Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Acura TL 2006+

1356730

Comments

  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    Old IROC, or Z28... yeah, maybe a bit. You're right about them being easy to clean though. The front ones get completely covered in brake dust in no time. But one wipe and the dust comes off!
  • billyperksbillyperks Posts: 449
    for the upgrades to the TL-I think I said it before but what the heck-

    Change the front grill-make it similar to the RL
    Add colors to the tail light (the all red is kind of dangerous)
    Move the fog lights back where they belong (under the headlights)
    Turn signal on the outside mirrors
    More HP along with SH AWD
    Rear Sun Shade

    I know this is coming, if not I will go else where.
  • terrylterryl Posts: 34
    In light of the date of this and lack of recent discussion, I am guessing the source was not very credible?

    Terry

    http://subscribers.wardsauto.com/microsites/newsarticle.asp?newsarticleid=2732484&siteid=2- - 6&magazineid=1004&instanceid=5121&pageid=824&srid=10088
  • k2hk2h Posts: 7
    This car is ok, but if I going to spend the money on a car like this, I would get the Infiniti G35 Sedan w/ 6-Speed. For the improvement part, they should dump the Front Wheel Drive, and go to Rear Wheel Drive, make the SH-AWD optional, put the fog lights below the headlights not in the headlights, add auto on/off headlights, add all one touch open/close window, power rear sunshade, power adjustable tilt-telesopic steering wheel, keyless ignition start or push button start, add a 10-way power passenger seat(not 4-way), brembo brakes at the rear of the wheels, and bump up the power in the engine a little.
  • ljwalters1ljwalters1 Posts: 294
    RWD is not gonna happen - I think it's against their philosophy, except for their top-of-the-line super-serious sportcars (NSX and S2000). Re AWD, certainly a possibility, but most don't think this year. Having 2 auto-up/-down windows seems like enough for me, and I think a power-adjustable stearing wheel is pretty unimportant, as long as you can adjust it in and out, and up and down.

    I've seen a lot of posters comment about the fog lights. What's the big deal? From the driver's seat they seem to work just fine.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    SH-AWD would be on the top of my wish list. Push button start would be cool, but it seems they are having some teething problems with it on the RL. Fully automatic headlights would be desireable. Aside from that, I wish they would just improve on some of the little things --- doors that are less springy, a less flimsy moonroof interior shade, a bit more "feel" to the steering, an adjustable volume for the keyless "beep", adjustable lumbar support on the passenger seat.

    Tire pressure monitor system, and oil-level indicator would also be very useful.

    Another thing that's not on your list, which I would really want, but not likely to be offered at this price point, is power opening and closing trunk. I'm tired of trying to lift the trunk with my chin or knee with an arm-full of groceries! :cry:
  • billyperksbillyperks Posts: 449
    Fog lights would do cosmetic justice to the car if they were placed under the headlights not in the head lights.
  • kominskykominsky Posts: 850
    "I've seen a lot of posters comment about the fog lights. What's the big deal? From the driver's seat they seem to work just fine."

    Not sure if this is the reason for so many posts or not, but it is my experience. I test drove a Jetta GLX back in 2000 that had the fogs in the headlight cluster. During the drive, I turned them on along with the low-beams. A rough guess, about 15-20% of the cars I passed flashed their high-beams at me. When I got back to the dealership, I got out to see if maybe a headlight was poorly aimed. They were fine but it dawned on me that people, seeing 4 lights coming at them from the headlight cluster, just assume you have your high-beams on whether they are being blinded or not. :confuse:
    That was when I personally decided this wasn't the best design practice.
  • dalls223dalls223 Posts: 41
    Very good point. However, here is my take. I have several issues with this newer TL, and I am not saying it because I own a 2002 TL-S. The first thing that I noticed, that is the topic of recent discussion was the location of the fog lights. I knew Acura wouldn't subtract features from newer models. It took me about six months to a year to realize that they were in the headlight cluster. The combined beams could be misconstrued for high beams, especially those drivers that complain about the blinding brightness of xenon lights. However, I think it is a bad idea to have the fog lights located where they are because it gives the impression that the car doesn't have xenon lights due to them being masked by the halogen fog lights that correspond to the headlights. That is the one feature that I really enjoy at night, and they are standard, where on most cars they are $1000+ options. Why is Acura doing this to the TL, hiding them with fog lights that are on the inside of the headlamps?

    Other issues: 1) Only a 10 hp/6 ft. lbs torque gain over the 2002-2003 Type-S, which results in a modest 0.1 second improvement in the popular 0-60 category.
    2) No Type-S variant 3) What are those red things on the back of the TL that light up on the sides, and why don't they blink when the turn signal is on? 4) What is the deal with trunk openings that get smaller? I guess if we can afford a TL, we can afford a plasma TV so it doesn't have to accomodate larger objects. 5) It's own identity (too much in common with the TSX). 6) Parktronic and sunshades coming standard on all TLs. 7) AWD to compete with European and other Japanese rivals.

    2006 had better bring AWD and a lot more guts (like 300+ horsepower) to the field, or it will not have the advantage that it had when I bought my 2002 TL. When I bought it in late 2001, I had the fastest sports sedan on the market. There were no CTS's, G35's, and the C320 and 330i were slower off the line than the TL-S. RIght here at edmunds.com, it beat out the 330i because it offered value and beat it off the line. Those days have to return for the 2006 TL. SH-AWD, and at least 310-315 hp. For you RL fans, it's not the first time the RL would have less horsepower than the TL. Sorry for the long reply, but these things need to be said. Acura has always stood for luxury with value. Let's get serious again.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    Well, I had an '01 CL-S and I'd always thought the fog lights on that (and the TL-S) were pretty useless. They didn't really do much, and actually looked silly next to the much brighter HID headlights. I guess that's why Acura deleted them a couple of years later when the the 6-sp version came out.
  • ae5555ae5555 Posts: 15
    I wish they would get rid of the silly tape deck and made the audio system play mp3's instead. What good is DVD audio when disks are rare and overpriced?

    They should at least put a mini jack input for devices such as ipod (i hate using cassette adapter), or even better do iPod integration like BMW did. I am sure it would not cost more then a DVD-A support.
  • mth2mth2 Posts: 25
    I owned an 01 CL-S and an 02 TL-S.

    I think I know why they changed up the foglights - at least this was my experience. I noticed that when I parked too far into a parking space that had a concrete bumper, it would push under my front air dam, and that would "squish" the foglights, and they would crack. When I realized it would cost me about $170 to replace one foglight, it fixed my compulsion to park too far into a parking space.

    I liked the fog lights - I never really had to drive through fog, they just illuminated the road just in front and to the side of the car and helped with the overall lighting.

    Besides, true fog lights are amber, and nobody wants amber fog lights on the front of their car anymore.
  • dalls223dalls223 Posts: 41
    Well, Lexus comes pretty darn close to amber, with their bright yellow fog lamps, and Lexus owners probably don't have a problem with that, because the bright florescent colors cut through fog better than white. I live in the San Francisco area, and there is fog all over the place over here. My question to all of you is, "Why are street lamps amber?" The answer is that they have a better ability to illuminate in foggy conditions. So there is nothing scientifically wrong with amber fog lights.

    Question for mth2: Did you have the sport kit on your car? Because if you did, then you would have less front ground clearance, which might explain why your car couldn't clear the concrete bumper. In my almost four years with my 2002 TL-S I have never had any concrete bumper clearance issues. That sucks about the $170 repair though. My seat heater on the driver side just went out, and my dealer wants to charge me $125 just to look at it. What a pain.
  • mth2mth2 Posts: 25
    No, no sports kit - but I do an awful lot of driving in the Central Texas area, and there are gravel trucks everywhere. The fog lights were pretty low to the road, and if a rock hit the fog lamp just right, well...$170.

    You're right - I forgot about Lexus and their amber lights - true fog lights are amber anyway. The clear lights just look sharp.

    No, someone decided I had had enough time driving my 02 TL-S last December and pushed my car onto a boulder with their car - I can tell you that the airbags work great, and tend to leave a souvenir or two behind for you to remember them by!

    Waiting to buy an 06 or 07 TL. I tested an A-SPEC, it was like riding in a horse driven buggy. The car moved up and down more than forward. Would like the A-SPEC styling with different tires, if possible. Enjoyed the regular TL 6M.
  • dalls223dalls223 Posts: 41
    I have read the few posts that mentioned the torque steer associated with fwd vehicles. In the 2004 remodel of the TL, it became more athletic and European looking, with more aggressive styling for a company (Honda) that is usually very conservative. The one thing that I absolutely love about Acura, is their reluctance to offer options in addition to the sticker price. The only one currently offered is the navi option, and that has been incorporated into the model offerings to make it appear that no options are available for the vehicle. When you look at the big picture, the top models (ridiculous engine models aside) from Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Jaguar, Infiniti, and even Lexus top out in the 65-85K range. That being said, Acura's TL 33K, and RL 49K could sustain a 10-15% increase and still sell very well, if they are given the upgrades that are available that they are not using.

    One is quality control. I have heard the raddle complaints in the new TL and I can only imagine that the same could be in store for the new RL. You aren't hearing about that from European models, at least not with the same frequency. Secondly, ventilated seats are not offered for either the TL or RL. The new Lexus ES330 has this, one of the TL's competitors. Shoot, there is a commercial for it too. And it isn't even offered for the RL. Thirdly, heated rear seats. A lot of the aforementioned companies offer this as an option. Fourth, laser cruise control. Acura may be the last luxury company to not offer this. Lastly, DVD entertainment systems are not offered. With DVD watching becoming more common inside of automobiles that are not even considered "luxury" cars, then why not make this enhancement to the TL and RL. At this point, Acura is about the equal of the lower tier luxury car companies such as Volvo, Lincoln, Cadillac and Saab, whose best models can all be had at under 60K. Charging customers 35-40K for the TL and 52-55K for the RL are not so outlandish if the above improvements are made. I understand that not all of these options could be offered to the TL to justify the price difference, but there is a lot that Acura is forgetting to include.

    In conclusion, for 2006 the TL should include some of these ideas in addition to the power increases that made it the fastest sports sedan under 40K in 2002. Acura has always been able to make the excuse that its V6's can compete with the V8's from Europe, but now they are threatening to fall behind many V6's. Mercedes just released the E350 which cranks out 268 hp, Audi's A4/A6 cranks out 255hp, and the new 330i churns out 255hp. All of these models that I just mentioned are either as fast or faster than the TL or RL, with slightly less horsepower. Many of the competition have torque numbers that are better than the TL and they are lighter, so they move quicker. Maybe Acura isn't competing in the HP war, but buyers nowadays are looking for fun when they drive. How else could you explain all of the WRX's you see on the road? And quite frankly it irritates me when I see a wagon WRX and know that I can't beat soccer mom off the line. Not only could the new TL's and RL's use a few technological enhancements, but the thing under the hood should be it's biggest priority. For my next car purchase I may go to another make, because it gives me all that I need in performance. Those needs are increasing everywhere, and so are expectations. Acura has done well throughout the past five years, renewing their brand, and raising expectations, but I think they can put one on the rest of the automotive world if they make some if not all of the improvements that I have mentioned to their 3 top models, TL, RL, and MDX. Of course can they do it without using a V8? That is the most important question of all.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    "And quite frankly it irritates me when I see a wagon WRX and know that I can't beat soccer mom off the line."

    Yeah, but you'll look way more cool in your TL than her in her dorky-looking hatch/wagon. ;)

    Another thing. You sure E350 and A4, A6 are faster than TL or RL?
  • dalls223dalls223 Posts: 41
    You do have a point on the looking cool factor, but there is a difference between looking cool and being cool. Besides, there is a little something called reputation. If a dorky wagon and a cool TL decide to race one another and the wheels are squeeling once the light turns green, and the dorky wagon beats the cool looking TL, then who is the one feeling stupid. By now the secret is out about the nature of the WRX beast. They have a reputation of being a pocket rocket. The acceleration difference between a WRX and a TL is like half a second in the 0-60 run, which is enough of a difference to bring humiliation to any proud TL owner in event that a race were to take place between these two vehicles. However, if you go out on the highway, there should be a different result because the TL has significantly more horsepower (270 vs. 227), and should win the top speed race.

    In regards to the other question you had on speed:

    Acura TL (0-60 time): 6.5 secs.
    Acura RL: 6.5 secs.
    Mercedes E350: 6.5 secs.
    Audi A4 3.2: 6.6 secs.

    Yeah these numbers look pretty even. But once you take the inherent wheelspin from the fwd of the TL into consideration, and if you are not careful on the takeoff you would do somewhere in the high 6's or low 7's. The RL is the only car that can hang evenly with the two aforementioned German rivals on a consistent basis, but it is a heavier car, which could make a difference depending on the road conditions. My point of that discussion was to prove that the V6 that was in the TL-S three years ago was competitive to a lot of 8 cylinder engines from Germany. For instance a 290hp 540i did the 0-60 in a tad over 6 seconds. The 275hp E430 made the 0-60 run in 6.3. With the last generation 260hp TL-S doing it in 6.6, that was pretty competitive considering you were comparing apples to oranges. The apples to apples comparison, well there was none. The 6 cylinders from Germany (530i and E320) did the sprint in a tad over 7 seconds, well short of that of the TL-S. Here is something even more remarkable that not too many people realized. The last generation Audi S4 (stock 250hp), was two tenths of a second slower than the TL-S in this category. All I am saying is that the gap has closed, and the 06 TL needs to be aiming for low 6's or high 5's if they are going to compete with the 545i's and E500's of the world that do the run in the mid to high 5's. That would at least allow the TL to once again be competitive with the G35 in performance. Even the 2005 Nissan Altima 3.5 SE-R can do the 0-60 sprint in 5.9 according to Nissan. This is why the TSX needs way more power. But that is another topic.
  • Dalls223,

    I agree with the points being made about the next generation TL. I have a 2002 TL-S and it has been a great car. Not the best at handling but acceleration, ride, space are great. I was looking forward to buying the new RL but it is a major disappointment in my view, and I reached the conclusion that the TL (particularly if it gets AWD and a few other enhancements) would be a better solution.

    I think the new Infiniti M is interesting. Fuel economy is below average and can't get AWD in the M45 but other than that, the M has the performance, handling, braking and interior space and features that a performance/luxury car should have.

    The new BMW 3 has been expanded a bit and performance credentials (6.1 sec 0-60) are quite strong. Once the 5 series gets a minor rework like the 7 seriers just received, it will be quite strong. Both 3 and 5 series avaliable in AWD in next few months.

    In my view, the new TL (and frankly the RL) need something close to (or preferably below) 6 second 0-60 and quarter mile around 14 seconds. More important, they have to have braking and handling characteristics at least closer to the M and BMW's and this means SH-AWD. The interior and trunk space in the TL is currently adequate but they should not make the mistake they made with the RL and essentially give the buyer less space in rear seat, trunk, below average brakes and acceleration and expect the car to sell well vs. BMW and M. The bar has been raised and I agree Acura seems to have lost its edge in building serious performance cars. I have never been a BMW fan and Infiniti offerings/styling has been quite uneven until recently, but to see what they have done with the 3 series and M in terms of performance means I will be driving one of them if the new Acura is not AWD and improved in handling and performance
  • danny1878danny1878 Posts: 339
    You prolly got the auto numbers. here's the link :
    http://www.ssmoparmuscle.com/speedcomp.htm?NORDERBY=make&OORDERBY=quarter&OORDERDIR=ASC

    But thats probably the best 0-60 TL has ever got, with the A-spec 5.6 secs.
    And again each test varies, imho humidity play a big factor in tests especially with ULEV2 cars . My suggestion is to compare best numbers vs best numbers.
  • dalls223dalls223 Posts: 41
    Yeah, that is what I am talking about gogglespiasano. Good point about the space of the last generation TL. I can tailgate at the 49ers games because my 02 TL-S can fit a Weber Q, a table, a suppies box, food, a table and up to three chairs inside the trunk. Since we drive the same vehicle you can see too how the performance bar has raised over the past few years. You also make a good point about the handling. Not the best, but still pretty stable. This is something that should be much improved given the SH-AWD enhancement everyone is hoping for in the 06 TL.

    Regarding the RL: I saw it at the 2004 International Auto Show and the interior space seemed to be adequate, front seat and back. However I am 6'5" and the only car that I can honestly say that I enjoy being in the back seat of is my father's town car. But I can see what you are saying though; it could be larger. I found the same thing when I was sitting inside of the new Audi A6. Adequate room but not nearly as much as the A8. If the RL is the top-of-the-line Acura, it should have the interior space of a Lexus LS, Mercedes S-Class, BMW 7-Series, etc. You know where I am going with this. Acura's vehicle sizes are a little bit obscure when you look at it. I will compare with BMW. The TSX compares with the 3-Series in size, while the TL compares with it in price and performance (Motorsport models not included, obviously). Subsequently, the TL compares with the 5-Series in size, while the RL compares with the 5 Series in price, and is just slightly larger than it in size, and cannot compete with it in performance. There is nothing that Acura offers that is as large and as the 7-Series. Why is there such a minimal difference in size between the TL (189 inches) and the RL (193 inches)? The RL has the technology advantage, but it needs more size (somewhere closer to 200 inches). In fact I would have liked to see the TL take on more of what the RL became. The TL got shorter by about three inches (from 192 to 189), which made it more agile, but also more cramped. You can have an agile car at 190+ inches. Look at the 5-Series (191 inches) and the E-Class (190 inches). I know this cannot be addressed until the next redesign for both the TL and the RL. But interior space as well as trunk space is being compromised because of the timidness of Acura to add another 6-8 inches to the length of the RL. That is why it cannot compare with the large sedans from Europe. Well, that and the fact that Acura needs to bring a V8 to the RL eventually.

    The real problem between the TSX, the TL, and the RL is there is only a $20K and a minimal 10 inch length difference between the TSX (183 inches) and the RL (193). That is perhaps the biggest mistake that Acura made. Look at BMW whose 3-Series is around 178 inches long, while the 7-Series goes 204 inches for the Li. That is more than two and a half times the dispersion between Acura's three sedan models. Many auto folks compare the TSX with the Accord. Well wasn't the last generation TL built on the same platform as the last generation Accord? :confuse:

    In regards to the Infiniti M: I really like that car too. The styling is just a bit wierd though, especially in the back. The tail looks downright ridiculous. But I am sure the drivers of M45's are more satisfied with what they get inside than their RL friends do. Unless they are stuck in traffic that is. ;) Didn't they used to refer to the 2003 M45 as the car with brains? Well Infiniti sure has used its collective brains bringing the technology to the table, as well as offering the performance that enthusiasts crave. Acura eventually must follow suit.
  • dalls223dalls223 Posts: 41
    Well that may be, BUT WITH HELP. When I am discussing 0-60 times, I am talking about stock vehicles. The stock TL has 270hp, with 238ft lbs of torque, and it goes 0-60 in roughly 6.5 secs. Now I know that these things can vary. I once read that my 02 TL-S went from 0-60 in 6.1 seconds. I will tell you first hand that it doesn't, at least not mine. The fastest 0-60 run I have ever had was 6.4 secs, and I cannot get it to do that every time. Most times it ranges between 6.5 and 6.8, whenever I get on an open road and say what they heck. I don't think that the A-Spec can give a sub-6 second 0-60 time. If it does then maybe I am wrong. But even still, who knows the road conditions, and the way that it was timed. What are the hp/torque numbers for the A-Spec Danny?
  • dalls223dalls223 Posts: 41
    danny1878:

    After looking at the link that you provided, I will not take these numbers seriously for one major reason, they are off by a lot on almost every car. Don't tell me that my TL-S goes from 0-60 in 7.6 seconds, when it clearly does it in about a full second less than that. In fact this link showed that a 1999 base TL did the sprint in a two tenths of a second quicker than the 2003 TL Type-S. Give me a break. No chance. On a bad day, and with a head start, a Type-S (2002-03) will beat a base TL (1999-2003). Also, a Corolla XRS 6-speed is not faster than a TL Type-S. Very sporadic source. Given these obvious mistakes by those testing the cars, I doubt that a A-spec TL is as fast as they are quoting.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Very interesting posts about Acura.

    "In conclusion, for 2006 the TL should include some of these ideas in addition to the power increases that made it the fastest sports sedan under 40K in 2002. Acura has always been able to make the excuse that its V6's can compete with the V8's from Europe, but now they are threatening to fall behind many V6's. Mercedes just released the E350 which cranks out 268 hp, Audi's A4/A6 cranks out 255hp, and the new 330i churns out 255hp. All of these models that I just mentioned are either as fast or faster than the TL or RL, with slightly less horsepower. Many of the competition have torque numbers that are better than the TL and they are lighter, so they move quicker."

    While I agree that V6s in the previous TL-S and current TL are competitive with some V8s, the V6 in the RL has never been, at least until now. The previous RL was a 225hp slug that couldn't even compete with other V6s late in its life.

    Adding more hp to Acura's V6s isn't going to cure the main problem, torque and more importantly the generation of it. Acura's tendency to make you rev to get the torque is a big reason why a less powerful E350 is faster (see the May issue of C&D). Others develop more torque at lower rpm and Acura is a gear or two short on most of the other cars in the class now. From everything I've seen and experienced Acura doesn't particularly excel at automatic transmissions either. I remember driving the previous CL-S and it had a pronounced hesitation if you mashed it. Not linear at all. The RL when I drove it just doesn't seem to put the really put the power down like a 300hp car should.

    As far as the RL competiting with the S-Class and 7-Series, it will never happen. I think the current Accord platform is already stretched to its limits. Plus that class demands a V8. I too know people that thought the RL should compete at the full size level, but I've never understood that. The RL and last Legend before it were always E/5/GS/A6 competitors.

    M
  • danny1878danny1878 Posts: 339
    Unfortunately it is a stock vehicle.
    ACURA TL 04
    5.7 secs -> Car and driver Jan 2004
    5.8 secs -> when tested again in March 2004

    This is the spec when tested against G35 and 330i. Same place/road condition for all competing cars.
    G35 stock 0.2 secs slower
    330i stock trailing the G by 0.5 sec

    ACURA TL
    Price as tested: $35,195 (no modification)
    Price and option breakdown: base Acura TL (includes $545 freight), $33,195; navigation system, $2000
    Major standard accessories: power windows, seats, locks, and sunroof; remote locking; A/C; cruise control; tilting and telescoping steering wheel; rear defroster
    Sound system: Acura/ELS AM/FM/satellite radio/cassette/CD/ DVD changer, 8 speakers

    regarding the A-spec, imho it does nothing to Hp.

    Honestly I cant tell the difference between 0.1 sec and 0.2 secs, without an equipment. I cant even tell how fast the car is going just like when I drove a civic @90mph, it felt like 130mph. I drove a holden once @90 mph and it felt like 50mph. So which car was faster, a heavy holden or a lighter civic according to one's feeling?
    :confuse:
    From my experience as the car gets more mileage, the slower it runs (especially when its been poorly maintained).
  • danny1878danny1878 Posts: 339
    About the link, those are just numbers quoted from various sources, like Car and driver etc.

    Here's the quote from Car and driver may 2004

    TL with A-spec 5.6 secs (there is no way to tell the difference)
    Price as tested: $40,895 (base price: $38,895)
    Power (SAE net): 270 bhp @ 6200 rpm
    Torque (SAE net): 238 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
    Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: 14.5 sec
    Zero to 130 mph: 28.4 sec
    Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.2 sec
    Standing 1/4-mile: 14.3 sec @ 99 mph
    Top speed (drag limited): 152 mph
    Braking, 70-0 mph: 174 ft
    Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.90 g
    EPA fuel economy, city driving: 19 mpg
    C/D-observed fuel economy: 20 mpg
  • mth2mth2 Posts: 25
    When I test drove the A-SPEC, my (limited) understanding was that the only difference between it and the standard TL is that the A-SPEC's suspension was lowered, larger wheels, and some styling cues. If that drops 0-60 times by one seconds, that would be pretty amazing to me! :surprise:
  • dalls223dalls223 Posts: 41
    merc1,

    "As far as the RL competiting with the S-Class and 7-Series, it will never happen. I think the current Accord platform is already stretched to its limits. Plus that class demands a V8. I too know people that thought the RL should compete at the full size level, but I've never understood that. The RL and last Legend before it were always E/5/GS/A6 competitors"

    I hate to sound like the Hertz commercial, but not exactly. For 2006 Mercedes just released the S350, which is a V6. Given the nature of this 268hp engine, it should perform near the level of the barely more powerful S430. I don't know what Mercedes is doing with all of these engine choices for the S-class? This isn't the first time that Mercedes has done this. They did this with the S320 during the mid to late 90's. My point is that it can be done, even though performance is about on par with my dad's town car. If they decided to enlarge the RL someday, but not change the engine, then it wouldn't be the first time the performance wasn't stellar for this car. However to be competitive with the other large luxury sedans they would have to offer it with either a choice of a V6 or V8, or just a V8 like Lexus and Infiniti do with their large models. Or to be completely unrealistic, offer it with a supercharged V6. Yeah right! That will be the day.
  • dalls223dalls223 Posts: 41
    Yeah, tell me about it. Weight, torque, and how the car is geared play the biggest role in determining accelleration. I don't believe this source because there were no modifications to the engine going by the numbers, and Acura runs a pretty fat power band on its rev meter, somewhere around 7000 RPM before redline (peak torque usually between 3000 and 6500 RPM). I guess you have to drive it to know for sure. Maybe I should head down to my Acura dealership and test drive the one I saw in the showroom the other day, and pretend like I am interested in buying. :) I think the difference between it and my TL-S would be noticable, but not tremendous. But that is just one man's opinion. I think it would do 0-60 in the low 6's. No way would it be faster than a BMW 545i or Mercedes E500.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    I honestly don't see where the S-Class comparo comes from. BTW, the just introduced S350 uses the old SOHC 18-valve 241hp V6, not the new DOHC 24V 268hp V6. Besides that the RL doesn't compete with the S-Class any way. The RL is a E-Class competitior in size and price. Just because Acura has three class of sedan doesn't mean they stack up to everyone else's 3. Even if the RL did compete with the S-Class, the "S-Class" offers 2 more V8s and then some.

    This "new" S350 is just a placeholder and/or test to see if they should bring the next generation (268hp) S350 here for the 2007 model year.

    The RL doesn't compete with the S-Class/7-Series cars.

    M
This discussion has been closed.