I knew our cars were bad in regards to turning radius, but I got use to it and it seemed normal, but after driving my new car around, which by any measure is a gigantic boat, holy cripes, the turning radius is tremendously better in the LS.

I go the same grocery store and parking is at an angle. So if I go up a lane and park on the opposite side, it's a steep turn.

In my Acura, I would have to three-point turn to get into those opposite spots. In my huge boat, it makes that almost 180 degree turn in that tight aisle in one fell swoop. I couldn't believe it.

I've been going to this store for years, parking the same way and my mind was already prepared to do a three-point turn since it is burned into my conscious through sheer repetition, and I literally sat there amazed after I parked.

In any case, just thought I would share because it shocked me. No idea why Acura made these cars with such huge turning radii.

 

Oh yeah, I was so shocked I even took a picture lol. I probably looked like an idiot shaking my head with my phone in hand.

But that's the spot and I can't make that opposite space in my Acura without a three-pointer, no matter how wide of an arc. This thing did it like nothing, and I didn't even arc out as I was prepared to three-point it.

 

The AWD does limit the turning radius on the RL. I had to get used to the drop in turning radius from the 1G RL I had to my 2G RL!!

 

Not sure how AWD could affect it, but my guess was going to be FWD vs RWD. Without a front axle, the hubs are just connected to the two control arms.

FWIW, here are some turning radius specs per Edmunds:
1G RL: 36.1'
2G RL: 39.7'
3G TL: 39.7'
LS 430: 37.4'
LS 460: 36.1'


Could be worse. My Tundra DC is spec'ed at 47.5'.

 

Interesting. I always felt the 430 had a better turning radius than my RL. Numbers don't lie.

I've noticed a lot of awd suffer worst turning radius. I remember looking at the x drive bmw and they suffered a worst turning radius than the rwd counterparts as well

 

Yeah, that's what I was pointing out with the FWD/AWD vs RWD. However, I can't imagine how FWD vs AWD could differ. Both have axles up front.

 

Maybe the AWD layout/position of the transmission and diff forces a different layout of the steering hardware?

 

The Audi A7 I was going to buy is listed at 39', also AWD.

 

It's more determined by the limit to which you can angle a Rzeppa-type constant velocity without its balls dropping out. Which could be painful.

 

For me or the car Just messing

 

Learned something new today. Only thing I would add is constant velocity joint.

 

It's funny that you guys complain about turning radius being poor in the RL, but I think the RL has the best turning radius of any car I've ever owned, judging from turning around in only a 3-point turn in my dad's driveway as my basis.

In the RL, if I cut the wheel all the way, I will end up driving on the hill on the near side of the driveway, where all of the other cars I have owned would be challenged to not hit the fence on the other side.

On paper, several other cars I owned had a lower turning radius, but the only one that could make this turn with room to spare was the RL.

 

The mechanicals and packaging up front is very crowded, limiting the turning radius. Don't feel bad. One would expect the 2009 MINI Cooper, with a wheelbase of 97.1 inches, to have a small turning circle. But it circles in 35.1 feet! (A larger 2010 Mazda3 can do it in 34.1 feet.)

The 2009 RL, with a wheelbase of 110.2 inches has a turning circle of 39.7 feet, and if you do the math, you will discover that it is directly proportional to the the MINI!

 

The biggest annoyance of the 3G TL is the turning radius. Thanks for confirming I'm trying to steer the Titanic