You have saved this page | See all saved pages
Acura RL
7385 messages, Last post on Apr 18, 2013 at 12:02 PM
You are in the Acura RL Forum.What is this discussion about? Acura RL, Sedan
#1457 of 7385 by varmint
Jul 14, 2003 (7:43 am)
The Japanese V8 models are pretty much there for press drives. They are not volume cars, but they make the entire model-line look a little better. The RL lacks that halo effect.I agree that the RL is badly neglected, but I can't fault Acura for not updating it in the past two years. If the rumors about using a hybrid drive train are true, then waiting for it to be viable was probably a smart move.
For example, if they had redone the RL for 2003, it probably would have gotten the MDX's 260 hp engine with FWD and trim/design upgrades similar to everything else on the market. Then we'd have to wait for 2008 for the next redesign. By waiting a bit longer, Honda may be able to release a 2005 RL with a AWD high-performance hybrid system that will be unique and make a bigger splash.
Build a decent product now, or build a superior product a little later.
1943973 - Actually VTEC allows an engine to breathe better at both high and low rpms. Without variable valve technology an engine must pick between high or low rpm performance. Most select a middle ground. With VTEC (or similar systems), the engine can breathe comfortably at any rpm.
#1459 of 7385 by l943973
Jul 14, 2003 (12:19 pm)
VTEC worked differently back in the old days before the new CL and MDX came out. Back then, it was either on or off at a certain RPM. In the NSX, it was around 5600 RPM. In the S2000, its around 7500 RPM. I can't vouch for the S2000, but I can tell you at 5600, my NSX seems to get a second wind and really moves.Thats why I don't think the old VTEC technology is in the RL.
From what I've read in the past, the 2005 RL
- 203 in in length (S-Class, A8L, 745Li size)
- 3.0L V6 at around 200 hp w/IMA at 100hp giving it a even 300 hp.
- (AWD) front driven by IMA, rear driven by gasoline like the DN-X
#1460 of 7385 by l943973
Jul 14, 2003 (12:19 pm)
They are claiming 4WD and now AWD. Maybe from the MDX?<http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/ae_news_story.php?id=38178>
The 3.0L iVTEC engine they mention is here
http://world.honda.com/news/2003/4030618_1.html
The technology will probably consists of:
http://world.honda.com/news/2003/4030618_2.html
#1461 of 7385 There is no "On and Off" by varmint
Jul 14, 2003 (1:16 pm)
Sorry... this is off topic.Even the earliest versions of VTEC made use of two valve settings. Both are part of the VTEC system. Both improve performance. Both are equally important.
One setting is for high rpm performance. It allows the engine to breathe deeper and longer during each piston cycle. When people remark on VTEC "kicking in", what they mean is the valves have switched from the low rpm setting to the high rpm setting.
The other setting is for low rpm operation. At low rpms, the engine doesn't need to breathe like a marathon runner, shallow and quick breaths are all it takes. This prevents that fish out of water situation. One setting without the other, would be very bad.
Honda's early uses of VTEC were aimed at increasing the total output of the engine. So the low rpm settings were used to increase fuel economy, lower emissions, and keep the engine running smooth. That allowed the engine to build a modest amount of torque in the mid range. When that curve began to fall off, VTEC would engage the high rpms settings and carry that same torque into the higher rpms, where it generates more power. The aggressive valve settings are biased toward the high end since more power was the primary goal.
It didn't have to be that way. If Honda had preferred, they might have biased the engine toward the low end of the RPM band. The low end could have created large amounts of torque in the low range, then used slightly more aggressive valve settings in the mid range to prevent the engine from gasping at the top. This would not have created as much horsepower as the route described in the paragraph above. Such an engine would have been better suited for a towing vehicle or off-roader, not a sports car.
When Honda started building truck-like vehicles, they changed the bias of the VTEC. The MDX required more grunt off the line. So Honda adjusted the VTEC settings to provide more power through the low and mid ranges. It didn't matter that the torque curve tapered off in the high rpms. A high revving engine would have been inappropriate for an SUV.
One good example of this is the 2.4L K-series engine as found in the CR-V and the Accord. In the CR-V, it is biased for power at the low end. That engine makes 162 lb-ft at 3,600 rpms. In the Accord, the same block is biased for efficiency and does not need the same low end grunt. It makes about 161 lb-ft at 4,500 rpms. Both use the same i-VTEC system (just tuned differently) and make 160 horses. The TSX uses a third tuning of the same engine, which provides torque at the low end and power in the upper revs. The catch is a preferrance for premium fuel as well as lower overall fuel economy and emissions.
In the end, the engine uses either the high or low settings depending on which is the appropriate tool for the job. As cars run at both rpm ranges, both are necessary.
#1463 of 7385 Beats me by varmint
Jul 14, 2003 (4:24 pm)
As far as I can tell, the RL should have VTEC in some form. I would think that a low-end bias would be good for this vehicle. Get the torque up front and make acceleration feel effortless.#1465 of 7385 by l943973
Jul 15, 2003 (6:12 am)
Just from my own experiences with the car, torque on the RL is more than adequate at low rpms. The car doesn't feel bogged down when accelerating from a stop and has more pick up than the Lexus GS 300, Audi A6 2.8 and Volvo S80 that I test drove a few years back. With those models, I had to rev past 4000 rpm before the car started moving at a decent pace.#1466 of 7385 Why no VTEC, etc in RL, that is the question? by msgreen
Jul 15, 2003 (4:29 pm)
Re my post #15 above, that is my point. If Honda was going to wait until 05 or 06 (whenever) to update the RL, OK, no doubt they have business reasons. However, in my humble opinion, they badly hurt the RL by not upgrading it with at least the offerings they had in other lines. For example, the MDX has had the 3.5L V6 with VTEC and 240 HP for several years. The five speed auto has been available with that engine for a similar period. WHY, didn't Honda make these standard in their top of the line brand???? It was essentially a no cost issue for them and would have at least made the brand more comparable to other brands with similar engines/transmissions. To me, this is just crazy. This has nothing to do with the re-do of the exterior/interior styling or any other Techno-Wiz upgrades planned for the future, it is just common sense. BMW has a 528 and upgrades to a 3L and 5sd auto during the E39 model run. They did not wait for the E60 because the competition was killing them with more HP, etc. Same for Acura, not making improvements which were essentially "free" to the company has hurt sales of this car....To POST a message, please
Sign In.
Advertisement
Most Popular in Forums
Search Forums
Enter Keyword(s):
Learn More, Do More
Edmunds Community
Advertisement