Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
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
1 THE NEW RL $49470 OR
2 THE NEW 2005 LEXAS430
BASE MSRP+MUST HAVE OPTION=$58924
I KNOW THE MANAGER OF LEXAS,HE SAID I CAN GET ONE
FOR $53500
THE DIFFERENCE IS $4030
I WILL BE WAITING FOR YOUR BIG HELP
Why would you say "...for us TL owners...it was a very easy decision to pass over the 2004 TL when it arrived last year..."
Is that a statement regarding the new style of the TL this year? Just wondering...thanks!!!
>>However, it should be noted that ALL Honda/Acura speedometers read 4-5%+/- too fast to begin with. If the speedometer says you are doing 70, you are actually doing 67+/-. This was confirmed by my service manager in a call with the regional representative. It can also be easily checked by setting your cruise control and using a stopwatch to time miles on a marked highway.<<
I agree, but I have proof from another perspective. Because my older RL lacks Nav (not available at that time), I use a notebook computer running Delorme Street Atlas software with a GPS device on the dash, during out of town travel (I am a commercial real estate appraiser). Using the GPS monitor function, a highly accurate speed indication is provided. The GPS does, indeed, indicate that my RL's speedometer is about 5% fast at cruising speed. However, when I am farther afield and driving a rental (usually a Lincoln Town Car or LS), the GPS shows that the speedo on the domestic car is spot on.
You should somehow verify this... my 2000 Accord was over by 4-5%, but my 2003 Accord is dead nuts on. This has been verified by 2 different GPS units.
First, I think Habitat1 in post 4859 has articulated why the RL does not compare so favorably even with cars which cost much less than the RL (such as the TL).
Second, the RL does not compare that well in some key areas with comparably priced cars such as the A6, E320, BMW 5 series. Braking distance, back seat and trunk compare poorly with several.
Third, I think that several of these $50,000 cars have had important drawbacks which the makers have slowly or selectively improved upon. A6 has improved acceleration over past models, 5 series had to expand back seat and trunk. The point is that Acura knew all this - they knew about the key drawbacks yet designed a car with alot of tech gadgetry but which does not have the performance/ space that several other lower priced or equally priced cars possess.
It will be interesting to see how the RL sells over time. It may sell quite well given the reliability issues the German makers have had. However, I think buyers may be more discerning over time and realize that it has several major drawbacks (torque/acceleration, back seat and trunk cramped and Accord like rear end styling).
This is their top of the line car -- shouldn't they have tried to make sure it did not have such drawbacks/compromises?
"...Second, the RL does not compare that well in some key areas with comparably priced cars such as the A6, E320, BMW 5 series. Braking distance, back seat and trunk compare poorly with several..."
Based on your assessment, I would have to conclude that major automotive and other magazines have less than a firm grip on reality when they repeatedly state that the RL leads it category! Not withstanding Braking distance - back seat and trunk volume are far from what I would call "key areas". If that's all you can hang your hat on when it comes to comparisons I suggest you take a long, hard, and detailed look at what some others might consider "real" key categories. Categories such as all-wheel drive, HP, torque, ergonomics, tech features, fit & finish, quality materials, safety features (ACE) and most importantly, the ultimate key category, - "reliability" - you'll find the RL simply eclipses its segment rivals defined as V6 - E320s, BMW 5 Series, A6 Audis, Cadillac STS, and a slew of others.
If not comparing apples to apples, what comparison criteria do you suggest?
Why is so difficult to give credit where credit is due - maybe it's not a perfect car but Honda/Acura has produced a world-class vehicle!
Yes, I own one and am extremely happy with it - as are, judging by various posts, my fellow 05' RL owners!
I can agree on the first statement since no luxury car is supposed to represent “value”. The word luxury itself is polar opposite of “value”. A mainstream sedan gets you 95% (may be more) of what a luxury sedan can, but it is that 5% that could cost substantial pocket change.
However, the second statement, I’m not sure about. How do you arrive at “overpricing” versus “correct pricing”? You have to have a criteria, and an idea of establishing a baseline to do so.
And, again, I'm not slamming the RL. I'm just very disappointed at the lack of effort Honda put forth in giving us this car.
I completely disagree. Effort is about creating a car that has quality pieces to it, assembly to match it with quality engineering. It is not about on-your-face styling. Styling has to fit the profile of the car, and the higher you go, the more subtle styling becomes. IMO, Honda did its homework with the three sedans it has launched in couple of years (TSX, TL and RL).
Among the four cars (A6, E320, 530i and RL), the most interior cabin room is offered in the RL. E320 and A6 are on the smaller side. Honda’s typical approach is to provide more room up front on the spec sheet (more the front seats forward and you have more rear seat room). Don’t compare only front or only rear seat room. It provides for wrong information. Compare both!
As for trunk space, Honda uses VDA method. I’m not sure what the others might be using, but most automakers use SAE method. The difference between the two is that VDA gives you a better idea of the useful space and does not include the nooks and crannies but results in a lower number on the spec sheet.
So, a better way to judge trunk space is to have a look in person, and better yet, try to see if you can fit what you need to. Numbers from differing standards can provide for misleading comparisons.
A blonde, wanting to earn some extra money, decided to hire herself out as a "handy-woman" and started canvassing a nearby well-to-do neighborhood. She went to the front door of the first house, and asked the owner if he had any odd jobs for her to do.
"Well, I guess I could use somebody to paint my porch," he said, How much will you charge me?"
The blonde quickly responded, "How about $50?" The man agreed and told her that the paint and everything she would need was in the garage.
The man's wife, hearing the conversation, said to her husband,"Does she realize that our porch goes all the way around the house?"
He responded, "That's a bit cynical, isn't it?"
The wife replied, "You're right. I guess I'm starting to believe all those dumb blonde jokes we've been getting by e-mail lately."
A short time later, the blonde came to the door to collect her money. "You're finished already?" the husband asked.
"Yes," the blonde replied, "and I had paint left over, so I gave it two coats." Impressed, the man reached into his pocket for the $50.00 and handed it to her. "And by the way," the blonde added, "it's not a Porch, it's a Lexus."
As far as trunk space goes, I mentioned this in an earlier post. The photos on a comparison poster between the RL, MB E320, and BMW 530i showed a parcel which fit in the RL (13.0 cub. ft.) did not clear the sill for the E320 and 530i (both 14.0 cub. ft.). I was assured it was the same parcel and not "trick photography").
Besides, whenever I need more cargo space and/or haul more than four, we take the Odyssey. Lots of elbow room.
And for those interested, I recently learned from my dealership's sales manager that Acura will soon release another dealer accessory after having received many suggestions from dealerships. I don't know how many of these suggestions will make it to reality or in future models, but this one will soon appear. A cosmetic addition to the center shift console. They will offer a matching wood finish for the entire console area that can be added to existing and new RL's. No cost was available at the time, but I'm told that it should happen soon. Has anyone else heard of this? Cost?
I also think the comments I made about backseat space and trunk are quite valid. I have sat in all three cars (and yes I moved the RL front seat up to equivalent distance). The RL may have more overall cabin space, but I think you will find that the A6 and the E320 have much more space in the back seat and trunk (especially considering the way the middle seat has been designed on the RL). As to other posts about being careful about trunk measurement methodology, that is a fair comment but I think you will find A6 and E320 much more spacious from a practical standpoint also.
As to your comment that braking, back seat and trunk space and other posts that acceleration are not so important but that fit, finish, reliability, etc are most important, I think that is somewhat flawed. First, I acknowledged that the Germans have problems with reliability and that is why I drive an Acura and might even buy an RL. However, Acura has always had the claim on better reliability (that is hopefully a given with Acura). Their goal should have been to produce a car with the luxury (including space) and performance (acceleration and braking) to really be clearly best in class and also consistent with a top of the line Acura (not barely better if at all better than a TL). The RL is not clearly better than the other $50,000 cars on the metrics I mentioned (and frankly not even better on some that you mentioned -- maybe HP)and actually does not represent a big step up over the TL in several areas noted.
I have no problem with you or others being cheerleaders for the RL -- I may buy one myself. However, to do so on the basis of some vague assertion that it is "best in its category" is flawed and not based on actual braking, acceleration, back seat and trunk actual measurements and spaciousness. When something jumps in front of you and you have to stop quickly or when you need to transport another couple or family on a trip, the metrics I mention become quite important. In fact, they are at the core of performance/luxury which is what I thought the Acura RL was supposed to be.
My previous comments -- without prompting were echoed by my wife when she said "it looks a lot like an Accord, especially from the front." The rear end looks very German (to me), a lot of BMW influence there. The interior is gorgeous -- Audi look out! -- in black, the rear seat and leg room looked a bit tight, but overall the package presented itself in concert with its price, IMHO. It is NOT a BMW 7, a big S class Merc or an A8 -- but it wasn't meant to be, and it sure isn't priced like one.
Personal choice -- no black interior.
I liked the wheels, the tail pipes and the fact that the car looks to be in motion when parked.
I could not get into the car, but the door was open and I poked my nosey head in as far as I could on the passenger side (front) -- otherwise I had to peer into the thing.
Soon there will be some "test" cars available -- I can't wait. Of course by that time, I am certain to have forgotten how the A6 3.2 drove to compare with the RL.
This has to be the nicest car Acrua has ever made -- and beating the TL, now that's saying something.
I'll agree with some posters who say the look is understated -- I think that is a plus!
Also, the cost of the RL was not our (or speaking for myself) the primary concern.
I assume you can read (in addition to just calling people cheap). However, in case you cannot or are too lazy to go back and read the posts, I will restate my reservations as simply as possible for your comprehension:
1. I have no problem with people serving as cheerleaders for the RL. I may buy one.
2. Its peformance characteristics (braking and acceleration) are basically average in its class (braking is actually subpar) and don't compare all that well with a TL or an Infiniti G-35.
3. Its interior is nice and it has alot of gadgets but the lack of back seat and trunk space mean that it is not a "best in category" luxury car as some people claim based on vague assertions.
There actually was much more nuance in the posts made by me, Habitat1 and others. However, I guess I made the assumption that you might actually read them. Rather than inferring people are cheap because they are not cheerleaders for the car, perhaps you should consider that you are easily duped by a few fancy tech features which don't really define a luxury or performance car. Being able to brake more rapidly, accelerate better and carry several people and their baggage comfortably define that to me. If you want to run out and pay MSRP for a car that can't do many things better than a $35,000 car (and probably not as well if TL gets SH-AWD next year), that is your perogative. I can afford whatever I want. However, before you look down on people as being cheap, perhaps you should first consider that perhaps you are gullible.
My comment is a GENERAL one which applies to ANY vehicle. No matter what the price-point is, or what Edmund's TMV is, there will always be those for whom the price is TOO HIGH! For some, the economic reality will dictate that they have to make another choice - they simply cannot afford it. For others, they are indeed CHEAP and will waste everyone's time in a fruitless pursuit.
For the record, I drove the TL and recommended it to my sister over a 525i with its anemic 184 HP and inane I-drive. Also, the G-35 and M-45. I didn't come to same conclusion as you.
I am only pointing out that the usable trunk space would be more than adequate for me and my needs. If it isn't for you, fine! Look for something else. I don't care what you buy, really I don't!
As far as paying MSRP. we have only one Acura dealer and the nearest one on the west coast is 2500 miles away. It would not make sense to pay the sales tax in California or Washington as their rates are higher than ours, plus the additional ocean freight cost.
So, those who have to be FIRST will pay what the traffic will bear, even to forking out ADM over and above MSRP. Others will be patient and wait till things simmer down.
It worked for me when the second-generation 1991 Legend came out. I waited three months after the initial furor and the dealer went to $30,699 from the $34,200 MSRP price, no charge for pro-pack + TTL. They offered this to me, I didn't have to work them down. Cynics will say I could have gotten it even lower. Maybe, but not worth my time.
On the other hand, Odysseys commanded a premium for THREE YEARS, even with three dealers in town. I got mine in 2001 for MSRP (no ADM), at a price LOWER than a corresponding Toyota Sienna EXL. The Odyssey had more equipment than the Sienna and Edmund's TMV was still HIGHER than MSRP.
The RLs here are equipped differently and the MSRP is slightly lower at $48,900 including the shipping charge. I hope for a repeat of 1991 when sales were slow and the prices had to be adjusted quickly to stimulate sales,
I agree that stopping distance is one of the worst in its class. But I disagree with acceleration... it is the best in its class among 6 cylinder automatic performance luxury sedans, at least until the M35 comes out.
Sure, the acceleration lags behind that of the TL or G35, but so does every other car in the RL's class.
"3. Its interior is nice and it has alot of gadgets but the lack of back seat and trunk space mean that it is not a "best in category" luxury car as some people claim based on vague assertions."
I like combined legroom as a rough comparator of room in sedans:
RL: 78.7
A6: 78.2
5: 77.5
E: 77.5
STS: 80.9
The RL is a distant second to the STS, but better than A6, 5, and E nontheless.
Yes, trunk space sucks, and is the worst in the class in this regard.
Partly true - the lack of a manual transmission does handicap the RL when I compare it to other performance oriented sedans, like the $33k TL 6-speed or $60k 545i 6-speed. (But AMG doesn't make a manual transmission, and I probably wouldn't kick an E55 out of my garage.) I also seriously considered the automatic-only Mercedes E320 CDI. As a matter of fact, the Acura dealer I bought my TL from in May is also a Mercedes dealer and they talked me into considering the TL. I consider the price difference between the RL and E320 CDI to be minimal ($7k +/-) when amortized over 6-8+ years.
I think part of my problem in assessing value in the RL is that it was/is being marketed as a "performance oreinted luxury sedan". I recall reading early claims that the SH-AWD of the RL was capable of producing a 1.0 lateral G. If that had turned out to be true, the RL clearly would be a class leader in handling. As it turns out, the RL I drove did not feel as though it handled any better on a twisty drive through Rock Creek Park as my TL 6-speed. (Let alone a BMW 5 series).
So, part of the blame for the somewhat underwhelming reviews of the RL in this forum has to go to Acura's marketing department. IMO, The RL is not a performance sedan and should not be marketed that way. It is a very nice, relatively affordable luxury sedan. You know the old adage, it is better to under promote and over deliver than the other way around.
P.S. Not to repeat myself, but I never said I thought the RL was a "bad value". It's just that in purchasing the TL (and Honda S2000), I felt I was getting a great value compared to the competition.
Honda uses the VDA method which results in smaller (but more practical) numbers for the trunk size.
They're likely to take more than a passing interest in Ford's £20,350 Transit 350 long-wheelbase high roof Jumbo. It offers a whopping 14.3m3 of carrying space according to the measuring system favoured by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and employed by the bulk of van manufacturers. It measures how much sand, rice, or other fine grained material the cargo bay will hold. This approach takes into account all the little nooks and crannies that are of no practical use to the vast majority of users.
Almost uniquely, Ford also quotes the figure produced by the more realistic VDA method. It's the method the Big Blue Oval prefers, despite the fact that it results in a less impressive figure than the SAE total. The initials VDA stand for Germany's Verbund die Automobil Industrie. It fills the load box with blocks each measuring 200mm x 100mm x 50mm, and unable to fit into all those odd little crannies, then counts the total. By this measure, Jumbo's load bay provides 12.3m3 of space.
What Van? heartily approves of the VDA's approach to calculating cargo space, and believes it should be quoted by all van makers. It may not look quite so good in their glossy publicity material, but most van owners will find the VDA figure a lot more meaningful.
Here is a link to the article
This illustrates a whopping 15% difference in cargo space measurement between SAE and VDA methods!
As for value comparisons, you couldn't compare cars from different class to arrive at the conclusions. Many would consider Accord EXV6 to be a better value over TL, and Accord LX as better value over Accord EXV6.
You've to be able to see where RL belongs, and how it goes about its business. It is not about value, it is about class.
Who else uses the VDA method?
BTW, I discovered something interesting while trying to provide a link to the same. Check out the trunk specifications, first in cu ft and then in liters:
E320: 15.9 cu ft
RL: 13.1 cu ft
RL appears to have much smaller trunk space (if we completely ignore the standard used for the measurement). In liters...
E320: 450 liters
RL: 452 liters (Honda clearly mentions use of VDA formula)
Well, in this case, RL has larger trunk!
Do Toyota and Nissan use VDA as well?
Front
Head Room: 37.5 in / 37.4 in / 38.5 in (E320 measurement without moon roof)
Leg Room: 41.3 in / 41.9 in / 42.4 in
Shoulder Room: 57.1 in / 56.4 in / 58.5 in
Rear
Head Room: 37.8 in / 37.7 in / 37.2 in (E320 measurement without moon roof)
Leg Room: 36.9 in / 35.6 in / 36.3 in
Shoulder Room: 55.9 in / 56.1 in / 56.1 in
Total Legroom: 78.2 in / 77.5 in / 78.7 in
Cabin Capacity: 96 cu ft / 97.2 cu ft / 99.1 cu ft
Trunk Space: NA / 450 liters / 452 liters (Audi specs unavailable in liters)
Now to suggest that RL is cramped is a stretch especially when you throw comparable numbers for its primary competition.
Speaking of your Accord (if 2003+ model), Honda quotes 491 liter trunk for JDM Inspire (basically a 2003+ American Accord). Perhaps Honda chooses to be conservative in America when it comes to specifications.
- engine is superb. love the on-ramps, very silky. same goes for transmission. i especially like how the engine burbles a bit under hard acceleration, and then disappears while cruising.
- high speeds come easy. almost too easy. i got pulled over for 84 in a 65. ouch. very nice crusing vehicle.
- interior comfort is outstanding. i still haven't found my sweet spot as far as seating position, but i was comfortable and had plenty of room (6'2").
- steering wheel could be thicker. i will look for an aftermarket solution for this. anyone know of anything.
- would like rain sensors
- fuel economy is decent, but the gas tank is small.
- while understated, the car still got plenty of looks and compliments.
- nav and traffic were very useful. wish the UI for finding restaurants and gas stattions etc along the highway was just a tad more intuitive.
- fit and finish are very good. appropriate for the price.
overall i love it. think my $ was well spent. anyone aware of a ski/board/bike rack for the 05 RL yet?
I use the Blackberry 7100t with the Hands Free Link and have had no problems with the Bluetooth.
carguy5, I find it easiest to find restaurants simply by saying, "Find nearest Italian restaurant" and it works like a charm. I do admit that doing the same via the controls is a bit more cumbersome, but that's what makes voice control so valuable. Though, I wish you could input an address in one voice command instead of "piece-mealing" it in several voice prompts.
One slight annoyance. When you put the car in reverse, one of the side mirrors turns down so you can better see the road. I like this feature as it's in most cars in this class. The only problem in the RL is that you have to decide which side mirror you want to work this way by selecting the "adjust" mirror switch in one of three positions. If it's in the Left position, the left mirror moves down in reverse; Right position, right mirror; in the middle position neither will move down in reverse. How come I can't have BOTH mirrors move down when in reverse (like BMWs, Audis, and MBs)??
Is it that the RL's front seats have different shaped backs so it causes leg room to feel less? Does Acura measure rear leg room a little different than the others?
Interesting...
Oh and I also think the SAE method of measuring trunk space sounds silly compared to that VDA method. Who cares how much space is in every nook and cranny if you can't even get a good sized object to fit in the trunk?:)
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Yes, the opening comes into play, but I can't think of a sedan, big or small, that doesn't have an opening big enough to get a standard sized suitcase or set of golf clubs through.
I'm losing my mind...
The RL is great for the driver and front passenger, but is not a great place to be for adult-sized rear passengers. I'm 6' tall. I put the seat in my normal driving position (seat fairly erect and arms slightly bent) then got in the back seat. My feet were stuck under the front seat. When the seat was let all the way back, I had to spread my legs in the back seat and my feet were literally trapped under the front seat. But I think that would be a gig mark against all the cars in this class.
The Acura's "claim to fame" is mostly based on its width. None of these cars are kings of backseat comfort, but the E-class and A6 are better executed back there. And I bumped my head more than once climbing in and out of the back seat of the RL.
PO303
PO304
I already had a service appointment scheduled tomorrow to fix my NavTraffic problem (which I already solved by "rebooting" the radio by removing the fuse) so they will be taking a look at it. Any ideas?
I bought the RL over the A6 partly because of reliability concerns. I would have expected less problems with the Acura. Is this a sign of things to come?
VDA method is closer to reality in the sense that you’re more likely to carry suitcases and bags than mulch or sand in the trunk of your luxury sedan. The standard blocks used for VDA method represent your suitcases, bags and briefcases. As for nooks and crannies, you’ve to realize that they don’t disappear. If you still wish to throw in little stuff, you’ve got the space for it. It is just that they aren’t a part of the space measurement that is written on the spec sheet.
You have to sometimes take advertised measurements with a grain of salt.
Not really. If you want to talk about size, you can either you specifications (like you have used for trunk space while disregarding method used for the measurement) or see the car in person. 99.1 cu ft is larger than 96-97 cu ft, no matter how you see it.
Another issue is your focus on rear seat room while ignoring a more complete picture. If RL has less legroom in the rear, look up front if it has more! And it does. This is why I (and another member above) opted to add legroom for front and rear since you could slide the seats to adjust per need.
BTW, Audi A6 has a 98 cu ft cabin (but without moon roof), and Mercedes E320 has 97 cu ft (also without moon roof). Add moon roof, and remember to shave about 2-3 cu ft off.
The VDA method sounds like a more practical way to measure trunk space.
The RL simply lacks comfortable accomodations for the rear passengers. It's great that the front has good accomodations, but what about your rear seat passengers? The salesman I've been dealing with tries to explain this away by saying Acura is all about driver comfort. That's fine and dandy, and I can respect that, but a true luxury car is about the driver AND his passengers. Most people buy luxury items because they either want/intend to share it with their friends or they simply want to be flashy. Well, Acuras certainly aren't flashy and they don't provide much in the way of accomodating extra people. So what's left? Seems kind of solitary to me.
Thinking of it that way, it's like they want to offset the Honda line of "me too"-mobiles with a line of "me"-mobiles.
I just don’t see a point of complaining about interior dimensions (and focused only on rear seat) when the competition isn’t better, in fact is worse! Acura RL is on the larger side of midsize scale, with TL on the smaller side (and TSX is a compact). If Acura were marketing it against and as full size sedan, I would have issue too, not with the car, but with the marketing.
On the spec sheet, Acura has given focus to front seat, which is where I would be if I were to buy a car. If I had more than what I need compared to passenger on the rear seat, I simply move the seat forward, and voila, you have more legroom there!
BTW, I'm not sure what your last statement is meant to imply. I'm leaving that alone since it seems to distract from the subject on hand.
PS. BTW, Edmunds' comparison shows up Audi A6 side mirror tilt on reverse only on passenger side, compared to both sides for TL and RL.
Have none of you ever stocked up on groceries before?? Or gone on long trips, bearing gifts?? Those little nooks and crannies can be invaluable, and you DO "scrunch your suitcases together to maximize every square inch". I'm of the type that I don't like having "cargo" in the passenger compartment with me on long trips. It just makes me feel uncomfortable and cramped up. If I can't get it in the trunk, then it either gets shipped to the destination or it stays home.
And FYI, r2917, they do make flexible coolers! I have one in the garage now. hehe
Of course, I know I'm exaggerating a bit in rear-seat passenger reaction, but no more so than some on this board who are complaining about 3 or 4 cubic feet in space! If you really don't like the back seat, then don't buy the car. But if you're really making a purchasing decision based on the comfort of the rear-seat passengers, perhaps you should have your friends/colleagues/children, etc. pick out the car that they prefer you to chauffeur them around in.
Me, I'm buying this car for my comfort. If you don't like riding in the back, then don't ride with me. *smirk*