[home][rumors and news][model release matrix][dealer network][desktop calendar][exhaust notes][tov forums][links][search][sponsors][garage][login]

Tire Rack Upgrade Garage
 Search for a Dealer:
 Canadian Flag US Flag
 Honda Acura
 ZIP  
Spied on the Street! 2019 Pilot and Pilot PHEV mule
More.......................
All-New 2019 Honda Insight Brings Style, Sophistication and 55 mpg City Rating
More.......................
It's Official: Honda to supply Red Bull Racing in Formula One from 2019
More.......................
Will the next-gen TLX bring back double wishbones? Or a Plugin Hybrid model?
More.......................
Acura tackles Pikes Peak with 2019 RDX, NSX, and TLX entries
More.......................
Honda Partners on General Motors’ Next Gen Battery Development
More.......................
Trucks Set Records as Core Products Deliver American Honda May Sales Gains
More.......................
First in a Generation: All-New 2019 Acura RDX Arrives in Showrooms June 1
More.......................
Insight --> Re: 3rd Generation Honda Insight Reviews
Join Discussion......
Classifieds: Buy & Sell --> Re: 1999 Zanardi NSX 6MT, 2008 CR S2000 for sale
Join Discussion......
MDX --> Re: Camera directed car toward oncoming traffic after windshield replacement
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Re: Nikkei: Battery wars: Japan teams up for next-gen electric cars
Join Discussion......
Videos --> MS woman goes Dukes of Hazzard in her 9th Gen Civic EX
Join Discussion......
Type R --> Re: DC-R
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: 2018 WC
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: 2019 Chevy Blazer Revealed As A Sporty Crossover
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: F1 - 2018 French Grand Prix
Join Discussion......
RDX --> Re: 3rd Generation Acura RDX Reviews
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: 2019 Volvo S60
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Next gen RLX and ILX
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Some juicy Acura info!!!
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Accord 2.0T Touring or Kia Stinger 2.0T Premium?
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: Autobild report: Red Bull switching to Honda
Join Discussion......
First Drive: 2019 Honda Insight
Read Article....................
2019 Honda Insight PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Acura RDX
Read Article....................
2019 Acura RDX Features & Specifications
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery - 2019 Acura RDX Advance
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery - 2019 Acura RDX A-Spec
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
  TOV News > Acura Set to Launch More Powerful, Technologically Advanced and Luxuriously Equipped 2016 Acura ILX > > Re: Sales Predictions

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - 1 [2]
Author
    
CarmB
Profile for CarmB
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-26-2014 23:00
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
No reference I can find is specific about the sales projection being restricted to the U.S. Comments at the time referenced a projection of 40,000 ILX sales. Unless described otherwise, that means all ILXs sold regardless of where.

Of course I can't pretend to have sat in on every single session involving an Acura rep making a comment to the media. So perhaps out there somewhere is a statement excluding Canada from the sales projections. As far as I know, though, that statement doesn't exist.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-27-2014 14:10
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
iutodd wrote:
owequitit wrote:
1) I didn't claim it wouldn't raise transaction prices. In fact, just selling for sticker would be a huge improvement in transaction prices (where they are currently getting $5-10K discounts, or about equivalent to a Civic EX-L in actual transaction price). That said, the car selling AT sticker doesn't change any portion of what I said.

2)A 10-15% increase in sales would still put it below 2K units per month, or 24K per year. In fact, it would put it right at, or just slightly below Acura's revised sales count of 20K per year, so in essence, you haven't disagreed, but actually supported my point.


Look at my first post for the math. When you look at the entire history of the ILX a 10-15% increase would put the ILX over 21,500 units per year.

And, looking at the entire brand 21,500 units of the ILX will be a solid contribution to the overall growth and sales of Acura. Not to mention selling for sticker will increase sales dollars and profits.

This year Acura will sell less than 60,000 cars (i.e. - not SUVs) between the RLX, ILX, TLX, TSX and TL - it's a bad year (in which they will still grow sales slightly). Next year, with just the ILX, TLX and RLX it's not that hard to figure that they will sell 70,000+ cars. 20,000 ILX, 48,000 TLX, 3,000 RLX (plus negligible TSX, TL sales) - I also think there is a good chance for the TLX number to be higher. Combine that with the 105-110K SUV sales and you have Acura selling 175-180,000 units with only five vehicles. Add in a small SUV below the RDX with 20-25,000 units and Acura is right back to the 200K unit mark...



You can't look at the entire history. Recent history is more accurate because there are other factors in eariler years that affect sales that you guys don't like to acknowledge because it is counter to your propaganda.

Point blank reality: Even at 21,500 it BARELY meets the originally revised downward target of 20K units (despite new engine, transmission, features, crash safety, sound deadening and styling, which is about as comprehensive of an update as you could possibly make). It doesn't meet the 2K unit a month number which I said I would be surprised by, and it still doesn't constitute sales success based on the very fact that Acura WANTED to sell 40K of them a year. I will have to go look at numbers, but I suspect that also still puts it well behind the "horrible" (as Carm likes to assert) A3 and CLA.

Also, based on CURRENT sales figures, a 10-15% increase won't clear 20K units per year. Simple as that. This car no longer has enough market power to draw tons of people into showrooms IMO. But then again, I said the same thing about the RLX AWD and was blasted for that too. But guess what? I was right.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-27-2014 14:20
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarmB wrote:
No reference I can find is specific about the sales projection being restricted to the U.S. Comments at the time referenced a projection of 40,000 ILX sales. Unless described otherwise, that means all ILXs sold regardless of where.

Of course I can't pretend to have sat in on every single session involving an Acura rep making a comment to the media. So perhaps out there somewhere is a statement excluding Canada from the sales projections. As far as I know, though, that statement doesn't exist.



Its good that you have gotten so desperate to support your point that the only yardstick left to move is to try and claim statements that haven't been part of the conversation from the beginning.

Face it Carm, the ILX never has, and likely never will, meet its targets. Just roll over and accept it. Trust me, your outlook will be much better for it.

The ILX has been an abject failure, just like the RLX, the ZDX, the Crosstour, the Element, Insight, CR-Z, RL, 4th gen TL, 2012 Civic, and all of the other cars that were called a spade prior to their launch that you guys bitched and poo poo'd about.

The ILX is going to continue to fail because it has already passed its window of opportunity to change market perceptions about it. It simply won't be considered by many consumers because A) Acura is no longer perceived as a legitimate luxury competitor in basically every segment it competes in (minus the SUV's) and B) the market's perception is formed by the lackluster, poorly featured, under-performing pig of a pre-MMC car.

Considering that Acura will most likely try to price it at $30K, I just don't see it making its originally defined sales targets. Even if I am wrong, and it DOES meet its revised targets finally (20K per year), it just shows how far off the mark Honda originally was based on what they will have had to upgrade just to move 50% of what they originally wanted.

Just like with the RLX, Honda squandered the opportunity to make a splash. Now the A3, CLA and several others are newer, and they will be headed for their MMC's shortly, which will just further pull attention away from the ILX.

The sooner Acura is taken to task on their poor management and horrible product, the sooner they will be inclined to fix their stupidity.

In fact, looking at the list of abject failures over the last 10 years is really fucking sad, because they have been successful about 40% of the time with product launches. That is pre-bankruptcy GM bad. But don't you worry, I am sure if they hadn't pissed away those billions of dollars, they probably could have had an enthusiast model or two that actually would have produced POSITIVE brand momentum instead of negative.

iutodd
Profile for iutodd
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-27-2014 17:11
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
Also, based on CURRENT sales figures, a 10-15% increase won't clear 20K units per year. Simple as that. This car no longer has enough market power to draw tons of people into showrooms IMO. But then again, I said the same thing about the RLX AWD and was blasted for that too. But guess what? I was right.



OK. Let's look at the most current sales figures - let's look at ILX sales for the last half of the current year. The TLX was released in August and has helped sales but we'll look at July-November - December sales obviously aren't out yet but I can come back and do the math for you later if you want.

July: 1235
August: 1798
September: 1464
October: 1618
November: 1652

7767 units over the last five months. Obviously we'll see what December brings but 7767 divided by 5 is 1553. So the average monthly sales over the last five months for the ILX is 1553 units.

1553*12 is 18,636.

A 10% increase on 18,636 (18,636 x 1.1) is 20,499.


So...if you look at the entire sales history of the ILX a 10% boost puts them over 21K units. If you look at the most current sales history (last 5 months), then a 10% boost also puts them over 20K units. I don't know any other way to explain it.

We could even look at just the months in which the ILX and TLX have been selling side by side - really June and July were just awful months for Acura overall. They've averaged 1633 units a month since the TLX came out in August (so four months). That's 19,596 a year and a 10% increase would put them at 21,500 units in a year.

CarmB
Profile for CarmB
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-27-2014 19:02
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
The time to discuss whether or not the ILX has been a success is long past. Roughly half of projected sales while discounting heavily = not so good.

The thing is that the notion of a premium sub$30,000 compact producing 40,000 annual sales across North America is perfectly reasonable. If so, it's not at all unreasonable to aim for those sales with a revised ILX addressing the main criticisms of the original.

This is not the time to assess if Acura has succeeded in fixing what ails the ILX. When the car arrives in showrooms and the automotive press has had a good chance to look it over, then that conversation will make sense. What can be considered right now is what a successful revision would look like. Personally, I see the role of the ILX as being that of offering an alternative to a well-equipped midsize sedan that draws consumers up into the Acura family. The price point is roughly upper-grade midsizer range and what that means is you have to offer something to entice someone into opting for the ILX instead of your Accords, Camrys, etc. Right now I'd say the ILX is akin to paying for an Accord yet feeling like you didn't get your money's worth because the back seat and the trunk are too small. This is because the ILX fails to outshine the Accord in ways it ought to considering it's lighter, smaller, potentially more fun. You don't get driving pleasure out of the ILX of a calibre that it feels like you're sacrificing some room for more, zoom, zoom, to put a Mazda bent on it. This is what the ILX right now is missing. Sure there's a version with the decent 2.4L engine but that configuration is useless as far as generating sales is concerned. You can't do significant sales with a MT these days. That's non-negotiable. And when that 2.4L is only offered in a single trim, even worse.

So a successful ILX (approaching 40,000 sales annually in North America without resorting to drastic discounts) needs to be seen to be a viable, sportier alternative to the typical midsize sedan. In a way, it's competing against cars of a decidedly different bent. To an extent, the original TSX, as a nimbler, more European take on the sedan is an example of the direction the ILX ought to be taken. Such a car, done right, would easily hit the 40,000 target, perhaps even blow past it.

Is the 2016 ILX that car? The answer is coming but we're not there yet.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-27-2014 19:20
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
iutodd wrote:
owequitit wrote:
Also, based on CURRENT sales figures, a 10-15% increase won't clear 20K units per year. Simple as that. This car no longer has enough market power to draw tons of people into showrooms IMO. But then again, I said the same thing about the RLX AWD and was blasted for that too. But guess what? I was right.


OK. Let's look at the most current sales figures - let's look at ILX sales for the last half of the current year. The TLX was released in August and has helped sales but we'll look at July-November - December sales obviously aren't out yet but I can come back and do the math for you later if you want.

July: 1235
August: 1798
September: 1464
October: 1618
November: 1652

7767 units over the last five months. Obviously we'll see what December brings but 7767 divided by 5 is 1553. So the average monthly sales over the last five months for the ILX is 1553 units.

1553*12 is 18,636.

A 10% increase on 18,636 (18,636 x 1.1) is 20,499.


So...if you look at the entire sales history of the ILX a 10% boost puts them over 21K units. If you look at the most current sales history (last 5 months), then a 10% boost also puts them over 20K units. I don't know any other way to explain it.

We could even look at just the months in which the ILX and TLX have been selling side by side - really June and July were just awful months for Acura overall. They've averaged 1633 units a month since the TLX came out in August (so four months). That's 19,596 a year and a 10% increase would put them at 21,500 units in a year.



Again, you are hand picking your figures to suit your point.

On the one hand, you want to try and use total sales history (including at launch when sales figures are usually highest), on the other hand, you want to limit sales to the last few months to take advantage of an unexplainable short term sales bump. Too much gray area in the middle, so let me run your numbers for you, because I don't know how to explain it any other way.

YTD the ILX has sold 16,124 units. Divided by 11 months of sales, that works out to 1465 units per month average for the last year. If we add 1500 units AVERAGE to 16,124, we get 17,624 for a reasonable approximation of full year sales. Now increase that by 10% and you get 19,386 which is still shy of your precious 20K per year. If you increase it by 15%, you JUST BARELY clear your precious 20K by less than 300 units per year. So really, based on original sales estimates of 40K per year, you are STILL woefully shy, and you would BARELY make your revised 20K per year estimate, which is pretty much exactly what I have said the whole time. Let's also not muddy the water with the fact that the overall trend in sales for the ILX has been downward for I believe the last 2-3 years, and is in fact down nearly 15% from last year. So if that trend continues (i.e. the new car fails to garner sufficient sales volume and interest) then even with a 10-15% increase in sales, you may only maintain the same volume as you currently have (which does NOT meet the 20K per year goal). We will have to wait to see how the market receives the new car. However, if you actually go back and READ what I ORIGINALLY posted, I said that I was pretty sure it would never reach 2,000 units per month (24K total per year, not 20K). That is the value that would leave me flabbergasted. However, I am still somewhat skeptical that it will even meet 20K per year since it is only 1 basic model with 3 trim levels, the interior is still ugly (albeit improved) the performance will ONLY compete with BASE model competitors and the ILX name plate as a whole already has a bad stigma in the market based on Acura's abject failure with it the first time around when they lost the only chance they were going to get to make a good first impression with a new model.

Of course we haven't discussed the reality of transaction prices yet either, which are likely the cause of the sales increase. The incentives on the ILX are currently such that I can get an ILX for less money than a Civic EX-L. Some people will be swayed by that. Apparently not many, but some. Also, I suspect that one of Acura's main goals with the MMC ILX is to get transaction prices closer to sticker (even if there is no net increase in sales) simply because putting $5-10K on the hood isn't something HMC is inclined to want to continue. As the lease deals expire and finance terms come to more realistically resemble the actual cost of the car, that will also have a negative effect on sales and will offset some of the assumed increase in volume due to a better product. You can use the Civic as an example, where the 2013 did not greatly increase sales over the 2012, but DID succeed in removing most of the incentives while still maintaining similar volume.

So you can go ahead and continue to spew your propaganda, but the reality is that you guys are grasping at straws and trying to cook the books to try and make a point that doesn't exist. The only relevant short term number is the last year, and the only long term number would be the total volume versus expectations. But you don't want to talk about any of those because they don't support your point. Short of that they either don't take into account short term bumps or drops in sales, initial market reaction, economic conditions, etc. The trend of sales has not only been BELOW initial forecasts, but has been downward. Mathematically, that is a failure.

The only subjective point is whether or not the MMC will reverse that trend and have a significant impact on sales. I personally do not believe it will because IMO, both the Accord V6 and the TLX are more compelling products. Once the final values come out, we will see who was right, and then it won't be subjective anymore.

From a consumer perspective, I simply don't see a reason for most buyers to suddenly focus in on the ILX over the competition. It certainly makes the ILX a better car for most people versus the old one, but A) that isn't saying much, and B) I think the biggest issue isn't that the ILX will be a terrible car, but rather than Acura has already missed any window of opportunity to make a good impression with the product.


CarmB
Profile for CarmB
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-27-2014 21:07
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
You keep on referencing how the ILX will not be competitive with other competing brand's upgrade performance models. Assuming we are talking a 6.5-second 0-60 ILX, apart from the A3 2.0T, what other competitors are you claiming will take sales away from the ILX on account of the ILX, according to you, can't get up?

You can't mean the $50,000 CLA AMG. I mean how likely is it that Acura would lose sleep over the ILX being outperformed by a car costing $20,000 more. You can't mean the Verano Turbo either. It has been clocked at 6.4 seconds to 60 by Car and Driver. Similar to the A3 base.

Being as there are only four models considered to make up the category the ILX competes in, with two of the three competitors not offering anything from an accelleration point of view for Acura to lose sleep over, you're exaggerating the degree to which the ILX isn't - on paper at least - competitive with the other three offerings in this category. The A3 2.0T is an exception in this class, not the norm.

Argue that you think some sales might be lost to the A3 2.0T because, for those that care, it's likely quicker. But where's the evidence that Verano and CLA will likewise siphon off sales by way of noticeably quicker offerings. Lose sales to the $50,000 AMG? I'm sure Acura has bigger concerns.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-27-2014 22:01
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarmB wrote:
You keep on referencing how the ILX will not be competitive with other competing brand's upgrade performance models. Assuming we are talking a 6.5-second 0-60 ILX, apart from the A3 2.0T, what other competitors are you claiming will take sales away from the ILX on account of the ILX, according to you, can't get up?

You can't mean the $50,000 CLA AMG. I mean how likely is it that Acura would lose sleep over the ILX being outperformed by a car costing $20,000 more. You can't mean the Verano Turbo either. It has been clocked at 6.4 seconds to 60 by Car and Driver. Similar to the A3 base.

Being as there are only four models considered to make up the category the ILX competes in, with two of the three competitors not offering anything from an accelleration point of view for Acura to lose sleep over, you're exaggerating the degree to which the ILX isn't - on paper at least - competitive with the other three offerings in this category. The A3 2.0T is an exception in this class, not the norm.

Argue that you think some sales might be lost to the A3 2.0T because, for those that care, it's likely quicker. But where's the evidence that Verano and CLA will likewise siphon off sales by way of noticeably quicker offerings. Lose sales to the $50,000 AMG? I'm sure Acura has bigger concerns.



Carm, just stop the bullshit. Now you are trying to drag nonsense from another thread where you have been repeatedly shot down. Just stop. You are being absolutely preposterous.

It won't be competitive with anything beyond the base model A3(1.8T) and will likely be slower than the base model CLA. It will be slower than the Accord V6, will be about the same as the Civic Si (which means slower than the GTI), it is about equal to the Verano Turbo (which you continually claim is a turd), about the same as the 320i, and only slightly faster than the ATS 2.5.

The problem is that every single one of those cars gives the option for AT LEAST one additional engine with more performance save the Verano, which truthfully shouldn't even be in the same league as an Acura.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-27-2014 22:03
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Also, since you apparently can't read links which were spoon fed to you in the other thread, I would be happy to relink and quote them here for you.

The ILX is NOT faster than the base CLA.

CarmB
Profile for CarmB
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-28-2014 06:44
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Competitive does not mean your product necessarily surpasses what others are offering but rather that your product is ballpark enough that it can compete. If the ILX is roughly a 6.5-second car, it will be competitive enough in terms of accelleration for the class of car it will undoubtedly be compared to. If you have to use a stopwatch to figure out which of two cars are quicker, then you're really not talking enough of a difference to matter. I find it highly unlikely that the average person would be able to, for instance, reliably tell you which car is doing a 6.3-second 0-60 vs. a 6.6-second 0-60.

The ILX will be reasonably quick, by today's standards, across the board and I doubt sales will be lost in any appreciable degree as a result of it being pokey because pokey it will not be.

One situation that has seriously limited sales is not offering an AT with a fairly robust engine option. That ends when the 2016 arrives. Sure you might lose a few dozen diehard MT supporters but you stand to gain thousands of consumers who would have considered not being able to get good power with an AT a dealbreaker.

Naturally accelleration is just one of many pieces of the puzzle. Still, by going with the latest powertrain technology in Honda's arsenal, Acura is eliminating concerns about that aspect of the ILX. It's important that we're seeing a universally praised DCT going into this car and not a rather out-of-date AT or a CVT. It suggests that Acura has figured out that if you're going to charge Accord prices for a Civic-sized car, it had better not be cutting the wrong corners.

Does swapping out the two flawed powertrains currently available for one rather promising one dramatically improve the ILX's sales potential? You seem convinced it will not on account of you think consumers will storm out of Acura showrooms dismayed they can't have a five-second ILX at any price. We're talking sales and you're fixating on a niche aspect of the rather large, lucrative market the ILX is aimed at getting a piece of. I think most potential ILX buyers are not so fixated on 0-60 times and quarter-mile runs that they would find the ILX to be underpowered. The ones who would care that much about it would simply not put the ILX on their shopping list. A niche crowd, though, and not really relevant in regards to the broad strokes regarding sales potential.

iutodd
Profile for iutodd
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-28-2014 08:50
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
iutodd wrote:
owequitit wrote:
Also, based on CURRENT sales figures, a 10-15% increase won't clear 20K units per year. Simple as that. This car no longer has enough market power to draw tons of people into showrooms IMO. But then again, I said the same thing about the RLX AWD and was blasted for that too. But guess what? I was right.


OK. Let's look at the most current sales figures - let's look at ILX sales for the last half of the current year. The TLX was released in August and has helped sales but we'll look at July-November - December sales obviously aren't out yet but I can come back and do the math for you later if you want.

July: 1235
August: 1798
September: 1464
October: 1618
November: 1652

7767 units over the last five months. Obviously we'll see what December brings but 7767 divided by 5 is 1553. So the average monthly sales over the last five months for the ILX is 1553 units.

1553*12 is 18,636.

A 10% increase on 18,636 (18,636 x 1.1) is 20,499.


So...if you look at the entire sales history of the ILX a 10% boost puts them over 21K units. If you look at the most current sales history (last 5 months), then a 10% boost also puts them over 20K units. I don't know any other way to explain it.

We could even look at just the months in which the ILX and TLX have been selling side by side - really June and July were just awful months for Acura overall. They've averaged 1633 units a month since the TLX came out in August (so four months). That's 19,596 a year and a 10% increase would put them at 21,500 units in a year.



Again, you are hand picking your figures to suit your point.

On the one hand, you want to try and use total sales history (including at launch when sales figures are usually highest), on the other hand, you want to limit sales to the last few months to take advantage of an unexplainable short term sales bump. Too much gray area in the middle, so let me run your numbers for you, because I don't know how to explain it any other way.

YTD the ILX has sold 16,124 units. Divided by 11 months of sales, that works out to 1465 units per month average for the last year. If we add 1500 units AVERAGE to 16,124, we get 17,624 for a reasonable approximation of full year sales. Now increase that by 10% and you get 19,386 which is still shy of your precious 20K per year. If you increase it by 15%, you JUST BARELY clear your precious 20K by less than 300 units per year. So really, based on original sales estimates of 40K per year, you are STILL woefully shy, and you would BARELY make your revised 20K per year estimate, which is pretty much exactly what I have said the whole time. Let's also not muddy the water with the fact that the overall trend in sales for the ILX has been downward for I believe the last 2-3 years, and is in fact down nearly 15% from last year. So if that trend continues (i.e. the new car fails to garner sufficient sales volume and interest) then even with a 10-15% increase in sales, you may only maintain the same volume as you currently have (which does NOT meet the 20K per year goal). We will have to wait to see how the market receives the new car. However, if you actually go back and READ what I ORIGINALLY posted, I said that I was pretty sure it would never reach 2,000 units per month (24K total per year, not 20K). That is the value that would leave me flabbergasted. However, I am still somewhat skeptical that it will even meet 20K per year since it is only 1 basic model with 3 trim levels, the interior is still ugly (albeit improved) the performance will ONLY compete with BASE model competitors and the ILX name plate as a whole already has a bad stigma in the market based on Acura's abject failure with it the first time around when they lost the only chance they were going to get to make a good first impression with a new model.

Of course we haven't discussed the reality of transaction prices yet either, which are likely the cause of the sales increase. The incentives on the ILX are currently such that I can get an ILX for less money than a Civic EX-L. Some people will be swayed by that. Apparently not many, but some. Also, I suspect that one of Acura's main goals with the MMC ILX is to get transaction prices closer to sticker (even if there is no net increase in sales) simply because putting $5-10K on the hood isn't something HMC is inclined to want to continue. As the lease deals expire and finance terms come to more realistically resemble the actual cost of the car, that will also have a negative effect on sales and will offset some of the assumed increase in volume due to a better product. You can use the Civic as an example, where the 2013 did not greatly increase sales over the 2012, but DID succeed in removing most of the incentives while still maintaining similar volume.

So you can go ahead and continue to spew your propaganda, but the reality is that you guys are grasping at straws and trying to cook the books to try and make a point that doesn't exist. The only relevant short term number is the last year, and the only long term number would be the total volume versus expectations. But you don't want to talk about any of those because they don't support your point. Short of that they either don't take into account short term bumps or drops in sales, initial market reaction, economic conditions, etc. The trend of sales has not only been BELOW initial forecasts, but has been downward. Mathematically, that is a failure.

The only subjective point is whether or not the MMC will reverse that trend and have a significant impact on sales. I personally do not believe it will because IMO, both the Accord V6 and the TLX are more compelling products. Once the final values come out, we will see who was right, and then it won't be subjective anymore.

From a consumer perspective, I simply don't see a reason for most buyers to suddenly focus in on the ILX over the competition. It certainly makes the ILX a better car for most people versus the old one, but A) that isn't saying much, and B) I think the biggest issue isn't that the ILX will be a terrible car, but rather than Acura has already missed any window of opportunity to make a good impression with the product.






I might as well go all out with the propaganda. It's been fun as always owequitit. Let's never do this again.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-28-2014 11:27
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarmB wrote:
Competitive does not mean your product necessarily surpasses what others are offering but rather that your product is ballpark enough that it can compete. If the ILX is roughly a 6.5-second car, it will be competitive enough in terms of accelleration for the class of car it will undoubtedly be compared to. If you have to use a stopwatch to figure out which of two cars are quicker, then you're really not talking enough of a difference to matter. I find it highly unlikely that the average person would be able to, for instance, reliably tell you which car is doing a 6.3-second 0-60 vs. a 6.6-second 0-60.

The ILX will be reasonably quick, by today's standards, across the board and I doubt sales will be lost in any appreciable degree as a result of it being pokey because pokey it will not be.

One situation that has seriously limited sales is not offering an AT with a fairly robust engine option. That ends when the 2016 arrives. Sure you might lose a few dozen diehard MT supporters but you stand to gain thousands of consumers who would have considered not being able to get good power with an AT a dealbreaker.

Naturally accelleration is just one of many pieces of the puzzle. Still, by going with the latest powertrain technology in Honda's arsenal, Acura is eliminating concerns about that aspect of the ILX. It's important that we're seeing a universally praised DCT going into this car and not a rather out-of-date AT or a CVT. It suggests that Acura has figured out that if you're going to charge Accord prices for a Civic-sized car, it had better not be cutting the wrong corners.

Does swapping out the two flawed powertrains currently available for one rather promising one dramatically improve the ILX's sales potential? You seem convinced it will not on account of you think consumers will storm out of Acura showrooms dismayed they can't have a five-second ILX at any price. We're talking sales and you're fixating on a niche aspect of the rather large, lucrative market the ILX is aimed at getting a piece of. I think most potential ILX buyers are not so fixated on 0-60 times and quarter-mile runs that they would find the ILX to be underpowered. The ones who would care that much about it would simply not put the ILX on their shopping list. A niche crowd, though, and not really relevant in regards to the broad strokes regarding sales potential.



I am not going to let you restart the spin cycle Carm. Simple as that. It is over. Done. Destroyed. Torn apart. Every single base point you have made has been factually deconstructed, backed up with numbers, and linked to death. At this point, you simply refuse to accept reality, so the only concept left is to keep beating you with that reality until you either A) stop or B) accept it.

The ILX will ONLY be competitive with the BASE models of the other cars in the segment.

The rest of your post is more bullshit drivel that has ALREADY been taken care of repeatedly, addressed repeatedly and deconstructed repeatedly.

Move along now broken record.

The ILX will ONLY BE COMPETITIVE WITH BASE CARS IN ITS SEGMENT.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-28-2014 12:09
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarmB wrote:
Competitive does not mean your product necessarily surpasses what others are offering but rather that your product is ballpark enough that it can compete. If the ILX is roughly a 6.5-second car, it will be competitive enough in terms of accelleration for the class of car it will undoubtedly be compared to. If you have to use a stopwatch to figure out which of two cars are quicker, then you're really not talking enough of a difference to matter. I find it highly unlikely that the average person would be able to, for instance, reliably tell you which car is doing a 6.3-second 0-60 vs. a 6.6-second 0-60.

The ILX will be reasonably quick, by today's standards, across the board and I doubt sales will be lost in any appreciable degree as a result of it being pokey because pokey it will not be.

One situation that has seriously limited sales is not offering an AT with a fairly robust engine option. That ends when the 2016 arrives. Sure you might lose a few dozen diehard MT supporters but you stand to gain thousands of consumers who would have considered not being able to get good power with an AT a dealbreaker.

Naturally accelleration is just one of many pieces of the puzzle. Still, by going with the latest powertrain technology in Honda's arsenal, Acura is eliminating concerns about that aspect of the ILX. It's important that we're seeing a universally praised DCT going into this car and not a rather out-of-date AT or a CVT. It suggests that Acura has figured out that if you're going to charge Accord prices for a Civic-sized car, it had better not be cutting the wrong corners.

Does swapping out the two flawed powertrains currently available for one rather promising one dramatically improve the ILX's sales potential? You seem convinced it will not on account of you think consumers will storm out of Acura showrooms dismayed they can't have a five-second ILX at any price. We're talking sales and you're fixating on a niche aspect of the rather large, lucrative market the ILX is aimed at getting a piece of. I think most potential ILX buyers are not so fixated on 0-60 times and quarter-mile runs that they would find the ILX to be underpowered. The ones who would care that much about it would simply not put the ILX on their shopping list. A niche crowd, though, and not really relevant in regards to the broad strokes regarding sales potential.



1) The ILX does not have two flawed powertrains. It has one.

2) You are the one that tried to argue that none of the other cars would be competitive toward the ILX by first trying to assert that a customer would have to buy the "big engine" from the competition to be roughly equal to the ILX, and then when that was proven incorrect, by trying to downplay the small margin of advantage the ILX might have against some of them (which was in direct contrast to you trying to explain away any ILX handicaps relative to the competitors). That was deconstructed AT LEAST 3 DIFFERENT TIMES IN THE OTHER THREAD. WITH FACTS and FIGURES AND THE WHOLE NINE YARDS. And yet, here you are trying to prattle on with it again.

The really sad part is that you have been duped using your own logic against you.

It is really simple. If the ILX's performance is adequate, then so are all of the other base cars you spent 3 threads and god knows how many posts trying to make a big deal about. Now you are basically agreeing with what I said, but trying to pretend it was YOUR idea. I don't think so scooter. At least now you are finally acknowleding in writing that the ILX will only be competitive with base models of the competition.

2) You are attempting to twist my words yet again because you just can't stand the fact that I not only stopped your circular nonsense, but completely destroyed it, so now you are trying to insinuate things I NEVER said.

I don't think the buyers will go storming out of Acura dealerships. I simply think the product will not be compelling enough to bring large numbers of new customers in. There is a HUGE difference. Acura's opportunity to create positive momentum for the ILX was 2-3 years ago. That time has passed. There are many other more compelling alternatives that don't have the ILX stigma associated with them, and they are also going to be coming up for an MMC soon, which will gain them the same attention (possibly more) than the ILX has already had. You can blame Acura for squandering the opportunity to have a class leading entry level car, not me. I had nothing to do with it. I didn't squander Acura's opportunity, their shitty management did. The real question going forward is can they avoid the same mistakes they have been making for 20 years now, based on the new leadership that seems to at least have a clue about what needs to happen?

Also, when Acura brings the transaction prices up, but taking away the $8K discounts, that will put downward pressure on sales (supply and demand curves dictate that when equilibrium price goes up, equilibrium demand goes down). I didn't say sales would decrease. That, again, is you making up baseless shit to try and re-energize your circular make believe nonsense. What I DID say, was that with the average price going up (because they WILL pull incentives), I don't know that there will be a large increase in sales due to quality. In order to get sticker, the increase in quality had to happen. I then used the Civic as an example where the quality of the car was MEASURABLY better in nearly every way, but sales volume stayed roughly the same. It was still good for Honda, because they were making a few extra thousand per unit sold, which more than covered any additional expenses related to building a better car (funny how when Honda did that naturally when they had good management, cheerleaders you like soaked it up like hot milk in a litter of kittens). I expect the same to happen to the ILX. Even if volume remains constant, the fact that they don't have to pay customers $5-10K to buy their car is good for Acura.

But that's OK, because I am sure you have forgetten when we called the ZDX and the RLX failures. You came to their rescue too, inventing all sorts of creative hyperbole to try and explain away Acura's failure, and look what happened? They both failed anyway. You did it again with the RLX Hybrid when we all claimed that it would have ZERO effect on the overall momentum of the model because Acura had squandered their opportunity when they launched the base car first. What happened? We were right. The Hybrid didn't even make a dent or a splash in the media, being damned with faint praise, just like the ILX has been.

It actually really simple: (Of course, you obviously have no interest in acknowledging this sort of sage advice, so I have no expectation that you will do anything but gloss over it in your next attempt to try to restart your merry-go-round of ridiculousness.)

Anyway, back to the point: The best time to gain product momentum for a car is at initial launch. If the car meets the vast majority of the consumer's demands, then it will be a resounding success. Honda Motor Company used to never mess this up, having an almost clairvoyant ability to see what the market was going to want (even if they didn't know it). They excelled at delivering on their core values. Because the initial product was successful (see 2013 Accord as an example), they didn't have to give ANY incentives to move the volume they wanted. Then at the 2-3 year point, they would do a minor freshening, with a little more power, some styling changes, and maybe some content updates. The car would continue to sit at the top of the segment for the rest of its life.

Why? Because A) they actually delivered what people wanted. B) The INITIAL reception was such that it made people WANT to go check it out. Clearly, the ILX did not do that (nor did the RLX). Now we are 3 years down the road, and anybody who may have been interested in the ILX initially, won't really have an interest in going to look at it because A) They bought something else, B) They have a negative perception in their mind based on its failures at launch, or C) They have been bombarded by the absolutely poor to mediocre media coverage of the car and assume that it simply isn't good enough.

Which brings me to another point you have incorrectly poo poo'ed for the last year or more.

Your enthusiasts (the ones you say don't matter to Honda and aren't cost effective to accommodate, even though they are WAAAAY cheaper than debacles like the ILX and RLX) are important because they are the ones that influence regular buyers, such as yourself, who aren't really versed on cars. When it comes up what they are looking for, it will usually be "enthusiast" friends who guide them toward the products that might fit them. An enthusiast is MORE likely to know what changes Honda made to the ILX to make it better, than some average joe off the street who decides to go car shopping and only finds the mediocre ILX reviews. The problem is that Honda has spent so much time chasing their enthusiasts away, that they no longer have a staunch crowd of fans that basically convinces regular drivers like yourself to give the ILX a shot. That drives potential show room traffic down, which make it harder for Acura to increase sales.

Even assuming there is some positive press on the new ILX, it will not be as extensive as the coverage was at launch, and ordinary buyers aren't going to really understand the changes that have occurred to make them think it is extremely more compelling than the pre-MMC car, and that is assuming that the media coverage is positive. If it damns with faint praise again, or isn't glowing over how good the car is (like the TLX's was largely indifferent towards all but the 4 banger), then people who rely on that to decide if it is worth a look are less likely to look. Of course, you also have the major issue that Acura has been flopping around like a salmon out of water for the last decade and a half with no luxury intention, no cohesive product, and only being able to compete below $40K, and yes, there is a little bit of a brand stigma there. Less than people are blinded by a BMW or Mercedes badge, and more that the common perception is that a Mercedes is better than an Acura because people are willing to pay more, and they are successful all the way to the top of the industry.

You an poo poo me all you want. You have said we were wrong at every turn and we have been right, you have been wrong and it is precisely BECAUSE I am an enthusiast and I can see what is desirable and what is not. Frankly, Acura has absolutely NOTHING that makes me want to buy one over the Honda it is based on. Not only is that sad, but it is a complete reversal of trend where I used to have to ponder over which of all of the products I would want most.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-28-2014 12:13
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarmB wrote:
Competitive does not mean your product necessarily surpasses what others are offering but rather that your product is ballpark enough that it can compete. If the ILX is roughly a 6.5-second car, it will be competitive enough in terms of accelleration for the class of car it will undoubtedly be compared to. If you have to use a stopwatch to figure out which of two cars are quicker, then you're really not talking enough of a difference to matter. I find it highly unlikely that the average person would be able to, for instance, reliably tell you which car is doing a 6.3-second 0-60 vs. a 6.6-second 0-60.

The ILX will be reasonably quick, by today's standards, across the board and I doubt sales will be lost in any appreciable degree as a result of it being pokey because pokey it will not be.

One situation that has seriously limited sales is not offering an AT with a fairly robust engine option. That ends when the 2016 arrives. Sure you might lose a few dozen diehard MT supporters but you stand to gain thousands of consumers who would have considered not being able to get good power with an AT a dealbreaker.

Naturally accelleration is just one of many pieces of the puzzle. Still, by going with the latest powertrain technology in Honda's arsenal, Acura is eliminating concerns about that aspect of the ILX. It's important that we're seeing a universally praised DCT going into this car and not a rather out-of-date AT or a CVT. It suggests that Acura has figured out that if you're going to charge Accord prices for a Civic-sized car, it had better not be cutting the wrong corners.

Does swapping out the two flawed powertrains currently available for one rather promising one dramatically improve the ILX's sales potential? You seem convinced it will not on account of you think consumers will storm out of Acura showrooms dismayed they can't have a five-second ILX at any price. We're talking sales and you're fixating on a niche aspect of the rather large, lucrative market the ILX is aimed at getting a piece of. I think most potential ILX buyers are not so fixated on 0-60 times and quarter-mile runs that they would find the ILX to be underpowered. The ones who would care that much about it would simply not put the ILX on their shopping list. A niche crowd, though, and not really relevant in regards to the broad strokes regarding sales potential.



Just to put a nail in your next "pre-emptive" point, YOU were the one that initially claimed the .3 second advantage of the ILX over the A3 1.8T was some huge deal. You then immediately tried to downplay the 1.0 second plus advantage of the A3 2.0T, and were summarily blown out of the water like a battleship with a torpedo in its magazine.

Funny though, how now that you were flat schooled on your nonsense, you are trying to reinvent it like I was the one who said .3 seconds was a big deal.

CarmB
Profile for CarmB
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-28-2014 16:09
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
The bottom line is the ILX needs an updated powertrain and it's getting it. It should eliminate one of the biggest complaints levelled against it and I would be surprised if with the revised powertrain, the ILX is deemed by most to be lacking in that regard. I doubt many will be crossing off the ILX from their shopping list on account of it's not quick enough. Regarding how it will do when measured under the same conditions by the same source alongside the recognized competition - Verano, CLA, A3 - hopefully Car and Driver will see fit to carry out such a comparison. I would expect that if such a comparison is carried out, we will not see the standard Verano because it delivers performance on a par with the current 2.0L ILX. So it would be three turbos vs. the ILX. Yet it's not quite a case of the ILX being a write-off as a result. Not using a turbo is a great way to eliminate turbo lag. Works every time. As well, reducing weight is a great way to compensate for the lower torque generated at lower RPMs by a non-turbo engine. Engine displacement helps with that, too. So a lighter ILX using a larger-displacement non-turbo is not necessarily at a disadvantage. Also factoring in this is the DCT which might just be a cut above the DCTs offered in competitors. So it will be interesting to see how the ILX fares should a shootout with a group of turbo compacts does take place.

It's clear you wanted to see a version of the ILX aimed directly at the diehard enthusiast. What you have to understand is that such a product is not going to directly produce significant volume and will certainly not generate a profit. These days if you make an enthusiast's version, it's an expense that comes down to another form of advertising. You build such a version because it improves brand image. Certainly at some point Acura would be well served by doing so but I suspect the pieces to make such a model happen are not ready for prime time. When they are, doing a hot ILX-based coupe or something along those lines would make sense.

Yet the ILX unveiled recently is a whole other beast. Yes the current powertrains needed to be replaced but not to create essentially a WRX in a tuxedo. Rather it's about improving the perceived value. So you want to clearly discern that the ILX is a cut above the Civic and the Accord 4. A higher-output 2.4L mated to a universally-praised DCT accomplishes that.

It's not about making a sedan for the diehard enthusiast. It's about making a sedan that is appealing enough to entice those on the verge of stepping up to an entry premium product to take the plunge. Once that plunge is taken, then it's about an ownership experience that leads to a long-term relationship. The current ILX does not set itself apart from Honda's regular sedan offerings and those who have bought the ILX have been unimpressed. It's about changing that and that's what the ILX will be judged on.

Complaining that Acura isn't taking aim at the diehard enthusiast with the ILX is to criticize the product for failing to be something it is not intended to be. Kind of pointless. It should be judged on its own terms and if it is a successful revision on that basis, should the end result not be to your liking, clearly you need to be looking at something else.

Sales potential is not predicated on the ILX being something it isn't. It's about making a product that appeals to its target audience, which is not you.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Sales Predictions [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 01-03-2015 00:35
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarmB wrote:
The bottom line is the ILX needs an updated powertrain and it's getting it. It should eliminate one of the biggest complaints levelled against it and I would be surprised if with the revised powertrain, the ILX is deemed by most to be lacking in that regard. I doubt many will be crossing off the ILX from their shopping list on account of it's not quick enough. Regarding how it will do when measured under the same conditions by the same source alongside the recognized competition - Verano, CLA, A3 - hopefully Car and Driver will see fit to carry out such a comparison. I would expect that if such a comparison is carried out, we will not see the standard Verano because it delivers performance on a par with the current 2.0L ILX. So it would be three turbos vs. the ILX. Yet it's not quite a case of the ILX being a write-off as a result. Not using a turbo is a great way to eliminate turbo lag. Works every time. As well, reducing weight is a great way to compensate for the lower torque generated at lower RPMs by a non-turbo engine. Engine displacement helps with that, too. So a lighter ILX using a larger-displacement non-turbo is not necessarily at a disadvantage. Also factoring in this is the DCT which might just be a cut above the DCTs offered in competitors. So it will be interesting to see how the ILX fares should a shootout with a group of turbo compacts does take place.

It's clear you wanted to see a version of the ILX aimed directly at the diehard enthusiast. What you have to understand is that such a product is not going to directly produce significant volume and will certainly not generate a profit. These days if you make an enthusiast's version, it's an expense that comes down to another form of advertising. You build such a version because it improves brand image. Certainly at some point Acura would be well served by doing so but I suspect the pieces to make such a model happen are not ready for prime time. When they are, doing a hot ILX-based coupe or something along those lines would make sense.

Yet the ILX unveiled recently is a whole other beast. Yes the current powertrains needed to be replaced but not to create essentially a WRX in a tuxedo. Rather it's about improving the perceived value. So you want to clearly discern that the ILX is a cut above the Civic and the Accord 4. A higher-output 2.4L mated to a universally-praised DCT accomplishes that.

It's not about making a sedan for the diehard enthusiast. It's about making a sedan that is appealing enough to entice those on the verge of stepping up to an entry premium product to take the plunge. Once that plunge is taken, then it's about an ownership experience that leads to a long-term relationship. The current ILX does not set itself apart from Honda's regular sedan offerings and those who have bought the ILX have been unimpressed. It's about changing that and that's what the ILX will be judged on.

Complaining that Acura isn't taking aim at the diehard enthusiast with the ILX is to criticize the product for failing to be something it is not intended to be. Kind of pointless. It should be judged on its own terms and if it is a successful revision on that basis, should the end result not be to your liking, clearly you need to be looking at something else.

Sales potential is not predicated on the ILX being something it isn't. It's about making a product that appeals to its target audience, which is not you.



The only thing that is clear Carm is that you are humanly incapable of A) listening and B) not running yourself in tireless circles.

You are like a turd swirling the drain that just won't go down no matter how many times you flush it.

1) I never denied that the ILX needed an updated powertrain. That said, other than the fact that ILX will now shift for itself, it is NOT going to have some major performance advantage versus the current manual car. It simply won't. Laws of physics dictate it, no matter how much blind Honda fanboys such as yourself want to pretend that Honda can bend the laws of science for $30K. Even mentioning the base car is irrelevant because it isn't even close to competitive with the segment. It could be a factor of 10 improvment over the base car and it still would only be competitive with the entry level options from ALL of the other makers except Buick. Simple as that. What that means (since you still don't get it) is that the ILX is no better performance wise than the BASE A3, CLA and several other entrants (like the IS250).

You can deny it all you want. Just wait and see. The ILX is not going to outperform the other BASE cars in class substantially, no matter how much your try to deny the scientifically acceptable standardization of their testing (even though you attempt to use it to your advantage when that same testing regiment benefits your argument). But don't worry, because when they do test them, I am going to call your ass out on it and rub that shit all over in your face just because you are such a shill about it.

2) Spin, spin, spin. First, none of the base cars mentioned have a lot of turbo lag, and 2nd, it isn't going to be nearly as responsive as you suggest because while it may not have a moment's breath of lag, it will also be down around 50-100 lb-ft on the other cars, which means it simply won't have as much punch.

As for the lecture on the physics, spare me, because we both know I understand it better than you do. It is simply you trying to reinvent another fake argument to circle around and try to support your fake argument.

3) I couldn't care less about an enthusiast version of the ILX. Also, your drivel about "hardcore enthusiast" is total bullshit and we both know it (more of you inventing strawmen). An MT isn't "hardcore" enthusiast, as the Si has one and it is hardly a "hardcore" car. That said, enthusiast version or not, it is hard to be taken seriously as a "luxury" brand when you can barely compete with BASE models of everyone else's cars.

4) Sometimes I wish I could see you in person so I could punch you in the face.

You are spewing more total bullshit about "profitability." What YOU have understand is that Honda wouldn't lose money by making a more high performance model. What Honda loses money on are the shitty cars like the ZDX and the CSX. So actually, Honda is losing MORE money by catering to shills like you than they EVER did catering to enthusiasts like me.


 
Thread Page - 1 [2]
Contact TOV | Submit Your Article | Submit Your Link | Advertise | TOV Shop | Events | Our Sponsors | TOV Archives
Copyright © 2018 Velocitech Inc. All information contained herein remains the property of Velocitech Inc.
The Temple of VTEC is not affiliated with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TOV Policies and Guidelines - Credits - Privacy Policy
30 mobile: 0