OK - Read all of the pro's on con's, wanna and shoulda haves' for the next generation RL. However, today, I read Road & Tracks, or was it Car & Drivers review of the new 08 Accord coupe and get this...the Accord with six speed manual transmission was clocked by the magazine to do a 5.9 in the 0-60 category.

Now I realize that 0-60 is not the end all to end all when it comes to automotive performace specs, and please, spare me any lectures about the error of my ways/assumptions. However, being the old'school guy that I'am, I must unabashedly admit, that the 0-60 spec is the one I, for some strange reason, always look for first and on which I place very HEAVY emphasis when it comes to forming my overall impression or assessment of the car I'm looking at

That having been said, I don't care what Honda/Acura does with the new RL, if it doesn't beat the Accord's 0-60 time...It's toast...

 

Then for you, it is toast! Easy decision!

 

i too want a fast car, but i don't want to give up the luxuries inherent of the RL....i can see a 3.9l, v6 with 350+ HP. that helps to keep the weight down and give more power. I think with that HP it will edge out the Accord.

 

SHAWD eats too many ponies & lb/ft. FWD will not work in th RL's class. RWD is the answer or hope the cool electronic doodads distract you from all the tail lights pulling away from you.

 

There is much more to life than watching tail lights disappearing. You can contemplate the supreme luxury and fantastic SH-AWD and other electronic wizardry Acura have given you for the price. I would have thought it was pretty straight forward Shotgun. The RL aint for you.

 

 

If your evaluation of a car is one dimensional, specifically 0-60mph specs, then there are many cheaper cars on the market which will satisfy you.

 

If you are looking for fast car (4.9 sec from 0- 60 MPH) , Subaru WRX STI Limited is the car for you in $ 30K range.

 

There's plenty of cheaper cars faster than an RL from 0-60. So what? Try taking a highway cloverleaf ramp at 60 mph in one of them and let me know what hitting the guardrail sounds like.

 

^^^^^ +1 with everyone in this thread.

If you want a luxury car with a better 0-60, you need to go with the Infiniti M45. The RL is NOT for you in its current iteration. Of course, you are commenting on the next RL, whose specs we aren't even sure of yet.

Just a comment, though.....the current car is not a sports car, and yet is plenty quick.

Of course, now that Honda has let all heck break loose with the new Accord, the next RL will likely do it two or three better. Remember, the RL is the test mule for all the tech that will be in the Accord 3-5 years later.

 

Yes, I might have to go with an Infiniti if Acura doesn't deliver the goods in the next generation RL. I have an 03 FX35 and am very pleased with it. For those of you who say the RL is not for me, I bought an 05 RL the day it was released (Oct 14), still have it and I love the car, even with all of the first year issues - but jeez, for the 50 large I paid for it I can't live with the notional concept or, actually fact, that an Accord can outperform the RL. It simply sickens me...

 

I know TampaRL, and I specifically asked the readership not to lecture me on that concept (smile) and trust me when I say I appreciate all of the creature comforts and advanced features (even after three years) the RL has. However, I and I believe many other RL owners, have a problem with the Accord outperforming the RL...I may be wrong, but it just doesn't seem right. Given all of the criticism the RL received for it's lackluster performance, as evidenced by dismal sales, the next RL model must "deliver" on the performance front...or else they can kiss the lucrative Chinese and other markets bye bye...

 

You might be right...When next I spend over $50K for a car...one of the criteria will be it out performs Accords, Camry's, Fusion's, Impalas, 626's, etc.

 

You obviously miss the point. Or maybe you refuse to see the point. Whatever, I hope you get to enjoy your choice as much as the majority here enjoy theirs.

 

Outperforming is not a factor of 0-60pmh only. The Accord (and many other vehicles which may be faster 0-60mph) do not have SHAWD and will be watching the RLs tailiights fade into the distance (without seeing brakelights). Again, if performance is the fastest in your definition of performance, then the RLis not the best performer. But performance has may components for most people, including braking, grip, tranny response, ride characteristics. I really don't care who is fastest to 60 if it brakes lousy, rides like a truck, or sucks fuel like a jet aircraft.

Peformance means many things to many people, and the sprint to 60 does not do it for me.

It really tickles me how many boards are eager to equate the Accord to RL. In nearly every case the few areas there are similar metrics the but the RL has so much more engineering that does not get considered. The RL was designed 3+ years ago. It's attributes should trickle down into family models. That is how the car biz works.

 

I'll weigh in here on the side of "who cares about 0-60". When I was in my teens and 20's (even early 30's), I had a lead foot and wanted power. Always moved to the fast lane after entering the highway. The guy in front of me always seemed to be going to slow

But now, at 46, it doesn't matter anymore and I rarely drive in the fast lane on the highway. I'm not necessarily proud of that fact, but, none the less, it's a fact of life. WHen you get to this point in your life a lot of the piss and vinegar flowing through your veins is gone.

Given the fact that the majority of 40+ people spending $50k on a sedan are probably more like me then "Shotgun", I think Honda is smart to focus on a 6 cylindery with a 7+ second 0-60 rating. It's more then enough for someone like me. If they had an "RL-S" in this current generation, I doubt it would help sales much. There are other problems conspiring against this car besides the lack of a v8 option.

 

My take. The RL does not the greatest in ANY category,(mayebe value at 43K) rather it is very good in just about ALL areas. THAT is what makes it a great car to own. If you are looking for the Rl to be the best in some category, then the RL is not your car.

 

That 's a good way of putting it my friend. I think the only exception is "value". If you get a tech RL anywhere in the low $40's, then I believe it's the BEST value'd sedan in it's class based on quality and features.

 

If you wish to compare the Accord with the RL then where does the TL fit in?
My opinion: All three are in different catagories and they don't compete or compare.

 

Is it just a matter of "knowing" that you have a fast car, or do you really "use" that 0-60 time?

 

Helloooo! I get slapped up side of the head for even suggesting a comparison between the new Mercedes C-class and the RL, and people are actually comparing the RL to an ACCORD???

Have you actually SEEN the Accord? Sat in it? Looked closely at it? I have. It may be quicker to 60, but it's an Accord, for pete's sake. Regardless how much the car mags carry on about the interior, it's still el-cheapo compared to the RL, and I still don't like the exterior styling.

As others have said, if 0-60 times are the only criteria, the Accord wins, but so do a lot of other cars I wouldn't want to have!

.
.

 

shotgun, I agree the RL is a bit weak on 0-60, but for less than $600 and two mods you can hang with the new accord 0-60. A small price to pay if you crave more power, but want a RL.

 

Would that be the pulley and the AEM CAI?

 

That Touge just happens to sell?

 

Well, he IS a registered and approved vendor. I'm a skeptic, though, and I'd have to see some kind of believable evidence a pulley and CAI could knock 6 tenths off the RL's 0-60 time! (RL usually clocks about 7.5 in tests, Accord apparently goes 6.9.)

.
.

 

If we are comapring an Accord to a RL then "luxury" isn't much of a factor. If you want zero-60, get an Evo or an STi.

If you want a luxury car with technological equipment that's easy to use and reliable, get the RL.

 

My purpose in asking this question was not bang on Touge, but to try to confirm what I understand may be the two most cost effective modifications for the RL

I don't believe the seemingly sarcastic comment "That Touge happens to sell" is warranted.

Despite the fact that Touge is a "legal" forum sponsor, you or anyone, are free to buy these items from sources other than Touge.

OK, time to step off the soap box.

 

The awd system in the evo sounds similar to shawd plus you can get a slick dual clutch manual.

 

The EVO system is similar but is not SHAWD since it doesn't have an acceleration gear. Still a little less sophisticated. Although a few maufacturers have offered vectoring differentials for a while none has up to now offered an accelerating type except for Honda. Still numero uno!

 

Hi Chas2, yep those two are the mods I was refering too.

 

I want luxury AND speed...is that asking for too much? I've owned an 89 Legend Coupe, a 99 RL, and now a 05 RL. Been happy with all of em but the 05 had it's share of problems when it comes to reliabilty. I've had my air conditioner and complete navigation system replaced (along with all the other little electronic fixes identified in the TSB's).

To it's credit, with the slew of new models coming out, the RL is starting to look more and more distinctive and down right elegant. My Opulent Blue Pearl turns heads and gets me compliments from total strangers, including many young people...

 

Not at all, and I understand that's the point of your thread. . I admit that I, along with others, have asked for more low-end torque at least. Frankly, putting a high-revving engine in a luxury car is something only Honda would figure was a good idea as that's what they do with all of their cars and trucks. As we all know, it sure doesn't help sell RLs to those from outside the Honda fold as they don't understand that Hondas are all about reliable, high-revving engines.

The TL provides speed and reasonable luxury. The RL definitely holds its own with mods. Hopefully Acura will see the light and offer more torque next time around.

 

Maybe that is why I enjoyed my plain jane 95 Legend Sedan so much. Of all the Hondas I have owned, I thought is was much better in the low end torque department, even despite its weight. Like the current RL, it was no speed demon. It was evenly spec'd at 200 hp and 200 lbs-ft of torque, unlike the usual Honda high HP, low torque formula.

The only way I know to get more torque and maintain current horsepower is more volume, whether forced induction or not, and that just does not fall into the green thinking of Honda. Of course, neither does a V-10, so I guess there is hope yet (as oil goes over $100 per bbl....ack!)

 

It's a shame so many people use 0-60 as a basis on performance. It makes me wonder if manufacturers gear the cars specifically to optimize 0-60 while sacrificing the gearing for the every-day driving.

In my opinion, 1st gear is mainly for the 0-60 push. I think 1st gear in most cars is too high. As I've said many times on this forum, I start-out in 2nd gear and find that acceleration is better under normal driving conditions. If I were racing someone or clocking my 0-60, I'd start-out in 1st gear.

I wish cars were geared more towards the every day driver than 0-60, but since that's what sells, they are forced to gear them that way.

I'd venture to bet that the RL could do better 0-60 with different gearing but perhaps Honda decided to gear the car for comfort and driveabilty? We all appreciate the driveablilty of the car, but if a non-owner looks at the 0-60 time, he'll think it's a slow car and we all know it's far from slow.

 

Didn't Infiniti do that to some extent with the new M's? More aggressive gearing makes them quicker but at the expense of fuel economy.