Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
That is true. And at 1:1 ratio, the crankshaft and the drive shaft turn at the same rate.
rayainsw
I’m wondering if Honda could modify the secondary axle to get out of the way in top gear, essentially creating a much taller sixth gear ratio. Some gearboxes (usually manual) are designed to work like that. Focus SVT was offered with a Getrag that utilized two axle ratios, with four (or five?) gear ratios to provide six ratios. If RL gets that, the 60 mph crusing rpm would drop to about 1700 rpm, and should help improve highway mileage.
saugatak
A better way to add more power and torque to the RL would likely come in the form of a supercharger. We may see superchargers running 5-6 psi and delivering 400 HP or more from the 3.5/V6 and maximum torque output would also jump to 340-350 lb.-ft.
jeff88
I agree. 17-inch rims are good enough for most practical purposes, and 18 inch for low profile rubber if a more sporty ride is desired. 20-inch rims would be an overkill (besides adding to the weight, cost and replacement cost of the tires).
Mark –
You really raise (or approach) a very interesting issue here.
Does one (in the automotive review ‘game’) choose vehicles for such a comparison test based only on a specific range of MSRP? On roughly equivalent equipment levels? On comparable engine size / configuration? On sheer overall size (passenger and / or trunk volume) or wheelbase? On a best quarter mile time quicker than 15.0 sec.? On the Edmunds TMV? (Sometimes close to MSRP – sometimes many thousands less.)
Or on all of these factors? Weighted with a skew toward X?? And away from Z??
What’s really “fair”?
I can certainly see both validity and value in a comparison where the chosen ones must include: Minimum of 4 doors, some reasonable minimum wheelbase, some minimum level of both luxury and sporting intention, and at least 300 HP – meaning the new A6 3.2 at 255 HP (and the Passat W8 at 270) would not be included. (Who cares about the VW???)
Lower the HP limit to 270 and the RWD (or even the AWD) version of the ’05 Infiniti G35 might appear to be a possible contender.
Then again – if you must have a manual trans. . .
So - does the A6 3.2 compete? Or the 4.2? Both?
A loaded V6 STS – nope, not enough HP. A stripped (?!) STS V8? (STS V8 1SE-s appear to sticker in the $51K range.)
Throw AWD into the mix as a requirement . . . and I will indeed be interested to see what the new ’05 crop of automotive stuff will be compared to.
- Ray
Glad I am not picking the ‘contenders’ for any such testing – as whatever I’d pick would be guaranteed to tick SOME group(s) off . . .
My initial expectation for the new RL is that it would at least compete with the performance and luxury of the outgoing models. In the case of the A6, the chassis goes back to 98 and the 3.0 engine goes back to 2002.
With the other new models out now, I would not expect to see the new 2005 A6 review to state it handles better than the 04 RL or the 04 530; or have Audi set up a comparision of their new model with previous models.
All that being said...the RL does appear to be a giant leap forward, and apparently it leaped over the pervious generation competition.
ksso
I agree...sometimes you need to add a little spice to get the full flavor.
The GST is added TO the price of whatever it is you're buying in Canada - it is not part of the price. But not only does someone add the GST [which is 7% - like you said] each province [except for Alberta] has its' own PST. [Provincial Sales Tax] In British Columbia [where I live] the PST increases depending upon the cost of the car you're buying. A car with an msrp of up to $47,000 the PST is 7.5%. [the base rate - which is the same for all other purchaes] A car with an msrp of between $47,000 and $47,999 - the PST is 8%. Between $48,000 and $48,999 - the PST is 9%. Anything above $48,999 is taxed at 10%. Sound stupid? It is!! So if I bought a new RL - I'd have to pay $69,500 PLUS 17.0% TAX. YIKES!! But at least all of those tax dollars are being spent wisely - so that's nice!! lol
Craig!!
Before someone actually put a supercharger on top of it, one better makes sure the new tranny is up for the extra torque. 100ft-lb increase in torque is not a small increase. Anyone has the info on how much torque can the tranny handle? I guess we will have that info when new RLs are available in shops.
The current Lexus GS430 starts at CDN$ 69.5K in Canada (USD 48K) but besides 4.3/V8, do you get the stuff that RL comes with? AWD isn’t an option, audio system upgrade and navigation (available?) would increase the price too. These are standard features in RL.
Comparably loaded (premium audio, AWD, Navigation system), the new Lexus GS300 and Infiniti M35 would likely cost about the same. Ultimately, it is the rest of the characteristics of the car that will help a buyer decide. Even there, I suspect, the RL will ride better than M35 but not as softly as GS300.
Regardless of how good the 2005 RL may prove to be, there will always be those who will criticize the lack of a V-8, "soul" (whatever that is ..... CACHET?), and other factors which may not be quantifiable. We even see comments here about the color offerings.
And, no matter what the price is, especially in comparison with the other marquees, there will be MANY who will still regard it as TOO HIGH!
The fact is that some people are just plain CHEAP and wouldn't recognize a great value even if it bit them in the rear. Others are just barking and will never buy an RL, or any of the other higher-priced competitors.
I'm torn between an SUV and the new M45 from infiniti. Honda has a strong reputation for quality and I know this new RL will be a great car, but the styling is to safe, and this car looks far far to much like an Accord, heck it doesn't even look all that much bigger then an Accord. This would be a great design for the next generation Accord, but for Acura's Flagship? I question Honda's safe design of this vehicle, especially when the new TL was so greatly done. If honda wants this puppy to revive the days they saw with the popular Legend then they're in for a rude awakining.I've no doubt that the new RL will chip away at the sales of its competitors, but in the end their is nothing head turning about the exterior design. Honda did a safe job, but I'm confident that the new RL won't be a massive hit, especially along the lines of the FX and G series from infiniti.
If you are looking for a great driving, highly reliable and pleasurable SUV experience, may I recommend the Lexus RX 330. My parents own two RX 300s and they have been flawless to drive and maintain.
I believe that Honda will be coming out with a new, hybrid SUV in the spring of 2005. I understand that this new Honda SUV will be smaller than the Acura MDX, probably closer in size to the RX330. Indeed, the profile photo I saw of the prototype SUV looked a lot like the Lexus RX 330.
I share your styling reservations about the new 2005 RL and am also considering the 2006 M45. I am hoping that I will be able to preview it first hand at an upcoming car show this fall.
this is just my impression from the NY Autoshow.
ksso
ksso
I'm not so sure. I think a good many RL buyers bought one for different reasons than Acura is using to promote the new one. The new and old seem to be very different cars.
Instead, I think Acura is trying to place the RL as an upgrade from the last TL-S.
For example:
- I've seen several comments that the M45's styling evokes much of the Altima, and I'd have to agree.
- At least up until now, there's been much sharing of styling concepts between Toyota and Lexus.
- The previous gen Passat and A6 were extremely similar, and I see that the new Passat for next year will have a variation of the dreaded "gaping maw" grille featured on the new A6.
You have to wonder if Mercedes and BMW would be able to escape this syndrome if they had mainstream divisions (closely aligned ones, that is... not counting Chrysler).
So, anybody arguing based on premise of styling similarities is being a little too narrow/conservative in approach.
FWIW, I don't see any "Accordishness" in the RL. It share too much with the TL and TSX. Those are the first vehicles that jump to my mind when I see the RL. And I think that's a good thing. Better than having a bunch of cars with nothing in common.
Robertsmx - Good example with Audi. I have to measure the wheelbase on their models to tell the difference between the 4, 6, and 8. (That is changing a bit now.) And they do share an awful lot with VWs.
I have nothing for or against the accord hints in the RL. As I've said 5 million times by now, I think the RL looks stunning in darker colors and ridiculously BLAH in lighter colors. And from my personal observation and pictures I took at the NY Auto show, those who think they will laud the M over the RL are setting themselves up for disappointment, because as I said in an earlier post, their overall shape, profile & stance are remarkably similar.
ksso
If you do subscribe to the common design theme, I think it's generally considered appropriate to "imitate" the design of a "higher level" automobile. Accordingly, the RL design should filter down to the Accord, not the other way around. You would not expect the Audi A8 to be styled with Golf design queues.
What is going on with Acura?
I wonder aloud if the wheelbase for the new 2005 RL is the same as for the current Accord. They did make the new RL shorter, right? Since prior RLs were not moneymakers for Acura, might they be trying to save some money and standardize on existing wheelbases?
I am not up on the chassis and frame specs like some of you guys. If the the frame/chassis for the 2005 RL is new, might Honda use the same new frame in subsequent Accord sedans?
I got the preliminary 2005 RL 'First Drive' from sources different that the Edmunds and CD (M... Tr..., to be exact). So at least I can tell you this much: all of the editors got the same positive impressions. I believe the one I read was very balanced, did not trigger any 'reading in between the lines' for example and just noted that it was better than 'three teutonic rivals' available at the Western Virginia site were all these first drive did apparently take place.
Bottom line is that my wish got answered. This is a car you need to hop on and drive, SH-AWD cannot be described according to spec etc... Take it for a roll and it will tell you how and why it is going to be the standard bearer for sport luxury sedans...period.
I know looks are important but we have not seen enough. I think several people pointed out at the different impression elicited by dark vs. light colors, the best pictures I have seen are posted in a japanese site for a dark blue RL that is simply breathtaking (too bad I cannot cut and paste).
The styling arguments in so far are all valid it may have similarity to some Accord themes but I see more of the TSX/TL with the back being a departure from any of the ather vehicles but blending in (no surprise for me this is the new Acura styling!! I would expect by now after seeing the BMW take on the 5 and 7 or the Cadillac (etc.) production line series this should be a R.I.P.type of issue).
The only very odd bit of info I got across instead was a reference to one of the editor (for a Consumer......magazine) stand on AWD. The guy thinks that developing these technologies is a way of feeding into irresponsible driving.....Could not understand why he could not see that as for stability control, brake assits, ABS etc, these technologyes have helped the automotive world to emerge from prehistory into modernity adding a ton of safety to our daily commute. I guessed he missed his true calling to a serene life in the closest Amish County.:)
P.S. Please let mek now if anyone wants to check out the japanese site (hopefully someone that could also read japanese so he/she could tell us what is happening in the japanese automotive press)
I hope that wasn't how you interpreted my post, because that wasn't supposed to be my message.
For one, I agree that I don't see the "Accordishness" in the RL, even as an Accord owner. That's not to say that those who see it are wrong, just that my viewpoint on that differs.
For two, I agree that the brand identity is a good thing, and I feel that even Acuras that share common platforms with Hondas in general look sufficiently distinct from their Honda counterparts. Good examples of this are the MDX and the current TL.
So far, it seems the the press reaction to the new RL, including its styling, has been pretty positive. That's a good sign, and it leads me to think that most people will consider the RL's styling to be a success. Sure, it has some harsh critics and they have every right to be as harsh as they wish to be, but that's the case with any car.
I agree, it is by far the one color in which the RL looks breathtaking. On the other hand, some RL pictures in a variation of silver/grey that are posted in all american first drives looks just simply UGH.
Ok I am biased, my wife's 3 convertible is in mystic blue and i hated it in all other colors...
I believe that blue picture was posted here by robertsmx or somebody a few posts ago....
ksso
the comment on acura naming is short and funny...
ksso
That is a very ignorant argument. They go at length to cover the explainable (and in some cases, the unexplainable) and could come up with this for Acura? Let me help them out
RSX: R – Road; SX – Sport
TSX: T – Touring; SX – Sport
CL: C – Contemporary; L – Luxury
TL: T – Touring; L – Luxury
RL: R – Road; L – Luxury
NSX: N – Neo; SX – Sport
So, there is a meaning to the letters, unlike the story they made up in this case.
I believe you’re talking about these pictures
Honda Legend - Front
Honda Legend – Rear
ivan_99
Accordingly, the RL design should filter down to the Accord, not the other way around. You would not expect the Audi A8 to be styled with Golf design queues.
There is a psychological advantage to doing things in the way you suggest, but in reality, it makes little difference. I guess, it would have made more sense for DCX to adopt frontal styling cues from Maybach into A-Class than the other way around. But then, the new S-Class does seem to utilize hand-me-down styling cues so it works both ways.
Now, as far as the new RL is concerned, I’m wondering which part resembles Accord. I’ve been scratching my head for a while. I see evolution of styling with 1996 RL as the base, with more slopes, creases and curves. Check out the two pictures I posted above. It was 1998 Accord that had some resemblance to the 1996 RL (rear end).
RL is based off Honda’s Global Midsize Platform, which also forms the basis for TL, TSX and Accord. This does not mean that they are identical in all respect, and certainly not in terms of wheelbase. TSX and Accord Coupe have the shortest wheelbase (about 105.3 inch). Accord sedan is next up (107.9 inch) and TL is slightly longer at 108.1 inch. The RL has the longest wheelbase (110+ inch), which is about 4 inch shorter than the old RL primarily because of the way engine is being mounted now.
Cars using this global midsize platform have the same suspension set up, however, with unequal-length double wishbone front and 5-link (“Watt-Link”) double wishbone rear.
Unlike Accord, TSX and TL, the RL is using a different chassis frame structure for improved safety. Honda calls it “ACE” which is supposedly a step up from Honda’s GCON set up. The new Odyssey is also using ACE design. BTW, Odyssey, Pilot and MDX are based off Honda’s Global Light Truck Platform (even within the platform, they have their own differences, including the basic shape itself).
Vehicles using this global light truck platform have the same suspension set up, however, with Macpherson struts front and 4-link double wishbone rear.
ACE is one of those things that should eventually trickle down to other Hondas.