TonyEX
 |
|
|
hmm... did I say it sucks?
|
TonyEX
|
|
|
Yep, I sure did!
|
Mike Freitas
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Yep, I sure did!
|
+1,000,000,000....oh damn, there is not enough zero's to continue...
|
330R
|
|
Working in an Acura dealer service department, I've had a year of seeing the new TL in various colors, base and SH-AWD, every weekday. I've had the opportunity to see them parked next to other Acuras: the previous TLs, the current TSX among others.
As a machine, the new TL is a really nice car. As a design, it is ungainly. If you think the beaky front overhang looks awkward, you should see it on a lift at 1/4 or 1/2 height. If I was a neighborhood kitty cat, I'd be too scared to approach a parked one to take a siesta under. The front is just too big & tall, and the design emphasizes it instead of trying to disguise it. Just as ungainly is the tail of the car; the outward slope of the rear with the short tail lights nestled near the top, with expanses of flat plastic with nothing going on below them, until the expanses are broken by cartoonishly large reflectors.
I guess after a year of seeing the new TL we mostly all understand it's intentionally bold, to provide Acura an identity, a family resemblence among the line, and differentiation from the Honda line. I'm used to them, and from some angles and in darker colors it is a little handsome. But design wise, it's a regression from the fantastic third generation TL. It's a step back to the softer second gen model, but without the classy and reserved (maybe boring) styling.
|
TonyEX
|
|
330R wrote:
Working in an Acura dealer service department, I've had a year of seeing the new TL in various colors, base and SH-AWD, every weekday. I've had the opportunity to see them parked next to other Acuras: the previous TLs, the current TSX among others.
As a machine, the new TL is a really nice car. As a design, it is ungainly. If you think the beaky front overhang looks awkward, you should see it on a lift at 1/4 or 1/2 height. If I was a neighborhood kitty cat, I'd be too scared to approach a parked one to take a siesta under. The front is just too big & tall, and the design emphasizes it instead of trying to disguise it. Just as ungainly is the tail of the car; the outward slope of the rear with the short tail lights nestled near the top, with expanses of flat plastic with nothing going on below them, until the expanses are broken by cartoonishly large reflectors.
I guess after a year of seeing the new TL we mostly all understand it's intentionally bold, to provide Acura an identity, a family resemblence among the line, and differentiation from the Honda line. I'm used to them, and from some angles and in darker colors it is a little handsome. But design wise, it's a regression from the fantastic third generation TL. It's a step back to the softer second gen model, but without the classy and reserved (maybe boring) styling.
|
True indeed. As much as I find the front end ugly the back end is much worse IMHO. The lines and the center crease in the back end are simply overwhelming and oddly proportioned.
I laugh when I see the front end and I guess that the bucktooth grill can be handled by painting it body color, but the back end is beyond repair as it is the SURFACE SHAPE of the entire back end that is flat out ugly. Short of using a sledgehammer to back it down to flatness I see no other way except to pass on this generation and hope the next generation returns to sanity.
I understand that Acura wanted to boldly differentiate its cars. But the lesson here is that the Aztek, Pacer and Edsel were indeed boldly differentiated from the norm, but that differentiation for its own sake is not necessarily good.
If you want differentiation for a car, I'd point out to the Benz CLS sedan. Now, that's a really nice sedan, IMHO, that stands out from the crowd because of its out of the ordinary elegance.
Why couldn't Acura have gone for elegance instead of a Tonka Toy look? I guess they wanted the Escalade crowd.
|
CrystalFiveMT
|
|
I still can't understand who approves these designs. I can't imagine a design group looking at this design and saying, "Yeah!! That's beautiful! That's what we want!".
Oy.
All they have to do is do a focus group. Give the people what they want!
|
NickDC5
|
|
|
330R says exactly what so many people know: there is a REALLY good car underneath there! But it's just really deep.
|
Rooster1
|
|
Yes it does but Honda will never admit it. They will blame the poor sales performance on something else like it was priced to high or some other BS. Styling is subjective, but when everyone, and I mean everyone unanimously hates this look to the point of not even considering the vehicles, you know you have a problem.
No worries, however as the sales performace will show them what everyone else has known since the first time we saw it.
|
Screen Name
|
|
|
...like a Black Hole...
|
Screen Name
|
|
|
The front and back end of a Pit Bull is "bold", too...
|
kidoairaku
|
|
I've wondered that, the Aztec, this TL and countless other vehicles made by every company are deemed "too ugly" by many. But they all had to be approved by designers and managers, and VP's and passed by focus groups and countless others.
then how is it possible?
how can a design like this that looks bad front, rear, side (and apparantly even from below) still make it to production????
|
TampaRL
|
|
Arrogance.
It is not about bringing to market what is asked for. It is the attempt too create a market by attempting to dictate what the market wants.
This design camp was born at a time of excess and contrary to Honda conservatism, Acura decided to go bold and gamble we would be flocking to buy this conglomerate of excess design cues.
Problem is, the market did not react as Acura expected, and then the economy tanked, taking not only prospective sales but slapping that cocky excess mentality up side the head.
And to further add to these geniuses amazement, no only did they fail to create a draw from consumers not currently shopping Acura, they managed to piss off the brand loyalists at large.
So it appears now, Honda Japan is cutting Acura's blazon gonads off by canceling the projects of excess,,,,NSX, V10, V8 RWD platforms, etc. and knee jerking Acura to a conservative tack with efficiency tempering the performance in a very Honda like manner. Let us hope the styling will gain some sensibility in the journey.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Actually, I think AHM must be quite aware of the issues by now.
I mean, once bitten, twice shy... but with AHM it has been twice bitten.. Acura did this once before, in the mid 90s and AHM did pull the reins once before, in the late 90s.
The end result of the last "pulling in the reins" was the 2nd gen TL and 2nd gen CL. Both of them pretty good cars. The 2nd gen TL took the car down market from the mid 30s to the high 20s. (It hurt the resale value of our 97 3.2TL btw...) but the end result was a separation between the RL and the TL.
However, ever since, American Acura has been given free rein and I think they once again went off too deep. Heck, way too deep. I have to think that bringing in the TSX to our shores was something that HMC had a lot to do with, just like -I guess- it had a lot to do with bringing in the CRV and Fit to the US.
|
ciwai08
|
|
kidoairaku wrote:
I've wondered that, the Aztec, this TL and countless other vehicles made by every company are deemed "too ugly" by many. But they all had to be approved by designers and managers, and VP's and passed by focus groups and countless others.
then how is it possible?
how can a design like this that looks bad front, rear, side (and apparantly even from below) still make it to production????
|
I think the greenlighting of certain more controversial designs can be explained by a certain credo at Art Center, the school where a significant number of designers get their education. It kind of said that if a design isn't bold enough, or is too pleasant and acceptable, that it won't stand out once it reaches production and it will age faster during its lifetime.
|
owequitit
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Actually, I think AHM must be quite aware of the issues by now.
I mean, once bitten, twice shy... but with AHM it has been twice bitten.. Acura did this once before, in the mid 90s and AHM did pull the reins once before, in the late 90s.
The end result of the last "pulling in the reins" was the 2nd gen TL and 2nd gen CL. Both of them pretty good cars. The 2nd gen TL took the car down market from the mid 30s to the high 20s. (It hurt the resale value of our 97 3.2TL btw...) but the end result was a separation between the RL and the TL.
However, ever since, American Acura has been given free rein and I think they once again went off too deep. Heck, way too deep. I have to think that bringing in the TSX to our shores was something that HMC had a lot to do with, just like -I guess- it had a lot to do with bringing in the CRV and Fit to the US.
|
What are you talking about?
In the mid 90's Acura had 2 engines, 1 platform and no styling, offensive or otherwise. The 2nd gen TL came along because it was the only way to justify the investment costs of new Acura products given the low sales volume... That is consequently why the TSX, TL and RL are all based on the same platform as the Accord... Well the TSX is an Accord, but the TL and RL benefit from the economies of scale of the Accord platform because at 25,000 units per year, a dedicated "Acura" platform is not justifiable from a cost perspective, hence why it was eliminted with the last gen RL.
Where do you go to make this stuff up?
|
NSXforever
|
|
owequitit wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Actually, I think AHM must be quite aware of the issues by now.
I mean, once bitten, twice shy... but with AHM it has been twice bitten.. Acura did this once before, in the mid 90s and AHM did pull the reins once before, in the late 90s.
The end result of the last "pulling in the reins" was the 2nd gen TL and 2nd gen CL. Both of them pretty good cars. The 2nd gen TL took the car down market from the mid 30s to the high 20s. (It hurt the resale value of our 97 3.2TL btw...) but the end result was a separation between the RL and the TL.
However, ever since, American Acura has been given free rein and I think they once again went off too deep. Heck, way too deep. I have to think that bringing in the TSX to our shores was something that HMC had a lot to do with, just like -I guess- it had a lot to do with bringing in the CRV and Fit to the US.
|
What are you talking about?
In the mid 90's Acura had 2 engines, 1 platform and no styling, offensive or otherwise. The 2nd gen TL came along because it was the only way to justify the investment costs of new Acura products given the low sales volume... That is consequently why the TSX, TL and RL are all based on the same platform as the Accord... Well the TSX is an Accord, but the TL and RL benefit from the economies of scale of the Accord platform because at 25,000 units per year, a dedicated "Acura" platform is not justifiable from a cost perspective, hence why it was eliminted with the last gen RL.
Where do you go to make this stuff up?
|
This is inaccurate and why must you attack everyone "this is wrong" when YOU are wrong lol.
The 2nd generation TL came not b/c of what you claim but b/c Honda decided to bring production to America. The previous TL was built in Japan, superbly built but the 2.5 and 3.2 TL were never segment leaders. Their MSRPs were average at best, with the loaded 3.2 hitting over 35k.
The 2.2 CL was the first American made Acura and the TL followed suit, designed and built for America. Acura also changed strategy by offering a great value; a loaded car at one price and a loaded car with NAV for about 2 grand more.
The 2nd gen TL was around 27k like the past 2.5 TL..an amazing value. Building it in America kept the cost down. Even when the Type-S came, it was only 32k which was a tremendous value at the time.
The Accord "Global" platform as we know is a great platform.
And the NSX, I wouldn't call it a car having no styling in the mid 1990s.....
Where do "you" make this stuff up? :D
|
owequitit
|
|
NSXforever wrote:
owequitit wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Actually, I think AHM must be quite aware of the issues by now.
I mean, once bitten, twice shy... but with AHM it has been twice bitten.. Acura did this once before, in the mid 90s and AHM did pull the reins once before, in the late 90s.
The end result of the last "pulling in the reins" was the 2nd gen TL and 2nd gen CL. Both of them pretty good cars. The 2nd gen TL took the car down market from the mid 30s to the high 20s. (It hurt the resale value of our 97 3.2TL btw...) but the end result was a separation between the RL and the TL.
However, ever since, American Acura has been given free rein and I think they once again went off too deep. Heck, way too deep. I have to think that bringing in the TSX to our shores was something that HMC had a lot to do with, just like -I guess- it had a lot to do with bringing in the CRV and Fit to the US.
|
What are you talking about?
In the mid 90's Acura had 2 engines, 1 platform and no styling, offensive or otherwise. The 2nd gen TL came along because it was the only way to justify the investment costs of new Acura products given the low sales volume... That is consequently why the TSX, TL and RL are all based on the same platform as the Accord... Well the TSX is an Accord, but the TL and RL benefit from the economies of scale of the Accord platform because at 25,000 units per year, a dedicated "Acura" platform is not justifiable from a cost perspective, hence why it was eliminted with the last gen RL.
Where do you go to make this stuff up?
|
This is inaccurate and why must you attack everyone "this is wrong" when YOU are wrong lol.
The 2nd generation TL came not b/c of what you claim but b/c Honda decided to bring production to America. The previous TL was built in Japan, superbly built but the 2.5 and 3.2 TL were never segment leaders. Their MSRPs were average at best, with the loaded 3.2 hitting over 35k.
The 2.2 CL was the first American made Acura and the TL followed suit, designed and built for America. Acura also changed strategy by offering a great value; a loaded car at one price and a loaded car with NAV for about 2 grand more.
The 2nd gen TL was around 27k like the past 2.5 TL..an amazing value. Building it in America kept the cost down. Even when the Type-S came, it was only 32k which was a tremendous value at the time.
The Accord "Global" platform as we know is a great platform.
And the NSX, I wouldn't call it a car having no styling in the mid 1990s.....
Where do "you" make this stuff up? :D
|
How is it inaccurate?
1) Production was moved to American because it was cheaper.
2) It was cheaper to just use the Accord platform for all models because they were already produced here, and it offered a half a million a year plus platform that was ammortized over many more units. So it was done mainly for cost reasons. Just like I said the first time.
3) Worldwide, Acura, or Honda was selling fewer than 50,000 of the cars based on the old Legend platform. As it was nearing 10 years old and needed to be replaced, the only viable option was an existing platform. Piss and moan all you want. Your statement already agreed with mine.
4) The production lines in America have been setup to produce a multitude of models for some time. It would not have been impossible to transfer the production to the US on the old platform, but it wasn't reasonable for Acura to leverage the cost reductions they wanted to accomplish with the MSRP's because the platform wasn't selling enough units to justify it. Are you going to make me explain the first rule of economics to you as well? Of course, you have already supported that point too by pointing to the cost equation of subsequent Accord based Acuras, so there is no point in continuing.
5) By putting the TL and then the RL on the Accord platform, it allowed them to bring the unit cost of the stuff under the skin down, which in turn allowed them to lower the price/hold it constant, and increase feature content. Refer too numbers 1,2,3 and 4.
6) You pretty much agreed with everything I said, while trying to disagree. Nice job. Hope it works out better next time.
7) The NSX was excluded from the discussion because of its exclusive nature. However, I have a number of magazine reviews here as well as an ISBN number full of old reviews, many of which praise the NSX's styling as "derivative;" if you want to see them.
My statement was in relation to the regular Acura line, and my guess is that you know that, you are just grasping for straws to try and get under my fingernails, which isn't going to work.
Also, the original post was in relation to Tony's comment that in the mid 90's Acura was running amuck in the same fashion he thinks they are now, even though they had horribly bland, anonymous, derivative, cars that were based on an old platform given to them by Japan. They didn't offer features, and they certainly didn't offer "bling."
Based on the fact that you pretty much supported everything I said, would indicate that I wasn't so far off base the first time. ;)
|
TonyEX
|
|
OK, let's get some history here.
In the late 80s and early 90s Acura was on a roll.
They had the Legend and the Integra. AHM/HMC brought out the second gen of both cars around 90 and then the Vigor was introduced.
Around this time, the geniuses running Acura decided that the brand was not strong enough and dropped the names and introduced an alphanumeric naming convention, just as Infiniti and Lexus were gaining ground in the US (Infiniti screwed up at the beginning with their rock garden commercials).
Acura brand management wanted people to say they owned an "Acura"... not a "Legend" or an "Integra". Stupid IMHO... if you're making money...
Of course, the NSX came out too. But that was called NSX back in Japan.
So, at the same time, the "RL" was introduced. It was cheaper looking and boring compared with the 2nd gen Legend.
Then the first gen (2nd gen Vigor) Tl was introduced. The 3.2TL was more luxurious than the RL. Jeez.
The Integra ran for eight years.... at least the GSR was good enough all along.
So, in the late 90s, Acura had lost all the market steam it had in the very early 90s and AHM did a big shake up at Acura management bringing a lot of it back into AHM.
Now, who's making up things? Perhaps I just remember more that you do, huh?
|
owequitit
|
|
TonyE wrote:
OK, let's get some history here.
In the late 80s and early 90s Acura was on a roll.
They had the Legend and the Integra. AHM/HMC brought out the second gen of both cars around 90 and then the Vigor was introduced.
Around this time, the geniuses running Acura decided that the brand was not strong enough and dropped the names and introduced an alphanumeric naming convention, just as Infiniti and Lexus were gaining ground in the US (Infiniti screwed up at the beginning with their rock garden commercials).
Acura brand management wanted people to say they owned an "Acura"... not a "Legend" or an "Integra". Stupid IMHO... if you're making money...
Of course, the NSX came out too. But that was called NSX back in Japan.
So, at the same time, the "RL" was introduced. It was cheaper looking and boring compared with the 2nd gen Legend.
Then the first gen (2nd gen Vigor) Tl was introduced. The 3.2TL was more luxurious than the RL. Jeez.
The Integra ran for eight years.... at least the GSR was good enough all along.
So, in the late 90s, Acura had lost all the market steam it had in the very early 90s and AHM did a big shake up at Acura management bringing a lot of it back into AHM.
Now, who's making up things? Perhaps I just remember more that you do, huh?
|
I remember all of that.
If Honda took away the reigns because they thought Acura was running amuck, then why did they transfer MORE control, MORE authority and MORE responsibility over here?
The whole thing was done to save costs by using the Accord platform and the more favorable position of the manufacturing location.
|
|
|
| |
|
![[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}
