jhr3uva90

There are rumors that Honda will create a car above the RL. Also, people have noticed that Acura never refers to the new RL as a "flagship." And I think one of the Acura executives dropped hints of another car being developed back when the new RL premiered at the NY Auto Show in 2004.

Regarding colberto's comments, Honda already uses shared platforms. In fact, every Acura sedan is now based off the same platform. However, there are many folks out there who will not take Acura seriously as a "luxury" brand until they sell a RWD sedan. That would require a completely new platform, one that is separate from the Accord, but I don't think Honda has the resources to create such a RWD platform right now. They spent about $4.36 billion on research & development last year, but that money went to everything from robots, to jet planes to new fuel technologies. Honda's car business is fairly small relative to other car businesses, so it might be more financially advantageous to for Honda to create a car like the RL and sell just 20,000 in North America than to do like Infiniti and create a V8 RWD Q45 and sell half of that in North America. Yes, the Q45 has high margins, and an Acura competitor would also have a high margin, but Honda might not make much of a "profit" when you consider R&D costs for an all-new platform.

hondamore

You hit the nail right on the head!! Honda is not an automotive giant and they are very methodically growing the company without taking huge risks. When they add a model or an engine or a platform, it is for a very specific reason looking ahead to the long term growth of the company. I am a shareholder in Honda for exactly that reason. I've said this repeatedly, but it is worth repeating again - 10 consecutive years of increased sales doesn't happen by accident or by taking huge risky leaps into niche markets without a reason.

jhr3uva90

I'm also a shareholder, and that does tend to change one's perspective.

Motown2006RL

Folks have been speculating forever on a V8 for the next NSX, if they build it after all.
That could be used for a new Flagship Luxury sedan, but does Honda really need it? And developing that platform makes no business sense unless it can be used for other things, much like the evergreen FM platform at Nissan/Infiniti is used for almost everything they do. Maybe to add interest for the Acura name in Japan where they will finally launch that brand in a couple of years as a separate line? Who knows?

With the coming GS and LS Hybrids from Lexus, Honda may want to take a different approach. Consider:

3.0L Accord Hybrid: HP is 240 at 6250 / Torque is 255 lbs-ft at 6000 rpm
3.5L Acura RL: HP is 290 at 6200 rpm / Torque is 256 lbs-ft at 5000 rpm

Is a 3.5L Acura Hybrid with 350 HP at 6200 rpm / 300 lbs-ft at 5000 rpm out of reach? Probably not. And Honda can save face with their "We don't need no stinking V8 badges" stance this way. And saving face is essential to the Japanese business community.

Then all they need is an SH-AWD stretched platform to get in the game. They certainly could build a Sedan and a Crossover-type vehicle on the same chassis. Now THAT could really give Lexus a run for their money if Acura improves a bit on their image (Marketing) and service.

hondamore

The NSX is getting a V10. Would a V10 look good in the RL - yup!! Unfortunately, I don't see it happening, although if they are preparing an upscale sedan positioned above the RL, then a V10 is a definite possibility.

jhr3uva90

Also, I don't think they can make the Global Midsize Platform much bigger than the current RL. If they want a full-sized car, they will have to create a different platform.

your_mom

I can't resist. I'm not an expert, but I just bought two Acuras in the last 7 months (1 involuntarily) Here's what I think Acura should do:

1. Keep the RSX. I loved my Type-S. Unfortunately I totalled it. However, it does need to be taken up market a bit. My main complaint was a lack of luxury features - power seats, auto dimming mirrors, butwarmers, etc. The RSX should be a coupe version of the TSX and drop the Type-S (similar to what Acura did with the 3G TL - put the bad ass engine in everything).

2. Improve the TSX. I seriously considered upgrading to a TSX. However, the engine lacked low end power. More displacement would help, reviving and improve the old 5 cylinder 2.5 and increasing the displacement should work well. I was waffling between a TSX and an IS 250. Had the IS 250 been out for a few years and used ones available the IS 250 would be what I drive right now.

3. The TL is just right. This was what I ended up with as a used one was available for about the same price as a new TSX and a few thousand less than the IS 250. However, rear wheel drive would significantly improve the TL.

4. The RL seems to be just a glorified TL. Acura should add two cylinders, offer rear wheel drive, and make this car bigger. It needs to be larger to differentiate it from the TL.

lflorack

I think the RSX needs to be dropped from the Acura line. It simply does not fit with a company trying to be a more recognized luxury car maker. Perhaps it could be moved to the Honda lineup but it needs to be at least moved out of the Acura lineup. Even with substantial upgrades, it'll still be out of line price-wise and size-wise and it's bringing the whole line down as a result.

The TSX is a t the right low-end starting point for a luxury line -- but just barely. Your suggestions about the TSX are interesting.

I also agree with your TL suggestions but I think this is a place where Acura needs to spend the least amount of time and money.

I think the RL is a great car for what it is - A great luxury performance sedan. If they made it rear wheel drive, I'd not have one. THe SH-AWD is much superior so I'm not sure how many people would take just the RWD version (if they had one). I think the overall RL package is excellent! The intereior is absolutely the best one of the the normal comparison group (at least IMHO). My only suggestion is that the exterior needs a bit more flair (not much) and the price is about $2-3K too high.

BTW, I've had an '03 and an '04 TL and I now have an '05 RL.

vp911

RSX is gone next year.

jhr3uva90

Personally, I think the new RL is more the heir to the excellent 1999 - 2003 TL than the new TL is. The new TL is a completely different direction from its predecessor, a direction that has put off some owners of the previous car.

Regarding those who feel like the new RL is a glorified version of the new TL: have they actually driven it?

lflorack

I'll agree that the 3rd Gen TL's are completely different in their look and feel from the 2nd Gens. That look and feel difference is why I traded the '03 Type-S I had after only a little over a year. I just HAD to have one of the '04's! You may be correct that the 3rd gen styling of the TL put off some of the previous owners, but I'm not one of them -- and it appears that overall, Acura has a winner. Overall interest and sales of the TL's have increased since the 3rd gen's introduction.

I doubt it. I agree with you that it's not in the same leauge. I loved both of my TL's but the RL is a much different car from either of them. Much more luxurious and upscaled. My ownly issue is that it needs a bit more 'flair'. Not much really but it needs something to provide more distance from the looks of Accords.

BTW, one of the things I didn't put in my last post is that Acura needs at least one more luxury vehicle above the RL if it is to be taken seriously as a uxury car competeitor. I know the NSX is coming back out soon and that's good. I'm talking proceeding with the plans for the NSX AND another luxury model in the $60-70K or so range.

jhr3uva90

I guess it is a personal preference. I can appreciate both the 2nd and 3rd generations of TL. I just think they are different.

Basically, I think Acura took an "MTV" approach to the TL. MTV will always target a certain age range of viewer. Once you pass that range (either chronologically or otherwise), you go watch something else, most likely VH1 (which is part of the same company as MTV). Acura targets a certain age range with the TL; once you get outside that range, it is time for something else: most likely the RL. Many of the 2nd generation TL drivers I have talked to (or read posts from) tend to be a little disappointed with the 3rd generation TL. They think the new one is too small and has a little too much bling. Those people might be prime candidates for the new RL in a couple of years.

your_mom

No, as it was way over my budget. Also, it seemed kind of plain in terms of styling compared to the 3G TL. That isn't a bad thing, at this point in my life the TL simply appeals to me more.

mkaresh

I posted a review of the RL at epinions.com that compared it with the TL. Since the cars are so similar in size, I wondered what might justify the price difference. That review can be found here: http://www.epinions.com/content_170604531332.

The TL isn't truly comparable to the Lexus GS for the same reason it's not truly comparable to the RL: its character is clearly near-luxury rather than luxury. The GS and RL look and feel more substantial. The TL is significantly rougher around the edges. Very good for the price, but not a $50,000 car for $35,000.

Of course if you can't tell the difference, why pay the difference? In my review of the RL I concluded:

"The RL is nearly identical in size to the TL, has blander sheetmetal, isn't quite as quick, and feels less sporty. Why, then, spend the extra $14,000? Even after adjusting for the RL's additional features, the difference is still $9,000. The most obvious answer is that the RL's interior is considerably nicer. Whether this is enough will depend on how much this extra niceness is worth to you. Some people will spend an hundreds of dollars for a pair of shoes for higher quality materials and construction. Most won't. The RL, with its six-cylinder engine and cozy interior, will similarly appeal to those who most value things that cannot be readily quantified."

About the adjusted price difference: I calculated it using my site (see sig). This site automatically adjusts for features on one car but not the other.

mkaresh

I've noticed that the RL is rarely discussed on the TL forums, while the GS, M35, 5-Series, etc. are often mentioned as future cars. It seems Acura has hit two totally different buyers with the cars, such that many people will leave the brand when they want to upgrade. Not necessarily a good thing. It seems that a few of the RL owners here did upgrade from TLs, but I suspect that they're the exception rather than the rule.

One final point: someone mentioned that the new 3 and new 5 are closer together in size now. Have you sat in the cars? I'd actually say the opposite is the case, as the current 5 has a much roomier rear seat than the 3, and the RL for that matter. Before the redesign, on the other hand, I used to tell people shopping the 5 to also look at the 3, as the old 5's rear seat wasn't particularly roomy.

jhr3uva90

That was a great review! I was wondering if your adjusted price difference includes the fact that the TL is made in the U.S. while the RL is made in Japan. There's an exchange rate issue that affects the price differential. Also, did the price difference take into account the more extensive amount of aluminum alloy used in the RL on the hood and under the car, not just the aluminum trim? This link has more info about the under-car analysis: http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-ar...icle_id=452729

I really like your site, by the way.

mkaresh

The features I adjust for are listed on the results page. They are only items that a price can easily be attached to, CD changers, sunroofs, and the like.

I do adjust for transmissions and drivetrains, as these are often separate options whose prices tend to be about the same from manufacturer to manufacturer. But not for engines, where there is no obvious way to handle differences as manufacturers charge very different amounts for upgrades in this area.

I adjust for leather, though this is fraught with difficulty as I don't adjust for grade of leather. If there were solid data in this area, I'd adjust for grade, but there isn't. At least not yet.

"Made in Japan" hasn't to my knowledge ever had a price tag attached to it, though I imagine if it were an option (with models produced in both the U.S. and Japan) some people would pay extra for it. Interestingly, I've never seen a forum as hung up on U.S. vs. Japan as this one.

Exchange rates are the manufacturer's concern. I'm adjusting for features that provide value to the consumer, not things that might cost the manufacturer extra.

The idea is to adjust for generic features so people can see how much the price difference is for the basic car. Except for wheels and interior trim, which are often options, materials are part of the basic car.

jhr3uva90

So, your site basically covers stuff that's quantifiable. That sounds good.

first99TL

This type of comparison seems pretty worthless to me. I have 2 watches, one is a Seiko from Japan, the other is Swiss. They both tell time, they both have second hands, they both have a leather strap. One cost $150, the other $3,500.

You can't look at just the features in two automobiles, you also need to look at the quality of the features. I own an RL. I have driven a TL. There is no comparison between the quality and design of the interior and exterior of these cars. The RL easily makes up for the price difference.

mkaresh

The point is getting a handle on what the price difference really is. I'm not trying to suggest that the less expensive car after the adjustments is the better value. Instead, I'm putting a number on what the bits that cannot be separately quantified are costing you.

In this example, the RL costs about $14,000 more than the TL with Nav, and this is the number people usually focus on. What my site indicates is that adjusting for quantifiable feature differences cuts this gap to about $9,400. In other words, assuming a similar discount on both cars you're paying about $9,400 for the "quality and design and interior and exterior" of the RL vs. the TL, not $14,000. If these differences are worth more than $9,400 to you, then it makes sense to buy the RL rather than the TL.

If I also compared watches, then if both truly had the same features then there would be no adjustments and the gap would remain the same. The problem with cars is that they rarely have the same features, and it can be difficult to tell how much of the price difference between two cars is because of feature differences. In the RL vs. TL case, the answer is about $5,600, including $1,750 for AWD.

Still seem worthless?

andrewgg2

Also do not forget that RL is made in Japan and TL in US. To some it might not be a big deal, but to me it is. I had a Integra made in Japan and CL-S made in US before. Interior quality of the Integra was far superior than on my CL-S.

mkaresh

I visit a lot of forums. I've never seen one as hung up on American vs. Japanese as Acurazine.

I drive a Mazda Protege5 that was engineered and manufactured in Japan. I love the car, as it's great fun to drive, but interior fit and finish aren't too hot.

On the other hand, check out the interior in the 2006 Cadillac DTS. I know, probably not anyone here's cup of tea. It's not mine either. But the gaps in that interior, especially those between the doors and IP, are tighter and more even than any I've seen.

I've noticed that in every TL the door trim doesn't quite match up with the IP trim on the right side. It's the same in every car. That's an engineering issue, not a manufacturing issue.

If an organization cares to do these things right, it will. If it just wants to get the product done quickly and cheaply, it won't. I think Honda saw the market for the CL as limited, so focused on getting it done quickly and cheaply relative to their other products.

jhr3uva90

Ford owns a controlling interest in Mazda. I wonder if that has any affect on the build quality of their cars?

Anyway, I agree with you about the fact that a car is not superior simply because it is built in Japan. In fact, Cadillac has been ranking very highly in J.D. Power surveys when it comes to initial build quality and long term quality. Cadillac ranks above the German car companies. Granted, Caddy isn't exactly my cup of tea, but I give them much respect.

Another thing about Japanese cars that are manufactured in Japan versus Japanese cars manufactured in the U.S.: there is a price difference. For example, the main reason why the Lexus ES costs more than the very similar Toyota Avalon is because the Lexus is made in Japan. There are shipping costs and exchange rate issues that are involved when a car is manufactured elsewhere.

And speaking of Toyota, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal last year about how the Toyota big wigs back in Japan were not pleased will the quality of the Kentucky plant where Camrys are made. They felt the KY plant's quality was slipping, so they had to take action to bring it back up to Toyota's high standards. So I guess there is a difference if a Japanese car is manufactured in the U.S. vs. Japan, sometimes.

1HOT NSX

This is why there will always be BMW/Mercedes/Lexus buyers no matter how high those things are priced. It is not about real quality, style, durability, or design features - it's all about status symbols!! Why does anyone need a Patek Phillipe that looks like a Timex and costs $15,000?

People will buy whatever makes them happy based on their own perceptions of value - all comparisons are worthless except for the entertaining value they bring on a forum like this.

mkaresh

First, the problem with my car isn't build quality. The interior was engineered with very wide gaps dash-to-door and misalignment between the door trim and the piece atop the instrument panel.

Second, the Mazda3's interior has much more precise fits, and Ford people were much more involved when it was developed. It's a matter of priorities and attention to detail. Mazda was apparently focused on other things when they developed the Protege.

Third, exchange rates and shipping costs have very little to do with the price of the ES 330. It's more expensive because it has a higher grade interior, a longer warranty, and a premium brand. In general, vehicles are priced based on what the market will pay, not what they cost to produce.

Fourth, if exchange rates and shipping costs were a factor, we'd see different prices for the same car produced in different countries. But, to my knowledge, this is never the case. Back when Accord and Camry production were significantly split between the US and Japan the same price was charged regardless of where the car was made.

Fifth, any plant anywhere can slip at any time. But it's more often worthy of press attention if it's an American plant run by a Japanese manufacturer. Also, this was just one plant, not every one of the growing number of plants Toyota runs in North America. Often these are new or newly expanded plants with new employees producing new products. It's a lot of complexity to manage. In the past Toyota avoided doing more than one new thing at a time, but it seems they haven't had a choice lately.

The bottom line is that most quality problems are caused by engineering errors, not manufacturing errors. If you've ever taken bits apart in a car interior, you know there's not a whole lot of wiggle room when putting them back together. They either go together easily and well, or they don't, and there's not a whole lot the assembler can do about it.

jhr3uva90

Good points, mkaresh.

This article:

http://www.jama.org/autoTrends/detail.cfm?id=243

points out that "60 percent of the vehicles sold by Japanese companies in the U.S. are built in the U.S., with high rates of local content that in some cases exceed 90 percent. Sales of these vehicles would not be significantly affected by the yen exchange rate." However, I would assume that the price of a car manufactured in Japan with a high rate of Japanese content that is sold in the U.S. would be affected by the yen exchange rate. What is your take on this?

The article cited above also points out "that market shares are not won or lost on price, but on value for the money. Consumers decide to purchase automobiles based on a complex consideration of vehicle performance, price, safety, fuel economy, quality, and dealer service, just to name a few factors." I think that Acura buyers are generally more price sensitive than other "luxury" car buyers and value having many technological features for a low price. The RL offers many technological features, but it cannot offer the low price that Acura customers are accustomed to. I wonder if the price could be lowered significantly if the RL was manufactured at the same Ohio plant as the TL?

crazytsxmods

I'v owned both cars. 05 and 06 RL. Now I got an 06 TL. The TL has no rattles and smooth throttle response. Both RLs had a rough mid range throtle response. When someone sat in the middle of the RLs backseat they would hit there head on the sealing. I am 5,9 and did the same thing. Not the case in the TL. When I load the trunk up the TLs holds more cargo. The tl gets about 4 miles to gallon better gas mileage. Noone has told me my tl looks like a new accord and the battery has not gone dead in the tl yet. The xm refresh is instant and the stereo though not as loud as the rl is clearer. I think the ANC system interferes to much with the stero sound. If you hold the microphone cover in the front you will get a deep noise every couple of seconds that is not the exaust but the ANC going crazy. I think all in all the RL is a wonderful car but to say that being built in Japan is better than Ohio is a load of bullshit. I owned a TSX as well that had as many rattles as the RL did. The worst in the rl was the rear sunshade and the trim around the gearshifter. We also have a new MDX from the Ohio plant witch is as solid as a rock. I almost think that the american assembled ones are built better. Not to mention the paint on both RLs 05/06 had more dust specs and white indentaions than either the MDX or the TL. If you clay the rl and than wax and put it under heavy floeresant light and look at it at an angle you will se what I am talking about. There is little clouds in the paint. My buddy owns a paint shop and looked at both the 05 and the 06 and said it is from bad paint prep (the dust spots) and the rings are not acid rain damage but from apllying the protective spray rap on the car before the paint has set reguardless of baking the paint on. Ten guys wet sanding between primer coats before an elitrical bath my ass. And Mcdonalds uses real chicken in there nuggets. The car sits on a ship and the protective film sets into the paint. I will get flammed for this but I have owned both the tl and the rl so I feel I had to speak up for the tl. IMOP whoever says Japan builds a better cars is just trying to make themselfs feel more confident in there purchase. Do you own a 3gen tl, how about a mdx? If not I wouldnt put my foot in my mouth.

vp911

I owned a 04' TSX 05' TL and 05' RL. The TSX had one rattle in the pass. side door. The TL had rattles everywhere. The RL only had one rattle which I fixed. IMO the RL was better built than my TL but - it seems to be hit or miss, some people never get rattles in any of these cars and then some do get rattles. Either way, they are all great cars.

jhr3uva90

A note about trunk space: the 2006 TL has a 12.3 cubic-foot capacity with the navigation system and a 12.4 cubic-foot capacity without it. The 2006 RL has a 13.0 cubic-foot capacity. There isn't much of a difference, but the RL's trunk is NOT smaller than the TL's. Maybe the shape of the RL's trunk makes it seem smaller?

I don't think anyone is belittling the TL. It is a fine car and sells amazingly well. I think we are simply illustrating the differences between the two cars and why there is a price difference. Also, a car built in Japan is not inherently better than one build in the U.S., but it just might be more expensive.

mkaresh

Trunk volume is tricky. Shape can make a big difference. The size of the opening can also affect usability and perceptions.

I don't think they'd lower the price much if at all if they made it in Ohio. Japanese companies tend to simply eat the exchange rate fluctuations, at least in the short and medium term. And you've got to realize that cars these days only require a couple dozen hours of assembly labor. Reduce labor cost to zero and you save a couple grand, tops. There's a lot more labor in the components, so then the question is whether all of the components are made in the US as well. They are already making fewer and fewer parts in Japan.

One final point: the MDX isn't made in Ohio, but in either Ontario or Alabama (I think I've got the right Gulf state).

jhr3uva90

I think the MDX is made in Ontario.

catsailr

My 05 Pilot was made in Alabama. Don't know about the MDX.

A_UFO

Correct.
http://www.hondanews.com/CatID3028?m...48992&mime=asc

tgteich

I have had 3 TLs and currently own the 2004 and a 2005 MDX. I looked hard at the RL and backed off. The price was not a deterrent. I was put off by the design. It just does not look like a $50,000 luxury car. Since not buying the RL, I have learned the the RL has had some defect issues that seem to focus on the electrical accessory system. This has been adversely commented upon in auto mags. Although I have purchased 12 Honda Motor Company cars and have a very high opinion of their quality, I do not believe that the RL compares favorably to Lexus quality. The MDX seems to be the model with the least quality issues in the Acura lineup. None of my TLs have had a single hiccup of any kind, or any rattle, squeak or repair issue of any kind, but others have had issues.

I believe that the RL FWD system is a major industry innovation because it makes a front driver handle like a rear driver. It almost sold me on buying the car. I just could get past the design. It looks too much like an economy sedan or a Toyota Avalon.

I love the TL performance. I drive 50 miles a day on freeways and have all of the immediate power I need with excellent and very precise handling. This is a sweet performer. On freeways I have more HP than BMWs and can make every manuever they do as well or better without any deficiency. I have the complete satisfaction that I had to pay ooo's less! I think I'm the one with the ultimate driving machine.

neuronbob

Hey, another 2004 TL owner, good taste! And welcome to the board! I love the TL for much the same reasons as you. While I enjoy that the TL looks like it can move fast, I also enjoy the RL's understated look--it's very tasteful. Your opinion on the looks, however, is shared by many--when the RL was released, many people called it "Accord-looking".

When you spend some time in the RL, it is clear to me that the build quality is far above the TL. I say this having had my TL for 55k miles and only having minimal rattles--I got a TL with good build quality. The RL is that much better--better enough I'm looking at an upgrade even though I am quite happy with my TL.

PS--if you want more precise handing in your TL, go A-Spec and get a Comptech rear sway bar. Makes a LOT of difference in the handling, you'll think the base TL is a boat afterward.

Chuck091279

I started out in the current lineup with an '04 TSX. Loved the car, and could immediately tell how solid the build quality was. I bought it new. So, following in those steps, and bought a new '06 TL and I began to run into tons of rattles. Everytime I went in for an oil change, I had another rattle to report. Meanwhile, my TSX kept running smoothly. Recently I traded in my '06 TL for an '06 RL, b/c it was assembled in Japan. I'll see how my theory tests out, but so far so good on the RL.

In terms of build quality, I think the Japanese parts are better. Not so much the assembly of the parts that's the issue. Even when I had a rattle in my rear TL deck, it was a faulty part that was making the noise. So, they had to order it and replace it. Also, on my TSX, I am finally getting ready to replace my original tires - 60,500 miles on them!

Rexorg

Having had an '04 TL and now an '06 RL I must say the RL is so much better, but then again it was $12K more. Trying to compare is an apples and oranges thing. My TL had the infamous falling headliner, which was inexcusable in a $32K car.

Chuck091279

What is a falling headliner? Glad I didn't have that on my TL!! Or at least I don't think I did.

William4

Ditto. I had a 2004 TL and traded up to a 2006 RL. The TL was a total rattle trap, it drove me nuts. The RL is rattle-free and super quiet.

Rexorg

The headliner (cloth covered cardboard over your head aka the ceiling) was attached by a couple pieces of Velcro to the underside of the moonroof structure at the back edge of the glass. After awhile in hot weather the glue came undone due to the downward pressure of the headliner and would sag an inch or so. Funny thing the Velcro would still hold together. Acura's fix was to put in more Velcro pieces, but it only lasted for a few weeks and/or it got hot again. My fix was big globs of epoxy and that sucker never came undone again, but I did have the infamous rattle somewhere in the back of the headliner at low speeds after the fix.