By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I dunno, Honda has never been big on turbos...for me personaly, I'd rather have a normally aspirated engine anyway.
Home re-fueling seems like a great idea. I hope it turns out to be a practical solution.
Bob
I gotta wonder exactly how Honda came up with those $/mile figures, though. Specifically, I wonder if it includes the leasing rate for the home fueling unit.
The 1.8l V6 made just 130hp, hardly worth the cost and weight and complexity of a V6. It never sold very well.
Ironically Mazda's own 1.8l I-4 engine from that era (Protege) made 125hp, so there was just no need for that V6.
Mazda's costs spiraled out of control and they went into cost-cutting mania and then sold to Ford. Poor strategy all around. :sick:
We don't like it when bean counters run a company, but when powertrain engineers are given free reign they do stupid things too. The same company was marketing tiny V6s, rotarys, and Miller cycle engines? Make up your mind.
-juice
davem, I don't see Honda going the turbo route either (and I wouldn't like it), but I can see the Civic eventually getting more cylinders. It's growing to old-Accord size, after all. Which I don't like either.
Over time though, those models have been replaced with newer designs that just use 4-cylinders. Ford essentially killed 3 possums with one rock when they launched the Focus, as it filled the shoes of the Contour, Escort, and, to a lesser degree the Probe. Chrysler's once broad lineup of smaller K-car derivatives has since been replaced by the Neon. And the Cav ditched the V-6 for the 1995 redesign, and now the replacement Cobalt only uses the Ecotech 4-cyl.
Now if cars like the Accord start getting to the size of Intrepids, Impalas, and Tauruses (and they're really not that much smaller at this point) and Civics start getting to about where the Stratus/Sebring and Malibu, and smaller cars like the Mazda6 and Subaru Legacy, then I could imagine seeing a V-6 option. But for the time being, they have a ways to go.
The Civic has plenty of room to grow it's 4 banger, 1.8-2.0l for the new one, so I imagine the next couple of generations will still manage with 4 cylinders.
-juice
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That could be sweet.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
it wasn't a Honda.
If that can be a reason to choose, or not to choose, a car then so can AWD, doodads, and the Acura name.
SOmetimes these arguements become somewhat esoteric. It's the stats that matter, not how useful it is in the real world.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
The HP war is getting out of control. I drive my 160HP Accord and can't help but thinking why someone would say the Accord didn't have enough power to get them through day-to-day driving. It will do a very easy 100 MPH and still get 30+ MPG. Can't beat that IMO.
These are all fast cars, but when you are in premium territory, a lot of buyers also want the bragging rights. This is one of the areas the RL falls a little short - not the fastest, not the V-8, etc etc. I wish the market didn't work that way, because it is slightly childish.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
it wasn't a Honda. "
Tee hee hee, you just have to bring that up, don't you? I've owned two Hondas, so that's not the reason why I didn't buy an Accord.
Despite it being a little quicker and a little more refined, I didn't buy the Accord over the Mazda6 because to me, the Accord is that ugly.
Besides, my version of the Mazda6 is 4 tenths of a second "slower" than the equivalent version Accord (5sp manual, 4 cyl). 4 tenths.
How many tenths slower is the RL to 60 compared to the M45 or GS430? How much is that RL again?
That's the reason I'm hoping for the IS250 to be the holy grail of what we all have been wanting. RWD, 6 speed, V6, Lexus reliability and best of all, a price near $30k equipped the way I want it. They are going berserk about what the IS may be missing, but to ME, the future paying customer, if I can get my 6'6' frame behind the wheel, we will go from a 3 Honda family to a 2 Lexus and 1 Honda and maybe 1 Mazda5 family.
Bob
The GS430 is not $10K more than the RL and the starting model for the GS430 is not a stripper. AWD has never been necessary for the top dog model in this class, but a V8 is.
As someone said before, the RL is already been a resounding success so far and the TL and TSX are selling strongly. To keep in the context of the forum, Honda's run is nowhere near run ou as far as these models are concerned.
http://www.hondanews.com/CatID3001?mid=2005040151151&mime=asc
"Moving on" is what I'm doing. Acura/Honda doesn't make the car I want to buy next, so instead of hanging around complaining about something that doesn't exist, I'm looking elsewhere. Had to do the same thing to Toyota after they quit making cars like the MR2 Turbo.
Regardless, it's really irrelevant. Acura will probably sell as many RL's as it wants to, at least for the first few years. Sure the Lexus and Infiniti are stiff competition for the RL but the RL is also stiff competition for the Lexus and Infiniti for those who don't just gotta have the extra 2 cylinders. Sure the magazines may mention the lack of a V8 but they also say it's a great car and despite it's apparent lack of any redeeming qualities to YOU, it has done well for itself in comparison tests.
"as tested" is the key phrase there. Edmunds has the base price for the GS430 at $51,125. If you have $50K to spend for a car in this class and you have to have a V8, you can get one, if you can live without NAV and AWD. Just go to the Lexus or Infiniti dealer. If you have to have NAV, and AWD, but don't care about the V8, you can get the RL. It's pretty simple. Don't pretend like you have to spend $10K more to get a V8 because it's just not true.
And why is that? Honda was the first Japanese company to try the luxury thing out.
I think most people perceive Lexus to be a notch above Acura. I'd even say that's happening with Infiniti now too. Why did Honda let that happen?
Oh geez. Gimme a break. And you're serious too, aren't you?
"Besides, again, why not compare the RL to the GS300?"
Why not? Go for it. At least Lexus gives you the choice between loaded and slow, just plain slow, loaded and fast, or just plain fast. With Acura, you better like loaded and slow.
In fact, the performance difference is so slight that after the initial 6 or 7 seconds to 60 are over, I'lll be willing to bet that the driving experience will be so similar between a GS-anything, M-anything, RL that it doesn't really matter anyway. Then all you have left is whether you like the seats, looks, accessories. Judging a car on number of cylinders and 0-60 alone is kinda silly when you are spending $50k. Again, since the topic IS Honda's run running out, if we are looking at the RL, the answer would seem to be a no. The GS has been knocked for it's intrusive stability aids and Infiniti may drive like a champ but has that funky center console that I would never get used to. Just as some people won't buy an Accord because of it's "Buick" tail lights, there are some who won't like the other cars for [insert reason here]. We won't even go into the Bangelized Bimmer that I find very nifty looking...I just hate Bimmer interiors along with the I-drive.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
BMW has been charging a premium all these years because it builds the benchmarks. People recognize it and are willing to pay for it. BTW, many auto journalists are saying M is now the benchmark.
The NYT in reviewing RL begs to differ with you:
"The car has everything, except personality."
"The feel of the big Acura seems closer to that of Lexus than to the competitive German set - it is more comfortable than sporty - though the car doesn't feel as detached from the road as some Lexus models."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/automobiles/24AUTO.html?
It's not silly at all. It's silly to act like performance doesn't matter, especially at this price point. If you're spending $50K, why not judge the performance? When you're spending FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, the performance differences are magnified if anything.
Why does the Accord offer 240 hp and near best in class acceleration and the RL doesn't even come close in it's respective class? Why the difference in philosophy between the Accord and RL? It's common sense that performance matters more in the RL's class and less in the family sedan class.
It's amazing how far you and anon will go to defend a Honda product. I still can't get over what anon says:
"However, the guy in the RL will be able to go just as fast as you once you get to cruising speed, will probably handle better, and will know which way to go to avoid traffic which will pretty much negate any performance advantage the GS has "
The performance advantage the GS430 has over the RL is wiped out because you might get lost or stuck in traffic in the GS without NAV. Wow. And then the icing on the cake:
"the performance difference is so slight"
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=104808/pageId=62812
Let's look at the specs. And can't help but mention that the RL came in second to the Lexus. While the fastest car, the M, is last. Even more surprisingly, that "fast" car has an as tested price only $1500 or so more than the RL. It may be the drivers car but it didn't impress Edmunds.
The GS won the 0-60 not only because of the V8, but even more importantly it weighs 200lb less than the RL. Mainly because it's a smaller car in every exterior dimension that costed $10k more as tested. The RL has 3 mpg (10%) better fuel economy than the V8 equipped cars too. So I gess it ain't as close as we might have it.
So if we keep the RL's "class" where it belongs, i.e V6 Sport sedans that have AWD and cost around $50k, the RL is dead where it needs to be. The M and GS both have those models. If you HAVE to have a V8, you can't get one in an RL. If you HAVE to have AWD you can't get it with a V8 in the segment. Acura may lose a few customers by not having a V8, but that's okay.
BMW loses a few by having 215hp 525 and the 255hp 530 and the 530 bases at $48K without leather and automatic. But it weighs a lot less and can be had in a manual. Maybe that's why they are the class of the field. But hey we knew that already.
Audi comes only in AWD too and weighs 4150 lb. in V8 trim. But that nose. EWWW.
Lexus's V6 is a 3.0(this year) and is the only way you can get AWD. That V6 only has 245hp. But the 6 speed auto does help it get 21/27. The price as equipped is near the same. It may lose a few with that small V6 though.
The M has a V6 gets 17/24 mpg, 280hp, weighs 4000 lbs and has a $10000 premium pack to equip as the RL. May lose a few
Benz has the new 268 hp 3.5L AWD and a 7!!speed automatic and a $52k base without leather. May lose a few.
Looks like all of them have points that may turn a few people off. So the RL isn't alone.
I don't see the philosophy being all that different. The RL has more power than any of it's V6 contemporaries. And it is probably near the fastest AWD version. Don't see where Acura has dropped the ball there. You know, if we keep apples to apples. Not even gonna go into the RL's reliability record vs it's contemporaries.
Reading the May 2005 C@D comparing the GS430, M45, blah blah. RL was second only to the M. And rated the RL the best looking car of the group along with other bests like ergonomics and amenities. And no I didn't write the article. But hey, who cares what the magazines think?
Sure would be nice to respond to a post that's not the written equivalent of "nuh uh" for change. This is getting tedious.
And first in the Car and Driver article that you mentioned later in your post.
The RL has 3 mpg (10%) better fuel economy than the V8 equipped cars too. So I gess it ain't as close as we might have it.
In the Edmunds test, they all got 15 mpg, so I guess it's dead even.
But hey, who cares what the magazines think?
I do. It did get second, and this is what Car and Driver had to say about the reason why it placed second:
The Acura RL misses the top slot in this test mainly because of the company's habitual restraint. Acura engineers could have made the RL bigger, but instead made it smaller (retaining much of the previous model's interior volume). They could have gone to a V8, but they used a VTEC V6. They could have changed to rear wheel drive but chose to adapt a front-drive platform to a novel all wheel drive system known as SH-AWD, which can shift torque fore and aft for traction and side to side to generate extra yaw for cornering.
I'm not going to type the whole article, but you get the idea. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, 2nd place. Between Edmunds and Car and Driver, the M and GS each have a 1st place finish and the RL has two second place finishes. The M may have scored last in Edmunds, but that test only had 3 cars.
In other words, NUH UH!!!!!!
"the RL doesn't even come close in it's respective class?"
But it does. When you look at V6/I6 competition the RL is right in the thick of things while offering AWD. If you want to compare apples to apples then look at the M35, 530, E350, etc. Don't look at 540's, M45's, and GS430's.
Steering is not what it used to be - manufacturers are now using enormous tires which I think inherently make the steering more vague on-center - that is a lot of tire to move to a new direction. Then you have silly things like BMW's active steering, and now I hear the new GS has a version of the same thing.
Would love to see Honda get gutsy and build some small light cars with manual steering again. If it were ever to happen, there isn't another company out there that would dare try it.
PS response to post a ways back: I would LOVE to see the next RSX become a fixed-roof version of the S2000. Not that it would ever happen - the inevitable price alone would kill it.
OK, forgive me, it's late, now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Manual Steering in my experience:
1991 Toyota Tercel (1950lb): great
1992 Nissan Sentra E (2266lb): not so great
A lot of that is the engineers' fault... the Tercel is great at any speed, and not even too bad when stopped (unless you're used to American cars).
The Nissan is pretty tough at low speeds and a pain when parallel parking. It has a great big steering wheel to minimize effort (so big it hits my knee unless I sit almost lying down) which means it'd be even worse with a Tercel-sized steering wheel.
But I'm sure some of it has to do with weight, and you won't find many modern cars available in the US at less than 2500lb. I know weight has something to do with it because when I'm parking on a hill the steering becomes a lot harder or easier depending on which way the car's facing. (The Tercel also has an engine that was engineered to be light - which is everybody's Tercel burns oil - and I'm sure that helps vs. the nose-heavy Sentra.)
The stupid thing is that Honda switched to electric steering in the Civic because that was the only way to physically accomodate the new (struts) suspension setup and high cowl line (unless you accept 2% fuel economy increase as a good reason). The ensuing reshufling of the engine bay required a high-mounted steering box. Well I don't want that new suspension and high cowl line!!
(not that the previous Civics had good power steering either)
Tell that to Edmunds and C&D. They compared the RL to the GS430 and M45. You can't win with me, so you might as well stop trying.
"So now that the Acura is in 2nd place Edmunds rankings and those of the other magazines are pure gold, eh?"
I didn't bring up the magazines and Edmunds.
"Seems like not to long ago when a certain mid-size sedan was placing 2nd to the Accord and several people, yourself included, discounted magazine reviews as pure crap. Hmm, my how times change."
Lol, when in doubt, bring up the Mazda6. "yourself included " Lol, I never discounted the magazines as pure crap. Go back and find my posts where I cried about the magazines not picking the Mazda6, come back here and re-post them. I'm waiting..........
Car and Driver is great. Nice try.
I've also driven a 6th gen Civic DX which had power (hydraulic) steering, and that was overboosted and had no feel. No Civic with power steering has ever been known for its feedback so it's not too great a loss that they've switched to electric.
The Mazda3 (except the European 1.6L version) and Golf GTI / Audi A3 have gone electric and the reviews on that haven't been good. So, I don't like electric steering either, even more strongly than I dislike regular power steering (but I don't think manual steering is practical with modern car weights).