I agree with some of his points, but not others. Let's take his charges one by one:
1. No eight-cylinder engine.
The question here is, do people really care whether or not there is an eight, if that's not the engine they're buying anyway? My opinion is that this is not a critical factor. Look at all the cars that the competitors are selling, and you'll see that most of their cars do not have an eight. The eight (or more) is only in the high end of the market, and all the entry-level ($30-40K) cars sold, which is the bulk of unit sales, do not have eights.
2. Undistinguished styling.
I agree, absolutely, that the styling is bland, and that sales are lost because of it. But then the question is, how does this compare with the competitors? With few exceptions (Lexus SC430), almost all of the models from Lexus and BMW and Mercedes are (IMO) also afflicted with bland, boxy, cookie-cutter styling. The one exception is Infiniti, which (as mentioned elsewhere) is an also-ran, a non-player in this market. So while Acura is guilty, so is the competition. What does that tell you?
3. No rear-wheel-drive car.
Is this a factor? Yes and no. Many of the cars sold by Lexus are FWD, yet that hasn't held them back. They laud Audi for their AWD cars, but Audi too is an also-ran, with sales less than Acura's.
4. Car names.
They criticize Acura for alphanumeric model designators, but that's exactly what all the competitors are doing. Again, this doesn't explain why the competition is selling more cars than Acura.
So, all in all, I think the things that the author accuses Acura of, are mostly just as true of the competition. Which means that they are not responsible for their greater sales.
I think a better explanation arises from looking at what sells cars - and I think what sells cars is product, marketing, pricing, and service.
In product, I don't think Acura has as wide a variety of vehicles as the others. Lexus has nine models. So does Mercedes. BMW does but only by claiming high-performance M variations as separate models. Acura has only six, and one of them is the slow-selling niche model, the NSX. I don't think Acura is able to spend as much on product development as its competition; as a result, it has fewer eggs in its basket. This is why it took Honda so long to sell its own mid-sized SUV; they sold Isuzu's models while its designers and developers were working on the Odyssey. Acura just does not have the variety that its competition has, and that hurts.
In marketing, I just think Acura has not done a good job. The television and print ads are as bland as the car styling. Why should Honda have better television commercials than Acura? I believe that the bland styling and bland ads are a symptom of conservatism, a feeling that luxury buyers won't accept anything outside of the norm. And I don't believe in that principle.
Pricing is one area where Acura is superior, no question, and without this, the sales decline would surely have been much worse.
Service, though, is another area where, IMO, the competition just does a better job, and the dealers have a reputation for treating the customer well. Certainly, in today's environment driven by customer satisfaction and surveys, all dealers are trying to do better. But my sense is that Acura has not put in place the processes and mechanisms for monitoring customer service and rewarding those dealers that are really good at it. And the fact that some Acura dealers are much, much better than others says something about the degree to which consistency is not being enforced on a division-wide basis.
So, in a nutshell, I think product, marketing, and service are far more responsible for Acura's relatively poor performance over the years than the factors mentioned in the article.
), but the idea that "old cars" become useless is certainly a concept I've never heard among auto enthusiasts!
