The RLX & The XTS
2012 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,196
Likes: 95
From: Southeast Michigan
The Cadillac has a better weight distribution which can probably be attributed to the RWD hardware in the XTS since they are in the end both front wheel drive based cars.
The RLX has 61/39 (f/r) versus 58/42 in the XTS.
The RLX has W (168 mph) rated tires and the XTS has V (149 mph) rated tires.
The RLX also has Michelins which (IMO) are a better tire than the Bridgestones on the XTS.
The RLX has better tires. Period.
As does Cadillac and many other manufactures. You point is irrelevant.
High speed does not necessarily mean better passing. They did do a 45-65 mph passing test and the RLX came out ahead 2.9 seconds versus 3.3. That test takes into account transmission response and how quickly it downshifts and maintains the RPMs in the sweet spot. Not top speeds.
Last edited by GoHawks; Apr 22, 2013 at 11:08 AM.
Safety Car
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 64
So turning isn't important in handling tests?
The Cadillac has a better weight distribution which can probably be attributed to the RWD hardware in the XTS since they are in the end both front wheel drive based cars.
The RLX has 61/39 (f/r) versus 58/42 in the XTS.
The RLX has W (168 mph) rated tires and the XTS has V (149 mph) rated tires.
The RLX also has Michelins which (IMO) are a better tire than the Bridgestones on the XTS.
The RLX has better tires. Period.
The Cadillac has a better weight distribution which can probably be attributed to the RWD hardware in the XTS since they are in the end both front wheel drive based cars.
The RLX has 61/39 (f/r) versus 58/42 in the XTS.
The RLX has W (168 mph) rated tires and the XTS has V (149 mph) rated tires.
The RLX also has Michelins which (IMO) are a better tire than the Bridgestones on the XTS.
The RLX has better tires. Period.
In one of the rare times I will agree with, if I had to bet, I would agree that in the long run the RLX will be more reliable and fuel efficient car.
High speed does not necessarily mean better passing. They did do a 45-65 mph passing test and the RLX came out ahead 2.9 seconds versus 3.3. That test takes into account transmission response and how quickly it downshifts and maintains the RPMs in the sweet spot. Not top speeds.
Last edited by SSFTSX; Apr 22, 2013 at 12:52 PM.
Instructor
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 198
Likes: 36
From: VA
Just read the MT review. Interesting and a very good comparison. Would be hard to chose between these two vehicles. Love the XTS styling, but the RLX seems more refined and a lot quicker. Too bad about the suspension comments. Seems like the overall tune is too soft.
The SHAWD hybrid shoud be pretty interesting.
Nice pics TL4: but can Acura make any more boring wheels for the base model. Those look like they could have come off a Civic.
The SHAWD hybrid shoud be pretty interesting.
Nice pics TL4: but can Acura make any more boring wheels for the base model. Those look like they could have come off a Civic.
2012 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,196
Likes: 95
From: Southeast Michigan
A tires ability to endure heat and friction along with the stiffness of the sidewall all contribute to a tire's speed rating. The higher the speed rating translates to better handling characteristics.
Here are some sources.
http://m.discounttire.com/dtcs/infoSpeedRating.dos
A tire receives its speed rating by the U.S. Government through meeting minimum standards for reaching and sustaining a specified speed. What does that mean to you? Well, in general, a higher speed rating will result in better car handling.
http://www.michelinman.com/tires-101...read-life.page
Speed Ratings Refer to More Than Just Speed
]Speed ratings make a difference not only in regards to speed, but in regards to ride comfort, wear and cornering ability. Typically, the higher the speed rating, the better the grip and stopping power, but the lower the tread life. You can always increase the speed rating of the tires on your vehicle for improved performance, but can never decrease it without reducing the vehicle top speed to that of the lower speed rating selected.
http://www.ntb.com/tires/Tire-Speed-Rating-Education.j
The speed rating tells you the speed the tire can safely maintain over time. A higher speed rating usually means you will have better control and handling at higher speeds — and that the tire can take the extra heat. As a general rule, tires with higher speed ratings also handle better at slower speeds.
http://blog.tirerack.com/blog/hunter...tire-choice-v1
How does a family sedan that has no chance of ever reaching 149 mph in factory form have this rating specified? Higher speed ratings will handle more heat and circumferential force, which causes them to be more ridged and firm. This helps for performance handling and responsiveness to steering inputs, but can firm up road manners and result in a little more tire noise from impacts. Your lower speed ratings typically are "looser" types of passenger all-seasons and standard touring all-seasons and are not as concerned with sport performance.
For someone who commonly quotes the superiority of wheels and tires, I'm surprised you didn't know this.
You must know better than Moter Trend.
Last edited by GoHawks; Apr 22, 2013 at 01:51 PM.
CTSV,TL, Audi Q7 & A5SB
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,082
Likes: 600
From: NYC / LI
Just read the MT review. Interesting and a very good comparison. Would be hard to chose between these two vehicles. Love the XTS styling, but the RLX seems more refined and a lot quicker. Too bad about the suspension comments. Seems like the overall tune is too soft.
The SHAWD hybrid shoud be pretty interesting.
Nice pics TL4: but can Acura make any more boring wheels for the base model. Those look like they could have come off a Civic.
The SHAWD hybrid shoud be pretty interesting.
Nice pics TL4: but can Acura make any more boring wheels for the base model. Those look like they could have come off a Civic.
, but as boring as they are I would rather have them then those ugly body side moldings..
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,529
Likes: 852
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
A good review and by their own admission a very close win by Acura, but in the end a win is a win. Good for the RLX.
I am not surprised the RLX out accelerated the XTS. The XTS is heavy and it is driving four wheels compared to the RLX only driving two. I also haven't gotten a good understanding why the 3.6L in the XTS only produces 304 HP, yet the one in my CTS has 318, and the version in the ATS produces 321. I had read that it has to do with a more restrictive exhaust due to the fact that the engine is mounted transversely in the XTS (FWD platform) versus longitudinally in the CTS and ATS.
No surprises on the execution of CUE. The reviews on it have been hit and miss. I played around with it in a loaner SRX I had and when I test drove an ATS a few weeks ago. It's kinda cool, but in some cases there is engineering just for engineering sake. For example, a knob is still the tried and true way to adjust volume (when not using the steering wheel controls). The sliding bar feels more gimmicky. I understand that Cadillac is continually updating the software and updating customers cars so I would anticipate it will continue to be refined. Having said that, I think Acura does the best job with integrating the cockpit technology. They still have the best navigation and voice recognition systems on the market.
So the XTS wins in looks and handling despite the fact that the RLX has better tires (W rated in the RLX and V rated in the XTS). Sorry, couldn't help myself
. The RLX wins in acceleration, interior space and technology.
Again, a good win for Acura. Keep in mind though that while the XTS is still at the at the top of the Cadillac pyramid (not including the CTS-V and the Escalade) it it still a dressed up Buick LaCrosse. I guess that doesn't matter since many here are calling the RLX a dressed up Accord. It will be interesting to see when the rumored true RWD Cadillac flagship is finally introduced.
Back to the RLX. The key is whether that win will translate into sales. Remember early on the RL came out at the top or near the top in many comparison tests. One in which it beat out the 5 series. Yet, the car ultimately languished.
Nonetheless a positive write-up that was needed given all of the others.
I am not surprised the RLX out accelerated the XTS. The XTS is heavy and it is driving four wheels compared to the RLX only driving two. I also haven't gotten a good understanding why the 3.6L in the XTS only produces 304 HP, yet the one in my CTS has 318, and the version in the ATS produces 321. I had read that it has to do with a more restrictive exhaust due to the fact that the engine is mounted transversely in the XTS (FWD platform) versus longitudinally in the CTS and ATS.
No surprises on the execution of CUE. The reviews on it have been hit and miss. I played around with it in a loaner SRX I had and when I test drove an ATS a few weeks ago. It's kinda cool, but in some cases there is engineering just for engineering sake. For example, a knob is still the tried and true way to adjust volume (when not using the steering wheel controls). The sliding bar feels more gimmicky. I understand that Cadillac is continually updating the software and updating customers cars so I would anticipate it will continue to be refined. Having said that, I think Acura does the best job with integrating the cockpit technology. They still have the best navigation and voice recognition systems on the market.
So the XTS wins in looks and handling despite the fact that the RLX has better tires (W rated in the RLX and V rated in the XTS). Sorry, couldn't help myself
. The RLX wins in acceleration, interior space and technology. Again, a good win for Acura. Keep in mind though that while the XTS is still at the at the top of the Cadillac pyramid (not including the CTS-V and the Escalade) it it still a dressed up Buick LaCrosse. I guess that doesn't matter since many here are calling the RLX a dressed up Accord. It will be interesting to see when the rumored true RWD Cadillac flagship is finally introduced.
Back to the RLX. The key is whether that win will translate into sales. Remember early on the RL came out at the top or near the top in many comparison tests. One in which it beat out the 5 series. Yet, the car ultimately languished.
Nonetheless a positive write-up that was needed given all of the others.
Yes I know that the XTS is AWD, but P-AWS is supposed to help with the inherent handling issues of a FWD car. In this review at least, it didn't help, and it had better tires than the XTS. Something that you always say is an advantage that the RLX has.
Your comment of "if the RLX had the same tires as the GS350-F or the BMW M" is irrelevant. The RLX doesn't come with those tires and it didn't in this test.
The XTS is supposed to get a version of the TT 3.6L that is being introduced in the CTS. I would assume that will take care of the acceleration advantage the RLX has, but that has no bearing in this review, just like replacement tires for the RLX are irrelevant. I have no doubts that SH-SH-AWD will help handling in the RLX, just like the TTV6 in the XTS will help it in acceleration, but those features were not on these cars. Try sticking to the facts of this review as the cars were equipped for this test.
Lastly, while speeds of 100+ miles makes for great forum discussion, tell me how many people regularly drive at those speeds. Great for bragging rights, but doesn't matter for most folks who buy these cars.
Your comment of "if the RLX had the same tires as the GS350-F or the BMW M" is irrelevant. The RLX doesn't come with those tires and it didn't in this test.
The XTS is supposed to get a version of the TT 3.6L that is being introduced in the CTS. I would assume that will take care of the acceleration advantage the RLX has, but that has no bearing in this review, just like replacement tires for the RLX are irrelevant. I have no doubts that SH-SH-AWD will help handling in the RLX, just like the TTV6 in the XTS will help it in acceleration, but those features were not on these cars. Try sticking to the facts of this review as the cars were equipped for this test.
Lastly, while speeds of 100+ miles makes for great forum discussion, tell me how many people regularly drive at those speeds. Great for bragging rights, but doesn't matter for most folks who buy these cars.
I think the hp differences are down to minor tuning/details.
Both primacy mxm4 and potenza re097as are categorized as grand touring all season tires. MXM4 is one of the better ones in this class, not too sure about the potenza's though.
Objectively speaking, the RLX has better numbers. But XTS has better driving feel and that makes the XTS the overall winner in terms of handling.
With that said, I don't think the RLX FWD is tuned for performance/great handling. That is something to be achieved by the AWD model. We will find out later when it comes out.
Safety Car
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 64
It has 6 years of warranty.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....toModClar=with Advance package&tab=Warranty
6 Years / 55,000 Miles (H,V-rated)
6 Years / 45,000 Miles (W,Y,Z-rated)
Half mileage for rear if different size than front
No, I don't use it, the 45-65 mph is a common test to rate passing ability. I didn't just make that up. That's why they use it.
You must know better than Moter Trend.
Safety Car
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 64
RLX is super quiest/fast/fuel efficient/handle better. Its MT figure 8 score is the highest in FWD and very close to RWD competitors.
MT already mentioned the same tires in Lexus for lack of handling power. alot worse in Lexus ES350.
MT already mentioned the same tires in Lexus for lack of handling power. alot worse in Lexus ES350.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...50_comparison/
The new ES is even 55 pounds lighter than its predecessor, delivering 2.4 better combined EPA mileage (2013's 24.6 mpg versus 2012's 22.2). Some of that is because of its Michelin Primacy MXV4 tires, which happen to be the same low-rolling-resistance rubber worn by the ES 300h hybrid. Unfortunately, it shows. The Lexus understeered its way round the figure-eight course's corners at a crummy 0.76 g, not helped at all by its group-worst weight distribution (61% of it up front). Frankly, I wondered if this car had the wrong tires, but a call confirmed that these are indeed the prescribed footwear.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2RF8KeoJx
The new ES is even 55 pounds lighter than its predecessor, delivering 2.4 better combined EPA mileage (2013's 24.6 mpg versus 2012's 22.2). Some of that is because of its Michelin Primacy MXV4 tires, which happen to be the same low-rolling-resistance rubber worn by the ES 300h hybrid. Unfortunately, it shows. The Lexus understeered its way round the figure-eight course's corners at a crummy 0.76 g, not helped at all by its group-worst weight distribution (61% of it up front). Frankly, I wondered if this car had the wrong tires, but a call confirmed that these are indeed the prescribed footwear.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2RF8KeoJx
2012 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,196
Likes: 95
From: Southeast Michigan
It show your limited knowledge. Grand touring tire can be rated for 200mph but it does not mean it will give the performance/handling as it will take forever to reach that point. longer life and more fuel efficiency means lower performance/handling. RLX tires have 500 UTQG. It is among the longest life in this class of sedan.
It has 6 years of warranty.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....toModClar=with Advance package&tab=Warranty
6 Years / 55,000 Miles (H,V-rated)
6 Years / 45,000 Miles (W,Y,Z-rated)
Half mileage for rear if different size than front
.
It has 6 years of warranty.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....toModClar=with Advance package&tab=Warranty
6 Years / 55,000 Miles (H,V-rated)
6 Years / 45,000 Miles (W,Y,Z-rated)
Half mileage for rear if different size than front
.
Your post made no sense. As usual.
Absolute gibberish.
Last edited by GoHawks; Apr 22, 2013 at 08:24 PM.
Safety Car
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 64
why do you think BMW 5/Lexus GS F use 275/265 rear tires with x-section of 35. This extra wide and low profile tires are reason for handling. Not because they are RWD.
2012 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,196
Likes: 95
From: Southeast Michigan
sure no sense at all. There is alot more to tires than speed rating. Even Grand touring has V rated tires. and than secondory issue of side wall x-section.
why do you think BMW 5/Lexus GS F use 275/265 rear tires with x-section of 35. This extra wide and low profile tires are reason for handling. Not because they are RWD.
why do you think BMW 5/Lexus GS F use 275/265 rear tires with x-section of 35. This extra wide and low profile tires are reason for handling. Not because they are RWD.
2012 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,196
Likes: 95
From: Southeast Michigan
But how can that be? Don't those poor idiots know that.....
They must not have gotten the memo.
They must not have gotten the memo.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tallyrlx
3G RLX Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
12
Feb 26, 2016 03:44 PM
IIDXholic
3G RLX (2013+)
23
Oct 19, 2015 09:40 PM
