Basically, this article compares sedans upward of $40K. Here is what they said about the RL.

Money, January 2006," Ace of All Trades", Lawrence Ulrich

On paper, the Acura RL looks like it should do well: It has more standard features than any car in this test, and Acura is known for building sporty, solid, near-luxury cars. But in this exclusive class, that Acura formula is less convincing.

First, the good stuff. The RL doesn't offer a V-8, but its 290-horsepower V-6 is the strongest six in the field. It's got a slick all-wheel-drive system that helps the car scoot around corners, fine steering and an excellent navigation system. The new optional Collision Mitigation Braking System actually brakes the car when it senses that you're not slowing down quickly enough to avoid an accident.

So what's the problem? Value. Another Acura, the TL, gives you nearly as much car for $15,000 less. There's no avoiding the comparison: The RL and TL are both built on the Honda Accord platform. The RL is a bit shorter, it's 430 pounds heaviere, and it feels no roomier inside. The RL does add AWD, more features and 32 extra horsepower, but it lacks those luxury intangibles that would justify its price tag. The top finishers here reassure you that you're driving something special, yet the RL makes you feel like you're driving, well, a really nice Honda. As the final indignity, the TL is the better-looking car. The tentatively styled RL could be mistaken for a next-generation Accord-not good for a sedan with upper-crust aspirations.

 

haha.. i guess it does make sense in a way.. but i did NOT know that the RL was actually shorter than the TL.

 

WTF, thats purely not true. The RL is longer than the TL by 4". Its wheelbase is also almost 3" longer.

Inside, the front has similar specs (head/leg/hip room) but the rear of the RL is marginally bigger.

THe rest of the article is pretty dead on though.

 

huuh. thats what i thought. i knew the RL was definitly larger.

 

ouch

 

ouch is right. Especially the part about the TL looking better than the RL.

 

RL teh

 

The RL is what the Accord should have looked like IMO.

 

Acura has some all around great cars but bland styling with be the death of the brand, well that and:

Making an Accord that is just as luxurious any Acura
Making the Civic Si look better than the RSX
Considering axing the NSX
And removing the mid-level coupe from the line up while Infiniti and BMW coupes improve their coupes

 

I had no idea the RL was on the accord platform.

 

TL specs

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/acur...175/specs.html



RL specs

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/acur...003/specs.html



Move to strike article in its entirety.

 

It is now.. it used to be on its own KA9 platform, same with the Legend.

 

I

 

I agree with the article on some points, but the RL should cost more than the TL due to its higher content levels. The materials are better (RL uses real wood, TL uses fake), swiveling headlights, keyless entry, etc. I mean, price out any of the RL's competitors with similar equipment and most will fall into the same price range as the RL. The only thing the RL really lacks for the price of its competitors is a V8 engine. So I don't necessarily think it should cost 15K more than the TL; I don't see the articles point in complaining about the price in comparison to the TL.