I was just thinking about why the RL is selling better in some parts of the country than in others. What are the two most significant features of the RL, the features that make the car unique? In my opinion, those two features are SH-AWD and NavTraffic.

But here's the problem: people tend to associate AWD with safety in hilly and/or snowy areas (although that's not the whole story with SH-AWD). With that mindset, why would someone who lives in an area where the land is relatively flat and it rarely snows need or even want AWD? Since the only way to get an RL is with the SH-AWD system, maybe people who believe that they will get no value from AWD simply overlook this car?

Also, I personally think NavTraffic is wonderful. Of course, it helps that I happen to live in one of the 20 cities that is covered by this feature. If you don't live in one of these 20 areas, what you are getting is "just" a navigation system (again perception, not reality). So there goes the other unique RL feature.

So, what do you all think? Would someone who 1) lives in an area where they don't think they need AWD and 2) can't access NavTraffic, be substantially less likely to buy the RL? Could some of you who bought the RL in say, Texas or Virginia Beach, explain why you have this car?

 

IMO, if I don't need these two features, I probably would never consider RL is the choice for me. I see your points, and you could be right. If I just live in Sunny CA where is outsdies those major cities, except go skiing, I'd like to have RWD with Summer tires. Could I put Summer tires on AWD?


But, I guess AWD could enhance the safety of driving and NavrTraffic would steadily invovle more and more cities and areas. Some people may still consider this car.

 

IMHO this is the major downside to the RL. You have to get AWD, and nav.

Let's face it, AWD accounts for only a tiny fraction of cars sold, even when it is available. Sure, those who need it really like it, but again, hardly anyone really needs it.

I have a good friend in Chicago who refuses to get AWD since he said the snow removal there is so good even in a Chicago winter you hardly need it. Personally, I think it is a perception thing, a car with good winter tires will be adequate for most winter situations. Only the most extreme conditions will truely warrant AWD.

I would really like to see the RL in rear drive for the low $40k range like the rear drive M35. Taking the AWD out of the RL would cut cost (around $3k I figure) and reduce weight. Sounds like a plan to me.

 

Interesting. I live in Chicago and, for my 'bad weather car' (currently the RL), won't consider a car without AWD. We've had mild winters the past few years so Streets & San has been able to keep up but that's not always the case.

Something else to consider here, though, is traveling outside of your region. Despite whatever specific weather patterns or topology you may experience locally if you travel long distances you may benefit from having a vehicle that can adapt to changing conditions. I know I do but not everyone else may have that need.

 

Personally, I see the RL as a niche product. It is a wonderful car for people who adapt well to technology and has the added bonus of one of the most advanced AWD systems available for people who want AWD. But I think Honda/Acura was justified in setting a goal of 20,000 units per model year. The RL might vaguely resemble the Accord, but it is not meant to be a mainstream product like the Accord. So I guess we need to revel in our uniqueness as RL drivers.

 

Out of curiosity, what percentage of cars in "Chicagoland" are AWD? From my observations visiting there about 20 times the percentage is very low, under 5% would be my guess. This would indicate "most people" are able to get around just fine without it. Sure if there is a big storm they are snowed in, but then again so is 95% of the population, so not much is open anyway. I also used to work with a guy who lived in St. Charles for 35 years and has driven rear-drive Town Cars forever with no snow tires. He said he is rarely snowed in. Then again he was one of these guys who didn't wear a coat when temps were in the 20's so maybe he is just wierd?

As you said I guess if you get out of the metro area you might need it more.

 

In my area, snow removal is not bad, but there were at least 2 instances where the RL's AWD saved us from likely emergencies when caught in snow storms. It is about having the AWD for the unexpected, having the best AWD, and having one of the safetest cars in crash tests that motivated me to get the RL. From that prespective, having intellegent cruse control and lane departure warning added to the RL would have been prefect.

The RL is not for 95% of the population, and that is just fine with me.

 

Another difference that is not just regional: the RL doesn't fish-tail in a quick turn such as going into a fast moving lane from a side street. Any other car that has no AWD or SH-AWD could easily go into a fish-tailing. Even with VSC, a car without SH-AWD would more likely slows it down merging into the fast lane and be more dangerous.

I would like to think that there is a logic for Lamborgini to have AWD in all of their cars. AWD does have some performance advantages over RWD.

 

I got it for the technology and the fact *no one* in my area even knows about the car.

In fact, I live in SW Florida (flat terrain, no "real" use for SH-AWD, in theory) I've had it since Dec 2004 and have made several 800+ mile trips throughout the state, and I have yet to see even *one* other RL in traffic, ever...

Prior to this car, I had a series of back-to-back BMWs, starting back in 1992, and simply got tired of seeing all the 3- and 5-series around me in traffic. That was probably the single main reason I gave up the BMWs and opted for a car I figured very few, if any, people in my area would want. Just a personal thing...

One last point, in my area of Florida, a traditional retiree mecca, I continue to believe one of the reasons for not seeing the 05 RL on the road is that, probably, the "technology" involved in the car drives a lot of the older residents away. One look at the console is probably enough to give them respiratory arrest and send them over for a Lexus (or Sebring convertible). While I'm aware many of our elder retirees who have been exposed to lots of technology in their former professional lives (i.e., computer people, engineers, gadget-savvy ones, etc.) would not mind the car's techno demands, most of the retirees in my area do not have that background and would, I suspect, opt out for a car with large buttons and oversized dials (like the Camrys of a couple of years back).

 

I'll bet those same retirees would have a heart-attack after trying to get the ever so frustrating iDrive to work in the BMWs...

And I think the RL really is a very niche car, which is what Acura truly intended. There is a very specific, targetted audience for this car. I also feel like Acura developed this car as a stop gap measure while it works on an even larger, much more luxurious flagship (the rumor mill claims one is coming).

In the end, the RL is still an excellent compromise of performance, luxury, and technology. It has a lot of the things that a lot of the people want, but not necessarily in the combination that people want. And while providing options is nice, it also drives up production cost, which Honda has been able to keep under control by not offering options and, as a result, been able to pass those savings on to the customers.

 

It sounds like that there is a lot of confusion regarding the attributes of All Wheel Drive relative to 4 Wheel Drive. In addition to the enhanced handling of AWD, the SH AWD is unique in moving torque from side to side as well as front to rear.
Not that I should recommend it but push your RL to the limit and then get back to me on its abilities. It is a great system and you don't need snow to prove it.

 

If I didnt have any snow here during the winter I probably never would have got the RL and stuck with my IS300 or got another RWD car.

Hell, the main reason I got the RL is not just the snow but where I live in the city...I have the option of 2 roads to get from my house to a main street and both streets are a bitch in the winter because I live on a mini hill area. I had my previous IS300 get stuck a couple times on these roads and that was with snow tires....hell, taxis dont even come to my sub division if these roads arent plowed. So yeah, I needed an AWD car or a FWD car and well, the AWD system in the RL sounded like a great option to have most of my IS300 handling and also have better use in the snow.

I do like having the AWD system of the RL as I know the rear wont come loose under fairly quick turns and I also like how when in mid turn and you floor it the torque goes to that outside wheel and the car just begs for more. I need to put better performing tires on it and see how improved the handling will be.

Anyway, no questions it being AWD only has cost some sales but that si a-ok with me. I like having a car that is rare...cuts down o the chance stupid people will buy it and put ugly bodykits (you know the ones I am talking about) or huge wings on it.

 

I absolutely agree with you. RL's major technological advancement is the SH-AWD; I hope it's on the next-gen MDX. I'm sure its coming to Pilot, Odessy, MDX later on. But I do not HAVE to have it. Yes it nice, but its not a must have feature for me. While I consider Navi a must (and Acura is the best), I do not have to have Traffic - ESPECIALLY as a cost/subscription service. RL's OnStar, XM Radio, and RealTime Traffic are costly subscription services that I could do without.

 

Not only to people confuse AWD and 4WD, they generally don't know the difference between FWD and RWD. Here's an article that goes into more detail:

http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/090404.html

I remember when the new TL first came out, my friend felt that the Audi A4 would out sell it. I argued that the American driver would more likely go with the TL over the A4 because it has what American drivers understand: horsepower and gadgets.

I'm happy to have an RL and I see at least one other RL per day in my area. However, I think of the RL as a niche product, and there's nothing wrong with a niche product. The RL's advantages are similar to the TL's: horsepower and gadgets. Plus it has SH-AWD, which might be beyond the comprehension of many potential buyers. In addition, if you don't need AWD, the Infiniti M sport's cornering abilities are equal to the RL's, if not better, for less money.

Finally, many of the features of the RL ARE subscription based. If a person is unwilling to pay for XM with NavTraffic or On Star, then maybe the RL is not the car for that person? That's okay. Maybe those person would prefer an Infiniti M which comes with nearly nothing feature-wise at the base level.

Here's something else I was thinking about: the RL is a niche product just like the Acura CL was a niche product. Let's hope the RL doesn't end up like the CL. I don't think it will suffer the same fate.

 

I don't see where I made any claims about how other people in Chicago perceive the need for AWD or not, I was only speaking for myself and my needs. As to "Chicagoland" and percentages, I wouldn't have a clue as I live in the city and leave the hinterlands for others to ponder. I'm surprised, though, that in your 20 visits you saw such a vastly different traffic pattern than what I see on a daily basis - where it seems almost every other vehicle is an SUV, frequently with something other than 2WD. Perhaps out in the "land" portion it's different than what I see here in Chicago without the "land"?

 

An absolute must read - GOTO: http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_grip_grin_2/index.htm

Bottom line is that SH-AWD =

 

There IS a difference between unwilling, unable, and indifferent. I am indifferent about OnStar, XM, and NavTraffic - I certainly can do without them, but if I had them I might very well subscribe and use them. My point is that these items are not a reason for me to choose a car; they are neutral points.

RL's biggest advantage to me is SH-AWD; biggest negative is price. For me the RL's main competition is the M35 - but NOT "at the base level." A feature rich M35 Sport with Journey Package, Navi w/ Back-up Camera, and Full Size Spare MSRP's for less than a discounted RL.

 

Thanks... lots of additional info inside that article.

 

I have no doubt about your comments, it's your choice, your preference. Yes, M45, M35 Sport, and M35 AWD are all in the market against RL at this time. But, if you try to choose one to compare with RL from head to toes, I'd say "M35 AWD" with full features instead of M35 Sport. IMO.


But, I know RWD may be more realistic in TX.

 

I am still undecided and yes AWD is not as much an advantage in South Texas as in other places. The M Sport has a "type" of 4-wheel steering giving the car very good handling.

I also looked at the GS300, but it is way too expensive (unfortuneately money IS an object).

 

Based on what you said above, GS300 prolly would not fit your needs... and you may feel its slowness when accelerating.

 

The M25 sport's "super handling" feature might be more practical in TX.

 

I just checked online and the price difference between a properly optioned M35 Sport and the RL is about $160. Not exactly a huge difference when you're spending $50,000.

 

If the prices are that close, then someone has a really tough decision to make! Either car would be an excellent choice.

 

True, I'm debating between the RL and M35. Here's what I am considering:

'06 M35 Sport w/ Journey Package, Navi, & FSS has an MSRP of $47,390

I have not entered into serious negations yet on the M; they are NOT being discounted much yet - kind of like the RL at first. However I have bought from Infiniti before and have been told they will work with me, but how much? I have rec'd RL quotes at ~$45K. The issue is NOT price per se. I am just undecided on which car yet, I like parts of both of them.

 

msu,

I checked out the Infinity M35 before buying the RL.

The item that I really liked was the rear view camera. In addition to showing what was coming up, it showed curved lines to represent where your tires would be going as you turned the steering wheel.

However, the wooden dash looked exactly like contact paper. I believe them when they say it is real wood, but it felt quite cheap. Also the central console was just not attractive to me at all.

In general my observation was that the M35/45 was a sports/luxury car and the RL is a luxury/sports car.

Just my 2 cts.

David

 

Well the SH in the SH AWD is probably rarely used by anyone. It takes a great amount of slippage for it to kick in. Otherwise, the car is what 70% front drive, 30% rear drive most of the time.

People in the NE have gone for years without AWD, its not a necessity. People know its ABOUT the tires, even WITH AWD cars.

 

Sorry, to disagree, even partially, but the SH is active in virtually every corner where speed is involved. The outside tire is rotated faster to help the RL corner better (and it definitely works!).

I agree with you that tires are quite important, vital in many cases. And the OE tires can be bettered, without question.

But regarding the SH-AWD, here we disagree. The SH-AWD definitely adds to the handling (and lack of torque steer) that are among the RL's most endearing features. It is important in slippery situations as well, definitely helping in both major storms and on wintry roads.

 

Compared to the Acura CL Type S I previously owned, I can definitely tell the difference with the SH-AWD. I guess it depends on how aggressively one drives.

Good point about the tires, though.

 

[QUOTE=msu79gt82]I am still undecided and yes AWD is not as much an advantage in South Texas as in other places. The M Sport has a "type" of 4-wheel steering giving the car very good handling.

I think that Texas is so big that you only have to turn the wheel every few hours so the SH-AWD is a little superfluous!

 

The M35 Sport might be the car for you. Looks like you still have a tough decision!