Infiniti M!

[ifcar]

And this is precisely where your argument falls over. The number of people, with $50k to spend, considering Acura seriously enough to look chiefly at the RL and its stablemates is, logically, small compared to the number of people seriously considering the competition, in the RL's own price class.

Unless you know the market inside and out already, you have to consider Acura a bit to learn how it compares to its competition.

Or are you saying that no one will consider any $50k Acura, regardless of its engineering and styling?

[CaMIRO]

Many reviews were positive, not just from the reviewers who are always positive either.

I don't recall seeing many positive reviews of the RL, but even assuming this, the reviews of the competition have certainly been rather more credibly positive.

There are a great many people who spend a great deal of money on a car without having a good idea what they want.

That's hearsay. I'm not interested in consumers; just cars. When the RL launched, back in September 2004, I spent a considerable degree of time explaining why that car wouldn't drive or (by corollary) sell well, and I can't say I was wrong.

Mind you, it doesn't always work. Consumer behavior is much harder to predict than you seem wont to believe.

I'm not asking this as evidence in an argument. I'm curious who you think buys this car, and why.

I'm not deflecting the question; just pointing out that there is no shortage of deficient models which find a handful of buyers. The ones I listed are just off the top of my head.

Those buyers are, however, exceptions.
Trying to figure them out will not get you, me, or Acura, anywhere significant!

[CaMIRO]

Or are you saying that no one will consider any $50k Acura, regardless of its engineering and styling?

Few will seriously consider this $50k Acura, because of its engineering and styling, taken in and of themselves, or vis a vis the competition.

you have to consider Acura a bit to learn how it compares to its competition.

One minute your "average consumer" isn't test-driving the competition, and now he's being forced to do his research and consider Acura?

[ifcar]

I don't recall seeing many positive reviews of the RL, but even assuming this, the reviews of the competition have certainly been rather more credibly positive.

I don't recall seeing many negative reviews. The only one that comes to mind is Consumer Reports'.

I'm not interested in consumers; just cars.

Which is why you will never understand the appeal of a Lexus ES350, or even try to.

When the RL launched, back in September 2004, I spent a considerable degree of time explaining why that car wouldn't drive or (by corollary) sell well, and I can't say I was wrong.

I caution against working backwards from a car's sales figures to determine anything about it.

I'm not deflecting the question; just pointing out that there is no shortage of deficient models which find a handful of buyers. The ones I listed are just off the top of my head.

Those buyers are, however, exceptions.
Trying to figure them out will not get you, me, or Acura, anywhere significant!

You have no curiosity about this? About these thousands of people who choose this car over competition you feel is very obviously superior?

[CaMIRO]

I caution against working backwards from a car's sales figures to determine anything about it.

Unlike you, I wasn't working backwards; in September 2004, I was working forwards.

[ifcar]

Few will seriously consider this $50k Acura, because of its engineering and styling, taken in and of themselves, or vis a vis the competition.

When I say "consider," I don't necessarily any further than doing research on the car. I don't mean putting it on the short list.

One minute your "average consumer" isn't test-driving the competition, and now he's being forced to do his research and consider Acura?

I was talking about someone who could be upsold while at the Acura dealer looking at the TSX, in that particular case.

[ifcar]

Unlike you, I wasn't working backwards; in September 2004, I was working forwards.

But you're using sales to try and prove that you were right about more than you wouldn't like how it drives.

[CaMIRO]

I don't recall seeing many negative reviews.

That's not the same as "many" positive reviews against established competition.

Which is why you will never understand the appeal of a Lexus ES350, or even try to.

That's not fair. I've already said, in this thread, that I understand the appeal. It has little to do with the car, and much to do with the overall ownership experience. If your car is transportation, but you make more money than the "average consumer," then you judge the experience by servicing costs, ease of arranging servicing, etc.

You have no curiosity about this? About these thousands of people who choose this car over competition you feel is very obviously superior?

Oh, I'm curious. I'm probably one of the people who would have bought a Lancia Thesis or a Renault Avantime in the face of dynamically superior competition. They're not particularly analogous here, because they stand out as much as the RL does not - but they still support my point about models which find a handful of buyers.

What I'm saying is that Acura would be wise not to base their product planning on that negligible number of people.

[CaMIRO]

But you're using sales to try and prove that you were right about more than you wouldn't like how it drives.

No. I suggested in September 2004 that this car would not sell well because it drove poorly vis a vis its established competition, thanks to an expedient compromise that was all too obvious. I explained exactly why (much to the aggravation of Wizard, among others).

This is, by definition, looking forwards, not backwards. I attempted to predict something, and turned out to be right.

Mind you, my thoughts about sales figures were secondary to the argument. I was, and remain, horrified that Honda though they could get away with the automotive equivalent of refried beans, with a slice of pineapple, sold as haute cuisine.

Had I come here and said, "the RL sells poorly, so it must be an awful car," that would have been rather different. In this thread, I've consistently used arguments about the car's dynamics that are easily demonstrable; arguments I made precisely five years ago (good grief, has it been that long...?)

Like I said, it doesn't always work, and I won't pretend it does -
- but it's a very different process to saying, "the Camry is the best-selling car, so it must be the best car." And I've heard that argument made.

[ifcar]

That's not the same as "many" positive reviews against established competition.

It placed third in an eight-car C/D comparison, and most other reviews I've seen (I can try and find them if you want) were also positive.

That's not fair. I've already said, in this thread, that I understand the appeal. It has little to do with the car, and much to do with the overall ownership experience. If your car is transportation, but you make more money than the "average consumer," then you judge the experience by servicing costs, ease of arranging servicing, etc.

There's more to it than that.

Oh, I'm curious. I'm probably one of the people who would have bought a Lancia Thesis or a Renault Avantime in the face of dynamically superior competition. They're not particularly analogous here, because they stand out as much as the RL does not - but they still prove the point about models which find a handful of buyers.

What I'm saying is that Acura would be wise not to base their product planning on that negligible number of people.

I'm sure that was not their intention.

[CaMIRO]

It placed third in an eight-car C/D comparison, and most other reviews I've seen (I can try and find them if you want) were also positive.

I remember that ridiculous comparison, but few others.

There's more to it than that.

I disagree, for reasons I've listed several times over. It's a safe car with mediocre driving characteristics and a reputation for solidity and reliability, sold by an excellent dealership network. For some, done deal.

I'm sure that was not their intention.

Well, feel free to come up with a theory or two; I still can't figure how they thought they could get away with it.

[ifcar]

I remember that ridiculous comparison, but few others.

I was just seeing an Edmunds review that called it an exceptional luxury car that just wasn't especially fun to drive, which agrees with one but not both of your complaints, plus a Motor Trend review that said they wanted more power but the RL was otherwise excellent.

I disagree, for reasons I've listed several times over. It's a safe car with mediocre driving characteristics and a reputation for solidity and reliability, sold by an excellent dealership network. For some, done deal.

It's very comfortable and has an excellent ambiance. It's not just the dealers.

Well, feel free to come up with a theory or two; I still can't figure how they thought they could get away with it.

Coming off a smash hit from the FWD 2004 TL, I don't see why they wouldn't have had great expectations when they tried something similar one class up. Only they lost the styling advantage, and it was otherwise too similar.

[565]

I don't recall seeing many positive reviews of the RL.

  What are you talking about.


http://www.caranddriver.com/features/05q1/2005_10best_cars-10best_cars

Acura RL, 2005 10 best.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/05q2/2005_acura_rl_vs._2005_audi_a6_2005_bmw_530i_and_five_more_luxury_sedans-comparison_tests

Eighth: 2005 Jaguar S-type 4.2 VDP Edition
Seventh: 2005 Cadillac STS V-8
Sixth: 2005 BMW 530i
Fifth: 2005 Audi A6 4.2 Quattro
Fourth: 2006 Mercedes-Benz E350
Third: 2005 Lexus GS430
Second: 2005 Acura RL
First: 2006 Infiniti M45 Sport


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0503_luxury_sport_comparison/2005_acura_rl.html

6)Jaguar S-Type 3.0
5)Cadillac STS V6
4)Audi A6 3.2 quattro
3)BMW 530i
2)Acura RL
1)Infiniti M35



http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=106555

5) GS300AWD
4) BMW 530xi
3) M35x
2) A6 3.2
1) RL


If anything the RL has gotten universal praise. 

[ifcar]

If anything the RL has gotten universal praise.  

"The RL doesn't stand out in its class. While quick, its transmission isn't very responsive. In turns, its AWD system delivers extra torque to the outer rear wheel to reduce understeer, but handling is still neither sporty nor more secure than its competitors. The cabin isn't particularly roomy. Its driver-interaction system is confusing, but usefully integrates traffic reports into the navigation system."

-Consumer Reports, ranking it 4th place of 5 cars, ahead of just the Lexus GS.

I definitely agree with you, however, that the RL has gotten mostly good press, or at least did when it came out.

[CaMIRO]

 What are you talking about.

Like I said, I don't recall. Very little that I read about that car made any impact on me, positive or negative. Part of it may be that, by dint of having spent several years in Europe, I'm remembering Legend reviews (i.e.: the same car). And those reviews have generally been rather poor.

Either way, I'd still suggest that reviews of the competition have been more credibly positive.

I mean, I remember positive reviews of the Jaguar X-Type, too...

[CaMIRO]

Coming off a smash hit from the FWD 2004 TL, I don't see why they wouldn't have had great expectations when they tried something similar one class up.

It's a different class for a reason. Looking at the competition would have been a good idea.

I think it's fair to say that you have to pay to play in this segment; and, SH-AWD apart (which works, to a degree, but cannot fix this car), Honda simply didn't.

[ifcar]

Like I said, I don't recall. Very little that I read about that car made any impact on me, positive or negative. Part of it may be that, by dint of having spent several years in Europe, I'm remembering Legend reviews (i.e.: the same car). And those reviews have generally been rather poor.

Either way, I'd still suggest that reviews of the competition have been more credibly positive.

I mean, I remember positive reviews of the Jaguar X-Type, too...

You mean the reviews that placed them below the RL in comparisons?

I certainly don't recall many positive reviews of the X-Type myself, certainly at least not in comparisons.

[565]

"The RL doesn't stand out in its class. While quick, its transmission isn't very responsive. In turns, its AWD system delivers extra torque to the outer rear wheel to reduce understeer, but handling is still neither sporty nor more secure than its competitors. The cabin isn't particularly roomy. Its driver-interaction system is confusing, but usefully integrates traffic reports into the navigation system."

-Consumer Reports, ranking it 4th place of 5 cars, ahead of just the Lexus GS.

I definitely agree with you, however, that the RL has gotten mostly good press, or at least did when it came out.

Since when did Consumer Reports count compared to C&D and Motortrend?

The only one missing in comparison praise from the big 3 magazines is Road and Track, not because they panned the RL, but because they never really ran a comparison in that market around that time.  They didn't put the often victorious Infiniti M35/45 in a comparo either.

[CaMIRO]

You mean the reviews that placed them below the RL in comparisons?

Perhaps, depending on what was actually written. Many times, it's, "this car is the best here, but the price is exorbitant... etc. etc."

What I was referring to, though, was a longstanding love affair with a car; e.g.: Accord, 3 series, etc.
Not, "the newest car here is the best," at launch, followed by relative silence thereafter.

I've said it before, and I know you've seemed irritated by the thought before, but these people do have to sell copies.

I certainly don't recall many positive reviews of the X-Type myself, certainly at least not in comparisons.

I don't put much stock in comparisons, but I do remember being irritated by the amount of positive press surrounding the X-Type; particularly after its mid-life revisions. There were at least two articles asking, "why don't more people buy this car," "if only," etc. etc.

[CaMIRO]

Since when did Consumer Reports count compared to C&D and Motortrend?

Unless you want to know which microwave dethaws your burrito fastest -
they don't.

[ifcar]

Perhaps, depending on what was actually written. Many times, it's, "this car is the best here, but the price is exorbitant... etc. etc."

What I was referring to, though, was a longstanding love affair with a car; e.g.: Accord, 3 series, etc.
Not, "the newest car here is the best," at launch, followed by relative silence thereafter.

I never said it did earn that status. But you said that reading a review would turn off a consumer to the RL; if anything, it would be the opposite.

I've said it before, and I know you seem irritated by the thought, but these people do have to sell copies.

So you're suggesting they chose the car they didn't prefer because they felt it would boost their readership to put the Acura RL high in their comparisons?

I don't put much stock in comparisons, but I do remember being irritated by the amount of positive press surrounding the X-Type; particularly after its mid-life revisions. There were at least two articles asking, "why don't more people buy this car," "if only," etc. etc.

I put the most stock in comparisons. It means you have to have a winner and a loser; you can't sort of muck around and call everything great.

Though I don't even recall the X-Type even getting an update besides losing the base engine.

[CaMIRO]

I never said it did earn that status. But you said that reading a review would turn off a consumer to the RL; if anything, it would be the opposite.

Perhaps my recollection has been colored by the poor Legend reviews I've read (and see the Fifth Gear video, earlier, where this car can barely get within 7 - yes, SEVEN - seconds of a 5 series and an A6).

But there's a difference between reading a review, and tallying the scores. I certainly remember reading reviews that noted the albatross that is the RL's layout, because I quoted several in that infamous Car and Driver thread.

So you're suggesting they chose the car they didn't prefer because they felt it would boost their readership to put the Acura RL high in their comparisons?

I'm suggesting that controversy sells magazines.

You can find a reason to place virtually any car at #1, #2, #3 -
but -
you can't continue the charade for long without losing all credibility. See Accord, 3 series, etc.

LJK Setright, certainly among the very best automotive correspondents who ever lived, was convinced that Bristol made the best car ever. To his credit, his argument was solid; but few took him seriously. Thankfully, he had numerous other merits, and his love affair with Bristol (and the 4-wheel-steering Honda Prelude) was viewed as no more than an eccentricity.

I put the most stock in comparisons.

Don't.

I've told you this story before, but why not tell it again... several years ago, I worked for a major import manufacturer. My colleague, two offices down, ran the press fleet. He was contacted, well in advance, by a major automotive publication (listed in this very thread) to provide a car for a comparison test.

Now, that publication had praised some of our cars - indeed, this particular model - quite a bit. In a sense, their credibility was tied to the model. So they were only too happy to tell us exactly which cars were going up against ours.

My colleague realized that the only way to win the comparison was to provide a version with a larger engine; but that would have surpassed the price barrier for this particular test.

So - with the tacit knowledge of the magazine - we ordered a car that could not be found at any dealership in America: the larger engine, but absolutely no options.

We won the comparison; but I pity the soul who tried to order a similar model.

Though I don't even recall the X-Type even getting an update besides losing the base engine.

Some Vanden Plas edition, or something like that? A gearbox change? I don't remember, exactly; but something changed, and the reviewer was mourning the fact that people wouldn't notice. Which annoyed me, because Jaguar should never have built the X-Type.

[Eye of the Tiger]

You guys are positively ridiculous.

[CaMIRO]

Well, let me humbly invite the peanut gallery to participate! 

[Eye of the Tiger]

Well, let me humbly invite the peanut gallery to participate! 

Swift!

[Vinsanity]

So - with the tacit knowledge of the magazine - we ordered a car that could not be found at any dealership in America: the larger engine, but absolutely no options.

That's how I would prefer to order a new car as well. Unfortunately, I had to discover this availablility issue the hard way

[ifcar]

I must say I have no recollection of your having worked for an automaker. Whether that's just a result of missing where you posted that or seeing it and forgetting it I have no idea.

I don't think having a ringer is an indictment against the comparison format, though. It could happen in any review. And while you can justify many different ranking orders, it's that justification that keeps a review on target for having a specific conclusion about how a car stands up against its competitors.

I also don't think that putting the RL near the top of the list when most everyone else is doing the same counts as controversy, either.


By the way, you didn't remain close to your press fleet colleague, did you? I've only been able to get press cars from Hyundai and Kia so far; you wouldn't be able to put in a good word?

[CaMIRO]

I must say I have no recollection of your having worked for an automaker.

I vividly remember us going back and forth over that story, way back when. Ah, well. I can only swear that it is entirely true - and that if I referenced the issue directly, you'd probably crack a smile or two (given how closely you seem to follow these things).

I don't think having a ringer is an indictment against the comparison format, though. It could happen in any review.

Yes, and it probably does. I still have a copy of the magazine, somewhere (and you probably do, too!)

I tried to practice healthy skepticism vis a vis the media before that incident, but it was nonetheless an eye opener.

And while you can justify many different ranking orders, it's that justification that keeps a review on target for having a specific conclusion about how a car stands up against its competitors.

It's like politics, though; I can't remember the name for the "syndrome," but liberals tend to find the media conservative, whereas conservatives feel it is liberal.

Without going too far off course - these justifications of which you speak are important, sure; but how much validity they add is debatable.

I think it was Car and Driver that put the current G35 behind the 3 series, suggesting it was not as complete/ refined a car; in that case, I thoroughly agreed. Yet you have people on the other side whining about how the G35 put up better numbers, and should have won.

We read what we want to into these things; some fight that instinct better than others, but it happens to us all. And that's why credibility - for instance, a long-term love affair with a car (which I doubt any magazine has had with the RL in the same way as, say, the 5er, 3er, Accord, etc.) - matters. Reinforcement. Tell me and tell me again.

I also don't think that putting the RL near the top of the list when most everyone else is doing the same counts as controversy, either.

Vis a vis other magazines, no; but it disrupts the status quo.

I remember the first Car and Driver RL comparison (so many problems with that one... but let's not dwell), and the forum chanting about how the RL would be listed 10Best for many years to come.

By the way, you didn't remain close to your press fleet colleague, did you? I've only been able to get press cars from Hyundai and Kia so far; you wouldn't be able to put in a good word?

I read your note recently, about how you ask for press cars; intriguing. My former colleague is no longer running the press fleet, but I know who I might be able to drop a line to about it.

I'll test the waters, but I'll caution you, they're very cagey about that sort of stuff. Without dropping too many hints, several years ago they caused a minor bust-up when they denied a rather popular website press cars. As far as I know, that site is still banned.

[ifcar]

I vividly remember us going back and forth over that story, way back when. Ah, well. I can only swear that it is entirely true - and that if I referenced the issue directly, you'd probably crack a smile or two (given how closely you seem to follow these things).

Yes, and it probably does. I still have a copy of the magazine, somewhere (and you probably do, too!)

See, now you're almost saying to me: "Abandon everything else that you're doing and study old car magazines looking for the big-engine no-option car."

I tried to practice healthy skepticism vis a vis the media before that incident, but it was nonetheless an eye opener.

It's like politics, though; I can't remember the name for the "syndrome," but liberals tend to find the media is conservative, whereas conservatives feel it is liberal. Without going too far off course - these justifications are important, sure; but how much validity they add is debatable.

When done right, you can take what's said to determine how you yourself would feel, which is much harder to do in an everyone-wins! single-car review. Comparisons also prevent reviewers from being wowed by a car's x quality in a market segment where every car has x quality -- a crossover SUV's practicality, for example.

We read what we want to into these things; some fight that instinct better than others, but it happens to us all. And that's why credibility - for instance, a long-term love affair with a car (which I doubt any magazine has had with the RL in the same way as, say, the 5er, 3er, Accord, etc.) - matters. Reinforcement. Tell me and tell me again.

Vis a vis other magazines, no; but it disrupts the status quo.

So are you saying the love affair is good and disrupting the status quo is a ploy for causing reader-inducing controversy? Or am I misreading?

Also, I'm not sure I understand your objection to the "love affair" if you have one. To me, it's consistency -- if one car consistently provides the qualities you seek in an automobile better than others, why shouldn't it consistently win?

I read your note recently, about how you ask for press cars; intriguing. My former colleague is no longer running the press fleet, but I know who I might be able to drop a line to about it.

I'll test the waters, but I'll caution you, they're very cagey about that sort of stuff. Without dropping too many hints, several years ago they caused a minor bust-up when they denied a rather popular website press cars. As far as I know, that site is still banned.

I assume you have more experience than I do at getting press vehicles, through Automobear? Any advice you can offer me -- as someone who has had a grand total of four -- would be greatly appreciated. (Bear in mind that quite a few automakers have no-exceptions age rules mandated by insurance concerns.)

I wouldn't pull any TTACs.

[the Teuton]

Big engine, import, no options, many tests, well-liked cars from the past:

BMW 3ers
BMW 5ers
Honda Accord
Mazda6
Porsches in general
...to name a few...

Let's face it, there are very few car companies that make the bigger engine available without a myriad of features.  The ones that do, however, all seem to be German for the most part.