Infiniti M!

[CaMIRO]

What is the inherent advantage in either ride quality or steering feel to rear-wheel-drive?

Please tell me you're joking.

Start with the concept of powering and steering the same set of wheels (what do you think that does to steering feel?), and work your way back to front-heavy weight distribution, and its impact on steering and ride when a heavy, unbalanced car pendulums back and forth under acceleration and braking. And I still haven't used any performance terms.

It's as "inherent" an advantage as you can find on a car. Indeed, it's Square 1. And Honda deliberately screwed it up.

[CaMIRO]

And I never said people were necessarily limiting themselves to Acura.

The primary reason you gave for the RL's lack of success was the existence of the TL.
Then you started talking about Acura loyalists.
Fact is, they're not a significant bunch.
So the reason you gave simply cannot be the primary cause.

[ifcar]

It's not "really nice." It may be "nice," in terms of the overall ownership experience; but as a car, it's junk.

Not only is "junk" too harsh, but the ambiance inside is definitely "really nice" -- unmatched at its price point.

[ifcar]

The primary reason you gave for the RL's lack of success was the existence of the TL.
Then you started talking about Acura loyalists.
Fact is, they're not a significant bunch.
So the reason you gave simply cannot be the primary cause.

I mentioned them in passing. I didn't say they were the primary cause.

[MX793]

It's not "really nice." It may be "nice," in terms of the overall ownership experience; but as a car, it's junk.

Define "junk"?  It's reliable, it's got a lot of creature comforts, it's quiet, it's got a compliant ride...  This is exactly the kind of luxury that many Americans want (the prevalence of SUVs in America is a pretty good indication that most Americans couldn't care less about responsive handling or fun-to-drive).  This is exactly the kind of car that old school American luxury and entry luxury cars were.  Soft, floaty, disconnected land boats with lots of creature comforts.

[ifcar]

Please tell me you're joking.

Start with the concept of powering and steering the same set of wheels (what do you think that does to steering feel?), and work your way back to front-heavy weight distribution, and its impact on steering and ride when a heavy, unbalanced car pendulums back and forth under acceleration and braking. And I still haven't used any performance terms.

It's as "inherent" an advantage as you can find on a car. Indeed, it's Square 1. And Honda deliberately screwed it up.

I must say that I've driven plenty of front-drive cars that ride well and/or have good steering feel. And there are also many rear-drive cars marked down for ride and steering feel, and several of those compete with the RL.

[MX793]

Please tell me you're joking.

Start with the concept of powering and steering the same set of wheels (what do you think that does to steering feel?), and work your way back to front-heavy weight distribution, and its impact on steering and ride when a heavy, unbalanced car pendulums back and forth under acceleration and braking. And I still haven't used any performance terms.

It's as "inherent" an advantage as you can find on a car. Indeed, it's Square 1. And Honda deliberately screwed it up.

Then so are Audi and Volvo, as both build almost exlusively FWD-based cars.  Only recently has Audi started shifting the engines back so that they are more over the front axle rather than hanging completely out in front of it.

[CaMIRO]

Not only is "junk" too harsh, but the ambiance inside is definitely "really nice" -- unmatched at its price point.

... ruined by all the measured pliancy and dynamic sharpness of a hippo swimming in jello.
Well-insulated junk, but junk nonetheless.
Not worthy of a brand that earned its name with the (really rather interesting) LS 400,
and not worth anything near what they charge for it.

The ES is simply proof that the upwardly mobile are clueless. I've never suggested otherwise, and I caution against working backwards from a car's sales figures to determine its "niceness." Otherwise, the Ford Cortina would be really nice. So would a Ford Escort.

But when faced with something as expedient as an RL, facing down established competition with an Accord's underpinnings and a $50k price tag, you have to wonder... who are they trying to kid?

[CaMIRO]

I mentioned them in passing. I didn't say they were the primary cause.

You cited the existence of the TL as the primary cause of the RL's failure.

[CaMIRO]

Then so are Audi and Volvo, as both build almost exlusively FWD-based cars.  Only recently has Audi started shifting the engines back so that they are more over the front axle rather than hanging completely out in front of it.

Agreed. They do have a few other USPs, though (much as I personally don't find them too compelling).

[ifcar]

... ruined by all the measured pliancy and dynamic sharpness of a hippo swimming in jello.
Well-insulated junk, but junk nonetheless.
Not worthy of a brand that earned its name with the (really rather interesting) LS 400,
and not worth anything near what they charge for it.

The ES is simply proof that the upwardly mobile are clueless. I've never suggested otherwise, and I caution against working backwards from a car's sales figures to determine its "niceness." Otherwise, the Ford Cortina would be really nice. So would a Ford Escort.

But when faced with something as expedient as an RL, facing down established competition with an Accord's underpinnings and a $50k price tag, you have to wonder... who are they trying to kid?

I'm not saying the ES is nice because it's popular. I'm saying it's nice because it's nice, and there are worse-handling cars.

[ifcar]

You cited the existence of the TL as the primary cause of the RL's failure.

But not because of people who will only buy Acuras.

And I cited the styling as the primary cause of its failure. Make a car attractive enough and people will buy it. The TL is another top reason, however.

[CaMIRO]

I must say that I've driven plenty of front-drive cars that ride well and/or have good steering feel.

None of those weigh 4,000 lbs.

And there are also many rear-drive cars marked down for ride and steering feel, and several of those compete with the RL.

Expectations. It's often hard to tell whether they were marked down vis a vis something like the RL, or versus, say, a 5 series.

A Cadillac STS (a car you mentioned earlier, and which, as I noted, needs work) is a more linear drive than an RL; but it falls down in other areas.

A simple test to prove this - go drive an STS, enter a bend on a trailing throttle. Enter the bend as you think an "average consumer" might, but keep in mind that this "average consumer" has spent $50k on his car.

Now do the same in an RL. What you'll notice is that the RL rapidly washes out into understeer. You need to get on the throttle to get it around the bend at the steering-wheel angle you picked. That's because, under no-wheel-drive (i.e.: trailing throttle) conditions, it behaves as though a front-heavy, front-wheel-drive car.

Which leads us to infer, then, that you need to drive an RL hard to get the same sort of linearity out of it as you note in, say, a 5 series. And still, the chassis is twitchy, the steering feel just ain't there, and the car is both crashy and wallowy all at once.

[Eye of the Tiger]

The most powerful Acura ever built

[CaMIRO]

But not because of people who will only buy Acuras.

The problem is, you need to assume the existence of a significant number of those people - people who will only buy Acuras - in order to suggest, as you did, that removing the TL from Acura's range would result in significantly better RL sales.

Again - the RL is a failure because the competition is much, much better; not because of sibling rivalry.

And I cited the styling as the primary cause of its failure.

You said that the car was "just fine," but that it had been upstaged by the TL.

[ifcar]

None of those weigh 4,000 lbs.

Expectations. It's often hard to tell whether they were marked down vis a vis something like the RL, or versus, say, a 5 series.

A Cadillac STS (a car you mentioned earlier, and which, as I noted, needs work) is a more linear drive than an RL; but it falls down in other areas.

A simple test to prove this - go drive an STS, enter a bend on a trailing throttle. Enter the bend as you think an "average consumer" might, but keep in mind that this "average consumer" has spent $50k on his car.

Now do the same in an RL. What you'll notice is that the RL rapidly washes out into understeer. You need to get on the throttle to get it around the bend at the steering-wheel angle you picked. That's because, under no-wheel-drive (i.e.: trailing throttle) conditions, it behaves as though a front-heavy, front-wheel-drive car.

Which leads us to infer, then, that you need to drive an RL hard to get the same sort of linearity out of it as you note in, say, a 5 series. And still, the chassis is twitchy, the steering feel just ain't there, and the car is both crashy and wallowy all at once.

But if someone is used to driving a front-wheel-drive car, wouldn't they just have driven differently and not noticed?

[ifcar]

The most powerful Acura ever built

...is the TL.

[ifcar]

The problem is, you need to assume the existence of a significant number of those people - people who will only buy Acuras - in order to suggest, as you did, that removing the TL from Acura's range would result in significantly better RL sales.

Again - the RL is a failure because the competition is much, much better; not because of sibling rivalry.

You said that the car was "just fine," but that it had been upstaged by the TL.

I said it was fine in the context of how the car drives, not its styling.

Let me quote, rather than paraphrase once more, what I'd said about the model lineup:

"And I never said people were necessarily limiting themselves to Acura. Simply that if anyone even considers the brand, they'd be more likely to get the TL than the RL. No TL, and people who are in the brand for the entry-luxury TSX could be more easily upsold -- and they have a reason for already being in that family, they're at the dealership already."

[CaMIRO]

I'm not saying the ES is nice because it's popular. I'm saying it's nice because it's nice, and there are worse-handling cars.

For that sort of money, you genuinely have to try to find a car that both handles and rides worse, as a complete package. It's the compromise that I don't like, not simply the handling. Neither the handling nor the ride is much good - and, incidentally, I cannot understand why you keep separating the two. They work in tandem; it's not as though a car has two suspensions, one for each.

Accountants, not engineers, made the decision to build this thing. Yes, that happens much of the time with other models; but calling this particular result "nice" lets a thoroughly insipid car off the hook.

[ifcar]

For that sort of money, you genuinely have to try to find a car that both handles and rides worse, as a complete package. It's the compromise that I don't like, not simply the handling. Neither the handling nor the ride is much good - and, incidentally, I cannot understand why you keep separating the two. They work in tandem; it's not as though a car has two suspensions, one for each.

Accountants, not engineers, made the decision to build this thing. Yes, that happens much of the time with other models; but calling this particular result "nice" lets a thoroughly insipid car off the hook.

The ES's ride is a matter of taste. In the way it's designed to be driven, it rides very well. It's not designed for people who will push it hard.

And it is nice. Whether you like the car or not, it is a very pleasant, very nice car.

[CaMIRO]

But if someone is used to driving a front-wheel-drive car, wouldn't they just have driven differently and not noticed?

I don't understand what you're asking. My point is that if you drive the RL as you might a front-wheel drive car, you'll get poor results. If you drive it as a rear-wheel-drive car, things improve, but the ride quality and steering feel remain poor, vis a vis the rear-wheel-drive competition; and, as I said, you really need to get on it to get the full effect of that SH-AWD helping you around, like the band-aid that it is.

It really is a poor drive unless you're on it consistently (and several tests, I'm sure, bear me out on this). That doesn't sit well with your idea that the "average consumer," who pootles around everywhere (even assuming that such an animal exists in this class), likes the way that this car drives.

[Eye of the Tiger]

...is the TL.

Thank you, Kaptain Koko.

[CaMIRO]

I said it was fine in the context of how the car drives, not its styling.

Again, it's not that it's bad on its own. It's that Acura upstaged it with the TL.

My point is that you seem under the impression that a bunch of people are waiting with baited breath for Acura to introduce a luxury sedan based on an Accord; that all these buyers with $50k in their pocket walk into an Acura dealership, wanting an RL - and walk out with a TL.

Sure, it happens; but the lost sales would seem insignificant number in the face of the many cars that the RL competes against.

The current generation (and previous, for the most part) RL has always been a poor seller. Its ineptness in the face of the competition, not the TL, is the reason for that.

[CaMIRO]

I don't understand what you're asking. My point is that if you drive the RL as you might a front-wheel drive car, you'll get poor results. If you drive it as a rear-wheel-drive car, things improve, but the ride quality and steering feel remain poor, vis a vis the rear-wheel-drive competition; and, as I said, you really need to get on it to get the full effect of that SH-AWD helping you around, like the band-aid that it is.

It really is a poor drive unless you're on it consistently (and several tests, I'm sure, bear me out on this). That doesn't sit well with your idea that the "average consumer," who pootles around everywhere (even assuming that such an animal exists in this class), likes the way that this car drives.

Here you go... I found a video that would seem to prove my point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaw8p__T62w

Forget the fact that they're testing on a track. Forget your concept of how the "average consumer" won't drive this way. Listen to what he's saying. This car has pig understeer unless you foot it out of every bend; the chassis is twitchy, and the ride, the rest of the time, is nothing to write home about.

This car is in no way "fine" in terms of the way it drives; and even if it were, "fine" and "nice" are hardly enough at $50k.

It really is a poor drive unless you're on it consistently (and several tests, I'm sure, bear me out on this). That doesn't sit well with your idea that the "average consumer," who pootles around everywhere (even assuming that such an animal exists in this class), likes the way that this car drives.

[ifcar]

My point is that you seem under the impression that a bunch of people are waiting with baited breath for Acura to introduce a luxury sedan based on an Accord; that all these buyers with $50k in their pocket walk into an Acura dealership, wanting an RL - and walk out with a TL.

Sure, it happens; but the lost sales would seem insignificant number in the face of the many cars that the RL competes against.

The current generation (and previous, for the most part) RL has always been a poor seller. Its ineptness in the face of the competition, not the TL, is the reason for that.

The confusion there might just be that I don't consider styling a factor in whether a car is good or not. The styling is certainly harmful to the car, but that wasn't what I was referring to.

And let me quote, rather than paraphrase once more, what I'd said about the model lineup:

"And I never said people were necessarily limiting themselves to Acura. Simply that if anyone even considers the brand, they'd be more likely to get the TL than the RL. No TL, and people who are in the brand for the entry-luxury TSX could be more easily upsold -- and they have a reason for already being in that family, they're at the dealership already."

[CaMIRO]

The confusion there might just be that I don't consider styling a factor in whether a car is good or not.

When looking at the $50k range (at least), you might want to start.
And the way it drives is important, too.

[ifcar]

Here you go... I found a video that would seem to prove my point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaw8p__T62w

Forget the fact that they're testing on a track. Forget your concept of how the "average consumer" won't drive this way. Listen to what he's saying. This car has pig understeer unless you foot it out of every bend; the chassis is twitchy, and the ride, the rest of the time, is nothing to write home about.

This car is in no way "fine" in terms of the way it drives; and even if it were, "fine" and "nice" are hardly enough at $50k.

They're enough if you aren't test-driving the competition, or drive them only gently on a short test drive.


I'm curious about one thing -- the RL hasn't been a huge seller, far from it, but they've sold many thousands of them since 2005. Describe who you think is the sort of person buying them.

[CaMIRO]

They're enough if you aren't test-driving the competition, or drive them only gently on a short test drive.

I'm really not sure who, for $50k, doesn't test drive the competition. And, as I've pointed out, even a gentle test drive (or browsing through a few reviews) should alert you to some of the problems - and to the presence of considerably better cars.

Even if the RL were "fine" and "nice" (which it largely isn't) - you don't want "fine" and "nice" at $50k. Or you'd spend $20k.

I'm curious about one thing -- the RL hasn't been a huge seller, far from it, but they've sold many thousands of them since 2005. Describe who you think is the sort of person buying them.

Every model finds a buyer. Ford sold a handful of Scorpios. Lancia sold a handful of Lybra and Thesis models. Renault sold a handful of Safrane Biturbos, Avantimes, and Vel Satis.

I could hazard a few guesses, but exceptions prove nothing.

[ifcar]

I'm really not sure who, for $50k, doesn't test drive the competition. And, as I've pointed out, even a gentle test drive (or browsing through a few reviews) should alert you to some of the problems - and to the presence of considerably better cars.

Many reviews were positive, not just from the reviewers who are always positive either.

Even if the RL were "fine" and "nice" (which it largely isn't) - you don't want "fine" and "nice" at $50k. Or you'd spend $20k.

There are a great many people who spend a great deal of money on a car without having a good idea what they want.

Every model finds a buyer. Ford sold a handful of Scorpios. Lancia sold a handful of Lybra and Thesis models. Renault sold a handful of Safrane Biturbos, Avantimes, and Vel Satis.

I could hazard a few guesses, but exceptions prove nothing.

I'm not asking this as evidence in an argument. I'm curious who you think buys this car, and why.

[CaMIRO]

"And I never said people were necessarily limiting themselves to Acura. Simply that if anyone even considers the brand...

And this is precisely where your argument falls over. The number of people, with $50k to spend, considering Acura seriously enough to look chiefly at the RL and its stablemates is, logically, small compared to the number of people seriously considering the competition, in the RL's own price class.