Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Acura RL

1109110112114115235

Comments

  • Since the list price for my 99 RL was about $44,000, with navi, a $48,000 list price for the 05 seems pretty reasonable. Considering inflation and all the extra goodies on the 05, especially.
  • They do not mention the STS or the New 300 C or a Jaguar Type S
  • jjacurajjacura Posts: 808
    In a 2005 RL article by Fred Gregory....he was very impressed with the new
    (SH-AWD) system. He writes " It uses pseudo rear diff with two electromagnetic clutches that control torque distribution on the orders of a computer that monitors front and rear g-forces, yaws,steering input, rpm, throttle position, gear ratio, and individual wheel speeds. As you cruise along the system pumps 70 % of the power to the front wheels. But as conditions change, it can reverse the balance to the rear wheels, pretty standard 4 wheel drive stuff. What's different is that with SH-AWD is it's ability to apportion torque-side to side on the rear axle. IN FACT, the system can route as much as 100% of the rear axle's power to just one rear wheel if necessary. The torque-shifting function is tied into the vehicle's stability-control system and is designed to give the RL agile yet foolproof handling.
        All this power mongering is never apparent to the driver but it's effect is obvious. This we discovered in the course of running dozens of laps in several RL's around a tight little circuit at Summit Point Raceway in West Virginia."
        There is more in this article that I like but this particular information dispels the notion that the RL is a cumbersome road car as acknowledged by a buddy when I showed interest in buying it months ago. (Was wondering though if 18 inch tires and wheels would enhance or hinder the handling?) Anyone care to speculate?
  • pg48477pg48477 Posts: 309
    "We had the opportunity to drive the RL on a closed road course along with an Audi A6, a BMW 530i and a Mercedes-Benz E320. Granted, this course was set up by Acura, but the RL handled noticeably better than the others and the SH-AWD system worked seamlessly. While we still think the BMW's steering feels quicker and more responsive, overall the Acura RL was more precise and able to get around the course faster. Plus, the RL has an almost spooky ability to go exactly where the driver points it. "

    This is a pat of a new review posted today on edmunds. Just want to say on thing, I have no read any review for the past ten years stating that any vehicle handled batter than BMW, in respective class. Still don't know if BMW had sport package or RL had 18" rims, but still impressive.
  • shotgunshotgun Posts: 184
    BMW's steering feels quicker and more responsive?!?!? This is, indeed, an oxymoronic statement - given that they go on to say "...overall the Acura RL was more precise and able to get around the course faster. Plus, the RL has an almost spooky ability to go exactly where the driver points it. " Sounds to me like we have some shell shocked BMW aficionados on our hands...
  • proeproe Posts: 157
    I think it has to do the course setup by Aura as it is mentioned in the First Drive.

    I think the base price of $ 48,000 is still possible, but if Acura does come out A-Spec for RL as Acura has some kind of performance upgrade as I mentioned in another post, then the price would well be in $50,000 to $52,000 price range.

    And, without a V8, I think the marketing target for Acura is to take on the V6 market only, which I think is not a such bad strategy as you do not want to broaden you target too much as you put so much technology into a brand new design. Also, if you look at the design philosophy of Lexus, it has had the reputation of "no fun to drive," yet their LS430 is the best in its class. I think Acura has been paying attention to that fact.

    Again, if you want a "true" performance car, get a Lotus Elise, which hits 60 in 4.4s, and pulls 1.06g that is even better than Ferrari Enzo, and it costs around $40,000.

         
  • Since the list price for my 99 RL was about $44,000, with navi, a $48,000 list price for the 05 seems pretty reasonable. Considering inflation and all the extra goodies on the 05, especially.
  • So has anyone heard of supercharging the new Acura 3.5? The previous model year for the TL had a few supercharging aftermarket options. A 450 horse supercharged SH-AWD RL would be the BOMB!!!
  • Doesn't Canada have a national GST tax (Good and Services Tax) of 7% which functions like a Value Added Tax (VAT)? If so, wouldn't 7% be "embedded" in the MSRP in the same way that European nations quote prices inclusive of VAT? If this is the case (OK, I'm guessing), the price for a 2005 RL at 69,500 Canadian dollars inclusive of GST would be 64,953 Canadian dollars exclusive of GST. At the current conversion rate of U$0.7702 per Canadian dollar (today's Wall Street Journal, page C11), the equivalent US MRSP would be approximately $50,000. Of course, then you would have to deduct the headlight washers and ventilated front seats that we poor unfortunates south of the border don't rate. I wonder if XM radio and OnStar really cost Acura anything significant since both transition to subscription services?
  • >Of course, then you would have to deduct the headlight washers and ventilated front seats that we poor unfortunates south of the border don't rate.<

    Heated seats in Canada make sense to me, but ventilated seats up North in Canada, as opposed to down South here in the good old USA (Texas, Florida, California, etc) makes NO sense to me.
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    What I got from the first drive article is that all the people who've said Japan CANT build sport are wrong. They've just chosen not to, and thats changing. Bad news for the establishment.
  • >>I wonder if XM radio and OnStar really cost Acura anything significant since both transition to subscription services?

    Since both XM and OnStar want to get people hooked on their services, I doubt they charge Acura much, if anything for the initial service.
  • proeproe Posts: 157
    I think the first year is free.
  • ksomanksoman Posts: 590
    All I've to say at this point is:
    1. The car does look lovely in DARK colors, i still think its looks BLAH in light.

    2. After reading all the first drive reviews, I think most people are kinda going gaga over the RL... whether that translates into actual sales for RL is to be seen.

    3. There was a time when every Edmunds editor left drool marks on every BMW and basically, BMW could do no wrong... nowadays, Edmunds seems to be drooling over every Acura. If you read the past TSX, TL & now the first drive RL reports here, you'd think, they have had a change of religion from BMW to Acura ;)

    ksso
  • >>I think the first year is free.

    For the car owner, yes. The question was whether Acura has to pay for it or whether XM and OnStar give them a deal to get car owners hooked.
  • If you haven't read the article here on edmunds, please do so. The comments pertaining to the car -- without comparison to the other brands mentioned -- are worthwhile additions to the buzz and speculation that have been, thus far, out there for us to evaluate.

    As I read the article, though, I found [based on my interpretation] the remarks comparing the Acura to the Audi and the BMW to be less than compelling. Indeed, although I am certain edmunds did not intend to present the article disingenuously, the article appears to be comparing the new RL to the '04 versions of the other brands mentioned.

    Probably there were no 2005 A6's for example to compare the RL with -- and that is certainly no crime. However, to say anything about the 2005 RL in comparison to the 2004 models of "the other guys" seems either unintentionally misleading or intellectually dishonest.

    In other words, while I appreciate the praise, analysis and facts pertaining to the RL, I find the comparison without merit or value.

    I find this particularly disturbing since there was no clarification that the cars being compared were not identified as to model, equipment level, etc. At a price point of $48K for the Acura RL for 2005, the 2004 Audi A6 2.7T S-line would be the "closest" model -- er, close enough for jazz as the saying goes.

    This statement [mine] does not diminish the overall impression (positive) that edmunds' ultimately reaches. Indeed, the RL for 2005 would, undoubtedly, "trump" the 2004 Audi 2.7T S-line.

    But that is not the point.

    I, for one, await a comparison (at the price point) of the 2005 A6 3.2 (and, to be inclusive the 2005 BMW 5 series) with options "equivalent" to the RL or at least optioned to the as close as possible price point -- and, to repeat, ditto the BMW.

    Why do we have to wade through such reviews? I would have much preferred an overview and impressions of the new RL with a teaser that says, "we can't wait to compare the 2005 models from. . . ."

    There's 10 minutes of my life I can never get back.
  • jjacurajjacura Posts: 808
    Colors....Have you seen the new exterior colors? (The download on Acura's sight doesn't reveal the exterior colors yet), I have really liked the white diamond pearl on my TL for the last 4 years and would like to see it on the RL.
  • jjacurajjacura Posts: 808
    Mark, Well, it was 10 worthwhile minutes spent because you bring up a valid point. Why would they not want to compare apples with apples?
  • shotgunshotgun Posts: 184
    "...now the first drive RL reports here, you'd think, they have had a change of religion from BMW to Acura ;).."

    And that, my friend, is a very good thing!!!
  • Agreed, they have little merit unless they are "apples to apples". It's probably hard to balance waiting for all cars of like type to be mustered together with getting out the review for a new machine that has as much pent up interest as does this rl. Thankfully, there will likely be more reviews down the line. But to read the the rl even comes close to bmw for steering and/or handling is a huge win for acura. remember, acura's sell on build quality 1st, performance 2nd. to stake a hold on both 1st and 2nd is a good omen for sales. at 48k USD, this might be a decent buy afterall. @ 45 retail, it's a huge win for the buyer.

    As for looks, that's all subjective to taste that will never be reviewable unless the new entry is as freakshow ugly as a 7 series.

    This fascination with ever larger wheels and tires escapes me. Would think at 18", the rl would be maxed out in terms of handling, ride quality ratio. I might prefer 17", or heaven help me, 16", for the ideal ratio of ride quality and handling. At 20", there is likely not enough air volume in the tire to derive any kind of road imperfection absorption. Suspensions are tuned to allow for the tire to take on a certain amount of punishment and that is done with air volume. Also, the wheel weight increases too much with more metal v more rubber. Do we want to tax the suspension more or less at point of impact? Do we want more weight or less at point of braking? Me, I want less. And if someone argues that the wheels can weigh less than the rubber, they will then be arguing for less tolerant metal that will greatly impact the wallet with un-waranteed wheel damage when whacking potholes. Particularly in the Northeast & upper Midwest, I would want 16-17" wheels with penty of rubber to silence and smooth out roads that were likely 1st built for wagon traffic.

    Ksso, are you sure you like dark colors? :)
  • shotgunshotgun Posts: 184
    Good points Mark - but in fairness to most of the preliminary reviews I've read, the authors have gone out of their way to point out that they only spent one day with the car. Insufficient to form any concrete conclusions and that subsequent, more comprehensive reviews, would tell the real story. I've read the various articles for what they were intended, cursory previews - nothing more nothing less. But you must admit, the "previews" were quite glowing and portent nothing but good news for Acura...
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    shotgun
    That is true. And at 1:1 ratio, the crankshaft and the drive shaft turn at the same rate.

    rayainsw
    I&#146;m wondering if Honda could modify the secondary axle to get out of the way in top gear, essentially creating a much taller sixth gear ratio. Some gearboxes (usually manual) are designed to work like that. Focus SVT was offered with a Getrag that utilized two axle ratios, with four (or five?) gear ratios to provide six ratios. If RL gets that, the 60 mph crusing rpm would drop to about 1700 rpm, and should help improve highway mileage.

    saugatak
    A better way to add more power and torque to the RL would likely come in the form of a supercharger. We may see superchargers running 5-6 psi and delivering 400 HP or more from the 3.5/V6 and maximum torque output would also jump to 340-350 lb.-ft.

    jeff88
    I agree. 17-inch rims are good enough for most practical purposes, and 18 inch for low profile rubber if a more sporty ride is desired. 20-inch rims would be an overkill (besides adding to the weight, cost and replacement cost of the tires).
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I would rather focus on how RL performed than how it stacked up against the other cars included (BTW, a 2004 Acura RL was thrown in for good measure as well). And based on that, everybody seems to be impressed with the dynamics of the car. It appears to me, target was set to design a driver's car with emphasis on technology (electronic and mechanical). Instead of heated steering wheel, buyers get real time traffic interface, and thats something I expect from Acura/Honda.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,576
    &#147;comparison (at the price point) of the 2005 A6 3.2 (and, to be inclusive the 2005 BMW 5 series)&#148; with options "equivalent" to the RL or at least optioned to the as close as possible price point

    Mark &#150;

    You really raise (or approach) a very interesting issue here.

    Does one (in the automotive review &#145;game&#146;) choose vehicles for such a comparison test based only on a specific range of MSRP? On roughly equivalent equipment levels? On comparable engine size / configuration? On sheer overall size (passenger and / or trunk volume) or wheelbase? On a best quarter mile time quicker than 15.0 sec.? On the Edmunds TMV? (Sometimes close to MSRP &#150; sometimes many thousands less.)

    Or on all of these factors? Weighted with a skew toward X?? And away from Z??

    What&#146;s really &#147;fair&#148;?

    I can certainly see both validity and value in a comparison where the chosen ones must include: Minimum of 4 doors, some reasonable minimum wheelbase, some minimum level of both luxury and sporting intention, and at least 300 HP &#150; meaning the new A6 3.2 at 255 HP (and the Passat W8 at 270) would not be included. (Who cares about the VW???)

    Lower the HP limit to 270 and the RWD (or even the AWD) version of the &#146;05 Infiniti G35 might appear to be a possible contender.

    Then again &#150; if you must have a manual trans. . .

    So - does the A6 3.2 compete? Or the 4.2? Both?

    A loaded V6 STS &#150; nope, not enough HP. A stripped (?!) STS V8? (STS V8 1SE-s appear to sticker in the $51K range.)

    Throw AWD into the mix as a requirement . . . and I will indeed be interested to see what the new &#146;05 crop of automotive stuff will be compared to.

    - Ray
    Glad I am not picking the &#145;contenders&#146; for any such testing &#150; as whatever I&#146;d pick would be guaranteed to tick SOME group(s) off . . .
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,677
    I was left with the same impression.

    My initial expectation for the new RL is that it would at least compete with the performance and luxury of the outgoing models. In the case of the A6, the chassis goes back to 98 and the 3.0 engine goes back to 2002.

    With the other new models out now, I would not expect to see the new 2005 A6 review to state it handles better than the 04 RL or the 04 530; or have Audi set up a comparision of their new model with previous models.

    All that being said...the RL does appear to be a giant leap forward, and apparently it leaped over the pervious generation competition.
  • The Car and Driver last said of Cadillac CTS, Vs BMW 5 series, &#147;this is the way a BMW should drive&#148;
  • ksomanksoman Posts: 590
    thanks for adding the negative aspects of the discussion, this place was getting too sweet. life has to be balanced.

    ;)
    ksso
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,677
    heh

    I agree...sometimes you need to add a little spice to get the full flavor.
  • Hi nebraskaguy!! :)

    The GST is added TO the price of whatever it is you're buying in Canada - it is not part of the price. But not only does someone add the GST [which is 7% - like you said] each province [except for Alberta] has its' own PST. [Provincial Sales Tax] In British Columbia [where I live] the PST increases depending upon the cost of the car you're buying. A car with an msrp of up to $47,000 the PST is 7.5%. [the base rate - which is the same for all other purchaes] A car with an msrp of between $47,000 and $47,999 - the PST is 8%. Between $48,000 and $48,999 - the PST is 9%. Anything above $48,999 is taxed at 10%. Sound stupid? It is!! So if I bought a new RL - I'd have to pay $69,500 PLUS 17.0% TAX. YIKES!! But at least all of those tax dollars are being spent wisely - so that's nice!! lol

    Craig!! :)
  • cericceric Posts: 1,093
    >A better way to add more power and torque to the RL would likely come in the form of a supercharger. We may see superchargers running 5-6 psi and delivering 400 HP or more from the 3.5/V6 and maximum torque output would also jump to 340-350 lb.-ft.<

    Before someone actually put a supercharger on top of it, one better makes sure the new tranny is up for the extra torque. 100ft-lb increase in torque is not a small increase. Anyone has the info on how much torque can the tranny handle? I guess we will have that info when new RLs are available in shops.
Sign In or Register to comment.