Acura RL

markcincinnati · May 2004

It was an African swallow, laden with a coconut. A coconut? Yes, a coconut. How on earth could he carry a coconut? He would grip the husk with his beak! It's not a question of where he grips it. . .how on earth could a 1 pound swallow carry a four pound coconut? Gripping it has nothing to do with it!

Or words to that effect.

Now, back to the new Acura RL already in progress.

Get the comfy chair! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Our chief weapons are. . .

Now, really, back to the new Acura RL already in progress.

gteach26 · May 2004

Does the '04 RL have parking sensors in the front and back? I Don't see the little sensors in the pics so I'm assuming no.

Thanks!

shotgun · May 2004

Mark,

Although I had to read it twice - and slowly at that - your explanation of what constitutes an "impressive torque curve" is a tour de force in conveying a complex (in my mind at least) subject with uncommon clarity and verbal finesse! Hmmm...You know, I think I got it! As far as my new 05' RL is concerned - I should want it to bring on the torque at relatively low RPM's, maintain peak torque over at least a 2000 RPM range and hope that max torque is in the 270 - 300 ft-lb range - is that right?

To take it a step further and for the sake of argument let's say the aforementioned stats for HP & torque are applicable to the new 05' RL and let's assume it will weigh approximately 3,675 lbs (aluminum construction of frame and panel parts) what holy grail figures (0 -60) should I expect to see?

etcarroll · May 2004

Anyinfo on the cabin size, esp.driver seat dimensions? Is this based on the Accord?

I like what I'm reading on this board, but I'm a big boy, need to be comfy for long distance driving. Just passed on the CTS as a wee bit cramped. I go 6'3, 50" thru the shoulders, and most of my height is from waist up, so I never even consider getting a sunroof.

Looking at 300C, GXP and STS. Also wondering about rumors of bigger Impala in '06, (have '01 Imp now, like it very much).

Still, RL sounds like it deserves a look see.

Mark - he he he he he he he.

steveaccord · May 2004

I could not agree more with Kirstie (and have already mentioned it earlier) I am enjoying this acura rl post immensely due to the extremely well balanced and appropriate contributions being made. Esquisite points have been made at various levels in the last 20 or so post. I feel everybody reading through has a much clearer appreciation of HP, torque etc. by now.
Well, I'll try my best to keep it going as well.

So dusting off my professional background let me introduce the concept that we are really discussing 'benchmarks'. In other words consensus areas within the automobile industry to evaluate within reason the behaviour of a vehicle (even more pointedly the behaviour of one of the most critical core component of a vehicle ' the engine').

Now my necessity of a 'caveat' to the reasoning in terms of pure HP or torque (please mind that I do agree with the general underpinnings for identifying torque and HP engine specs, after all they are those components that you can really translate in your 'driving experience'). I will not argue (with the assumption) that a flat torque is highly desireable but rather with the assumption that the torque specs are reflected in the real world 'vehicle behaviour'. So, to be more explicit, these are intrinsic properties (benchmarked ones) of the engine but their limitation is that they account for only a portion of the final results. Let me re-introduce a general concept of a rather scary piece of physics we tend to acquire during our schooling years 'thermodynamics'. Without dwelling into specific of open and close systems or the enunciation of the fundamental principles suffice to say that thermodynamics unlock the potential of 'efficiencies'. That is to say you can have any given level of energy (after all it all boils down to energy (entalpia vs. entropia, sorry for the italian but this late in the night I would have as many unintentional typos if I was to try it in english!) but only the portion of it that is efficently transmitted down a chain of event (reaction/mechanisms) is effectively utilized to produce "work" (I was brought up in the 'metric system' so I will offer the general equation for kinetic energy = (E = 1/2 * M * V ², measured in joule/s (1 joule=1 watt/sec).

Now in our case what we must evaluate is if the engine proficiencies is ideally spoused to the downstream 'thermodynamics' of a vehicle. I suppose we can all indirectly answer this hypotethical question by observing that all recent advances in vehicle development have something to do with traction and stability control!

OK so my point really boils down to the argument that the engine is only '1' factor for the preformance of a vehicle. One that has been long researched and achieved levels of excellence throughout the automotive industry (although thermodinamically speaking still rather primitve if one compares biological engines, that convert about 30% of used fuel in work, to combustion engines that are still in the low single digit conversion factor). Now the real exciting point of the new RL for me resides not in the 300 HP and whatever torque (safe to say adequate!!) but the fact that the SH-AWD may just provide a significant boost to the conversion of the engine fuel combustion into useful vehicle 'work'.
In other words if SH-AWD is to improve over conventional trannies by transfering engine HP and torque to your wheels by 10-20% than you may be sitting on a vehicle outrunning any drag racing vehicles! Or in even simpler words It is more important which portion of your HP and torque you can really use rather than your benchmark "absolute figures".

This said I want to reaffirm that is not my intention to subvert the consesuses such as "there is not replacement for displacement' but rather to indicate that a V8 vs. V6may become a relevant argument if you are powering a armored tank or sloppily using the power generated by your engine (i.e.poor tranny etc..).

Continuiing on this I agree with the poster/s raising the diesel engine (and why not I would add rotary engines) revival in Europe and elsewhere. Thermodinamically these engines have greater efficiencies that conventional combustion engines and they have overcome some of the hystoric major limitations thank to R&D investments (common rail alliances etc...). Indirectly they also support my earlier argument that whenever you thermodinamics improve so does your 'torque' (or the usable portion of it).

I guess since most (carmakers) business is still based on combustion engines we can still hope in breakthrough in this area (after all we have seen aluminum come of age and next may be ceramic materials to achieve greater thermodynamic efficiency) but for now disclosures such as better mating of engines and trannies will keep me drooling and wishfully think of the day I will be test driving my 2005 SH-AWD Acural RL (in fact a 2006 model as I have repeatedly mentioned!).
See you all soon!

markcincinnati · May 2004

I hate to say this, but the numbers that we'll see, regardless of the topic HP, Torque, accerlative or, to a lesser extent, decelerative numbers, g-forces in corners, MPG or furlongs per fortnight, will be based on studies that determines what the "market" will buy and bear -- and, of course, what the market expects.

I, alone, am certainly not claiming to know or be the market -- I will claim that I have read a lot of car magazines and a lot of current events (as they might apply to "what's hot, and what's not").

Certain numbers seem to be prequsites: HP, torque, and, all those other numbers suggested in the opening paragraph of this post.

I suspect that 0 - 100kph or 0 - 60mph (be careful here, for there is a difference, 100kph is close to 60mph, but not identical) will be an important statistic.

In the US 0-60 times will be stated, typically: in the Premium, and/or sport-luxury class, with these price points -- the number that must be attained is (drum roll) 0 - 60 in less than 7 seconds. The fact that you may accurately note that some certainly non premium and non sport-luxury brands achieve this is important to note, but, NOT relevant when taken into the context of the overall package of a car yearning to be considered Premium.

The whole package, almost as if there is a cookbook with many different ingrediants, must be in balance.

But you asked for my opinion of where I think these contenders must "show" to be not be discounted. I would add that more numbers (in tenths of a second) below 7.0 seconds, to a point, are generally good things, too.

Now, this is the final input into this -- these numbers must be obtained with an automatic transmission -- the fact that they may be bettered by a CVT or full-on 5 or 6 speed manual is a good thing. But if your 0-60 time is obtained with a 6speed manual and is 6.8 seconds and your automatic shift version is 7.3 seconds "bzzzz" thanks for playing, tell them about their consolation prices, Don Pardo. . . .

This 0-60 war just keeps heating up -- note the number of cars, this year that are attempting or have already attempted to beat 6.0 seconds. Practically the first thing announced about the new Chrysler 300C was its 0-60 time, ditto the new Cadillac STS (V8).

More gizmos, more chassis stiffness, more or this that and the other thing -- but with a certain fit and finish befitting the "price class."

Details details -- it used to be "theater lights," then damped OMG assists(as in oh my god-handles, now in the ceiling of any respectable wannabe premium class). Self-dimming mirrors, first inside then both in and outside. Puddle lights for pity's sake and the list of standard "must have" features continues to escalate.

In 1996, Audi said it was "the number of airbags" that helped set Premium apart from lesser models. I remember in 1987, when I bought a car that had ABS standard -- I thought I had died and gone to heaven, until I noted that my friend's 1985 BMW had them first.

The race, and it is good for the customers, is on -- acceleration minimums are just part of the price. Everytime you read about a certain class of car, make a mental note -- there is competition.

If you can't beat them with one number, you better beat them with another. If you come up short in the HP and torque area, well a .1 second advantage to 60mph will be the horn you blow, and so on.

Voice response, Smart keys and on and on -- it is an exciting time to be a customer.

Hope this analysis -- and completely based on my observation -- provides the help you were after.

shotgun · May 2004

Indeed - A time of less than 7.0 seconds in the 0-60 mph sprint, in that class of vehicle, will be de rigueur! What I find even more interesting is that a lower-tier Acura model the TL (and please note that I didn't miss your point when you stated "...The fact that you may accurately note that some certainly non premium and non sport-luxury brands achieve this is important to note, but, NOT relevant...") is, according to some sources, pulling 5.9 sec times in that arena - leads me to speculate that - Acura stating that the engine in the new RL "...being our powerful ever..." should at least equal or exceed the TL in 0-60 performance and definitely be it's superior when in comes to top end capability! Your thoughts?

markcincinnati · May 2004

I agree, but, at this point, the safest answer is simply, "time will tell." A sub 6.0 second time will probably mitigate the lack of a "proper" V8 engine.

Personally, I care not about the number of cylinders -- if the engine is smooth (as Honda is certainly known to be able to engineer), powerful and efficient -- the number of cylinders will be far less of a negative. But, you can bet the car magazines will poke, poke, poke at this issue. They'll probably only be silenced if "the total package" is as together as it sounds like it will be.

I had read, and this was over 10 years ago, that Acura's "big car" was meant to be viewed as an alternative for Audi 5000S buyers (later called the Audi 100, followed by the A6 series). Sure enough, one of my friends (and I said ONE) had an Audi 5000CS (non-quattro) and when the lease was up he switched to Acura and has never gone back.

I have, thus far, been wondering why Acura didn't come out with AWD -- which, as I have commented, will attract me to the "test drive" phase of consideration of the '05 Acura.

Acura needs to increase the sportiness content, the guts content and the Premium Class content -- thus simultaneously distancing itself from Honda all the while building on the Honda reputation (a delicate balancing act, but doable, I am 99% certain).

Time will tell.

I think, if "I were in charge" I would "buy" a list of current flavor Audi A6 owners (and MAYBE 5 series and MAYBE E class drivers) and offer them a special test drive of the new Acura followed by a 24 hour test drive. If the product is up to snuff, I would think this would reap benefits: marketing and sales.

jeff88 · May 2004

"& why shouldn't one want 0-60 under 7 seconds with an achievable mileage range of 20 - 30 mpg city/highway."

Previously wrote that line a few pages back -- it gets back to gearing again. sorry if I am pounding the same drum beat. It would be easy for acura to build a sub-7 second 0-100 kph, 62 mph with short gearing. it would be harder to keep the shifts smooth with short gear ranges and impossible to get decent cruising mileage with rpm's @ 3000 for 80 mph. (BTW, the g35 auto 5sp @ 80 mph is running around 3 grand and 25 mpg from what I recall on the test drive.) For a premium ride, nvh would be compromised with high rpm's with increased weight needed to lug around to dampen noise. Anyone recall the 1st gti's and early integras? those buzz bombs were fast but nvh was high and mpg was almost the same between city/highway driving.

While I would love sub 7 seconds for 60, I'd prefer a smoother, quieter ride and very decent mileage. Neat thing is, I think acura is going to nail all the above with awd.
----------------------
Just picked up my company car at lunch today -- a base impala. nice car but I plan on naming it "Hertz". (A company car is like a full-time rental and it hertz that I'm no longer in my trusty acura.) the guy who delivered the impala for the dealer was pretty impressed with the old rl and just called to ask about pricing on it. as much as I will miss it, am anxious to sell for some cash to update some household needs.

robertsmx · May 2004

RL will easily beat 7.0s mark. I expect it to run the much hailed 0-60 in 6.5s or less with the automatic transmission. If Acura decides to offer manual, mid to upper 5 seconds.

ceric · May 2004

I am confident that new RL would be well into sub-6 sec range with auto. By looking at TL which can achieve 5.9sec 0-60 with 270hp and front-drive. Yes, TL has 200lb advantage (3575lb vs 3750lb-rumored), but RL has 30hp more on tap and AWD to put power to the rear also. We all know that FWD suffer from 0.1-0.2 sec disadvantage in 0-60 (all else being equal).

On another case, LS430 with 290hp and 3990lb can do 5.9sec. I see no reason why new RL cannot beat it. Not to bash on Lexus but Honda makes very efficient power train. I am betting on 5.5 to 5.7 sec.

Here is the quote from Japan's BestCar magazine... A 6.0-6.5sec 0-60 car has no chance of keeping up with Skyline on the 'Ring.
...
"The author of the article says he has been tracking the development of the RL/Legend since a development prototype was tested at the Nürburgring last year. According to the article, an RL/Legend test mule with a prototype SH-AWD system was tested at the 'Ring against a Skyline GT-R. The article states that the RL's lap times consistently bested the GT-R. The author makes the statement that the SH-AWD's performance dynamics are so innovative that he's convinced current systems from Nissan's GT-R, Subaru's Imprezza (WRX), and Mitsubishi's Lancer - leaders in AWD technology, are a step behind. He goes further and suggests that SH-AWD's performance handling dynamics are so ground-breaking that it threatens to surpass BMW's M5 class (hmmm - we shall see)."

shotgun · May 2004

If your prediction becomes reality and the 05' RL pulls 0-60 times in the 5.5 to 5.7 range and it's performance is equally impressive on the skidpad\slalom runs - this car will fly off the lots! Furthermore, if true, it will not bode well for the likes of Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Infinity, and yes, Lexus...

I can see myself now, at a stoplight, with a Teutonic runner in the next lane - my facial expression signals him "don't even think about it..." and as I let him hastily pull away, I continue to, very slowly, cruise through the intersection...

robertsmx · May 2004

With 12.5 lb. for each horse, Im betting on low 6 s range with the automatic transmission. I have seen Lexus LS430 do the run in 5.9-6.5s range.

lexusguy · May 2004

The LS with last year's 5-speed was about six and a half, I believe with the new 6-speed semi-auto, it can do it in under 6.

As for the Supra, thats what I always tell people when they ask why that car commands such an incredibly strong resale. It's the legendary Supra\IS300\SC300\GS300 Toyota inline 6. The engine in normally aspirated form makes a respectable 215-220hp, depending on which car. However, this engine can be tuned to produce astronomical amounts of power. The '99 Veilside Supra Limited made 1040hp @ 7950rpm, and 775lb.ft @ 6900 rpm. No Bugatti quad turbo V12, just a pedestrian Toyota 6. I've seen Supras and SC300s with over 1200hp. That inline is, from a tweakable perspective, the best six ever made.

markcincinnati · May 2004

. . .while my admittedly unscientific and unsupported by market research "claim" that the new Acura must have some abilities in the 0-60mph department (sub 7 second, that is); I must also add that I 100% agree that NVH must be at some level befitting the Premium class.

Moreover, gas milage, too, must be within the range tolerated at this class. 14 MPG, for example, would not be prudent. A "supercar" may be able to justify such low fuel milage, a Premium car would be much harder to market with such economy.

So, as I said, it is NOT just about accelerative force -- and despite many folks desire to be able to sublimate performance for NVH, and other more lux/comfort leaning attributes, the Premium car class [customer] expects "all the above:" good to great accelerative stats, leading safety features and specs, and "within the range" fuel milage, cornering G's, braking, interior noise levels and smoothness attributes, too.

Premium cars must have one overall attribute that is hard to quantify but you'll know it when you see it: Presence.

Ok, Premium cars must have two overall attributes that are hard to quantify but you'll know it when you see them: Presence and Balance. Too much of any of these things noted (exception "safety") and the latter is lost and the car will be relegated to the car magazine writers "nice try but. . ." category as they apparently have done with the Volvo S60 Type R (Close but no Cigar)!

Now, is there even a tiny chance for a manual transmission or were you just teasing me?

robertsmx · May 2004

Just teasing you. :-)

Although I wish...

shotgun · May 2004

For my edification only - what, may I ask, does NVH stand for?

lexusguy · May 2004

NVH (or NVAH) stands for noise, vibration, and harshness. It's the reason people are willing to spend $45,000 On an RX330 over a Chevy Tahoe.

varmint · May 2004

NVH = Noise, Vibration, and Harshness.

Nissan's VQ series engines are a good example. They offer smooth power delivery (meaning there is no weak spot in the power curve), but they get raspy when you push them.

Honda's V6 engines require a bit more pedal than the VQ engines, but both the 3.2L and 3.5L have been ranked higher for their smooth operation. I'm not sure what to expect from the RL's new vesion of the 3.5L. With it tuned for 300 hp, it might get a bit rough in the top end. But I figure it'll be at least as good as the VQ.

markcincinnati · May 2004

Well you now know what NVH stands for and it is the harshness, although it is at a really high rpm, that seems to have become the Volvo S60 Type R's downfall. Although, for the the life of me, to get to the point of that harshness and lack of refined sound, you have to be darn near redline.

NVH, also, is the title of a column in Automobile Magazine (for years, if that makes you feel any more out of touch with all the TLA's that seem to be floating around.) I can't keep up anymore as the world seems intent to try to gist (I know it is not really a verb) everything down to a single sound byte or TLA or FLA .

FWIW!

lexusguy · May 2004

I dont think its really the engine thats holding the S60R back, I think its that it really just doesnt have the at the limit handling that defines the best cars of the class. I wouldnt expect a Volvo or Saab to compete with the Germans though, its just not their area of expertise. For $37K though, the S60 R is a pretty good buy.

boomsama · May 2004

just a question...with all this movement of torque constantly changing in the car, wouldnt it make the car easier to "break"? The more moving parts, the more easier it is for things to go wrong.

lexusguy · May 2004

All parts in the car have limits to their capabilities. Certain transmissions can be overwhelmed by the amount of torque an engine can put out. This is why the Cadillac XLR uses a 5-speed, while the '05 Vette is stuck with a 4-speed autobox. GM's 5-speed just cant handle the amount of twist that the 6.0L can produce in that situation. Engines are MUCH more reliable today than they were say 50 years ago though. Engines in those days were crude, mixing fuel with carbs instead of computers, and requiring oil changes every thousand miles. A '50s or '60s car hitting 100,000 miles was almost unheard of, while today a hundred grand is no big deal.

markcincinnati · May 2004

. . .it seems to me that new cars often have "preview" test reports months before they can actually be had, retail.

The most current Car and Driver magazine has a test report of the new Audi A6 -- which they say will be for sale in the US from November forward.

The test reports have certain "marketing" value to the manufacturer's (unless the car being written about is a dud, of course).

I spent some time last night 'googling' around for 2005 RL tests -- lots of glorified press releases, much conflicting information on features and prices even.

One "release" claimed 100% of what was seen at the announcement in NY would be in the final for sale product -- minus the 20" wheel/tires. Another one claimed 100% content including the tires.

One claimed $50,000 USD, a second, well below $50,000, a third $45,000 fully equipped, and so on.

None mentioned any specifications other than wheelbase and 300HP from a naturally aspirated engine. Torque and torque @ RPM numbers were nowhere that I could find.

Furthermore, great allusions to the handling prowess bestowed upon the RL were mentioned in the text pertaining to the SH-AWD. But no actual data. It was sorta like reading the sentence: "the future's ahead and the past is behind!" Yea, so what else is new?

Some of the stuff seemed like it was just trying to fill column inches.

Anyway to avoid being guilty of the same thing, does anyone have a URL of a test report or preview that exceeds a "souped up" press release from Acura?

Thank you.

varmint · May 2004

"Anyway to avoid being guilty of the same thing, does anyone have a URL of a test report or preview that exceeds a "souped up" press release from Acura?"

Nope. I don't think a production model has been built. There is only the concept vehicle, and, while that car is a working car, the concept did not reflect the final details you are asking about. I expect we'll see a "first drive" type of article in a few months.

ceric · May 2004

It is Honda/Acura's style to keep tight lips on new product release. Case in point is the Infiniti M35/M45. You can already build your own on their website with all options information and colors. It is extremely hard to get detailed information on Honda/Acura products before actual corporate releases. You can only speculate as many do. Here is what I know...

- engine RPM: You can project the peak torque/hp rpm based on TL's engine. RL's 3.5L is based on TL's 3.2L with extended stroke.
- price: I put down order myself. The salesman assured me it is "well below $50K fully loaded".
- 20" wheels: It will not be in the production. This is from an interview video with US product manager of RL (from other site). Everything on the prototype will be in the final production EXCEPT for the wheels and tires. No mention of the slotted rotors.
- No actual test-drive yet by non-Honda people. The 'Ring report about keeping pace with GT-R was based on a test mule equipped with SH-AWD. The mule looks like a JDM Inspire/US Accord.

lexusguy · May 2004

Toyota is the same way, there's all kinds of wild rumors flying about what kind of engines will be in the next GS, IS, etc.

markcincinnati · May 2004

So Michelin made a run of a few 20" tires just for the prototype?

And, not to be contradictory, I actually assumed the ride, pot hole sensitivity and cost of the tires (not to mention probably relatively short tire life) would make the 20" tires/wheels more for show than go.

However, I would think 18" or possibly 19" would not be beyond the pale. . .any feedback?

Thanks!

ksoman · May 2004

i think 18's atleast are very very likely. If they stick with the brake discs/rotors that they showcased on the NY demo piece, its not going to fit into a smaller wheel, i doubt it will fit into anything like 17" or below... 18" most likely... plus they need those if they want any serious handling on that wide a car.

just for comparison sake, i don't know exactly how they do it, but the 17" wheels on my wife's 3 series do make the ride very stiff, but they are not jerky like say the previous generation 3 with similar wheels... i'd bet acura will try to tune in a somewhat similar suspension profile... just a thought.

all said and done, we all know that acura will finally tend towards the value side of the equation when it hits the value, performance or sheer price issue.

my 1 cent
ksso

varmint · May 2004

The prototype wore a sticker indicating that 17" rims would be the norm. That's not official, but it seems pretty consistent with other Honda/Acura cars. Honda has not fallen prey to the trend for ever-increasing rim sizes. I'm sure if they offer an A-Spec package it would include something like 18's or 19's.

shotgun · May 2004

I find it extremely difficult to believe that no production model has been built. Given that RL model roll-out is scheduled for the fall of 04, (four months away and factor in an ocean crossing and distribution logistics) and they plan on selling at least 1200 units a month, I'd be willing to bet some good money that they are rolling off the production line as I type this. Matter of fact, if you goto: http://www.acura.com/index.asp , particularly under the "Watch the Secret Unfold" option and go to the "gallery" section - the picture depicting the shift console shows what appears to be a "production" finished console that differs significantly from the prototype model shown in NY. (Compare the seat heating/cooling buttons) I'm also willing to bet that, although not standard, 20" wheels will be available with an "A-Spec" package or as optional equipment. As someone pointed out, "Check out the size of the brake rotors..." to get a feel of the wheel sizes the car can accomodate and lets face it - Michelin will not build a small sample of tires for the exclusive use of a prototype vehicle without a committment for mass production...Your thoughts?

lexusguy · May 2004

20" tires seems highly unlikely. In terms of every day driving, tires past 18" usually make ride and handling go down, not up. The RL is hardly the first concept to have massive tires to grab attention, I'd be hardpressed to remember a concept in recent years that did NOT have 20"+ wheels. They never make production though.

shotgun · May 2004

A not to be missed experience - Goto: http://www.world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2004-4040401a/

ceric · May 2004

I read about that sticker also. I think 17"s are fine without sacrificing ride quality. I have 17" on my 540iA (came with 16"). I wish I could have gone up to 18"s (looks better), but anything beyond 18" is risking damage to the alloy wheels against pot holes.

Overall, when you go up in wheel size (while keeping overall diameter - lower profile tires), you improve road-holding but sacrifice ride quality and slightly worse stopping distance and acceleration.

For new RL, IMHO, 18" is the best trade-off. I would take 17" with a smile also.

varmint · May 2004

I'm aware that there are photos of different consoles (and different sheetmetal if you look closely). But there's nothing to suggest that one or the other is a "production car". They may simply be photos of a different mock-up.

Have they finalized the design? Most certainly. Have they begun training on the production lines? Again, probably so. Have they begun parts production? That's likely, too. Have they begun mass production? Doubt it. It would cost too much to store those vehicles and arrange for alternate shipping when released.

The lead time for magazines is about 3 months. In the past, Honda has given the mags "pre-production" models for their first drive articles. Meaning, cars that are production spec, but were built as one-offs for press purposes. Not built on the main lines.

shotgun · May 2004

Your points are well taken - just for curiosity, can you point me too the different sheetmetal?

ksoman · May 2004

wow, dude, if all that video is true! omg, no wonder they can beat anyone through the slaloms... or claim to...

also just a thought, i dont think they are going to mess with this technology quickly and introduce a gas-electric hybrid, unless that electric motor is somehow incorporated into the "acceleration device"... just a thought.

just though, did you notice, they used a US-spec accord to showcase the SH-AWD technology in the video. pretty cool cornering actuals.

=p~

varmint · May 2004

"just for curiosity, can you point me too the different sheetmetal?"

Probably the same place you were directed for the seat heater controls, Acura.com.

Go there and launch the RL Prototype vignette. Click on the gallery. Scroll through the images until you see a picture taken from the rear of the car (not the close-up on the tail lights).

Take a close look at that image. Notice that the sheetmetal above the tail lights flows smoothly in an arc into the glass of the lights. It's a smooth transition. Note that the lip on the deck lid is a simple drop straight off the back. There are also no character lines running through the space on either side of the license plate.

Now go back to scrolling through the images. When you come to the one that shows a close-up of the tail lights, click on it to enlarge the image.

Looking at this image shows a few differences in the rear quarter panel. Notice that the smooth transition above the tail light is now a flat plane cut from the arc. That shape leads into the character line that starts at the tail light and travels above the wheels to the front of the car. Note that fender next has a similar shape carved out of the space just below the deck lid. And finally, take a look at what *may* be an additional character line on the rear panel that leads from the license plate upward to the edge of the deck lid and into that shape at the corner of the trunk.

lexusguy · May 2004

Even low profile 18" wheels can get destroyed by potholes or curbs.

csgman · May 2004

I hope y'all can give me some advice here. . .

I own a 98 RL. I have only had it a few weeks and i enjoy the car, except for the transmission. The first shift seems to "slip" sometimes. I used to have a Legend that did the same thing - I thought the transmission might be going (it had 150K on it). Is this a trait of the transmissions, or a potential problem? Anyone else have this happen, or is it just me and my two autos??

Thanks in advance for your time and help!

markcincinnati · May 2004

I have now enjoyed for some 11,000+ miles 18" wheels with 245 x 45 tires mounted. I had, in my previous car, 255 x 40 x 17" wheels/tires. The aspect ratio, of the tire, is -- broadly speaking -- more important than the number of inches in diameter of the wheel. There is, I'll grant and agree, the law of diminishing returns in play in this regard, however.

The 20" wheels with the 35% (aspect ratio) tires that I think were in the show Acura, probably handle well and look great. And, if DESIGNED specifically for these wheels and tires, I suspect the ride qualities could be mitigated (by that I mean the poor ride characteristics could be smoothed with the suspension's engineering).

However, my guess is that the Acura will be marketed with 17 or 18 inch wheels -- and it may well be optimized for such wheel size.

Generally plus zero or plus one sizing will provide about all the plusses (no pun intended) that can be extracted from a given tire, wheel and suspension set up.

So, if the new car comes standard with 225 x 55 x 17" tires/wheels, it will most likely achieve its maximum performance NOT from 20" or even 19" wheels (and appropriate tires), but from plus zero'd tires or a plus one set up.

If this is the case, the performance will improve with little degradation in ride quality and unsprung weight (the nemesis of the suspension and wheel tire system is, after all, unsprung weight) if they are upsized to 245 x 50 x 17" or 245 x 45 x 18" -- plus two sizing to a 19" wheel with a 35 series tire would most certainly increase the unsprung weight, increase (probably, but not absolutely) the stopping distance, degrade the ride quality, be more susceptible to pot holes and perhaps even accelerate more slowly and possibly be slower through a slalom.

My hope, for "balance" is 18" wheels and tires with a profile that does not go below 45.

My wife's car has 40 series tires on 18" wheels, sometimes it looks like the thing is wearing rubber bands instead of tires. Potholes under these circumstances are NOT your friend.

ksoman · May 2004

the low profile more than the wheel size is the make or not make life hell thing. sometimes. i'd like to see 18" with 45 size tires.

i've to say again, even though the link shotgun posted had a modded accord to show off the SH-AWD, which seemed to have stock tires, i was quite impressed with the presentation and video...

shotgun · May 2004

Mark's case for 18" wheels is indeed compelling and, quite frankly, very logical! That being said...I will graciously accept, or if optional, order 18" wheels for my new 05 RL.

steveaccord · May 2004

Kudos everyone!

As always as I return to this post I am treated to a feast of very interesting points.
I'd like to thank shotgun for the opportunity given to view the exiting footage of the SH-AWD equipped Accord.

I believe it confirms many of the previous comments that were made including some considerations on how this new transmission may change (revolutionize) various aspects we have considered in so far to predict how great a vehicle will drive.

I admit my last contribution may have been a little foggy (I guess consequence of spending a nice evening with good friends and excellent wine!! lol) but in summary I am prone to believe that because the SH-AWD is so much more efficient in translating engine specs in 'tyres' work we cannot truly compare the new RL Hp for HP with competing models.
I dare predict that the RL 300 HP (I sideline the torque arguments since we do not know much in that direction), will not only match but surpass Jaguar V8 (and the like) in real world performance. Of course I do not expect the RL will take all trophies, 0-60 and any other straight line spec will rank accordingly to displacement figures!
I also think that all of the above is immediately concerned by the recent tyres discussion.
I am interested more in establish if a new type of tyre is really needed to use fully the potential availed by the SH-AWD. My brain went on immediate overdrive when the Michelin story was brought up in this post. As other have commented I do not believe that was necessary to have custom made 20" for an autoshow prototype but I think makes a lot of sense to study prototype of radically designed new tyres. My reasoning being that beside the tyre/wheel ratio having direct reflection on the ride qualities additional demands are put by the SH-AWD on the width specs of matched tyres. I assume that, although less relevant than for other aspects of the axle/differential, as you widen the area of tyre contacting the pavement you increase the difference in the distance the inner and the outer edge of the tyre have to cover while steering/cornering (this type of steer problem is not really avilable to be corrected by differntails etc and will ultimately cause increased friction, heat generation and loss of efficiency). I cannot really quantitate that contribution but I see this area as one of reasonable interest to fully capacitate the SH-AWD and I would place my bet that the Michelin rumor has something to do with this rather than the 20" size (and btw It would make sense to see some tyre adustments folowing the developmental work Michelin does for F1 racing since it requires just such an incredible optimization to give full traction under all conditions)!
Hope to find more comments in regard!

SF

lexusguy · May 2004

Jaguar? Why Jaguar? The Ford sourced 4.2L Jaguar V8 is one of the weakest in the segment, and makes less HP than Honda's new 3.5L V6 for the RL. The M-B 5.0L, BMW 4.5L, Audi 4.2L, and Lexus 4.3L are all significantly more powerful and superior to the Jag engine, and coupled with the infamous J-gate, the RL should have no trouble besting the mediocre S-Type 4.2

lexusguy · May 2004

Can you be a little more descriptive with the experience? I've driven more than a few cars with 4-speed autoboxes, and there have been occasions where I would be accelerating quickly in first gear, and instead of a smooth shift at say 6,000rpm, for whatever reason I would need to lift off the throttle before the upshift and the transmission would get "confused" for a second, and then make a rather "hard" or "abrupt" shift at say 5300rpm. Is this the kind of thing your talking about?

csgman · May 2004

Well, yes. . .and no. It is a hard shift, and it sounds like it "slips" from 1-2. The rest of the gears shift nice and strong, albeit a little abrupt by todays standards (and 5 sp autos).

I have known this particular car for its whole life and it has always done it, so it is not that big of a deal to me -except that I am trying to sell it, so I want to represent the condition should it come up in conversation. I had a '92 Legend before this, and it did the same thing all the way up until I sold it. I have read some things that state that "this the way this particular gearbox was made", etc. but I wanted to get some feedback from other owners of this car. . . I did get the tranny looked at and there seems to be nothing inherently wrong with it. . .

Sorry I can't be more specific on the nature of the shift; it is unlike anything I have experienced in any other kind of car.

shotgun · May 2004

This device really intrigues me! According to Honda "...During straight-ahead driving, the twin-pinion planetary carrier spins in synchronization with the propeller shaft, causing the front and rear wheels to turn at the same speed. When the vehicle enters a curve, however, the planetary carrier is locked to the case, releasing the device from synchronization with the propeller shaft and accelerating the rotation speed of the rear wheels..." It seems to me that with a little tweaking this acceleration device could also be invoked without the car necessarily entering a curve - potentially giving the car a substantial "pseudo turbo-boost" in straight line acceleration! Do I have less than a firm grip on reality to think of this possibility?

lexusguy · May 2004

Interesting. I havent really spent much time behind the wheel of a Legend or the current RL, so I dont really know what to tell you. Most likely, its not a problem.

varmint · May 2004

I think what you'll find is that it accelerates the rear wheels at the expense of power to the front wheels. So, no, I kinda doubt it.

Acura RL

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles