The full report on the 2006 RL will be out in a couple of weeks. Here's the abbreviated online report:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...-4719-5696.htm


The only "black mark" is for the audio system, and the only "semi-black mark" is for the electrical system. This means that people who have responded to the Consumer Reports survey have had service issues with both of these systems. The "black mark" means that people have had a higher rate of problems than the average model. I'm more concerned about the electrical system "semi-black mark" because this would be "straight trouble".

1.3 million people responded to the survey for all cars and I feel that people may be partially complaining about the audio system because of the complex nature of the system, not necessarily because something broke down. There's certainly not complaining about the quality of the sound- best sound system I've ever heard in a car except for maybe the upgraded Mark Levinson system in Lexus vehicles.

What do you folks think? What have your experiences been with your 2005 and 2006 RL regarding service history? Any service issues of any kind? How about the audio and electrical systems?

Here's a link to the explanation of the ratings:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...view/index.htm

 

Remember that the 1.3 million people are all CR subscribers. Maybe people who subscribe to that magazine are not very technical? Perhaps they tend to be older individuals.

CR is to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

This youngish technical person subscribes to CR and actually responded to the survey about the 2006 RL. But I do agree that it should be taken with a grain of salt.

The link listed in the OP is only accesible to subscribers. I'll make a pdf of the page and post later.

 

I've been a CR subscriber for years (yes, I take their ratings with a grain of salt but I have more confidence in CR's ability to be objective than I do Motor Trend or Car and Driver). I've filled out numberous automotive surveys for them and while the complexity of some systems by be intimidating to some, the actual survey asks is looking for repair issues. From CR's website:

"They are asked to identify problems that they considered serious (because of cost, failure, safety, or downtime). We ask them to include problems covered by warranty, but not the ones resulting from accident damage. We also ask them not to include replacement of normal maintenance items (like brake pads, batteries, and mufflers) unless they were replaced much sooner or more often than expected."

Also, the "black mark" represents "Much worse than average"
The semi-black mark represents "Worse than average"

LL

 

Am I missing something the site youreference is TL not RL

 

 

Fair enough- so have any of you experienced audio/electrical problems?

I trust CR most also because of their state of art car testing facility and the fact that they don't accept advertising.

Do I think ALL the writers at Road & Track, Car & Driver, et al. are "in bed" with the car manufacturers- no, but there's definitely an appearance of inpropriaty. The writers are wined/dined and given a brand new car to drive around when a new model comes out or a redesign of an old one is produced. The car manufacturers give them other perks and the publisher will accept advertising from a car manufacturer in the same issue the writer has written a review in. So there's a $50K BMW ad in the magazine and right next to it is an "unbiased" review? That's why CR can be trusted more that the others- it's not the bible, but I do find it to be the best source consistantly.

And for those of you that think the department at CR that tests the toasters is the same department as the car testers- you're mistaken. BY the way, the way they buy their cars is anonymously- walk into a dealer off the street and buy it outright without identifying themselves. I can't imagine that the car manufacturers would allow a "lemon" or even a "lime be tested by Road & Track. The car they give the reviewer I'm sure has been "rigourously extra tested"a great deal for possible major/minor defects before it gets delivered to the car reviewer.

 

Average reliablity when it only got 1 black dot? Thats not right especially considering everyone knows if you take care of an acura it will last you a lifetime.

 

I agree with you. I believe that the average reliability rating happened because of all the problems with the 2005 model

 

My problem with CR isn't because they aren't trust-worthy. I'm sure they are. It's just that their ratings and reviews (not speaking of the reliability ratings from the consumers themselves) seem to be almost universally different than what I'd say. They also seem to have a different opinion about what they're looking for in cars then I have. That doesn't mean either one of us is wrong. We're just looking for different things.

For example, if you read the review of the RL that neuronbob posted (thanks Bob!), I disagree with their opinion of the SHAWD (i.e., "..handling is neither more agile nor more secure than the competition" and, "The driver-interaction system, which controls the audio and navigation systems, isn't particularly easy to use......"

Anyway, since I always seem to be looking for something different than I am, I just don't find their opinions and reviews about cars all that useful to me. Reliability ratings may be a different story.

 

On low volume cars the CR marks can skew pretty quickly. They always gave the 1G Legend 5MT a 'Car to Avoid' because of the clutch. I never had undue problems with my clutch and I asked lots of repair shops if they saw patterns on the car and they all said no. Due to the low # of owners of that version of Legend the marks skewed quickly.

I notice the weekly car review in my local newspaper is just like the Motortrend TV show. Promotional entertainment rather than a real critique or review.

 

What I was surprised about was the audio mark. As far as I can tell no one around here has manifested any audio problem. However the 2005 electrical gremlins are well known. My only gremlin is that the Nav system occasionally decides to reboot itself. My guess is that next year (more 06's in data) should improve the reliability raitings. The same thing happened to the TL, the first year was only ave (04) but it is now excellent.

 

More info now available online @ CR- April car issue just came out.

 

Problems with CR:

1) Their sample consists solely of CR subscribers. This is too demographically narrow for my tastes.

2) Their editors are not technophiles. They don't understand how to actually operate the RL. For example, they say the "driver interaction" isn't easy to use. That's probably because the editors don't realize you can TALK to the car and the user interface will respond to voice commands. Compare CR's comments to CNET or PC Magazine, which are clearly more technologically oriented. With CR, you have low-tech people trying to review a high-tech car.

 

I agree... I haven't heard anyone in here complain about the Audio reliability either. But I do remember somewhere reading that the original radio unit was 'Panasonic' (may still be) and that they had a problem with a 'lead based' sodder used on the components...which I suppose is notorious for failing. When the unit would die, they would replace it with a lead free unit. That's my layman interpretation of the problem

 

Don't you guys think CR was kind of harsh in rating the RL?

 

Extremely harsh rating on the RL.

 

Just read the final report for the RL. It's the same as posted above.

I don't get how the audio system deserves a black mark. I've had no issues and haven't seen much here about it. They continue to complain about the complex controls. Personally, I think the M's controls are MORE complicated.

They gush over the Infiniti M, though. It's in the top ten of their "would buy again" list, their "most comfortable car" list, and is not only recommended, but meets their more stringent "second tier" recommendation. The Acura TL is one of their faves as well, in the "Upscale car" segment.

So like CR or not, they are driving sales of the M to the detriment of the RL. All you have to do is look at the numbers. That's life and hopefully Acura will rise to the challenge instead of letting the current RL languish for nearly ten years like it did the last one. And faithful readers will recall I strongly considered the M but chose to stay in the fam....even the most faithful Honda/Acura fanboy has to admit that the M has something.

 

Just got my April 2007 issue of Consumer Reports (annual auto issue). There's an article on safety features where they list the NHTSA results for front, side, and rollover safety ratings. Of the 249 vehicles listed (not all had test results listed though), two cars had the best ratings in all categories (risk less tahn 10%). One was a 2 wheel drive - the Ford Crown Victoria. The other was 4 wheel drive.

LL

 

Who makes the rating of the audio system? Is it based on surveys or the writers'/editors' opinions?

 

It is purely informational. NONE of the reviews, including our own are completely subjective. They are filtered by our personal tastes and desires. The funny part of CR reviews, is I have never found them to align with my tastes in automobiles. Vehicles they praise, I tend to be uninspired by. Other vehicles they downplay, I tend to find appealing. The only vehicle CR praised that I bought was my 05 TL. They claimed it was nearly the same car as the RL for less money. Truth is, I traded my TL for the RL because it was NOT as good as the RL (for my tastes), especially in build quality. So how carefully did they examine it? A brief, subjective review is all it was. But I do pay attention to reliability ratings, but again you have to research what they truly reflect. I do not consider an XM module update or a pop up power port on the center console justifyable as a 'black mark'. Electronic failures for drivability or safety - YES! A touch sensitive door unlocking gee whiz - NO.

My take is if you buy your vehicle based on what others say, you are looking for affirmation. If you use their information and opinions to qualify what appeals to you, fine. But make your purchase based on what YOU like, not what others like (unless they write the check for you). You are likely then to be enjoying your ride for yourself and not driving and paying to please others.

 

How about a good natured second opinion on Consumers Reports, not picking on your post, but using your post for convenience and responding also to others in several threads now ongoing here at Acurazine, seemingly intent on trashing Consumers Reports.

My advice to anyone shopping cars...those ignoring Consumers Reports does so at their own risk.

I'm a life member of CR, and I don't always agree with the ratings, but I never debunk them, agree with them or not.

Approaching 70,000 miles on my '05RL, I agree generally with CR's overall evaluation of the RL.

Fred

 

You hit it dead on here. Im also a CR subsciber and at first considered it the bible, but soon found out its just another source for reliability data. The guys at CR have their own biases also when reviewing the cars regardless of who purchases the vehicles for their testing.

In their annual car issue this is a portion of what they say about test results vs. reliability. I know alot of people here would disagree here with CR's statement.

TEST RESULTS VS. RELIABILITY

If the only things that mattered to a car buyer were performance, comfort, and safety, Volkswagen would be at the top of the heap. Its Volkswagen and Audi models do well in handling, braking, and standard safety features. But few VWs have decent reliability.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture a guess that the negative rating on the audio system comes from the very poor experiences so many have had with the acura music link ipod set up. I've read countless negative reviews on this board, for example, about the problems with that facet of the audio system. I know it is not standard equipment. Nonetheless, if a RL buyer had to complain about that system, it would fall under the category of "audio system" in consumer reports.

I'm with the rest of you on the supplied audio system. It is outstanding. Mine has been trouble free and I've not read many complaints here about it at all.

 

My experience with the '05 doesn't match up with theirs. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I haven't had any problems...zero. So far the reliability of all systems has been perfect. About the only thing I'd agree with is the trunk being a little small for a car this size. Of course, I had an '03 Audi A4 Cabriolet before so the RL's trunk seems pretty big

The biggest "issue" I've had was the nav system showing me one street over one time in Scottsdale and wanting to recalc the route.

 

You may be misinterpreting the little colored dots as:

Red dots, good - very few people had problems;
Black dots, very bad - loads of people had problems.

There is actually much much less difference than you might think. The difference between a red and a black dot may be as little as 3 people out of a hundred. The red dot may mean that 1 person in a 100 had a problem in that area, while the black dot indicates that 4 people in a 100 had problems. Put another way, it's 99% versus 96% of owners with no problems.

In short, much ado about nothing.

 

Put another way based on your numbers...those with black black dots had four times the problems as those with red dots. Quite significant.

If you were one with a black dot vehicle, you wouldn't consider it much ado about nothing. If you have a black dot vehicle, the odds are not in your favor.

LL

 

Yes, it's 4 times the number of problems, but what's really important is that it's a 1% versus a 4% chance of having a problem. And the odds are very much in your favor, 96% to be exact. It would be an entirely different matter if it were 20% versus 80%. My point is that many people look at the little colored dots and assume that it's the latter, i.e., 20% versus 80%, or worse.

There is another very important point here. The true significance of differences cannot be determined from purely relative data such as x is 4 times y, or x is 50% worse than average. Whenever you are presented such data, your immediate reaction should be to ask questions such as: "4 times what exactly?" "What's the average?" "What are the actual numbers?" You don't know much without the absolute numbers. You might think you do, but you're really in the dark. (I'm not referring to you specifically, but to people in general.)

And that's the great sin of Consumer Reports. All relative data almost all the time, accompanied by frequent appeals to emotions, especially fear.