|
|
|
|
 |
Carmissimo
 |
|
So has Honda turned its back on driving enthusiasts in the Acura line?
The RSX is RIP. The TSX is less sporty, more previous gen Accord.
The RDX is too inefficient and in the flesh is not a very sporty looking package. It's too bulky for its own good and in the face of dramatically escalating fuel costs a vehicle doomed to suffer through steadily declining sales. Also, at $41,400 here in Canada, it's a little on the pricey side for someone looking for a fun-to-drive product with some utility.
In short, if you don't want to spend beyond a certain point and you want a fun car, cross Acura off your shopping list.
As a former Integra owner I'm saddened by this change of direction. I would have liked to have returned to the Acura fold but it looks like buyers with my tastes and budget concerns are no longer welcome.
I could have stretched my budget to afford a TSX but it sure doesn't sound to me like I should bother. A bulkier, less engaging car, no matter how capable in other areas simply doesn't have any appeal to me.
If building refined but boring cars is Acura's idea of what it means to be a Tier 1 automaker, that's a real shame. All I can say is good luck to them and thanks for the memories.
|
HondaMotorCo007
|
|
Carmissimo wrote:
So has Honda turned its back on driving enthusiasts in the Acura line?
The RSX is RIP. The TSX is less sporty, more previous gen Accord.
The RDX is too inefficient and in the flesh is not a very sporty looking package. It's too bulky for its own good and in the face of dramatically escalating fuel costs a vehicle doomed to suffer through steadily declining sales. Also, at $41,400 here in Canada, it's a little on the pricey side for someone looking for a fun-to-drive product with some utility.
In short, if you don't want to spend beyond a certain point and you want a fun car, cross Acura off your shopping list.
As a former Integra owner I'm saddened by this change of direction. I would have liked to have returned to the Acura fold but it looks like buyers with my tastes and budget concerns are no longer welcome.
I could have stretched my budget to afford a TSX but it sure doesn't sound to me like I should bother. A bulkier, less engaging car, no matter how capable in other areas simply doesn't have any appeal to me.
If building refined but boring cars is Acura's idea of what it means to be a Tier 1 automaker, that's a real shame. All I can say is good luck to them and thanks for the memories.
|
You know what? Get off this site. All you posts have been negative ever since you started posting on vtec.net. You only have to state that you dislike acura/honda once. Quit taking up space on every thread writing things you don't even know.
First of all you haven't test driven any of the cars you criticize above. Second, if you don't like Acura or Honda move on!!!!!! Go to toyota or some other company Honda doesn't need you. It hurts you to see Acura on the rise. MDX has been a success, RDX was hit hard due to its i-4, a v6 would have been beneficial. Have you heard that a RWD RL will be here with a v8 in 2010? Once that hits i'll be laughing at you in your falling apart cheap and ugly Nissan Maxima.
Even jeff says a more powerful version is in the works.
I think this is Acura's plan:
-TSX FWD 201HP i-4, Diesel
-TSX FWD Sport (Package) v6 w/290 HP and sports suspension.
-TL RWD v6 320HP
-TL AWD v6 320HP
-RL RWD v6/v8 360HP/420HP
-RL AWD v8 420HP
|
Carmissimo
|
|
Honda a like a lot. The Civic is an excellent car and I'm expecting more of the same from the Fit. I also think the Accord coupe is a marvelous-looking car.
In fact, it's not even a case of disliking the styling of the new TSX or any of Acura's products per se (the RDX doesn't do it for me but you can't win 'em all).
What I lament is the direction Honda has decided to take with Acura. I was hoping for a little more BMW, not more Lexus/Cadilac.
Oh well, they're entitled to go in whatever direction they like. Consumers will choose as they see fit and we'll go from there.
|
Carmissimo
|
|
By the way, I have never owned a Nissan and probably never will.
I went from Chrysler to Acura to Lexus and now Toyota.
My next move, it's beginning to look like, will be Honda. I'd rather Acura because the service was outstanding, certainly better and less costly than what I have gotten from Toyota, but I'm no longer a customer that Honda is interested in selling an Acura to. On three occasions I was but those were different times, it seems.
I hope Honda service is decent enough because I suspect that's where I'm headed.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
Ever heard of the TL-S? The car that has beaten both IS350 and G35S at Willow Springs by 2 seconds when driven by a professional driver?
It's sad to see the RSX is gone...but it's hard to move to tier 1 if the street racer image is there right? If you like that kind of car, the Civic Si is a great choice IMO. And I believe you are going that way too?
Also, the RDX, when you sit inside one, you will know why it costs $41k CAD. Of course, if that's not what you are looking for, then you will obviously think it's overpriced. Just like how I feel Mercedes or BMW's are overpriced, but to others, they are a bargain.
|
danielgr
|
|
Carmissimo wrote:
So has Honda turned its back on driving enthusiasts in the Acura line?
The RSX is RIP. The TSX is less sporty, more previous gen Accord.
The RDX is too inefficient and in the flesh is not a very sporty looking package. It's too bulky for its own good and in the face of dramatically escalating fuel costs a vehicle doomed to suffer through steadily declining sales. Also, at $41,400 here in Canada, it's a little on the pricey side for someone looking for a fun-to-drive product with some utility.
In short, if you don't want to spend beyond a certain point and you want a fun car, cross Acura off your shopping list.
As a former Integra owner I'm saddened by this change of direction. I would have liked to have returned to the Acura fold but it looks like buyers with my tastes and budget concerns are no longer welcome.
I could have stretched my budget to afford a TSX but it sure doesn't sound to me like I should bother. A bulkier, less engaging car, no matter how capable in other areas simply doesn't have any appeal to me.
If building refined but boring cars is Acura's idea of what it means to be a Tier 1 automaker, that's a real shame. All I can say is good luck to them and thanks for the memories.
|
The one thing I don't get is why people keep on trying so hard on Acura to make cars for enthusiasts. They may have made a few "mistakes" in the past, like when the Integra turned out to be an Acura, but "Acura is Honda's luxury brand".
There is a good reason why they got rid of the Integra (with the TypeR), why the RSX was more luxury and less enthusiastic, why it was recently drop out of the mix and replaced by an CUV.
I may have a strange miss-conception of an enthusiast or about a driving experience but to me, if there is anything that opposes "a driver's car", that's "luxury". The only common thing between a sports car and a luxury one, is that both are more expensive that regular ones, but the money is set in very different points, since all the money you'd use for any luxury you won't be able to put it in performance.
As always recently with TOV, I just think you people keep on asking for something that it's not to be. You want a light-nimble fast sedan with a high-reving 4, you've got the Civic Si, which is way more of a drivers car than a TSX. You want a luxo-entry car with very nice road-manners and reasonable amounts of driving fun, the TSX has that for you.
|
Carmissimo
|
|
I guess I just need to adjust my expectations in regards to Acura and shop Honda instead or consider the premium brands that do cater to potential buyers who are looking for significant driving pleasure to go with their premium quality.
I do have to say that the quality of the current Civic and, I'm hoping, the soon-to-arrive second-gen Fit is such that it makes having to settle, as it were, for a Honda instead of going with an Acura will not be such a bad thing.
I found it rather revealing, also, that trading down from an IS 300 to the Echo hatchback was amazingly not the painful experience that I thought it would be.
To Honda's credit, the Civic is significantly more appealing than the Corolla. I recently tried out the 2009 Corolla and didn't find it to be much more engaging than the previous version. I still find the '05 Echo to be way more fun to drive. There's just something about a smaller car that inherently makes it feel more like what I'm looking for.
I don't know if from a business perspective Honda is making a wise move to refocus as it's doing. I do know, though, that that change in focus translates to me taking Acura off my shopping list.
By the way, in regards to the RDX, I think my comments were misunderstood. I'm not saying the RDX is overpriced for what it is. What I'm saying is that the list price combined with the cost of fueling up the vehicle makes for an unappealing package to someone with a certain budget upper limit. I'm disappointed if in fact the TSX is not being directed at people who want a particular driving experience because that car checked in at a price point that I was willing to consider. And the other day I pulled up alongside an RDX on the road and frankly the exterior appearance of the vehicle just didn't appeal to me. A little too much truck for my tastes.
I really liked what the old Acura was doing, I guess, and with such a dramatic shift in product mix and focus, it's inevitable that I would tend to be less enthusiastic with what is happening now.
|
JeffX
|
|
danielgr wrote:
Carmissimo wrote:
So has Honda turned its back on driving enthusiasts in the Acura line?
The RSX is RIP. The TSX is less sporty, more previous gen Accord.
The RDX is too inefficient and in the flesh is not a very sporty looking package. It's too bulky for its own good and in the face of dramatically escalating fuel costs a vehicle doomed to suffer through steadily declining sales. Also, at $41,400 here in Canada, it's a little on the pricey side for someone looking for a fun-to-drive product with some utility.
In short, if you don't want to spend beyond a certain point and you want a fun car, cross Acura off your shopping list.
As a former Integra owner I'm saddened by this change of direction. I would have liked to have returned to the Acura fold but it looks like buyers with my tastes and budget concerns are no longer welcome.
I could have stretched my budget to afford a TSX but it sure doesn't sound to me like I should bother. A bulkier, less engaging car, no matter how capable in other areas simply doesn't have any appeal to me.
If building refined but boring cars is Acura's idea of what it means to be a Tier 1 automaker, that's a real shame. All I can say is good luck to them and thanks for the memories.
|
The one thing I don't get is why people keep on trying so hard on Acura to make cars for enthusiasts. They may have made a few "mistakes" in the past, like when the Integra turned out to be an Acura, but "Acura is Honda's luxury brand".
There is a good reason why they got rid of the Integra (with the TypeR), why the RSX was more luxury and less enthusiastic, why it was recently drop out of the mix and replaced by an CUV.
I may have a strange miss-conception of an enthusiast or about a driving experience but to me, if there is anything that opposes "a driver's car", that's "luxury". The only common thing between a sports car and a luxury one, is that both are more expensive that regular ones, but the money is set in very different points, since all the money you'd use for any luxury you won't be able to put it in performance.
As always recently with TOV, I just think you people keep on asking for something that it's not to be. You want a light-nimble fast sedan with a high-reving 4, you've got the Civic Si, which is way more of a drivers car than a TSX. You want a luxo-entry car with very nice road-manners and reasonable amounts of driving fun, the TSX has that for you.
|
The problem is that Acura set the expectations by saying they're going to focus on premium performance, targeting BMW and Audi's typical audience while leaving the luxury market to Lexus and Mercedes, so people have gotten their hopes up.
|
danielgr
|
|
Jeff wrote:
danielgr wrote:
Carmissimo wrote:
So has Honda turned its back on driving enthusiasts in the Acura line?
The RSX is RIP. The TSX is less sporty, more previous gen Accord.
The RDX is too inefficient and in the flesh is not a very sporty looking package. It's too bulky for its own good and in the face of dramatically escalating fuel costs a vehicle doomed to suffer through steadily declining sales. Also, at $41,400 here in Canada, it's a little on the pricey side for someone looking for a fun-to-drive product with some utility.
In short, if you don't want to spend beyond a certain point and you want a fun car, cross Acura off your shopping list.
As a former Integra owner I'm saddened by this change of direction. I would have liked to have returned to the Acura fold but it looks like buyers with my tastes and budget concerns are no longer welcome.
I could have stretched my budget to afford a TSX but it sure doesn't sound to me like I should bother. A bulkier, less engaging car, no matter how capable in other areas simply doesn't have any appeal to me.
If building refined but boring cars is Acura's idea of what it means to be a Tier 1 automaker, that's a real shame. All I can say is good luck to them and thanks for the memories.
|
The one thing I don't get is why people keep on trying so hard on Acura to make cars for enthusiasts. They may have made a few "mistakes" in the past, like when the Integra turned out to be an Acura, but "Acura is Honda's luxury brand".
There is a good reason why they got rid of the Integra (with the TypeR), why the RSX was more luxury and less enthusiastic, why it was recently drop out of the mix and replaced by an CUV.
I may have a strange miss-conception of an enthusiast or about a driving experience but to me, if there is anything that opposes "a driver's car", that's "luxury". The only common thing between a sports car and a luxury one, is that both are more expensive that regular ones, but the money is set in very different points, since all the money you'd use for any luxury you won't be able to put it in performance.
As always recently with TOV, I just think you people keep on asking for something that it's not to be. You want a light-nimble fast sedan with a high-reving 4, you've got the Civic Si, which is way more of a drivers car than a TSX. You want a luxo-entry car with very nice road-manners and reasonable amounts of driving fun, the TSX has that for you.
|
The problem is that Acura set the expectations by saying they're going to focus on premium performance, targeting BMW and Audi's typical audience while leaving the luxury market to Lexus and Mercedes, so people have gotten their hopes up.
|
I wouldn't say an Audi follows my ideal of a driver's car...
That said,
- Have you driven back to back a 200Hp A4 vs. this TSX Jeff?
- Have you driven it against a 200Hp 3-series?
Would you say this TSX is more Lexus/Benz or BMW/Audi?
The 3-series still belong to one-gen earlier cars, now let's have a look at what Audi is doing (since they just released their new A4) and think about the major complaints I've read over here.
US specs are yet to be released, but I would bet on them simply using their 2.0 TFSI engine instead of the European 1.8L. What is Audi offering then?:
Size
OldA4 : 4,586mm - 1,766mm - 1428mm
OldTSX : 4666mm - 1762mm - 1455mm
New-A4: 4703mm - 1806mm - 1427mm
NewTSX : 4715mm - 1840mm - 1440mm
Powertrain configuration
Audi : FWD/AWD (any enthusiast wants it for 200Hp?)
TSX : FWD
Weight. I don't have US spec for the new A4, and I don't have EU spec for the TSX, so I'll use the US versions with the current A4 (which is smaller than the new one).
Audi (2.0T) : 3428 lb (6MT) / 3450 lb (CVT)
Audi (3.2V6) : 3646 lb (6MT_only4WD) / 3571 (CVT-FWD)
TSX : 3419 (6MT) / 3481 (5AT)
Engine choices.
EU_newA4:
Gas: 1.8T4 (120Hp), 1.8T4 (160Hp), 3.2V6 (265Hp)_only with 4WD.
Diesel: 2.0TDI (143Hp), 2.7TDi (190Hp), 3.0TDi (240Hp)_only with 4WD.
US_currentA4
2.0T4 (200Hp), 3.2V6 (255Hp)
Clearly the TSX engine line-up is still incomplete, but take it 12 months from now, and you should have:
EU_Accord
Gas: 2.0L (155-160Hp), 2.4L (200Hp)
Diesel: 2.2L (150Hp), 2.2L (around 180Hp)
TSX
Gas: 2.4 I4 (201Hp), 3.0/3.2L V6 (your own guess Jeff)
Diesel: 2.2L (around 180Hp)
Now, I don't know how do you guys look at this, but to me, they offer basically equivalent packages, both in powertrain configurations, engine choices (you've said yourself that a higher Hp TSX is coming within 12months Jeff), trends (wider, bigger cars), etc. It's normal, they both fight for the same segment: "luxury/premium-sport" sedans, which shouldn't be the type of car that a so called "enthusiast" want.
But anyway, these are simple facts, you are the only person I've talked to that has driven the TSX. I'll be glad if you have the opportunity to drive a new A4 and you share your impressions with us Jeff. Is it true that the TSX became a fat uninspiring cow next to the competition? Or is it simply that Honda is building a luxury-performance car and what you'd love to drive is a JDM Civic Type R?
|
coldbivy
|
|
Danielgr,
I've driven the 08 A4 back to back with an 07 TSX and I must say that the difference in engine performance is very noticable; maybe not quite dramatic, but close. The A4 pulls much more strongly across its power band. The Audi will trounce the TSX from a dead stop. Audi is promising to up the power on the 09 so the difference may get a little bigger.
Plus, most Audis sold in my region (Colorado) are Quattros, so the Audi was a little heavier and I did notice the different handling feel with AWD. Surprisingly, the other big thing I noticed was that the turning radius was much smaller.
One thing to note is that my test drive was at 5000 ft, so I suspect that the Audi is still making 200hp due to the turbo compensating for the lower air pressure and the TSX is probably making 10% less than its rated power (187?) due to the elevation.
|
Carmissimo
|
|
From my perspective, if the TSX is a quality product that doesn't stand out in terms of driving dynamics, that makes it an unremarkable vehicle. There are simply too many models out there that deliver as much. Increasingly even the base cars from the good manufacturers like Honda and Toyota have achieved levels of comfort and quality that 20 years ago were the exclusive domain of the high-end name plates and other manufacturers' most expensive offerings.
Honda opened a lot of eyes back in the 1980s when they launched the Acura brand. Prior to that point no one was seriously making a comparison between Japanese products from companies like Honda and the then-overpriced offerings from the likes of BMW and Mercedes. It was Honda's way of saying, in effect, "Hey, look at what we can do. Take us seriously."
It was an ingenious marketing ploy and it was wildly successful. It transformed the automotive market on these shores to a degree that I think a lot of us have forgotten.
But what now?
To me, turning away from younger buyers looking for performance and quality at an affordable price, suggests that Honda has no long-range plans for the Acura brand. Why would they? The exercise has accomplished the goal that Honda had for it, namely convincing consumers to take Japanese products seriously.
All keeping the brand does now is make operating more expensive because they have to do all that tweaking to justify the Acura nameplate. In other markets, if I'm not mistaken, there is no Acura. In Europe, for example, the Accord, which we know as the TSX, has been positioned as a direct competitor to the BMW 3 Series of cars. Over there they don't have to be told it's an Acura to make that comparison.
But here's the problem that I see for Honda. How do you pull the plug on Acura without making it seem like a colossal failure? I would say you would do it with extreme caution and very, very slowly. That's what I believe is happening. Yes the Integra (RSX) was killed off for the rest of the world but if Honda could justify a Canada-exclusive CSX and the RDX, surely a popular product like the Integra could have been justified if built only for these shores. Yet the Integra was allowed to disappear, even though it was an effective gateway product. Now the TSX, rather than be tweaked relative to the Euro Accord to continue as a sportier, nimbler alternative to the American Accord, has become more like the U.S. Accord, even weighing more.
It seems to me that there really isn't a lot of point to having two separate nameplates for Honda's products. It's not happening in other markets and I suspect, now, that Honda wishes it could find a way to undo this situation here in this market as well.
If I had to guess, I'd say the next logical step for Honda would be to phase out separate dealerships selling exclusively Acura products. Over several years they could relocate those Acura showrooms attaching them to Honda dealerships or going the other way for that matter.
Consider, too, where Honda is going with the TSX/Accord. There is no point to having two versions of the car when the Euro Accord has grown and the demand for a larger vehicle like the four-door U.S. Accord is likely to wane as a result of rising fuel costs. The TSX stood out from the Accord in that it was a more engaging car to drive. I haven't driven either so I can't say this for a fact but my suspicion is that driving these cars back-to-back now would really drive home the fact that they are pretty much the same car. The dash is similarly themed and it's pretty much a given that the cars will have a very similar feel in that they are made by the same company. An Acura by any other name is still a Honda. The 2.4L in the TSX is more powerful but not that much more especially in comparison to the 2.4L in the coupe which gets a significant HP boost.
Does the TSX, once the current design runs its course, go the way of the Integra (RSX)? I suspect the answer is probably yes in that there will likely only be one Accord for all markets.
So is Acura a justifiable standalone brand with a couple of SUVs and two high-end sedans, one of which is struggling rather badly since its days of great popularity back when it was known as the Legend. I think the answer is a resounding No.
Now all Honda has to do is figure out how to wind this thing down without having it turn into a PR nightmare. Honestly I don't see how else this can go, at least based on what has transpired in recent years and is likely to in the next few years.
|
klui_188
|
|
I see where you're coming from but at this point it's still a little far-fetched that Honda would fold Acura and run with its tail between its legs...
As much of a disappointment as you (well; include me for that matter) claim Acura is, it is still financially a decent brand (or a division to Honda) that's making headways in public's minds (mostly people who are not enthusiasts like you, me and other people on this board but rather people who aspire to own a luxury brand but don't want to pay the kind of premium that those German marques typically command, and have better reliability, lower maintenance cost, etc.). At least they are not Lincoln/Mercury or Chrysler. Look at those; sometimes I wonder how those executives in Detroit can keep on fooling their employees thinking they're making great products that are flying off the assembly lines & yet the employees actually are buying the BS (you should've seen those internal news letters.... appalling at best). Cadillac used to be that but GM has put in a genuine effort to pull Cadillac out of its grave. It's now on its way to become truly competitive against the German marques.
Make no mistake, they (Acura) are aiming to become tier 1! But the question is: what is their ultimate goal as a tier 1 player? Relentless Pursuit of Luxury (Lexus)? Ultimate Driving Machine (BMW)? Luxury at all Cost (MB)? Sports Luxury (Audi)? As of now it's not clear on what they aspire to become yet? & with the latest news of their FMC (TSX) & MMC (RL) products, it looks like they're ready to shrug off the enthusiasts (whom helped creat the phenomenon in the late 80's) in their quest of becoming tier 1 player. Maybe their plan is just that until they get there then they'll re-infuse some sportiness back into their line-up, presumably with the new V10 500bhp halo car hoping to win us back by then... ??
|
Carmissimo
|
|
Here's the thing. For any brand to succeed in the long run, it has to appeal to buyers from age groups ranging from the up-and-coming youth to older buyers who have arrived and have tons of money to spend.
It's not enough to let Honda take care of younger buyers (or those young at heart like me at age 52) and to expect they will shift over to Acura when they get older and richer. For one thing, Honda is professing to want to distance Acura from Honda and if it did succeed, along the lines of the relationship of Audi to Volkswagen, there would be something of a disconnect between the Honda and Acura brands.
As such, to be a viable long-term "Tier 1" brand, whatever that means exactly, Acura would have to serve the younger more adventuresome segment of the available customer base. Get 'em while they're young, if you will, and develop brand loyalty. For the longest time, Acura was in fact trying to do that. But now, the Integra is dead. The TSX is morphing to the point where I see a convergence in the next re-design between it and the North American Accord (How big can Honda go? The market for an even bigger car than the current Accord just isn't going to be there in five years). Unless Acura has some tricks up its sleeve, we're looking at a brand soon to be consisting of two sizes of SUV, a large luxury sedan and an even larger luxury sedan.
Cadillac is an example of what happens when you turn into a brand for older folk. The past few years the company has courted a younger demographic and it has revitalized the brand. I do see Acura operating much like Cadillac does in relation to Chevrolet, i.e. within the same dealer network as Honda, but I don't see it being an Audi or BMW, truly standing apart from Honda.
The good news is that Honda's cars just keep on getting better. Maybe I'm no longer considering Acura (unless I decide to look at the CSX before it, too, disappears) but that doesn't mean I have given up on Acura's parent company. Honda still makes the best cars on the market in my opinion. Toyota's products are as reliable and even more durable, yes, but many of them are also far more boring. Other carmakers make decent products, sure, but they are a notch or two below.
I guess I'm just feeling a little saddened by the demise of the Acura that I once knew and enjoyed doing business with.
|
Carmissimo
|
|
By the way, in regards to the halo car, what's the point if you don't offer a sporty and more importantly affordable product that the average consumer can seriously consider buying.
All that would do is create a showroom where sales reps could proudly point out, "We've got this SUV, this even bigger SUV, this sports/luxury sedan, this even bigger sports/luxury sedan and, oh, ya, over here a 500 HP monster of a sports car."
|
see_ping
|
|
Does this review of the new TSX really show that it's not a driver's car anymore? From reading the review, the message I got is that the new one is more refined and more luxurious, but also has a wider track that will definitely help handling. Sure, it's not quite as sporty or tossable as the previous TSX, but that doesn't mean it's not sporty or doesn't handle well anymore. Remember the 3-series before the last one? It was more edgy and perhaps lighter than the current and last generation 3-series, but they had to change it anyways to become more luxurious, with a better ride, which we know was for the better in terms of sales. After a while, though, I rarely heard anyone complain that the 3-series lost its good handling. I drive a Protege right now and it handles pretty well for an economy car, but the new Mazda 3 is a lot heavier and less tossable, but it's still a step in the right direction. Perhaps in the direction of being more Germanic in it's feel, solidity, and comfort. My apologies, however, for having never driven all the 3-series generations, so I'm merely re-telling what I read about the 3-series over the years.
|
NealX
|
|
Well said, Carmissimo.
Carmissimo wrote:
Here's the thing. For any brand to succeed in the long run, it has to appeal to buyers from age groups ranging from the up-and-coming youth to older buyers who have arrived and have tons of money to spend.
It's not enough to let Honda take care of younger buyers (or those young at heart like me at age 52) and to expect they will shift over to Acura when they get older and richer. For one thing, Honda is professing to want to distance Acura from Honda and if it did succeed, along the lines of the relationship of Audi to Volkswagen, there would be something of a disconnect between the Honda and Acura brands.
As such, to be a viable long-term "Tier 1" brand, whatever that means exactly, Acura would have to serve the younger more adventuresome segment of the available customer base. Get 'em while they're young, if you will, and develop brand loyalty. For the longest time, Acura was in fact trying to do that. But now, the Integra is dead. The TSX is morphing to the point where I see a convergence in the next re-design between it and the North American Accord (How big can Honda go? The market for an even bigger car than the current Accord just isn't going to be there in five years). Unless Acura has some tricks up its sleeve, we're looking at a brand soon to be consisting of two sizes of SUV, a large luxury sedan and an even larger luxury sedan.
Cadillac is an example of what happens when you turn into a brand for older folk. The past few years the company has courted a younger demographic and it has revitalized the brand. I do see Acura operating much like Cadillac does in relation to Chevrolet, i.e. within the same dealer network as Honda, but I don't see it being an Audi or BMW, truly standing apart from Honda.
The good news is that Honda's cars just keep on getting better. Maybe I'm no longer considering Acura (unless I decide to look at the CSX before it, too, disappears) but that doesn't mean I have given up on Acura's parent company. Honda still makes the best cars on the market in my opinion. Toyota's products are as reliable and even more durable, yes, but many of them are also far more boring. Other carmakers make decent products, sure, but they are a notch or two below.
I guess I'm just feeling a little saddened by the demise of the Acura that I once knew and enjoyed doing business with.
|
|
Carmissimo
|
|
It has occured to me, after listening to Dick Colliver during the TSX introduction talking about rising gas prices, why Acura is OK with making the TSX a little less sporty, larger and more luxurious.
I think that Acura sees the TSX as taking over for the TL as Acura's volume "sports" sedan. Even in the near-luxury segment buyers are going to be factoring fuel consumption in more than they used to and that means a percentage of potential TL buyers considering the TSX as an alternative.
Certainly now that the car is roomier, it does make sense, as does Honda's decision to give the car a more useful torque range in that such a change would tend to make the car seem a lot more like it has a 6 under the hood and not a high-performance 4. The current Tl does about 18 miles to the gallon in the city and 26 highway. The TSX will be checking in at around 20 city/30 highway. That's certainly substantial enough to prompt many buyers to try out the TSX to see if it does the trick.
All the changes in the TSX are directed, it seems to me, to making the typical TL buyer feel more at home.
The other hint that shifting buyers from the TL to the TSX is what Acura has in mind is the fact that Colliver said something to the effect that Acura is expecting a dramatic increase in sales. That only happens if the car canabalizes some TL sales, in my opinion.
But with the TSX becoming more TL-like, it does leave a void in the Acura line of cars, one the RDX just doesn't fill very well, in my view.
|
klui_188
|
|
Second that!
Neal wrote:
Well said, Carmissimo.
Carmissimo wrote:
Here's the thing. For any brand to succeed in the long run, it has to appeal to buyers from age groups ranging from the up-and-coming youth to older buyers who have arrived and have tons of money to spend.
It's not enough to let Honda take care of younger buyers (or those young at heart like me at age 52) and to expect they will shift over to Acura when they get older and richer. For one thing, Honda is professing to want to distance Acura from Honda and if it did succeed, along the lines of the relationship of Audi to Volkswagen, there would be something of a disconnect between the Honda and Acura brands.
As such, to be a viable long-term "Tier 1" brand, whatever that means exactly, Acura would have to serve the younger more adventuresome segment of the available customer base. Get 'em while they're young, if you will, and develop brand loyalty. For the longest time, Acura was in fact trying to do that. But now, the Integra is dead. The TSX is morphing to the point where I see a convergence in the next re-design between it and the North American Accord (How big can Honda go? The market for an even bigger car than the current Accord just isn't going to be there in five years). Unless Acura has some tricks up its sleeve, we're looking at a brand soon to be consisting of two sizes of SUV, a large luxury sedan and an even larger luxury sedan.
Cadillac is an example of what happens when you turn into a brand for older folk. The past few years the company has courted a younger demographic and it has revitalized the brand. I do see Acura operating much like Cadillac does in relation to Chevrolet, i.e. within the same dealer network as Honda, but I don't see it being an Audi or BMW, truly standing apart from Honda.
The good news is that Honda's cars just keep on getting better. Maybe I'm no longer considering Acura (unless I decide to look at the CSX before it, too, disappears) but that doesn't mean I have given up on Acura's parent company. Honda still makes the best cars on the market in my opinion. Toyota's products are as reliable and even more durable, yes, but many of them are also far more boring. Other carmakers make decent products, sure, but they are a notch or two below.
I guess I'm just feeling a little saddened by the demise of the Acura that I once knew and enjoyed doing business with.
|
|
|
klui_188
|
|
I suppose you really have to try out the 09 alongside an 08 (or older) TSX before you can make that call for yourself. In the end you ARE the consumer and you (should) decide what fits you better.
Regarding your comments on the 3 series.... I believe the sportier one you refer to is E36 (95 - 99?), then the E46 (99 - 05), & now the E90/91/92 (06 - current)... IMO the E36 is definitely sportier partly because it was lighter and (I believe) they did tune (even the base) model on the sporty side. Whereas since E46 they left that only to models that are equipped with sport package.
see_ping wrote:
Does this review of the new TSX really show that it's not a driver's car anymore? From reading the review, the message I got is that the new one is more refined and more luxurious, but also has a wider track that will definitely help handling. Sure, it's not quite as sporty or tossable as the previous TSX, but that doesn't mean it's not sporty or doesn't handle well anymore. Remember the 3-series before the last one? It was more edgy and perhaps lighter than the current and last generation 3-series, but they had to change it anyways to become more luxurious, with a better ride, which we know was for the better in terms of sales. After a while, though, I rarely heard anyone complain that the 3-series lost its good handling. I drive a Protege right now and it handles pretty well for an economy car, but the new Mazda 3 is a lot heavier and less tossable, but it's still a step in the right direction. Perhaps in the direction of being more Germanic in it's feel, solidity, and comfort. My apologies, however, for having never driven all the 3-series generations, so I'm merely re-telling what I read about the 3-series over the years.
|
|
Spectro
|
|
The way i look at it is, the are making all base models good but not great, specially in the performance section, why? Because it looks like they will be bringing is special edition models, maybe not the type S, but an A-spec will definately take care of the suspension weakness in this car.
I think Acura is making enthusiasts cars, but just not the base models. They need leave something out to bring out a model that will take care of those problems.
|
Carmissimo
|
|
I don't know that Acura can offer affordable, high-quality, high-content products that are also exceedingly high-performance vehicles, certainly not with a vehicle that weighs as mush as the new TSX.
And really, with the TSX, it's a question of affordability, both in terms of MSRP and cost of ownership. I'm sure a high-powered 6 could easily be dropped into the engine bay of the new TSX but not for the MSRP range the car has to fall into as a competitor for the IS 250, BMW 3 Series entry-level car, A4, etc. In Canada nobody is offering such a vehicle with a motor much larger or more powerful than the 2.4L in the TSX. Sure you have a 6 in the base BMW and IS here in Canada but we're talking a 6 in both instances similar in displacement to the TSX's 4. Those cars have similar performance numbers and fuel economy. They're just a slightly different approach to getting there.
Stateside, the 3 Series has a bigger motor but it's also significantly more expensive than the TSX.
The other carmakers can't offer such a car at the price point in question so I don't know that Honda can be criticized for being in the same boat.
As for tweaking the suspension to favour handling over comfort, that's not the emphasis the average buyer is looking for. As much as all the automakers profess to be making sports sedans, really most of them are not. And most of us probably, if we were being honest about this, wouldn't be pushing our cars to the point where we need to worry about better handling, grip, whatever you want to call it, than is offered by standard versions of all the cars in this segment, the new TSX included.
The TSX is tuned for the average driver and the typical buyer of so-called sports sedans. Honda, I suspect, is more concerned with imparting a quality feel than providing a sporty, engaging chassis.
Weight and overall size has a lot to do with it. It's a lot easier to propel a lighter car in an engaging fashion and have it feel nimble. A high-output four can turn a lighter car into a rocket but that's not the result when that same motor is placed in a much heavier chassis.
Make no mistake, the TSX is a heavy car, relatively speaking. It checks in at 1,549 kilos in manual form and 1,581 kilos with an automatic. In comparison, a Civic Si checks in at 1,305 kilos. In terms of pounds, that's a difference of 538 lbs. That's dramatic and it does mean that the Civic is far more suited to the role of sports sedan than the TSX.
You need a bigger more powerful motor to compensate for extra bulk and that only aggravates the weight disadvantage. Also, with a front-wheel drive especially, it puts more weight at the front of the car than is ideal for good driving dynamics.
One of the better packages for someone looking for a refined but sporty sedan in the Acura range right now is the CSX with the 2.0L motor. That car weighs in at 1,292, vs. a standard Civic checking in at 1,227 kilos comparably equiped. That's a modest 65-kilo weight difference due mainly to a 2.0L motor, vs. the 1.8L found in the standard Civic. But the CSX peaks out at 155 hp 300 RPM below the standard Civic's peak of 140 hp. There is more torque to play with as well, though the 2.0L peaks out 200 rpm later at 139 ft. lbs. vs. 128 ft. lbs. for the 1.8L. The catch is that the CSX is Canada exclusive and you do pay quite the premium to jump up from the Civic.
Still, the average buyer shopping for a "sports sedan" really isn't looking for a nimble, engaging car with good balance. That's why the BMW has grown, now the TSX and most of the competition.
In place of a nimble, balanced driving experience, most want major amounts of power to produce the sort of rush that injects excitement into the driving experience. That, however, comes at a cost. You need to get into higher-powered BMWs, the IS 350 and cars of that ilk to turn up the heat enough to make things interesting.
I don't doubt that Acura will, before long, have their answer to the IS 350 and cars of that ilk. But it'll cost ya, both in terms of MSRP and fuel consumption. Still, if the decision is to build so-called sports sedans that weigh in at 1,500 kilos and counting (i.e. 3,300 lbs.) there's not much that can be done with today's technology.
I suspect that what happens is the car's ballpark weight, interior dimensions, etc. are decided on and then engineers are asked to make an enjoyable car to drive working with those numbers. It sounds like it's easier said than done, if not impossible, but really it probably doesn't matter a lot since the average buyer would never notice. Talk of a sporty, engaging vehicle is increasingly more the domain of the marketing department than a reality in terms of the cars companies are putting in their showrooms. Increasing a car's mass is inevitably going to cause that to happen.
When Honda decides, as it has apparently, that smaller, inherently more engaging cars do not belong in an Acura showroom, certainly in the U.S., it's really abandoning the person who genuinely wants a fun drive with a healthy measure of quality. At one point that winning formula was very much a part of the Acura mix but apparently not any more.
Still it makes you wonder what could have been were Honda not limited by having to use a chassis developed for another market as the foundation for the TSX. A weight reduction of maybe 150-200 lbs. with the 2.4L tweaked as it has been (more useful torque) might well have produced a car that was a step up in fun over the first-generation TSX. Simply put more torque+less weight = better performance. That's not what we have apparently.
It's going to take a high-performance 6 to give a car like the TSX an injection of fun, though not really the fun that a certain breed of driving enthusiast had in mind. It's the way other carmakers have gone and it looks like Honda is following their lead.
|
coldbivy
|
|
Carmissimo wrote:
And really, with the TSX, it's a question of affordability, both in terms of MSRP and cost of ownership. I'm sure a high-powered 6 could easily be dropped into the engine bay of the new TSX but not for the MSRP range the car has to fall into as a competitor for the IS 250, BMW 3 Series entry-level car, A4, etc. In Canada nobody is offering such a vehicle with a motor much larger or more powerful than the 2.4L in the TSX. Sure you have a 6 in the base BMW and IS here in Canada but we're talking a 6 in both instances similar in displacement to the TSX's 4. Those cars have similar performance numbers and fuel economy. They're just a slightly different approach to getting there.
|
I don't agree with your assertion. More power does not cost much more. The engine in the TL would cost relatively small change to put into the TSX. Remember, it is already being offered in the Accord at a slightly lower price point.
Of course, all of the manufacturers would love for buyers to think like you already do. All that is really going on is that the car manufacturers are trying to achieve larger margins on the higher spec vehicles.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] |
| |
|
![[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}
