Last post on Nov 05, 2013 at 12:08 PM
You are in the Acura RL
What is this discussion about?
Acura RL, Sedan
#5008 of 7386 Re: HP vs. Torque vs. Performance [habitat1]
Nov 29, 2004 (9:32 am)
The inflation in horsepower ratings does not appear to have produced significant gains in performance
C&D has tested Acura TL at 5.8s with manual transmission (of course, and I would expect a similar number for RL had Acura equipped it with one). Thatís pretty good for a 3500 lb. sedan and considerably faster than a 190 HP 3100 lb. car with manual transmission doing the run in 6.8s (the old Maxima).
Remember to add almost 1 second to Maxima's run to 60 mph if you consider automatic transmission. BTW, C&D tested 1998 Maxima SE with automatic transmission doing 0-60 in 8.2s. MT got 8.1s out of 2000 Maxima GXE.
Acura RL and TL have similar power/weight ratio (more important measure of performance potential than quoting pure horsepower, however comparison between manual versus auto transmission is just as critical). This should result in similar straight line performance from both, and based on the number C&D got from RL, I would say it is.
Now, for 2003 TL Type-S, C&D recorded a slow 7.6s run (this was in a comparison test where every car was a lot slower than usual) while the TL-S was capable of doing sub 7 second runs with its automatic transmission.
#5009 of 7386 Re: HP vs. Torque vs. Performance [toad2]
Nov 29, 2004 (9:38 am)
Touting HP or cylinder count is part of everybodyís marketing, in fact. However, understanding the need versus want is another matter.
After all is said and done, power/weight ratio is key determinant of performance (as is selection of auto versus manual transmission). Acura claims RL to do 0-60 in 6.5s, and C&D got 6.7s. In the same issue, C&D road tested A6/V8 and got 6.3s (against Audiís claim of 6.0s). So, cars are performing within their ballpark. BTW, Audi A8/4.2 has a curb weight of about 4300 lb (about 300 lb more than RL).
Torque is only as good as the horsepower it can deliver.
#5010 of 7386 Re: HP vs. Torque vs. Performance [safelder]
Nov 29, 2004 (9:49 am)
Audi A6/3.2 couldnít run with Acura RL simply because it lacks torque and horsepower and weighs as much! Sure, RLís engine produces peak torque at a higher rpm, but the fact is, it produces more torque than the A6ís at just about any engine speed. I expect Audi A6 to run 0-60 in 7.2s (Audi claims 7.1s).
In case of Acura, from what I have gathered, the full auto mode is designed for smoother (slow shifts), so to get better performance, paddle-shifters would come in handy (which are supposedly designed with quicker shifts).
#5011 of 7386 Re: [patrick3]
Nov 29, 2004 (9:53 am)
Patrick, Here is the url and some copy on the 20" alloy wheels with 255/35R20 Michelin high performance tires on that prototype RL at the New York Auto show.
"The RL Prototype's lightweight chassis and 4-wheel independent suspension components are tuned to complement the SH-AWD system and deliver a linear cornering feel, optimum cornering traction and a smooth ride. The 20-inch alloy wheels are shod with 255/35R20 Michelin high performance tires that fill the wheel wells and add to the RL Prototype's aggressive stance. Large brakes with 4-piston brake calipers and slotted rotors provide optimum stopping power."
#5012 of 7386 Re: HP vs. Torque vs. Performance [robertsmx]
Nov 29, 2004 (10:55 am)
Actually, when I shifted the A6 3.2 myself, it performed about the same as the RL. It was only in standard drive that the 3.2 truly lagged. The A6 4.2 blew the RL out of the water (as one would expect given the V8 engine).
In both cases, the RL was a bit quicker off the line and much smoother. I guess what I've concluded after all this process is that I'm not quite ready for the more luxurious ride of the Acura...maybe I'm still too young to truly appreciate not being thrown back in your seat and feeling every bump in the road! That, and a bunch of little annoyances in the RL that just sort of mounted (no fold-down rear seat, no height adjustment on the passenger seat, no wood on center console, less adjustable lumbar support, only a two setting seat heater, no RDS on the stereo).
#5014 of 7386 Re: HP vs. Torque vs. Performance [safelder]
Nov 29, 2004 (11:19 am)
I still have no idea why the U.S. version didn't get the cooled seats that us Canucks got. I guess they did it this way so next year they can add it as a new standard feature.
Anyway, there are I think 3 (could be 4) settings for both cooling and heating. I only tried out the cooling for a minute or two so can't fully comment on how well it works. When I take delivery of the car I'll see if it is as good as the Lexus LS430's cooled seats. Those work well.
#5015 of 7386 Re: HP vs. Torque vs. Performance [safelder]
Nov 29, 2004 (1:48 pm)
All other preferences that you mention are your choice to make, so I wouldn't argue against those. I simply questioned your logic on HP/torque.
#5016 of 7386 Re: value,valve value [skip30]
Nov 29, 2004 (3:08 pm)
But really now...how often do you try (or need) to get to 60 in under 7 seconds. I know people look at cars for their performance...but...does it really matter if it is 6 seconds or 6.7 or 7 or 8 seconds? After you have had the car for a few weeks or months are you still really interested/concerned with how fast to 60 mph?
To me, the stated rating just gives me something to compare the "pick-up" power to another vehicle.
I want to be able to enter an interstate without worry or be able to get out of someone's way...but whether it is 6.7 or 7 seconds probably will not matter...
Anyway...to each his own...
I like the car and the power it has.
#5017 of 7386 Sale Price in Huntsville Alabama
Nov 29, 2004 (3:21 pm)
The local Huntsville Acura dealership is having an end of month sale on all their cars including the RL.
They show a Was price and a NOW price
Was price is $50,264
Now price is $48,791
Was price includes $379 for paint sealant (WHY ???) plus $338 for protection package that includes mud flaps, trunk tray and wheel locks).
(one odd thing the price on the actual sticker shows a price of 50,135 instead of 50,264 ???)
So this is roughly $1,500 off list (or $1200 of without the sealant).
How does this compare with some of the deals people are getting?
I would prefer another $2500 to $3000 off, guess I will have to wait a little longer...plus I have not seen all the color options (have seen white, black and celestia? silver).