Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Acura RL Acura RL
7335 messages, Last post on Nov 26, 2009 at 12:31 PM
You are in the Acura RL Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: steveinindy (Aug 02, 2005 5:40 pm) |
|
|
With Consumer Reports we have to wonder if the test driver is heading back to the lab to find out which dishwashing liquid works best on grease and makes his hands feel softest. What a joke   This line of BS is pure satire right? Its amazing to me the folks who suggest that CR is not about cars  The guys who test hairdryers are NOT the ones who test cars Anyone who throws out that old strawman arguement is deluded. I trust CR who pays for the cars themsleves, buying them off the lot a whole LOT more than I do the "professional" car mags who have had the cars donated to them by the magazines biggest advertisers  At least at CR there is absolutely no conflict of interest involved in any of their reports! If folks do not like CR then fine, don't read it. They are simply another independant research tool. Another thing that amazes me are the folks who trash CR's car reviews but laud thier repair record histories of cars. |
|
|
Replying to: msu79gt82 (Aug 04, 2005 11:16 am) |
|
|
Yes, let me second the post that said that the guys who test the cars at CR do not test hair dryers or washing machines. They are technically trained people who test just cars. They buy their cars anonymously from dealers rather than getting cars from the manufacturer which might be hopped up for the review, etc. They have no agenda, no conflict of interest, no vested interest in any outcome. Are they human? Can they make mistakes? Sure. I thought their review of the Lexus GS300 was unduly critical, for example. They are subject to biases like everybody else, but they are not corrupt, bought off, bribed, or influenced by anything but their own reactions to their own tests. By the way, read in Motor Trend that the RL will be getting a V-8. In 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bartalk3 (Aug 06, 2005 7:21 am) I have been a subscriber of CR for many years, and my observation is that CR gets an opinion about a particular line or model of car, and year after year says the same thing about the car, regardless of substantial changes in the car, which other evaluators recognize and give due credit for. Another example of this is my wife's Chevy Suburban. We owned a '96, and it was unreliable, and not a very good car. CR gave a fairly brutal, but accurate assessment of its shortcomings. We traded the 96 in for a 2002, and substantial improvements had been made, which other evaluators lauded. In fact, the entire chassis was redesigned, and the entire ride was changed. We still own it and it's a good car--although it could never compare to my RL! When the CR report came out, all the black marks for various components in the Suburban had been changed to red, indicating above average responses and performance. It truly was a totally different and improved car. If you look at the narrative on the 2002 Suburban from CR, they even continue to use the exact same wording as the 96 evaluation and make no mention of the improved performance or styling, instead choosing to focus on their preconceived notions of what they believe the car is and how it performs. That is all I am saying--CR appears to stick with its preconceived ideas of the car and does not allow the data to affect its conclusions.
|
|
|
Replying to: steveinindy (Aug 06, 2005 11:57 am) About reliability ratings they are sometimes inconsistent. For example, when a new Japanese model comes out (e.g., Camry, Accord, etc) they say its predicted reliability is very good or excellent. But when a new AMerican model comes out, they refuse to rate its reliability and withhold recommendation of the car, saying under reliability: "new model." |
|
|
For the longest time some people jested that CR was the paid marketing arm for Toyota Everyone has a bias and a product's past performance is certainly a "legitimate" basis for a bias. Clearly what many claim to be a pro Toyota/Lexus bias did not help the new GS much
|
|
|
|
|
The 2006 Acura RL will have a Technology Package for the RL. The Technology Package will have: •Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS) - uses a grille-mounted radar unit, motorized seatbelt E-pretentioners on the driver’s and front passenger’s seats and an automatic braking system to monitor potential frontal collisions and help reduce the impact on occupants by alerting the driver, tensioning the seatbelts and slowing the vehicle. •Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) – To compensate for changing traffic flow, ACC adjusts vehicle speed automatically by applying throttle and/or brake to maintain a consistent following distance. •Michelin PAX Run-Flat tires - helps provide enhanced safety and security with continuous mobility of up to 125 Finally Acura is giving its flagship sedan more features. The 2006 Lexus GS/IS has all of these features already and is cheaper. This package is optional like on the Lexus and Toyota. Hopefully this helps Acura have better sales. Even the 2005 Toyota Avalon and Sienna have Dynamic Laser Cruise Control already and the Sienna even has run-flats on AWD models. Finally Acura gave it to its RL. But in its catergory, the RL and GS are the only car models that have radar cruise control and pre-collision system available that are known so far. The 2006 Acura RL will be better than the 2005 model.
|
|
|
Replying to: bartalk3 (Aug 06, 2005 7:21 am) 
|
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Acura RL
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
