Last post on Nov 05, 2013 at 12:08 PM
You are in the Acura RL
What is this discussion about?
Acura RL, Sedan
#7014 of 7386 Re: CR (Here we go again!) [jjacura]
Mar 06, 2006 (5:17 pm)
Another case of shooting the messenger.
Consumer Reports gave the previous Acura 3.5RL a top rating calling it a refined and well-rounded luxury car. The April 2004 CR recommended only two up-scale luxury sedans, the Lexus LS and the Acura 3.5RL. The Acura 3.5RL is a CR top used car choice.
Though it's a very nice car, the current RL's price/value ratio is unacceptable to thousands of potential purchasers accounting for falling RL sales. It may not be pleasant, but thatís reality.
#7015 of 7386 Re: CR (Here we go again!) [jjacura]
Mar 06, 2006 (6:20 pm)
I agree. CR was clearly being overly negative. Reading the article makes it seem like, to me at least, they were mad the car battery ran down two times given the car was not turned off properly. Well, that's their fault, not the car's. Moreover, their statements about it were just idiotic. They bash the performance relative to the rest of the class, yet the RL did 0-60 faster than many of the other cars in that test. The auto magazines, with real professionals, mostly rated the RL worthy of the class and in general liked it very much. CD especially liked it of course. The sad thing is that the average joe shopper reads CR and not CD or MT. Honestly, I think their bashing has hurt the RL more than we can even know given all of the readers they seem to have.
As I have said before, Acura has a history of reliability, and there is no way they let that slip with this car. I bet the 06s will be quite reliable. Mine has been after 4,000 miles.
#7016 of 7386 Re: CR (Here we go again!) [gwestbound]
Mar 06, 2006 (8:04 pm)
"Another case of shooting the messenger."
A messenger merely carries a message. It was much more than that. CR writers determined the content, gave it direction, and put a negative spin on it.
Sales is another topic.
#7017 of 7386 Advertising the SH-AWD
Mar 07, 2006 (8:10 am)
If you had a few race horses in your stable but still wanted to sell the OLD over-stocked mares what would you advertise?
Maybe after most of the fleet is converted to RWD....
Is there any upscale marque that will remain with FWD?
#7018 of 7386 RL A SPEC
Mar 07, 2006 (11:54 am)
I wonder if anyone has purchase their RL with either Technology package or A-SPEC or with both?
Is the technology package worthy?
In terms of the A-SPEC, how are the handling and ride? Also, does it cost around $5,000 to install as it is on the TL?
Thank you very much,
#7019 of 7386 Re: Advertising the SH-AWD [wwest]
Mar 07, 2006 (6:38 pm)
"Advertising the SH-AWD"
I like this a lot. A big time creative focus!
#7020 of 7386 Re: CR (Here we go again!) [ilas]
Mar 12, 2006 (7:10 am)
"CD especially liked it of course."
Did you see the article in the latest C&D about all the problems they had with their long term RL? Eight unscheduled trips to the shop. Very uncharacteristic of an Acura.
#7021 of 7386 Re: CR (Here we go again!) [lmacmil]
Mar 12, 2006 (4:20 pm)
Very true....it is uncharacteristic of an Acura...my 2005 RL has over 15,000 miles on it now and it has been absolutely PERFECT!
#7022 of 7386 Re: CR (Here we go again!) [lmacmil]
Mar 18, 2006 (6:39 am)
Just looked at the C&D article about the long term 2005 RL. Looked like all or most of the problems dealt with electronics.
Aside from that, the staff seemed to really like the car.
#7023 of 7386 Re: why the lack luster sales... [liferules]
Mar 18, 2006 (12:41 pm)
Nope, that's the wrong answer.
I always find it intriguing when the discussion of poor RL sales come up that RL owners readily dismiss the opinions of non-RL owners
I shopped the RL against the M35 and found the RL to be lacking in basic needed features (e.g back-up camera) and to be grossly overpriced. Also the many problems the RL has didn't help its cause any.
Now I really do believe that the RL has lackluster sales because folks are buying something else (duh) - hence the opinions of folks who bought that something else is not the wrong answer