DCRL

Maybe the sound cancellation doesn't work on your routes (whatever that means?) but it works in traffic and around the city I live in. Maybe you don't like the styling or the paddle shifters, or whatever. Fine. Your opinion is valid. It's entirely justified (for you). But it doesn't count for beans around my house.

You see, we are on opposite sides of the RL question and probably regarding the TL too. (Nice car but not for me.) The TL's touch screen is yesterday's technology to me. It's dirty all the time if put to good use. And I can speak a destination faster than you'll ever spell it out with your finger (your opinion otherwise, notwithstanding).

I am sorry you had troubles in Europe with a keyless entry system/ignition. But your troubles don't stop me from thanking the Acura engineers every time I approach the car with my hands full of groceries/dry cleaning/etc. and don't have to fumble for a key or a fob.

Now, if you don't like wooded interiors, you were definitely right not to get the RL. Me, I enjoy the richness of the interior. It peps me up when I climb into the driver's seat. And that extra soft leather, feel and shape of the seats in the RL made me say no to the TL. As for feeling that low end pull of a Mercedes, that's where you got me chuckling.

I've owned one Mercedes (E Class) and tried the latest, 2005 4-Matic model. Neither holds a candle to the RL (your opinion notwithstanding). And there isn't an Audi, Mercedes, or BMW within thousands of the RL that can run with it, straight line or curves. (The V-8's can, but they're priced more.)

Now—most importantly—please don't take offense, because I enjoyed reading your post. Too many "yes" cooks make a dull broth (or a lousy forum). The reason Acura makes RLs and TLs (and TSXs, and so on) isn't just to appeal to numerous pocketbooks. It's to appeal to different tastes. And the RL just isn't for you. But for many of us, the RL is a perfect example of what can be accomplished when leading-edge technologies combine.

And nobody has to weep for those of us who bought new RLs. Certainly not the automotive press who, almost without exception, appear to be mightily impressed with this new sedan. From its Canadian accolades in the face of a large price increase, to its triumph over other nameplates in Car & Driver's selection of "the best luxury sedan" (whatever that may be), Acura must be doing something right. After all, the company got me to cough up 50 big ones, when after spending similar money on an E-Class, I swore I'd never do it again.

I respect your opinion and I'm very glad you voiced it. I just don't agree with a single thing you said.

dpilati

The 530 is within .1 sec of the 0-60 and 1/4 mile time. So it can "run with it".

The 5 series with sport package pulls up to .93g on the skidpad. Same as a Porsche Boxster. The SH-AWD is great but there is still too much body roll to compete in the twisties with a 5 series sport - ok it could compete but it would lose. BTW - the braking distance from 70 mph is 17 feet longer on an RL vs a 530. 2 full car lengths.

The Audi S4 is cheaper and can far out accelerate it and outhandle it - just an example of another car that contradicts what you wrote. Well just to compare apples to oranges, the SLK 350 can out accelerate and probably outhandle it also with a base around $45.

The RL is a great car. So is the 5 series. Better deal - they are close. There are all sort of subtle features that I wanted that the RL doesn't have - auto wipers, bi-xenon lights, a passenger seat with height adjustment.

I think Acura could have done more here. By basing it on an accord it will get compared to an accord. And the TL comparison was to be expected. I don't cry for you - it is a great car and will be more reliable than the BMW but it is certainly not for everyone.

wavshrdr

DCRL- I think the RL is a good car but I personally don't care what the automotive press says as I've never bought a car solely on their recommendations. I think that it has a lot of room for improvement.

Lets break down a few things. Noisecancellation typically works best when noise is relatively steady. Get potholed roads and it much less effective. I've dealt with noise cancellation technology in aircraft for many years with mics and headsets as well as active noise cancellation to counter engine noise, again they all work best the steadier the sound is. Great to help counter tire whine as long as the surface doesn't change often.

Wait until you have issue with the keyless entry system and stand outside in inclement weather and see how much you miss just being able to open the car with a key easily if need be. Technology can be great when it works properly but what back-up is in place if it doesn't.

Wooden interior is a personal choice. I prefer carbon fiber instead of usually someones attempt to put some sort of fake wood or real wood that almost looks fake. Maybe on the level of a Rolls and then I might be more excited.

I have used many nav systems in my lifetime starting with the earliest aircraft ones. I am not saying ditch the voice and have only a touch screen (BTW mine is never dirty as my hands are clean) but keep the touch screen in addition to the voice commands. I use them frequently on my TL and I use voice control on a daily basis at work. In the TL forums I am firmly on the side of having voice commands but I think interfaces should be dual mode. I also think that she should have canted the screen toward the drive instead of having flat on the face. I also like the fact that the TL's is closer to the driver and personally I think easier to read. Others might argue that the RL's is closer to the line of sight while driving. Unfortunately for me it also decreases the apparent size of the display.

All in all I think it is a pretty good car but they really should have given it more low end torque, VCM, bi-xenons and more unique styling. If you take Euro delivery of a E500 the price advantage of the RL shrinks substantially.

I am sure if some of you are intellectually honest that while you may like the styling it does look a lot more like the Accord than you would probably want it to deep in your heart. If you put an Accord and an TL side by side with a RL, it looks like you could more easily trace its lineage to the Accord than a TL externally.

My point is that for the almost 50% price premium over the TL you don't even remotely get a 50% better car. It is better in some areas and not in others. If it had been better in almost every area I probably would have purchased one. Perhaps if I had never driven or seen a TL I might have purchased one. If it is really going to be Acura's flagship then it should have the best they have to offer and not be a paper tiger. I sometimes wonder about Acura's marketing savvy and other aspects of their business. One glaring example is the NSX, amazing car when it came out and then they just let it stagnate. RL is supposed to be the flagship but is usurped in many ways by the TL. RL is supposed to be the creme de la creme from Acura but the leave off bi-xenons, VCM, strong motor and give you bland Accord styling. There are definitely wonderful aspects of the car I just personally feel Acura fell short in some areas. Unfortunately if all RL owners feel the car is perfect as is, Acura will have no incentive to improve it and 5 years from now you'll have NSX part deux.

I guess in the grand scheme of things the new RL is better than the old RL but the old RL was the equivalent of a Japanese Buick. I like the RL a lot I just keep thinking about what it could have been...

dseag2

Wavshrdr, I certainly respect your opinion... and each of us has his/her own needs. With that said, I traded an '04 TL 5AT/Navi w/ 4,500 miles for my RL and haven't given it a second thought.

IMHO, the TL has a more visceral feel to it. It feels more lively. If you're looking strictly for straight-line performance it is the better choice.

However, the RL is much more refined and (I will disagree with you here) the materials are substantially upgraded. One example... take a look at the carpeting and stitched material that comes up the sides of the console in the RL, then compare it to the plastic in the TL. The other example that comes to mind is the low-res display in the TL nav vs. the one in the RL. There are also significant differences in the sound system, even though each one is DVD-Surround. I've lived with each car. I know.

Don't get me wrong... the TL is a great car. If it wasn't I would have never bought one. However, there are appreciable differences that warrant the price difference.

wavshrdr

deseag2- I am not slamming the RL. I know that some things are better but if you start to quantify what the items actually cost it is obvious to me that Acura is building more profit than value into the car.

For me the acceleration is important as well has how relaxed the car feels moving from a stop. To me the TL feels much "torquier" than the RL. The RL is a heavy car and it feels it and it is reflected in the fuel milage numbers.

My point is Acura could have easily made the RL much better without much additional cost. Yes I noticed the difference in the audio systems but both are plagued by the same issue in that there are not many discs to take advantage of it either way so we have a somewhat esoteric issue at this point.

The increase in displacement cost Acura virtually nothing. They should have added the VCM system while they were at it though.

I do notice the differences between the TL and the RL. Obviously some of you thought the car was worth the extra money. I seriously considered one before buying the TL.

One thing I don't see many of you standing up and raving about is the car's styling. It really is too understated for my tests. Fortunately it looks better in person than in photos but that isn't saying a whole lot. It really doesn't look too distinctive and again the family bloodline looks more Accord than TL or TSX.

I am curious as to how many of you truly like the styling of the RL? Do any of you wish it would have been a little more inspired? Looking from the rear 3/4 view the car screams Accord to me and I personally was never a big fan of its body style.

The RL has good HP for a NA V6 but it is definitely weak compared to its competitors V8's and if you are going to be the flagship you need to be able to play heads up against the competition and not hide behind qualifiers such as best V6 in class, or class leading v6 torque, etc. I think the RL is a pretty nice car and could have been made much better with a few tweaks.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

But tweaks always mean added cost. Honda already relies very heavily on volume because the profit margin on its cars tend to be lower than most other automakers in the industry. Honda found a good balance between price and features for this car. And while some people will look elsewhere because of subtle details, most buyers interested in this car will enjoy it for what it is, which is a well engineered, reliable, and well equipped means of transportation.

Honda also has always had a different philosophy towards its engineering, which have an appeal to its loyal owners. Having a V8 is only important in the US, where V8 engines are king, but in most of the other markets where Honda sells its cars, the V6 engines make up most of the purchases since gas is quite a bit pricier in other parts of the world. And Honda has done its homework in the subject, since only 15% of sales in this category are of the V8 models.

Some people will argue that the lack of a V8 reduces the perception of the RL as a flagship, but those people are looking for "prestige" as opposed to engineering and reliability. Besides, all people want different things and even if you don't like the RL, there are still going to be enough people that do to sell every one they make.

wavshrdr

I don't think the V8 is king only in America. Actually you have to look at the tax structure in Europe to see why there weren't more people buying V8's. Its not that they really wanted a V6 or V4, it is their governments taxed the snot of them based on the displacement of the motor. A V8 is inherently smoother than a V6. Europe went with smaller displacement but higher revving motors to circumvent the taxman! Combine that we the sometimes greater thirst of the V8 and the high fuel prices (again because of the taxman) and you had an environment ripe for people to find a way for high performance but with a small motor. That is why you saw so many turbo or S/C cars in Europe.

If I follow your logic to its conclusion then we should all be driving diesels. I think diesels now outsell their gas counterparts in Europe in overall sales or at least where a model has a gas and a diesel version the diesel usually outsells the gas counterpart. The reason for this is two-fold, first high fuel prices and diesels get much better mileage and second the diesels have a great amount of low end torque which makes the car better in day to day driving. Driving a V6 diesel is akin to driving a gas V8. Likely the V6 diesel has even more torque than the gas V8 at low PRMs.

I understand Honda's philosophy starting wayyyy back at the beginning. I had many early Honda cars and more Honda motorcycles than I can count. Inspite of Honda's all-knowing, all-seeing prowess I don't bow at the Honda/Acura altar. I even sold them for many years. I appreciate many of their designs but I remember way back when Sochiro Honda swore Honda would never ever build a 2-stroke motor, yada, yada, yada. It wasn't too long after that statement that Honda brought out a 2-stroke motor.

There are many reasons for a V8 other than just prestige. V8's tend to have better balance. Since usually they have bigger displacements (but not always) they tend to have more torque. As a result of having more torque they can pull taller gearing and be quieter and have good fuel mileage. To many of you think that because something is great for another market (i.e. Japan or Europe) that it will be great here. Our driving conditions are quite different than either of those countries however Europe is becoming more like the US in many ways though. As a result you see more V8s in BMW and Audis than before. How many of you remeber way back when that the only motor that came in a 5 series was a 6 cylinder? Now you get V8 or V10's.

Europe forced manufacturers not to choose what might be the best design from an engineering stand point but one mandated by tax structure. A lot of our design was determined by CAFE standards and the EPA. I am not going to buy the spoon-fed-pablum that Acura wants to feed me to make me think that just because "they" say so that a V6 is the ultimate expression of a flagship car. Flagship is supposed to be the pinnacle or status maker of a manufacturers lineup. It is supposed to be its technological tour de force. Honda has made some amazing V8s. Again at the very least if they were going to keep the V6 drop the VCM on it so you at least get mileage better than your competitors V8s! It barely squeaks past a MB E500 in mileage. Reminds me of the old commercial "Wow! I could have had a V8!!" If I am going to have poor mileage at least give me great performance with it.

I am not saying that the RL is a bad car. I still think Acura could have done a better job without much additional cost. It doesn't really matter if enough people will buy every RL that they make because this isn't a really huge market segment but if you have a "halo" type car you want its rep to transcend the bounds of the people who will buy an Acura or Honda anyway.

Two perfect cases in point, BMW M3 and Dodge Viper. M3 has a rep far beyond the people who buy it. Almost everyone knows the car and they don't have to dig deep in a techie manual to understand it. Dodge Viper, love it or hate it, it did a lot to elevate Dodge's status in the world. If you are going to have a flagship car it needs to cast a light far enough away that even people who wouldn't consider buying an Acura or a RL will sit up and take notice. The NSX did that when it came out now it should be either euthanized or updated. Honda has some of the best engineers in the world and while the RL is a good car I really think they could have done better. What is the point of just appealing to loyal owners? If you are loyal then there is no incentive to innovate. It is like being a member of a political party that takes you for granted. They know you aren't going anywhere.

I still don't see anyone defending the styling.

8-)

That would be because the styling does not need defending.

wavshrdr

Fair enough. To put it another way I don't see anyone gushing over it either.

Enjoy your RLs. A few changes and I'll probably buy one too.

8-)

Maybe I should take out a billboard?

wavshrdr

No need to do that, you are driving one.

BTW, I've lurked in these forums for a while and the styling of the RL doesn't get near as many positive comments as the other Acura's do in their respective forums. It seems like it might be a sensitive point for some owners. Sort of like I know she may not be a hottie on the outside but she's pretty sweet inside sort of logic.

It's not a bad looking car but after seeing what Acura/Honda could do with the NSX, TSX and TL I was hoping for me when I heard they redesigned it.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Which is precisely the reason that Honda chose to continue on with a V6 in the RL. From a global market perspective, cost-effectiveness is important with Honda because it doesn't have the deep pockets of many of its competitors.

The problems with diesels is that they are not popular in the US, which is a fairly sizeable market. Had Honda installed a 6-cylinder turbo diesel engine, the RL would definitely not sold as well. It's a cost effectiveness issue once again since getting the most bang for the buck was important.

Without an existing V8 engine, there was nothing to build the RL around. Plus, the chosen engine orientation, transverse instead of longitudinal, means a V8 engine actually would not fit in the RL's engine bay. You're also forgetting to account for the AWD in the RL. Compare the fuel economy numbers to that of the other AWD competitors and you'll see that the numbers aren't that far off.

As for the driving conditions, yes the US is significantly more spacious, but many of the RL buyers will be individuals located in dense, urban centers where traffic is a huge headache and few open road driving opportunities are available. That V8 thus immeidately becomes nothing more than a status symbol since it is neither practical or particularly useful.

The VCM should be coming. It is available on the Honda Legend, so I can't imagine it not making it to market in the next few years. It's a matter of marketing, since you have to give your car room to grow and appeal to more people in the market.

But once again, look at the price tags on the M3, Viper, and NSX. Nearly $50k for a compact car? And nearly $90k for a two door sportscar with no trunk? Yes Honda can build another one of those, but it will be priced beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest cusomters, which is something Honda has worked hard to not allow to happen.

As for the RLs styling, it's polarizing and some people like it, others don't. I'm undecided on how I feel about it.

At the end of the day, Honda is still a business and as a business, they have to examine everything from a cost/benefit perspective and match that to the company philosophy. Currently, a V8 engine just doesn't fit that bill, but with the foray into the truck market, you never know what may come of it.

wavshrdr

CGTSX04- Just a quick reply. I am not forgetting the RL is AWD. AWD actually benefits milage at higher speeds according to Audi study done a while ago. Honda easily could have dropped a turbo diesel in it. They have a pretty good one that I've driven. Once US consumers can drive more modern diesels they will understand why Europe buys big high speed diesels in their top of the line cars. You can have your cake and eat it too.

Even though Honda is a business, it can still benefit them by making something a little more risky. Dodge probably doesn't make a huge amount of money off Viper sales but it brings a lot of people into the show room and the Viper image rubs off. Same goes with the Subaru STi.

I am not saying that the absoltely need one for 100% of the buyers but if you drive a TL and then go drive a RL, the RL feels definitely slower and more sluggish. I definitely felt I had to rev it more to make it go. To put it bluntly the 2 that I drove felt like a dog below 4k rpm and while the TL is definitely stronger above 4k as well it still pulls pretty good below that.

I am not oblivious to the marketing or engineering issues. I am an engineer by education and I worked as a contractor at a Honda facility for several years. I realize there are many compromises to be made. The RL is heavy and could use more torque for its heft. It wouldn't hurt to lower the RPM at which peak torque is made to make it more usable. Audi and BMW have figured this out, why hasn't Honda. They too have very flat torque curves as well coupled with 6 speed gearboxes. If were to drive a luxury car (which I have) I don't want to feel like I have to rev the heck out of it to make it go. Maybe I am just spoiled by my MB but the RL doesn't effortlessly accelerate. Sure it is quiet but the tach better be above 4 if you want to move with any authority or make that hole in traffic.

Again I am not saying the car is terrible but at that price level maybe I am expecting too much from it but I wouldn't expect it from the RL if the TL didn't already give it.

dseag2

For me, the price difference has more to do with the tactile feel of the car than the straight-line performance and gadgets on paper. The RL FEELS every bit the luxury car. The TL, simply, does not. The TL is an excellent compromise between sport and luxury. The RL leans more toward the luxury side of the equation but also happens to be fun to drive. That was what I was looking for.

IMO, the RL is every bit the equal of the Lexus GS I used to own, but with better performance and more cutting-edge features. I can't truly say that about the TL. The materials aren't as good as the Lex, but the performance is certainly better. It was a trade-off I was willing to make. Now I have the best of both worlds.

Re: the styling, I don't rave about it because it isn't the primary reason I bought the car. To me, it is certainly pleasing to look at and actually warrants the occasional second glance, but is it jaw-dropping? No. Does it stand up to the E-Class and 5 Series? IMO, it does. Besides, I learned a long time ago that you don't drive on the outside of the car... you drive on the inside. And the inside of the RL is a very nice place to be. Besides, if I want "in your face" styling, I'll drive the FX.

8-)

Well put. My feelings exactly. (Ok, my wife hates the shark fin...)

MaxBuck

Anybody who cites the new 5-series BMW as a styling archetype needs serious psychological assistance. IMO.

Seriously, I have evaluated several luxury cars in the 50K range, and I have found nothing else that approaches the RL.

530i: Aside from the RWD only, the rear seat is tighter than a VW Beetle. How is this appropriate for a 50K luxo sedan?

Audi A6: Rides stiffer than a Ford F350. How can I put up with such a punishing ride if I'm paying 50 large?

Caddy STS: Interior looks CHEAP. Nuff said.

Lexus LS 430: Base model handles like there is slush in the steering. The air suspension provides excellent handling, but requires the EIGHTEEN FREAKING THOUSAND dollar ultra-lux package. At that point the mid-50s pricetag becomes mid-70s.

MB E320: Don't get me wrong, the E500 4-matic is an exciting automobile, one that I would lust after. But it costs 65 grand, and the famous MB reliability (i.e. there is none) comes free for the ride. The E320 is as exciting as watching paint dry.

Like it or not, for 50 grand we still must accommodate compromise. What are the negatives to the RL?

1. Little trunk space. Beats the Corvette, but runs close to the Mustang GT. But I can live with this so long as my golf clubs fit.
2. Somewhat tight rear seat - but at least as big as any of the above competitors except the A6.
3. Less overwhelming power than the E500, the A6 V8, or the 545i - all of which are more expensive (ranging from about 6K for the Audi to about 15K for the others).

Bottom line is this - if its ride were not so sadistic, I would probably buy the A6, even with the reliability problems endemic to German vehicles. But the ride is so bad that the RL becomes my only choice.

My criteria are obviously not yours, and if I had another 20K to spend my choices would obviously be different (at that point I would be choosing between the LS 430, the Beemer 7 series and the A8).

dseag2

My sentiments exactly... except I wouldn't buy an A6 even if it had a softer ride. I've been down that road, and my experience with Audi service was abyssmal.

wavshrdr

I had an A6 and enjoyed it quite a bit. I also had the allroad version as well. They were both great cars and my Audi dealer gave me great service. They were also my local Porsche and MB dealer and when I bought my MB's after my Audis I got great service from them too. I think service experience has as much to do with the dealer as it does with the manufacturer. With the decline of the dollar against the Euro the German car will definitely see price inflation so Acura will likely become an even better value.

frebay

I don't need a group of strangers to convince me to spend 50k. I need a group of strangers to help me justify the RL is worth 50k. That's besides the point now, I have limited my search to RL or TL so my last question is:

If you had the money would you buy the RL or the TL?

peter97

Frebay, my choices initially was a TL or RL also and I had difficulty justifying (or rationalizing?) the difference in cost. I typically don't put a lot of miles on my car either which makes it even harder to justify spending. Before making a final decision, we went to the auto show in Orange County as a final lookover of cars we would be interested in..my wife made the comment that the TL seemed so "cheap" (in quality & looks) compared to the RL..and that was it. She doesn't know which car had what goodies, etc. To her it was a simple decision.

After a month and a half, it still stands as a great decision. The last car I had enjoyed as much was my Porsche (I've had 2 Audis and a Benz before that).
One last thought, is the satisfaction of having a car that is relatively unique..ie the TL is such a great seller that you see them all over the place..while the RL is proving to be a success also, you won't see the same volume on the steets just because of price.

wavshrdr

Well I had the money to buy either and had seriously considered buying another Audi. Ultimately I went with the TL rather than the RL. I couldn't see paying that much more for the RL and getting a car that seemed sluggish compared to the TL. The more I drive the TL the more I realized that if the RL is worth 50k then the TL is worth 40-45K.

The RL is not worth the premium that they charge over the TL. To me the real benefit that you get when you buy the RL is AWD. Audi chages under 2k to add AWD to almost any car. The RL is not really bigger, it is much heftier, no bi-xenon lights, worse fuel mileage and very mundane styling and all this for only 15k more.

On the plus side the AWD could be useful (but I found my TL wasn't bad in the snow), arguably nice interior (I personally don't think so), more powerful motor (offset by weight) and quieter interior.

So even though I could have easily spent that kind of money I couldn't justify it when I compared it to the TL. The last time I spent over 50k on a car it was an MB and it was worth every dollar. If they are willing to up the torque and HP on the RL and make a little more distinctive in the styling department I might be interested but for now I couldn't see spending more money and getting a slower car than the TL. Actually it isn't that much slower in testing but to get it to run with a TL driving normally you have to rev the heck out of it. I'd also like to them to add the system to drop cylinders at cruise to improve the mileage.

So the RL relative to other cars in its class may be a good value but when compared to the RL, the TL is a steal. So I kept the 15k in my pocket and I'll put it toward either a new and improved RL down the road or keep my hopes up that they will straighten out the NSX and update it as they should have a long time ago.

Shotgun

Wavshrdr, your assessment and strategy sounds reasonable and prudnet to me! Although I don't completely agree with you, and recognizing that the RL does outclass it's peers (E320, BMW 5, Audi A6, etc) I do wish it had just a little more "oomph" in the hp, torque, acceleration and top speed category! To continue leading the pack I envision Acura making competitive performance upgrades as the new E350, M35, and other peer class vehicles arrive on the scene. I test drove all of it's competitors (including the non-competitor TL) and quite frankly, when it comes to value - it ROCKS! I'm enthralled with my RL and love it immensely - I enjoyed your posts and wish you, and your fantastic TL, a very happy holiday season...

wavshrdr

Shotgun- Thanks. I enjoy my TL. I think what it comes down to on the matter of the TL vs. RL is the point of diminishing returns. The RL is a nice car but it costs almost 50% more than the TL! Subjectively I feel the RL is a better car (in some ways) than the TL but it is in no way close to 50% better!

In my area the TL's are still selling lot hotcakes and the initial RL surge seems to have waned a bit. I love many things about the RL but if I bought it, it would not be such an enjoyable emotional rush while driving the car. I just really felt the RL needed more torque for its heft. I don't mind paying a premium to get what I want. The last 2 MB's I bought will attest to that but I also got 2 cars that cruise effortlessly and accelerate effortlessly.

I am not trying to slam the RL as I truly like it I just couldn't make an emotional, visceral connection with the car. Another 50 HP and lb/ft torque and I'd be interested. I just can see the flagship of the Acura line so down on power. My last A6 would run rings around it. Even my Audi allroad wagon had a better pulling motor and stock would easily match the RL and it was a station wagon in SUV trim.

I just feel that you are laying out premium bucks and getting a mediocre motor. Maybe not medicre but not adequately sized for the car. They really should have given it more HP/torque and a 6spd AT gearbox. Audi gives you a 6spd with the A6 why can't Acura? I just hope they'll implement some of these changes by the time I'm ready to buy my next car.

I liked driving the RL. It was a nice car and with a few changes could be even better. Same goes for the TL, add AWD! Ooppps, then there'd be almost reason to buy an RL.

Anyway Happy Holidays! Merry Chrismas! Hannuka! Kwanza! Etc. Enjoy your Acura and whatever you drive. It is becoming increasingly harder to buy a truly bad car. We tend to debate more about minutia at times rather than really major things. Just think about a Yugo and you'll appreciate even a Kia.

DCRL

Happy holidays to everyone!

I have to jump in just for a second to tell you that the RL has the torque to get the job done. It may not reflect that to someone over the course of a test drive. (The car moves much too smoothly to reveal its prowess immediately.) But its 0-60 numbers are good enough for entry into any premium circle. (Automobile mag's long term test of an $83,000 BMW 745Li produced 0-60 times identical to the RL's.) Now, having said that, an enthusiast such as yourself may not agree. And you have every right to your own opinion.

But I have to point out that the price of even minor improvements gets very high, the further you move up the ladder. And often, you get those mostly minor improvements only for considerable amounts of cash. To the untrained ear, for example, a fine receiver that sells for $1000 will sound much like a $20,000 set of separates. But there are subtle differences.

When I sat in the TL and drove the TL I recognized it as a value. In fact, it is something of a steal when compared to a few of its competitors. But I didn't equate anything on the car with the RL. The RL drove and rode and handled like a more expensive car. Everything in the RL felt more luxurious, looked better put together and seemed to operate on a level well above the TL. The additional equipment and RL-only features were another plus. My feelings about the vehicle are quite the opposite of yours.

Fortunately, however, it appears we both got what we wanted. I guess you could say Santa's been good to both of us this year. (Of course, he'd have been even better if he'd coughed up the cash too...)

wavshrdr

DCRL - I agree that the RL under instrumented testing lays down decent numbers. But that is done at wide open throttle and running the car to redline in each gear. My point is a more subjective one. When driving the RL back to back with the TL, it seemed that unless I actually got the revs way up into the upper RPM range it didn't accelerate as easily as the TL.

To state it in a different way to get the RL to move like the TL at a given speed I had to rev RL higher to make it pull as well. That point is supported further by looking at the gearing of the 2 cars. It is obvious Acura new the car was pretty hefty and tried to camoflage it's heft by gearing the car with shorter (numerically higher) gearing than a 5AT TL. At every speed in every gear, the RL is turning more revs than the TL even though it has an almost 10% bigger motor.

So to slice it yet another way it was obvious Acura new they had to do something. I will use some general stats that are close to give a general overview of my thought process regarding this The RL has about 10% bigger motor than the TL but that is offset by its approx 10% greater weight. So Acura dropped the gearing to try and give it more torque multiplication. The final drive is numerically higher by about 4% and even though the RL has shorter gears it still accelerates more slowly than the 5AT TL.

First gear on a RL is 5% shorter on the RL than the TL so Acura has tried to help the RL accelerate better. If you gave these advantages to the TL it would widen the acceleration gap between the 2 cars substantially. Even with this help the RL still is slower than the TL in wide open throttle acceleration testing. Even at lower rpms this gearing help doesn't help the feel of the car enough. This is also one substantial reason why the RL gets worse mileage than justs its additional heft.

Look at the gear ratios yourself and you will see that while Acura gave the RL every possible advantage in gearing over the TL it still accelerates quite a bit slower. This was miy biggest issue with the RL. To me the difference was more evident at less than WOT acceleration. The extra low gearing helps the car initially from rest and then it just seemed to fall flat. With everything Acura did the car should have been at least equal to the TL or possibly better. Based on engineering simulations I've ran on both cars the TL exceeds what it should run and the RL runs worse than in the sims (which are usually quite accurate). So either the TL motor is better than Acura says or the RL's is worse.

I just liked the feel of the TL's way in which it accelerated smartly without having to rev it is as much as the RL. At any speed in first gear the RL is revving substantially more but accelerating more slowly. This is the area where if I am paying a premium I want the best. On this point Acura failed regardless of what it's competitors did. On balance the RL is a nice car. RL is what I wanted but I new this issue would have bugged me every day. I didn't want to rev the car like a little Civic SI everyday to make it go. I wanted a car that felt relaxed and accelerated easily without having to flex its muscles to make it go.

Merry Christmas to all. Enjoy your RL's, TL's, NSX's, etc.

DCRL

Sorry to say, especially on a bright Christmas afternoon, I don't agree with you in the least. I've driven several TL's. Two at one dealer and two others that friends own. The RL doesn't have to strain or over-rev in comparison to the TL. Mine meets and exceeds my needs.

Perhaps you drove a model that was not yet broken in, or even defective. Your suppositions are not valid in my book. But that's my book, not yours.

I think, on this point, about the only agreement I can offer you is to agree to disagree. You can't convince me, since I believe I know better and obviously, from the last post, you believe otherwise.

Whatever you feel though, I think we can both agree that we're happy with our choices. In the end, prospective buyers of either car will have to decide this question (and others) for themselves. At least armed with your concerns and opinion, they can settle the matter much better informed.

Thank you for that. (And again, happy holidays!)

wavshrdr

DCRL - Glad you are happy with the RL. What everyone looks for in acceleration is subjective anyway. I layed out the Acura specs so that people could see what effort Acura took to try and make the RL at least somewhat close to the TL in acceleration.

It helps show why the RL gets worse mileage than the TL. It's not all due to the bigger motor and more weight. All the engineering tweaks Acura did should have helped the RL be as quick as the TL if not faster. It just doesn't add up. Acura gave the RL substantial help in gearing in addition to the bigger motor (offset by it's weight somewhat) and the car ends up being substantially slower to 60 than the TL. If I were an RL owner I'd like to know what got lost in the translation (if anything). That is why I took the time to illustrate the actual numbers rather than just giving an observation without any facts to back it up.

Anyone remember the debacle Ford had a few years back when people started showing that their 99 Cobra Mustangs lost something like 30 or 40 hp between initial specs and when they finally hit the road? Ultimately Ford was forced to admit that something got lost on the way to production. I'd like to see a dyno plot when someone actually puts a RL on the dyno.

I know that many people are not as concerned about acceleration as maybe I am. If the RL as it is meets your desires then great. I often take my car to higher altitudes and if you start off weaker it doesn't improve at higher altitudes. If the car meets your needs then that is all that matters ultimately.

Happy Holidays to all.

wavshrdr

Anyone else see this review of the RL?

http://www.autonet.ca/Driversource/S...?StoryID=13165

It seemed they had the same take on the motor in the RL I did. HP was class competitive but torque was lacking. To quote the review:

"The RL's 300 horses are certainly competitive with others in this class. Where we seemed to notice a deficiency was in torque -- while its output of 260 lb.-ft. is an increase of 29 over the previous model, it still doesn't deliver the punch in the back buyers in this class expect."

This was after Acura admitted not having a V8 could be a hard sell in this class. All in all a pretty good review of the car.

SPUDMTN

All in all, a very good review. And it's pretty much all true. Acura now hows the challenge of getting the buyers in. The product is most certainly ready for the buyers.

I did find it interesting that they don't expect previous generation RL owners to upgrade to this. My family will probably upgrade to the next gen RL (unless the GS is a better overall product). But I understand why most won't--the new RL is a completely different kind of animal. But that's just the reason why it's interesting to me. It's different. Sure, the previous generation RL is a smooth operator, and projects a rather staid, refined, and elegant image, it's time for a little more character. That's why the interest is sparked.

As to the RL not living up to your (wavshrdr) standards--that's understandable, as well. I think the problem here is that the TL is North America exclusive, and was designed accordingly, with the US market in mind. The RL, being designed in Japan for a global audience, gives us the different results. That being said, I think the RL was made as the RL was supposed to be. The RL is more a compromise between ultra-lux and ultra-sport...it's the very best of both worlds. The car is not to be too stiff, but it is not to be too soft. The power is to be assuring, but not overpowering (consider the price bracket) and the handling is to be class leading. That is the RL.

Further, like you, if one were more interested in acceleration times and an overall purer driving experience, the TL is the clear choice. However, if a true touring sedan is on tap, the RL is better choice.

Like you said, it's a matter of tastes.

DCRL

wavshrdr,

Thanks for making your points about the TL and the RL. But again, I beg to differ. For me, the TL has mighty few of the charms the RL offers. For you, the reaction is the opposite.

But saying on the one hand " I personally don't care what the automotive press says" and then quoting that press is really not going to drive (pun intended) your point home. Especially when there are so many glowing press assessments of the new RL, such as Wards' 10 Best Engines ("…one of the most powerful naturally aspirated 6-cyl. engines in production") or Car & Driver's 10 Best Cars ("…it's definitely up to speed"). Road & Track could have been responding to your posts when it said "In the RL's defense, though, is a 6.7 second sprint to 60 mph that's a half second quicker than either aforementioned Benz or Bimmer".

Your comments about gearing omitted numerous other concerns that dictate final drive ratios (weight, balance, tire size, etc.). And your assertion that the most expensive car in a brand's fleet must also be it's fastest flies head-on into the reality that such is rarely the case, in Europe, America, or the Far East.

I guess what I'm getting at is that statistics and "facts" can be cited ad nauseam in favor—or disfavor—of any car.

You prefer the TL. The RL gets my nod. Enjoy.

dseag2

I really thought this thread would have died by now, but since it hasn't I'd like to add a few comments since I traded an '04 TL for my RL. I am one of those who definitely saw the additional $$$ as worth the investment...

In all fairness to wavshrdr, I agree that the visceral thrill of the TL vs. the RL is undeniable. The exhaust note is louder, leading to the feeling of higher performance, and acceleration does seem to have more immediacy. Additionally, the exterior and interior styling is outstanding. The performance, styling, and high-tech goodies were the reasons I chose to move away from Lexus and give Acura a try. I never felt the materials/quality were up to Lexus standards, but the other qualities made it worth the sacrifice.

With that said, although I enjoyed my TL I would have been willing to pay more for 1) something other than fake wood or fake carbon fiber, 2) better quality leather that didn't leave "butt prints" (see TL forum), 3) a sound system that sounded better than "good" when playing anything other than DVD-audio, 4) less plastic in the interior (like all the way up the sides of the console), 5) better interior color choices (has anyone seem the Camel? ), 6) better paint quality, 7) guage lighting that wasn't only "cool" but classy and 8)high-definition graphics in the nav screen. I also would have liked an engine that didn't idle rough every morning when I started the car, but I just chalked that up to the "sportiness" aspect. Don't get me wrong... I still think the TL is a better choice than anything else in its class, and I'm aware that there are always trade-offs at the $35k price level. It's just that I was looking for the fun that it offered with a higher level of refinement.

I found it in the RL. I wasn't even looking to trade my TL, but when I saw the RL I instantly recognized the much higher level of quality offered in this car. Plus, it handles brilliantly, and it has enough power to make my commute fun. It also answers all of the above concerns and does it in a refined style that goes head-to-head with any of its Japanese or German competitors. So the exterior styling isn't as head-turning as the TL? "Bland" to some? "Pleasant and somewhat sporty" to me. As long as I can still look back in the parking garage and say "nice car" it fulfills my needs. The interior is beautiful and comfortable, and that's where I spend my time.

So, it really goes back to what each person wants in an automobile. If 0-60 times are so important, why not buy a Mitsu Evo??? Because that's NOT the only important element. I'm looking for a well-balanced luxury/sport package, and the RL delivers. SPUDMTN, I think your comment about it being the best of both worlds sums it up nicely. I can't think of anything else on the market that is more worth the $$$.

wavshrdr

dseag2- I respect your comments and I agree with some and disagree with others. I think that any first year car has issues. The TL had it with butt prints and Acura addressed that in the '05 that I bought. That is why I rarely buy 1st year cars. It will be a rare car that doesn't have any first year issues. Currently the RL is really too new to tell what if any issues it will have.

My TL seems to be quieter than the '04s I drove. I have started my car in -15F weather and no rough idling issues so far.

As for the TL audio system I've found that like many it is dependent upon the source material to really show what it is capable. I thought the RL was slightly better than the TL in that respect but nothing to write home about in either car. Pop in a DVD-A and I fall in love with the stereo again and again. I did finding a source that gives me almost that same sensation without using a DVD-A. I use my iRiver WMA/MP3 player which allows me to tweak settings before being fed into the deck of my TL and it makes normal source material much better than either the TL or RL will sound with a normal CD or radio as the source. It allows me to tweak the spatial imaging as well as vary the surround sound effect and it absolutely transforms my commutes. I highly recommend it to anyone with either a TL or RL. It actually allows me to control the low frequencies and spatial imaging to take advantage of the stereos in either car.

I like the fake carbon fiber better than the fake wood but since almost no cars offer real carbon fiber as an option it is moot point for me. I am one of those that don't like wood on my dash unless I am in a Rolls or a Bentley.

Interior color choices weren't great in either car. I do like the paint better on the TL. They did a great job here but I hope that it isn't terribly difficult to match in the event of a scratch.

I tend to agree that not many cars are worth more dollars than the RL but if the TL wasn't so good the RL would look better. I don't think the RL has to be the fastest but there are 2 cars in front of it in the very small Acura lineup. The NSX and the TL. If you drive the top of the line Benz, it is amazingly fast. Ditto for the BMW. As you go up the food chain in the Euro brands the cars usually get progressively faster and effortlessly gather speed.

I agree the motor is smooth but I could put a jewel of a motor in a car too big for it and while the motor would be an amazing powerplant it can be overwhelmed by the heft of the car. This is motor (and drivetrain that should be in the TL) and then they should bump up the displacement and put the VCM on it to help mileage. That way you'd keep the basic goodness of the motor and improve the mileage too and at the same time give it a boost in performance. It would also broaden the market for the car and get more people to look at it. I know I am not the only one thinking this way. Obviously it wasn't enough of a concern if you already bought the car. Acura would be wise to try and figure out not only where the car was a success but why didn't people buy it who were actually considering it.

Regardless of everything else it was a vast improvement over the past RL and I never would have even remotely considered one of them. One of the most uninspiring cars I've ever seen or driven.

LessisBestmakingendsmeet

I can't justify paying 15 grand more for a RL than my TL. Sorry. I am sure RL owners like their cars but for 50 big ones, I am going elsewhere.

Good news is the RL is selling strong so far. So people have to liek them.

dseag2

Yes, please feel free to go elsewhere. Like back to the TL forum. Not being an elitist, but I really can't understand why TL owners feel the need to come over to the RL forum and talk about how they wouldn't spend the extra money for it. Who really cares? I rarely visit the TL forum anymore since I traded for my RL. I've learned a lot of interesting information on this forum from other RL owners. That's why I'm here... not to hear your "I wouldn't pay the extra money" ramblings.

And we can pretty much tell by your screen name, "Less is best", that you wouldn't spring for the 50k.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

While I think having different people's opinions is important, I think that some people have crossed a fine line between opinion and out-right whining. :whocares: if the TLers don't think the RL is worth the money. You've made your opinions clear on the TL site, but to come to the RL site for the sake of bashing is just silly. Let's just agree to disagree and end it at that.

And seriously, how man of you TL guys see TSX guys going to the TL site so say the TL isn't worth the extra $7k over the TSX?

wavshrdr

I agree with most of what is said here. I do think that because the RL and TL are so close in many ways that the tend to invite comparison more than other models. Both are about the same size, have V6's of close displacement whereas the TSX has a 4, etc. etc. So when you go from the TL there are quite a few changes that have more perceived value such as the bigger car, V6, etc. The RL seems be possibly more of a refinement of a concept rather than a different one.

I think there are other thing that spark the comparison is that the percentage increase of price of the TL over the TSX isn't near as extreme as the RL's increase over the TL. Also we all know the TSX is a rebadged foreign Honda. The TL is about 25% more than the TSX and the RL is about 50% more than a TL. People understandbly want to get what you spend 50% more over an already excellent car.

Demographically I think buyers of RL's and TL's are probably close too. I'd probably be the normal target demographic Acura for a RL. I could be wrong on this but I saw mostly people my age looking at both TLs and RLs in my area and younger people looking at TSX's.

I hope that someday Honda (Acura) will make a "M", "S" or "AMG" version of the RL and not same lame A-spec version kit like they did for the TL. I think the RL is an excellent car. I hope that the sales stay strong so that Acura will continue to refine it and make it even better.

8-)

I'm betting a nickel right now that wavshrdr has the last word in this thread, no matter what. Any takers?

SPUDMTN

:imwithstupid:

He at least argues his reasoning...we can at least see where he's coming from

That being said, the argument doesn't convince me. I do find it strange that people would cross shop a $50k car with a $35k car. I'm all for saving money, but a price difference of $15k is rather large when car shopping. Know what I'm getting at?

But all this is just IMHO.

LessisBestmakingendsmeet

I find this laughable, since a 50k RL is as much "Less is best" than a V-8 Benz or BMW like the car should have. I bought my Acura not b/c it was the best but b/c it was loaded and was the cheapest. Sadly, the damn headlight went out on the way home.

These forums are wonderful as I read them for awhile before joining and even with the stickies of quality problems, I bought my TL. The car just looks damn good.

And sadly with the problems I am having and reading this and other forums on my next purchase which will happen this year. Due to events I'd rather not explain, I'm learning, its time to really treat myself. So I do want a true luxury car.

And the RL owner tells me, stick to the TL forum.

8-)

[QUOTE=SPUDMTN]:imwithstupid:

He at least argues his reasoning...we can at least see where he's coming from

I'm all for saving money, but a price difference of $15k is rather large when car shopping. Know what I'm getting at? QUOTE]

Let's say you and others think the RL is worth $40k (or insert whatever amount you deem appropriate). Why should you care so damn much if I overpaid by $10k? It's my $$$, why do you care? Nobody is forcing you to buy the RL. Having choices is good, exercise your choice to make yourself happy. Don't worry about us RLers, we're big boys, and if we spent too much (in your estimation), that's for us to worry about (or not).

Lessisbest, life is short, enjoy what you have when you can. Go buy that luxury car, no matter who makes it. Lots of great cars out there. You don't need to buy the "best value," you just need to buy the car that puts the biggest smile on your face. That's what I did. (The RL may well be the best value in its class, but that is not why I bought it.) I don't regret it for a second.