biker

And for those who don't care about the roundel on the hood they will buy the Accord over the bimmer.

SSFTSX

It is not about brand but what objective criterias. Impala is not even close to RLX. Accord surpass BMW in most objective criterias.
see Accord/Mazda 6 comparision. Accord is slower to 60mph but at 100mph it is already faster. Accord handles excellent for skinny 215 tires.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...ex-l-sedan.pdf
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...comparison.pdf

Honda/Acura has really invested in noise reduction and aerodynamic efficiency. There is no such thing with Impala.

fsttyms1

Except its a larger, better looking car for far less money. To many that is all it will take. I have already seen more Impalas on the road than i have seen RLX's.

SSFTSX

They are more because it is cheaper and discounted. it will not hold resale value.

oonowindoo

Like ground clearance, AC Vent location and MPG? No, i take that back, i have been getting 25/33 in REAL LIFE. Something i would never be able to get in a 6 cylinder accord in REAL LIFE.

ttribe

Don't forget aerodynamic mirrors....

SSFTSX

how do you know you wont be getting in real life Honda Accord. Honda Accord is still without DI engine in V6. no premium fuel required like BMW 535 or 335.

Ken1997TL

I dunno. An in-law of mine got a Touring V6 sedan and gets 37 on the highway about 25 in town.

phile

Hmm those numbers are extremely optimistic. I guess if you coast enough you can achieve it, but I'm not sure you can get that with regular driving.

fsttyms1

Maybe Acura should make it cheaper and sell more. Oh, And when you dont pay as much there isnt as large a need for a larger resale. It evens out. Also not everyone cares about resale. I know i dont, and certainly not the people who buy 7 series and A8s who loose 60k in value in 2 years. If they did they wouldnt buy them.

biker

I'd give it another 6 months, which should include the time the hybrid comes out, but if sales don't go above 500/mo I think we can call it a failure.

oonowindoo

I am pretty sure your in laws do not drive like me

oonowindoo

How do i know? because i am not even getting anywhere close to that with my 4 cylinder accord. Maybe i could if i drive like a grandma, then again if i drive like a grandma maybe i would be getting 40s in the 335.

don't wanna sound like a dick but if i can afford a BMW, i don't give a rat ass about premium fuel.

just FYI 89 is required for 335, not 91.

to put it in perspective, 06 accord LX is rated 26/34. I average about 22 mixed highway and local, so 25/33 in the 335 to me is better than the accord.
Now that is my REAL life mpg.
Because Accord is so slow, i tend to step on the gas a lot harder than in the 335.
I am sure if you stay under 3k RPM 100% of the time, you probably will get better MPG. But to me, it is not realistic.

phile

I'd say you're too generous. 500/mos for a mass produced item is pathetic for any automaker. They're not Ferrari.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Jeff, the founder of TOV, is also getting similar figures...and he doesn't drive like a grandma. He finds that the V6 is actually more efficient that the I4 model out in the world on the hwy based on his experience. Some other guy on that forum is getting 40mpg on the freeway in his AV6. I'm guessing that is on the optimistic side.

biker

The Infiniti M and Lexus GS have had poor months in that range, so that is not quite pathetic. I think that Acura could realistically aim for being ahead of the M and GS but it just won't do it with the current design.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

The GS? Really? I don't remember it being that bad......

The M though has been selling at 500 ish a month for a while now. In many ways, the M seems to be what people want Acura to be copying with their RLX - RWD, AWD option, non-conservative styling, powerful V8 option, hybrid option, nice interior, etc. Yet, the M is not exactly selling that well. In fact, with so many drivetrain options such as RWD, AWD, V6, V8, and hybrid, it should be doing much better than the RLX that only has FWD V6 right now, regardless of the age of the car.

oonowindoo

There are guys getting 40mpg in their 335 too on F30post. I do not know how they did it but apparently it can be done.

I believe V6 accord can be fuel efficient on HWY during long trips, maybe even better than I4, but i do not believe it would have better MPG consistently with mixed city/highway.

From my previous experience with all J series engine, i had never got anything over 30. Never.

Just trying to prove a point to SSFTXX.

H_CAR

You also have to remember that your Accord is a 2006, which means the engine and transmission tech isn't as up to date. There is also a major price difference between the two. Spend more money you get a more technologically advanced engine, when comparing an Accord to a 335 any way.

phile

Not out of the gate, though. The RL was selling 2k+ within the first few months, IIRC, and then started to trail. The RLX appears doomed.

oonowindoo

Tell that to SSFTXX and he will not agree with you

SSFTSX

what has your previous experience anything to do with new Honda Accord?. 2006 Accord is simply underpowered and inhibited by 5speed auto.
In MT comparision test 2012 328 and V6 TSX got identical mileage. So there is no reason that Accord V6 cannot beat 328 fuel economic.

oonowindoo

If you believed everything magazine says then let me find an article where it says RLX sucks and you can repeat after me.

http://reviews.cnet.com/sedan/2014-a...-35590816.html

Now repeat after me:

The bottom line: The 2014 Acura RLX makes a game attempt at being a high-tech roller, but suffers from flaws serious enough that they should send Acura back to the drawing board.

SSFTSX

I am only referring to objective measures of Fuel economic in comparision tests. not some vague terms like steering feel.

ttribe

Fuel economy? Buy a Prius, then. "Steering feel" matters on a sport sedan.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Yea I see what you mean with the J series. I have a 02 TL-S and it gets about 22mpg in mixed driving. However, I have taken it to long road trips (i.e. from Vancouver, Canada to Calgary which is 600 miles one way, and Vancouver to San Francisco, which is 1000 miles one way) and I do get well above 30mpg going a bit over the speed limit (~75mph). Anyway, my combined figure is actually 1mpg better than the EPA rating (21mpg combined) so I really can't complain much.

But I have to agree with SSFTSX here, the newer J series with its VCM, friction-reducing technologies, and other changes along with 6AT, less drag, and other changes combine for much better fuel efficiency in the new Accord (25mpg combined EPA). I think the VCM is especially useful. While I was test driving the new Accord V6, the instrument cluster showed that most of the time, I was in 3-cyl mode. I had to be really stepping it to get the car into the 6-cyl mode. Actually, when you look at the EPA ratings, the manual V6 accord only has a combined rating of 22mpg. That really shows the benefit of VCM.

The 2G RL was winning quite a few comparos back then. Even when it didn't win, it was in the top half most of the time. The 2G RL was genuinely an excellent car back then for one year. Its weaknesses were its exterior styling, tight rear leg room, and one trim, one drivetrain only strategy. One year later, competitors came out with nicer products. The RL simply had no chance.

The new RLX? It's just "good" in everything, with nothing standing out. Being good is not enough these days especially when you are trying to get a good reputation.

oonowindoo

If what you said is true, then that just made it even worse.

You basically have to drive a 3 cylinder accord most of the time to get EPA rating.

If the new accord V6 VCM is anything like the 2013 Oddy VCM, then it is just painful to drive.

We have a brand new Oddy as a company van and i drive it on daily basis, the car always feels like something is stuck in the exhaust unless you put the pedal to the floor. I think that is the VCM

Moog-Type-S

You know a car model is a failure when it has this many pages in a thread full of "debate".

I would normally say, back to the drawing board, but with Acura, that continues to prove to be a bad idea.

Honda needs to clean house at Acura.
Top to bottom.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I have never driven the 2013 Odyssey. From my experience though, I could not tell at all whether the car was in 3-cyl mode or 6-cyl mode unless I was looking at the VCM light in instrument cluster.

You are probably right that I was driving a 3 cylinder 80% of the time during my test drive. But I really don't mind that since I couldn't even tell at all. There's no stuttering, no vibration, or anything that affects the smoothness of the ride.

In terms of power, we all know the Accord v6 is pretty much the fastest in its segment. Compared to my 2G TL-S, the throttle response is way sharper. For the first few minutes, I had to be careful with the throttle as I almost rear ended the car in front of me. That is probably because my own car does not have DBW while newer cars mostly have DBW. It did not take me long to get used to it and be driving smoothly though.

I have no doubt that if I drive aggressively the whole time with the Accord V6, I wouldn't be getting good mpg. But, isn't that the same for all cars, including boosted ones? A 328i with its 2.0T engine would get 2.0L engine fuel efficiency when it's being driven like sanely. But if you step on it all the time, the boost would make that engine sucks fuel like a 3.0L engine.

oonowindoo

I have been driving cars with DBW for several years now. I am still not used to it.
Manual cars with DBW feel a lot better than auto but still lags.

Of course if you drive any car hard, MPG will suffer. I personally have no problem with Honda deactivates 3 cylinders in their V6 to get better MPG.
It is hard to have a real world comparison without having the car for an extended period of time.
Magazine #s and EPA are all meaningless unless i can replicate them in real life.
It is hard for me to believe that i will get anywhere near the EPA #s in real life when i know 3 cylinder is not enough for me. Maybe on the way to Vegas...

The reason i threw 06 accord #s out there is just to prove that point. EPA can say whatever it wants, but i am not getting anywhere close to it.

oonowindoo

I think we have been saying that for close to 7 or 8 years now.

SSFTSX

do you really thing that Accord V6 and RLX are intended for some sport car audience?. the tire setup will tell you that they are for economic and quietness. and both excels there competition in that department by wide margin. They are reasonably fast for merging and passing.

ttribe

Look for the word "sport", genius:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...s4_comparison/

Oh, and don't forget the name of the AWD version is called the "Sport Hybrid".

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

From what I've seen so far, EPA figures, magazine results, and user experiences from TOV have shown that the new Accord V6 has very good fuel economy in its class. At the end of the day though, it all comes down to how you drive it. If you always drive it hard without much cruising, then VCM is probably not too useful for you.

You are not alone, quite a few people used to drive 7G Accord over at TOV and found that the 7G wasn't that fuel efficient. The founder of TOV also spent quite a bit of time with a 7G Accord, and he said that the Accord is much more powerful and efficient.

fsttyms1

I rarely get anything under 30-31 on the hwy cruising between 75-80 with my out dated nearing 400k miles modified J32A2. The fact that the new J has to shut 3 cyl off to get similar isnt that good of technology updates to the engine to achieve the EPA ratings.

But i agree with you about magazine MPG test. A few hundred miles of them testing doesnt mean squat when it comes to real world daily driving. You get a better idea when you look at the long term vehicle updates they have on occasion and most are under the combined rating. In the end it all comes down to who and how its driven.

Legend2TL

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html

FWIW ....

In the end, we scored this one of the closest comparo finishes in recent memory. These are two fine sedans: roomy, loaded with high-tech wizardry, and almost equally capable of pampering driver and passengers for even the longest drives. The XTS shines in physical presence and handling prowess, but takes a big hit because of its clunky user interface and relatively poor performance at the pump. The new RLX might lack the Cadillac's dramatic sheetmetal and doesn't hustle through the twisties with the same athleticism, but it delivers outstanding comfort, a creamy ride, a brilliant combo of speed and frugality, outstanding refinement (at highway speeds its cabin is as quiet as a tomb), and a boatload of technology that's far more accessible on a daily basis. By the narrowest of margins, the 2014 Acura RLX takes home the gold.

oonowindoo

That alone sounds like a defeat to me considering how much Acura spent and advertised their hybrid handling crap on the FWD RLX.

Legend2TL

EPA rating for a BMW 335i 6MT sedan is 20city/30hwy not 25/33

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...fications.aspx

Legend2TL

The hybrid handling system is on the AWD RLX out in the fall.
I'll see how that does before declaring the RLX a winner or loser in terms of performance.
The article shows the good and bad on the 2014 RLX.
MT liked the interior and ride, heck besides handling it outperformed in majority of performance over the Cadillac even braking despite the Caddy having Brembo's.

Legend2TL

And your experience may vary, I've had 30+ MPG highway on the J32A3 in my 05 TL 6MT ever since I got it

Many (majority?) Accord owners do 30MPG+ on the J series even with the 5AT.