Howdy, Stranger!

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





Acura RL vs. Infiniti M35

1246789

Comments

  • hpowdershpowders Posts: 4,269
    You and just about everyone else, Brad. That gal's been around the block a few times.
    Just goes to show ya-money can't buy happiness. But it can buy an Acura RL or Infinity M35. ;)
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    "But it can buy an Acura RL or Infinity M35"

    I still prefer my Angie :blush:
  • varixvarix Posts: 72
    I would agree with cstiles (#84) m35 seems more of a "Y chromosome" kind of car, not exactly brutish compared to the RL but my wife (who did not go with me to the test drives and only saw the car when I brought it home) said it looked maculine but attractive. I will admit that the engine and exhaust sounds are pleasing enough to turn off the great sound system once and awhile just to hear it. It's great coming out of toll booths! Got 1K off list ( I've never been a great negotiator on car prices), here in the Chicago area that's the best I could do at 5 Infiniti dealers. It was pretty rough, 3 salesmen let me walk out checkbook in hand only offering me list for the premium loaded M35X! Trade in prices were nothing special either. Are Infinti dealers usually tough to negotiate with or is this a Chicago area problem? Maybe particularly on the AWD X version up here in the snowbelt? One other question, I was told not to use the cruise control initially to allow speed variations but I've found that the adaptive cruise control does vary speed quite a bit on a busy highway. Is this myth or does it have some merit? Thanks for the excellent advise in this forum. :D
  • hpowdershpowders Posts: 4,269
    Just let me know when you're "through." ;)
  • lmg1lmg1 Posts: 1
    I'm glad to see I'm not the only person totally torn between the RL and the M35x. I'd hoped to love the GS300, since I'm replacing a Lexus ES300 that's 7 years old, with 110,000 miles, and which has never had any problems. But I just didn't love it as much as the other 2. Does anyone know which of the cars has a better reliability rating? I expect to keep my next car as long or longer than my current one. Also, I live in the northeast, and my house is on top of a hill, up a private, 1/2 mile gravel driveway. I need a car that will not have a problem making it up the hill when there's a covering a snow (even though it's plowed, it never gets down to the gravel). Is one AWD expected to be better than the other?
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    Its tough to say at this point, all three Japanese models are brand new this year, and we'll have to wait until they are on the market for a few years to get any kind of definitive data. That said, it seems to me that Acura is slipping lately. There were a few years were they were nipping at Lexus' heels, but their 2005 IQ score is just average, and I think its the TL and RL that is hurting them. The TL's latest CR reliability ratings arent that great, and I've been hearing about RL problems as well.

    As for the operation of SH-AWD and ATTESA-ETS, both are excellent systems that were designed with performance in mind, unlike the GS300 AWD, which is basically the same system as the RX330 except with a rear torque bias. What would worry me about SH-AWD though is that its an untested system. Nissan, on the other hand has been using ATTESA-ETS in Japan for quite awhile in the Skyline GT-R, and it is also used here in the G35x and FX.
  • sgl1sgl1 Posts: 34
    Ok, drove both the M35sport and RL. Here's my take. . I thought it was a done deal after listing all the wonderful tech items of the M35 w/Journey & Tech pkgs. I'm a gaget freak and love the lane departure warning system, the cooled seats, the rearview camera, and DVD video disk display on NAV screen. All of which are not offered on the RL.

    . . . But, after the test drive I actually liked the RL better, here's why. The RL was noticeably quieter, handled better around corners, seats were more comfortable, dash board lighting more inviting. The car felt like it was on rails, and the interior was more plush than any car I've been in.

    I drove both on sunny days, but noticed a significant glare on the NAV screen of the M35 and not on the RL. The M35's cooled seats were awesome, and if the RL had them I think I would have bought the RL today. The one thing I didn't like too much on the M35 was that the transmission seamed to pause between gears, almost like it was in two gears at the same time - just seemed strange to me. . .

    Lastly, but most importantly, the price. Seems the RL is being discounted at nearly $4k off sticker. I'm not certain about the M35, but the saleman I was working with seemed to think $2k off sticker was doable...

    I'm stuck - would love to hear what RICKNY and the rest of you decided on. . .
  • I've only driven the M35 sport and i like it a lot. It seems to me that the M35 Sport is a little soft to me, the power delivery is very smooth and the interior very quite i never noticed the speed nor the power.But i guess thats because i was previously driving a loaner G35 but anyways, i think im sold on that car. It's fast enough really refined and smooth and it has lots of gadgets which is a plus for me cuz im a gadget freak!!! I never really had the Rl in consideration because 1 the looks which arent ugly or bad but not really good either 2. it's 0-60 of 6.9 wasnt really impressive for a car of that power and size and i wanted a car that could at least beat my Qx's 0-60 of 6.8 3. Lastly i had cool gadgets and all but the M had better and that really sealed the deal for me.
  • cj64cj64 Posts: 1
    I am right in the middle of comparing these two cars. I have test driven them and the performance in both cars is fine for my needs. The one option the RL has over the M is Real Time Traffic with the Nav system. I haven't read much on this list about this option It seemed VERY impressive and useful to me during my test drive. The M does not have this option. Does anyone have experience with this and can help me in my decision?

    Also, I'm interested in the Bluetooth cell phone function, which both cars have, but has one maker perfected it more than the other?
    Thanks, in advance, for your help and insights.
    :confuse:
  • msu79gt82msu79gt82 Posts: 541
    I too am debating between these cars. Because of my driving habits in Houston AND because other cities I visit regularly are not on the 21 city list, I do not consider RealTime NavTraffic that big of a deal. Neat gimmic yes, necessary for me, no. I have been monitoring problems in several forums and the RL seems to be experiencing many more Bluetooth related problems than the M (Acura has already released one fix and according to forum chatter its not totally fixed yet).

    I'm leaning to the M at the momment because I use RearView Cameras on a daily basis and the RL does not have one. To me the RearView Camera is a much more usefuil option than the NavTraffic.
  • sgl1sgl1 Posts: 34
    There is a fee associated with the RealTime traffic updates, but does anyone know if the fee is part of the monthly XM radio subscription - or is it a completely separate fee?

    And yes, I agree - the RL should have a rearview camera. I'm perplexed it does not, because it's an option on other Acura vehicles and the RL is their flagship. . . Then again, I think the RL should also have cooled seats, intelligent cruise control, lane departure warning, and a compass!
  • nebraskaguynebraskaguy Posts: 341
    There is a fee associated with the RealTime traffic updates, but does anyone know if the fee is part of the monthly XM radio subscription - or is it a completely separate fee?

    It's an extra fee on top of your regular XM subscription price - either $1.95 or $2.95 per month sticks in my mind as the extra amount.

    Then again, I think the RL should also have cooled seats, intelligent cruise control, lane departure warning, and a compass!

    A friend has intelligent cruise control and he hates it - he says anytime a car changes lanes in front of him, it's like the brakes are slammed. As a result, he only uses it when there isn't much traffic, which is exactly the way I use my nonintelligent cruise control.

    As far as lane departure warnings, from what I read they are very problematic due to old lane markings, contruction markings, etc. One reviewer said he turned his off after about 100 miles because the warning went off so often.
  • nebraskaguynebraskaguy Posts: 341
    the RL seems to be experiencing many more Bluetooth related problems than the M (Acura has already released one fix and according to forum chatter its not totally fixed yet).

    The only Bluetooth related problems I've had were due to Verizon, not the RL. Several of the advertised functions on the RL wouldn't work with the Verizon phone since Verizon had required some functions to be disabled. However, I recently downloaded a program update for my phone and it now works very well.

    To me the RearView Camera is a much more usefuil option than the NavTraffic.

    I would tend to agree; however, I had the backup sensors installed and they work great. I'm not sure I'd find a camera that much more useful.
  • ricknyrickny Posts: 2
    My two week old RL has 1200 miles on it already.
    As I posted earlier decision was very very difficult. RL vs M35x.
    I chose RL. Why not M?
    Because for me RL is a little more luxurious, offers the same performance as M35x and offers great value(at $45,300).

    BTW I get a lot of compliments from different people on my RL.

    Please do not fight over which car is better, it's about which car is better for You.
    Good luck.
  • varixvarix Posts: 72
    I was as torn as everyone else here on which of these two cars to purchase (interesting that the GS doesn't have a thread comparing it to the RL and M35X, I never considered it after driving these two). I came down on the side of the M35X and bought one a few days ago as it just "felt" right for me. Just like the RL felt right for rickny. You just can't beat your gestalt about a car no matter how many reviews you read. The back up camera is great but I would've liked the traffic/nav system better, others see it just the opposite. I would hate to pay 50K or so for a car because others thought I should like it and then 2 years later I'm not happy. By then the critics have long gone on to other cars. I just can't imagine not being really pleased with my M35x in a few years as long as the workmansip holds up and I don't think that'll be a problem. Of course anything'll seem great after the miserable Volvo s80 I drove for 4 years, what a repair sponge! So glad to be out of that car...
    In summary you can't go wrong with either and if I had enough cash it'd be great to own both, wishful thinking! :)
  • sgl1sgl1 Posts: 34
    Got a message back from XM. It appears the Real time Traffic service is $9.95/month. . . not sure if everyone is aware of this!
    -------------------------
    "Thank you for contacting XM Satellite Radio.

    We are happy to hear about your interest in XM's NavTraffic service!

    The service is powered by NAVTEQ Traffic, a new product from NAVTEQ, the leading
    global provider of digital map data for vehicle navigation systems. XM
    NavTraffic is the nation's first satellite traffic information service that
    enables a vehicle's on-board navigation system to display current traffic
    information for a driver's route. It is offered as a premium service.
    NavTraffic service is offered at $9.99 per month.

    If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to send an additional email
    or you may contact a Listener Care Representative directly at 1-800-XM RADIO
    (800-967-2346). For commercial accounts please contact 1-888-689-2300 or email
    commercial@xmradio.com. "
  • nebraskaguynebraskaguy Posts: 341
    Got a message back from XM. It appears the Real time Traffic service is $9.95/month. . . not sure if everyone is aware of this!

    It's only $9.95 per month if you don't have XM radio as well. If you have XM radio, the extra charge for NavTraffic is $3.99 per month. It was just increased from $2.95 per month.
  • sgl1sgl1 Posts: 34
    Nabraskiguy - I think you may be incorrect. It appears the price for the NAV-Traffic service from XM is $9.99, in addition to the std XM radio fee of $12.95. Please see below directly from XM. . .
    ----------------------

    "We are sorry, but the NavTraffic service is not available at a discounted price,
    as we are unable to offer the package without a basic XM subscription first
    being applied to your radio. The monthly NavTraffic price is $9.99, plus the
    standard $12.95 monthly price for our basic XM service. Please let us know if
    you would like some further information.

    If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to send an additional email
    or you may contact a Listener Care Representative directly at 1-800-XM RADIO
    (800-967-2346). For commercial accounts please contact 1-888-689-2300 or email
    commercial@xmradio.com. "
  • nebraskaguynebraskaguy Posts: 341
    Nabraskiguy - I think you may be incorrect. It appears the price for the NAV-Traffic service from XM is $9.99, in addition to the std XM radio fee of $12.95. Please see below directly from XM. . .

    I don't know what to tell you, but I've now called XM three times, including just now, and all three times I was quoted a price of $3.99 per month on top of the $12.95 XM subscription price.
  • msu79gt82msu79gt82 Posts: 541
    About a month ago I was browsing the XM website and saw a $2.95 premium for Traffic above the normal $9.95 per month charge. I know that the basic service went up to $12.95 so apparently Traffic Premium went up as well.

    I have yet to research OnStar - what is the monthly fee for that service?

    Looks the the cost of actually using the RL's "technology" is going to be very expensive :surprise: I must say that the user fees involved with the RL's so-called advantage in the LPS market is moving me towards the M35.
  • nebraskaguynebraskaguy Posts: 341
    Looks the the cost of actually using the RL's "technology" is going to be very expensive I must say that the user fees involved with the RL's so-called advantage in the LPS market is moving me towards the M35.

    I'm not sure what you're saying here. The costs of using the technology on the RL are no different from its competition. Unless you're saying that something is available on the RL (NavTraffic?) that isn't available on the M35, your comment doesn't make sense. Even if that's what you're saying, so what - you simply make the decision to pay for the service, or don't pay for the service. At least you get it for one year without paying extra and you can reassess at the end of the year.
  • msu79gt82msu79gt82 Posts: 541
    I'm not sure what you're saying here. The costs of using the technology on the RL are no different from its competition. Unless you're saying that something is available on the RL (NavTraffic?) that isn't available on the M35, your comment doesn't make sense. Even if that's what you're saying, so what - you simply make the decision to pay for the service, or don't pay for the service. At least you get it for one year without paying extra and you can reassess at the end of the year.

    As an undecided shopper I eagerly read what folks have to say about both cars; pro and con. It seems to me (from the overwhelming majority of posts) that the RL's claim to fame so to speak (its technological edge) is the SH-AWD and the AcuraLink tie of RealTimeTraffic to the Navi (and the "related "OnStar" that not all LPS cars offer). What I am saying is that the RL's big pluses miss the mark with me. I have no NEED for RealTimeTraffic; although if it works perfectly then I guess it would be a nice "freebie." I also wonder if that is not hurting sales a little? I mean the RL's "marque" advantage is only available in 21 cities nationwide :blush: Nor do I have to have satelite radio; it wasn't very long ago that 6-Disc In-Dash CD players was the rage.

    The comment makes sense to me; although I can afford an RL and can afford the software charges, I do not consider these options to be necessary for me - ESPECIALLY at $20+ per month (I still do not know how much OnStar costs). I can get an M35 loaded with what is important to me for less than the RL AND includes "essentials" not available as even an option on the RL (e.g. RearView Camera and Full Size Spare).
  • msu79gt82msu79gt82 Posts: 541
    Am I the only one bothered by monthly cable-TV like charges for your car? I have a cell phone with tons of minutes (as I am sure everyone else does); just what is the advantage of an OnStar subscription? And how much does it cost? I actually like my local radio stations, most of the time, and have lots of CDs for other times and trips. And it seems to me that RealTimeTraffic will NOT save me any real driving time where I live; at least not on a consistent routine basis to justify the cost!

    I wonder how many people will actually renew these services after the trial period? I know that OnStar renewal rates are low. Clearly the RL is a great car with a lot of nice touches, but it also misses the mark on many important features standard elsewhere (e.g. RearView Camera and Ventilated Seats). What I meant by my earlier comment is that $20+ monthly charges for features not at the top of my critical list is causing this still undecided shopper to lean in another direction.
  • billinsobebillinsobe Posts: 47
    OnStar charges depend on what service level you want. They range in price depending on the options you get and the number of telephone minutes you want.

    The RL comes with a year's worth of OnStar included.

    Verizon has a deal with OnStar details can be found at http://www.vzwshop.com/onstar/.
  • nebraskaguynebraskaguy Posts: 341
    Am I the only one bothered by monthly cable-TV like charges for your car? I have a cell phone with tons of minutes (as I am sure everyone else does); just what is the advantage of an OnStar subscription? And how much does it cost? I actually like my local radio stations, most of the time, and have lots of CDs for other times and trips. And it seems to me that RealTimeTraffic will NOT save me any real driving time where I live; at least not on a consistent routine basis to justify the cost!

    I would never renew OnStar just for the cell phone functions. The emergency services, however, might get me to renew, though I'm not sure. I don't know the cost, but I believe just the emergency services is about $10 per month.

    I like my local radio stations, as well. However, for trips I much prefer XM to CDs because of the wide variety as well as the comedy channels and the news stations. I often enjoy listening to types of music which aren't in my CD collection. On a recent road trip, we went from jazz to classic country to big band. We'd either have had to carry a lot of CDs along and changed them out, or just listened to the same six during the trip.

    I don't plan to renew NavTraffic since my commute is all on city streets and I rarely encounter traffic problems that could be avoided by use of NavTraffic. However, if I had commutes like some of my coworkers that can vary from 45 minutes to two hours depending on accidents, etc., I can guarantee I'd have NavTraffic.
  • robertashrobertash Posts: 13
    A 2004 G35 is listed at $4000 less than a 2004 TL. That is based on a base vehicle. Equipped the same you would be $6000 less. In other words, Acura has a MUCH BETTER resale than the Infiniti. The M35 won't do any better. Base price $40M but $50M with same equipment. By the way, no one even mentioned that the RL has On Star and which isn't offred on the Infiniti. RL has approx 600 voice commands vs some 200 on M35
  • robertashrobertash Posts: 13
    They're all pink inside!
  • nebraskaguynebraskaguy Posts: 341
    On one of these forums there have been several posts regarding the backup camera on the M as opposed to the backup sensors available on the RL. I was talking to a coworker this morning and remembered he'd had both - backup sensors on his last BMW and backup camera on his FX. I asked him which he preferred. He said no contest - backup sensors. He said there are several problems with a backup camera:

    1. You have to focus your attention on the screen instead of looking all around
    2. If you're parallel parking with a small, low car behind you, it's hard to tell when you get too close
    3. When it's raining, if your camera lens gets spattered, everything gets distorted

    As a result, he said the only time he really depends on it is in our awful parking garage at work with all its pillars and other obstructions.
  • cbgcbg Posts: 13
    I've never tried backup sensors, but I really like the backup camera. My wife parks outside in the driveway and my M is in the garage. It's very easy for me to pull out in the morning without having to keep turning my head. Yes, you still need to look around you once to make sure nothing is coming from the side, but once you've done that the camera is very useful.

    On the comments;
    1. Focus - yes you have to look at the backup camera screen. That's the point of the feature!
    2. I find the M camera to be excellent. I can see to the ground and it is accurate. I haven't had any problems telling how close I am to something.
    3. Haven't had any problems with rain, but suppose this could happen. Guess you would just have to wipe the lens off.
  • nebraskaguynebraskaguy Posts: 341
    1. Focus - yes you have to look at the backup camera screen. That's the point of the feature!

    And that was my point - with a backup sensor you don't have to look at a screen. You can be looking around, paying attention to other drivers, etc., while still listening to the beeping.

    3. Haven't had any problems with rain, but suppose this could happen. Guess you would just have to wipe the lens off.

    Yeah, that's exactly what I'd want to be doing - getting out in the rain to wipe off the lens so I could see.

    But, I guess we've both ended up with what we want - you're happy with your camera and I'm happy with my backup sensors.
This discussion has been closed.