Looks like the $26-$33,000 Acura CL coupe with a 255+HP v6 FWD is going to be history after this year.

According to autoweek:

"Acura has sold just 2974 CLs so far this year, down 35.5 percent from the first four months of 2002. Official word is that dropping the CL provided money to develop the all-new TL sedan due later this year."

 

It's ironic how Acura is viewed by some as a superior car, yet its being trounced that badly in sales by pretty much every coupe I can think of......even Pontiac's Sunfire.

 

Well, it's not like the Sunfire is anywhere close to being in the same market as the CL.

IMO, the CL was done in by being a very bland car with no discernable image (I can't even picture one in my mind-- is that the one with the alien-eyes tailights?). I don't know about the rest of you, but I can never keep straight the difference between the TL, RL, and CL. I mean, I know they're different cars but the names just don't mean anything. I think it was a big mistake by Acura to try to mimic the European nomenclature in an effort to reinforce the "Acura" name. At the very least they should have stuck with numbers. Any idiot (e.g., me) would know a "5"-something is supposed to be better than a "3"-something.

 

It is true... Acura is becoming as bland (at least to me) styling wise, as Hyundai and Kia... I cant tell any of them apart anymore...

 

I guess it just shows that the coupe market is weak for another uninspiring $30,000+ v6 FWD coupe.

 

Actually, Hyundai and Kia are moving in a direction that is anything but bland. You can question the aesthetics of the current Sonata, XG350, and the upcoming Kid Opirus (which looks like a Jaguar knock-off), but they sure aren't as bland as your average GM product.

 

You are so right... I know more about cars than probably 99% of the general population, and yet I have no idea what the difference between an RL, CL, TL, etc. is.

 

Acura made a mistake when they adopted the "alphabet soup" naming strategy. Everyone knew what an Acura Legend was, and the name "Legend" had better brand recognition than the Acura name.

That brings me to the Accord-based CL, which sort of replaced the old Legend coupe. Admittedly, this car lasted for two tedious generations, but in the end it was outclassed by the new Accord coupe. Sure, the CL was just a badge engineered car, but so is the Lexus ES300. I think the ultimate failure can be attributed to poor Acura-brand marketing, because it really wasn't a bad or overly expensive car.

 

It's going to be a heck of a boring world when there's nothing left but tall 4-doors. But hey, at least some of them will be fast.

And GuionM is right--Acura was TOLD to get rid of the Legend name by their branding agency because it had higher recognition than Acura at the time. Which is quite possibly the stupidest recommendation in the history of marketing. Oh, more people know "Walkman" than "Sony?" Losing the "Walkman" name still ain't a good idea.

 

If you want irony, the Acura RL is badged as a "Honda Legend" in every market outside of the United States. Even with the old name, this car would still have been a flop because of its tremendously boring design.

I still think its amazing that Acura was the first Japanese attempt at an "upscale" division, but its also the least successful in terms of image. Personally, I think the biggest problem was the lack of suitable products. As the automotive industry shifts towards RWD, Honda is still devoted to FWD. The only exceptions have been the Honda Beat mini-roadster, NSX and S2000. Sure, the MDX is a competitive product, but everything else is just a badge engineered FWD Honda. In Canada, they even sell an Acura EL which is nothing but than a Honda Civic sedan with a different front clip.

 

the problem with CL (and alot of acura cars these days) is that while they are all around great cars, they don't excell in any particular area
why would anyone buy a CL when they can get a g35 coupe?

 

I kindly disagree.

Matter of opinion I suppose, but the biggest 'bland' cars GM has would probably be Malibu... their mini-vans....and Buick cars(which you are on file as being a fan of)....

Other than that, like them or not, they do actually have some styling to them and are distinguishable from their stablemates and other cars on the road.

 

I agree with Darth big time on that one. Calling GM bland and Kia and Hyundai stylish is pretty hilarious. other than the Tiburon, I cant tell Hyundai's cars apart from one another. And Kia, I wont even get started...........

 

Is Kia still in bussiness????

The Blandest cars have to be Toyota, for the 2nd best selling car nameplate I don't see many one the road. I don't know if it is b/c nobody buys then in upstate NY or because they are just so boring that I don't notice them.

I'm starting to worry that I might accedently hit one because I don't see it. (driving Toyota = driving motorcycle at night with no lights on)

 

The problem I see with Acura is that, while trying to portray an "upscale" brand, they've never made any serious attempts to distinguish it from the lower Honda.

Which car is it where the Acura version only gets the 4 cylinder while the Accord is available with an optional V6? I believe it is the TL. And remember, these cars are on identical platforms, share the same features, but the Acura costs thousands more?!?