Last post on Apr 18, 2013 at 12:02 PM
You are in the Acura RL
What is this discussion about?
Acura RL, Sedan
#96 of 7385 Just purchased 1999 RL
Nov 20, 2000 (8:22 am)
I just picked up a 1999 RL, black with Tan Interior, car had 39K miles on it, but looks and runs like new, I really like the car. I bought it from a used car dealer in San Diego, but took it to Acura to make sure there wasn't anything wrong with it that I could see. It checked out fine, so I bought it. Also had the Carfax ran to make sure it wasn't a salvage or anything. I was a little curious as to why it was so cheap, that's why I had to make sure Acura gave it the seal of approval before plunking down the money for it. I got it for $25,500. I added an extended warranty for another $1,100 for peace of mind, that covers another 40K miles on it. Does this sound like a pretty good deal? From what I've seen in papers that 99's are going for, it seemed like it at the time, even with a little high mileage?
#97 of 7385 Zaino is an excellent product
Nov 20, 2000 (3:13 pm)
I have been using Zaino products on my 1999 Black/Black RL/nav (15,000 miles) for about 6 months now and could not be happier! I always get complements about how sharp my car looks. There is a fair amount of
labor required upfront but the results pay dividends for a long time. Look into it Sharkwalk.
Nov 21, 2000 (4:19 pm)
Picked up a new RL yesterday with 12 miles on it. Paid 33,200 (includes floor mats, mud guards, wheel locks and 2 year oil changes). Love the car and hope to keep it for a long time and enjoy the rides!
#99 of 7385 $33,200???
Nov 21, 2000 (10:46 pm)
How did you get that price? Please?
Nov 21, 2000 (11:59 pm)
The dealers here in houston have a lot of 2000 inventory and they pretty much out bid each other. Keep in mind that the above price does not include TTL.
#101 of 7385 New RL at $33,200
Nov 23, 2000 (2:45 am)
It sounds like you eliminated dealer profit, including holdback, at $33,200. Of course, if you got a Nav, that would be the steal of the century. does it have Nav?
Thanks for the tip on Zaino. I am off to the discussion group and website.
#102 of 7385 Acura RL 2000 vs TL 2001
Nov 23, 2000 (12:22 pm)
We visited an Acura dealer in Phoenix to look at a MDX. We ended up test-drive a RL 2000 and TL 2001 model as well. It looks like we could make a deal out of the RL for about 36K, but the dealer said we probably have to pay near MSRP on the TL, which is still around 28K or so.
I actually like the TL's sporty performance and price. My wife, on the other hand, likes the RL's bigger cabin. In my opinion, the TL cabin is more than sufficient and has a zippier 225-hp engine.
Since we are Acura novices, could you folks help convince me why I should pay another 8K (or 12K for a 2001) more for a RL? (besides my wife says so..
Nov 23, 2000 (2:22 pm)
this does not answer your question, but I do find it amazing that Acura would first put a higher HP engine (225 HP) in the smaller TL, while the bigger, heavier (and more luxurious) RL languishes with a 210 HP engine. Logic (my logic, that is) says to first raise the HP on your flagship, say to 275-300, and then raise the HP in the smaller vehicles. Just my 2 cents.
Nov 24, 2000 (3:03 am)
The old big horspeower dilemma. I would recommend that you return to the dealership and test drive the RL and TL again. Focus on "peppiness" but eliminate distractions. The TL's transmission is not as smooth as the RL: jerkiness gives an impression of power. The TL is not as well insulated as the RL: a louder engine seems more powerful.
i would guess that the TL and RL get to 60 in the same time. Edmunds has the 2000 RL at 60 in 7.5 seconds. The pre-1999 RL was 9.0 seconds. The TL just seems quicker because it is rougher. The RL delivers more torque at lower RPMs than the TL which is more useful for acceleration. The RL has many sound dampening devices which make you feel as if the car is not working. however, it really does work.
Finally, if you want a sport shift, try shifting the RL as a manual. The owner's manual says that you can and I have done it many times since my recent purchase. You will get to 60 even faster.
Thus, if you want the same level of acceleration and performance in a refined package, buy the RL. Otherwise, save the money and buy a TL.
Also, I believe the RL has at least two more coats of paint on it than the TL.
Nov 26, 2000 (1:21 am)
We ahve owned the RL for about a week and half today. The experience has been very rewarding. My wife is falling in love with the car (she drives a Lecus RX300). I was able to transport 3 people and myself to Concord, NH in comfort, something impossible in my Legend coupe.
The car is quicker than many realize. Since it is so quiet, you do not get the sense that the engine moves you. In general, it is decently quick and if you stomp on the accelerator, you push the RPMs to 4000 in every gear.
i have been trying to shift like a manual. My perception is that the car becomes a tad quicker as you push through the gears at top torque for a longer period. You have to be careful since you get engine noise, but it is not as noisy as you would expect. The result is the potential to redline the engine. The performance is very good for a sedan, but I will not give up the coupe.
My wife used the car one night and got lost. The Nav system brought her straight to the highway. She claims it is worth every penny.
Overall, I am very pleased that me, honda guy, stuck with the flagship car. My fifth Honda is making me smile when I look at it and when I drive it. One person who rode with me to NH scolded me for driving the car like the Legend when it is a luxury sedan. It is a tribute to the changes which Acura made to the performance that I can drive the car Like the Legend.
Lastly, on the RL vs TL decision, My previous post reflects where I came out in the decision to buy an RL. My wife and I like the Mercedes styling of the RL. The front end of the TL is not as impressive since it is a copy of the Nissan nose. I'd rather copy Mercedes. Also, chekc Edmunds ratings on the 2000 TL. 0 to 60 in 7.7 seconds. The RL proves that greater torque at lower RPMS is more important than higher total horsepower at higher RPMs.