Last post on Nov 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Lexus GS 430, Acura RL, BMW 5 Series, Volvo S80, Audi A6, Infiniti M35, Infiniti M45, Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Cadillac STS, Sedan
#3642 of 10348 Re: JJAcura [docnukem]
Aug 15, 2005 (1:32 pm)
I loved the Vigor. Owned a '93. When I see them on the road I still check them out and look at the overall condition. As I headed toward retirement I Thought the 2000 TL was Acura's best car at the time, drove it for 4 years and in 2004 when the newly designed TL was first introduced, I had my money ready but backed away from it because I thought Acura was taking it in a direction that was too sporty for us. Knew Acura was designing a new RL for 2005. I always liked the Legend but felt the RL became a little stodgy but knew that they were designing something special for 2005. It arrived and I loved it from the first look. I feel that Acura is moving in the right direction with this new design, AWD, and sport package. It is a supurb automoble and the electronics are a fringe benefit. (Meanwhile when I go in for service they give us new TL's to drive and that car has grown on us) Maybe the wife will some day replace her Civic with a TL. Meanwhile our son drives over in his BMW M3 and says Dad ....buy it from me for mom when I get the new one. Yeah son sure!!!!!
#3643 of 10348 Re: JJAcura [jjacura]
Aug 15, 2005 (3:03 pm)
I'm confused. The 2004 TL was "too sporty," although you now want the wife to have one; the previous RL "too stodgy;" but the new RL w/ sport package is just right?
#3644 of 10348 Re: JJAcura [jjacura]
Aug 15, 2005 (3:20 pm)
"I always liked the Legend but felt the RL became a little stodgy".
Agree completely. The original Legend was a great car, and for its day, was quite sporty. MUCH more so than the '96-'04 RL. I think in '96 Acura tried to position the RL as a bargain LS400. Infiniti tried the same thing with the '97 Q"45". Neither of them had particularly good results, as Lexus makes their own bargain LS400, called the ES.
I think those original Acura's had some spunk, and that the company lost their way a bit in the mid '90s. I also didnt like how cheap Acura interiors became. I think the '99 TL is their low point, it was barely any better than the Accord, and the black wood in the Type S TL and CL was horrible. With the Type S cars and now the A-specs, I think Acura is getting back to where they should be, though I still think Acura should offer the hottest JDM Honda models, such as the Integra Type R, instead of the diluted RSX Type S. Honda has this strange aversion to bringing any Type Rs to the US. Do they really believe TSX owners wouldnt want more horsepower (Accord Euro R)? In any case, what Acura has now is way better than the bland-mobiles they had 10 years ago. After 10 years, the RL is finally a truly competitive car, which unfortunately still cant be said of the Q45.
The new found strength of all three Japanese luxury marquees will really put pressure on the entrenched players, and pressure is always good for the industry as a whole.
#3645 of 10348 Re: JJAcura [docnukem]
Aug 15, 2005 (7:45 pm)
"where the old Integra and Vigor used to lie--dating myself a bit here.."
I suspect most everyone on this forum recalls the Vigor- in fact it is an accomplishment that we have not forgotten it!
For those of us not in a huge hurry to but a new car, has anyone heard if Infiniti is planning significant changes for the M for 2007 (ie the passenger seat)?
#3646 of 10348 Re: JJAcura [warthog]
Aug 15, 2005 (9:18 pm)
Yes, the 2004 TL was a serious change from the 2000-2003 model and I thought they took the car in the wrong direction at the time and backed away from it. Acura in my opinion at that time was going after a new demographic and I personally did not like the new design. Today I feel differently about the TL because we have driven it a number of times and it has grown on us. It ultimately would be her decision but yes, I could see my wife in that car. Yes I thought the previous RL was too stodgy and the design of the 2005 attracted me immediately. Performance was not my highest priority, 6.7 seconds in the 0-60 is not exactly lightning and I look at the SH AWD as more of a safety control factor. I really like the interior design and the comfort level of the seat with electric lumbar support feels perfect. My only concern ...the car is very quick between 50 and 80 and is quiet so I have to watch it.
#3647 of 10348 Re: Question about testing cars? [jjacura]
Aug 16, 2005 (8:57 am)
With all do respect MSU we welcome you to the RL forum ...
Dude I've been a member here since January '01 and I do not appreciate your sarcasm You hate CR and that is fine.
#3648 of 10348 Re: Question about testing cars? [hihomike]
Aug 16, 2005 (9:07 am)
So, as to which is the better evaluative process is not as critical as the fact that each comparison done provides "food for thought" or information that assists one in selecting the car that best fits his/her needs.
I agree with you. As I stated in my orignal post the vehement dislike of CR and the false accusations of their lack of a quality test facility and trained engineers at least got me to thinking. I am officially on record that ALL magazine comparos (including CR) are useful and provide credible information (as well as subjective opinions). But the CR bashers got me to questioning just how credible the others are I know for a fact that CR has a modern test facility and highly trained engineers (despite the false claims to the contrary). But do the others have quality facilites as well? I did a quick search with no results.
My original question is still unanswered. Does anyone have a link that describes Car & Drivers test facility? Or Road & Track? Or Automobile? Or Edmunds? I had always assumed that these dedicated automobile mags had state of the art facilites. Or do they? Thanks to the CR haters for opening my mind some
Since others have brought up the issue of credibilty of the comparos we all love to analyze and discuss, I thought it might be interesting to at least look at credibility. It is not my intention to offend anyone, although some folks do seem to dispise some of the magazines.
#3650 of 10348 Re: Question about testing cars? [msu79gt82]
Aug 16, 2005 (9:41 am)
Have you found Edmunds.com Editor in Chief Karl Brauer's Karl's Daily Log Book discussion? There has been a lot of conversation there about reviews lately; you ought to check it out. Karl is away for a week or so, but you can catch up with the conversation and then ask him about the test facilities when he returns.
We really need to get back to the cars themselves in this discussion, though.
#3651 of 10348 Re: Question about testing cars? [msu79gt82]
Aug 16, 2005 (12:04 pm)
This is a good discussion! I've often wondered about the quality and credibility of the various magazine tests. Especially after I've quoted CR, and was immediatly jumped on by what seem to be a large number of CR bashers who seem to think the car mags are the end-all for credibility. The only basis they have for this conclusion seems to be that they are car mags, and therefore car enthusiasts, while CR tests everything, and therefore they must test cars like they test appliances or cereal. I've also read that CR has excellent test facilities and highly qualified drivers and engineers, so I think a lot of the bashing is not deserved. I tend to think that the CR results are less biased and less prone to outside influences than many of the "enthusiasts magazines". I'm not sure about Edmunds.