Last post on Nov 18, 2010 at 1:44 AM
You are in the Acura RL
What is this discussion about?
Acura RL, Acura TL, Sedan
#85 of 166 Re: frisconick [billyperks]
Oct 14, 2005 (8:54 am)
I drove a Honda Accord, then the Acura TL, and then the Acura RL. I felt every bump in the Honda Accord and the TL. Both the TL and the Accord ride the same. The Acura RL was smoother. It still felt a little bumpy, because I am use to driving a Toyota Avalon, which is very smooth and I also have an MDX which you don't feel the bumps as much because you are so high. We were in the dealership that day to buy the TL, but decided to buy the RL for the smother ride and the beautiful wood trim. I don't care about AWD as I live in California. There is only a $7,000 difference between the 2006 TL price and the 2005 RL price. We are really going to get a great deal on the RL. It probably is not even worth $7000 more, but my husband wants the RL. To bad the RL has such a plain look, we are adding chrome wheels, deck lid spoiler, wood steering wheel, and wood shift knob.
#86 of 166 Re: frisconick [acuralady]
Oct 14, 2005 (11:54 am)
It sounds like you may have been happier with Lexus' offerings. Acura is more sport-oriented (and infinit even moreso). Regardless, the hwole Acura line is great - enjoy!!!
#87 of 166 Getting past the "Accord" look
Nov 04, 2005 (1:35 pm)
I also had a hard time warming up to the RL because of the accord type look, especially the front end. But I fell in love with the interior and handling. I also live in California and don't need AWD for snow, but if you are on a mountain road doing spirited driving the AWD makes a huge difference. It also makes a big difference any time you accelerate, especially if you are turning at all. Doesn't feel at all like a FWD car.
I also went with the 18" chrome wheels and deck spoiler. I thought those really made is look better, especially from the side and the rear. Still think the front could look alot better. I will consider adding the A-Spec front spoiler. I see you can get it as a stand alone option for 2006, so I suspect you could order it and add to the 2005. That does make the front look alot sportier.
#89 of 166 2006 Pricing?
Dec 10, 2005 (10:16 pm)
What is the best price anyone has been able to get on a 2006 RL? Thanks in advance! Also there have been a few comments re: the RL looking plain' however I saw one with the rear spoiler and front spoiler and it changed (in a good way) the overall look of the car. Do dealers bargain' on these accessories?
#90 of 166 Ground Effects Package
Dec 11, 2005 (8:29 pm)
I had the full spoiler package added, front, sides and rear spoiler and apron, and the wood steering wheel. I offered them 50 cents on the dollar and they came back at about 65 cents. I took it. It really changes the looks, I really like it now. I did think it was too plain before. Total came in at about $1700.
#91 of 166 Re: Getting past the "Accord" look [kgd_007]
Dec 26, 2005 (5:55 pm)
Just read that review of the RL in Money magazine.
Why do so many reviewers have to compare the RL to the Accord?, and then downrate the RL because it shares some parts with the Accord, or the TL, both of which can be had for a LOT less. That reviewer even claims the TL is nearly as much car, but for $15,000 less, so he downrates it! By that logic, why not downrate the GS because an Avalon is a much better deal?!, or why pay so much for the G35 when you can just buy an Altima for a lot less! Or why stop there, why not compare the 530i to the TL, because the TL is nearly as much car for $25,000 less!
I own an RL, and I've driven the TL numerous time, and the new Accord. There is no comparison. I don't know or care how many parts the cars may share...you cannot drive all three cars and tell me there isn't a huge difference.
I almost purchased a TL. It is a very nice car, and a great value. If anything, it probably does share a lot of parts with the Accord, and I think even comes off the same assembly line in Ohio. That is not a bad thing. The Accord is one of the best selling and most reliable cars around. The RL is made in Japan, and imo is made with higher quality materials, and has a much more luxurious look and feel to it, especially the interior. It also "feels" more substantial. I've done a lot of research, and since the RL can be had in the real world for about $8,000 more than the TL, it is worth every penny. It is a LOT more car. Drive one, and look it over very carefully. They are two very different cars. That said, I agree the TL is a great car, and a great value as well.
Although I agree the exterior styling of the RL has a "family" resemblence to the Accord, I think comparing it to the Accord in just about any other way shows a lack of objectivity. Doesn't the GS resemble the new IS? How about the M35 and the G35? Or even the Maxima/Altima for that matter. What about the new BMW stying? Except for the different sizes, I have a hard time telling them apart. But I guess Acura still has dues to pay, before entering and competing in the realm of the BMW dominated world of reviewers.
I've driven most of the competitors offerings, and imo they are:
E350, M35, 530i, and the GS350. Haven't driven the 530i or the Audi, but I prefer the RL, especially since I got mine for just under $40,000.
Anyway, to each his own. Different preferences make the world go round.
#92 of 166 Re: Getting past the "Accord" look [tommyg29]
Dec 27, 2005 (6:45 am)
Nice post. From an exterior-only standpoint, I understand the comparison of the exterior looks of the RL to the Accord, particularly the back-end, but I agree that such a "criticism" is shortsighted b/c it's a great car! As a TL owner, I've read the posts comparing the TL to the Accord b/c of the FWD platform and understand them, but find it very funny that most people supposedly discounting the TL b/c of the FWD platform are G35 drivers who need a RWD platform b/c of its sportiness; yet, most of those drivers choose an automatic transmission, goes against "sportiness."
I think these people make their decision and then find these things to back up their decision, or use it to make them look like educated consumers. Kudos to you for driving all 3 Honda products before making yoru decision. Hopefully, you drove the G35, too. I doubt it would've changed your decision!
#93 of 166 Re: Getting past the "Accord" look [tommyg29]
Dec 27, 2005 (7:00 am)
Why do so many reviewers have to compare the RL to the Accord?, and then downrate the RL because it shares some parts with the Accord, or the TL, both of which can be had for a LOT less.
I agree totally. So what if it looks a little like an Accord. It's not an Accord and once you drive, or even ride in, both, you'll see the difference. As far as the TL, it's a great car for the price, but I wouldn't trade my RL for a TL for any amount of money.
#94 of 166 Re: Getting past the "Accord" look [tommyg29]
Dec 27, 2005 (12:45 pm)
"The RL is made in Japan, and imo is made with higher quality materials, and has a much more luxurious look and feel to it, especially the interior. It also "feels" more substantial. I've done a lot of research, and since the RL can be had in the real world for about $8,000 more than the TL, it is worth every penny. It is a LOT more car."
I can agree with at least part of your statement. If 500+ lbs is "a LOT" than the RL is indeed a lot more car than the TL. Unfortunately, that is a major reason why I was happy to turn in an RL loaner and get my TL 6-speed back from service. IMO, Acura went out of their way to market the RL as a "Super Handling", "300 HP" performance oriented luxury sedan. And that's precisely where it fell well short of my expectations. It felt much heavier, handling and steering were less nimble and precise, and it was noticably slower than my TL 6-speed. I can (and do) say many nice things about an RL relative to it's luxury and comfort. But after taking it for several runs through DC's winding Rock Creek Parkway, I could not label it as "fun to drive", at least not by my standards.
I have been accused by others of not recognizing that the RL was never meant to be a luxury "sports" sedan, but rather simply a "luxury" sedan. Sorry, I guess I was paying too much attention to Acura's own advertising. But as I have also responded before, I think Acura would do well to establish loftier goals for it's "flagship". And charge more for it, if necessary and appropriate.
As a case in point, if I were to upgrade from the TL 6-speed today, it would be into a BMW 550i 6-speed. The current RL - hell the current TL for that matter - can "outgadget" the BMW. But the RL needs some serious reworking to match the BMW's driving feel and performance. The BMW is priced at $63k +/-. That gives Acura a lot of wiggle room. I hope they use it, rather than continue to produce a rather boring to drive "flagship" that gets compared to a TL automatic and Accord. Even when the RL "wins" over the TL in the luxury amenity and do-dad comparison (as in your case) or the MDX "wins" over the Pilot (as in our case), it still dissapoints me that Acura as a company appears hesitant to reach for more unique and loftier goals.
This criticism is "hard love". I still consider my former Honda S2000 as a superb example of what Honda is capable of if they put their engineering minds to it. Their $32k masterpiece was a no-apologies required alternative to the $50k+ Porsche Boxster.
Even if my preference for "driver's cars" is not what Acura is shooting for with the RL, they still need to aim higher. In the Buick-like luxury arena, the flagship Lexus LS430 doesn't seem to get cross shopped against or compared with the ES330 or Toyota Avalon nearly to the same extent as the RL does to it's less costly siblings.
Just my 10 cents.