I've noticed that CR really downs the 2ndG RL. They give it an OK rating of 74 or 75 but really seem to down on predicted reliability AVG. They show the Audio system to be a black circle. What?

They talk about the lack of power, and OK handling. Overall a depressing, negative report.

They give the TL a rating of 90 and predicted reliability of excellent.

Why do they give the RL such a low reliability rating.

Any thoughts.

 

I'm sure the audio system got the black circle because BMW left a bad taste in everyones mouth with their IDrive system. Now whenever CR or anyone not familiar with Acura's knob based system commander, they automatically deem it bad.

I personally love Acura's knob. After the first few days of ownership, I was able to wiz my way through commands and menus with ease.

 

Long ago, I decided that *I* would use CR as an "Inverse indicator"...if they like it, I don't, if *I* like it, they don't. Seems just to work out that way.

And they want me to pay for their mag? Sorry, nope. <wide grin>

Tom

yes, I know YMMV!

<wink>

 

CR are the type of pansies who would complain about a Ferrari being too loud, or about a Lambo not having adequate ground clearance over speed bumps.

However, although I've usually half-respected their reliability reports, I'm surprised that they gave the 2G RL a predicted "low" reliability rating. The 1G was probably one of the, if not the MOST reliable vehicle you could buy on the market, so what's to say that the 2G won't live up to that rep. I haven't heard of any major flaws with the 2GRL - just the usual 1st year problems that occasionally pop up - a rattle, an electronic gremlin and such.

Have you ever looked at CR's 0-60 times for vehicles - they're nothing but laughable. I can almost guarantee that a two year old could coax better times out of some of the cars they test that they can. CR should stick to dishwashers and refrigerators and leave the roadtests to the real mags.

 

I'm sure that the "average" reliability ratings is due to some of the first year glitches that occurred with the '05.

 

What 0-60 did CR get for the RL ? Anyone have a scan to the article ?

 

Eh? I just looked at the overview of the RL. The 2005 does have a few black marks, but overall they RECOMMEND the car. They say:

Highs: Acceleration, real-time link to traffic reports in metro areas, fit and finish.
Lows: Complex controls, turning circle.

Which I agree with totally.

EDIT: Wow, they do kind of down the handling (which is better with A-Spec anyway ) and the interior, which in the rear is not much larger than the TL. Still like the RL anyway!

 

0-60 was 6.9 seconds and 1/4 was 15.4.

 

CR's ratings are based on reader surveys, right? So if they're harsh on the RL, the owners have been pretty harsh on the car....

 

CR is alot harder on Honda/Acura products I noticed. They always complain about Road noise, which is in fact usually the OEM Michelin tires.

 

They should rename Consumer Reports to

Consumer Toyota Reports

Toyota could sell a lawnmower with a bad sparkplug and they would STILL give it rave ratings. CR hates anything that is new, interesting or stylish. THey love boring and reliable. Real car people ignore CR.

 

I happen to be a member of Consumer Reports' web service. I think they do a decent job, but I don't depend on them for anything but used car reliability information, which is often dead on.

I expect their rating of the 2006 RL to be better as new owners such as myself should have (hopefully ) fewer problems.

 

I subscribe to CR and find that if you are looking for a high end product they don't even test it or recognize it. I think they are looking at mass market appeal rather than folks who are looking at above average items.

 

I find their knob system to be very logical and simply to use as well. I don't think you could make it any easier to use considering how many functions it serves. I've never seen the I drive system of BMW but have heard it is a nightmare, yet CU kinda compares Acuras to theirs.

 

So CR does like the TL (good predicted reliability) and doesn't like the RL.

The irony here is that my 2004 TL (VIN #002690) was complete crap. Tires, sunroof, transmission, large gap in interior pieces, paint (chipping and uneven color), pre-mature leather patina/cracking, and dashboard fading.

My 2005 RL? Nothing. I can't even remember the last time I visited my dealer (for an oil change).

 

What a lot of people don't know is that Consumer Reports (aka Consumers Union) gets many of their ratings from their own readers. When I used to subscribe to CR, they would often send me surveys to complete so I could evaluate various products, including the cars I drive. They then compile these responses to augment their ratings. Other scores come from their own labs, and evaluators.

 

The black mark does not mean they don't like a particular category, but their surveys indicate that category may be more problematic. On the 03 TL, for example, it has a solid black mark in transmission--well known area of concern, as well as audio---balky cd changer? So CU may like a car, but in the frequency repair record--the car may get panned as it didn't do well in questionaire/survey that their members respond to. As a regular subscriber to CU, I have made car purchases where I thought they were being over critical. and everytime I have regretted it. My 1998 Catera--did well in the road tests, but poorly in the survey. Though I really liked the car--it was by far, the worst I have ever owned.

 

Maybe that's a problem with Consumer Reports: their sample size is too narrow. How many people really subscribe to that magazine and how diverse are they? What are their demographics?

 

that is an excellent point. I didn't realize that CU only sends surveys to their subscribers. On a low volume selling vehicle such as the RL, and assuming that CU sends a survey to all of their members that own an RL, you are still talking at best probably 500-800 surveys out of what 15000 vehicles. Doesn't sound like it would be very accurate representation either negative or positive.

 

Hey Neuronbob:

Since you've been a member of Consumer Reports have you ever received a survey for your TL or RL? Just wondering if they send surveys to all of their members?

 

I no longer subscribe to CU, but when I did, I regularly received their surveys.

 

I'm a life member of CU. The overall ratings are based on feedback from their subscriber surveys. They will not publish a survey if the sample is too low. Their advice always leans towards being on the practical side...for instance, on stereo equipment, I've always wanted the latest/greatest with all the buttons/options at any cost even if CU thinks these are not of great overall value/usefulness. My priorities are different but that doesn't mean that CU's are wrong.

As for the RL, and from my experience with my '05RL over the past year and a half, with now approaching 52,000 miles, I can't disagree or fault their assessments and impressions for the car except that I don't find the control knob to be that intimidating or inconvenient. They also found some of the the control functions to be redundant, but I've tended to use and appreciate the overall setup.

As for the overall ratings, I didn't send in my survey for the RL, but if I had, it would have reflected the problems I've had and posted about here...and would have blasted the incredibly bad service experience I've had with my RL, both with regular servicing and with obtaining warranty repairs.

Fred

 

Heh, RL is nothing. They attacked Mercedes like crazy!