I'd say that Toyota was actually the first Japanese brand to jump into luxury territory, with the Cressida. Honda more or less matched the Cressida with the Legend. They just happened to call it an Acura, instead of a Honda!
Now Honda was the first to start marketing luxury in a different brand (Acura), but IMO Toyota still had them beat with the Cressida.
I guess the car mags group them by price (55k in this case). They're not paying for them. They order cars from the press fleet, and don't have to choose to drive these cars when it is snowing or when they're going to unfamiliar places.
The problem with that is that is penalizes Acura for offering a comprehensively equipped car. They put very, very little weight on features and content.
As a consumer who pays out of their pocket to drive these, and might need certain features, that is entirely different. If you live in the snow belt you might demand AWD, and a frequent traveller might need Nav to get around.
So you go to your Infiniti store and where the $50k V8 model? Nowhere to be found. The V8s on the lot are more like $60 grand. Oops and there is no AWD. A well equipped M35 AWD with Nav costs slightly more than the RL, and doesn't drive like the M45 reviewed by C&D.
So that road test is useless.
This is why you have to determine your own needs and conduct your own test drives. Relying on C&D is futile because inevitably you won't find that same car on their lots, or it won't meet your needs.
I just don't think Acura should be penalized for the way they equip the RL, it is in fact one of the primary competitive advantages!
You also can't find a single 4 door luxury car that has the RL's level of equipment, power, proven reliability, and size with AWD for $50K. There are cars that offer the option of a V8 if you need 300hp but you give up the AWD.
If you need to do 6 second 0-60 runs. It ain't the RL. If you don't care about which wheels drive the car, you could try a Maxima or a TL. Don't need a automatic? You could go with the Maxima or TL again. Don't need luxury? Heck the Accord V6 or Altima V6 is the car for you.
Options are great.
The RL may not "win". But it does come in ahead of each GS and M in head to head comparisons. If that ain't win maybe we'll just settle for "better than" depending on who is doing the comparing. And if the RL is so much better than those cars' V8 models, it should thoroughly trump the V6 AWD versions. Especially since V8's only account for 15% of sales.
And the great part about Acura/Honda vehicles is that it's easy to find the one you want because they are mono-spec. As tested price is as bought. That's also what helps the resale since when you see a RL, that's all you need to know other than the color. No easier shopping in the automotive world.
If you read the edmunds editors' comments, they basically admit that, if they were younger and wanted more sports, they'd pick M. If by head-to-head, you mean 1 on 1. Then there's no US M/RL battle. Reportedly there's one done by Japanese Car Drivers, which picked M35. There are 3 M/GS only battles (MT, detnews by Paul Lienert, usatoday by Healey), all picking M. Well, the auto journalists see M/GS as the main contenders!
BTW, Legend & Fuga (RL & M35) were introduced in Japan at same time. Fuga became best selling luxury sedan, replacing Teana (most similar here is Maxima).
yes, but the reason you like that is because you prefer max equipment. This is the point I think some posters were trying to make earlier: it is great to get a loaded car for the one price, but what if you don't want a loaded car? What if (like my sister) you hate moonroofs, for instance? They do cut down on headroom most of the time. Just as a "for instance". You see AWD as a major plus that you would want on any vehicle, but what about the large group of folks who don't? That is why it would be nice if Acura also had a RWD version of the RL. But it doesn't and that's that. Among other AWD V-6 luxury sedans, I think the RL is probably the nicest. If I were buying in the $50K range, I would probably buy the M45 (for $1500 more) instead. Too bad there are no $50K hatchbacks! Is there an 8-cyl 5-series wagon though? That might be nice. Probably way more money. But I digress! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It's costs less to build all RLs to one specification. So, you can get a loaded RL with NAV for the same price as a loaded car without that NAV. Who cares if they ever use the NAV, they didn't pay any more for it. Even if they don't use for it's intended function, the NAV has the "hey, lookie" factor.
I think this works well in the luxury segments, as lux buyers are big on gizmos. If they weren't, they'd be buying Pontiacs.
As an aside, offering only one trim also simplifies the manufacturing process. The easier it is to build, the fewer mistakes are made. That's good for quality and reliability.
But seriously, streamlining production a bit allows Acura to offer a lot of equipment at a lower price vs. going a-la-carte (also see varmint's post). Their marketing just came to the conclusion that more people demand a loaded car when you're in that lofty price range, and they are probably right.
If you don't want AWD or Nav, well, they might lose those customers. But if you do want those, such as I would, I think we should compare it to V6 competitors with AWD and similar options.
a mistake. a v6 is basically a compromise to start with. luxury buyers don't want that. other manufacturers offer v6 models, but they offer v8s over those. an audi a6 might be equivilant, but they offer the a6s over that. the reviews of the RL i have read said it does not ride very well either. that can't help.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
luxo-sedan comparo Automobile did in Palm Springs, the RL was the only member of the group said to "huff and puff" (or something like that) when it came time to climb San Jacinto. The V-6 just can't keep up with this group, is what it said. Despite that, it ended up coming second overall, for being very well-rounded. Every other car there was a V-8, IIRC.
I think of the G35x - yes it is only (only!!!) 280 hp with the automatic (all AWD G35s get the auto), but it has almost the same torque rating, weighs less, and costs $13K less. Not $1.3K, but $13K. That's a lot of moola, in this case a 25% savings. So with the Acura you essentially pay the extra $13 grand for equipment - the extra-spiffy stereo, the NAV? (does the G35x have NAV at $37K?), the real-time traffic updates and whatnot. I have to think there are going to be lots of people who don't want all that jazz, and do want to hang on to the money.
Actually, reading that article in Automobile, I was reminded of this conversation. Every car in that article was the mid-model, top of the line trim in that model. Except the Acura. The RL was the highest Acura model, and yet it still couldn't challenge the performance characteristics of those mid-models (E-class, GS, S-type, 5-series, STS, etc). Well-rounded yes, performance leader no. That is what relegates Acura to "entry-lux", rather than "luxury brand" like BMW, MB, Audi, Jag, Lexus, now Infiniti and Cadillac too. Maybe a powerful hybridized version of the RL with another 100 hp or more will change that status, I dunno.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It didn't cost as much as the others... Acura: $49,470 Audi: $51,220 BMW: $56,495 Cadillac: $47,495 Infiniti: $47,360 Jaguar: $51,995 Lexus: $51,775 Mercedes-Benz: 57,620
Those are the base prices of the competing cars before options of which the Acura has none. I see your point in that why hasn't Acura tried to challenge the best as Lexus is doing though. But when you look at the Acura sedan lineup as a whole, they seem to be staying right under the radar with entries that really have no head to head competition. The TSX is alone in the loaded entry lux 200hp $27k FWD sedan segment. And the TL is pretty much alone too in the FWD mid size with 270 hp fully loaded for $35k. Again, they ain't trying to take over the market. That's why they don't have multi-engines, options, bodystyles. Those V8 competitors should be better than the RL. But you pay for that.
The only thing the Acura has done wrong was not have a V8 version to send to the comparisons because that's the only thing that the Acura is missing compared to the other cars. And that was intentional. I'm sure a company that can coax 250 normally aspirated horses out of a 2.0L 4 cylinder engine can design a decent V8 if they saw the need.
wonder how hard it would be for them to graft 2 S2000 ewngines together to make a 4.4l V8? That would have been nice in a new NSX.
Maybe I lice in my own world, but I don't get hung up on stats, and # of cyls. is one of them. I care more about function (performace/smoothness/mileage/etc.) The RL engine seems fine, the cars just a bit of a proker, which is unfortuneately way too common these days (even my tC is a bit of a pig weight wise for it's size).
imagine that: if they could build it to endure the same piston speeds, it would make 480 hp! Now THAT would be the engine to put in the top of the line Acura.
"I care more about function (performace/smoothness/mileage/etc.)"
I agree, but the RL's performance was close to last in the group, and the mileage was barely midpack. As for smooth, the only engines criticized for not being smooth were the M and the STS, as I recall.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
they might have been last, but its like finishing last in an olympic 100meters. Still fast, just a little slower than the other guys.
IIRC, the RL runs about a 6.9ish 0-60? hard to call that slow, so lets just say that the V-8 models are really really fast.
I still contend that most people don't come close to using all the available power or handling on their car (especially ones like thse), and would probably be scared of running for max 0-60, or pulling .8gs on an off ramp.
Note I'm talking about most people, not the few hard-core speed freaks that probably think a Vette is too soft and slow. For the average person that can afford to lay down 50 large for a luxo car, they want comfort , style and gadgets, and a decent push back in the seat on the occasion they need it.
Sales will be the ultimate barometer of how successful the RL is. And no, Honda wasn't trying to corner the market with it, just sell their allotment to people that appreciate it's virtues.
the Accord and Civic are way more improtant anyway. The RL has always been a niche player. Acura seemed to be doing OK over the last few years, and they sold ,what, 3 RLs a month?
Dropping 50K in Accord sales or having the next Civic bomb would be a big deal.
Nope! Motor Trend (45K comparo) complains about the V6's in STS and RL. Exact quote about RL:
".. engine is the most powerful engine, but it didn't feel that way. RL suffered the longest stopping distances and the widest curb-to-curb turning diameter. The electric steering lacks crispness and is doughy. The engine gets somewhat thrashed when wound out."
Again Wards voted that engine one of the best in the industry.
The Automobile article didn't list the MPG but I know the highway isn't mid-pack vs. the M and GS v8's and I don't imagine the Germans doing much better. Not to mention the Audi and RL were the only AWD cars in the test. Looking at one performance spec without considering other aspects doesn't make sense. No AWD car will be as efficient as a RWD or FWD car. The Audi that won that comparo had a drivetrain that felt like "trying to run with muddy boots".
And in the Automobile article they complained about the STS V8 engine. Saying it also "gasps and struggles". I guess it's all depends on who's butt is in the seat.
Personally my only problem with the RL as a $50k car is the low top speed and the boring wheels. Other than that...well the brakes do seem to suck too, the car seems just as fine as any other.
I agree - the RL is small potatoes for Honda....they've got to be more concerned about the Accord losing ground to the Camry, and whether the new '06 Civic will be a success.
One last thing on the RL - it's always been a notch lower than the top Lexus and Inifiniti, going way back to the late 80's, early 90's. That's the niche it has. I'd say the RL and Acura in general is the least of Honda's problems... the Accord and Civic are their bread and butter.
Not sure what Wards voting it a best engine has to do with its usage in the RL. They could put the S2000's motor in there (admittedly a great motor) but it still wouldn't make a great choice for the market the RL is in.
You can use great parts.........just that they may not be the best ones for the job. RL is a good car taken on its own, but when thrown into the mix with the others in the class, I think it comes up a bit short in this hotly contested segment.
Ah, but who said it ends there? I bet we'll see a hybrid RL that adds electric motors like the Accord hybrid does. That might give it V8-like performance.
Acura might be thinking long-term here, knowing a potential V8 model would overlap with the hybrid. And a V8+hybrid would just cost too much for people shopping in an Acura store.
that may be their thinking (RE: coming out with a hybrid RL later) but I don't think that's how the market works, especially in the "prestige" range that the RL is playing in.
From what I've seen, you have to come out into the market competitive or you're immedietly reduced to an "also ran". Doesn't matter if in two years you come out with a 700HP V12 that runs on water. The stigma of an "also ran" will still be stuck to the car. Not saying that's fair, just that it seems to be the way the market behaves.
that Honda almost always has the very worst braking results in whatever segment is being considered? Check out the R&T performance results some time (the big table at the back of each issue). Hondas and Acuras have some really awful 70-0 distances, over 200 feet in some cases, where most sporty cars would be expected to be around the 170 mark these days. It is something that has always caught my eye in car comparos. I wonder why that is. Mariner's mention above that the RL had the longest stopping distance of that group reminded me of it. I have seen stopping distance charts where the Honda under consideration was so bad relative to the others in its class they had to extend the scale of the chart. I believe the Civic was one of the ones like that. It is usually ABS models that perform in this way, compared to other cars that also have ABS, so maybe it is something about the way Honda calibrates its ABS, or something like that.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"RL is a good car taken on its own, but when thrown into the mix with the others in the class, I think it comes up a bit short in this hotly contested segment."
I'd agree with that, but I do think this discussion is overstating the issue quite a bit. The RL is a bit short of the benchmark in its class. In other words, it keeps finishing in second place rather than first. But the way posters here are going after it, you'd think the car was an Aztek.
"From what I've seen, you have to come out into the market competitive or you're immedietly reduced to an "also ran"."
Yet again, I agree, but not to the extent being presented here.
I think the Pacifica is probably a good example. It had a terrible launch and even after they'd fixed the big problem (pricing), it never took off. Now the Pacifica sells okay, but it could have been huge. So, I understand your point.
But I don't think that's the case with every car. A poor introduction can be a hurdle, but it's not the kiss of death. Acura has an example in their own stable. The 3.2TL was redesigned in 1999 with a four speed transmission. It hit the scene with a warm hello, but there were no umpah bands or people lobbing underwear at it. In 2000, Acura upgraded the tranny to a 5 speed and people started to take a little more notice. Hey, maybe this car is serious? It was a sleeper hit. In 2002, when the Type S was introduced, the car was in full swing. So, yeah, a hybrid or V8 option could easily be the one last step needed to make this car a first place challenger.
I don't meant to point fingers, but it seems that some people here think you have to be the absolute best to be successful, and I don't agree with that. Everybody seems to like the Mazda 3 even though sales are something like half that of the Civic. It's something like the glass being half full or half empty. When I look at the RL, I see a car that has come a long, long way. I don't see a car that failed to be perfection. I never would have expected that in the first place.
Right now, the RL is selling just fine. It's adding money to the coffers a whole lot faster than the 3.5RL did. Sales are up big time. And while the car may not be the absolute best in its class, it has technology that nobody else uses and leads the way for future Acura products.
I think you are understating things a bit. The redesign ('99) took off right qway, compared to the old model. It was a hard to get/sell at sticker car for quite a while.
"Hey there, little Acura. You've got potential, a good engine, a little chutzbah, and nice packaging. But don't worry, that's all forgotten now."
That was pretty much the opinion of the motoring press as they turned to go back to writing about the 3-series in 1999.
It really wasn't until a year later, when 3.2TL sales showed that the car was popular, that the press began to take it seriously. "Hey, wait a minute! Where did this Acura come from?" It was better than an I30, but not quite as good as an ES300. It certainly wasn't as good as the darling 3 Series, but, gosh darn it, people are buying them anyway. Perhaps the 5AT was just their way of covering up for not noticing the 3.2TL the first time around, but my point was that it got more popular as time went on. The lack of a gang-buster opening didn't relegate it to "also-ran" status.
Speaking of which, Acura has another also ran I might mention. The MDX has never out-sold the RX300. It has never out-performed the X5. The Toureg is a more capable SUV. It certainly doesn't have the bling-bling of an FX45. Would you call the MDX an "also ran"?
Actually, yes I would call the MDX an also ran, but I'll quickly explain why.
I'm not into SUV's in the least, but a fair amount of my friends and co-workers are. They'll mention the Lexus RX and Mercedes M but I never hear any interest or mention in the MDX. Granted a small sample, but yeah, I'd call it an Also ran.
Just to be clear, when I use the term Also-ran, I don't mean the vehicle is bad, just that it is ok, not great, and doesn't stand out in its pack.
Well, again, it sort of has it's own space in the market....it's bigger and roomier than the RX or the ML or the X5...certainly not as "sporty" as the X5 or FX45, but the only one in that class with a 3rd row. (ok, the Volvo XC90 also has a 3rd row, but I don't think it's quite as a roomy as the MDX is)
Seminolekev - Fair enough. Can we agree that the MDX is one example of a successful also ran? I mean, that SUV along with the TL are what revived Acura in recent years.
If so, can we agree that the new RL represents another successful also ran? It doesn't top the charts, but it's selling well and finishing 2nd place in many comparisons.
Davem2001 - The same could be said for the RL. Actually, it has been said. It's not the fastest, not the sharpest in a curve, not the most luxurious, and not the most stylish, but it does well in most every area that matters to the average buyer. Essentially, the same thing that gets written about the MDX, TL, and TSX. In fact, it's a pretty common theme for all Hondas.
The TSX has actually won some of those magazine comparos...(I know it came in first in Car & Driver vs. an Audi A4, Subie Legacy GT, Volvo S40, maybe one more I can't remember) But I do get your point....An Acura generally isn't going to be the fastest or the sportiest in it's class, but it will be a really good all-around car at a value price.
oh I'd say it is way to early to rule whether the RL is a success or not. I'd think at least two years of sales should give an indication of that.
As far as the MDX goes - I honestly have no idea as to if it is successful or not. I don't see that many around here, and have no idea as to sales numbers. Like I said, I don't pay much attention to the SUV market. I'm going to assume that it does ok in sales?
By the same token isn't it too early to declare it a flop?
The MDX sold pretty much like the 1999-2004 Odyssey. It went for MSRP for 3 to 4 years and was limited by production capacity. This is the final year for this design, but TMV in my area is still about $2K over invoice.
Now, I don't expect that the RL will be THAT kind of seller, but the point is a vehicle can be successful without being the #1 player in its segment. Relative to what Acura execs stated when they released the vehicle, it's on track and doing what they wanted it to do. Hardly fodder for a Honda/Acura problems board.
I said up above - Acura is the least of Honda's problems - they need to focus in on why the Accord is falling behind the Camry in sales, and making sure the '06 Civic is a success. That's their bread and butter.
Around here in mass you couldn't touch and MDX for the first 3 years without getting on a 13 month waiting list! I had a Mahogany Base model ordered in Jan 01'. They promised to have it to me by Feb. 02'. Another dealer promised Jan of 02 and another promised March 02'. And I believe it still maintains a 13 - 14 day average lot time before it's bought. Not too bad for a 5 year old SUV.
The Accord needs some help and hopefully Honda will respond with the 2006 model (and not wait two more years for the next-gen). More new features than usual for a MMC and a refreshed front/rear should help. We'll see what happens with the 2006 Civic.
Right now Honda just doesn't have the momentum that Toyota & Nissan have.
Honda's weird like that. In Europe they released the FR-V not long ago, when 7-seat MPVs were becoming the "in" thing (as opposed to those with five). Honda's MPV has six.
==
As I've stated, I really like Honda's philosophy in its car and engine design. But they're starting to lose me as a fan for a separate reason: they don't give any of their markets the whole range of choices that Honda has to offer. Europe's 3/5-door Civics won't be released here, and our 2/4-door Civics won't be released there. The Airwave isn't coming over. Japan's Odyssey is way cooler than ours. We won't get any Civic or Accord wagon, ever (or TSX - the Euro-Accord wagon already exists). We'll never get any of the type-R's. Europe won't get the Integra. We're supposed to get the Fit but weren't we supposed to already have it?
Honda already makes the cars that lots of us (at least a dozen of us!) would buy but can't get, but they aren't willing to give them a chance here. It's frustrating.
...Honda isn't the only manufacturer that does this. There are a whole range of very nice European Fords that we don't get here. Ford isn't even bringing over the new European Focus for us (and it's a very nice car). The Opel/Vauxhall Corsa is much nicer than the Chevy Cobalt. Even Toyota has cars available in Europe that aren't for sale here.
There are so many... I'd love Toyota's Corolla T-sport hatchback, or the Astra, or the Golf GTI, the Focus, or any of the Citroens, Peugeots or Alfa Romeos.
The thing with Honda is that we actually DID have some of that variety I want. We're just now losing the 3-door Civics (I'm not sure the Si should count, so it's been more like a whole generation without them). We lost the Accord wagon before that. The Civic 5-door at the end of the '80s. Honda's color selections are much more limited now than they used to be (I mean seriously... red Civic Si/R's in Canada, but not here?). The feeling that we're losing stuff is worse than knowing that some cars have always been denied us (ok, the type-R is like that).
I'm not sure I'm a fan of anyone anymore. Toyota feels that we're too bland to deserve its more interesting cars... my Sentra hasn't made me a fan of Nissan... I'm mad at Ford for the Focus thing (and among domestics, I'm a Ford guy). I guess it's Mazda for me now, though... they did take away my two favorite Mazda3 colors the year that I'm going to start making money and look at buying a new car.
kev: hard to know their strategy, but maybe Acura doesn't want to be the "Standard of the World" like Cadillac wants to be. It's expensive and failure could be catastrophic (in terms of costs).
Plus, with the current arms race, no matter how high you go someone will exceed it. It's ridiculous that Mercedes is putting out 600hp behemoths in a land where you can rarely go more than 75 mph. They are bleeing red ink, I doubt Acura envies them right now.
Look at VW - Phaeton is #1 bay-bee! Who needs a V6? Wimpy V8? HAH! V10? Not enough. This is our FLAGSHIP! It will be the best selling car in the world with a massive V12!
Oops. Major, major flop. VW is a good case study in what *not* to do with your flagship.
Acura just doesn't want to go there. They might be content in leading the clean air race, or fuel economy wars, or low emissions standards. To them perhaps 300hp is "enough", and it's not important to outrun a VW Phaeton.
Agreed. Honda has given up a few of the niche offerings. And it will cost them a few customers. The lack of an Accord wagon or hatch probably costs them 15,000 customers each year.
On the other hand, adding the CR-V (which serves 90% of the same market) adds 160,000 customers each year. I feel your pain, but I can't fault Honda for doing what they've done.
And...
"Japan's Odyssey is way cooler than ours."
...I think you're going just a bit too far with that one. I mean, seriously, take a look at the sales of that Ody when we had it and compare that with the current model. The closest thing to the pre 1999 Ody on our market is the Mazda MPV. Sales of that van are something like 1/10th of the new Honda.
I suspect that Honda simply offered what they could knowing what they will bring in the future. Building a V8 probably would have made the current RL a more appealing vehicle to the enthusiasts. But that engine might be obsolete in 3 years when they come out with a more powerful hybrid V6. A whole new engine with such a short life-span is never a good idea.
I agree - Acura, to me anyway, is sort of like Buick was 40,50 years ago...."upscale" but not over the top. (I don't mean to say Acura cars are like old Buicks, but their position in the market is about the same!)
The lack of an Accord wagon or hatch probably costs them 15,000 customers each year.
On the other hand, adding the CR-V (which serves 90% of the same market) adds 160,000 customers each year. I feel your pain, but I can't fault Honda for doing what they've done.
So they are upscale affordable semi-premium near-luxury not-quite-Audi but nicer-than-VW in a Buick kind of way.
OK, we all clear on that? :P
Don't forget to include Element numbers along with the CR-V. They seem to have that segment pegged quite nicely. Don't those two outsell the Escape/Tribute?
YTD thru 3/31/05, the Escape sold 44,099 units, while the Tribute sold 10,556. In contrast, the CR-V sold 34,991, and the Element moved 12,178. So the Escape/Tribute are still the "cute ute" kings, I guess, but the Honda showing is nothing to be ashamed of. Also in this field, the Equinox/Vue accounted for 29,777/17,903, if you want to call them "cute utes". They seem a bit bigger though. The Liberty sold 40,909 units. I'd consider it a cute ute, even if they can be optioned up to weigh as much as my '85 Silverado! :surprise: They're more "trucky" though, than your typical "cute ute".
Not yet, but Escape sales drop every year (Tribute sales are a drop in the bucket) while CRV stands steady. Although Element sales are dropping. It would be cool to see CRV and Element have an optional V-6 shared with the upcoming RDX. The fuel economy on the Element is fairly dismal - might as well have the power to match!
I wouldn't say Acura is that much nicer than the "new" VW, but it is certainly the engine-and-performance fan's version of VW.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Comments
Now Honda was the first to start marketing luxury in a different brand (Acura), but IMO Toyota still had them beat with the Cressida.
The problem with that is that is penalizes Acura for offering a comprehensively equipped car. They put very, very little weight on features and content.
As a consumer who pays out of their pocket to drive these, and might need certain features, that is entirely different. If you live in the snow belt you might demand AWD, and a frequent traveller might need Nav to get around.
So you go to your Infiniti store and where the $50k V8 model? Nowhere to be found. The V8s on the lot are more like $60 grand. Oops and there is no AWD. A well equipped M35 AWD with Nav costs slightly more than the RL, and doesn't drive like the M45 reviewed by C&D.
So that road test is useless.
This is why you have to determine your own needs and conduct your own test drives. Relying on C&D is futile because inevitably you won't find that same car on their lots, or it won't meet your needs.
I just don't think Acura should be penalized for the way they equip the RL, it is in fact one of the primary competitive advantages!
-juice
If you need to do 6 second 0-60 runs. It ain't the RL.
If you don't care about which wheels drive the car, you could try a Maxima or a TL.
Don't need a automatic? You could go with the Maxima or TL again.
Don't need luxury? Heck the Accord V6 or Altima V6 is the car for you.
Options are great.
The RL may not "win". But it does come in ahead of each GS and M in head to head comparisons. If that ain't win maybe we'll just settle for "better than" depending on who is doing the comparing. And if the RL is so much better than those cars' V8 models, it should thoroughly trump the V6 AWD versions. Especially since V8's only account for 15% of sales.
And the great part about Acura/Honda vehicles is that it's easy to find the one you want because they are mono-spec. As tested price is as bought. That's also what helps the resale since when you see a RL, that's all you need to know other than the color. No easier shopping in the automotive world.
BTW, Legend & Fuga (RL & M35) were introduced in Japan at same time. Fuga became best selling luxury sedan, replacing Teana (most similar here is Maxima).
Generally it's good in the case of Acura, because every vehicle comes comprehensively equipped.
On some Hondas, it can be annoying. You can't get a moonroof on this model or ABS on that model.
Toyota is more a-la-carte, which gives you more options, but then they nickel-and-dime you for those.
Trade-offs, I guess. But I like the comprehensive way Acura does it, with value pricing due to streamlining of options.
-juice
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It's costs less to build all RLs to one specification. So, you can get a loaded RL with NAV for the same price as a loaded car without that NAV. Who cares if they ever use the NAV, they didn't pay any more for it. Even if they don't use for it's intended function, the NAV has the "hey, lookie" factor.
I think this works well in the luxury segments, as lux buyers are big on gizmos. If they weren't, they'd be buying Pontiacs.
As an aside, offering only one trim also simplifies the manufacturing process. The easier it is to build, the fewer mistakes are made. That's good for quality and reliability.
But seriously, streamlining production a bit allows Acura to offer a lot of equipment at a lower price vs. going a-la-carte (also see varmint's post). Their marketing just came to the conclusion that more people demand a loaded car when you're in that lofty price range, and they are probably right.
If you don't want AWD or Nav, well, they might lose those customers. But if you do want those, such as I would, I think we should compare it to V6 competitors with AWD and similar options.
-juice
I think of the G35x - yes it is only (only!!!) 280 hp with the automatic (all AWD G35s get the auto), but it has almost the same torque rating, weighs less, and costs $13K less. Not $1.3K, but $13K. That's a lot of moola, in this case a 25% savings. So with the Acura you essentially pay the extra $13 grand for equipment - the extra-spiffy stereo, the NAV? (does the G35x have NAV at $37K?), the real-time traffic updates and whatnot. I have to think there are going to be lots of people who don't want all that jazz, and do want to hang on to the money.
Actually, reading that article in Automobile, I was reminded of this conversation. Every car in that article was the mid-model, top of the line trim in that model. Except the Acura. The RL was the highest Acura model, and yet it still couldn't challenge the performance characteristics of those mid-models (E-class, GS, S-type, 5-series, STS, etc). Well-rounded yes, performance leader no. That is what relegates Acura to "entry-lux", rather than "luxury brand" like BMW, MB, Audi, Jag, Lexus, now Infiniti and Cadillac too. Maybe a powerful hybridized version of the RL with another 100 hp or more will change that status, I dunno.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Acura: $49,470
Audi: $51,220
BMW: $56,495
Cadillac: $47,495
Infiniti: $47,360
Jaguar: $51,995
Lexus: $51,775
Mercedes-Benz: 57,620
Acura: 3.5L SOHC V-6, 300 hp, 260 lb-ft
Audi: 4.2L DOHC V-8, 335hp, 310 ft-lb
BMW: 4.4L DOHC V-8, 325 hp, 330 ft-lb
Cadillac: 4.6L DOHC V-8, 320 hp, 315 ft-lb
Infiniti: 4.5L DOHC V-8, 335 hp, 340 lb-ft
Jaguar: 4.2L DOHC V-8, 294 hp, 304 lb-ft
Lexus: 4.3L DOHC V-8, 300 hp, 325 lb-ft
Mercedes-Benz: 5.0L SOHC V-8, 302 hp, 339 lb-ft.
Those are the base prices of the competing cars before options of which the Acura has none. I see your point in that why hasn't Acura tried to challenge the best as Lexus is doing though. But when you look at the Acura sedan lineup as a whole, they seem to be staying right under the radar with entries that really have no head to head competition. The TSX is alone in the loaded entry lux 200hp $27k FWD sedan segment. And the TL is pretty much alone too in the FWD mid size with 270 hp fully loaded for $35k. Again, they ain't trying to take over the market. That's why they don't have multi-engines, options, bodystyles.
Those V8 competitors should be better than the RL. But you pay for that.
The only thing the Acura has done wrong was not have a V8 version to send to the comparisons because that's the only thing that the Acura is missing compared to the other cars. And that was intentional. I'm sure a company that can coax 250 normally aspirated horses out of a 2.0L 4 cylinder engine can design a decent V8 if they saw the need.
Maybe I lice in my own world, but I don't get hung up on stats, and # of cyls. is one of them. I care more about function (performace/smoothness/mileage/etc.) The RL engine seems fine, the cars just a bit of a proker, which is unfortuneately way too common these days (even my tC is a bit of a pig weight wise for it's size).
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
"I care more about function (performace/smoothness/mileage/etc.)"
I agree, but the RL's performance was close to last in the group, and the mileage was barely midpack. As for smooth, the only engines criticized for not being smooth were the M and the STS, as I recall.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
IIRC, the RL runs about a 6.9ish 0-60? hard to call that slow, so lets just say that the V-8 models are really really fast.
I still contend that most people don't come close to using all the available power or handling on their car (especially ones like thse), and would probably be scared of running for max 0-60, or pulling .8gs on an off ramp.
Note I'm talking about most people, not the few hard-core speed freaks that probably think a Vette is too soft and slow. For the average person that can afford to lay down 50 large for a luxo car, they want comfort , style and gadgets, and a decent push back in the seat on the occasion they need it.
Sales will be the ultimate barometer of how successful the RL is. And no, Honda wasn't trying to corner the market with it, just sell their allotment to people that appreciate it's virtues.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Dropping 50K in Accord sales or having the next Civic bomb would be a big deal.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
".. engine is the most powerful engine, but it didn't feel that way. RL suffered the longest stopping distances and the widest curb-to-curb turning diameter. The electric steering lacks crispness and is doughy. The engine gets somewhat thrashed when wound out."
The Automobile article didn't list the MPG but I know the highway isn't mid-pack vs. the M and GS v8's and I don't imagine the Germans doing much better. Not to mention the Audi and RL were the only AWD cars in the test. Looking at one performance spec without considering other aspects doesn't make sense. No AWD car will be as efficient as a RWD or FWD car. The Audi that won that comparo had a drivetrain that felt like "trying to run with muddy boots".
And in the Automobile article they complained about the STS V8 engine. Saying it also "gasps and struggles". I guess it's all depends on who's butt is in the seat.
Personally my only problem with the RL as a $50k car is the low top speed and the boring wheels. Other than that...well the brakes do seem to suck too, the car seems just as fine as any other.
One last thing on the RL - it's always been a notch lower than the top Lexus and Inifiniti, going way back to the late 80's, early 90's. That's the niche it has. I'd say the RL and Acura in general is the least of Honda's problems... the Accord and Civic are their bread and butter.
You can use great parts.........just that they may not be the best ones for the job. RL is a good car taken on its own, but when thrown into the mix with the others in the class, I think it comes up a bit short in this hotly contested segment.
Acura might be thinking long-term here, knowing a potential V8 model would overlap with the hybrid. And a V8+hybrid would just cost too much for people shopping in an Acura store.
-juice
Remember, the HSC had a hybrid powertrain with a V6. Hints at the real flagship? Probably.
-juice
From what I've seen, you have to come out into the market competitive or you're immedietly reduced to an "also ran". Doesn't matter if in two years you come out with a 700HP V12 that runs on water. The stigma of an "also ran" will still be stuck to the car. Not saying that's fair, just that it seems to be the way the market behaves.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'd agree with that, but I do think this discussion is overstating the issue quite a bit. The RL is a bit short of the benchmark in its class. In other words, it keeps finishing in second place rather than first. But the way posters here are going after it, you'd think the car was an Aztek.
"From what I've seen, you have to come out into the market competitive or you're immedietly reduced to an "also ran"."
Yet again, I agree, but not to the extent being presented here.
I think the Pacifica is probably a good example. It had a terrible launch and even after they'd fixed the big problem (pricing), it never took off. Now the Pacifica sells okay, but it could have been huge. So, I understand your point.
But I don't think that's the case with every car. A poor introduction can be a hurdle, but it's not the kiss of death. Acura has an example in their own stable. The 3.2TL was redesigned in 1999 with a four speed transmission. It hit the scene with a warm hello, but there were no umpah bands or people lobbing underwear at it. In 2000, Acura upgraded the tranny to a 5 speed and people started to take a little more notice. Hey, maybe this car is serious? It was a sleeper hit. In 2002, when the Type S was introduced, the car was in full swing. So, yeah, a hybrid or V8 option could easily be the one last step needed to make this car a first place challenger.
I don't meant to point fingers, but it seems that some people here think you have to be the absolute best to be successful, and I don't agree with that. Everybody seems to like the Mazda 3 even though sales are something like half that of the Civic. It's something like the glass being half full or half empty. When I look at the RL, I see a car that has come a long, long way. I don't see a car that failed to be perfection. I never would have expected that in the first place.
Right now, the RL is selling just fine. It's adding money to the coffers a whole lot faster than the 3.5RL did. Sales are up big time. And while the car may not be the absolute best in its class, it has technology that nobody else uses and leads the way for future Acura products.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
That was pretty much the opinion of the motoring press as they turned to go back to writing about the 3-series in 1999.
It really wasn't until a year later, when 3.2TL sales showed that the car was popular, that the press began to take it seriously. "Hey, wait a minute! Where did this Acura come from?" It was better than an I30, but not quite as good as an ES300. It certainly wasn't as good as the darling 3 Series, but, gosh darn it, people are buying them anyway. Perhaps the 5AT was just their way of covering up for not noticing the 3.2TL the first time around, but my point was that it got more popular as time went on. The lack of a gang-buster opening didn't relegate it to "also-ran" status.
Speaking of which, Acura has another also ran I might mention. The MDX has never out-sold the RX300. It has never out-performed the X5. The Toureg is a more capable SUV. It certainly doesn't have the bling-bling of an FX45. Would you call the MDX an "also ran"?
I'm not into SUV's in the least, but a fair amount of my friends and co-workers are. They'll mention the Lexus RX and Mercedes M but I never hear any interest or mention in the MDX. Granted a small sample, but yeah, I'd call it an Also ran.
Just to be clear, when I use the term Also-ran, I don't mean the vehicle is bad, just that it is ok, not great, and doesn't stand out in its pack.
If so, can we agree that the new RL represents another successful also ran? It doesn't top the charts, but it's selling well and finishing 2nd place in many comparisons.
Davem2001 - The same could be said for the RL. Actually, it has been said. It's not the fastest, not the sharpest in a curve, not the most luxurious, and not the most stylish, but it does well in most every area that matters to the average buyer. Essentially, the same thing that gets written about the MDX, TL, and TSX. In fact, it's a pretty common theme for all Hondas.
But I do get your point....An Acura generally isn't going to be the fastest or the sportiest in it's class, but it will be a really good all-around car at a value price.
As far as the MDX goes - I honestly have no idea as to if it is successful or not. I don't see that many around here, and have no idea as to sales numbers. Like I said, I don't pay much attention to the SUV market. I'm going to assume that it does ok in sales?
The MDX sold pretty much like the 1999-2004 Odyssey. It went for MSRP for 3 to 4 years and was limited by production capacity. This is the final year for this design, but TMV in my area is still about $2K over invoice.
Now, I don't expect that the RL will be THAT kind of seller, but the point is a vehicle can be successful without being the #1 player in its segment. Relative to what Acura execs stated when they released the vehicle, it's on track and doing what they wanted it to do. Hardly fodder for a Honda/Acura problems board.
Right now Honda just doesn't have the momentum that Toyota & Nissan have.
==
As I've stated, I really like Honda's philosophy in its car and engine design. But they're starting to lose me as a fan for a separate reason: they don't give any of their markets the whole range of choices that Honda has to offer. Europe's 3/5-door Civics won't be released here, and our 2/4-door Civics won't be released there. The Airwave isn't coming over. Japan's Odyssey is way cooler than ours. We won't get any Civic or Accord wagon, ever (or TSX - the Euro-Accord wagon already exists). We'll never get any of the type-R's. Europe won't get the Integra. We're supposed to get the Fit but weren't we supposed to already have it?
Honda already makes the cars that lots of us (at least a dozen of us!) would buy but can't get, but they aren't willing to give them a chance here. It's frustrating.
The thing with Honda is that we actually DID have some of that variety I want. We're just now losing the 3-door Civics (I'm not sure the Si should count, so it's been more like a whole generation without them). We lost the Accord wagon before that. The Civic 5-door at the end of the '80s. Honda's color selections are much more limited now than they used to be (I mean seriously... red Civic Si/R's in Canada, but not here?). The feeling that we're losing stuff is worse than knowing that some cars have always been denied us (ok, the type-R is like that).
I'm not sure I'm a fan of anyone anymore. Toyota feels that we're too bland to deserve its more interesting cars... my Sentra hasn't made me a fan of Nissan... I'm mad at Ford for the Focus thing (and among domestics, I'm a Ford guy). I guess it's Mazda for me now, though... they did take away my two favorite Mazda3 colors the year that I'm going to start making money and look at buying a new car.
Plus, with the current arms race, no matter how high you go someone will exceed it. It's ridiculous that Mercedes is putting out 600hp behemoths in a land where you can rarely go more than 75 mph. They are bleeing red ink, I doubt Acura envies them right now.
Look at VW - Phaeton is #1 bay-bee! Who needs a V6? Wimpy V8? HAH! V10? Not enough. This is our FLAGSHIP! It will be the best selling car in the world with a massive V12!
Oops. Major, major flop. VW is a good case study in what *not* to do with your flagship.
Acura just doesn't want to go there. They might be content in leading the clean air race, or fuel economy wars, or low emissions standards. To them perhaps 300hp is "enough", and it's not important to outrun a VW Phaeton.
They only want to outsell it.
-juice
On the other hand, adding the CR-V (which serves 90% of the same market) adds 160,000 customers each year. I feel your pain, but I can't fault Honda for doing what they've done.
And...
"Japan's Odyssey is way cooler than ours."
...I think you're going just a bit too far with that one.
On the other hand, adding the CR-V (which serves 90% of the same market) adds 160,000 customers each year. I feel your pain, but I can't fault Honda for doing what they've done.
Agree totally....
OK, we all clear on that? :P
Don't forget to include Element numbers along with the CR-V. They seem to have that segment pegged quite nicely. Don't those two outsell the Escape/Tribute?
-juice
-juice
PS My wife wants an Avalon and I'm trying to convince her she's about 40 years too young
Here's all the stats, if you guys are interested...
http://www.aicautosite.com/editoria/asmr/svsuv.asp
Not yet, but Escape sales drop every year (Tribute sales are a drop in the bucket) while CRV stands steady. Although Element sales are dropping. It would be cool to see CRV and Element have an optional V-6 shared with the upcoming RDX. The fuel economy on the Element is fairly dismal - might as well have the power to match!
I wouldn't say Acura is that much nicer than the "new" VW, but it is certainly the engine-and-performance fan's version of VW.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)