Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
M35 exterior is as polarizing as new BMW-5. You either love it or hate it. For me, the latter. I wouldn't pay for it even if it is $5K cheaper.
I guess people buying cars in the price range ($40K+) let their emotion take over a bit. Any 100% rational person would probably buy a Camry or an Accord instead.
if the rl mirrors the mdx, don't look for any significant pricing reductions for a while. best bets will be then to buy one coming off a 2-3 year lease unless your are prepared to go full boat.
BTW, the salesman also told me that the TL-navi is hard to get a hold of. It is selling very well.
It would be great if the new RL came at $45,000 MSRP. I just don't know how this is possible, since the current one is $46,000. Adding AWD alone should make it $48,000.
We'll see though. It's possible that they cut costs in various places. Maybe platform sharing with the TL (a streched version) will help them lower costs.
car manufacturers have long since figured how to price and achieve breakeven on cars. they know when to pull triggers on production afor accelerating or closing runs down to probably less than very few cars.
it was always funny to me that someone might buy an rl over an mdx once the mdx was out there. the mdx came with a better tranny, engine, drive system and more room w/o sacrificing much if anything in handling and ride at less sticker price. the reality is that the rl was "drove off" for less. unless you had to have a sedan, could not figure out why anyone bought the rl over the mdx period.
With a similar reasoning of yours, I would buy Pilot instead of MDX. It all comes down to how each person appreciate the differences between two. I have no problem with people loving the new M. However, the Edmund new M forum has been awfully quiet. Don't know why...
1. Has anyone gotten a better deal?
2. Somebody mentioned a AAA warranty. anyone has had positive/negative experiences with it?
3. Is it possible to buy acura warranty from any dealer nation wide?
Feedback is highly appreciated.
as for the pilot v mdx, it gets back to content and tuning. the mdx is much more attractive to me in all regards.
a close friend is an mb bigot. (2) 3-starred rides in his driveway and now he's talking about the new rl (w/some prodding from me). he's been out of warranty on one of his mb's for a couple of years and it's been toll heavy for him. his wife recently and uncoerced commented from the back of my old beater '96 that she likes the acura better than his mb. course I'm also prodding him toward an xj8 which is what I'd have if money was no object...it would be almost as good to ride in his. seriously, if the rl pans out anywhere nearly as good as the descriptions say it will, what else would one buy under 50k unless they were looking strictly for a racer?
With a similar reasoning of yours, I would buy Pilot instead of MDX. It all comes down to how each person appreciate the differences between two. I have no problem with people loving the new M. However, the Edmund new M forum has been awfully quiet. Don't know why...
Jeff, while I have nothing against Jaguar, I even own an XKR at the moment, I'll be the first to admit that buying a new Jaguar is about one of the dumbest decisions you can possibly make. Jaguar has just about the worst residual of any luxury car company. For example, an '01 XJ8 with reasonable mileage (50K), is literally a $22,000 car. You can get one for the price of a Chevy Impala, which is why until recently I've been buying XK8s and Rs 3-4 years old, but I've grown tired of the reliability issues and general blandness, Jags arent particularly entertaining to drive, and the J-gate shifter is still just as bad as the first one. If your friend is considering a J8, I would strongly urge him to consider a new LS430 instead. It will out accelerate, outbrake, and with the sport suspension, outhandle even the new aluminum bodied car. You also get Lexus reliability, strong residual, and the NAV, but the real treat is the Mark Levinson stereo.
My home system is a five figure setup powered by twin Parasound Halo monoblocks and SSP, and the Levinson sytem comes pretty damn close to recreating that kind of listening experience in the car. None of the German's bose setups can even come within a country mile. Jaguar is forced to share Alpine audio components with Ford, and the "premium" system in the XKR is a joke.
Lexusguy, have you tried the BMW Logic-7 system on newer 7-series? I heard it was pretty good also. I once sat in a LS430 with M/L. It was crispy. Way ahead of Alpine in older BMW.
Not necessarily. RL would continue to be more powerful, more refined, larger and more luxurious than TL, of course at a premium. Acura will likely wait couple of years before using it in TL when the model attains a mid-life crisis (usually third year of the model cycle).
Not sure about TSX though. Acura should consider AWD with hybrid option instead. TSX is already a heavy car for the 200 HP. SH-AWD will likely add 200-225 HP. Unless Acura plans, and can squeeze in the 3.0 liter V6 from Accord.
2). NO NO NO. Never buy a 3rd party warranty. More often than not, they aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
3). Yep, several dealers will sell via the internet. You should be able to find a 7/100 $0 deductable for around $1000ish (say $1100 or so)
If the performance, handling and ride are fairly similar between the '04 mdx and '04 rl, and it is; the price is the same and the content much richer as it is with the mdx, I ask you, why not?
btw, I totally agree with all the logic around the lexus over the jag, but recall, I also stated that money is no object. as it is, money will always be an object with me so I am doomed to never own a jag. doomed I say! there is no logical arguement for a jag v. lexus but there sure is an emotional one.
would think acura would not want to offer awd to the tl keep the product differentiation intact.
am glad the rl is outfitted with a highly sophisticated awd system -- should keep the rwd biased crowd at bay. why wouldn't anyone prefer a functionally superior awd to rwd? porsche does -- ask any porsche-ster what they would choose. those porsche folks do know a little about handling. back when I was choosing fwd v rwd, my geography/climate pointed to fwd. here in TX, it's the opposite. have never been much for listening to absolutes around superficial logic and am darned glad there is such a wealth of desireable cars from which to choose.
So: if I wanted a warranty extension (which I don't use, btw) whether I used the dealer or AAA would depend on two things: the location and relationship I had with the dealer -- if the dealer is far away, or if I preferred dealing with someone other than the Acura dealership (which is more expensive for service than an independent), I would go with AAA. In fact, in many areas there are good independent Honda specialists who are quite qualified to deal with Acura products and will be reasonable to deal with. JW
M
M
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
this may have been hashed before, but is the RL going to have a mini-electric engine attached to the rear wheels that gets recharged while cruising and provides a torque boost from a standing stop?
it sounds cool but i have to ask, is it worthwhile to be the guinea pig for new tech like this? i don't think many mechanics would be familiar with this, also sounds like you could have repair/maintenance costs on 2 sets of engines.
i'm a big honda fan, but i'm beginning to agree with the v8 fans. i think honda/acura should just bite the bullet and design a RWD platform and a v8 engine, and use that platform for the RL and a modified version of that platform for bigger trucks and full size SUVs as Nissan is doing with the Titan, Armada and QX56.
i just don't see a future for this electric engine with clean diesel on the horizon, and i think honda could easily design a fuel-efficient v8. i've read that GM is designing a v8 which turns into an i4 when extra power is not needed which really boosts mileage.
since honda makes the best i4s in the business, why not slap 2 of them together for a v8 and let it turn back into an i4 when extra power is not necessary. i know this is oversimplified, but i don't see why it would be harder to do this than going with the dual v6/electric hybrid engines.
“i just don't see a future for this electric engine with clean diesel on the horizon”
Electric assist can be used with diesel engines as well. Something that neither diesel nor gasoline engines can do is beat the smooth and strong low-end power delivery of an electric motor. And electric motor hold their own promises into the future, including their use in Fuel Cell vehicles. They have been used in the past, and will be in the future.
That said, RL isn’t getting electric assist for now anyway, although I hope someday it does.
“i think honda could easily design a fuel-efficient v8. i've read that GM is designing a v8 which turns into an i4 when extra power is not needed which really boosts mileage.”
It is not necessarily about mileage. Honda is already using variable cylinder management (similar in concept to GM’s displacement on demand) with its V6 engine, and that will debut with 2005 Accord Hybrid and 2005 Odyssey this fall in the USA.
But V8 promises little in terms of [real] market gain. I don’t understand the fascination with cylinder count. I would rather see Honda work diligently on developing and refining a V6+electric power train that delivers it all, and then some.
V6 with DOD and IMA = Good performance and 4 cylinder economy.
The only question is cost. I'm sure a V8 engine with DOD is cheaper than a V6 with DOD and IMA. But is it cheaper than a V6 with DOD, IMA, AND a whole new car platform? Doubt it. Using an enhanced V6 allows for platform sharing and that saves big bucks. That engine and IMA combination could go into many vehicles, while the V8 would be more limited.
Why spend time and money on something that few care about?
Currently, Audi -- and they are not entirely alone -- offers an A6 2.7T V6 and an A6 4.2 V8. If both are equipped with a 5spd auto, the 2.7T accelerates to 100km about a half second quicker and $8,000 cheaper.
If Acuras new V6 is 300HP and is connected to an ALL WHEEL DRIVE system as discussed here and is priced at $45K -- well there will be lots of people, I would think who will consider knocking there heads and saying "I coulda had a V-6!"
I have been reading a lot more of the postings, reviews and professional commentaries here, there and everywhere -- bragging rights about a V8 are one thing (and I'm not unconvinced they have SOME merit) -- but overall performance and (even at this price point) value (and content) will sell cars.
If my V8 is blown away by this new Acura V6, the fact that I paid some $8K more will be of zero consolation.
My friend used to say "there's no replacement for displacement" -- until he met two new measurements, horsepower and torque.
Should Honda make a V8 -- sure, probably. But that is separate from the question of whether the new Acura RL "needs" one. Maybe the market will determine that it will.
Anecdotes and data suggest otherwise, however.
I don't think nissan have any V8 sedans, unless you talking about infiniti. You can use unibody platform for both sedans and SUV, but in case of Armada, you right, they use different platform which in 21 century can not be used for sedans.
Dodge, have V8-L4 engine, well knowen HEMI
I was under the mistaken impression that the RL was achieving its 300 HP with a 270 HP FWD v6 plus a 30+ HP electric engine attached to the rear wheels. When I said "I would rather have had a v8", I meant I would rather have had a v8 than have a first generation v6/electric hybrid engine.
However, although a sedan doesn't need a v8 (I agree with all the people here that very few feel that the expense and gas guzzling v8 is needed for a sedan), I think Acura could use a v8 for its larger SUVs.
Having driven my MDX for a while, the v6 engine is fine in most cases but the engine really does strain in first gear and IMO could use a little bit of extra displacement or the extra 2 cylinders.
IMO, the point of developing a v8 for the RL is not to have the bragging rights in the sedan class, it's to make the option available in the sedan class (whether it sells or not) along with now having a v8 available for the MDX, Pilot, SUT and any larger SUVs/trucks that come out of the Honda pipeline.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a v8 will fit in a FWD platform very easily because there isn't enough room to support such a large engine plus the FWD drivetrain.
Refusing to develop a v8 sends a message that Honda corporate is (1) refusing to enter the larger SUV/truck market, where such an engine is definitely desirable and IMO, probably necessary and (2) has no plans to develop a RWD platform.
I know it's expensive to develop new platforms. But if it was worth developing a RWD platform for any model it was the RL which was long overdue for an update. Let's say it costs $500 million to develop the new FWD RL platform and it would have cost an extra $200 million to develop a RWD RL platform and an extra $100 million to develop a v8.
My point is, why not spend that extra $300 million (I don't know if these numbers are correct) now. I agree they will not get the return on that investment immediately in the RL, but the experience gained will help them leverage into the the larger truck/SUV market which is very profitable.
If you had the RL, made a cheaper Honda version of the RL (like the Avalon but RWD), a full size van, full size Honda SUV and full size Acura SUV off of the platform and developed a v8 with high compression and more performance for the Acura versions, I thought it would be possible to get some decent ROI.
However, it seems like that's not the case and Honda would have to develop a totally new platform for the full sized SUVs.
It seems like with the sedans the only real economically feasible choice was FWD/AWD v6 for the RL.
Hopefully Honda will make a big SUV RWD frame and v8 because as my family is growing, I need one.
The automotive press are all abuzz that for 2005 the price of "entry" into this class (premium, sporty, whatever. . .) is EITHER RWD or AWD.
Hence the CTS, CTS-v, STS and Chrysler 300 and next the Dodge Charger. Mercedes almost all model-wide adoption of AWD will, so says BMW dealer, be followed by AWD variants of many BMW's (eventually all?). The Phaeton is ONLY AWD, the upcoming new Passat will look like a mini Phaeton and be -- in the US at least -- generally offered (option or not) with AWD.
The new Audi A6, so I have read, will only be brought here in quattro form -- and so on.
Perhaps the argument that Acura needs a V8 (for "me too" bragging rights) is, after all then, valid. The by product of such a development does seem to have the added benefit of allowing Honda/Acura to place said V8 in its MDX and future similar offerings.
What if, from this point forward, however (to take an opposing view) a gallon of gas (almost certainly Premium juice) stays above $2.00 USD -- and continues a steady march upward? When Honda can produce a 300HP engine w/6 cylinders while the "other guys" only recently couldn't get there even with V8's (a recent BMW 7 series w a V8 was 280HP, for example) -- it would seem the market would also have room to say both bigger is better and "better" (without increasing the CID) is also better.
I have, personally, had 3 V8 engined cars since 1997, three 4 cylinder autos and 2 V6's.
Other than bragging rights, the only thing that was better about the V8 was the sound -- and, don't get me wrong, that sound was/is intoxicating. But, funny thing, my twin turbo Audi V6 is a quicker car than all three of my Audi V8 equipped cars (one A8 and two A6 4.2's).
When I am driving -- the performance gets my vote (and I am voting with dollars) every time. And, I did, very much, like the feel of my V8's -- they, at the time, seemed more solid. Truth be told, however, they cost a lot more and were actually less potent than the V6's -- the 4 cyc cars were/are TT's with the HP output (225) and, again, the only thing "missing" is that ballsy sound -- the performance is potent, indeed.
Would a Honda V8, now that the new 6 will come in at 300HP, have to be 20% more potent in the HP number to "justify its exsistance"? Would a 360HP Acura win friends and influence people? Or would someone with the wherewithall to purchase such power look elsewhere than Acura/Honda products?
I don't have a clue -- these are just requests for your input for your valuable opinion.
mazda made a v6 that I believe displaced 2.2 liters yet was a smooth as silk and sipped gas like a 4. volvo, mb, acura vigor, audi all build some nice straight 5's to bridge the power/economy gap too. honda could easily add the extra pistons, keep displacement low and build to what many appear to desire -- a v8, yet they seem to do just fine sticking to their philosophy.