heasyrider

Two different cars, I know, but, it seems the RL may be coming down in price with a rumored 07 option of not having the wood and navigation. Probably a minor exterior refresh as well. May look more sporty. Anybody besides me still considering an RL as an option, especially if the price is right?

Ramon

One of the nice things about the RL, especially when it first came out was the quality of the interior, including the wood and the technology in the car. Take away the wood and the navi and you lose the essence of the car. For me, the RL would be much less of an option without those two "options".

ff_

Yeah, very different cars. But if the cost was close, I'm pretty sure that I'd be looking very closely at the Acura. I very much like the Acura interior layout/design. And would also like to have the extra interior space.

linh811

If price were equal I'd probably be in an RL now.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

This model year they have different trim levels so you can not get navi if you dont want it (was always fully loaded before)

Mike_TX

I agree with the poster above who said the RL would suck without the Nav and other niceities. After all, it's underpowered and lacks styling "presence", so take away the goodies and what's left? (I'll answer that - a nice AWD Accord.)

Seriously, I've looked hard at the RL myself. If it had more oomph under the hood, I'd probably be in one right now, too. But not at 50 grand. In fact, even though you can get one for more like $41,500-ish, it still just doesn't have enough power to be a good freeway/highway cruiser. No $50,000 lux sedan should be slower than a Hyundai Sonata. 6.7 - 6.8 seconds 0-60 is minivan territory and is embarassing.

ff_

Name one minivan that can go 0-60 in 6.8 seconds.

Oh, and the IS250 can't get to 60 MPH in 6.8 seconds, so I guess that's embarassing too.

al503

Whether there is a minivan that can do it or not, I think Mike was trying to make a point with the minivan example.

Bichon

When I test drove the RL, I found it a bit underpowered (certainly didn't feel like 300 horses), and not much fun to drive.

ff_

And the point I was trying to make was that sub-7 second 0-60 times is still plenty fast, even in this day in age. Really, 95% of the population doesn't even need (or use) acceleration that good. The other 5% of us, though...

Ramon

When you're spending 50 grand on a car, you will pay attention to the power of the vehicle weather or not you will use it. I can gaurantee you that when a potential RL buyer goes to test drive the RL, then goes to test drive the M45 (or M35 for that matter) one of the first things they will notice about the the drive is how anemic the RL feels compared to it's competition. A full size luxury sedan shouldn't have to be pushed to 4K RPM's for it to begin a decent acceleration curve.

golfproatl

[QUOTE=Mike_TX;2091938]I agree with the poster above who said the RL would suck without the Nav and other niceities. After all, it's underpowered and lacks styling "presence", so take away the goodies and what's left? (I'll answer that - a nice AWD Accord.)QUOTE]

Agreed. The RL was quickly scratched off my list when shopping. I would take the AWD Accord myself, if forced to choose.

...but if you like the car, it sounds like you can get a good deal compared to sticker and that may be important to you. I don't think you will find many on this board that would suggest the RL.

LexFather

I've seen many people surprsingly compare the 2 cars since the RL can't be given away and the sales price is now low 40s..

That says TONS about the IS, since its a class under the RL.

2 totally different cars, even though both have 4 doors. I suggest driving both and make your decision.

socalJD

Hey, I would take a RL if someone gave it go me,
If it were the grand prize of a raffle, I'd buy a couple of tickets,
but it would NEVER replace the IS as my daily driver . . .

sincityIS

Wood is tacky. That is what I hated about both the acuras and the Lexus. Why can't they just offer an aluminum and carbon fiber trim like Audi?