Howdy, Stranger!

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





Acura RL

1165166168170171352

Comments

  • 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’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: 2,476
    “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

    Mark –

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

    Does one (in the automotive review ‘game’) 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 – sometimes many thousands less.)

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

    What’s really “fair”?

    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 – 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 ’05 Infiniti G35 might appear to be a possible contender.

    Then again – if you must have a manual trans. . .

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

    A loaded V6 STS – 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 ’05 crop of automotive stuff will be compared to.

    - Ray
    Glad I am not picking the ‘contenders’ for any such testing – as whatever I’d pick would be guaranteed to tick SOME group(s) off . . .
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,653
    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, “this is the way a BMW should drive”
  • 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: 1,653
    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.