Acura RL

Kirstie_H · March 2002

A major midwestern newspaper is interested in speaking with folks who have anecdotes and opinions on rear wheel drive vs. front wheel drive in winter driving conditions.
We're also looking for people who recently switched one way or the other and what they like/dislike about what they're driving now.
If you are interested in participating, please provide your city/state of residence and your daytime phone number to jfallon@edmunds.com no later than March 20, 2002.
Thanks as always,
Jeannine Fallon
PR Director
Edmunds.com

konradek777 · March 2002

I CALLED TO FEW DEALERS, BUT THEY ONLY HAVE SPECIALS ON LEASE $499 39 MONTHS $3500 DOWN.
WHAT PRICE IS CONSIDER GOOD DEAL ON PURCHASE 2002 RL W/NAVIGATION

jcinsc1 · March 2002

I remember a while ago, there were some discussion going on regarding to the MXV4 vs. AVS db. My 1999 RL is due to new tires again... I got a pair of MXV4 for the front around 45,000 miles. I was just told I needed another pair for the rear... Should I go with MXV4s? or should I get AVS dbs? If AVS dbs are better tires to go for, should I get 4 of them for both the front and the rear? or I can only get a pair for the rear?

John C. N. Studio City

l943973 · March 2002

I have a 99RL and switched from the OEM to the Yokohama AVSdb. Here is my take on the two. Not sure if its a good idea to mix tires.

MXV4s provided a softer ride with less effort on the steering.

AVS db had a slighly harsher ride with better grip on the road. Slighly more effort on steering.
Its an ssymmertric tire so you can't rotate in an X direction.

The AVS tires are extremely quiet. I thought the Michelins were pretty loud. I didn't like all the road noise from the Michelin. After breakin, the AVS are still quiet but you tend to hear more air whishing noise around corners (hard to explain). That was the one annoying thing about the AVS on 30mph roads around corners.

On the highway, the AVS still remain extremely quiet. I'm always telling my wife how happy I am to have these tires. The MXVs do feel more stable on the highway as if they center contact patch is flatter.

The AVS tires are softer and wear down faster as well as more prone to flats. I had more flats with the AVS (3 total) than I've ever had in my lifetime of driving (no flats before and 15 years of driving).

On the highway the AVS are much quieter over bridges and road strips. The Michelin tends to amplify the noise across bridges where the AVS muffles them.

I ended up getting rid of my AVS after 30k miles not because of wear but because I had a flat on the tire edge that couldn't be fixed safely. I guess I could have switched out that tire, but decide to try another brand. :-)

Now I have Dunlop SP5000 on my RL and it seems to be a good compromise between the Michelin and the AVS. Its very quiet too (after initial breakin). Its quieter than the Michelins but more durable than the AVS. No flats so fars after 8k miles. Knock on wood. Highway stability still isn't as good as the Michelins but all the tires are still acceptable for me. Also no whishing noise around corners. :-) Ride is almost as good as the Michelin.

In the AVSs defense on flats, I was checking out a lot in new housing developments at that time so there were plenty of times where I could have gotten a flat with all the rocks and nails.

When the Dunlops wear out, I'll probably get the AVS again but change from 215/60 to 225/55. I don't mind the slighly harsher ride, but I really like the improved handling. The AVS doesn't squeal as often around corners (actually, I don't remember it ever squealing).

In the end, it depends on what your looking for. The Michelin is a touring tire and the AVS is a high performance tire. Both all season.

Good luck on your decision.

jcinsc1 · March 2002

Thanks for the advice regarding to the tires. Though I don't really like all the road noise from the Michelin, I might still have to stick with MXV4s. Since I am, too, not sure if it is a good idea of mixing tires. (My 99RL currently has 51,000 miles on it. I replaced the front tires with MXV4s at 45,000 miles.)

Talking about Tires... How about rims?

My local Acura dealers (two of them) have chromed rims for RL for exchange along with additional charges(4 original factory ones + $689.00 = 4 Chromed ones, as I was told last time). They said that these rims are exactly the same just like the factory ones but chromed aftermarket. Since I am always interested in getting aftermarket chromed rims for my RL, this option sounds very attractive. So my question is if there are any advantages to go with the aftermarket dealer's chromed ones? or I should keep focusing on the regular aftermarket ones?

JohnC IN Studio City

l943973 · March 2002

I am a current RL owner who has enjoyed the car very much, but hope you please consider these options in the next generation RL. I know you read Edmunds because you put a link on your website so please listen to your current owners.

The things I would like to see in the RL are:

- increased size to about 203 in. The car feels too small. I'm considering a larger next purchase such as BMW 745iL or Mercedes S-Class or Audi A8L.

- dual zone climate control system. Wife can't stand the same temperature that I like.

- power antenna rod over the window grid antenna (The window antenna reception isn't anywhere as good as the power rod. My 91 Integra had better radio reception. So what if Lexus LS430 and BMW 745 does this, it still works horribly after talking and hearing from owners).

- add XM radio as an option. I want a better than FM even if I have to pay a monthly fee. $10/month is nothing.

- Please replace the trunk hinges with shocks. They eat up luggage space.

- move the 6 disc changer into the dash or glove box. Having it in the trunk is very inconvenient. My NSX does this too and I hate it!
I have to step out of the car with the possibility of getting mugged when changing cds or its 10 degrees outside or raining.

thank you,
99 RL owner
97 NSX-T owner

prophet2 · March 2002

Your "suggestions" on improving the 3.5RL bring to mind my experience as the owner of the original 1986 Acura Legend. Acura sent a detailed questionnaire which also asked for owner input on "wants" for the future. Taking advantage of this opportunity, I send in a two-page type-written "wish list." Remember, the pioneer Legend was offered only as a 4-door sedan, with the choices being AT vs. 5-speed and four exterior colors (silver, white, gray, and navy).

Among my ideas were:

1) larger engine (2.7L in '87 coupe vs. 2.5L in sedan);
2) two-door coupe (Motor Trend's 1987 Import Car of the Year);
3) leather upholstery (L and LS);
4) air-bags (LS coupe);
5) ABS (L and LS);
6) climate-control AC (L and LS);
7) more color choices (red, gold added).

Now, I don't delude myself in thinking that these "suggestions" from me and countless others prodded Honda/Acura to offer ALL of these items to varying degrees on their 1987 product line. These were already in the "think tank" even before the Acura line was launched.

But, it was nice to be given a chance by the manufacturer to express ourselves.

6-CD in-dash changer would bring the RL up to modern times. Also, a few more inches in the car's length to at least 200". 5-speed AT and 250 hp would be nice. Some express a desire to go V-8, but is that really necessary other than "keeping up" with the LS-430, MB "S-class," and other luxury lines?

spartan11 · March 2002

I recently purchased a 2000 RL (non-navi). The engine seems to have a rather rough idle, particularly when the car is stopped with foot on brake and air conditioning on. Also, while in stop-and-go traffic, the engine unexpectedly stalled. (I quickly put the transmission in neutral while rolling and it restarted and ran fine.)

The dealer finds nothing wrong with the engine mounts and doesn't know why the car would stall.

Has anyone else had these problems? If so, what was done to fix it? Any comments would be appreciated.

sranger941 · March 2002

I have not experienced the rough idling, but did have the car stall once when it was very new (under 2k miles). The problem turned out to be a small pocket tire gauge that I had attached to the key ring. The stalling happened as soon as I had added the gauge. The digital tire gauge interfered with the transponder in the key and caused the car to stall while driving. I immediately removed the tire gauge and never had a problem again. I never asked the dealer about this, but I would recommend that you make sure that you do not have any excess metal items or a very heavy metal key chain as sometimes these metal items can interfere with the transponder key and cause stalling. Hope this helps. Enjoy the car, it is truly fantastic.

peterorkin · March 2002

I leased the "old" TL, then found Acura introduced the new one (today's version) a month after that. I had zero problems in the 3 years and loved it. Now I would like to lease an RL, but it seems the new model may be coming out soon. I am trying to avoid the same mistake. Any links/knowledge would be greatly appreciated.

jwilson1 · March 2002

I don't know if the new one is planned for soon ... the only conversation on it is in AutoNews (on www)and it says the replacement is scheduled for a year or two.

There has been no noise on it. Hope it's real!

Take care.
Joe W.

tlondon · March 2002

I have a 2001 RL w/Nav and have had the car back to the dealer 3 times because I have noise (a high pitched hum) coming from my speakers. It doesn't make the noise when on ACC and the car is not started. They have replaced the radio and the amp, now they are telling me this is normal. It is very annoying as I listen to a lot of talk radio. Does anyone else have problems like this?

bgordonr · March 2002

To Spartan11-

Purchased used 2000 RL, 11k miles 5 months ago for wife. Car stalled at stop twice & while moving slowly in traffic once. Original owner had similar complaint when new and dealer said it may be transmission but nothing done except to incr idle.

I spoke to shop foreman who said Acura authorized transmission replacement in some RL's but problem remained. Said they received reworked engine control module and that seemed to have fixed stalling problem. Acura replaced engine/powertrain control module a month ago and so far it has not stalled.
Also my sun roof seemed to have rattling sound when shade was open & driving on rough road. Dealer said it was the rubber squeeking rather than rattle. I disagreed and said it was rattle but they lubed the rubber seal and all is well now.

rmnixon · April 2002

I just bought a 1997 RL with 97K on it. Beautiful car by the way. I have noticed that when I start it up, I hear a sound that sounds like an air compressor runnning. It only does it on intial start up and for no more than 2-3 seconds. Any idea what that is. Does the RL have some type of load leveling system? Thanks.

phild_mason · April 2002

Most likely it is the ABS system pressurizing. Hondas have a pretty loud pump. My Legends, RL and Accord all make the same noise at start up after sitting a while.

sranger941 · April 2002

The noise you upon initial acceleration after start-up is the ABS pump performing a self-test and is normal. All vehicles with ABS do this, but some are noiser than others, but it is normal assuming no ABS trouble lights stay illuminated. Enjoy the RL, it is a great car.

rmnixon · April 2002

Thanks guys. Thats what I figured but I couldn't find it in the owners manual. I love this car, even with 97K on the clock it has no rattles and rides like a dream!!

poonss · April 2002

Anyone know how to reset the maintenance light on a 2000 RL?

rmnixon · April 2002

I'm not sure about a 2000, but in my 97 the owners manual describes a process using the two button for the trip meters and the outside temp. Check your manual.

hoolick · April 2002

has anyone heard of any rebates or cashback for the 02 rl?it's really a fine car.

orkinp · April 2002

I don't know of any publicized rebates, but dealers are selling them at "dead cost" to move them. My dealer had 50 of them (Boston Ma. area!). I leased a TL in '98, never had a single problem, and sent 4 people to that dealer, all 4 got TL's, but I always wanted the RL! We also have a Jag X...great driving, great dealership, but lots of problems!

rlman · April 2002

What is considered "dead cost" for the RL? I've seen some internet specials ranging from $37995 to $38995 across the country. What is the best I can do?

fredvh · April 2002

The invoice cost for the RL is $38,921. This does not include any dealer incentives from the manufacturer, if any. Is the RL worth $10,000 more than the TL?
RL Owners: Is the RL worth $10,000 more than the TL? Can you owners give me an idea of mpg on the RL?

orkinp · April 2002

$40,700 for an RL with Nav. My lease has a residual value of $22000! I will probably buy it at the end if it's as good as my '98TL.

qkinne · April 2002

I am looking at a 1996 3.5RL with about 46,000 miles on it. The asking price is around 15k and it is certified. Do you think this is a good deal, and should I opt for the extended service contract which lasts until 100,000 miles?

jwilson1 · April 2002

You asked,

"Is the RL worth $10,000 more than the TL?"

That's why I bought one. I looked at both cars and, since I do lots of highway driving, chose to drive the RL at a premium price. Well worth the decision.

"Can you owners give me an idea of mpg on the RL?"

Well, there's been a lot of discussion on this and it seems to vary from car to car, or driver to driver, or both. Personally, in 80 city/20 hwy I get about 19.5. At a steady 65, it's 24 or a bit more (depending on temp.) And at 80, it's 22.

Take care.
Joe W.

goterps7 · April 2002

push both the reset and select buttons in while turning the ignition key on and hold for at least 5 seconds...(per the manual)...

2tall4yall · May 2002

I'm currently driving a '91 Legend with 174K miles (bought it used in '93 with 23K miles). What a faithful road warrior! As a confirmed Acura disciple, I'm ready to move on to the RL. Wow, now I feel like I'm cheating on my trusty Legend!

Anyway, here's my question: Are the improvements in the suspension and horses in the 2002 RL worth the extra $10K I could save by buying a 2000 with 30K miles or so. I plan on driving the car past 150K miles and I'm not the type to pay extra just for the new car smell. Can you really tell a difference in 2002 vs. 2000? Also, I'm not interested in waiting till next year for the possible V-8, RWD or AWD enhancements with a higher price tag.

Insight or advice?

Thanks, Scott D.

qwalls · May 2002

RLs don't hold their value nearly as well as Legends. They are a much better buy used. The best way to tell if the improvements are worth it to you would be to drive both. I'd be inclined to save the $10k.

rmnixon · May 2002

I just bought a 97 RL with 97K on the clock and I would be inclined to tell you to go with a used RL. My RL doesn't have a single squeak or rattle in the interior and engine and transmission seam as smooth as a new one. From what I have seen, these cars are just a bullet proof as the legends. Good luck.

subzero206 · May 2002

u wont be cheating on your trusty Legend because in japan the RL is a Honda Legend.

prophet2 · May 2002

I bought my '96 RL, which lacks some of the improvements you have on the 2000 (e.g. traction control), when it had 36K on the clock. Have driven it 26K trouble-free miles over the past 19 months, with only scheduled maintenance and front brake service needed. Oh, I put in a new DieHard battery before the OEM one conked out

Some wags have said that "RL" stands for "Revised Legend," so you aren't "cheating."

l943973 · May 2002

I would say you check out what each year has to offer. The 99 version had HIDs, revised styling up front, side airbags (not sure if pre99 had this). 2000 added Vehicle Skid Control, revised armrest with a horizontal phone jack versus vertical phone jack (makes it easier to use the bulky cell adapters) that didn't work in the 99 version, body color molding under the doors. 2001, I'm not sure of the changes. 2002: 225hp, OnStar more interior sound deadening materials.

jwilson1 · May 2002

Allow a (somewhat) dissenting voice. The '02 also has a bit stiffer suspension and more feedback in the steering, both important to me. I'd driven each of the RLs as they were released and they were all too soft until this year's. For me, in fact, it would be the '02 or another badge altogether.

Now for others (as you can tell) the difference isn't worth mentioning. But coming from the Legend, a truly responsive car, you may prefer the '02, like me. But, obviously, if that doesn't make a difference you'd be wasting money to buy a new one.

If you want to wait till August of '04 you can have mine for a shade over $22.5k!

Take care.
Joe W.

gambhir · May 2002

Is there a redesign for 2003--AWD and V8??

jwilson1 · May 2002

Last we heard, some months ago, it was supposed to appear in '03 as an '04 model. But now rumors are flying that it'll stay with the V6. The dealer here, who seems to know things ahead quite often, has no idea. They just hope Acura leaves them with something in the $40k range.

Take care.
Joe W.

kennyg5 · May 2002

I read in various auto magazines that the 0 to 60 speed for the RL ranges from 8.0 sec to 9.2 sec. Which is a better approximation of its true speed? Has anyone tested their RL? I presume that the 2002 RL is not faster than previous models. True? Can I can get a 2002 RL with NAV for below $40K?

jwilson1 · May 2002

kenny, I've tried my '02 just once and got a little over 8.5 by stopwatch. My friend has an '00 and we both agree that the '02 seems faster from a stop (not done with a watch, and that wouldn't be reliable anyway, given it would take two separate measurements). What was more important to us was the useful torque left from about 70 -- 110 or so. Both had plenty and are very secure on the highway, where we both drive most of the time.

If you're going to be drag racing I'd suggest something with a slightly different configuration -- maybe the BMW 540iA -- tho it would carry a slightly larger surcharge.

I'm curious. Why does 0-60 interest you with this car?

Take care.
Joe W.

kennyg5 · May 2002

Thanks for the quick reply, Joe W. I am not interested in drag racing, but 0-60 would be important if you try to merge safely and confidently into fast moving traffic on the highway. The 540i is sweet and powerful, but it is at least 10k more expensive when similarly equipped. I'm torn between choosing a TL and RL; does the RL justify the 10k increase?

l943973 · May 2002

I think the RL is worth the 10k increase. Your buying a car with more quality components. The build quality is much better and the ride is much smoother. The RL is also a much bigger car. They don't sell well so you can probably get one at invoice. I have a 99 model and the car drives like a dream. The TL is a bit rougher around the edges and the build quality and components aren't as good.

Check the radio in the TL, when you adjust the steering wheel volume, the console knob doesn't move with it. The sound system isn't as good as the RL. Also in the RL, steering controls are in sync with the center dash.

Look at the door locks in the TL. All 4 aren't exactly the same height. That isn't a problem in the RL.

The TL driver door armrest is hard molded plastic. Its very uncomfortable to rest your arm there. The RL uses padded leather for armrests.

The paint and sheetmetal on the TL is very thin. 2 coats. My dad got hail damage on his TL but no damage on his Toyota Camry or Nissan Maxima. RL has at least 4 coats on thicker sheetmetal.

Some of the TL fuel doors are completely flush with the body panels.
(Hear about this one from other owners, but my dad's TL looks fine)

The RL and TL are built at different plants. The RL has much tighter tolerances.

Check out http://www.hondanews.com

They go into greater detail on whats in an RL (Powertrain info, Chassis info, Structural info, etc.) Go under 3.5 RL Technical Info.

I like the TL, but its just not as nice as the RL. If you get an RL, I think the 2002 model is definitely the best one yet.

kennyg5 · May 2002

Thanks for your insight 1943973. Clearly, the RL is a more luxurious, comfortable and better made car than the TL. However, IMHO,the TL out-performs, out-sells the RL and has better value. Moreover, the TL has other features that are lacking in the RL, such as in dash 6-disc CD changer, 5 speed automatic sports-shift and faster acceleration. If the RL can combine its luxury features with the sportiness of the TL-S, there will be no doubt which car I will buy, even though it costs $10,000 more. If the management and the engineers of Acura take heed of their customers desires, they should make the RL, the flagship car, worth its name, prestige and price markup. Any comments, observations or rebuttals?

sliang · May 2002

I was in the same position two years ago when I needed a car to replace my 97 3.2TL. I was thinking about the current TL, but it just looked too much alike the Accord, the interior material quality was not that good comparing to my old TL. I checked out the RL, it was a totally different vehicle than the TL. All I can say about the RL is first class luxury car with a low price tag. There is no comparison between the TL and the RL in terms of build quality, material, and styling (IMHO). The 2002 RL now has the same HP as the TL (not the TL-S), so the acceleration should be better than my 00' RL. And I heard Acura has also improved the handling for the 02 RL.
The transmission is very responsive and smooth, you don't feel it is slow at all from 0-60, considering its weight at 3850 lbs. Actually my wife told me that her friends always felt she drove too fast with the RL. I have to remind her to slow down to avoid the tickets.
Just like what I943973 said about the RL, it is worth the 10K, and considering the discount you probably can get for the RL due to low sell record, you may be talking about 7K.
The only things I am missing from the RL are the side curtain air bags and outside auto-dimming mirrors comparing to my Lexus ES.

kennyg5 · May 2002

I agree with you. The RL styling looks good; my wife actually thought it looks like a Mercedes. I also agree with you that the TL's interior decor looks kind of cheap, even when compared with my 97 Maxima GLE, and the TL's stereo sounds inferior than the 200 watt Bose in the Max. That said, however, the TL has been rated tops in consumer mags for the past couple of years. Just now, I was reading older postings on this board (I am new) and noticed that many folks got great year end deals in 2000, some were as much as $9k below MSRP. I wonder whether they were getting demos. Should I wait? My 97 Max only has 26k miles, but my wife's 92 Max has 72k.

qwalls · May 2002

No reason not to wait for the right deal. Even at 72k, your wife's Max is barely broken in.

jwilson1 · May 2002

I have no quibble with what you say. The only part I'd agree with for my own tastes (at the time I bought) is the in-dash CD. But that of course isn't your primary reason for driving the car.

Unless you already have a manumatic of some sort, and there isn't one on the Max (I think), you'll probably not use it at all after a month or so. The fact is both cars have automatic transmissions, and the TL has a toy attached. You're telling yourself (I imagine) that you'll buy it and use the auto in traffic and the "manual" in the open, for fun. But after you've played with it for awhile, you'll realize you can't really beat the automatic most of the time and you'll feel a bit silly shifting without a clutch -- or so they tell me. If you really want a sports sedan, check out one with a 5- or 6-speed manual so there will be some purpose to it.

So far as acceleration goes, even driving in the Boston area I've never found a situation where I've felt that I even *need* to floor the RL to remain comfortable when accelerating from a dead stop. What happens more often is that the entry to the x-way is taking place at about 40 and I need to get up to 60, 70, 80 real fast. The RL handles that with authority (and I'm sure the TL will have no problem either). Once, infact, I was in the fast lane at 75 with a car tailgating when the bozo in the middle lane started to come over into my lane -- I have no idea what he thought he was doing -- but the RL accelerated out of trouble while the guy behind me applied his brakes and we all avoided a nasty accident.

I'm not saying any car of the quality of the TL couldn't handle it as well, only that the RL has plenty of what-you-need for any real-world situation you'll encounter. And, for me, for the long haul, it has real comfort for my aging, 6'2" frame. My son lives 600 miles from me. In the Max I had before this I had to stop twice to stretch my leg cramps and rest my back. In the RL I stop once, for gas. My bod -- such as it is these days -- is comfortable ... and that's why the RL is worth more for me.

Now on resale you have an arugment. Surely the TL is a lower cost of ownership over the first 3-5 years, especially because of depreciation. Nothing I can say about that.

Good luck with your decision.

Take care.
Joe W.

Kirstie_H · May 2002

A television reporter is interested in hearing from folks who have driven long distances to get good prices when buying new cars or trucks. If you have a story to tell, please drop a line including your contact info and city/state of residence to jfallon@edmunds.com.

Thanks,

Jeannine Fallon
PR Director
Edmunds.com

l943973 · May 2002

The 5-speed in the TL is pretty nice. The manual portion isn't is nice. When you shift, there is a delay between gears so you don't really get the response that you do in a manual. (Gears 1-2 are automatically executed for you. You don't have control over the low gears). The indash 6-disc cd player is nice too. Even the Mercedes E-Class and BMW 5 Series don't have this option.

I agree with Joe W. that the manumatic is just a toy because the TL already provides the low gears independent of the manumatic.

Features they need to put in the TL that the RL has is power tilt/telescoping steering and auto headlights. Both are very convenient.

hunter001 · May 2002

Surely the TL is a lower cost of ownership over the first 3-5 years, especially because of depreciation.

I think the TL would have a lower cost of ownership throughout the life of both vehicles partially contributed by its much better fuel efficiency and lower cost of parts. Not for the 3-5 years or so. In fact, Brand-new 2000 RLs (without Navigation) were selling for 32K a couple of years back. Does not bode well for the future resale value of the car, should you decide to sell it, even though the purchasers would have had a good deal at the point of purchase. If it is so good, then why is is sold so cheap ??

Also, the 3.2TL with its 60 degree V6 (ideal configuration for a V6) and its 5-speed Adaptive Sportshift Automatic transmission accelerates from 0-60 in 6.7secs (Motortrend, June 2000) while the RL is a bit more leisurely (to put it mildly). The TL-s does the same distance in 6.2secs. 60-100 in the TL/TL-s is near instantaneous, while that in the RL is a bit lacking in punch, but should suffice for quite a few people. The RL with its 90 degree V6 engine (Ideal configuration in a V8 but poor configuration for a V6 - needs band-aids to quell secondary vibrations and retain smoothness) and its out-dated 4-speed Automatic transmission, along with its FWD configuration is a disgrace to be the flagship of a Luxury car company. JMHO.

When a BMW 3-series owner decide to step-up to a better car, for him a 540i or a 7-series would a worthy alternative. Would a TL/TL-s owner consider the RL for a step-up when they decide to up-grade ?? Under no circumstances !!! Hell, some people might consider it to be a real down-grade, better quality of materials not-withstanding !!

The quality of interior materials is better in the RL than the TL but due to the RL's variety of lacks, it simply is not appealing, which accounts for its poor sales and the resultant "good deals"/heavily discounted sales. None of these sales tactics are "good" for either past or future owners who may be paying close to (or a bit lower than) the sticker price.

Later...AH

kennyg5 · May 2002

From the foregoing discussions, it seems fair to conclude that the RL is a better built but a less fun to drive car than the TL. If you do not mind the slower acceleration, the V-6 in the RL will be sufficient under ordinary driving conditions. The 10k price difference, however, is something that does not bode well with consumers who are looking for value, including initial purchase and resale prices. IMHO, when you compare the RL against the valued-laden TL, the RL should be priced about $5k over the TL. However, if you compare the RL against the Lexus L430 and the Infiniti Q45, the RL seems to be a relatively good deal (if you are not looking for cutting-edge technology and status). For me, I will probably buy the RL (w/ Nav) if and when the price is right. Thank you for all your comments.
Finally, it seems that the Lexus ES300 would probably also fit my needs. Any insights?

orkinp · May 2002

I now own a new RL. 2 weeks old. Rides so smooooth, like a dream. I have had a '98TL, and had zero problems, no alignments...tires lasted 30,000+ miles etc. Perfect! Went to Lexus to see the ES, got quoted first $600/mnth with $2500 driveoff, car was loaded, but hideously overpriced. With transmission problems (shift points), and also restricted vision...not able to see much between the high dash and raked windshield, ES is NOT a comfortable car. Finally, the dealer matched the RL in price, but the RL was at cost, with NAV for $500/mnth, but I had already leased the RL. I will probably buy it with the low residual (47%) of 21000. I think it's the buy of the century. I don't know why people are not buying them. I have sent 4 other people to the dealership in Boston, all 4 have bought Acuras (the TL), and all 4 have had NO problems. My wife got a Jag X and nothing but problems for the first 3 months...engine breakdowns etc. I am sold on Acuras.

Acura RL

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles