Sens4Miles

Anyone ever use this to check out what sites looked like years ago?
I typed in Acura.com and selected one of the dates for 2003 and this is what came up:

http://web.archive.org/web/200306110...www.acura.com/

Only 5 years ago, Acura had a lineup of 7 vehicles - RL, TL, TSX, CL, RSX, MDX, & NSX

Today, 5 years later, Acura has a lineup of um, 5 vehicles - RL, TL, TSX, MDX, & RDX

In 2003, they had a lineup consisting of 3 sedans, 2 coupes, an SUV, and a sports car. Today, they have a lineup consisting only of 3 sedans and 2 SUVs what is wrong with this picture?

SLegacy99

Cars come and go. The RSX wasnt selling very many units so they got rid of it. I believe the CL left bad tastes in people's mouths due to nagging tranny issues.

Somtimes smaller can be better. Subaru for example, dropped the Baja 2 years ago, the SVX 10 years ago and today they are doing better than ever.

bboarder71

In comparison to Subaru, Acura is seriously not concentrating on their remaining vehicles. Yea they just just refreshed haft their line up but they are going off in some weird futuristic direction. To be a luxury they need to be more bold, sure they look chiseled but their technology isn't the Honda I still drive. The Sh-awd just isn't wow enough and their engines are the same V6 they had 15 years ago.

SLegacy99

Yeah and they were crappy then....hahaha. But seriously, Subaru's EJ25 is 12 years old and still kickin. Its more powerful than ever, yet it is showing its age efficiency wise. Well at least according to the EPA it is.

Threxx

The CL had the same transmission as the TL and the same problems too.

I think it was moreso because it just wasn't selling well enough to justify the cost (if I recall correctly the CL and TL despite being nearly identical mechanically shared almost no exterior part and very few interior parts.

The RSX was an interesting vehicle... I would have been interested in the next-gen design had they kept up with it. I like the fuel economy and size of the Honda Civic but would prefer to get one with a nicer interior, a few more bells and whistles, and better dealer service... that's what the RSX was, and I think they still sell it in Canada don't they?

PhilipMSPT

iTrader: (5)

Honda has been working on their bread and butter.

They're making cars that are not groundbreaking, but they are selling to the masses based on their reliability and stout technology.

They have rid of their coupes because sedans are more functional. They have smaller, more gas efficient SUVs (crossovers, really) that cater to families, not off-roading yatch-towing SUV owners. They are holding off on gas-guzzling power-hungry V8's because of current (and predicted) market conditions.

However, there is a downside. They can only go so far until they become mediocre. Even now, Hyundai has been causing more excitement and buzz than anything Acura has to offer.

If Honda/Acura wants to play, they have to up the R&D and create something new and exciting. However, if they want to stay safe and comfortable, they're gonna have to appeal to the masses without blurring into an automotive oblivion (which may not happen if certain brands disappear due to the economic crisis).

Threxx

See this is exactly what the general public believes and it shows just how deeply ingrained the myth of imports = fuel economy and domestics = gas guzzlers if somebody as into cars as you is stating this as fact.

For your consideration:

The Acura MDX 300hp V6 gets 15/20 and requires premium
The MUCH larger, more powerful, and 1000 pound heavier Chevy Tahoe 4x4 320hp V8 gets 14/20 and runs on regular.
The MUCH larger and 500 pound heavier Chevy Traverse AWD 288hp V6 gets 16/23 and runs on regular

Hmm... which car is going to cost you the most in gas? Oh, the "smaller, lighter and more efficient" Acura SUV. Interesting.

The Acura RDX AWD 240hp turbo I4 gets 17/22 and requires premium
The much larger and more powerful Chevy Equinox AWD 264hp V6 gets 16/24 and runs on regular

And actually, for that matter the dramatically bigger Traverse up above still averages the same econ as the "little and efficient" RDX SUV while making more power and running on regular.

ffpowerLN

iTrader: (1)

Dear Acura,

Your lineup is messed up, please fix it ASAP.

Yours truly,

ffpower

PhilipMSPT

iTrader: (5)

Sorry. I did not elaborate.

I was considering Honda in general and their smaller SUVs, such as the CR-V and RDX, both of which are relatively more efficient because they use I-4 engines.

My secretary has a Pilot and it's a gas guzzler. I have never considered Honda's big SUVs to be fuel efficient, but their smaller offerings do support their idea that having an SUV (or crossover) can be efficient (albeit not the best).

As far as Honda/Acura compared to it's American counterparts, Honda has less SUVs offered compared to GM/Ford (and Toyota), thus they always advertise that they're the "most fuel efficient car company on the road."

It's marketing that's working for them...

Threxx

You just saw that the RDX's economy is actually pretty poor.

The CR-V is really the only relatively economical SUV they make with its 2.4L 166hp 4-cylinder and 20/27 (FWD) rating...

But then you go look at say the Ford Escape with its 20/28 rating or the Saturn Vue with a 19/26 despite offering larger dimensions and more curb weight... both SUVs are incrementally more powerful than the CR-V, too.

The Honda fuel economy thing is a myth. They really fail to lead any class of vehicle that I can think of and in some (such as the MDX) they actually do an amazingly terrible job when it comes to fuel economy.

And yet... people continue to think Honda/Acura = fuel economy, Chevy/Ford = big lumbering gas chuggers.

I don't know if you can say good job to Honda's marketing team for perpetuating the myth using slick wording or 'wake up' to the general American public for making assumptions that simply aren't and haven't been true for years. Maybe a bit of both, but the issue here is perception, not reality.

UDel

I brought this up before in another thread how right now Acura needs more vehicles to choose from. 5 is just way too small of a lineup. The sad thing is right now Honda has a rwd sports car, a convertible, and 2 sporty coupes where Acura does not have any sports cars, convertables, or coupes and that has to change. Unfortunately Acura is coming out with another stupid crossover type thing to compete with an X6 of all things which is completely pointless when they should be concentrating more on sports cars, sports/lux coupes, convertibles, and larger flagships. There has been a larger rwd sedan seen testing on a stretched TSX bodyshell but there is no exact word when that vehicle is coming out and who knows when the NSX replacement is coming out but it seems pretty close to production based on the prototypes running around the ring. I am surprised Acura does not have a TSX coupe in the works by now or something based off the S2000.

Acura in the past had much more diverse and better lineups with coupes and sports cars and they can't get by having only 5 vehicles to choose from for too long especially when they are just 3 sedans, 1 very good selling SUV, and another low selling niche market small SUV.

speed_Demo

Personally, I like the RSX. In California, I noticed many people drive the base RSX. However, I didn't like the type-S as much. I love the high rev 8k rpm, but weak engine + paying insurance premium for a sport car that has only 200hp??

But, it would've been nice they continue w/ the RSX, people thought that's was new integra for many years to follow.

Honda/Acura reused most of the vehicle they the engine too much. Nothing really new & innovating.

S2000 engine -> TSX -> CRV.
MDX -> Honda Ridgeline ->Pilot
RSX-S -> Honda SI

howat

Acura is not at risk. Please have a look at the sale figures and neighborhood streets.

ffpowerLN

iTrader: (1)

I did...

The new TL has been on sale for like what, over 3 months now and I only see 3 of them on streets.

Oh and I live in LA...

pvmike1

I drive LA and OC all the time, and I first saw one on the road the other day.

Bootay.