Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Acura should revamp its entire lineup and start from scratch. Neither the RL or TL offer anything that would interest someone looking at a near-luxury vehicle. I honestly still don't know how they're still in business...
The MDX and TSX are still very good vehicles. The RDX is reasonably popular too and probably better with the V6 now.
The RL is not a bad car at all. It is just rather ho-hum. It is not a sport sedan by any standard and probably not worthy of being Acura's flagship. But they are sold at a good price and someone that wants comfort, luxury, and reliability would do well to consider the RL. Probably a better choice than the Lexus ES.
The TL is a good car to drive (I have driven two as loaners). I definitely don't like the "beak" but it was toned down for 2012. Is it a great car? No. But it is a solid car.
I agree Acura needs a major update. But it is hardly on its death bed.
It's going to be hard to even find Acura dealer that carry more than 1 RL in their lot. As NJGOAT had stated, Acura has lots it's mind. They refined the TL to the point where the RL shouldn't exist on their line up.
I was in an Acura dealership recently and I asked a salesman about test driving an RL. His straight up answer was why? We don't really sell those.
I actually considered a 2005-2007 RL as my first car (just got my first car May 4), but got a 2008 Honda Accord EX-L for gas mileage and it's a more modern vehicle that will last longer.
As a new car, the RL is so old that Gary Force Acura didn't even have RL's on display on June 23. This generation of RL was an amazing car when it came out in 2004, heck I was obsessed with it as an 11/12 year old car enthusiast. At EIGHT years old has been outclassed; the new TL with SH-AWD, loaded up, has everything an RL has (you can even get a wood dash on the TL), the grille some thought was fugly has been toned down, and, well, the RL has no place in the market. I would love to ride in an RL, if only to fulfill my desires from when it came out.
The RLX that comes out early next year should prove to be a proper flagship, and may actually compete with the Lexus LS. The TL has gotten to the point of competing with the GS, and the TSX is against the ES. The ILX is against the (incredibly overrated) Lexus IS.
I actually considered a 2005-2007 RL as my first car (just got my first car May 4), but got a 2008 Honda Accord EX-L for gas mileage and it's a more modern vehicle that will last longer.
As a new car, the RL is so old that Gary Force Acura didn't even have RL's on display on June 23. This generation of RL was an amazing car when it came out in 2004, heck I was obsessed with it as an 11/12 year old car enthusiast. At EIGHT years old has been outclassed; the new TL with SH-AWD, loaded up, has everything an RL has (you can even get a wood dash on the TL), the grille some thought was fugly has been toned down, and, well, the RL has no place in the market. I would love to ride in an RL, if only to fulfill my desires from when it came out.
The RLX that comes out early next year should prove to be a proper flagship, and may actually compete with the Lexus LS. The TL has gotten to the point of competing with the GS, and the TSX is against the ES. The ILX is against the (incredibly overrated) Lexus IS.
Stay in school . . It has failed badly since 1996, failed in 2005/2006 as it never met sales goals and continues to get creamed by the competition. Acura's continued practice if it looking like an Accord and driving like an Accord and being based on the Accord is not how to make a flagship. The best thing it had was SH-AWD but it had a lackluster engine that did 0-60 slower than an Accord coupe so whats the point?
No its not. The RLX (sorry Ralph Lauren for the name jack Acura did) is still Accord based and will offer a FWD version mostly with the AWD version the rare model. Then rumors are it might be built in Ohio. It still offers no V-8. How the hell is that S-class, 7 series, LS, A8 competition? Its not and will flop again.
The TL is not close to the GS, its again FWD mostly, accord based, built here and lacks all the technology and features the GS has. Only an idiot would compare the two.
The ILX is a FWD Civic based car built in Ohio again with 201hp max. The IS STARTS at 201hp. The ILX starts at 26k, the IS at 32k. They are not competition even if they tried to copy the styling. The ILX is a P.O.S with a 111hp hybrid and most models will be 150hp cars. The IS offers 201hp, 306hp, 416hp, is RWD, offers way more features and technology and its 7 years old.
Its obvious those that like Acura don't know **** about cars and buy based on it being a Honda.
Last edited by RandyWatson13; 07-03-2012 at 10:51 AM..
Acura (Honda) has never made a car to compete with the LS400 or the S-Class Mercedes. I still dont know why they do not make an ultra-luxury car. Even Hyundai makes flagship luxury cars with V8 engines, so why is Honda (Acura) lagging? Whats funny is that Honda was the first Japanese make to offer a seperate luxury make when they introduced Acura in late 1985 (as a 1986) in the USA when they came out with the Legend and Integra. Even then though, the Legend was about the same size as a Toyota Cressida or Nissan Maxima. I dont know why they just didnt call it a Honda Legend (which I think it actually was in Japan, lol) and let it be Hondas larger sedan offering to compete with Cressida/Maxima/929 (Mazda). Interesting though that the 1991-95 Acura Legend had a longer wheelbase than the 1990-94 Lexus LS400. I have owned both (92 Legend and a 91 LS400) and both were good cars, but the Lexus LS400 was a higher quality car, but the Legend was still really good. The 96-04 Acura RL had a luxury look, but still could not compete with the LS400/S-Class, etc.
They (Acura) really needs to offer a LARGE luxury sedan with an optional V8 to compete with cars like the LS, S-Class, 7-Series, Equus, M37 (Infiniti), etc and maybe put a Honda badge on the current RL and let it compete with the Avalon and Maxima?
Then there is Mazda - why dont they offer a large luxury car any longer? They offered the large 929 from 1988-1996, then they Millenia starting in 1995-2003, which didnt compete with the ultra luxury cars, but was still a luxury car from Mazda, now the only offer the Mazda 6 as the largest car, which competes with Accord/Camry/Altima.
The RL's top shortcoming was the lack of a V-8 engine; Automotive News announced last year that they had finally decided to start offering the car with a V-8---until that tsunami came long and wrecked those plans.
GS is a sports sedan...comparing it to the RL makes no sense.
Acura...I don't have the first effin' clue why anyone would buy an Acura.
Why not? They compete directly in both size and price. Tle Lexus LS, on the other hand, is a larger, more expensive vehicle.
When comparing Lexus to Acura, here are their equivalent models:
Lexus IS = Acura TSX
Lexus ES = Acura TL
Lexus GS = Acura RL
Lexus LS = <no Acura equivalent>
The MDX and TSX are still very good vehicles. The RDX is reasonably popular too and probably better with the V6 now.
The RL is not a bad car at all. It is just rather ho-hum. It is not a sport sedan by any standard and probably not worthy of being Acura's flagship. But they are sold at a good price and someone that wants comfort, luxury, and reliability would do well to consider the RL. Probably a better choice than the Lexus ES.
The TL is a good car to drive (I have driven two as loaners). I definitely don't like the "beak" but it was toned down for 2012. Is it a great car? No. But it is a solid car.
I agree Acura needs a major update. But it is hardly on its death bed.
Uh, RL starts at $48k, the ES at $37k... bit of a price difference.
Acura is heading for Lincolnhood. ILX=Civic, TSX=Euro Accord, TL, RL... too many models there. You don't need an economy box, a family sedan, a not really luxury front driver FWD sedan (TL, Ford Taurus/MKS and Toyota Avalon), and a lower-end mid-luxury sedan (RL, GS/BMW 5, Mercedes E). That's just too much, and it's the non-shared models that are suffering. The RL is a complete sales flop. Acura RL Sales Figures - GOOD CAR BAD CAR
It's no mystery why. It's eight years old and was mediocre when it first came out. There's another two years until the RLX concept is released, if it's released. The TSX is one of those few models that sold better the year before the new model came than after.
None of them are horrible cars... they're just not that impressive, either. They aren't there yet, but given 10 years on this course and I can see Acura sitting where Lincoln is now, not sure where Lincoln will be in ten years... probably where Mercury is. I can't really see anyone buying up the Lincoln name, it's festered for too long.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. . It has failed badly since 1996, failed in 2005/2006 as it never met sales goals and continues to get creamed by the competition. Acura's continued practice if it looking like an Accord and driving like an Accord and being based on the Accord is not how to make a flagship. The best thing it had was SH-AWD but it had a lackluster engine that did 0-60 slower than an Accord coupe so whats the point?
