Just noticed that consumer reports RL reliablity has slipped from very good to good. I remember the same thing happened to TL when it came out last year. But TL had a transmission recall. What could have been the reason for RL?

 

Probably some of the bugs noticed with the several TSB's out for the RL. Who knows, CR isn't a car reviewing magazine. I had a business aquaintance who worked there about 5 years ago. Their testing labs are ancient. They might not need the high-tech equipment, but they don't compare to UL or CSA who actually test for safety. I view their information as information, nothing more or less. Besides, if everybody listened to them, people would only drive a Lexus, never a MB, BMW, Audi or Acura...

In any event, you can't predict reliability on any car. It just happens... a few years later.

 

What does UL and CSA stand for?

 

UL is Underwriters Laboratory and CSA is Canadian Standards Association.

They are two organizations that test for safety of equipment.

If you buy an appliance that plugs in your wall, you will probably see a "UL Approved" sticker in the U.S. If not, it hasn't been tested by UL and may not pass a basic safety test.

 

Ahh yes. I thought UL looked familiar. I didn't know about CSA though. Thanks norcal

 

CSA is the Canadian Standards Association, the safety organization for Canadian products.

 

CR violently defends and keeps secrect sample sizes. I believe it's because, very rarely, do they have a sample size large enough to make their ratings relevant. A one year old car that sells as few as Acura does RL is a great example. Any guess how many people that have RLs actually submitted info to CR? I mean how much data can you have on a car that is barely one year old? CR is great for the penny pinched middle grade school teachers (God bless them all!) after that they start gasping for air.
Their review of the C5 Corvette was hillariuos!

 

"violently" Are you engaging in scandalous libel or just using literary hyperbole?

Acually CR set a record this year with over one million responses to their surveys.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...ility-1005.htm

Our 2005 reliability survey, the largest of its kind, reached a milestone this year--we've gathered responses on more than 1 million vehicles from Consumer Reports and ConsumerReports.org subscribers, the most we've ever received. These results underpin the most comprehensive reliability data you will find anywhere.

 

What does that have to do with sample size? How many responses per specific model? If there are, say, 20,000 05 RLs on the road how many responses did they get on the specific model in question? Is it enough to be statistically relevant? Do you know? Will CR tell you? Be careful how you use terms like hyperbole and "scandalous libel"

 

I was being facetious responding to your "violently" Since you apparantly believe in CRs violence what is your source?

 

Let's get back on track.

Do you buy into ratings without sample sizes being given? You provided a "miilion" replies like it means something. What does it mean? How many apply to the 05 Acura RL?

CR has been roundly criticized over the years for not giving sample sizes on ratings. My contention is that they won't do it as it will demonstrate how little value some of their ratings actually are.

Did you ever take a statistic class? Any value in a conclusion without a stated sample size?

 

Yes I am quite knowledable in statistics! I believe that CR practices proper sampling theorems (but I can not violently prove that). They have on many occasions said that they can not provide a reliability rating due to lack of data.

Folks need to realize that these are merely predictions based on past performance and history as well as current sample rates. With respect to new models CR is very up front about them being First Year Models (they are marked with an asterisk) - basically CR is crying caveat emptor.

One thing I have noticed is that most criticism toward CR are from folks who violently object to their cars ratings The Europeans (BMW, MB, ect) and the RL folks are violently criticising. The GS and M folks are violently happy.

BTW: I employed the use of some literary hyperbole for effect

 

So what is the sample size on the 05 RL? Sticking an asterisk in front of something is no substiute for a real analysis. If you are happy this method so be it. But it has nothing to do with a real finding.
Even ostriches are actually looking for water when they stick their head in the sand.

 

I am probably one of relatively few RL owners that is also a CR subscriber and actually received its survey. Did I take the time to complete it and send it back? No, not enough time as it was a low priority for me. Now reading and discussing at Acurazine, that's a high priority for sure.

I come down on the side that I suspect (only my speculation of course) that the statistical response was so low for the RL that the CR survey may not have been a "reliable" survey, at least relative to the RL. I suspect it only took a handful or fewer of negative responses on maybe the battery drain issue, as an example, to skew the results. My RL is almost 13 months old and it has been very reliable.

Now I regret not taking the time to complete the survey as it might have mattered given the probable low response level for the 05 RL.

 

I have used CR when I'm ready to buy an appliance but I don't trust their results when it comes to cars - perhaps this is because I don't know a thing about appliances and I do know a little about cars. Also, we need to consider that those of us who have a negative experience or reliability issue with a car are much more likely to respond to a survey. Those of us who are merely satisfied with the performance of our car do not fill out surveys because we don't feel strongly one way or the other. I like my car so much that I think I would also be inclined to respond to the survey.

Finally, I think that a visit to a site like this one will give anyone a much better idea of the relative reliability of a car when compared with the results of a CR survey. Spend time on www.nsxprime.com and you will become an expert on all things related to the NSX, includiing its reliability record.

 

I can't answer that question, but what's wrong with my fairly early production 2005 (serial number in the 7000's) includes the following, and these issues are definitely partly responsible for the ratings slip:

1. Lost Onstar minutes;
2. XM issues with slow refresh/possible battery drain/who knows what;
3. Loud metallic slapping sounds from the front end when hitting tar strips;
4. Passenger door handle that will not lock when touched.

There are TSB's which cover some of the above...and TSB's which cover problems I haven't yet encountered or discovered.

At almost 14,000 miles, I haven't had the ones specifically mentioned fixed. My service is at 30% and I'll wait until I can get it to a dealer to see about having some of this looked at. I'm 300 miles from my purchasing dealer and 100 miles from the nearest dealer, so this isn't a dealer visit I'm particularly looking forward to. It'll be an all day affair and if I get back to the purchasing dealer like I want to, it could mean an overnight stay.

The ratings could have slipped even lower if I had sent my questionaire in.

And, I haven't been notified to bring in the car to fix any of the TSB problems.

Fred

 

Gentlemen....get out your flamethrowers..........

I am about to enter the debate (with significant knowledge about both statistics and Consumers Union).

Here are a few points for your edification.

Consumers Union does not base their reliability predictions on just their questionaire. One of trained employees has driven the Rl for close to 6 months in order to evaluate the car. This assessment, factors into their reliability prediction. This close up evaluation is in addition to all of their testing on their test track.

No one know whether their sampling is statistically significant unless you can see their data, but for those who know statistics, a relatively small sample (of maybe 50-150) can render statistically significance results. I cannot imagine that they would base their opinion (and reputation) on a statistically insignificant sample size.

Consumers Union has been sued by many manufacturers who were unhappy w their evaluations and to date they have never lost a suit. In fact, in many of their high profile cases they have won their legal expenses w a countersuit.

As a final point CU assesses cars for their reader base, therefore they probably don't place much value in features and functions that the upscale consumer holds dearly. In a few weeks their test RL will go on auction to their employees, and it is my educated guess that it will be a highly sought after car (as are all the Acuras)

 

They gave the BMW 540 the highest rating they ever gave any car.........

 

I too have an early RL with a VIN of about 6500 and consider my RL to be extremely reliable. You may not agree with me but I consider items 1 and 2 not to be true Acura reliability issues. XM and Onstar are service provders to Acura owners as well as other car owners. That doesn't mean issues with their services and equipment aren't important just maybe not so much a factor for Acura reliability.

Regarding item #3 the OEM tires may be (but not sure since I have never encountered it) a big part of that issue. The stock tires are pretty rigid and communicate a fair amount of road noise and bumps to the passengers. I have recently changed tires and found it much smoother and quieter just from that change.

Haven't encountered the door handle issue but that should clearly be an Acura issue that they should address for you.

They won't contact you about the TSBs as there is no recall that would trigger a notice. Worth getting though imho so to be its worth the drive to get the latest upgrades. Best of luck.

 

Didn't the TSB PDF posted here state that affected owners would be notified for a couple of the issues? I recall that there was a sample notification letter in the PDF.

I see your point regarding XM and Onstar, but believe the problems cropping up with those systems are a factor with the lower reliability ratings. The rattly brakes and defective door handles definitely affect reliability.

These are all well-known issues and there are others.

I don't mean to sem critical of the RL. I posted in this thread because certain of the posts disparaged CR. So I pointed out some of the issues I'm having to deal with in an otherwise very enjoyable car.

 

I rcvd a notice in the mail.

 

Easy. Acura quality is barely avg looking at surveys and results. They exchange top engineering for this silly luxury value proposition. Thus you get tons of features in a car cheaper than the competiton but at a price. Reliability. Outside the TSX, most Acuras have silly problems today

 

You can't be serious! A couple of software glitches and loose brake pads equate to poor build quality? Please! The Acura has been and maintains some the best built cars in the world.

 

Doesn't Consumer Reports send surveys only to subscribers? How many people who drive 2005 Acura RL happen to also be subscribers? How many of them received the survey? How many to the people who received the survey completed and returned them?

 

I received one...filled it in and returned it.

 

I agree Rich...
"poor build quality" is the wrong phrase to use. It should be "poor software engineering quality" in reality.

A couple of software glitches does not mean anything to me either.
That was until the "trunk battery drain" glitch reared its ugly head!

For me that came to light after I put money down on an RL & scheduled my delivery date for the car.

When the delivery date for the RL got nixed by the dealer (due to damage noted on the car), I opted out & decided to wait several weeks for a later build RL fresh off the boat.

The trunk battery drain issue was the "breaking" glitch for me.
My wife was to be the primary user of the RL, she travels on business, & uses the trunk alot.

For me, a dead battery scenario is not acceptable with the late hours & remote locations she drives to, not in a new car, not in any car!

That started my eye wandering to other AWD choices, & the subsequent purchase of our first non Honda produced foriegn car. (I was a GM die hard idiot until my wife introduced me to the pleasures of Honda vehicle ownership...my wife is a die hard Honda fan since the purchase of her first new Honda back in 1987, & was excited about RL ownership)!

Are we through with Honda? Absolutely not! Later this year a friend of ours will need a car & is seeking advice......I'm taking him to a Honda dealer first! If he wants to splurge, I'll take him to an Acura dealer to drive the TL!

 

1 of my favorite cars I've ever owned was a Legend Coupe with manual transmission. (I actually had 2 Legend Coupes, both great cars.)

Did CR recommend this car? No, it was on their avoid list because they said the clutch was a problem area. Mine went out, sure, but at 120k miles.
I'd always ask mechanics if they saw trouble with the Legend clutches, they'd always say no. I think the CR sample was very small for Legend Coupes, much less manuals.

CR is okay if you want a middle of the road mass produced vehicle. But if you want a low production model, take CR results with lots of salt! I relied on Legend and Acura forums and talked to other enthusiasts for better info.
For a vacumm cleaner, toaster, or general car info CR is a good resource.

 

Just checked CR's evaluation of the 2005 RL online...reliability is now "average". There is a big black dot for power equipment and half black dots for electrical and body integrity. Their driving evaluation also didn't like the headlights. There was also a half a black dot for something else in the review, but I forget what. Everything else came up red dots or half dots...looks very impressive overall except for those problem areas.

Can't say that I disagree with CR's published assessment...based on my own experience with my RL.

All that said, even if I had read that review in June when I took delivery of mine, I'd still bought one.

I do agree with most of your post regarding CR, however. I've always valued the extras and will pay more for them whereby CR seems oriented towards value for the masses.

Overall, I think CR's assesment of the '05RL and the input from their survey is pretty well right on.

Fred