thing. 5-7 years ago when people on here were talking about it, I didn't get it, and I didn't agree with them, but they were right. It was the beginning of the end for Honda enthusiasts, because it showed the new Honda was willing to dumb down the foundation of the product to save a few bucks. IMO, the unquestionable advance of the K series over the B series is the ONLY thing that saved that car (and later the 8th gen Si). I guess time will tell now that they are done pillaging what little bit of heritage they had left with a low-revving, low tech Si that still has the crappier suspension...
3) Tier 1 is a marketing term. On that note though, scrapping a whole chassis because you decide to change direction in the powertrain department was not only overkill, it was stupid. The cost had been absorbed, and all they really needed to do was to make the engines smaller. Maybe spend some time and money downsizing the car, or other incremental changes. Then, if the platform was scalable (like ANY modern platform should be), Acura wouldn't have any problems with their perception as an Accord. That is is issue #1. It would allowed for more optional HP if Honda had needed to or so chosen. Or they could have gone with smaller boosted engines, or implemented hybrid some other way, but every car from TSX size up would have had some options on how they wanted to go.
4) The 100K number is old, which is why I said peak (it happened somewhere in the Integra years IIRC). Still it is telling that Acura was able to sell a 7 year old platform at annual volumes exceeding almost the entire current Acura lineup, but now they can't even meet a modest projection of 1/5 that value. I get that the market has fragmented into niches, but not that badly. The 3 and the C class are BOTH managing to sell over 2x what Acura is moving in TSX's. The ILX can barely muster more sales than the about to be replaced A3 (which was a lame duck on introduction as well). The A4, CTS, ES and G are all selling at least 150% of the TSX. Yes, the TSX is cheaper than many, but size wise it is pretty close. So if the "cheaper" part actually works then how is that happening?
5) Also, no offense, but I think you are optimistic on your position of ED engines. First, I don't think it would have more than 160HP (which still only matches the lighter RSX of 11 years ago), but when the next lowest powered serious competitor is running roughly equal power to the 2.4 model (and far more torque), even 170HP is inadequate. The ILX needs a base of 180-200HP to even be able to be taken seriously. Even that is only going to last another couple years at best (rumors are the A3 will bring 220+HP to the game, and that doesn't include the S3 or RS3 that should also come). Ah, but then they can't control the HP they provide because they refuse to provide AWD or RWD, so now they are basically stuck at 200HP due to FWD limitations in a small luxury car that can't be unruly to drive.
Point blank, Acura painted themselves into a corner, and they deserve to reap what they sow. Daniel can now start to take solace in the fact that sales results and product status have reached the levels we said they would years ago, and now sales are slowly starting to reflect that relative to the market place.
What is even more telling (to add some relative perspective), is that Acura essentially showed no mechanical innovation after 1999-2000 and it has still taken well over a decade to get to the point where they are largely excepted as completely inferior to the competition. Such was the lead and the status they held amongst their customers...
1.) Yup, that's one of the reasons I mentioned - demand for coupes in general was declining. I only mentioned Japan because that's the country that I know for certain is not that interested in coupes. However, I have also noticed this trend in North America. Just like you, I'm not too into coupes as well. I like something with more practicality.
2.) I agree, the switch from front DW suspension to strut suspension was quite disappointing. When the DC5-R first came out, I remember reviews saying that it's only better on the smooth roads/tracks. Ultimately, it's a faster car than DC2-R, but the DC5-R became more mainstream than DC2 - it wasn't as raw.
3.) I think most people here agree that Honda overreacted in that whole tier-1/economy downturn saga.
4.) Honda/Acura Integra gotta be one of Honda's most successful products. It lasted for 8 years (94-01) and no it's not like the RL where only handful is being sold. That says how good the car was, really. There's no argument on that for sure. Unfortunately, that sort of car doesn't always get built all the time. For the TSX, it's been steady at selling around 2500-3000 copies a month since its introduction. It seems to be Honda is happy with that figure.
5.) No offence taken. Knowing Honda, perhaps you are right about 160hp! The RSX from 11 years ago was rated at 160hp under an older system I believe. It was later revised to 155hp. The power right now is an issue though, especially with the hybrid model. I don't think Acura with make a model that will compete with S3 or RS3 (which I don't agree from an enthusiast's point of view). With that said, a 220hp A3 might sound quite powerful. However, the current A3 is also heavier as a 2.0T Quattro model with DSG is at 3588lb. Take AWD out and save 200lb and you are still looking at 3400lb. If the weight doesn't change much for the next gen which is due to come out as a 2014 model, then it will be 400-500lb heavier than an ILX. The current A3 2.0T Quattro can do 0-60mph in 6.3s and 1/4 mile in 14.9@93mph, which puts it slightly faster than the ILX 2.4 6MT. The ILX 2.4 might get a slight power boost, while the new A3 will probably get 220hp as you've mentioned. The same performance gap might still exist, but the ILX will be cheaper (A loaded A3 can easily be over $40k as shown here: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2009-audi-a3-20t-quattro-short-take-road-test).
As for the boy racer thing, refer to notyper's post.
owequitit wrote: I am not sure where this whole "boy racer" bullshit is coming from.........so we need to get this Fast and Furious "boy racer" crap out of our heads now, because it is NOT representative of Honda's actual enthusiasts (in fact there were very few Hondas even in that movie).
"VTEC JUST KICKED IN YO!"
Some people are not really helping the case for Honda.
notyper wrote: To be fair, owequitit, there is a group of people within Honda who don't like the "boy racer" image that the modding culture has ascribed to Hondas. However accurate/inaccurate that may be, there is a perception that it is bad for the brand.
Yes, they made the Civic Nation commercials (which surprised the hell out of me because of 1. The fact that there is an element inside Honda that hates that sort of stuff and 2. I think it was a poor attempt to energize that consumer group), but I think that's an outlier.
There are plenty of people inside Honda who "get" the whole modding culture (I think Erik Berkman is one), but ask yourself this:
What do the Integra/RSX, the Prelude, the S2000 and the CRX all share in common?
Answer: Along with the Civic, they comprised the most modded cars in Honda/Acura's lineup. And they're all dead. Kind of makes you wonder about the dumbing down of the performance potential of the 9th gen.......
SC
Yeah, I know. And I guess being fairly big into the scene I just don't agree with it (I get revved on in my stock Si by more Nissans and Chevys than I ever did any Hondas). Even in my Accord, it was not usually the Honda guys instigating the fight. I have even had people yell out insults on my stock Honda when I have been driving the speed limit in the slow lane. I know you are aware of this, but the real solution to the problem would be for Honda to build a couple of cars that are so damn fast, it wouldn't matter if they had a wing on them because people would still think twice before pulling b.s. on them. IMO, Honda's choice to dumb down the cars has only made the matter worse, because the stigma hasn't gone away, but not it actually has a little bit of merit.
And I sincerely do hope Berkman fixes this, or at least helps drive the change.
But I am referring more to the people on here who suddenly follow the trend of calling anybody who doesn't like hybrids, AGW propaganda and cars that are faster than their 1980's counterparts as "boy racers."
So how about putting numbers on a new Acura Integra? Let's build a new Integra for 2016. Assembled in North America of mostly North American parts.
Features to be excluded:
- Leather interior
- AWD
- Dual-clutch, CVT, and automatic transmissions - manual shift only
- Navigation and DVD audio systems
- Any other why-tech the Integra didn't have.
Questions:
- What size?
- 3-door and 4-door? 5-door for the purist?
- 4-cylinder non-hybrid DOHC VTEC engine of what size?
- How much power? Torque?
- Weight?
- LEV? ULEV?
- MPG targets for 2016 regs?
- Power options standard or do you want wind-up windows and dealer installed A/C?
- Top-class, best-pick safety ratings?
- Sticker price?
- Projected yearly sales in the US?
- Average age of buyer? Male or female?
Build a business case and convince Honda to execute it. Develop a marketing/advertising plan. Find five of your friends who would say "yes, I would buy that." Convince Honda that this new Integra is what the ILX should have been. No one here has anything to lose with this so tell Honda to do it and why. I'd actually like to buy a new Integra myself.
i don't want to throw cold water here though. What I'm kidding, yes, I do.
Cold facts. Bore x stroke,
K20's ...... 86 mm x 86 mm
R20A ...... 81 mm x 96.9 mm
K24 ........ 87 mm x 99 mm
I believe K20s' block has been retired(for good).
Your only hope is they'd use a regular head and header with a catalytic converter positioned a bit farther away instead of the integrated manifold, though its redline still be limited to 7,190rpm.
I'll play along Grace141. Two options - easy and hard.
First option - easy:
Engine - K22. Use existing K24 block as is. Dust off the casting and machining tools for the F22 crankshaft. Redesign the snout. You can use existing K24 piston designs, just make sure the rods are right. For the head, use the 2006 TSX K24 head. Put in the right cams, a good header and voila - 230-240 hp and 165 lbs-ft of torque - easy, and it would rev to 8000 rpm. In reality, 250/170 or more is possible, but we know Honda will be conservative.
Transmission - Take the LSD equipped trans out of the Si and that's it.
Suspension - Give us something a little stiffer than the standard ILX setup. Just revise the damping, springs and swaybars. No need for a whole new setup.
That's it. Done. And I guarantee you this would have gotten a lot more positive attention for the ILX, and I don't think it would have needed to cost more than $30k to make a profit. Fuel economy should be about the same, or even better, than the current ILX K24. Emissions might drop down a tier. And you don't need to change the interior at all.
The more complex approach would cost more.
- Same K22 engine and LSD transmission.
- Downspec the interior from leather to a more suede/alcantara like setup. Save a few bucks, plus more appropriate for a sporty car.
- Upgrade the suspension to a higher quality damper setup. Ideally a magnetorheological setup. Could be optional. Cost about $1500 extra.
- Bigger wheels and brakes. 18"x8" wheels, 235-245 section width tires, use the TL spec calipers and rotors up front, upgrade to a 12" rotor in the rear. Figure another $1500 to the price.
$33k-$34k list price all up, but would be pretty killer for what you get and about as far as you could go FWD. But I'd take that over an basic A4 2.0T any day. It would also be a viable sporty option vs. an entry G37 (which wouldn't be too much faster since it weighs 700 lbs more). If you cut out the MR shocks you could bring the price down under $33k.
Even with my prediliction for RWD these days, I'd have to think hard about a car like this. A real sport/luxury ride with a serious performance bent. I'd forgive all the tortoise like hybrids in the world if they put out these sorts of top line models. Think about it, wouldn't you pay a premium for this sort of setup over a Mazdaspeed3 ($27k optioned up) or a top line GTI?
And yes, a 3-door hatch would be cool, but they don't sell, and I wouldn't expect it as it wouldn't add anything to brand image. I'd also spread this engine downrange (slightly detuned to say 220 hp) to the Si to help with costs.
Notyper, both of your options look pretty good. $30k US for Option A and $34k for Option B sure seem to be in the ballpark for where such Acuras would need to be priced. I'm not sure what to think about the 3-door option - it might sell but it might tank as well. Such a car just can't be ugly and it must be light weight.
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
