Acura RL

ksoman · May 2004

i disagree too, i think the my 2004 acura rl looks very statesquely "decent" even if boring and if not exciting... i know of many more people who are getting the left over RL's purely because the car looks quite decent (from outside only) even after being on the market several thousand years.... few cars can do that realistically speaking.

as for the ES 330, bite me, pinch me, lynch me or stone me, but what's with that styling?? the last time another company made a bulbous, misformed, flying saucer like craft, they got hammered to death to a point where the said car dropped from being one of the three top sellers to being in the bottom 3 sellers (yes, you won the prize to guess, the taurus). the ES330 would have been hamered the same way if they would not have been lucky enough to have the lexus name when lexus is considered the most well built cars around.

If people purely bought something for excitement and looks, es330 and camry would die faster than the blink of an eye.

my 2 cents canadian$

ksso

markcincinnati · May 2004

I for one do not think that using Premium in a car that is specified to use Premium is anything but good economic sense. The "false economy" argument fundamentally sums this all up -- and as noted you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the winds blows. I.E., you don't need to be a petro chemical engineer.

The fact that the engine computer attempts to reduce the pre ignition does not, as far as I can tell, save money -- quite the contrary.

Of course the engine that says "I am happy to run on regular" may not benefit from Premium either -- there are built in limits. If a car desgined to run on 87 or higher octane is fed 94 octane, there is probably not enough spark advance capable that would permit (or require) full "appreciation" for the extra octane. In that case, the money beyond -- perhaps 89 octane -- would be wasted. On the other hand, I know of no HARM that would happen if you used premo gas in a car that will run on regular -- other than the possible overpayment of some 10 or 20 cents per gallon -- and if you used 80 gallons a month, well you can figure out that although 10 cents too much is a waste (in the example discussed) it is hardly a life changing sum of money. Even at a nominal overpayment of 20 cents a gallon the absolute dollars wasted are small -- not unimportant, but just not big!

tls02 · May 2004

In the NY area, Smithtown Acura is selling the 04 RL for about $37,000. Hope this helps. Let us know what she pays.

gteach26 · May 2004

I don't know why the '04 RL gets bashed so much. To me it is a great looking car -- conservative and elegant inside and out. It also has plenty of techno gadgets to keep everyone interested. It also offers more room than the ES300,BMW ,etc. I've sat in all of those cars and to me the RL has the most comfy interior.

Its 220+HP engine may not be a rocket but it's not a slow poke either. At mid 30K this car is a good value. For 40K plus I can see where it just wouldn't make sense at this time.

Try an '04 demo with <5K miles... you get all of the warranty benefits, the new car smell, and a VERY nice price. Just look it over inside and out and test drive it well to make sure it has not been abused.

Later this year I might look at a used '04 if the '05 doesn't knock my socks off. From the pictures I've seen the 05 just seems "nice" (and smaller) -- perhaps not worth the price premium it will command for the first year.

heywood1 · May 2004

Well, my sister-in-law has a Vigor now, which she bought new and loves. So a 'dated' close-out 2004 RL will be a big improvement, yet familiar. The upcoming '05 RL will be more car than she needs. Just like her Vigor, this is going to be a ten-year car-- so reliability is a big issue. We're not considering Volvo or Audi. Only other car we might consider is an also soon-to-be extinct Lexus GS300-- if we can find a 'stripper' with leather and not much else.

We'll consider a gently used or program car with <5,000 mi. But a quick check of autotrader.com shows at least 60 new RL's within a hundred miles. And she'd prefer it to be brand new. I'm definitely shooting for at least $3,500 under invoice. Just wondering how much lower is possible. I'm beginning to think quite a bit lower....

lexusguy · May 2004

What features, praytell, does a '96 era car have that the all new for '04 TL does not? Heywood, I know the ES certainly isnt for everyone, but it DOES look better than that awful bubble Taurus.

If she needs a 10 year car, how about a CPO Lexus LS? There is no car on earth that will outlast that. The RL wont even come close. My '96 Lasted me 156,470 miles on the trade, and was trouble free all the way. CPO Lexus cars are covered to 100,000 total vehicle miles. You could get an '00 LS400 in the low 30s, and an '01 LS430 for just under 40, that would blow away any RL in EVERY feature, and be covered by the CPO warranty for roughly the same duration as a new Acura.

shotgun · May 2004

You're absolutely right gteach26! I bought a new 99'RL in 99 and it served me well. The body style didn't change, it was trouble free, and everyone liked it's conservative styling which exuded an aura of understated, but very evident, sophistication. Anticipating the introduction of the 05' RL - I sold my 99', with 58k miles, for $18k two months ago and actually hated to part with it. It had excellent road manners and was very well behaved and stable at high speeds. If the new 05' provides me with the same level of satisfaction my old 99' did - I'll be in hog heaven!

nebraskaguy · May 2004

The main feature I was referring to was the steering wheel that automatically tilts up and away when you remove the key. A great feature for someone with my long legs. I don't believe the TL has the auto dimming rearview mirror either, a feature I really appreciate. Also, it is quieter than the TL. In fact, my 99 RL is quieter than the TL.

lexusguy · May 2004

Well, perhaps the RL is quieter than the TL, but the ES is quieter than the RL, and as far as the interior is concerned, its no contest. As far as the styling, I much prefer the new car, as the old pre '02 ES didnt offend anyone, much like the RL, but it doesnt inspire either.

ksoman · May 2004

and the resize was against industry trend, going smaller. why? any chances of another model filling the slot above the RL? I would never think like this because I like to think that Honda as a company does not like to stretch itself thin, but based on something that caught my eye in that businessweek article that was posted here (link) a few days ago... i dunno

ksso

robertsmx · May 2004

Although the new RL will be in a more compact package (compared to current), it will be the largest Honda/Acura car (that the current RL is not). The new RL is shrinking by 4 inches to 193 inch and the cabin volume is supposed to increase from 98 cu ft to 103 cu ft (on the upper side of midsize cars).

I like this resizing effort, and performance focus, from Acura. This might help Honda in markets (especially Europe) where a more compact package is more desirable, and that may be a goal.

So, the Acura sedan trio will have lengths (width would be in 70-72 inch range for all) of...
183 inch: TSX (Compact)
188 inch: TL (Midsize - Lower side)
193 inch: RL (Midsize - Upper side)

This leaves enough room for a full size luxury sedan above RL! May be, thats another plan at AHM!

varmint · May 2004

It's possible. But I doubt we'll see it within the next 5 years. IMHO, that makes it a poor subject for speculation. A lot can happen in 5 years.

ksoman · May 2004

but seeing that there is a trend to lower the size on both the TL and then the RL...

yesterday i drove past 3 TL's on the NJTP... I was staring at them because that shape sure has grown on me and they were staring at me because i was driving my wife's 3 with the top down in 65 degree, cloudy weather.

steveaccord · May 2004

OK my point in this regard is that we tend to forget that this car is sporting the new ACE engineering. No doubt that ACE is a big assett in Honda strategy to assert its leadership in car safety and superior engineering. That said I aasume that given the goal of allowing force impact/dissipation in a totally new way (so to withstand impacts even if it is between sedan/truck etc..) there has to be changes in some of the major cage/front/rear strucure.
So I guess compared to a non ACE car there has to be a different styling to accomodate for the different skeleton. We can agree that although the new RL is not heart shattering it is nice looking.

My take: Good looks alone do not carry you for too long (just as for ourselves I guess). So I'll prefer keep an ACE up my sleeve! lol

Steve

lexusguy · May 2004

A full size Honda, if it ever happens, is a long way off. You're talking about developing a V8, a new platform, and major factory retooling to actually build all that new stuff. Honda is busy trying to figure out why its bread and butter isnt selling like it used to, and get more production capacity for its trucks\minivans. Some sort of LS fighter (which has NEVER worked, that car is unfightable) isnt a priority for them.

steveaccord · May 2004

Sorry guys, I perceive some confusion here.
Lets start by defining an Octane. Octane indicates the lenght (in number of carbon atoms) of an aliphatic chain (a string of beads in which the beads are carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms linked to each of them.
Do not get scared you are familiar with aliphatic compounds even though you may not recognize so. The butane gas cartridge you use(d) for your camping. Propane is another one. Propane is infact a 3 Carbon chain, butane is a 4 carbon chain, ethane (for which we all have prefernce of the alchool form, ethanol) is 2 and methane is 1.
OK now that we have the basic chemistry what do you have in a 87 octane and what do you have in a 91 octane gasoline.
The same stuff! Surprised? Let me explain.
The Octane numbers you read at the pump only tells you that for 100 parts of fuels 87 (or 91 id you are getting premium rather than normal) are.........
(sorry I have to finish the post later in an hour or so)

steveaccord · May 2004

OK (Nanny call!!).........guaranteed to have chain lenght of 8 Carbon atoms. What is the importance of that. Well if you were to use fuel with an high amount of shorter alyphatic chains you would have 'explosive combustion'. Meaning the butane and propane would have so low ingintion points (flash points) that your egnine wold be undergoing solicitation such as those obtained with detonating TNT. That anyhow remains a problem with the final gasoline you purchase (87-91 octanes) at the pump and that's why you have a 10% made up of an 'anti-detonating agent' (nowdays is ethanol at ~ 10% while time back Lead containing chemicals were used).
So now back to the 87 vs. 91 issue. Any modern vehicle, unless otherwise stated by the manufaturers, is built to give optimum performance and adding a 4% of 8 Carbon atom lenght alyphatic chains (i.e. 91 octanes) is not going to give you any benefit whatsoever.
I believe a lot of people supposes that higher octanes equal cleaner gasoline... not so.
The same is true for 91 vs. 94. The gain of 3% is irrelevant, if the manufacturer asks for premiummake sure is the one that saves you money because you are not keeping the engine cleaner, you are not getting more miles etc. These benefits are achieved by other means. To give you an extreme example, 'lighter fuels' such as those in use in Formula 1 racing do give you more mileage (dont ask me what they cost! an absurdity), and cleaner gasoline is not measured by octanes but other processing steps. Ultimately the higher price for higher octanes is dependent not on intrinsic qualities but simply reflect 'lower yelds' from startin row material, so you need to pick up the tab!
Final advice, run on the gasoline that your manufacturer suggest and identify the distribution brand that provide good quality at reasonable price!
Bye...for now

legendman · May 2004

>If she needs a 10 year car, how about a CPO Lexus LS? <

What's a "CPO"? _____________ previously owned?

legendman · May 2004

Are we still talking about octane???????????????

legendman · May 2004

Out west, the smart money is on Chevron gasoline with Techron. Apparently the gas is so clean burning and has such a good detergent package that all of the big 3 automakers use Chevron gasoline exclusively when performing EPA mileage tests for their new car models.

As Chevron is not manufactured east of Kentucky, the automakers have tanker trucks haul the gas back to Detroit for use in their new cars.

saugatak · May 2004

Wow, most enthusiasts on these forums ridicule the RL since it's the weakest "flagship" of the premium brands and think the new 2005 RL refresh is a must success for Acura to be viewed as playing in the same league as MB, BMW, Lexus.

Yet its clear the old RL still has its fans, such as Heywood's sister-in-law.

Heywood, I'm not knocking the '04 RL, but it is the last model year of an old design, and there are a lot of new cars that have come out since then.

I think Lexusman is giving you great advice and you should really consider the cars he is suggesting. It's an expensive purchase, and your sis-in-law will be living with the results for 10 years, why not be absolutely certain it's the car you want?

CPO means "Certified Pre-Owned". I think CPO is a good idea for German cars, which are typically quite pricey and relatively unreliable compared to Japanese cars.

Lexux, OTOH, is a pretty reliable vehicle and if you can find one used with good service records, I don't think you need to go the CPO route with Lexus. Also, most Lexus drivers typically don't drive their cars hard, which is what ruins a car, so your chances of getting a good reliable used Lexus are pretty good.

lexusguy · May 2004

True. Its just that a certified Lexus would give that extra ounce of piece of mind, even if theres very little chance of problems anyway.

robertsmx · May 2004

2004 RL is no slouch. It is one of the most dependable "flagships" around, comes loaded like a mid-priced luxury sedan should (yeah, it is missing couple items its lesser brethren have, but makes up for it in its own ways). Its only weakness is that it was not designed to be athletic. But then, neither are the other cars being mentioned here.

robertsmx · May 2004

While possibility of seeing a full size Acura sedan is slim (in the near future anyway), the new RL is pretty close to being a full size (if it has 103 cu. ft cabin volume).

The new RL shares one of the best platforms around, so that ain't going to be a big deal either. V8 or not doesn't have to be an issue either since a hybrid possibility is more likely. 350 HP/350 lb.-ft or so, and AWD, in a full size package is doable.

But before that happens, we may see a hybrid RL, and then, the future of "sedans" (as opposed to light trucks) in a lineup may also dictate things.

ksoman · May 2004

well nobody is ever unbeatable, that's the beauty of nature, all things that go up go down, said that, lexus has still a long ride before it becomes beatable.

about the retooling to create different sized cars, i doubt. i have a masters in robotics and i can tell you, we have come a long way in the last 15 years, today's productions lines are so flexible, if they wanted, they could turn out 5 completely different cars on the same line, at the same time, right one after the other, having said that, it may not make the most economic sense to do it, but from a re-tooling point of view, its far too easy... and honda has been one of the companies on the forefront of these flexible production lines, if not the pioneer.

if i don't write again for a few, have a super and safe holiday weekend.
ksso

ksoman · May 2004

which big 3 automakers are you talking about? things changed recently, toyota is #2 now and chrysler doesn't figure anywhere anymore

ksoman · May 2004

excellent post steve, but i agree and disagree.

shorter chain hydrocarbons have lower molecular weight and hence are more likely to be in gaseous or liquid state and hence require less energy to transform chemically. higher molecular weight hydrocarbons require more energy to ignite and combust, meaning, they don't pre-fire.... you said as much.

now i differ on the result. i am not saying 91 is cleaner than 87, all i'm saying is, the engine has more predictable (relatively) firing and hence the engine has less "knocking". the word knocking really must come from the ages when even a slight amount of trouble with the "petrol" would cause the engine to physically "knock around"... anyway, intrisically, if you look at the force vectors of a knock, they are random and dissipate in different directions than the classic line of piston movement in a cylinder that causes more or less cyclical movement on the stroke... anyway, so in my interpretation, less knock leads to a more balanced engine performance that leads to the ECU calculating things differently leading to good mileage and/or better power.

having said all of this, i still go back and agree with your final note that we must identify a gasoline we like and stick with it, because that offers a far higher degree of predictability than buying 91 at 15 different gas stations with different brands.

When I used to live in AZ, I'd mostly buy chevron with techron. i'm still hunting around for a good gas station in central jersey, though in my pre-AZ life, I used to hang my car's thirst mostly at one particular mobile station just off of route 287 exit 2... things change, now the only good thing about that particular station is the donuts... hehe

i think i've strayed far enough from the RL topic, but then again, i've atleast mentioned the RL word twice in this post...

ksso

markcincinnati · May 2004

Great education. But, praytell, why does the fine print in my manual and in the brochure claim (and I can't quote it chapter and verse) lower torque @ 91 than at 93 octane?

My service manager, obviously NOT at your understanding level (somewhat to a lot below, I'll wager) says, fundamentally, what I said in a previous post: "the engine computer 'senses' the higher octane and advances the spark thereby improving the power [sic]." Of course the limit of advance is relatively small, but, if it is virtually insignificant, why bother putting power (torque) and accelerative claims in print for 91 and 93 octane (German car, BTW)?

Uh, please answer in English -- I too, am NOT at your level of understanding, fur shure!

steveaccord · May 2004

Hi everybody,
realtive to the last few posts: You are all correct. I guess my points were standard setting, but details outlined are true.
Now that said, the argument of 91 vs. 87 in term of combustion 'predictability' is real but not any longer relevant (the issue of 'battere in testa' a.k.a. knocking) has been solved since early '90 or so by deplyoment of new engine materials/engineering.
As to the manual recommendation, I had mentioned indeed (or may be I forgot doing it!!) that there are a few manufacturers producing enginess that have 'adaptive capabilities' to detect octane composition and vary the engine prefromance accordingly. Typically in automotive press the most cited example is some of Ford engines.
Going back to the RL and all powerplants from Honda I am not aware of the existance of such capability so I would stick with my earlier advice!
CU!!

ksoman · May 2004

ok lets see... i'll attempt english.

Case 1: 87 octane fuel, which means 87 out of 100 good molecules and 13 below quality molecules. (this is vague, not homogenous behavirour, but bear with me) now, lets say at time 0, your engine piston started compression and 43 milliseconds later, the 13 below quality molecules fired, and then then at 52 milliseconds, the rest of the 87 molecules fired. what did you get? two distinct explosions inside the cylinder chamber, the first 13 molecules created a mini-blast that upset the cylinder compression and then the 87 other molecules fires 9 millsecs later to create the bigger explosion that really pushes the piston out to power your engine.

Case 2: 91 octane fuel... here you got 9 poorer quality molecules and 91 good. lets say at 43 millsec the 9 fired and at 52 millsec, the rest of the 91 exploded/combusted. so the initial misfire/knock is smaller, 9 instead of 13 molecules and the subsequent explosion is bigger, with 91 molecules instead of 87. obviously you are going to get more power out of 91 molecules burning instead of 87, given all the other things remain same.

Now of course, this is all dynamically happening and the spark is not necessarily happening at 43 ms or 52 ms. in an old style distributor engine, how the point was set decides exactly when in time the spark is fed. the spark itself lasts several milliseconds. in a new engine the ECU decides when to spark and the spark "start time" can be varied... the spark length is still several milliseconds long and i am not sure how much that lengh is managed by the ECU but it could be and i would not be suprised. The point of moving the start time of the spark is really to "supress" the misfiring. This is how it works. Lets say at 42 ms, your poor quality molecues fire and you know that because you designed the engine. now suppose you delayed the spart from happening till say 50 ms. then what you are essentially doing is preventing a knock from happening or reducing the knock delta to 2 ms from the original 9 ms. the knock is still there, but its smaller. please note that a knock can never be eliminated. this is because not every molecule of gas is going to explode at the same time. it always happens as a series of chains. one or more molecules of gas will explode, create energy and provide that energy to other molecules to explode. and on and on. never ever will the entire contents of the cylinder combust at the same instant. this chain behavior is where most of the recent advances in HP are coming from. traditionally, no engine ever completely burns all the fuel dumped into the cylinder. as the percentage of unburnt fuel reduces, power for engine goes up. just for demonstration, the 95 EX V6 accord pumped something like 190 hp from 3000 cc engine, the latest EX V6 pumps 240 hp from approximately the same size of engine (viz. 3000 cc)... when manufacturers are pushing to increase power from the same engine using all the variable cam and this and that, they are essentially running after trying to burn those last few unburnt fuel molecules... that's where all the gizmos and technology comes in. question is, its also making cars heavier and with the law of diminishing returns at some point, you just won't get any more benefit anymore.

i also like steve's mention of the ford engine. i was just thinking... if you have a really fast smart sensor/computer on the engine, you can continously monitor the quality of fuel that is actually reaching the engine instantaneously and vary your firing timing to compensate almost instantaneously... that would also give you quite a fun zip on the engine.... just a thought.

i hope this helps.
ksso

steveaccord · May 2004

Food for thought!!
I do see the relevance of the shear dimensioning (car size, engine specs etc.). Yet, I am more interested in pushing the discussion on what this car represent in the overall strategy of the company behind it. In previous posts (or reading I was doing elsewhere) I got the impression that this is another step along the way to restate a whole phylosophy concerned with prioritizing on what we already now are the HONDA/Acura fundamental principle (performance, craftamanship, safety, fuel consumption economy etc). To make a long story short my impression is the the RL will not stay as the flagship vehicle for long!
My bet is that the Rl will succeed to eat market share against the lux midsize antagonists (see the 7 comparo of jag, e series, 5 series, c300 etc. elsewhere in the auto press). After that and deploying the dual note extra 100 HP on hybrid platform ( the SOHC vs. DOHC in previous posts could also apply here) we will see the true "Legend".
Well OK may be I am just day-dreaming but then........

ksoman · May 2004

the flagship market, atleast of the size of the 7's and S's is small. There's not space for everyone. however much i'd like to see an acura in that space, if they have to get a foothold, somebody else has to drop out. i doubt the 7 and the S would drop out easy, and hell no, the LS won't drop out easy... so who gives??

In the US, the whole car market is driven by 3 factors in my opinion:
1. Relatively low taxes on car sales, compared to rest of the world, so cars based purely on per capita income are cheaper in the US than most other places, maybe not all, but most
2. Inexpensive gasoline compared to the rest of the world
3. our increasing personal girths, myself included.. hehehe

I doubt 1. above will change in the forseeable future... though what may happen is tax incentives on hybrids, still not a given.
2. above, well its increasingly out of control of the largest buyer's bullying power, largely because as china buys more and becomes another huge hog after the same limited resource, our bully power is receding and it will erode to a point where we just can't ask for good gas prices. so $50 gas fillups per week are going to become standard
3. above... the atkins diet worked on me for a while, but ahem...

but overall all this means, in my opinion that the flagship 7/S/LS sized market is going to be relatively calm or flat if not decline. we have too many players already in that market, so acura may be smart to save money and stay out of it, despite the fact that TL & RL were sized lower and leaves space to speculate on a larger car.

ksso

steveaccord · May 2004

Thank you ksoman. Every good bit of info I believe will help, and you cleared up nicely what is going to happen to those octanes (and those that cannot be called such). While absolutely correct I wanted to repeat again that the events you detailed are negligible unless the disturbances you outlined upset specific boundaries of the engine performance. Those boundaries are typically set by the valves timing and occur only if your engine is out of whack. Excluding that condition you have the described processes confiined in a sealed chamber (a.k.a an equivalent to an ideal thermodynamic close system, I am referring now to the combustion process only, abstracted from all the rest). Now I guess one has to crunch lot of math to come to a correct assessment but I'll skirt that and just stress the point that the intrinsic differences between 87 and 91 octanes will not results in appreciable change in your engine performance (except if yours is one on the Ford like list) because the upsetting created by an earlier ignition by the shorter chain aliphatic compounds will just sum up to the total energy of the system just as much as the subsequent combustion of the 'octanes' (and the subtle changes in linear acceleration are overrriden by the crank inertial mass). So no energy is going to be lost intrinsically by having 13 rather than 9 part of non octanes compounds. So setting aside the idealized of conditions I depicted, as correctly pointed out is the 'amount of combusted fuel' that is more relevant to what you are going to see as output. In summary my point is the octane issue is relatively moot because of engine materials and design (as once again correctly pointed out, shaping the head of the piston and cylinders achieves a lot more in term of uniforming the ignition process and efficiency of burning the fuel than the octane 87 to 91 variation does) and that is why each major power boost in an engine design (that keeps unchanged volumes) is accompanied by just such redesigned components (valves included).
So I'll tirelessly preach use the lower octane your car manufacturer suggests and just make sure is the cleanest one!
One last note of the opening sentence. Sorry if my english fails at times (if the reference was in that direction). As foreing born and user of Italian as mother language I am letter blind for 5 out of 26 alphabet letters (j, k, w, x and y do not exixst in the italian alphabet) so I am severely prone to mix ups (grammar structure and punctuation being other sore points)!
btw I wish everyone a very happy holiday weekend!

steveaccord · May 2004

Ksoman,
I totally agree with your analysis (and unfortunately I know about increasing girths myself).
In fact, although I hope we will see a new flagship by Acura I believe it will be a few years down the line. Mostly to assess those market dynamics you hit spot on!
Have a great Memorial weekend!

lexusguy · May 2004

You make some valid points. I think VW is currently questioning how long the Phaeton will remain a flagship. A super VW in the American market was probably not one of the smarter moves that company has made. I think it is more likely to see a larger car with a Honda badge on it, perhaps as a competitor to the Avalon? first.

legendman · May 2004

>I think VW is currently questioning how long the Phaeton will remain a flagship. A super VW in the American market was probably not one of the smarter moves that company has made<

Exactly right. It appears to me as a handsome car, but who would pay that kind of money for a VW badged car? That's Mercedes or BMW money we are talking about. Then too, the Germans and VW are not known for building trouble free cars.

>I think it is more likely to see a larger car with a Honda badge on it, perhaps as a competitor to the Avalon? first<

I think that's a great idea. You ought to write Honda and tell them just that. A man with your creative ideas and automotive marketing savvy could help them a lot. Seriously. But, I get the impresssion that Honda Motors is not looking for those kind of people. Nissan yes, Honda no.

mevande · May 2004

I have spoken with an Acura rep (friend!) and he articulated that the price for the new RL with be approx. 6 % over the current one. If that holds true, it will be a steal!

Mike

shotgun · May 2004

The new 05' RL will have auto magazines in an absolute frenzy - They will describe, with an unheard of number of superlatives - that this, the 05' RL, is what defines the absolute in motoring style, grace, sophistication, performance and value! This car, ladies and gentlemen, has lines that will endure...and will simply blow everything, in it's class - straight to hell...

If the torque numbers come in over 270 - you will have an absolute "monster" on your hands - this car will be a classic!!!

ceric · May 2004

Current RL runs at $45.6K + des charge. Adding 6% would push it near $49K. That is not a steal. Compare the price of M35-AWD and GS300-AWD to come, $49K may be a FMV, but not a steal. If Acura keeps it around $45K or below, now that is a steal. Remind you that TL is listed at $34K. The gap is too large for Acura, unless they intend to slot a TL-AWD in between at around $38K.

ceric · May 2004

Shotgun, I feel your excitement. I also believe auto mags would be shocked at the sports car performance of RL in nice and shining sedan skin from SH-AWD. If RL can pull 5.6sec (0-60) with 0.9g road-holding, that is (I firmly believe it can). Now I only hope they can keep it below $45K, or add some unexpected features that we don't know yet... can't wait.

shotgun · May 2004

If the SH-AWD lives up to it's expectations and comes in right at $47,700 it will, indeed, be a steal! It's technology features, both drivetrain and cockpit, will be so far ahead of its competition that nothing can touch it! For anyone to complain about the level of pricing being above the 04' RL, has, less than a firm grip on reality! Acura/Honda knows where it stands in the mid-lux category and is responding appropriately - They know - that being anything less than the best in it's category - will be it's death blow! Go Acura!!! Kick a little [non-permissible content removed]...

shotgun · May 2004

Ceric, I only wish, the car would come in under $45K but I doubt that it will. Actually if it does come in for less than $45K, it might loose some of it's cachet. You hit the nail on the head when you said "...I feel you're excitement..." because I really am excited about this ride my brother! I put down a $500 deposit a couple of weeks ago with Acura of Augusta so that I can get one of the first models available - my major dilema is color selection. Since Acura has mostly displayed silver variations of the prototype - I'm beginning to think that silver might be the optimum color for that style...your thoughts?

shotgun · May 2004

Re: Full page ad for IBM/2005 RL in NY Times (Score: 1, Normal) 05-29-2004 16:04

Wester wrote:
Kick-[non-permissible content removed] ad! The new 05' RL will have auto magazines in an absolute frenzy - They will describe, with an unheard of number of superlatives - that this, the 05' RL, is what defines the absolute in motoring style, grace, sophistication, performance and value! This car, ladies and gentlemen, has lines that will endure...and will simply blow everything, in it's class - straight to hell...

If the torque numbers come in over 270 - you will have an absolute "monster" on your hands - this car will be a classic!!!

----------------------------
Acura Type S'in replied:

By my calculations: with 300hp and a Max Torque rpm range of around 5800.......... that puts the 05' RL torque at 271ft/lbs of torque..........So put a BIG CHECK MARK on that!! The RL will probably do 60 around 5.5 seconds........ We all know how it's suppose to handle......... I can't wait to see how that Tranny handles quarter miles and how much gas mileage the V6 gets!!!!!

lexusguy · May 2004

Thanks for the complement. Though I'm not sure that they would hire me as just a guy that "digs cars".

mevande · May 2004

I have spoken with an Acura rep (friend!) and he articulated that the price for the new RL with be approx. 6 % over the current one. If that holds true, it will be a steal!

Mike

legendman · May 2004

>which big 3 automakers are you talking about? things changed recently, toyota is #2 now and chrysler doesn't figure anywhere anymore ; <

Last time I checked, the "Big 3" automakers in Detroit were GM, Ford, and Chrysler. I hadn't heard that Toyota had moved to the Motor City.

;-)

"Out west, the smart money is on Chevron gasoline with Techron. Apparently the gas is so clean burning and has such a good detergent package that all of the big 3 automakers use Chevron gasoline exclusively when performing EPA mileage tests for their new car models.

As Chevron is not manufactured east of Kentucky, the automakers have tanker trucks haul the gas back to Detroit for use in their new cars."

legendman · May 2004

Do any of you fortune tellers have a perspective on how difficult it will be to obtain the new RL after it hits the dealerships? Will there be a pent-up demand? A wait and see attitude?

Will it make sense to wait until November or December to 1) get a better price and 2) wait for models that have some of the preliminary bugs worked out -- or will that take a new model year to happen?

As a former manufacturer, my experience dictates that early production line product is more likely to have defects than products manufactured later.

In addition to assembly line improvements, customer feedback provides for additional insights into inherent defects.

ceric · May 2004

shotgun, I also had my $500 deposit down right after NY autoshow. #001 at my local Acura dealer. I was leaning toward darker colors such as deep blue or black for larger cars. However, the displayed silver variants seem very nice also. I actually told my salesman to erase the color preference and leave it open. I would like to see it in deep blue, though. I have seen Honda's deep blue on Accord. I imagine it would look great on RL.

To be honest, price does not matter that much to me as long as it is below $50K (as I was promised - "well below $50K"), the limit I set for it.

I guess you and I would be among the first to post "real ownership" experience with RL on edmunds.com when it arrives. Can't wait.

ceric · May 2004

Since RL arrives well before M35/M45, the real competition would be the GS300-AWD. I can see RL in high demand (e.g. MSRP) for several months if it stays around $45K+/-$2K. Much like the current demand situation with Navi equipped TL.

There would be 1st year issues, no doubt. However, my excitement overtakes patience in this case. I am willing to go through it in order to enjoy the SH-AWD first-hand, and all the electronics goodies (bluetooth, XM-RealTraffic, etc.) that come with it. Given Acura's reputation on reliability, I don't think it would be bad.

lexusguy · May 2004

I think he was refering to the fact that Toyota slightly edged out Chrysler for sales numbers in the US at the end of last year, rather than location.

Acura RL

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles