Acura RL

robertsmx · April 2004

If I had the resources, and a proven design, and had to invest and compete in terms of power and torque, I would look at V6+Electric option just as much as I would at a V8.

Developing V8 would be a short cut to getting the job accomplished. Developing a powerful hybrid will require patience and greater marketing prowess. And then, think investment versus returns.

Producing something with low volume mindset can get expensive (NSX and the current RL are good examples, as they share just about nothing major with existing lineup). While Honda could develop a V8 and then develop an additional lineup of vehicles to use it, it might not be in the companys (financial) interests to be as aggressive with something that is just wanted not needed.

With hybrid option, the engine, the platforms and the vehicles are out there, and the existing lineup has a potential to grow. Electric motors, either produced in-house or acquired from vendors are not really a big deal. Financially, to me this sounds like a more intriguing option.

Let us look at the new RL now. With 300 HP, it is closer in terms of top end power to V8 sedans than it would be to its six-cylinder competition. It would, however, lack low to mid range punch that larger displacement V8 engines offer. Here comes the strength of electric motors.

Assume that Acura did go the way of 270 HP V6 and added 30 HP via electric motor. With nearly twice the power (from electric motor) as in Civic Hybrid, we can expect nearly twice the torque (from electric motor). The combined torque in the low to mid range (hence low end power) with the V6+Electric set up may actually stomp the larger displacement V8 engines. This, while delivering fuel economy that rivals or beats economy sedans and cleaner emissions. Not a bad idea.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a v8 will fit in a FWD platform very easily

Not really. Audi and Cadillac have done it.

lexusguy · April 2004

Toyota has SUVs a plenty and I'm sure would be more than willing to sell you a 4Runner, or a Sequoia, or a Land Cruiser.

5 cylinders are some times not all they are cracked up to be. Volvo seems to have gotten the formula down pretty well, but 5 cylinders can be noisy, and have significant vibration problems. Also, without the T5... theres not a lot of horsepower there, and when you start adding forced induction, fuel economy takes a nose dive. Also, when six cylinders get as small as 2.2L, they may get 4 cyl economy, but they also have 4 cyl horsepower. Take a look at the Suzuki Verona, it has a 2.5L V6, that makes 150hp, less than the Accord and Camry 4s.

robertsmx · April 2004

I dont see a point in developing a new platform with a high-tech platform on hand. The only argument anybody could hold against Hondas global midsize platform is that it is designed for FWD. However, with standard AWD, the concerns are taken care of in the RL.

Investment in a new platform would make sense if several vehicles would be sharing it and there is enough volume to justify the initial expense. Some companies might do it, even Honda has (NSX and S2000 are two examples).

If Honda did develop a RWD platform, it would have to be car based, rendering utility of a powerful V8 (for pickup application) useless. V8 powered trucks make sense if they are able to use the potential (mainly towing). So, now, there would be need for TWO platforms, one unit-body and one ladder-frame based. I dont think this needs to be a high priority task for Honda at the moment. Would it be nice? Sure. Needed? Nope.

steveaccord · April 2004

Thanks for bringing up the rather obvious issue of engine size vs. consumption and the likelihood that costs will go up. Now the point may be that of defyning how fast will price raise past the $ 2.00 mark. Should it match inflation than things may still be looked as stable outlook and the V8 argument could live on. Reality though points in another direction mostly because recent corrections to proved and estimated oil reserves (Shell oil Co. for example) and because the huge Chinese market is starting to devour crude and put lot of pressure on prices!. So I bet the the big cheeses at Honda/Acura will gliss development of V8 expecting that the big returns will be in technologies that will improve performance as well as gas mileage.So while this can be expected to be the overall strategy there is need of tactical deployment of vehicles to shore upagainst the present 'V8 fatal attraction'. I guess we are starting to see what the tactical tackle will be with the release of the 2005 RL as well some of the hybrid drivetrain announced.
SH-AWD, going past FWD,RWD etc.
ACE technology to improve safety (along with standard side airbag...... see www.iihs.org latest report on side impact tests, that btw have a very high fatality rate!!).
Variable cylinder management (in addition to hybrid)

In response to other posts I wanted also to mention that we may never have Full size SUV/truck from Honda/Accura. It may have something to do with the fact that they do not want to associate with the 'industrial vehicle segment'. There is a notable exception, that I already pointed out and also counter the argument (restated in one of the last messages) that Honda cannot afford developing a V8 platform. Well, I can agree that there are limits for everyone and you need to edge your bets in the best possible ways but if you can get onto developing jet engines, as Honda just announced to have done a few months back, I do not see reason preventing you from developing a V8!

May be once again we are dealing with strategy/phylosophy/growth at honda. They think they have the tactics/market share/earning in line and are focusing on edging their bets that their green phylosophy will be the big winner. Just as redundant indirect confirmation of what they may be thinking consider again the jet they have developed (and GE avidly agreed to market!). It is a powerful but smaller and more fuel efficient engine. Ooops, here we go again analyst predict that legacy airlines will be bankrupt within the next decade or so and who is showing up to offer an efficient engine to provide some cost saving to the airline industry?

O well, so much for common sense, lets just hope that while pursuing this very noble goals the people at Honda/Acura will continue to provide us with those cars that are much fun to drive as this new 2005 RL promises to be. As others I just hope that by end of 2006 I will be able to drive one with the hybrid powertrain, perfected SH-AWD (if necessary), super ACE (a tank if you can) and slalom at 85 mph without even noticing (in a dedicated circuit of course!) !! Lastly, did I mention how I appreciate to have all the goodies and still shave the price tag of 10-15k compared to Eurolux brands

lexusguy · April 2004

Interesting points. One should also keep in mind that we are pretty much the only ones that are "lucky" enough to pay $2\gallon. Our friends in the UK pay closer to $7. Unlike the US domestic manufacturers, Honda is obviously interested in world market sales, not just US market sales. "Ma Tahoe's got a big [non-permissible content removed] 5.7" doesnt fly in Europe. At all. So I think its perfectly reasonable for Honda to not develop a V8 that essentially only has the potential to be a small volume segment in an already limited market. Where's the sense in that?

1txbanker · April 2004

I would hardly call the US a limited market. GM sells over one million V8 equipped trucks, SUV's and sedans every year in this "limited market"

I understand that Honda feels that they can achieve the same power/performance with a V6, but the truth is that people perceive that a true luxury car has a V8 either standard or optional. Can you imagine any one of the other makes without a V8? I seriously doubt that this new RL will be much competition to the new crop of powerful performance luxury sedans form the other makes. Note that the new M45, GS, STS, 5 series, E class and Jaguars all offer the choice of a V8. At the end of the year, it isn't technology or styling that makes a vehicle successful, it is the sales figures. If people find it to be a good value in terms of price and performance, then it will be a sales champ. The current RL is a failure in that area and I predict the new RL, while it will surely do better than the current one - which won't be hard to do, will fall short of its main competition.

Plus, while the RL will be a technology tour de force, it still looks like an Accord. I would not pay $45-55K for an Accord look alike. Give me the STS, M45 or 5 series for that money! If I want an accord, I will buy an accord.

robertsmx · April 2004

but if you can get onto developing jet engines, as Honda just announced to have done a few months back, I do not see reason preventing you from developing a V8!

Key point here is diversification of business. With development of jet engines, and business jets itself, Honda is trying to venture into a new area of business, much like they have done in the past. Development of V8, however, is not comparable in that regard.

It is probably not the cost (otherwise Honda wouldnt develop a variety of engines using different layouts), but the need.

1txbanker:

In the end, it doesnt matter whether you offer V8 or not. All that matters is quick inventory turnaround, and profits. Thats the ultimate goal of any business. Some may need V8 to get that done, let us see if Honda can pull it. Logically thinking, I have no doubt that they have a success on their hand if the RL delivers what it promises to, V6 or V8 wont matter.

But then, your last statement says a lot. I will be surprised if anybody confuses this RL with an Accord. TO my eyes,they are styled very differently.

saugatak · April 2004

Assume that Acura did go the way of 270 HP V6 and added 30 HP via electric motor. With nearly twice the power (from electric motor) as in Civic Hybrid, we can expect nearly twice the torque (from electric motor). The combined torque in the low to mid range (hence low end power) with the V6+Electric set up may actually stomp the larger displacement V8 engines. This, while delivering fuel economy that rivals or beats economy sedans and cleaner emissions. Not a bad idea.

The hybrid is an interesting idea and the combined low end torque would offset the one weakness of Honda engines--the lack of low end torque which is inevitable with the smaller but higher reving engines which Honda specializes in.

Here's my issues with this solution:

1) 2 engines means 2 sets of maintenance/repair bills. Ugh.
2) new technology is expensive and most mechanics won't know how to fixit.
3) i'm not convinced that the electric engine will have enough time to recharge in stop-and-go driving which is becoming the norm in most major metropolitan centers.

Now that DOD v8s are possible, you can get v8 performance for v6 gasoline prices. I don't think a v8 is necessary for the RL, I just wish Honda would develop a DOD v8 and offer it with the RL because then there would be a DOD v8 available for the MDX and Pilot, which could use a v8 option.

For example, I love my MDX and it drives and handles much better than a car that size should. However, it's one drawback is that when I am merging on freeway from a standing stop on a short exit ramp, the 3.5L v6 simply lacks the torque and displacement. I have to rev the engine to 5,500 in 1st before it shifts to 2nd and really takes off.

People in CA drive real fast on freeways. As I'm trying to pick up speed to merge and I see this car approaching real fast in my rear view mirror and hear this 3.5L v6 screaming in first trying to move a 4,500 pound SUV, I'm saying to myself, damn I wish Acura offered a v8 with this machine.

I'm not saying a v8 is a better engine than a v6 because I think Honda's v6 are excellent. However, the v8 is going to generate a lot more low end torque than a comparable v6 and believe me, there are times when I really want that extra torque.

Kirstie_H · April 2004

Don't forget tonight's member-to-member chat - it's open mic night, so come and discuss whatever's on your mind.

http://www.edmunds.com/townhall/chat/townhallchat.html

6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET. Drop by for live chat with other members. Hope you can join us!

kirstie_h
Roving Host & Future Vehicles Host

steveaccord · April 2004

Not to be picky I felt 2 clarifications were overdue.

First, of the 1 million GM V8 engines the majority is in pick-up trucks and full size SUV (same for Ford etc..) not sedans and the argument here is the RL!. As to the willingness of Honda of porting to large SUV/trucks we have already guessed that equals a perfect zero!

Second, I can both agree and disagreee with your last statment (btw I have an accord, an EX L model at that). For sure the similarities found between japanese standard and premium brands are much less drastic than the Eurolux (or appear so given the lack of lowly MB and BMW, absence that could be short lived!). I do not think that 'platform commonalities' have turned away buyers from lexus, infinity and acura. As to the Rl looking like an accord I guess I reserve my final say when I'll be able to arrange for a 'close encounter'. Beside as probably for E vs. S MB or 5 vs. 7 BMW series I guess is the added features that entice buyers and not necessarily the diversification of styles!

markcincinnati · April 2004

I agree with what you wrote, however, I will note something that my bi-turbo charged V6 cars have had that my 3 V8's did not have --LOW RPM torque.

V8 = 300HP and 295 PoundFeet of torque at 3500 - 5000 RPM

V6 = 265HP and 280 PoundFeet of torque at 1950 - 5500 RPM

0-100kph times were about .5 second quicker for the V6 when both were equipped with a 5 speed auto transmission. True, at speeds above 75 or 80, the V8 would pull stronger. But even then between 80 and 100 the difference was not commanding. The off line, from a dead stop difference however, favored the V6 -- as it got its wind at much lower RPM's.

If, the Acura V6 @ 300HP (and I don't know the when or how much with respect to the torque) behaves like a V8, ultimately, who cares (other than "image" or bragging rights)? If the HP is 300 and the torque is "wimpy" or comes on late -- well then all you've got is a bullet point in a brochure. For while we talk HP we grin for torque.

For that matter, the new breed of clean diesels is way more torquey and gets better milage on cheaper fuel. The new diesels CAN outperform and outlast many a conventional V8. And, for us, here in the US, clean fuel is months away -- not decades.

We don't need no 'lectric hybrids, according to some. . . .

steveaccord · April 2004

I can surely sympatize with your need of more low end torque. I am myself convinced that I would enjoy moving easy from standstill in the way a V8 can. Yet I am not entirely convinced of the reasons you enlist to doubt that an hybrid would not be an effective way for addressing that need.

Your fears about reliability (point 1 of your post) for example, reliability is an indirect measure of prior engineering and execution/assembly skills and Honda is one of the leaders in both segments. I have not seen much of failure in Honda innovations in the automotive business. So I should ask you for what reason you would expect them to start marketing a technology that is not in 'prime condition'.

Your second point could have some impact, especially for folks living in rural areas or wanting to avoid dealers/large car repair chains, but probably that is true for each major advance in auto technology.

I am not qualified to suggest if your 3rd concern is well taken or not. I lean in favor of the stated confidence that a company with a solid reputation as Honda would not risk so much if they had not already pictured in all these scenarios!

lexusguy · April 2004

Aside from Cadillac (and the dead Aurora) no GM sedan even comes with an 8. So Im not sure where that million sales are supposed to come from. Seville and Deville certainly dont sell 500K each. I'm willing to bet that a good 75% of those V8 sales comes from Silverados and F150s. Honda is never going to make a truck like that. So yes, for them, a V8 sedan is a very limited market.

"At the end of the year, it isn't technology or styling that makes a vehicle successful, it is the sales figures." Exactly! GS430, S-type 4.2, E500, 545i, A6 4.2, NONE of them even sell anywhere near their V6 counterparts. Those companies all have 8s because the other companies have 8s, so they gotta have it to. That doesnt mean that many people actually BUY those cars. Even if the new RL is as successful as the GS, a V8 optioned RL 4.x would be lucky to get 10,000 cars a year. Why would you spend millions for that little return.

Saugatak, your MDX is one of the fastest midsize SUVs. It will outrun an RX330, you're a half tick behind the X5 4.4, you'll match an ML500 and the Toureg V8 in a sprint to 60mph. How? Well the Acura weighs over 1,000 pounds less than those porkey Germans.

ceric · April 2004

RL would be fully loaded, no option provided, at around $45K (well below $50K as they put it).
You simply cannot find a good competitor at that price range. M35-AWD could be loaded up to $53K. Not even close. Unless Infiniti cut down the MSRP at the final stage of release, it does not look competitive at this moment. M45 is at another price range. 530 reaches $50K easily loaded with 225hp RWD. E320(E350 in 2005) would like have 245hp RWD at around $53K loaded. New GS300 would likely have new 245hp V6. AWD is optional, but no price has been released/leaked out yet.

Honda CEO already made this clear. Honda will NOT product V8 in production vehicles. It is against corporate image and strategy. It will NOT happen unless there is a new CEO. That means if you must have V8 in your vehicles, please shop elsewhere. Honda don't want your business.

Just won a 2005 RL brochure on eBay. I will report more info when it arrives. Stay tuned, people.

ceric · April 2004

RL would be fully loaded, no option provided, at around $45K (well below $50K as they put it).
You simply cannot find a good competitor at that price range. M35-AWD could be loaded up to $53K. Not even close. Unless Infiniti cut down the MSRP at the final stage of release, it does not look competitive at this moment. M45 is at another price range. 530 reaches $50K easily loaded with 225hp RWD. E320(E350 in 2005) would like have 245hp RWD at around $53K loaded. New GS300 would likely have new 245hp V6. AWD is optional, but no price has been released/leaked out yet.

Honda CEO already made this clear. Honda will NOT product V8 in production vehicles. It is against corporate image and strategy. It will NOT happen unless there is a new CEO. That means if you must have V8 in your vehicles, please shop elsewhere. Honda don't want your business.

Just won a 2005 RL brochure on eBay. I will report more info when it arrives. Stay tuned, people.

jrock65 · April 2004

Rest assured, a similarly loaded M35 AWD (to an RL) won't be $53,000. Probably about $48,000.

If the RL comes in at $45,000, I'll buy you an apple.

Probably about $48,000 for that bad boy as well.

It looks like the most direct competition for the RL will be the M35 AWD, in terms of features, price, and power. Active rear suspension (M) or Super-Handling (RL)?

One thing is that the RL forces you to get AWD and Navi, whereas the M can be had without those. And the more often than not, people won't opt for the AWD and Navi.

robertsmx · April 2004

1. There are no two engines, just one. An electric motor is probably sturdier than a gasoline motor (a V8 with more parts than V6 could make it worse).
2. Hybrid is new technology only when it comes to cars, not if you consider that the technology has been around for decades (diesel locomotives).
3. Stop and Go traffic is in fact ideal for the hybrid designs we currently see. In their simplest forms, the batteries get charged when you slow down (and get it done very quickly). This efficiency will only improve with time, and considering that ultra capacitors may also be used (much more efficient charging/discharging process). Honda FCX is using ultra capacitors (not batteries).

Here is an illustration of how things progress over a short period of time (when it comes to charging the battery pack):
Honda Insight got the pack recharged during deceleration via regenerative braking.

Honda Civic Hybrid had the same. In addition, it also got cylinder deactivation (three of four cylinder shut down during deceleration) to increase the efficiency of the recharging process.

Honda Dual Note prototype took it further. Besides regenerative braking, Honda added couple of other ways to get the batteries recharged (if it did use batteries instead of ultra capacitors). Dual Note was equipped with an advanced version of Hondas ATTS (originally used in Prelude, and now a part of the new RLs AWD system).
During cornering, ATTS would transfer torque from inner wheel to the outer wheel. In this case, additional torque was utilized from the inner wheel to recharge if needed. In addition, Dual Note was also equipped with VSA (Vehicle Stability Assist: another feature standard in TSX, TL and RL). If the VSA triggers, instead of losing the energy in the form of heat, the energy would be used towards recharging.

So, from simple regenerative braking to addition of cylinder deactivation and then use of ATTS and VSA is quite smart approach to addressing the issue, IMO.

robertsmx · April 2004

the v8 is going to generate a lot more low end torque than a comparable v6 and believe me, there are times when I really want that extra torque.

Let us use a perspective and assume that Acura offered 4.0-liter V8 as an optional engine in the MDX. Consider the following numbers for the V6 (fairly accurate):
3.5-liter V6: 265 HP @ 5700 rpm; 255 lb.-ft @ 3500 rpm to 5000 rpm; At least 90% of peak torque available from 2000 rpm (or minimum of 235 lb.-ft available from 2000 rpm).

Assume the following numbers to be an accurate representation of a 4.5-liter V8 version
4.0-liter V8: 300 HP @ 5700 rpm; 290 lb.-ft @ 3500 rpm to 5000 rpm; at least 270 lb.-ft available from 2000 rpm.

The V8 would definitely be torquier than the V6, but it is also going to cost probably about $5K more. Now, consider adding AC Synchronous Motor that is about a third of the size used in Honda FCX so you should have,
37 HP @ 5700 rpm (actually, peak power may appear for a range of engine speeds but I have not seen the latest range it is available, so just quoting it at max rpm); 67 lb.-ft @ 0 rpm to 1800 rpm (let us assume 65 lb.-ft at 2000 rpm to make this simple.

Combine the V6 with this electric motor to deliver a hybrid. What do you get?

300 HP @ 5700 rpm (same peak output as the 4.0 liter V8)
300 lb.-ft @ 2000 rpm (way more low end torque than you would get in the V8 at this engine speed), and to top it off, this may not be the peak torque yet!

If addition of hybrid costs as much as opting for V8, would you pick V8 over hybrid for low end power reasons?

This is an arbitrary example, but meant to get the point across. We should see how much low end power improvement a simple hybrid set up can show, over a conventional V6 when the 2005 Accord Hybrid arrives (or comparing Lexus RX330 to Lexus 400H, the latter I assume uses the same V6).

robertsmx · April 2004

One thing is that the RL forces you to get AWD and Navi, whereas the M can be had without those. And the more often than not, people won't opt for the AWD and Navi.

And that should be the point to argue. Should luxury cars come with excesses? If not, what differentiates them from the mainstream/economy/family sedans?

I for one, support the idea of fully equipped "luxury package". Luxury should not be an option in luxury cars.

That said, I have a feeling, the new RL will be priced around $45K. That would include all the upgrades it will have over $36K Acura TL (AWD, more features, more refinement, and added cost of other car specific changes).

jrock65 · April 2004

"And that should be the point to argue. Should luxury cars come with excesses? If not, what differentiates them from the mainstream/economy/family sedans?

I for one, support the idea of fully equipped "luxury package". Luxury should not be an option in luxury cars."

The thing is, what might be luxury to you is useless to others. I'd much rather have Navi and AWD as options, rather than essentially be forced to pay for them (if I wanted an RL).

So I'd disagree with you there.

Now, if the efficiency cost savings of having the car in just one configuration rendered the RL a price of $45,000, then you'd have no argument from me.

However, I have a feeling that the RL will be no cheaper than a similarly configured M35 AWD.

Well, it may be a tad cheaper, since it's cheaper to build a FWD-biased AWD than a RWD-biased AWD.

pg48477 · April 2004

I don't think electric engine needs a lot of maintenance and Honda never had electrical problems, so for me reliability is not an issue. You right in firs few years most mechanics wont have an idea about this set up, but you will have your warranty and than mechanics should catch up. As for stop and go driving, that what now days hibrits need, the are being charged by collecting energy from braces, so more you brake more energy for electric motor.

pg48477 · April 2004

How you figure RWD based platform will cost more than FWD based platform? Don't forget both vehicles have AWD and both platforms need to be re-engeneered, plus both vehicles have unibody and so RWD based AWD platform will be very similar if not the same as FWD based AWD platform.

I have to agree with robertsmx, luxury car have to come loaded. The only reason MB and BMW have so many options, is because the are being sold in Europe striped down (you can get 3 series or E-class with less options that Accord DX, if it's even possible)

jrock65 · April 2004

Of course, I don't know exactly the costs involved here. But usually, a RWD setup costs more to make than a FWD setup. If you add AWD to these setups, the RWD based AWD will cost more than a FWD based AWD (in the aggregate, not just the cost of adding the AWD, which should be the same.) Of course, these are different companies and different technologies anyway, so it's all conjecture.

To clarify my point about loaded cars:

Vehicle 1:

Model w/ Navi and AWD, $48,000.

Vehicle 2:

Model w/ Navi and AWD, $48,000.

Model w/out Navi and AWD, $44,000.

I prefer Vehicle 2's approach.

pg48477 · April 2004

Navi is usually cost from $1800 to $2000. Acura price their vehicles below Infiniti, RL might be an exception, but I don't think so. If you take TL and G35 for example, TL with navigation will cost about that same as G35 without navigation. Let say you also right about cost of FWD(AWD) platform vs. RWD(AWD) platform. So I would take vehicle one with navigation and AWD for 45K over vehicle two with AWD but without navigation for 46K.

As far as I know unibody AWD platform is about the same if build from RWD or FWD, does any body know the difference?

jrock65 · April 2004

A similarly configured G35 is about $1000 more than a TL in terms of MSRP. In the real world, you'd have to pay about $3000 more for a TL w/ Navi than a G35 w/out Navi.

"So I would take vehicle one with navigation and AWD for 45K over vehicle two with AWD but without navigation for 46K."

Hell, so would I. All these assumptions are dependent on pricing.

I wish the RL would come out at $45,000. That'd really put pricing pressure on the M and the GS, which are being released a few months later.

jrock65 · April 2004

Is the RL supposed to have Intelli Cruise and Rearview monitor?

robertsmx · April 2004

The thing is, what might be luxury to you is useless to others. I'd much rather have Navi and AWD as options, rather than essentially be forced to pay for them.

Luxury is a well defined term. It is not an opinion. You'd be correct if you said that luxury to one person may not be enough for another. "Useless" is not the appropriate term, because luxury is about... excesses, a condition of abundance, something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary... (definitions from Websters).

If you take away the excesses, the car would be less luxurious. That is not the purpose of a car like RL. For the economy oriented, there is the TL, and going further, there is the TSX. RL has to be a step up above its lesser siblings.

Honda offers Adaptive Cruise Control in Japanese Accord and Honda Inspire, so it is possible it might be offered in the RL. Rear view monitor was also offered in one of the Hondas (Avancier) in the past (also in Japan)but it never made it to the American market. Whether RL changes it, we shall see. It would be nice to see Acura throw in stuff like that besides the other expected standard features like adaptive headlamps and smart key.

saugatak · April 2004

Thanks for the thoughtful response to my posts.

I'm sure that these hybrid electric engines, when they do come out, will work very well. However, I'm also sure that any complicated new technology such as this will not work perfectly. Having experienced i-drive 1.0 with the BMW 745 when it first came out, I will not be the adopter of any new auto technology.

In the end, I just don't know enough about these electric engines to make a judgment one way or another. Until it comes out and has to perform in real world conditions, I'll reserve my judgment.

For myself, I just hope the U.S. makes clean diesel and all the car mfr. gradually transfer over to diesel engines. Diesel fuel has a lot more power than regular so there is a lot more torque and power. Diesel I4 or V4 performs like a 6 and diesel 6 performs like an 8, plus the gas mileage is insanely good. Also, diesel is tested and proven technology.

I think a combo of diesel and DOD would be a really excellent combination of power and fuel efficiency. If the electric motors also work, that would be really great. Imagine a car with an I4, electric motor and diesel able to generate the HP and torque of a standard v8. I hope it comes soon.

jrock65 · April 2004

"You'd be correct if you said that luxury to one person may not be enough for another. "Useless" is not the appropriate term, because luxury is about... excesses, a condition of abundance, something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary"

Good point. "useless" may not have been the choicest word.

"Luxury should not be an option in luxury cars."

Sure. But does not having Navi and AWD mean that it's not a luxury car?

My argument is that in the 40k to 50k class, Navi and AWD are not compelling enough luxuries that they MUST be made standard, yet. As an option, most definitely.

The trend may be that all the cars in this class will have them standard at some point in the near future.

About 7 or 8 years ago, xenons were only available on cars like the S class or the 7 series. Now, they're standard on many 30k cars.

Navi may well be that way soon. AWD might take longer.

Perhaps the RL is leading the way in this regard.

lexusguy · April 2004

You're forgetting the Acura advantage, they've made quite a name for themselves having a 1 line option sheet. The Germans all have several multi-thousand option packages, so does Lexus and Infiniti. Acura is pretty much the only one that says "we throw everything in but the kitchen sink, for one low price!". Would it be better if a CD player wasnt even standard as with the old S430s? Personally, If I'm spending $40K+, I should be getting a luxury car, not getting nickel and dimed on fancy packages. An optioned out E500 4matic wagon can cost $75K. Its a wagon. a $75 grand wagon. Is that really the good way to do things?

jrock65 · April 2004

lexusguy,

Definitely agree with you there about the Germans. Their base 530i Auto is $47,000. And it doesn't even have leather.

I was mainly referring to Infiniti and to a lesser extent, Lexus.

The M35 will most certainly have a lower base price than the RL. We'll have to wait and see how close their prices come when you configure them similarly. I'm figuring they'll both be around $48,000, but I guess I'm in the minority on this board with that estimate.

ceric · April 2004

Fully loaded (all available options included, no accessories)
2005-RL: 300hp/270ft-lb
         @$42K to $49K (depending on who you believe, well below $50K)
2004-530i: 225hp/214ft-lb
           @$64K (base=$46K) (no AWD)
2004-E320: 221hp/232ft-lb
           @$68K (base=$49K) with 4matic
2005-M35-AWD: 270+hp/270ft-lb
              @$52K-$53K (base=$41.2K)
2005-GS300: 245hp/228ft-lb

The way I see it, the real competitors are M35-AWD for 2005. Between RL and M35-AWD, it boils down to personal taste. I am sure pricing difference would be minimum and hard to compare app-to-app anyway.

jrock65 · April 2004

lexusguy,

Definitely agree with you there about the Germans. Their base 530i Auto is $47,000. And it doesn't even have leather.

I was mainly referring to Infiniti and to a lesser extent, Lexus.

The M35 will most certainly have a lower base price than the RL. We'll have to wait and see how close their prices come when you configure them similarly. I'm figuring they'll both be around $48,000, but I guess I'm in the minority on this board with that estimate.

jrock65 · April 2004

My $48,000 estimate of the M35 AWD w/ Navi and all the goodies is partly based on the price of the FX35.

The MSRP of the FX35 AWD w/ Touring and Tech Packages is $43,640. This vehicle has AWD, 280 hp, 300-watt audio system, xenons, Navi, Smart Key, Intelli Cruise, and Rearview monitor.

I can't imagine a similarly configured M35 AWD costing that much more. Of course, the M will have better interior materials, swiveling lights, active rear suspension, cooling seats, and a few other knick knacks. Hence, my estimate of the $4000 premium to bring it to $48,000.

robertsmx · April 2004

It is impossible to avoid new technologies. And sometimes, these technologies are not really new, just a variation (evolution of ATTS from 1996 Honda Prelude to 2005 Acura RL), or being applied to new applications (diesel-electric hybrid power plants in locomotives to cars).

One of the big reasons companies like Honda and Toyota prefer to take baby steps when launching new technologies is just that, a typical buyer may not be comfortable initially. This also provides for an opportunity to street test the technology for an extended period of time.

The SH-AWD in RL, is a combination of ATTS (now applied to rear wheels, instead of front as it was in Prelude) and an advanced version of VTM-4 (time tested with MDX being in the market for a few years). There have been couple of additions to VTM-4 in the sense that outer wheel can have more speed than the inner wheel going around a turn. New technology, yes, but much of it is an evolution of existing version.

Many are speculating that SH-AWD will be offered in TL in the future. I think so too. But with TSX, I would rather see it get the Acura RDX power train (200 HP from 2.4 liter gasoline engine that it does, assisted with 60 HP electric motors powering the rear wheel for an AWD configuration).

robertsmx · April 2004

But does not having Navi and AWD mean that it's not a luxury car?
No. But like I said, luxury is not about cutting back. It is about providing more than people need. More luxurious cars will have more excesses.
If I were getting a car like RL, with all the features and AWD, for $45K, I wouldnt whine about it a bit.

My argument is that in the 40k to 50k class, Navi and AWD are not compelling enough luxuries that they MUST be made standard, yet. As an option, most definitely.
Luxury should not be an option in luxury cars. I can see a point of making much of the luxury stuff optional in mainstream cars, or even near luxury cars, but in a luxury car, I expect it to be loaded to the brim, for whatever price class it sits in.

About 7 or 8 years ago, xenons were only available on cars like the S class or the 7 series. Now, they're standard on many 30k cars.
True. Acura started with HID standard in 1998 RL and 1999 TL, and offered NAVI as an option back then. These things have now become option (or are standard) in sub-30K cars like Accord and TSX. If mainstream cars have these as options, I expect luxury cars to have them standard. In 1998 Acura TLX concept, Acura had smart cruise control as a feature. It never made it into 1999 TL though, and that was a disappointment. There are greater expectations in a near/luxury sedans than there are in mainstream offerings.

jrock65 · April 2004

"If I were getting a car like RL, with all the features and AWD, for $45K, I wouldnt whine about it a bit."

Neither would I. We'll just have to wait and see how they price it.

As far as making everything standard in a luxury car, I still favor Infiniti's "tiered package" approach over Acura's "all or nothing" approach. I guess we just have different preferences regarding this and we'll have to leave it at that. I respect your opinion, however.

robertsmx · April 2004

Yep. It is all about favored approach. Some favor BMWs for not offering leather even at $47K. :-)

Based on an early rumor, Acura is expected to target sales of 15-20K units/year for the RL. Having a lower base price could help them push the sales up, but I doubt that is really the point of luxury sedans. TL is out there to carry the bulk of Acura sedan sales (selling at the rate of 60-70K units per year), while TSX and RL would combine for about half of that (15-20K units each for TSX and RL).

Regarding tiered packaging, I actually prefer the idea in mainstream offerings. Honda does it better than any other. You know what you get with each trim level (in order of pricing)... Accord DX, Accord LX, Accord EX, Accord LXV6, Accord EX-L and Accord EXV6. Throwing tons of "packages" around messes up the things. Toyota and Nissan play that game quite well. I have tried to "option" things in Camry and Altima. It is very frustrating.

In a luxury sedan though, I expect the options from mainstream to be standard feature.

markcincinnati · April 2004

Over twenty-five years ago, Dr. Piech ("father of quattro") predicted that "all cars" would "soon" be all wheel drive -- and he gave a list of the reasons.

By 1984, Piech thought, or so it would seem, that he was still right, but there was scant evidence that BMW, Mercedes or, frankly, any of the "serious" car companies of the world were ever thinking of heading in that direction. Audis were "Volkswagens who knew somebody" -- like Rodney, they "couln't get no respect!"

Audi stayed the course -- Subaru, somehow became "the all wheel drive car company" -- which of course we long time Piech fans knew was not the literal truth.

Now, however, with the clarity of history, we see the proliferation of SUV's which hardly anyone ever really takes off road (but they sure do love the performance, safety and traction) and the rapid (recent, very recent) rush to create a new line of cars that are AWD begat from RWD (Chrysler, BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, VW, to name just a few).

Piech's prediction is, apparently coming true -- I for one, happen to agree and also I would hope that soon all cars will be "available" with AWD.

The Acura's use of AWD as standard equipment is, currently, the price to be considered a player in the "premium" market.

knichols007 · April 2004

Hello,
I too am excited about awd and now drive a subaru. haven't heard much about interior space with the new rl? The present model doesn't have enough back seat legroom for me with all the car seats and bending over to get them in etc. I did sit in a new tl. and was not impressed. does anyone know about this new rl and how about rear side airbags and curtains. Im the mommy crowd but we do have quite a say in what gets bought sometimes.

markcincinnati · April 2004

I do not mean to suggest that VW's (or Volvo's for that matter) AWD was derived from RWD -- this, at this time, is not accurate. That Audi and VW and Skoda are rethinking their implementation of AWD to be RWD biased (40/60) is, however, the apparent next gen quattro and 4Motion design. Acrua, with only a CAR FWD basis for being, has to have either AWD or RWD in order to be allowed to sit at the Premium segment table. It is my understanding, for example, that the next gen US bound Audi A6 will ONLY come in AWD and this, in part, would appear to be the reason for the RL coming standard with AWD. In other words, both the Audi and the Acura would somehow no longer be welcome as a Premium car if they also offered their cars with ONLY FWD -- and neither Audi not Acura, as far as I can tell, have any interest in bringing out an RWD only product.

The automotive press or "the market" has deemed FWD cars no longer worthy to belong to "the Premium Class."

Stay tuned for the Cliff notes -- this is getting so complicated. And, if you've been following cars and reading about them as long as I have, you'll perhaps note that this shift back to RWD based vehicles is a 180 from the not too distant past and the much more distant past when cars such as the Cord (FWD) were considered "Premium" or "Technologically Advanced."

What's old is new again.

robertsmx · April 2004

RL will supposedly have a cabin volume of 103 cu. ft which would be 6-7 cu. ft better than Acura TL. Longer wheelbase and longer car (by 5 inches over TL) should contribute towards additional legroom.

RL should have everything standard that is in TL, and then some. Which would mean, it will have all the airbags, stability control (VSA), ABS w/EBD etc. standard.

varmint · April 2004

I don't believe that making the SH-AWD system standard had anything to do with a goal of providing traditional "AWD benefits". It's just a way of dismissing the need for RWD. If they offered a FWD-only RL, there would be a good deal of press regarding Honda's alleged fixation with FWD.

The primary benefit to SH-AWD is that it allows 70% of the engine's torque to flow to the outside rear wheel. The fact that 30% remains up front is secondary.

knichols007 · April 2004

Hello,
I too am excited about awd and now drive a subaru. haven't heard much about interior space with the new rl? The present model doesn't have enough back seat legroom for me with all the car seats and bending over to get them in etc. I did sit in a new tl. and was not impressed. does anyone know about this new rl and how about rear side airbags and curtains. Im the mommy crowd but we do have quite a say in what gets bought sometimes.

robertsmx · April 2004

Another point to note on RLs AWD system is that it was designed for performance, not just to offer AWD option. Otherwise Acura could have simply used the VTM-4 as it is in MDX (which can also send up to 70% of the torque to the rear wheels, and is a pro-active system (opening the throttle engages the AWD, with or without slippage).

Acura added ATTS to continuously vary torque split between inner and outer wheels during cornering. In addition, the outer wheel can speed up to 105% of the speed at which the inner wheel is turning. This makes me wonder if the passive rear wheel steering layout using Watt-link double wishbone rear suspension would be necessary (something Honda has used for years in Accord, TL, CL and now TSX).

andrewtran71 · April 2004

If the RL drove as smooth, soft, road-isolated, and quiet as the LS430, I would buy it even if it were a 4-Cylinder with 150HP and goes from 0-60 in 8 seconds.

I think the reason the RL did not compete well with the Lexus LS is because it was significantly louder and less cushioned. It had nothing to do with a V6 vs. V8 engine. I don't think people who like a pure luxury cruiser care about how fast the vehicle goes in 0-60. A pure luxury cruiser has one purpose: to make your driving as quiet, comfy, and relaxing as possible.

I think a car company needs to have different lines of cars.
1) Luxury cruiser sedan
2) Sport sedan
3) Convertible
4) Large SUV
5) Compact SUV

I like the idea of Honda/Acura not competing on increasing prices. By all means, keep the prices down. But could you also offer more variety?

You have a TSX---sporty
You have a TL-Sporty
You have CL-sporty
You have a RSX--sporty
You have a MDX-sporty SUV
You have an NSX-extremely sporty

And now you have an RL-sporty too?

C'mon, man. What about the pure luxury cruiser people? We have to buy a Lexus?

I guess so.

robertsmx · April 2004

I associate Honda with sport (not cushy). People loved the Legend because of that. They felt bad when Legend became the RL with a cushy ride in 1996, complained, Acura listened and tried stop-gap measures to address it until now.

There can be different baselines to define sporty. IMO,
TSX is the sportiest of the Acura sedans.
TL is essentially a touring luxury (TL), somewhat sporty, but comfort gets almost as much priority
RL will be less sporty than TSX and TL, and more comfort oriented.

This is progression. And this also bodes well with how a typical buyer grows up. Young drivers tend to prefer tight and controlled chassis, and pampering is relatively less important. As they grow older, the bias may tend to move towards pampering, and away from sport (unless they continue to be young at heart IMO).

Having performance oriented SH-AWD does not mean RL is going to be a sport sedan. It is still going to be a luxury cruiser that will negotiate turns with finesse.

markcincinnati · April 2004

I agree -- AWD is, probably, more for IMAGE, marketing or "current dues" as the market apparently falls out of love with FWD.

markcincinnati · April 2004

. . .the fact that the new Acura RL will offer AWD moves it onto the "will consider" category. And, although I am certain to be castigated for this, I would have put an FWD Acura on my list long before I ever would even consider putting an RWD (only) version on my list.

I understand the arguments for RWD -- I have had all three kinds AWD, FWD and RWD. For my needs and wants, RWD offers mainly a fair weather friend's face to me.

Exciting indeed that Acura, Cadillac and Chrysler by this time next year (sooner, actually) will join: Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Subraru, Volvo, VW, Jaguar and several others in bringing some very interesting AWD product to their non-SUV offerings.

steveaccord · April 2004

I do not entirely agree with the IMAGE justification for AWD. I think the argument of diligently directing the ever increasing power of the new powertrain commands evolving from FWD to AWD. In fact, even my driving on a lowly Accord EX-L shows me a torque-steer problem on tigh turns (especially when moving from stops and intersection) and I am dealing only with 170HP! I admit part of it is my driving style, after 20 years in the US I still drive as I was in Italy!!!

So after such disclosure on my part no one is going to be surprised if I also dissent with the arguments made in favor of luxury car=narcotic ride! Just to clarify my point I would add that both BMW and MB have clearly recognized 'Luxury offerings' that happen to be very sporty as well. The confusion may rise from the Japanese brands such Lexus that have otherwise offered 'join the narcolepsy party' models, but personally I'll steer clear from those at least until my granchild retirement party! Meantime let me enjoy 'driving around' with a nice sporty luxury sedan, possibly an Acura!

Acura RL

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles