Lik

RDX is not exactly easy on gas for a vehicle of its size. And the MDX has been hit with an ugly stick. Heck, all current Acuras (with the exception of maybe the RDX) are either butt ugly or hideously ugly. Not sure why anyone would consider them at all.

For the most part, modern turbos are mostly trouble-free. But being an Acura, maintenance costs (at the factory) is anything but cheap la.

Instead of something with all wheel drive, I'd say a proper set of winter tires would be significantly more useful in wintery weather. That is to say, between an AWD equipped with all season tires, and a 2WD (doesn't matter if it's FWD or RWD) equipped with snow tires, I'll always take the 2WD with the snow tires.

-Lik

Lik

Oh, I take my words back, man. Even the RDX has been hit with the ugly stick now that it has the stupid Acura beak...

There is a reason why Acura is a phenomenal failure in the market right now. And you really don't have to look any further than its corporate beak~

-Lik

Lik

No, there are a lot of RDX and MDX in Vancouver - but they are outnumbered by the X3/GLK and X5/ML and to a lesser degree, the Audi Q5/Q7, especially in Richmond.
ccyip 發表於 2009-8-26 11:15

There are lots of RDX and MDX here in Vancouver? Not that I can see, and especially not of the Acura-beaked RDX. In fact, I haven't seen *ANY* Acura-beaked RDX outside of their showroom at all!

Acura's heyday were definitely back in the mid 90's when the DC Integra was out. The car was pretty much ubiquitous among younger folks. The EL, which was little more than a dressed up Civic, was also selling well. Even when it came to the early 2000's, the TL was still quite a respectable car, and the RSX wasn't bad either. The TSX, of course, was a stella car.

But then Honda decided to start designing ugly cars. The FD Civic looks ok, and the CP3 Accord has a passable look, although their looks pale in comparison to their predecessors. But the ugly award must definitely be given to the Acura beak, with the current TL taking top honours (although the upcoming ZDX is a close second). It almost seems like Acura went out of their way to design cars as ugly as they could think of. The completely random 3-letter naming scheme doesn't help either. After all, who remembers what all these meaningless letters stand for, especially when they either start with the same letter, or differ only by the first of the 3 letters?

I really feel sorry for the Acura dealers, you know. They've been totally screwed by Honda.

-Lik

Lik

Acura's market failure is a wide combination problems all added up together. Different people will think different aspects played a more important role, and the follow is my take on the issue:

As far as engineering is concerned, Honda (and therefore Acura) is still very solid, although engineering designs and built quality has dropped compared their heyday back in the early 90's. Mechanic parts are not as over-engineered and over-built, and you see more factory recalls issued for Honda / Acura, and some of them could be rather major. When the current gen of Civic was first released, there was a somewhat major recall (on the gas pedal, I think). Before that, another earlier generation of Civic was prone to suspension problems. The 6th gen Accord also suffered from transmission problems.

The biggest problem I see with Acura has to do with market positioning. Unlike Lexus and Nissan, Honda's market positioning for Acura is very poorly handled. Acura was originally the first upscale brand among the Japanese manufacturers, but Honda never defined Acura's role very clearly. Toyota made Lexus to be an upscale, luxury brand that competes with Mercedes, BMW, and Audi, and their brand's cachet missed its goal initially, nowadays Lexus is almost every bit as competitive as the German big boys. Nissan got off to rough start with Infiniti, but they finally found their niche to be an upscale sporty brand that gives BMW a good run for their money. But Acura? In the late 80's, Acura tried to be a sporty version of Honda, and that almost worked. But it was still too easy to tell the cars were only slightly more dressed up than the down-to-earth Hondas. The DC Integra in the mid 90's was a phenomenal success, securing the brand's reputation as young and sporty. But their bigger cars were still too closely related to Honda Accords and it showed, so sales of those never really took off. Worse still, Honda left the DC Integra to languish for too long. In addition to killing the 4-door model, the sporty image that was hard-earned by the DC Integra was widely tarnished when its successor, the RSX, showed up with inferior handling capabilities. And with that, Acura lost its single most valuable asset that it worked so hard to achieve.

The EL sold well in Canada, but then Honda killed it since its market position was too close to the top end Civics and the Integra/RSX. The plan totally backfired, as people didn't want to pay top dollars for a Civic, and the RSX wasn't a 4-door. So now Acura doesn't have an entry level model. When the CSX finally showed up, people found it too expensive and too similar to the Civic, so they just bought Civics instead.

The 1st gen TSX was a phenomenal success, but at the time, the RSX wasn't selling well, and FWD V6 just wasn't people's ideas of what luxury vehicles (or even near luxury vehicles) were. In any case, most Honda can be almost as nicely furnished as the Acuras, so buyers found it perfectly acceptable to buy Hondas instead.

Right now, it seems to me that Acura is trying to sell itself as a high tech, near luxury car company. However, high tech gadgets and near luxury don't work when your cars are a$$-ugly, FWD, and V6-only.

-Lik

Lik

Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with Americanizing their cars to be bigger (both in physical and engine size), more powerful, and more luxurious. After all, that's Toyota did with Lexus and Nissan did with Infiniti, and they managed to be quite successful. The problem is, you gotta execute it correctly, and Honda went about doing this the wrong way with Acura.

To the American mind, FWD = economy drivetrain configuration, while RWD is more of a sporty, luxurious setup. It doesn't really matter whether the perception has any factual truth to it -- if consumers believe it, then that's the way it is. Acura's utter failure lies in Honda's ultra conservatism and steadfast refusal to build a mid/full size RWD platform. When you take a look around, the German big boys are primarily RWD or AWD. Lexus and Infiniti both have RWD (and later AWD) offerings in the IS and G lines, respectively. Furthermore, Americans' love for V8 muscle in a flagship vehicle also meant that Honda's refusal / inability to deliver an 8-cylinder engine has doomed them right from the start.

Getting back to Elan, instead of the RDX and MDX, I'd really consider offerings from other manufacturers instead. Specifically, I'd consider every Subaru (or only the Forrester, or all-new Legacy / Legacy wagon, and Tribeca if the Impreza looks too cheap), the Hyundai Santa Fe, Toyota Rav4 and Highlander, Honda CRV (or maybe the upcoming facelifted version in September), Volkswagen Tiguan, and Infiniti EX. Obviously, they come in at different price points, but for the most part, they are all fairly decent. The Volkswagen might be slightly less reliable than its Japanese and Korean rivals, but even then it should be plenty reliable as the MkV cars on which the Tiguan's chassis was built have been far more reliable than the previous MkIV cars. Just as importantly, none of these cars are nearly as foul-looking as the Acuras.

Now, if your in-laws have an obvious preference for Honda/Acura, it would probably be a loss cause to try sell them anything else. Maybe the CRV route would still work, but for the most part, if an Acura is what they want, then just let them be. It'll be sufficiently reliable, even though it looks butt ugly and maintenance won't be cheap. Then again, maintenance won't be that cheap anyway for Subaru, Volkswagen, and Infiniti either.

-Lik

Lik

老眼分化看不清，又不是我比錢，I don't care. 最重要老人家喜歡。
elan7e 發表於 2009-9-1 22:11

I quite agree with this. In terms of engineering and reliability, Honda is still a very reputable brand even though it has lost a lot of its former charms. So from a practicality's point of view, either the TL or the Accord Crosstour is a sufficiently safe buy. Looks is a subjective thing, so if they are ok with the radical (or should I say radically ugly) look of the car, then hey, you might as well capitalize on the TL's ugly looks and poor sales to bargain for a lower OTD price.

My only practical concern for either the TL or the Accord Crosstour is, both are fairly big cars, and with the TL, in particular, reward visibility is kind of poor. Now the TL has a built-in rearview camera to address this problem when the car is in reverse, but in general, I suspect the sheer size and outward visibility of the cars are gonna make all-round visibility a little trickier. It would be best to double check that and make sure it is not an issue.

-Lik