Last post on Nov 05, 2013 at 12:08 PM
You are in the Acura RL
What is this discussion about?
Acura RL, Sedan
#6039 of 7386 Re: Like the old RL vs new [jhinsc]
Mar 12, 2005 (8:33 pm)
Recently I got a chance to take the RL home overnight for a test drive. Thanks to that test drive and the insightful information gained from forums like this, I hope to have an RL by May.
That being said, I have some comments about the "sideways" step.
To start, the RL is NOT a flagship. If you look at Acura's web site, their printed information, and interviews with their corporate staff, you will never see the word "flagship." Of course, that implies that another car higher than the RL is in the works, but no information has been released yet. In the meantime, it is unfair to compare a mid-sized car with a V6 engine to full-sized V8 behemoths like the Lexus LS 430 or the Infiniti Q45. In fact, I think the previous RL's largest shortcoming was that Honda tried to convert the sporty Legend into an imitation Lexus LS. That didn't work, so Honda's taking a different direction this time. As sales and press reviews show, Honda's new approach to the RL is working.
Regarding people who preferred the previous RL to the current generation, there is a legitimate reason why you feel this way: the new RL was not designed for you. The new RL, in my opinion, was designed with drivers of the 1999-2003 Acura TL in mind. The purpose of the new RL is to get those TL owners to upgrade, not to get owners of the previous RL to make a lateral purchase. That is why the new RL looks more like a descendant of the older TL than the new TL does. Also, Honda/Acura has made it known that they are looking for a slightly younger driver for the new RL, just as they seek a younger driver for the new TL than they did with the previous generation. Perhaps soon there will be a true flagship that will appeal to owners of the previous RL so that they will also have an upgrade path. In the meantime, enjoy!
#6040 of 7386 Re: Like the old RL vs new [imani_tech]
Mar 12, 2005 (9:51 pm)
"meantime, it is unfair to compare a mid-sized car with a V6 engine to full-sized V8 behemoths like the Lexus LS 430".
The LS430 at 290hp is less than the RL and only 10 more than the Avalon & M35. I give the 6 speed transmission a majority of the credit for the performance numbers this car is able to produce and the very good fuel economy. Car is only a few thousand more than the RL, which I think you will recoup on the resale.
#6041 of 7386 Re: Like the old RL vs new [jhinsc]
Mar 13, 2005 (12:51 am)
"Is it just me or am I missing something?"
No, it ain't just you. My credentials:
And two Hondas prior to that.
While the 2005 RL is a great car, two things truly annoy me. I am what they call "portly" at 6 foot 1 inch. Would it have killed Acura to add another cubic foot or two to the passenger compartment? Think about it. What car under $50K can truly be called spacious? I want some elbow room in my car. Am I going to have to buy a Ford 500?
My second complaint is the driver's seat. The seat in my 2002 RL is the envy of every Laz-y-boy chair ever made. It's wide and it is very comfortable. The new RL's driver's seat...not so much. Too narrow and the seat cushion doesn't give the same comfort level as mine. Not even close.
So while Acura took a giant leap forward with the new RL, they apparently forgot to focus on the issues they had down perfect. And making the new RL's interior the same size as the TL is simply unforgivable.
Plus don't get me started on the exterior styling. I swear I have to take a long look to determine if it's an RL, a TL, a TSX or even an Accord. They all look too much alike. Why don't the automakers bring some style to their new cars? What the heck is wrong with fins (asked the proud owner of a '57 Chevy)????
Stepping down off my soapbox now.
#6042 of 7386 Re: Like the old RL vs new [satire]
Mar 13, 2005 (6:04 am)
Fins and laz-y-boy seats, OH MY GOD am I ever glad Acura did not satisify you. I am suprised you dident include the lack of an 8 track tape player in your list complaints!
You have got to be kidding saying you want a drivers seat to feel like a laz-y-boy!!!! Tell me your kidding!!
#6043 of 7386 Re: Only commenting from a Canadian perspective [mungoac]
Mar 13, 2005 (10:10 am)
"how many Chinese people who'll buy cars"
Well, this one we know ---6.52 billion. And that's in Vancouver only!
#6044 of 7386 Re: Like the old RL vs new [cove148]
Mar 13, 2005 (2:55 pm)
"The LS430 at 290hp is less than the RL and only 10 more than the Avalon & M35. I give the 6 speed transmission a majority of the credit for the performance numbers this car is able to produce and the very good fuel economy. Car is only a few thousand more than the RL, which I think you will recoup on the resale."
But the LS430 is a VERY different type of car than the RL. Comparing the two cars is like comparing apples and oranges, even if the prices of the two cars are similar.
Of course, if you prefer a full-sized car, then the Lexus LS is an excellent choice. For those people who actually want a smaller car (and they really do exist in this country), then the mid-sized RL is an excellent choice.
#6045 of 7386 Re: Like the old RL vs new [satire]
Mar 13, 2005 (2:57 pm)
C'mon Satire, I agree with Dennis. Your credentials are great but if Acura followed the ergonomics necessary to satisfy your requests...WOW! You want room and fins? My immediate thoughts were of this bouncy '59 Cadillac pulling to a stop and letting 8 people exit. No harm intended...you really are a good guy! (By the way, I owned a 56 Chevy Convertible ...that was the year before your '57 "Fins" appeared!) JJ
#6047 of 7386 Re: Hands On [washdcguy]
Mar 13, 2005 (3:01 pm)
Well, I don't agree with you on your assessment of Acura (RL) vs. Mercedes, the M's and A6. Hopefully though you will continue to have a good ownership experience with your RL.
#6048 of 7386 For those who own current RL's
Mar 13, 2005 (4:39 pm)
What made you choose the new RL over other competitors? (i.e. GS, M35/45, bmw 5? eclass?) I had high hopes for the GS until I saw it last night. It's just too small.