Ask the Car People.SM


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

Messages Page 338 of 740

#3364 of 7385 by varmint

Aug 18, 2004 (10:51 am)

"Acura had it's chance to dominate the market, but they dropped the Legend, and introduced a ton of bland cars. After the Legend was discontinued I lost all interest in Acura. Nothing has come out of that car company that makes me even think about their name."
 
Yeah, I know what you mean. The Vigor was an "okay" car, but not a real market leader. The TL that replaced it was nothing special. The Integra was a great little sport coupe, but it didn't really fit in with the image of a luxury car maker. The RL was a competent vehicle, but it did not march to the same drummer as the rest of the industry.
 
But I think that Acura started to make its comeback with the 1999 TL. Most didn't take it seriously that first year, but in 2000 it began to make waves. I bought one in 2001. With the addition of the Type S model, that car took off. That was about the same time that they added the MDX. That vehicle was a huge success.
 
So, while I can completely understand that the Acura line may not have anything for you personally, I think it did find new life around the year 2000.

#3365 of 7385 Styling Comparo by varmint

Aug 18, 2004 (11:02 am)

Talon just summed it up nicely for me.
 
I think the RL may be a little too conservative, but it still has decent proportions. There's nothing offensive about the design. It has the same low key appeal as the last generation TL.
 
The M35/45 wears too much make-up. It has good, balanced proportions, but there are no lines in the sheetmetal to give the shape emphasis. It's kinf of a shapely ameoba. That fact by itself is no biggie, but then they tacked on those taillights in the back and an angry grill up front. The contrast is too much.
 
Great body. Offensive details.
 
I'll have to see them in person to make up my mind, but, based on the pics, I'd say the styling of the RL is going to last longer.

#3366 of 7385 Re: Styling Comparo [varmint] by shotgun

Aug 18, 2004 (5:03 pm)

Replying to: varmint (Aug 18, 2004 11:02 am)
"...It's kind of a shapely ameoba..." Hahahahah...I love it Varmint - You know, you're actually being too kind! I agree with your assessment concerning the conservativeness of the new RL. However, I have no problem with that because in a sense, its a new type of conservatism - I'd like to call it "Conservalicious", most befitting a performance oriented luxury vehicle. Being in my fifties I don't want anything too radical looking but also not too sedate. I think, with the right color combination, proper wheel, tire size, and realized promise of expectant performance...the new RL will rock!!!

#3367 of 7385 by jrock65

Aug 18, 2004 (5:06 pm)

Generally, Infiniti/Nissan styles are more polarizing. You either love it, or hate it. Based on the reaction from other forums (Nissan specific, non-Nissan specific, cars in general) the 2006 M has received many more "love it" comments than "hate it" comments.
 
Honda/Acura styling is inoffensive and conservative, but not something that evokes any strong emotion. That has been the reponse to the 2005 RL, as well.

#3368 of 7385 Just got back from an Acura dealership.... by oman9

Aug 18, 2004 (5:22 pm)

Went to see what I could find about the 2005RL. The word is it's going to the track (I think the dealership is getting a car to use on a track to see it for themselves) on September 1. Should be in the showrooms by end of September.
 
So while I was there I looked at the 2004RL. Sat in the car, very nice. Right next to it was a TL. You know, interior room (certainly back seat room) was the same or at least very similar.
 
The RL is longer, wider on the outside but I didn't sense the TL gave up much on the interior. Gas mileage is of course better on the TL, 30 Highway vs. 27 I believe for the RL. City numbers also better.
 
Price difference on the sticker was $13K although the RL had a nav in it and the TL didn't, so that accounts for some of the difference.
 
I came away thinking why was the RL so much more. I asked the salesman, he said is was mostly a demographics issue as to why someone would go for the RL vs. the TL. The salesman was young, would be surprised if he was 30. He thought the TL was the much better value. I have to say the styling of the TL, more sporty, was more appealing to me. He could not substantively answer why the RL would cost so much more except that it appealed to the "50+" crowd as it's bigger.
 
If I was choosing today between the 2004RL and TL, TL is a slam dunk for me.
 
I didn't spend much time trying to reconcile the price difference, anyone care to share some thoughts?

#3369 of 7385 Re: Just got back from an Acura dealership.... [oman9] by ceric

Aug 18, 2004 (6:39 pm)

Replying to: oman9 (Aug 18, 2004 5:22 pm)
Did he tell you that you could get a huge discount on RLs, but not TLs (especially ones with NAVI)? The difference of $13K you mentioned would shrink very quickly. I know people who got RL for less than $37K. That is just a couple thousands more than loaded TLs.
 
By the way, my salesman is getting trained (Ride & Drive) on new RLs around Sep 18th & 19th. He estimated that RLs would be in showroom in mid-October. He told me there are 10 people on waiting list (on which I am #1). He called me for my choices of colors because they needed to put in initial orders.
 
This is a SF Bay Area large Acura dealer. Acura is targeting 1000 units per month (12,000 per year). Considering their 250 dealership around the country, that is about 4 unit sales per dealership per month. Well, there goes your two-month+ initial supply of RLs in your neighborhood. Just my rough calculation.

#3370 of 7385 Re: Good bye Acura, Hello Infiniti? [talon95] by legendman

Aug 18, 2004 (6:55 pm)

Replying to: talon95 (Aug 18, 2004 10:23 am)
It's certainly good to have a spirited discussion here on the board. Lord knows it's been kinda sleepy around here.
 
I guess auto body design is a little bit like ice cream. Some like vanilla, some like chocolate, and a few like strawberry. And some don't like ice cream at all. In other words, it's highly subjective.
 
I think that that the new M is a good looking car. Admittedly the front end is a tad overdone, but it's certainly a big improvement from the prior model year and is certainly no more offensive, in my mind, than the Camry-esque front end of the new RL. At least it is bold and has character. If it offends your senses it does so by its boldness, rather than Acura's wimpy, let's-morph-it-so-as-not-to-offend design. And the new M's tail and it's tailights look g-r-e-a-t to me. Good grief -- surely, no one here can honestly argue that they think that the new RL tail is attractive or inspirational! Well, can you?
 
I love the back end and I love the side profile of the new M. On the contrary boys, I do think that the 2006 M is indeed elegant.
 
I agree that the new M interior is a little gaudy, but if you look at the woodgrained interior version, and not the sport interior with the brushed aluminum, I think that it is certainly more elegant than the cheap interior styling we have seen pictured in the 2005 RL prototype. The wood grained M interior appears to me as much closer to the Lexus interior -- in particular the LS430. Not item for item mind you; just the overall feel of inviting luxury that it evokes.
 
I am in agreement with all of you who say that we must actually see the car(s) in person to make a final decision. I just wish that the new 2006 Infiniti M and the new 2006 Lexus GS were coming out this October, rather than in March of 2005.

#3371 of 7385 by talon95

Aug 18, 2004 (7:03 pm)

"Being in my fifties I don't want anything too radical looking but also not too sedate."
 
And I think Acura has the right styling approach for that class of car. They've shown that they can break out of the conservative styling mold with the TL, and aggressive styling is both expected and accepted in that class. Less aggressive styling is the right approach for luxury sedans in the RL's class and above.
 
The M45 is attempting to appeal to the same crowd that loves the G35. Apparently it's been somewhat successful at doing so, assuming reports of the "love its" on Edmunds are accurate. However, the market for the M45 and the G35 is markedly different, and I have serious doubts that the M45's inelegant exterior and overwrought interior will appeal to the people who are actually in the market for a car in its class.
 
I guess time will tell...

#3372 of 7385 Re: Good bye Acura, Hello Infiniti? [legendman] by talon95

Aug 18, 2004 (7:21 pm)

"And the new M's tail and it's tailights look g-r-e-a-t to me. Good grief -- surely, no one here can honestly argue that they think that the new RL tail is attractive or inspirational! Well, can you?"
 
In fact, I can... perhaps not inspirational, but not unattractive to my eye. Like the rest of the car, I find that while the RL's rear styling is non-adventurous, it's simple, elegant and in tune with the styling of the rest of the car. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
As for the M45's rear, what you call bold, I call overstyled and tacky. There's a fine line between boldness and tastelessness, and the M's taillights have crossed that line big time, IMO. Not every car on the road has to blow you away with its overabundance of attitude, regardless of what Nissan and Infiniti would like you to think.
 
"I agree that the new M interior is a little gaudy, but if you look at the woodgrained interior version, and not the sport interior with the brushed aluminum, I think that it is certainly more elegant than the cheap interior styling we have seen pictured in the 2005 RL prototype."
 
While the RL's interior has a few flaws, I'd hardly classify it as cheap.
 
"The wood grained M interior appears to me as much closer to the Lexus interior -- in particular the LS430."
 
As I said in an earlier post, someone needs to remind Infiniti's interior stylists that brushed metal and wood are best used as accent materials, and that too much is just that, too much. IMO, the wood trimmed interior is just as tacky and garish as the brushed metal trim version. Unless you prefer your interior to evoke memories of the sides of a 1978 Country Squire. Way, way, way too much wood, just like the other has way, way, way too much brushed aluminum.
 
Again, just my opinion...

#3373 of 7385 by jrock65

Aug 18, 2004 (8:06 pm)

"Apparently it's been somewhat successful at doing so, assuming reports of the "love its" on Edmunds are accurate."
 
The reports of "love its" are actually more from other car forums. Same for "hate its" as well. Not many posts on the M on Edmunds in general.
 
"However, the market for the M45 and the G35 is markedly different, and I have serious doubts that the M45's inelegant exterior and overwrought interior will appeal to the people who are actually in the market for a car in its class."
 
On the other hand, the RL may be too mundane and indistinct for this class. This class isn't as conservative as the LS/7/S/A8 class, as people in the GS/5/E/A6 class are looking for a bit more pizzaz and sport. Only time will tell!
 
"Acura is targeting 1000 units per month (12,000 per year)."
 
That seems quite a low target. I guess it makes sense, since then they could say, "Look! We exceeded our expectations!" I don't think they'll have any trouble reaching 1000 per month.

Messages Page 338 of 740

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement