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 490 of 739

#4886 of 7385 google ...... by prophet2

Nov 22, 2004 (11:03 pm)

If you're so thin-skinned that you thought I was talking about YOU, then there's nothing I can do about that! Or do you hold such a high opinion of yourself that, in your mind, it HAD TO BE YOU I was referring to?
 
My comment is a GENERAL one which applies to ANY vehicle. No matter what the price-point is, or what Edmund's TMV is, there will always be those for whom the price is TOO HIGH! For some, the economic reality will dictate that they have to make another choice - they simply cannot afford it. For others, they are indeed CHEAP and will waste everyone's time in a fruitless pursuit.
 
For the record, I drove the TL and recommended it to my sister over a 525i with its anemic 184 HP and inane I-drive. Also, the G-35 and M-45. I didn't come to same conclusion as you.
 
I am only pointing out that the usable trunk space would be more than adequate for me and my needs. If it isn't for you, fine! Look for something else. I don't care what you buy, really I don't!
 
As far as paying MSRP. we have only one Acura dealer and the nearest one on the west coast is 2500 miles away. It would not make sense to pay the sales tax in California or Washington as their rates are higher than ours, plus the additional ocean freight cost.
 
So, those who have to be FIRST will pay what the traffic will bear, even to forking out ADM over and above MSRP. Others will be patient and wait till things simmer down.
 
It worked for me when the second-generation 1991 Legend came out. I waited three months after the initial furor and the dealer went to $30,699 from the $34,200 MSRP price, no charge for pro-pack + TTL. They offered this to me, I didn't have to work them down. Cynics will say I could have gotten it even lower. Maybe, but not worth my time.
 
On the other hand, Odysseys commanded a premium for THREE YEARS, even with three dealers in town. I got mine in 2001 for MSRP (no ADM), at a price LOWER than a corresponding Toyota Sienna EXL. The Odyssey had more equipment than the Sienna and Edmund's TMV was still HIGHER than MSRP.
 
The RLs here are equipped differently and the MSRP is slightly lower at $48,900 including the shipping charge. I hope for a repeat of 1991 when sales were slow and the prices had to be adjusted quickly to stimulate sales,

#4887 of 7385 by jrock65

Nov 22, 2004 (11:30 pm)

"2. Its peformance characteristics (braking and acceleration) are basically average in its class (braking is actually subpar) and don't compare all that well with a TL or an Infiniti G-35."
 
I agree that stopping distance is one of the worst in its class. But I disagree with acceleration... it is the best in its class among 6 cylinder automatic performance luxury sedans, at least until the M35 comes out.
 
Sure, the acceleration lags behind that of the TL or G35, but so does every other car in the RL's class.
 
"3. Its interior is nice and it has alot of gadgets but the lack of back seat and trunk space mean that it is not a "best in category" luxury car as some people claim based on vague assertions."
 
I like combined legroom as a rough comparator of room in sedans:
 
RL: 78.7
A6: 78.2
5: 77.5
E: 77.5
STS: 80.9
 
The RL is a distant second to the STS, but better than A6, 5, and E nontheless.
 
Yes, trunk space sucks, and is the worst in the class in this regard.

#4888 of 7385 Re: RL vs. TL value [kennyg5] / Tire size [habitat1] [kennyg5] by habitat1

Nov 23, 2004 (5:54 am)

Replying to: kennyg5 (Nov 21, 2004 12:17 pm)
"Habitat, in YOUR case, you will not even consider the RL when you shop because it lacks MT (your preference)."
 
Partly true - the lack of a manual transmission does handicap the RL when I compare it to other performance oriented sedans, like the $33k TL 6-speed or $60k 545i 6-speed. (But AMG doesn't make a manual transmission, and I probably wouldn't kick an E55 out of my garage.) I also seriously considered the automatic-only Mercedes E320 CDI. As a matter of fact, the Acura dealer I bought my TL from in May is also a Mercedes dealer and they talked me into considering the TL. I consider the price difference between the RL and E320 CDI to be minimal ($7k +/-) when amortized over 6-8+ years.
 
I think part of my problem in assessing value in the RL is that it was/is being marketed as a "performance oreinted luxury sedan". I recall reading early claims that the SH-AWD of the RL was capable of producing a 1.0 lateral G. If that had turned out to be true, the RL clearly would be a class leader in handling. As it turns out, the RL I drove did not feel as though it handled any better on a twisty drive through Rock Creek Park as my TL 6-speed. (Let alone a BMW 5 series).
 
So, part of the blame for the somewhat underwhelming reviews of the RL in this forum has to go to Acura's marketing department. IMO, The RL is not a performance sedan and should not be marketed that way. It is a very nice, relatively affordable luxury sedan. You know the old adage, it is better to under promote and over deliver than the other way around.
 
P.S. Not to repeat myself, but I never said I thought the RL was a "bad value". It's just that in purchasing the TL (and Honda S2000), I felt I was getting a great value compared to the competition.

#4889 of 7385 Trunk Space by robertsmx

Nov 23, 2004 (9:59 am)

Replying to: gogglespiasano (Nov 22, 2004 8:50 pm)
Apparently, people haven’t been listening to my blabber on trunk space measurements. Not all vehicles are spec’d using the same standard! This is especially useful to understand if you insist on paper based comparisons. Here is an excerpt from an article on a UK market van that mentions the two cargo space measurement standards used in the industry.
 
Honda uses the VDA method which results in smaller (but more practical) numbers for the trunk size.
 
They're likely to take more than a passing interest in Ford's £20,350 Transit 350 long-wheelbase high roof Jumbo. It offers a whopping 14.3m3 of carrying space according to the measuring system favoured by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and employed by the bulk of van manufacturers. It measures how much sand, rice, or other fine grained material the cargo bay will hold. This approach takes into account all the little nooks and crannies that are of no practical use to the vast majority of users.
Almost uniquely, Ford also quotes the figure produced by the more realistic VDA method. It's the method the Big Blue Oval prefers, despite the fact that it results in a less impressive figure than the SAE total. The initials VDA stand for Germany's Verbund die Automobil Industrie. It fills the load box with blocks each measuring 200mm x 100mm x 50mm, and unable to fit into all those odd little crannies, then counts the total. By this measure, Jumbo's load bay provides 12.3m3 of space.
 
What Van? heartily approves of the VDA's approach to calculating cargo space, and believes it should be quoted by all van makers. It may not look quite so good in their glossy publicity material, but most van owners will find the VDA figure a lot more meaningful.
 
Here is a link to the article
 
This illustrates a whopping 15% difference in cargo space measurement between SAE and VDA methods!

#4890 of 7385 Re: RL vs. TL value [kennyg5] / Tire size [habitat1] [kennyg5] [habitat1] by robertsmx

Nov 23, 2004 (10:04 am)

Replying to: habitat1 (Nov 23, 2004 5:54 am)
C'mon, 0.87g on all season high profile rubber is impressive for a realtively softly tuned luxury cruiser! I have not seen an official claim for 1.0g for RL though, but seeing how it did in C&D's test with the kind of rubber the tarmac gets to see, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of approaching 1.0g.
 
As for value comparisons, you couldn't compare cars from different class to arrive at the conclusions. Many would consider Accord EXV6 to be a better value over TL, and Accord LX as better value over Accord EXV6.
 
You've to be able to see where RL belongs, and how it goes about its business. It is not about value, it is about class.

#4891 of 7385 Re: Trunk Space [robertsmx] by jrock65

Nov 23, 2004 (10:13 am)

Replying to: robertsmx (Nov 23, 2004 9:59 am)
Does Honda/Acura use the VDA method for all their cars?
 
Who else uses the VDA method?

#4892 of 7385 Re: Trunk Space [jrock65] by robertsmx

Nov 23, 2004 (10:36 am)

Replying to: jrock65 (Nov 23, 2004 10:13 am)
Honda uses VDA standard for its cars. Although this is not mentioned in Honda/Acura's website (or places we typically see), Honda has been using VDA method forever. Here is a link to spec sheet. Do a find on "VDA".
 
BTW, I discovered something interesting while trying to provide a link to the same. Check out the trunk specifications, first in cu ft and then in liters:
 
E320: 15.9 cu ft
RL: 13.1 cu ft
 
RL appears to have much smaller trunk space (if we completely ignore the standard used for the measurement). In liters...
 
E320: 450 liters
RL: 452 liters (Honda clearly mentions use of VDA formula)
 
Well, in this case, RL has larger trunk!

#4893 of 7385 by jrock65

Nov 23, 2004 (11:06 am)

Cool. My wife's Accord trunk suddenly feels larger. =)
 
Do Toyota and Nissan use VDA as well?

#4894 of 7385 by robertsmx

Nov 23, 2004 (11:16 am)

Comparison of Cabin/Trunk dimensions for Audi A6 / Mercedes E320 / Acura RL (in order, with largest number in bold):
 
Front
Head Room: 37.5 in / 37.4 in / 38.5 in (E320 measurement without moon roof)
Leg Room: 41.3 in / 41.9 in / 42.4 in
Shoulder Room: 57.1 in / 56.4 in / 58.5 in
 
Rear
Head Room: 37.8 in / 37.7 in / 37.2 in (E320 measurement without moon roof)
Leg Room: 36.9 in / 35.6 in / 36.3 in
Shoulder Room: 55.9 in / 56.1 in / 56.1 in
 
Total Legroom: 78.2 in / 77.5 in / 78.7 in
Cabin Capacity: 96 cu ft / 97.2 cu ft / 99.1 cu ft
Trunk Space: NA / 450 liters / 452 liters (Audi specs unavailable in liters)
 
Now to suggest that RL is cramped is a stretch especially when you throw comparable numbers for its primary competition.

#4895 of 7385 Re: [jrock65] by robertsmx

Nov 23, 2004 (11:17 am)

Replying to: jrock65 (Nov 23, 2004 11:06 am)
I don't know about Nissan, but I doubt Toyota uses VDA (given the kind of numbers they come for the trunk specification). Toyota, is far more marketing savvy than Honda is (IMO). Not many will dig deeper into the world of specifications, outside of what is provided to them.
 
Speaking of your Accord (if 2003+ model), Honda quotes 491 liter trunk for JDM Inspire (basically a 2003+ American Accord). Perhaps Honda chooses to be conservative in America when it comes to specifications.

Messages Page 490 of 739

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