"TL is where my worry begins. It’s a nice car, I have one! But in a class where perception rules everything else, Acura will have to do more than add more expensive trims. It will be short sighted to consider TL competing with ES350, and disregard everything else. IMO, the TL doesn’t appeal to the same crowd that would go after ES350."
Yeah the ES350 is more of a cushy/smooth riding sedan where as the TL is a sport/luxury sedan.
"More people are likely to compare TL to IS, G35 and BMW 3-series."
Don;t forget about the Caddy CTS either(the CTS is all new for the 08 model year.) What about the Volvo S60(if Volvo ever redesigns the current S60 which dates back to the 01 model year.)
Sorry if my posts are not as insightful(as they usually are) this week. I have been posting at night the past of couple days when I am tired.
Yes, as well as every other generation of the Legend, and the current TSX and TL. Of all those cars, I would say the original Legend, or maaaaaybe the gen II is my favorite drive, but the current TSX gets close. Slap a small turbo or S/C on that TSX engine to flatten out the torque curve a bit, no need to get all carried away with power like the new RDX's engine, and it would be the winner. All the others feel like driving a video game - very fast in their own way but totally uninvolving, you might as well be watching TV. And between the TL, TSX, and current RL, the RL is the least confidence-inspiring when throwing it into corners because it gives you the least feedback of the three as to what the tires are doing.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Its not in the engine either. RL's engine is let down by poor choice of gearing, also given the heft of the car. The five speed auto is tall and widely spaced and doesn't do justice to the engine at all. Sure the car has run 0-60 in 6.3 and 6.4s in two C&D tests, but "the feel" just isn't there.
This is another major area Acura needs to get its act straightened out. Poor decisions taken earlier are hurting them now.
Interesting that you (and many others) find the TSX the most involving Acura to drive. It's a nose heavy FWD car with a relatively high-strung 4 cylinder.
Yet, most everyone's solution for Acura is bigger engines and RWD in a quest for more performance.
I don't know if you've driven one, yet, but the RDX is probably the next most sporty car on the lot. Yeah, it's nothing compared to a sport coupe or sedan, but it's as sporty as an SUV is likely to get. It's also one of the least popular.
Meanwhile the best sellers are the relatively staid MDX and TL.
You aren't for high strung four cylinder and FWD across the entire Acura lineup, are you?
TSX is a good example of showing limitations of the platform as it applies to vehicles wearing a luxury badge. More power is expected as one goes up the ladder, and better performance evaluations by the media serve as marketing tools. Without these, Acura will be going nowhere, but down.
I would just as soon see weight go down as power go up. And while I am definitely for RWD for any luxury carmaker that is going to have sporting pretensions, I am not a big advocate of sticking a honkin' V-8 in everything we can.
The TSX has the most nimbleness of any of the current Acura cars, and the most communicative driver controls. As for the responsiveness of the engine to the gas pedal, Acura could take a lesson or two from VW Group's new 2.0T. It makes better gas mileage than the 2.4 in the TSX with faster 0-60 times and much more torque, available at a lower rpm.
Since Honda has decided to start using turbos an' all...
:-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"Meanwhile the best sellers are the relatively staid MDX and TL."
What do you mean stiad the way they drive or the way they look? The TL has gotten good reviews I think. I don;t read the magazines at all but the TL from what I hear is a great car. As far as the TL's looks its best looking in its class probably.
As far as MDX is concerned the last generation MDX was panned actually by Consumer Reports. I thought the 01-06 MDX was a good looking truck. The new one is ugly though.
Whats next? The W engines, Calling Convertibles Cabrio(lets), GORGEOUS interiors? Acura could use everything Audi has except for the reliability issues and electrical grimlins...
"Whats next? The W engines, Calling Convertibles Cabrio(lets), GORGEOUS interiors? Acura could use everything Audi has except for the reliability issues and electrical grimlins..."
Not to get too off topic but I think Audi might have their reliability issues worked out. Consumer Reports actually rates the current generations of Audi A4 and A6 average in reliability.
As for Audi;s interiors the current generation of A4 and A6 while more reliable(so far) than past generations of A4 and A6 the interiors in the current generation of A4 and A6 are not as cutting edge as past generations of A4 and A6.
Audi/VW usually look pretty good on CR's reliability ratings when they come out (first couple of years). Its whether they can sustain it beyond that period... hasn't happened in the past.
I'm a firm believer in the notion that you CAN'T have it all, especially not at $27,5. This is despite what the carmakers are constantly telling us in ads! :-)
But the Acuras have decent interiors already. I don't need them to be Audi-gorgeous as long as the engineering and reliability are all there, 100%.
The truth is that none of the carmakers take weight reduction seriously, not even Honda, and I see now that many of the industry's three-row crossovers are getting perilously close to three full tons in curb weight. Unbelievable. Meanwhile, Honda seems to have decided that adding a ton of electronics is what "luxury buyers" are looking for. Can they even be characterized this simply? This, while the driving exerience in Acuras becomes more and more remote, due to the increased intervention of electronics and an explosion in weight.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The general consensus (as indicated by the noise levels on most internet forums) is that Acura needs to be sportier. Yet, the TSX and RDX, which arguably provide the most bang for the buck, are relatively slow-selling.
Oh, I think the TL and MDX are the two best products in the Acura line-up. They provide a good balance of sport, luxury, and practicality.
But if you post the question, "How could Acura improve?" you'll get a barrage of statements about the TL moving to RWD and adding a V8 to the MDX. Obviously, people think Acura needs to increase the sportiness of their line-up. (Which I think is odd given how the sportier cars tend to sell in lower volumes.)
As for the MDX, I drive a 2004. It's handsome vehicle, but it's not eye-popping or sexy. IMO, the new one looks far better. But the great thing about the new MDX is that it still balances sport with luxury and practicality, just like the original.
The current TL also manages this trick (just like the 2001 TL my wife drives.) Both vehicles are better in most every way without any compromises. And both are doing very well in the market.
Which is why all these calls for Acura to become a sports car company make me cringe.
Another reason maybe is that the TSX is showing its age. In the ELLPS segment, the newer model always held the edge due to its advanced gadgets and higher HP engine. The buyers in this segment generally speaking have less "value" in mind comparing to say midsize/family sedan buyers. I am fully expecting to see TSX's sales pick up tremendously after the redesign is introduced late this year/early next year.
The TL was THE best selling entry level luxury sedan during in its early years. However, the re-designed 2006 3-series took the crown back in a hurry.
Oh, I think the TL and MDX are the two best products in the Acura line-up. They provide a good balance of sport, luxury, and practicality.
That is an interesting point, particularly due to the focus on differentiating Acura more from Honda. The formula you quote is very Honda, known for well balanced vehicles that are neither overly cushy nor sporty but somewhere in-between with emphasis on practicality. Should Acura stick to that formula? I can't say about the future but it has worked in its favor so far. Or should it go out and establish its own identity? What should that be?
Given the image Acura is striving to achieve, demanding for RWD isn't asking for too much. Whatever they do, it better not be a half hearted attempt, a patchwork as I would call it.
Use of RWD platform guarantees sports car approach as much as use of double wishbone suspension makes Accord a sports car. McPherson struts are enough and clearly get the job done in the class Accord competes in (See: Altima or Camry). So, what is the point of DWB? Think compromises. RWD and SH-AWD aren't mutually exclusive either! If the latter promises to be a ground breaker, use it!
There is no perfect layout. One can only minimize compromises to step towards perfection. Just like DWB is for Accord, adopting RWD can help mitigate many of limits imposed on Acura today. Sure, it has its disadvantages but the advantages easily outweigh give the direction Acura must take.
It will also allow cars to be offered in multiple flavors. Instead of one-trim-fits all approach.
I don't think MDX needs a V8. I do think Acura needs a V8. The reason MDX could have a V8 is to spread the cost. The same reason I would vote for a V8 shared by even the "NSX". Acura could get by with just three-four engines, couple for TSX/RDX (K24, K23 Turbo), a 3.5/V6 and a 4.5/V8. Instead of the two I-4, two V6s and an exclusive V10.
Thats brings the other point... I hope Acura finds a better approach than to stubbornly stick with a 5-year plan. The game plan is almost written on stone... Year 1: Launch a vehicle, very well equipped (a few features will be missing) Year 2: Add a feature or two Year 3: Add another feature Year 4: Cosmetic changes and a feature or two will be added Year 5: Drag it on... the redesign is almost here.
I don't think a frequent redesign is necessary, but Acura needs to find a way to keep its lineup fresh. Thats how BMW survives, and leads. In a competitive market, Acura better be prepared. You can't just launch a great product and let it run a traditional course. Couple of years ago, I had read AHM suggest that in the future, steps will be taken to "surprise" as opposed to being predictable. That remains to be seen.
And its not just an Acura issue, it is a Honda issue. I can't believe S2000 was launched in summer of 1998 (at least in Japan) and the car has remained virtually unchanged in its ninth year (F20C to F22C was a patchwork). The competition has moved on.
I don't fully agree with your 5-year-plan. That seems rather unfair to the first year buyers (I am usually one of them :P ) since they usually pay more than the rest and get less.
Here's my proposal for a 5-year-plan for any car maker:
Year 1: Lauch the vehicle with the intention to shock the industry and very well equipped. For example, if the benchmark is 300 HP then introduce one with 350 HP. Much like what Lexus did with its 2006 IS (I am a long time Acura/Honda fan and had my heart set on the TL but after trying the IS out, it was all over). Year 2: Virtually no change (if year one was a "shock" then the hype should still be there). Year 3: Add a feature or two like new rims, more gadgets. Year 4: Cosmetic changes and boost the HP a bit, say 5 to 10 HP and of course add more features. Year 5: Add another feature or two then wait for the redesign.
Year 1: WOO the audience with a spectacular new car Year 2: Add body style Year 3: Change Engine/Transmission Year 4: Add features and restyle Year 5: Add more features Year 6: Change option packaging Year 7: Repeat all steps again
When Honda finished implementing the flexible manufacturing process in 2001, couple of benefits were claimed: - Multiple platforms on a single production line (we see that today, Element being made on same line as Accord, I believe, perhaps even RDX) - Minimal investment ($$$ and time) towards retooling necessary with redesigns, allowing for quicker makeovers
The second point remains to be seen. The claim was made also in part to address the need in Japanese market where new models tend to lose lustre rather quickly. So, Honda wanted to be prepared for redesigns happening as quickly as in two years.
Well, that may be an extreme case. But the fact remains that five years is a long time in a competitive market. Perhaps not as much of a risk if the vehicle starts out as a benchmark that others take four years to catch up if not beat (Accord may be considered an example, although styling issues from the beginning of the current generation didn't help although the rest of the car remains a great package).
Four years, and perhaps a staggered redesign cycle should certainly help Acura. It should not happen that since TSX, TL and RL share a platform, they get redesigned within a year, and nothing major happens for next 3-4 years. This would be another reason why TL and RL should perhaps move on to a new platform, and TSX can stay independent (continue sharing it with Accord).
Acura needs a trademark that makes an acura an acura. For example, Bmw has 4 trade marks: 1. The Corona Lights. 2. The Handling. 3. IDrive 4. "Bangle Butt"
Acura so far has: Sh-Awd Available in 3 models The TL and the TSX had the cool Squinty lights Navigation with traffic (all but Tsx and Csx) Few or no Options
Btw, I find it weird how the v6 Gs350 has more HP than the v8 GS430...
Year 1: Wow, the new BMW is here, even though it's ugly as hell but it is still a BMW. Year 2: Hot dang! It's a BMW. Year 3: It's a BMW with few more gadgets. Year 4: It's a BMW with new head and tail lights. Year 5: Even though it's almost the end but since it's a BMW it's automatically crown the benchmark by magzines such as C&D and MT. year 6: It's not competitive anymore but hey, it's still a BMW.
EVERYTHING IS MADE FROM THE ACCORD PLATFORM!! The Accord, Odyssey, Pilot, Element, Ridgeline, TL, TSX(euro accord), Mdx(not sure for 07), RL, and RDX.
The only exception are the RWD s2000, civic/csx, and CRV
Honda no longer needs a global truck platform. But honda does need more variation.
Unless honda builds a stretched s2000 platform for the TL, you can throw a RWD TL out the window. SH-AWD and/or a LSD would fix the TL's torque steer. -Cj
Doing it one more time... Global Economy Platform - Fit Global Compact Platform - Civic - RSX (dead) Global Midsize Platform - Accord - TSX - TL - RL Global Light Truck Platform - Odyssey - Pilot - Ridgeline - MDX
RDX and CRV are said to share a new light truck platform, which I doubt is the same as their larger siblings.
As for using "stretched S2000" platform for TL, that ain't happening. S2000 is using a speciality platform designed from ground up for a roadster, not really with platform sharing with mainstreamers.
SH-AWD is fine and dandy, but it comes with a hefty price tag, adds weight, deteriorates drivetrain efficiency and reduces accelerative performance.
That is incorrect. Accord uses global midsize car platform which shares next to nothing with say, Ridgeline or even Pilot, or the four-ring shell design used in Odyssey.
In fact, even within the global light truck platform there are substantial differences. For example, Ridgeline isn't 100% unibody. Pilot is a bit more unibody than Ridgeline. MDX is 100% unibody (unless things have changed with this iteratiion) and doesn't use 4-ring structure that is used exclusively in Odyssey. With these differences, another automaker could have easily called them as having three (if not four) different platforms.
The floor pan (and virtually anything that makes up for a classic definition of platform) is very different. For starters, the platform used by Accord (I refrain from calling it Accord platform because that will be a misnomer) uses double wishbone front suspension (GLT platform uses McPherson Struts) and modified 5-link double wishbone rear suspension (as opposed to 4-link independent rear suspension in GLT platform).
"A car could be a slow seller for several reasons. One trim fits all is one of them."
Well, the TL and TSX we are comparing were both introduced with options for an automatic or manual transmission and the NAV option. The only "extra trim" for the TL was HP tires.
There are plenty of reasons why the TSX doesn't sell in the same volume as the TL. I'm with you there. However, lacking trim levels isn't one of them.
"Another reason maybe is that the TSX is showing its age."
Yes and no. The TL was released in our market within months of us getting the TSX. So, as far as market perception is concerned, they are the same age.
We all know that the Euro Accord (which is a near twin for the TSX) was born a year earlier. So, it is an older design.
But one year isn't that big a difference and the fact that it wasn't sitting on Acura lots for that year reduces the age impact even further.
Besides, TSX sales have been on a pretty steady rise. I don't think its age is slowing it down much.
That is an interesting point, particularly due to the focus on differentiating Acura more from Honda. The formula you quote is very Honda, known for well balanced vehicles ... should it [Acura] go out and establish its own identity?
I think Acura can do both.
When it arrived on the scene, the 2004 TL was different enough from the Accord that it was a sales and image-boosting success. It's a strong example for demonstrating how platform-sharing can result in two good products. The larger/more powerful engine, the sportier suspension, the unique sheetmetal, and extra features found in the TL make it a compelling choice in the 30-40K segment.
At that price-point, the car doesn't need to be dramatically different. It just needs to be different enough.
Acura has had varying amounts of success with that. IMO the Pilot was too close to the original MDX. The RDX strays too far from the CR-V.
With the RDX, Acura did a great job of masking the CR-V DNA. Wildly different powertrain, sportier suspension, unique sheetmetal, and extra features are all part of the RDX package. The problem is they also deleted some of the practical utility and efficiency that makes the CR-V so compelling.
So, the formula would be to keep the good stuff and add more power, performance, luxury, and style. Pretty simple. Beyond that I think a wildly different halo car and a few unique characteristics are enough for marketing concerns. Keep SH-AWD, the ELS stereo, a full-size sedan, and a few engines unique to the Acura brand and it will stay ahead of Honda and competitive with the rest.
I am sure Acura needs to maintain its Honda DNA, hence our discussions from days ago. One can’t take Honda out of Acura, and shouldn’t.
While platform sharing with lesser car helps, Acura needs more. It needs a flagship, RL, that isn’t associated with mainstreamers. It needs its own platform. And that platform, for obvious reasons, need to be shared, and the best car for that purpose: TL.
Acura isn’t Lexus. Their consumer base appears to be quite different. ES350 may be breaking sales records, but make TL a virtual clone of ES350, and doom will follow. Acura needs to maintain and improve its image when it comes to producing exciting cars, not just cosmetically, but also in terms of driver involvement.
If Acura relies exclusively on SH-AWD to take it to the next level, they may be up for a surprise. I won’t be. The cost, weight and efficiency penalties are not worth making it the standard.
TL is certainly a compelling choice at $35K. I drive one. But, competition isn’t staying put. Instead of playing catch-up eventually, Acura needs to have a plan in place that doesn’t involve stepping on its own foot. Worse, shooting itself with poor decisions (1995-1998 era can serve as a good reminder).
As far as power is concerned, TL-S is almost there with the competition. The problem, its drive train layout is limiting marketing abilities.
All that Acura needs is couple of unique engines (a V6 and a V8) and a unique platform shared by TL and RL and possibly a CL. Things can’t get any simpler than that. For marketing, I still expect Acura to tie its racing efforts to a real production car. ASC in its current form cannot be that.
"While platform sharing with lesser car helps, Acura needs more. It needs a flagship, RL, that isn’t associated with mainstreamers. It needs its own platform. And that platform, for obvious reasons, need to be shared, and the best car for that purpose: TL."
That would be the obvious choice, but messing with the platform for the TL means messing with production for the Accord.
Other than oneupmanship in magazine comparos, there is no reason for the TL to move to a RWD platform. Making that move would not significantly increase sales. It already sells better than all but one RWD vehicle.
I understand that making this move would make it easier for them to build a real competitor in the RL. That's a worthy goal. However, basing a large sedan on a mid-size sedan platform means compromising. When given a design choice between X or Z, the company will have to chose whichever design best suits the TL. They have to. The TL is the money maker.
I think they're better off building an RL from the ground up. It will make the RL much more expensive to produce. True. But it will prevent them from making both the TL and RL more expensive.
They cannot afford to mess with the core Honda product and the core Acura for such a small gain. I think it's Habitat1 who is fond of writing "that's penny wise and pound foolish."
Part of Acura’s game plan needs to be one-upmanship as opposed to an also ran. I’m not sure how moving TL messes up Accord’s production. There are plenty of vehicles already doing that for different reasons (part of Accord’s production has been moved to East Liberty while RDX is being manufactured in Marysville).
If you meant some production volume will be lost. Yes, but how about Honda targeting an improvement on Accord’s sales itself (and its Acura variant, TSX’s) to make up for the loss? Luxury cars’ fortunes should not be dictated by a mainstreamer. Many would say that is actually a major part of Acura’s problems today.
Even if TL’s sales don’t increase, it will get an image boost and will be able to compete at a higher level than it can as it stands today. People should have fewer excuses to dismiss a TL at $40K.
Besides, the point of RWD TL isn’t for TL alone, it is also to help the car that really needs help, and that is RL. There is no point in developing an exclusive platform for RL. A new platform will offer ground up development of RL and TL will play a role to spread the cost. And in terms of marketing and image, both cars will benefit.
As far as platform sharing between a mid sizer and a full sizer goes, its no more of an issue than platform sharing between a compact (TSX) and a large mid sizer (Accord). In fact, I don’t think RL needs to be on the extra large side. TL could be offer 100 cu ft interior volume (currently 97 cu ft) and RL could offer 105 cu ft (IIRC, currently about 99 cu ft). This is easily possible on a single platform if Accord (101 cu ft) and TSX (92 cu ft) are possible.
The bottom line: To avoid a situation where a potential for mess exists between a niche lineup and a mainstream lineup, there are two choices. One, forget about the niche and let it die. Two, give them their own identity.
Bad idea, I think that the RL is one area where acura should go retro. I mean as in Legend. I sat in the Legend yesterday and I was reminded why it was sucha great car back in the day. Everything was where it needed to be and the controls were simple to use. It was fast, good trunk, and it even had a roomy feeling.
NON OF THAT CAN BE SAID FOR THE RL!! Acura should go back to the touch screen instead of the knob. So it leaves fingerprints, PUT A PLASTIC COVER ON IT!! The roomy feeling is gone!! I sat in the RL and felt cramped!
To fix the Rl, I agree. Acura should start over. Offer a panoramic roof, no Sh-awd until it weighs less then 3800lbs with it. Just make changes that will make it look more attractive than the Tl. Its hard but the benefits will be worth it!!
Use the 3.7. v8 is a good idea but wont be needed if the RL wasn't so heavy. A 6 or 7 speed automatic as 5s are getting fizzed out. Heated /Ventilated seats are a must as its still somewhat new.
I think the downsides that hurt the RL is the complicated interior, high price, and heavy weight that lead to lower MPG, and slower acceleration.
I have more to say on this topic but i'll stop for now. "I'll be back!!"
Robert, I don't see how making the TL into a RWD car is gonig to boost the image of an RL. If anything, that would give many buyers pause. Why buy the new RL when your RWD TL can be had for less?
Continue to make the TL FWD with SH-AWD as an option and the RWD RL stands out.
Autoboy, I can understand romancing the Legend. It was a great product for the day and age. However, the Legend was a V6-powered FWD sedan based on the Accord. That ain't gonna fly as a flagship car today. Besides, the old Legend is alive in today's TL; including the manual tranny.
You’re debunking the idea of platform sharing (between top two cars in the lineup) on the ground that the lesser car will hurt the image of the flagship. Then, why buy FWD TL when one could get Accord? Trying to differentiate Accord and TL using SH-AWD will be the least efficient approach (again: cost, weight, drive train efficiency and fuel economy). And SH-AWD can’t be made standard, unless Acura is okay with TL weighing ~3900 lb and starting at $38K.
Acura and Honda are hurting each other by competing with each other. Did they not learn a lesson from the tussle between RSX and Civic? Honda can’t be aggressive with Accord to avoid marketing issues with TL. This can give an upper hand to the customers.
The price gap between TL and RL is already huge. An exclusive low volume platform for RL is only going to make it worse. Acura needs to differentiate RL not on platform, but on size and features, marketed as a true flagship. It needs to be a logical step up from TL without being overly expensive. TL could be marketed as a lesser version (again, top down, not bottom up, marketing helps create a perception that AHM hasn’t understood in the past).
If Acura hasn’t developed a RWD platform yet, and is ready with its next TL, it is too late anyway. Perhaps they would like to experience another set back before making adjustments.
My concern isn’t about the past or the present, but the future. Can Acura improve its lineup without forcing Honda to stay put? Does Honda have the freedom to be aggressive with its offerings without stepping on Acura’s toes?
G35 may be RWD, but its weaknesses went beyond that benefit. RWD is not the end-all, there has to be more. TL has rest of the things done right. Besides, I would be driving TSX today, had I gotten a deal on it instead. Less than invoice on TL seemed better than close to MSRP on TSX.
And if I didn’t already have an Accord, I would have gotten another, but likely in an effort to keep it a step behind, Honda seems to make more compromises than necessary in its best seller. We saw that in the past between Civic and RSX. And unless TL gets its own identity, the issue is likely to continue for Accord.
Seems like a nice problem to have. Honda's got three cars built on the same platform and you would have bought any one of the three rather than a RWD G35 (or, apparently, a CTS, 3 series, C class, or IS).
Yeah, they had only two on Civic, and one is dead.
I don't see it as a nice problem, a deliberate attempt to ensure that Accord doesn't look better than its more expensive siblings. One would be creating a handicap, and providing an upper hand to the competition that couldn't care less.
Platform sharing shouldn't be about sibling rivalry. There's moderation, and then there is extreme.
As I said earlier, RWD is not end all but can work as a foundation to build upon. Its easier to fix looks and achieve refinement, it isn't as easy to create a foundation. At this point, the only edge TL has over 3-series IMO, is value and promise of long term reliability. Is it too much to ask adding dynamics? Simply resting on past laurels is a bad idea. Building upon it is necessary to keep the success going.
I was suggesting looking to the past to better the future. Someone else had it PERFECT when they stated the RL s major and biggest problem.
The RL isn't very fun to drive. Thats why I brought up the legend. It was very fun to drive!! Honda should make that the next RL/legends priority. Increasing passenger space (Tl has more interior volume than RL) and making it fun to drive. Fun to dive as in:
- Linear steering - Good off the line - Perhaps a diesel engine for better Fuel efficiency and torque
I am against the idea of a RWD TL as honda has been doing perfectly fine with FWD. All of its AWD are FWD biased too.
i'll put in 2 cents. too bad the RL was not named the TL. Then it could have represented 'Technology Leader', which fits in nicely with the current acura theme. RL just reminds me of ReguLar. How about reintroducing a 'Legend'?
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Think the TL will sell more with RWD? Possibly but probably not. It has done quite well with its FWD set up. AWD, maybe. The TL at 38k does not seem like a value but when you look at a 3-series at 50K it is a bargain.
Yes, I do. One of the main criticisms of the TL is its FWD platform. The TL handles ok even with it being FWD but IMHO will do better w/ A RWD setup. If Acura decides to go AWD as standard equipment it would only add more weight which IMO is not a good thing (but it's still better than only having a FWD option). If Acura would go RWD, it would capture some prospective BMW, IS, G and CTS buyers who are looking for some performance oriented driving.
Most if not all TL-S buyers are not paying 38k. Try 35k. A 50k BMW might be a bargain to few. My 32k TL was a bargain to me. It would be more of a bargain if it was RWD.
One of the main criticisms of the TL is its FWD platform. The TL handles ok even with it being FWD but IMHO will do better w/ A RWD setup.
Are current/recent buyers of TL criticizing FWD setup? Does anybody know if significant amount of potential buyers were lost because of FWD?
Don't understand some who clamor for RWD in TL. Maybe those who do either live in non-snowy regions or park their RWD vehicles in garage and use a FWD vehicle in the snow. Most people in snow areas, who use their vehicles daily, appreciate the extra margin of traction/safety that a FWD provides over a RWD. A RWD vehicle (same class/weight) will never be able to equal the poor weather handling capabilities of a FWD - snow, rain and especially ice.
TL handling in dry is excellent per "actual" test data and subjective evaluation by Edmunds, R&T, CR, etc. While testers have stated that BMW 3 RWD has better "feel", they acknowledge that somehow the Acura suspension engineers did a great job at setting up the car.
A RWD TL model would gain overall body weight in order to have same interior volume as current FWD. Would that be a good thing?
Are current/recent buyers of TL criticizing FWD setup?
Count me as one. While I am ok with its FF set up, ideal would be to go FR. While I don't live in snow belt, it hasn't stopped Infiniti, Lexus, Mercedes and BMW from selling RWD cars. And Acura could always offer SH-AWD as an option.
That said, TL doesn't NEED to go RWD, but it will be a nice thing to have, along with everything that car brings. It will be another step towards perfection. It will also help share cost with RL, a car that definitely needs a good boost that can only come from a platform designed around ITS needs.
Besides, TL moving to a completely different platform will allow Accord to be better. The Honda doesn't need to always take a back seat to TL since only major differentiation between the two has to involve styling. If Accord looked like as good as the TL, what would be the incentive to buy a TL over it? Hence, Honda must ensure that Accord doesn't look as good. The result... it loses sales.
A RWD TL model would gain overall body weight in order to have same interior volume as current FWD.
Why would that happen? BMW 530i is slightly bigger than TL, and weighs about the same while competing with RL. Infiniti doesn't have trouble keeping the size and weight issues aside. Lexus doesn't either. How about Mercedes?
Comments
Rocky
Yeah the ES350 is more of a cushy/smooth riding sedan where as the TL is a sport/luxury sedan.
"More people are likely to compare TL to IS, G35 and BMW 3-series."
Don;t forget about the Caddy CTS either(the CTS is all new for the 08 model year.) What about the Volvo S60(if Volvo ever redesigns the current S60 which dates back to the 01 model year.)
Sorry if my posts are not as insightful(as they usually are) this week. I have been posting at night the past of couple days when I am tired.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This is another major area Acura needs to get its act straightened out. Poor decisions taken earlier are hurting them now.
Yet, most everyone's solution for Acura is bigger engines and RWD in a quest for more performance.
I don't know if you've driven one, yet, but the RDX is probably the next most sporty car on the lot. Yeah, it's nothing compared to a sport coupe or sedan, but it's as sporty as an SUV is likely to get. It's also one of the least popular.
Meanwhile the best sellers are the relatively staid MDX and TL.
TSX is a good example of showing limitations of the platform as it applies to vehicles wearing a luxury badge. More power is expected as one goes up the ladder, and better performance evaluations by the media serve as marketing tools. Without these, Acura will be going nowhere, but down.
The TSX has the most nimbleness of any of the current Acura cars, and the most communicative driver controls. As for the responsiveness of the engine to the gas pedal, Acura could take a lesson or two from VW Group's new 2.0T. It makes better gas mileage than the 2.4 in the TSX with faster 0-60 times and much more torque, available at a lower rpm.
Since Honda has decided to start using turbos an' all...
:-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
What do you mean stiad the way they drive or the way they look? The TL has gotten good reviews I think. I don;t read the magazines at all but the TL from what I hear is a great car. As far as the TL's looks its best looking in its class probably.
As far as MDX is concerned the last generation MDX was panned actually by Consumer Reports. I thought the 01-06 MDX was a good looking truck. The new one is ugly though.
-Cj
Not to get too off topic but I think Audi might have their reliability issues worked out. Consumer Reports actually rates the current generations of Audi A4 and A6 average in reliability.
As for Audi;s interiors the current generation of A4 and A6 while more reliable(so far) than past generations of A4 and A6 the interiors in the current generation of A4 and A6 are not as cutting edge as past generations of A4 and A6.
But the Acuras have decent interiors already. I don't need them to be Audi-gorgeous as long as the engineering and reliability are all there, 100%.
The truth is that none of the carmakers take weight reduction seriously, not even Honda, and I see now that many of the industry's three-row crossovers are getting perilously close to three full tons in curb weight. Unbelievable. Meanwhile, Honda seems to have decided that adding a ton of electronics is what "luxury buyers" are looking for. Can they even be characterized this simply? This, while the driving exerience in Acuras becomes more and more remote, due to the increased intervention of electronics and an explosion in weight.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Oh, I think the TL and MDX are the two best products in the Acura line-up. They provide a good balance of sport, luxury, and practicality.
But if you post the question, "How could Acura improve?" you'll get a barrage of statements about the TL moving to RWD and adding a V8 to the MDX. Obviously, people think Acura needs to increase the sportiness of their line-up. (Which I think is odd given how the sportier cars tend to sell in lower volumes.)
As for the MDX, I drive a 2004. It's handsome vehicle, but it's not eye-popping or sexy. IMO, the new one looks far better. But the great thing about the new MDX is that it still balances sport with luxury and practicality, just like the original.
The current TL also manages this trick (just like the 2001 TL my wife drives.) Both vehicles are better in most every way without any compromises. And both are doing very well in the market.
Which is why all these calls for Acura to become a sports car company make me cringe.
A car could be a slow seller for several reasons. One trim fits all is one of them.
The TL was THE best selling entry level luxury sedan during in its early years. However, the re-designed 2006 3-series took the crown back in a hurry.
That is an interesting point, particularly due to the focus on differentiating Acura more from Honda. The formula you quote is very Honda, known for well balanced vehicles that are neither overly cushy nor sporty but somewhere in-between with emphasis on practicality. Should Acura stick to that formula? I can't say about the future but it has worked in its favor so far. Or should it go out and establish its own identity? What should that be?
Given the image Acura is striving to achieve, demanding for RWD isn't asking for too much. Whatever they do, it better not be a half hearted attempt, a patchwork as I would call it.
Use of RWD platform guarantees sports car approach as much as use of double wishbone suspension makes Accord a sports car. McPherson struts are enough and clearly get the job done in the class Accord competes in (See: Altima or Camry). So, what is the point of DWB? Think compromises. RWD and SH-AWD aren't mutually exclusive either! If the latter promises to be a ground breaker, use it!
There is no perfect layout. One can only minimize compromises to step towards perfection. Just like DWB is for Accord, adopting RWD can help mitigate many of limits imposed on Acura today. Sure, it has its disadvantages but the advantages easily outweigh give the direction Acura must take.
It will also allow cars to be offered in multiple flavors. Instead of one-trim-fits all approach.
I don't think MDX needs a V8. I do think Acura needs a V8. The reason MDX could have a V8 is to spread the cost. The same reason I would vote for a V8 shared by even the "NSX". Acura could get by with just three-four engines, couple for TSX/RDX (K24, K23 Turbo), a 3.5/V6 and a 4.5/V8. Instead of the two I-4, two V6s and an exclusive V10.
Year 1: Launch a vehicle, very well equipped (a few features will be missing)
Year 2: Add a feature or two
Year 3: Add another feature
Year 4: Cosmetic changes and a feature or two will be added
Year 5: Drag it on... the redesign is almost here.
I don't think a frequent redesign is necessary, but Acura needs to find a way to keep its lineup fresh. Thats how BMW survives, and leads. In a competitive market, Acura better be prepared. You can't just launch a great product and let it run a traditional course. Couple of years ago, I had read AHM suggest that in the future, steps will be taken to "surprise" as opposed to being predictable. That remains to be seen.
And its not just an Acura issue, it is a Honda issue. I can't believe S2000 was launched in summer of 1998 (at least in Japan) and the car has remained virtually unchanged in its ninth year (F20C to F22C was a patchwork). The competition has moved on.
Here's my proposal for a 5-year-plan for any car maker:
Year 1: Lauch the vehicle with the intention to shock the industry and very well equipped. For example, if the benchmark is 300 HP then introduce one with 350 HP. Much like what Lexus did with its 2006 IS (I am a long time Acura/Honda fan and had my heart set on the TL but after trying the IS out, it was all over).
Year 2: Virtually no change (if year one was a "shock" then the hype should still be there).
Year 3: Add a feature or two like new rims, more gadgets.
Year 4: Cosmetic changes and boost the HP a bit, say 5 to 10 HP and of course add more features.
Year 5: Add another feature or two then wait for the redesign.
Year 1: WOO the audience with a spectacular new car
Year 2: Add body style
Year 3: Change Engine/Transmission
Year 4: Add features and restyle
Year 5: Add more features
Year 6: Change option packaging
Year 7: Repeat all steps again
- Multiple platforms on a single production line (we see that today, Element being made on same line as Accord, I believe, perhaps even RDX)
- Minimal investment ($$$ and time) towards retooling necessary with redesigns, allowing for quicker makeovers
The second point remains to be seen. The claim was made also in part to address the need in Japanese market where new models tend to lose lustre rather quickly. So, Honda wanted to be prepared for redesigns happening as quickly as in two years.
Well, that may be an extreme case. But the fact remains that five years is a long time in a competitive market. Perhaps not as much of a risk if the vehicle starts out as a benchmark that others take four years to catch up if not beat (Accord may be considered an example, although styling issues from the beginning of the current generation didn't help although the rest of the car remains a great package).
Four years, and perhaps a staggered redesign cycle should certainly help Acura. It should not happen that since TSX, TL and RL share a platform, they get redesigned within a year, and nothing major happens for next 3-4 years. This would be another reason why TL and RL should perhaps move on to a new platform, and TSX can stay independent (continue sharing it with Accord).
1. The Corona Lights.
2. The Handling.
3. IDrive
4. "Bangle Butt"
Acura so far has:
Sh-Awd Available in 3 models
The TL and the TSX had the cool Squinty lights
Navigation with traffic (all but Tsx and Csx)
Few or no Options
Btw, I find it weird how the v6 Gs350 has more HP than the v8 GS430...
Year 1: Wow, the new BMW is here, even though it's ugly as hell but it is still a BMW.
Year 2: Hot dang! It's a BMW.
Year 3: It's a BMW with few more gadgets.
Year 4: It's a BMW with new head and tail lights.
Year 5: Even though it's almost the end but since it's a BMW it's automatically crown the benchmark by magzines such as C&D and MT.
year 6: It's not competitive anymore but hey, it's still a BMW.
:P
The Accord, Odyssey, Pilot, Element, Ridgeline, TL, TSX(euro accord), Mdx(not sure for 07), RL, and RDX.
The only exception are the RWD s2000, civic/csx, and CRV
Honda no longer needs a global truck platform. But honda does need more variation.
Unless honda builds a stretched s2000 platform for the TL, you can throw a RWD TL out the window. SH-AWD and/or a LSD would fix the TL's torque steer.
-Cj
Doing it one more time...
Global Economy Platform
- Fit
Global Compact Platform
- Civic
- RSX (dead)
Global Midsize Platform
- Accord
- TSX
- TL
- RL
Global Light Truck Platform
- Odyssey
- Pilot
- Ridgeline
- MDX
RDX and CRV are said to share a new light truck platform, which I doubt is the same as their larger siblings.
As for using "stretched S2000" platform for TL, that ain't happening. S2000 is using a speciality platform designed from ground up for a roadster, not really with platform sharing with mainstreamers.
SH-AWD is fine and dandy, but it comes with a hefty price tag, adds weight, deteriorates drivetrain efficiency and reduces accelerative performance.
I forgot all about the fit...
In fact, even within the global light truck platform there are substantial differences. For example, Ridgeline isn't 100% unibody. Pilot is a bit more unibody than Ridgeline. MDX is 100% unibody (unless things have changed with this iteratiion) and doesn't use 4-ring structure that is used exclusively in Odyssey. With these differences, another automaker could have easily called them as having three (if not four) different platforms.
The floor pan (and virtually anything that makes up for a classic definition of platform) is very different. For starters, the platform used by Accord (I refrain from calling it Accord platform because that will be a misnomer) uses double wishbone front suspension (GLT platform uses McPherson Struts) and modified 5-link double wishbone rear suspension (as opposed to 4-link independent rear suspension in GLT platform).
Well, the TL and TSX we are comparing were both introduced with options for an automatic or manual transmission and the NAV option. The only "extra trim" for the TL was HP tires.
There are plenty of reasons why the TSX doesn't sell in the same volume as the TL. I'm with you there. However, lacking trim levels isn't one of them.
Yes and no. The TL was released in our market within months of us getting the TSX. So, as far as market perception is concerned, they are the same age.
We all know that the Euro Accord (which is a near twin for the TSX) was born a year earlier. So, it is an older design.
But one year isn't that big a difference and the fact that it wasn't sitting on Acura lots for that year reduces the age impact even further.
Besides, TSX sales have been on a pretty steady rise. I don't think its age is slowing it down much.
I think Acura can do both.
When it arrived on the scene, the 2004 TL was different enough from the Accord that it was a sales and image-boosting success. It's a strong example for demonstrating how platform-sharing can result in two good products. The larger/more powerful engine, the sportier suspension, the unique sheetmetal, and extra features found in the TL make it a compelling choice in the 30-40K segment.
At that price-point, the car doesn't need to be dramatically different. It just needs to be different enough.
Acura has had varying amounts of success with that. IMO the Pilot was too close to the original MDX. The RDX strays too far from the CR-V.
With the RDX, Acura did a great job of masking the CR-V DNA. Wildly different powertrain, sportier suspension, unique sheetmetal, and extra features are all part of the RDX package. The problem is they also deleted some of the practical utility and efficiency that makes the CR-V so compelling.
So, the formula would be to keep the good stuff and add more power, performance, luxury, and style. Pretty simple. Beyond that I think a wildly different halo car and a few unique characteristics are enough for marketing concerns. Keep SH-AWD, the ELS stereo, a full-size sedan, and a few engines unique to the Acura brand and it will stay ahead of Honda and competitive with the rest.
While platform sharing with lesser car helps, Acura needs more. It needs a flagship, RL, that isn’t associated with mainstreamers. It needs its own platform. And that platform, for obvious reasons, need to be shared, and the best car for that purpose: TL.
Acura isn’t Lexus. Their consumer base appears to be quite different. ES350 may be breaking sales records, but make TL a virtual clone of ES350, and doom will follow. Acura needs to maintain and improve its image when it comes to producing exciting cars, not just cosmetically, but also in terms of driver involvement.
If Acura relies exclusively on SH-AWD to take it to the next level, they may be up for a surprise. I won’t be. The cost, weight and efficiency penalties are not worth making it the standard.
TL is certainly a compelling choice at $35K. I drive one. But, competition isn’t staying put. Instead of playing catch-up eventually, Acura needs to have a plan in place that doesn’t involve stepping on its own foot. Worse, shooting itself with poor decisions (1995-1998 era can serve as a good reminder).
As far as power is concerned, TL-S is almost there with the competition. The problem, its drive train layout is limiting marketing abilities.
All that Acura needs is couple of unique engines (a V6 and a V8) and a unique platform shared by TL and RL and possibly a CL. Things can’t get any simpler than that. For marketing, I still expect Acura to tie its racing efforts to a real production car. ASC in its current form cannot be that.
That would be the obvious choice, but messing with the platform for the TL means messing with production for the Accord.
Other than oneupmanship in magazine comparos, there is no reason for the TL to move to a RWD platform. Making that move would not significantly increase sales. It already sells better than all but one RWD vehicle.
I understand that making this move would make it easier for them to build a real competitor in the RL. That's a worthy goal. However, basing a large sedan on a mid-size sedan platform means compromising. When given a design choice between X or Z, the company will have to chose whichever design best suits the TL. They have to. The TL is the money maker.
I think they're better off building an RL from the ground up. It will make the RL much more expensive to produce. True. But it will prevent them from making both the TL and RL more expensive.
They cannot afford to mess with the core Honda product and the core Acura for such a small gain. I think it's Habitat1 who is fond of writing "that's penny wise and pound foolish."
If you meant some production volume will be lost. Yes, but how about Honda targeting an improvement on Accord’s sales itself (and its Acura variant, TSX’s) to make up for the loss? Luxury cars’ fortunes should not be dictated by a mainstreamer. Many would say that is actually a major part of Acura’s problems today.
Even if TL’s sales don’t increase, it will get an image boost and will be able to compete at a higher level than it can as it stands today. People should have fewer excuses to dismiss a TL at $40K.
Besides, the point of RWD TL isn’t for TL alone, it is also to help the car that really needs help, and that is RL. There is no point in developing an exclusive platform for RL. A new platform will offer ground up development of RL and TL will play a role to spread the cost. And in terms of marketing and image, both cars will benefit.
As far as platform sharing between a mid sizer and a full sizer goes, its no more of an issue than platform sharing between a compact (TSX) and a large mid sizer (Accord). In fact, I don’t think RL needs to be on the extra large side. TL could be offer 100 cu ft interior volume (currently 97 cu ft) and RL could offer 105 cu ft (IIRC, currently about 99 cu ft). This is easily possible on a single platform if Accord (101 cu ft) and TSX (92 cu ft) are possible.
The bottom line: To avoid a situation where a potential for mess exists between a niche lineup and a mainstream lineup, there are two choices. One, forget about the niche and let it die. Two, give them their own identity.
I vote for number two.
NON OF THAT CAN BE SAID FOR THE RL!! Acura should go back to the touch screen instead of the knob. So it leaves fingerprints, PUT A PLASTIC COVER ON IT!! The roomy feeling is gone!! I sat in the RL and felt cramped!
To fix the Rl, I agree. Acura should start over. Offer a panoramic roof, no Sh-awd until it weighs less then 3800lbs with it. Just make changes that will make it look more attractive than the Tl. Its hard but the benefits will be worth it!!
Use the 3.7. v8 is a good idea but wont be needed if the RL wasn't so heavy. A 6 or 7 speed automatic as 5s are getting fizzed out. Heated /Ventilated seats are a must as its still somewhat new.
I think the downsides that hurt the RL is the complicated interior, high price, and heavy weight that lead to lower MPG, and slower acceleration.
I have more to say on this topic but i'll stop for now. "I'll be back!!"
-Cj
Ah, the Legend GS 6-speed, it's all gone downhill from there relative to Acura's "flagship", at least as far as the "fun to drive" factor.
Continue to make the TL FWD with SH-AWD as an option and the RWD RL stands out.
Autoboy, I can understand romancing the Legend. It was a great product for the day and age. However, the Legend was a V6-powered FWD sedan based on the Accord. That ain't gonna fly as a flagship car today. Besides, the old Legend is alive in today's TL; including the manual tranny.
Acura and Honda are hurting each other by competing with each other. Did they not learn a lesson from the tussle between RSX and Civic? Honda can’t be aggressive with Accord to avoid marketing issues with TL. This can give an upper hand to the customers.
The price gap between TL and RL is already huge. An exclusive low volume platform for RL is only going to make it worse. Acura needs to differentiate RL not on platform, but on size and features, marketed as a true flagship. It needs to be a logical step up from TL without being overly expensive. TL could be marketed as a lesser version (again, top down, not bottom up, marketing helps create a perception that AHM hasn’t understood in the past).
If Acura hasn’t developed a RWD platform yet, and is ready with its next TL, it is too late anyway. Perhaps they would like to experience another set back before making adjustments.
As the owner of a brand new TL shouldn't you be able to answer that question yourself? If RWD is so important, why didn't you get the G35?
If that were a significant issue, the current and last generations of the TL would not have been best-sellers.
G35 may be RWD, but its weaknesses went beyond that benefit. RWD is not the end-all, there has to be more. TL has rest of the things done right. Besides, I would be driving TSX today, had I gotten a deal on it instead. Less than invoice on TL seemed better than close to MSRP on TSX.
And if I didn’t already have an Accord, I would have gotten another, but likely in an effort to keep it a step behind, Honda seems to make more compromises than necessary in its best seller. We saw that in the past between Civic and RSX. And unless TL gets its own identity, the issue is likely to continue for Accord.
I don't see it as a nice problem, a deliberate attempt to ensure that Accord doesn't look better than its more expensive siblings. One would be creating a handicap, and providing an upper hand to the competition that couldn't care less.
Platform sharing shouldn't be about sibling rivalry. There's moderation, and then there is extreme.
As I said earlier, RWD is not end all but can work as a foundation to build upon. Its easier to fix looks and achieve refinement, it isn't as easy to create a foundation. At this point, the only edge TL has over 3-series IMO, is value and promise of long term reliability. Is it too much to ask adding dynamics? Simply resting on past laurels is a bad idea. Building upon it is necessary to keep the success going.
s major and biggest problem.
The RL isn't very fun to drive. Thats why I brought up the legend. It was very fun to drive!! Honda should make that the next RL/legends priority. Increasing passenger space (Tl has more interior volume than RL) and making it fun to drive. Fun to dive as in:
- Linear steering
- Good off the line
- Perhaps a diesel engine for better Fuel efficiency and torque
I am against the idea of a RWD TL as honda has been doing perfectly fine with FWD. All of its AWD are FWD biased too.
-Cj
Yes, I do. One of the main criticisms of the TL is its FWD platform. The TL handles ok even with it being FWD but IMHO will do better w/ A RWD setup. If Acura decides to go AWD as standard equipment it would only add more weight which IMO is not a good thing (but it's still better than only having a FWD option). If Acura would go RWD, it would capture some prospective BMW, IS, G and CTS buyers who are looking for some performance oriented driving.
Most if not all TL-S buyers are not paying 38k. Try 35k. A 50k BMW might be a bargain to few. My 32k TL was a bargain to me. It would be more of a bargain if it was RWD.
Are current/recent buyers of TL criticizing FWD setup? Does anybody know if significant amount of potential buyers were lost because of FWD?
Don't understand some who clamor for RWD in TL. Maybe those who do either live in non-snowy regions or park their RWD vehicles in garage and use a FWD vehicle in the snow. Most people in snow areas, who use their vehicles daily, appreciate the extra margin of traction/safety that a FWD provides over a RWD. A RWD vehicle (same class/weight) will never be able to equal the poor weather handling capabilities of a FWD - snow, rain and especially ice.
TL handling in dry is excellent per "actual" test data and subjective evaluation by Edmunds, R&T, CR, etc. While testers have stated that BMW 3 RWD has better "feel", they acknowledge that somehow the Acura suspension engineers did a great job at setting up the car.
A RWD TL model would gain overall body weight in order to have same interior volume as current FWD. Would that be a good thing?
Count me as one. While I am ok with its FF set up, ideal would be to go FR. While I don't live in snow belt, it hasn't stopped Infiniti, Lexus, Mercedes and BMW from selling RWD cars. And Acura could always offer SH-AWD as an option.
That said, TL doesn't NEED to go RWD, but it will be a nice thing to have, along with everything that car brings. It will be another step towards perfection. It will also help share cost with RL, a car that definitely needs a good boost that can only come from a platform designed around ITS needs.
Besides, TL moving to a completely different platform will allow Accord to be better. The Honda doesn't need to always take a back seat to TL since only major differentiation between the two has to involve styling. If Accord looked like as good as the TL, what would be the incentive to buy a TL over it? Hence, Honda must ensure that Accord doesn't look as good. The result... it loses sales.
A RWD TL model would gain overall body weight in order to have same interior volume as current FWD.
Why would that happen? BMW 530i is slightly bigger than TL, and weighs about the same while competing with RL. Infiniti doesn't have trouble keeping the size and weight issues aside. Lexus doesn't either. How about Mercedes?