Howdy, Stranger!

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





Acura RL

1185186188190191352

Comments

  • . . .virtues.

    Two "options" that are MUST haves are Sat Nav and "rear" parking assistance radar, sonar or whatever makes them work.

    My Audi proclivity is well known to anyone who has been participating in edmunds for any length of time. And, many folks know that with the exception of the A8, Audis have had navigation for years and it has been dubbed here in the US "nav lite" because it has arrows and voice prompts but no full color, high-zoot, Acura - like moving map.

    I use the nav system every week, the park sensors EVERY day and they both are important systems that I cannot imagine being without.

    It is my opinion, supported somewhat by my "Audi Sales Rep Buddies" that sat nav sells cars, new or used -- and although TODAY accurate ($500+ trade in value) -- sat nav is becoming "the" must have feature on even the least expensive cars (which means for Audi ~$30K) and a requested feature on CPO'd models.

    My guess, clearing up daily, is that Sat Radio is becoming a very desirable feature too. Now, apparently, On*star (but Acura may change this) not so much so, but even that -- telematics -- is growing (slowly) in popularity.

    This Acura is perhaps only a little bit ahead of its time -- as it does seem to contain all, or most of, the "virtues" that were once "vices. . . ."
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I’m not sure about M. Infiniti seems to have discovered that G35 succeeded and was praised for its styling (in coupe form). As a result, now every Infiniti must carry the look. This can make things boring, and confusing. It is good to carry a family resemblance, but making cars look identical across the range is not a good idea, IMO. For that reason, I have issues with Mercedes styling approach to C-Class thru S-Class. There is not much else besides size differentiation. In case of BMW and Acura, there is family resemblance, but the styling elements are different.

    The Lexus GS will probably look different on the road than most cars and to many that can be a good thing. Except for the bloated appearance (same issues and lines as Nissan Maxima), I actually like it.

    But as an overall package, with pretty good (subtle) styling to boot, RL wins it so far. It would be nice to be able to negotiate on the price someday (near invoice, which may be about $44,500).
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Luxury cars aren’t about needs, they are about wants. I’m not sure if $2K premium on a $47K sedan holds any meaning. So, it doesn’t hurt to have the luxury of Navigation system since you can. And Acura’s system is very nice, probably the best around.

    I would love to own an RL (I have never leased a car), but as of now, TSX and TL are on top of my list. In any case, I will be getting navigation system.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I have built Lexus GS300 with stuff here at Edmunds, and it topped out at $47K. AWD may add another $2K-3K to the price, so that could put it in the vicinity of $50K, comparably equipped to the RL. This assumes no price increase or decrease from 2005 model.
  • cericceric Posts: 1,093
    And, you'll get a 245hp 3.0L V6 for that kind of money. I am sure it would be weighing about at least 3800lb with AWD added. It will run in about 7.5 to 8.0 sec 0-60. Any Honda Accord V6 can beat it easily.

    In my point of view, a luxury sports sedan needs to have respectable performance (not necessarily the fastest, but respectable). On top of that, you add luxury for enjoyment and comfort. An enduring look to your eyes is essential since every time you take a glance at it, it reminds you of the amount of money you spent on it, 50 large.
  • legendmanlegendman Posts: 362
    >It would be nice to be able to negotiate on the price someday (near invoice, which may be about $44,500)<

    Would you or anyone care to hazard a guess as to when that will be?

    Also, is it reasonable to assume that if the 2005 RL becomes 'Motor Trend Car of the Year' that RL's price will hold up even longer?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Something different brewing for the European market? Click here to see a picture. The Autoexpress preview makes no mention of IMA, but under the hood IMA shows up (everything else about the shroud is identical to the RL).

    It couldn&#146;t be Accord Hybrid, because under the hood the look is quite different.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Definitely sometime in the future. From what I have read, Acura is targeting sales of 1000 units/month for first six months, and bump it up to 1500 units/month over the following six.

    Demand and supply will dictate the negotiation aspects, as it would in any car. The RL looks like a good value at MSRP. Anything off it, will make it unbeatable.
  • ksomanksoman Posts: 590
    no car is good at msrp. period.

    Saturn is not the unique pricing structure in the world. There are several countries where you don't have to haggle over price. They quote a price, that just doesn't change dealer to dealer. What draws people to one dealer against another is the people & quality of service. Of course, most other countries have densely packed urban populations unlike the US suburban population.... anyway, my point is, given the pricing structure of cars in the US, no car is worthy of its MSRP in the long run. If cars like the TL & MDX have kept themselves at MSRP for considerable time, its just short term good luck for the dealers.

    my 2 cents
    ksso
  • ditto ksso,

    I will never buy a vehicle at MSRP! Even though the car is a good value at that price. I can't wait to test drive it and see whether it will be better than the competition (A6, 530i, E320) before I buy.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    10% off the MSRP is something I set my target at. Although, I would say that some vehicles could be better value at MSRP than another at invoice. In the end, it is about getting what you pay for.
  • >>10% off the MSRP is something I set my target at. Although, I would say that some vehicles could be better value at MSRP than another at invoice. In the end, it is about getting what you pay for.

    I have never understood the hangup about paying a certain percentage under MSRP. In my opinion, what's important are: can I afford it, does it have the features I feel are important, does it offer good value for the price, and how does it compare to the competition - in features, reliability, price, etc. Once I've answered those questions in relation to the car I want to buy, I then focus on comparing dealer to dealer in my area. If all dealers in an area are selling a car for roughly the same price, whatever that relationship is to MSRP, I can then make a decision on whether to buy now, or wait.

    But to say I won't buy X car until I can get it for some arbitrary percentage under MSRP makes no sense to me. However, your next two sentences make complete sense to me. That should be the primary focus, in my opinion.

    As far as the RL goes, I believe it will be at least six months before there will be any dealing under MSRP.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    There is a reason to the 10% I mention. It gets you close to the MSRP (at least based on Invoice versus MSRP we see mentioned at places like Edmunds).

    But you're correct otherwise. Like I said earlier, some cars at MSRP may be better than others at below MSRP.
  • >>There is a reason to the 10% I mention. It gets you close to the MSRP (at least based on Invoice versus MSRP we see mentioned at places like Edmunds).

    I use Edmunds and have always been happy. When I bought my RL, using Edmunds I got it for more than 10% under MSRP.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    I've never understood the hangup regarding MSRP. A dealer offers a customer $2,000 cash back on a car that costs $52,000 and they jump on it. Another dealer offers the same car at $50,000 firm, and the same customer gets uppity.

    The car is worth what the market decides.
  • igibanigiban Posts: 530
    Just realized that 04 RL had only one trim already, and its msrp is around $46K too. So it's almost impossible for Acura to price it lower than that when 05 RL is so much improved. And one trim only is just a continued strategy from the olds, which did not have much success on its own. I am still not sure one-trim only is the best way to do it. But there seems to be lots more features tied to the screen on this new RL.

    That said, we all know that the old RL has been selling no where near msrp for a long time, even way before 05 came about, so it's really up to the market to decide again if this RL is worth that much among many more established choices. Pre-set whatever below msrp may not mean much (a la, old RL).

    Someone said TL/MDX selling msrp is just short term luck? Maybe. But I recall a Honda minivan selling msrp for three+ years. What a luck!
  • I think the 2006 GS with AWD, out in May 2005, with Nav, etc. (i.e., equipped like the RL), is going to be comfortably over $50k. It is a smaller car than the RL in every dimension and doesn't have the RL's power and performance. But you can bet it will hold its value better than the RL.
  • legendmanlegendman Posts: 362
    >I have never understood the hangup about paying a certain percentage under MSRP. In my opinion, what's important are: can I afford it, does it have the features I feel are important, does it offer good value for the price, and how does it compare to the competition - in features, reliability, price, etc.

    Ten percent off of a $50,000 car is $5,000. To me, that's real money.

    Moreover, paying five grand more just adds to the tax I must pay on the purchase, as well as on the car registration each year. Out here in California that can be astronomical, as registration fees are based on purchase price, not horsepower or other factors.

    If I can keep $5,000 in my bank account I am sure as heck going to go through the precious little effort it takes me to haggle for a better price. In fact, I enjoy the challenge!

    >Once I've answered those questions in relation to the car I want to buy, I then focus on comparing dealer to dealer in my area.<

    Yeah, but I have found that once you own the car, most dealerships are only too delighted to take in a customer's service business -- regardless of whether or not the car was bought from them.

    I agree that servicing your car where you bought is a plus, but not one I would pay $5,000 extra for, or even $2,500 extra for.

    Last time I paid full MSRP was for my 1983 Honda Accord Sedan. I've learned a lot about car buying since then. A lot depends on the "gotta have it now" syndrome. When you are so afflicted, one can expect to bend over a little as you sign on the dotted line.
  • My sales rep tells me my car will be in BY Oct 14th, which means i have to more quickly to figure out the lease arrangement. Since he doesn't have residual info, i asked for the residual/money factor for a 05 TL w/ Navigation based on 36 months/12,000 a year. He came back with 60% Residual and a Money factor of .00260 (add .0001 to waive security deposit). He expects the residual to be "a bit lower on the RL".

    Since this works out to 6.24%, there must be a better lease deal through a 3rd party. Problem is, no one has any info on the car yet.

    I'm wondering if the residual values will be better when the car starts selling for below MSRP. Any thoughts? Thanks.
  • As car buyers we like to equate a "good deal" to $X off MSRP or $Y above/below invoice. But car buying is a business, and just like any other business it follows the laws of economics. Deciding whether or not a certain car warrants a certain price doesn't just depend on the car and the price, but rather it also depends on other factors: demand for the car, available supply, resale value down the line. As any old car dealer will tell you, a car that has sold has been sold at the "right" price.
Sign In or Register to comment.