Acura Vs. Cadillac / RL vs. Escalade
#1
Acura Vs. Cadillac
Hey guys,
I have been in a dilemma for over a month now and do not know what to do. I have a 2005 Escalade with all the options on it and was thinking to change into an RL. By doing that I will have a higher payment but not as many options as the escalade. Please help me guys to make the best choice between those 2 vehicles.
I have been in a dilemma for over a month now and do not know what to do. I have a 2005 Escalade with all the options on it and was thinking to change into an RL. By doing that I will have a higher payment but not as many options as the escalade. Please help me guys to make the best choice between those 2 vehicles.
#2
Not Registered
I also have a fully loaded 2005 Escalade and love that thing. They are two different kinds of vehicles and if you need any kind of extra room, I'd stay with the Escalade.
#3
My Garage
Can you expand a little on your needs? You are comparing a sedan to a huge SUV, very tough to compare these two unless you get more specific about what exactly you want out of a vehicle.
#4
Not Asian
Originally Posted by GIBSON6594
Can you expand a little on your needs? You are comparing a sedan to a huge SUV, very tough to compare these two unless you get more specific about what exactly you want out of a vehicle.
![Werd](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/werd.gif)
#5
The sizzle in the Steak
apples and oranges
#7
I'm Cool
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Age: 39
Posts: 2,054
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sclass88
Apples to oranges but the RL will probably last you longer in terms of reliability than the Escalade will. ![2 Cents](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/2cents.gif)
![2 Cents](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/2cents.gif)
But no dubs for RL yo dawg bro
![ugh](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/ugh.gif)
Trending Topics
#8
Senior Moderator
RL hands down...but, then again, I'm usually quite biased against large SUVs.
![Big Grin](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#10
I'm here in spirit...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CO
Age: 47
Posts: 7,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What doesn't the RL have that the Caddy has? ![Scratch](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/scratch.gif)
Personally, I'd go with the RL. I've never liked GM products aside from the GTO, Vette, and the Caddy XLR.
![Scratch](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/scratch.gif)
Personally, I'd go with the RL. I've never liked GM products aside from the GTO, Vette, and the Caddy XLR.
#14
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by sab35263
By doing that I will have a higher payment but not as many options as the escalade.
Other than that I can't think of a single worthwhile feature that an Escalade, that to the old one with its pitiful interior, would have over the RL, and can think of many that the RL has that the Escalade doesn't.
That interior in the old Escalade would make me A. Barf and B. switch to ANYTHING else, let alone an RL.
#16
'Big Daddy Diggler'
Originally Posted by Sclass88
Apples to oranges but the RL will probably last you longer in terms of reliability than the Escalade will. ![2 Cents](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/2cents.gif)
![2 Cents](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/2cents.gif)
#17
Not Registered
Originally Posted by vishnus11
...and can think of many that the RL has that the Escalade doesn't.
That interior in the old Escalade would make me A. Barf and B. switch to ANYTHING else, let alone an RL.
That interior in the old Escalade would make me A. Barf and B. switch to ANYTHING else, let alone an RL.
I have a 2005 and I think the interior is sweet. But yes, the older ones ('99) it sucked.
![](http://www.brian-r.net/files/Escalade.jpg)
![](http://www.cgauto.com/images/autoreview/lrg/05122291990003LRG.jpg)
#19
Team Owner
iTrader: (4)
Originally Posted by daemonicus
escalade = gas guzzler
rl = not so much of a gas guzzler
rl = not so much of a gas guzzler
Threads like this make me feel poor.
#20
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the escalade gets 15 mpg avg. and the RL gets 22 avg. eh, it'd make a difference for me i guess, that's more than 100 miles more per tank you could get with the RL.
#21
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by Bdog
The only thing I can think of the RL has over an Escalade is the power sunshades. The 05 Escalade has a 345hp 6.0L and the 07 has a 400+ engine. Onstar, Navi, rear DVD, 3 row seating, heat/air right, left and rear zones, 3 level heated seates front and rear, 20" wheels stock... but the gas mileage does suck highway or not.
I have a 2005 and I think the interior is sweet. But yes, the older ones ('99) it sucked.
![](http://www.brian-r.net/files/Escalade.jpg)
![](http://www.cgauto.com/images/autoreview/lrg/05122291990003LRG.jpg)
I have a 2005 and I think the interior is sweet. But yes, the older ones ('99) it sucked.
![](http://www.brian-r.net/files/Escalade.jpg)
![](http://www.cgauto.com/images/autoreview/lrg/05122291990003LRG.jpg)
And that pitiful excuse for an interior made me cry.
#22
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by bigman
Bull, GM trucks and their engine's are proven to be some of the most reliable vehicles in the world. There are more old tahoes, suburbans, blazers, jimmys ect. out there than any other suvs. Reliability is not a factor here, because that truck will stand up to more abuse than the RL or any other Honda/Acura product can take. But it is an apples to oranges comparison.
I'm not sure what you mean by "stand up to more abuse". Are we talking about taking your car to the Dakar rally - then yes, the RL a vehicle not intended for off road use will fail miserably in comparison to the Escalade, a vehicle designed primarily for offroad use.
But as far as overall reliability goes - fuggedaboutit. There is a reason GM has earned the reputation it has for quality and reliability. Yes, some of GM's products are so old that they are so tried and tested and are generally reliable - their old 3.8 pushrod comes to mind, as does the small block. But I know that the Escalade cannot be more reliable than a RL. Complaints for the RL on these forums are usually along the lines of "At 78mph when I downshift to 3rd at 5782 rpm, I can almost hear a small rattle in the right rear quarter panel".
CR's reliability report should tell the whole story. I don't have it handy right now, but I'd bet that the RL is ranked far superior to the Escalade in terms of reliability.
#26
'Big Daddy Diggler'
Originally Posted by vishnus11
Obviously GM has more older SUV's out there beacuse they BUILD more than anyone else. Not to mention that having "more" of something out on the roads, doesn't necessarily make it more reliable.
I'm not sure what you mean by "stand up to more abuse". Are we talking about taking your car to the Dakar rally - then yes, the RL a vehicle not intended for off road use will fail miserably in comparison to the Escalade, a vehicle designed primarily for offroad use.
But as far as overall reliability goes - fuggedaboutit. There is a reason GM has earned the reputation it has for quality and reliability. Yes, some of GM's products are so old that they are so tried and tested and are generally reliable - their old 3.8 pushrod comes to mind, as does the small block. But I know that the Escalade cannot be more reliable than a RL. Complaints for the RL on these forums are usually along the lines of "At 78mph when I downshift to 3rd at 5782 rpm, I can almost hear a small rattle in the right rear quarter panel".
CR's reliability report should tell the whole story. I don't have it handy right now, but I'd bet that the RL is ranked far superior to the Escalade in terms of reliability.
I'm not sure what you mean by "stand up to more abuse". Are we talking about taking your car to the Dakar rally - then yes, the RL a vehicle not intended for off road use will fail miserably in comparison to the Escalade, a vehicle designed primarily for offroad use.
But as far as overall reliability goes - fuggedaboutit. There is a reason GM has earned the reputation it has for quality and reliability. Yes, some of GM's products are so old that they are so tried and tested and are generally reliable - their old 3.8 pushrod comes to mind, as does the small block. But I know that the Escalade cannot be more reliable than a RL. Complaints for the RL on these forums are usually along the lines of "At 78mph when I downshift to 3rd at 5782 rpm, I can almost hear a small rattle in the right rear quarter panel".
CR's reliability report should tell the whole story. I don't have it handy right now, but I'd bet that the RL is ranked far superior to the Escalade in terms of reliability.
#28
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SpeedyV6
A new RL will depreciate much faster than a 2 year old Escalade. If you decide to go for the RL, you may as well buy used and save yourself some bucks.
#33
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sab35263
Boy I'am now more confused than ever with all this different answers. Don't know what to do???
GM reputation = not so good
Acura reputation = good
Escalade avg mpg. = 15
RL avg mpg. = 22
(More than 100 miles more per tank with the RL)
Escalade 0-60, 1/4 mile = 8.10s, 16.17s
RL 0-60, 1/4 mile = 6.92s, 15.42s
Escalade luxury = not so much
RL luxury = a lot better than an Escalade (proof in the picture)
Nobody can look at these and say the Escalade is more luxurious.
![](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a90/along_came_spider/escalade_interior.jpg)
![](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a90/along_came_spider/RL_interior.jpg)
Escalade interior space = it's an SUV, you cant compare
RL interior space = you'd think in an SUV that big they could have more rear legroom (Escalade 38.60, RL 36.30)
Escalade handling = that of a tank, high center or gravity, curb weight of 5571 lbs.
RL handling = nimble, lower center of gravity, curb weight of 4074 lbs.
'05 Escalade avg. KBB price = $41,500 - $42,600, retailed for $56,405
'05 RL avg. KBB price = $39,800 - $40,900, retailed for $49,100
(proof that foreign cars usually hold their value longer than american cars)
Hopefully some of these points help you with your decision.
#34
Safety Car
Originally Posted by SpeedyV6
A new RL will depreciate much faster than a 2 year old Escalade. If you decide to go for the RL, you may as well buy used and save yourself some bucks.
The RL maybe a few K at the most.
#35
Suzuka Master
Originally Posted by pimpin-tl
That is not true. If you got a RL for 2006 at $40k, the Escalade loses about 10-15k right off the lot.
The RL maybe a few K at the most.
The RL maybe a few K at the most.
#37
fap fap fap
how does the RL hold its value better when it barely even sells? someone on here just yesterday bought an 05 RL for $33k. based on the avg KBB price above that is more than $6k below KBB, pretty bad if you ask me.
#38
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Plantation
Age: 59
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sab35263
Hey all,
I need a vote on this to solve my dillema...
I need a vote on this to solve my dillema...
#40
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (5)
Originally Posted by Crazy Sellout
Originally Posted by stiletto
Stop. You have three posts (all about the same thing). You are asking a stupid question. Go read reviews on-line instead of wasting our time. Jerk.
Originally Posted by Marc S
i agree.... you have multiple threads about something that no one really cares about.... make a damn car decision on your own
![Werd](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/werd.gif)
Threads merged...