http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...55/pageId=64900 (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=106555/pageId=64900)
Why are you only posting links? Its boring to read an article without pictures :rolleyes: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D
Bad finish for Lexus.
One of my friends has an Acura TL (2000) and it has over 260K miles on it. Its the most reliable car he's ever owned. Now hes faced with the prospect of buying the TL or the new RL.
QuoteWhy are you only posting links? Its boring to read an article without pictures :rolleyes: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D
Bad finish for Lexus.
To be entirely honest, the only reason was that I wanted to make sure I got it posted before you found it. I hadn't even followed the link when I posted it here, I only copied it from C/D. :D
On the subject of the review, I think the placing was entirely fair, though I would have put the Audi behind the BMW myself (not counting the AWD system or the styling as significant factors as they did).
QuoteOne of my friends has an Acura TL (2000) and it has over 260K miles on it. Its the most reliable car he's ever owned. Now hes faced with the prospect of buying the TL or the new RL.
I suppose trying to save him from a lifelong Acura bias wouldn't change anything, right? You could write an article about him. :P
Why no Caddy STS?
QuoteQuoteOne of my friends has an Acura TL (2000) and it has over 260K miles on it. Its the most reliable car he's ever owned. Now hes faced with the prospect of buying the TL or the new RL.
I suppose trying to save him from a lifelong Acura bias wouldn't change anything, right? You could write an article about him. :P
:D
QuoteQuoteWhy are you only posting links? Its boring to read an article without pictures :rolleyes: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D
Bad finish for Lexus.
To be entirely honest, the only reason was that I wanted to make sure I got it posted before you found it. I hadn't even followed the link when I posted it here, I only copied it from C/D. :D
On the subject of the review, I think the placing was entirely fair, though I would have put the Audi behind the BMW myself (not counting the AWD system or the styling as significant factors as they did).
I actually saw the article well before you did (almost 1 hour ago) but I didnt want to paste 5 pages of material, and you would go crazy if I only posted the link :P :D
QuoteWhy no Caddy STS?
Isn't it V8-only with AWD?
QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy are you only posting links? Its boring to read an article without pictures :rolleyes: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D
Bad finish for Lexus.
To be entirely honest, the only reason was that I wanted to make sure I got it posted before you found it. I hadn't even followed the link when I posted it here, I only copied it from C/D. :D
On the subject of the review, I think the placing was entirely fair, though I would have put the Audi behind the BMW myself (not counting the AWD system or the styling as significant factors as they did).
I actually saw the article well before you did (almost 1 hour ago) but I didnt want to paste 5 pages of material, and you would go crazy if I only posted the link :P :D
Not for a five-car review that has something like 11 total pages. ;)
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhy are you only posting links?? Its boring to read an article without pictures :rolleyes:? :lol:? :lol:? :lol:? :D
Bad finish for Lexus.
To be entirely honest, the only reason was that I wanted to make sure I got it posted before you found it. I hadn't even followed the link when I posted it here, I only copied it from C/D. :D
On the subject of the review, I think the placing was entirely fair, though I would have put the Audi behind the BMW myself (not counting the AWD system or the styling as significant factors as they did).
I actually saw the article well before you did (almost 1 hour ago) but I didnt want to paste 5 pages of material, and you would go crazy if I only posted the link :P :D
Not for a five-car review that has something like 11 total pages. ;)
I did that once for a M/T comparo and it was about 7 pages, and you complained about the link ;)
I must have been grumpy, kidding, or lazy. <_<
QuoteI must have been grumpy, kidding, or lazy. <_<
Probably grumpy :lol:
The negative points on the Infiniti M35x:
What Needs Work:
Interior uses some questionable materials, mass of dash buttons can be confusing, jittery ride on the highway.
Bottom Line:
If you're more concerned about 0-to-60 times than the quality of the window switches, the M35x makes the perfect all-weather sedan.
Typical Edmunds :rolleyes:
I don't know, Edmunds reviews never seem to rub me the right way.
Here is another one about the M35x:
If the right engine is more important to you than chrome around the gauges and soft window switches, the 2006 Infiniti M35x is your winner.
What crap
QuoteOne of my friends has an Acura TL (2000) and it has over 260K miles on it. Its the most reliable car he's ever owned. Now hes faced with the prospect of buying the TL or the new RL.
What is he doing to put on 50,000 miles per year?? :o
QuoteHere is another one about the M35x:
If the right engine is more important to you than chrome around the gauges and soft window switches, the 2006 Infiniti M35x is your winner.
What crap
I don't see why that is crap. It's saying if you prefer performance over luxury you would like that certain car better.
No, I am saying that if they judge the car on its "soft window switches" there is nothing worth while telling us. Most of us do not care about how good the interior is, and I think people should not just look at the interior materials to judge a car, if it looks decent there really is no problem. The materials of the M-series are worlds better than the ones in my Volvo, but I cannot care less what they are in the Volvo. What bothers me is the steering is slow, not the crappy materials, that is what the media should be telling the public.
QuoteQuoteWhy no Caddy STS?
Isn't it V8-only with AWD?
yep, i didn't realize it was only open to 6-cylinders.
Another great one. :lol: :rolleyes: :lol:
QuoteNo, I am saying that if they judge the car on its "soft window switches" there is nothing worth while telling us. Most of us do not care about how good the interior is, and I think people should not just look at the interior materials to judge a car, if it looks decent there really is no problem. The materials of the M-series are worlds better than the ones in my Volvo, but I cannot care less what they are in the Volvo. What bothers me is the steering is slow, not the crappy materials, that is what the media should be telling the public.
The materials are supposedly more important than the design. That's why everyone loves the GS interior.
The only confusing thing to me is how did the A6 come in second. I'm not that surprised the RL came in first, although its obviously not the type of car I would choose.
QuoteThe only confusing thing to me is how did the A6 come in second. I'm not that surprised the RL came in first, although its obviously not the type of car I would choose.
Same with me, as much as I love the Audi being an Audi fan, I thought it would be better in 3rd or 4th place; where the new A6 usually is (which does not mean it is a bad car).
QuoteNo, I am saying that if they judge the car on its "soft window switches" there is nothing worth while telling us. Most of us do not care about how good the interior is, and I think people should not just look at the interior materials to judge a car, if it looks decent there really is no problem. The materials of the M-series are worlds better than the ones in my Volvo, but I cannot care less what they are in the Volvo. What bothers me is the steering is slow, not the crappy materials, that is what the media should be telling the public.
I'd say most luxury car buyers DO care about interior quality. What gave you the opposite impression?
QuoteQuoteNo, I am saying that if they judge the car on its "soft window switches" there is nothing worth while telling us. Most of us do not care about how good the interior is, and I think people should not just look at the interior materials to judge a car, if it looks decent there really is no problem. The materials of the M-series are worlds better than the ones in my Volvo, but I cannot care less what they are in the Volvo. What bothers me is the steering is slow, not the crappy materials, that is what the media should be telling the public.
The materials are supposedly more important than the design. That's why everyone loves the GS interior.
I am very disappointed with the GS myself for its terribly bland styling. If I own a car, I spend more time looking at the interior than touching the dash panels.
QuoteQuoteQuoteNo, I am saying that if they judge the car on its "soft window switches" there is nothing worth while telling us. Most of us do not care about how good the interior is, and I think people should not just look at the interior materials to judge a car, if it looks decent there really is no problem. The materials of the M-series are worlds better than the ones in my Volvo, but I cannot care less what they are in the Volvo. What bothers me is the steering is slow, not the crappy materials, that is what the media should be telling the public.
The materials are supposedly more important than the design. That's why everyone loves the GS interior.
I am very disappointed with the GS myself for its terribly bland styling. If I own a car, I spend more time looking at the interior than touching the dash panels.
I don't think the GS is as bland as it is ugly, personally. Bloated, fat, and ugly. The interior is stupid as well--looks bad, and even though the plastic is high quality, it's still bloody plastic and if I'm paying 50 grand for a car I'd like to see a bit less plastic, and a little more leather and wood (or aluminum). They also, in an effort to make the interior less muddled, stowed away several buttons in a compartment, turning every normally one move effort into one that now needs two. This, like BMW's iDrive, is a failed attempt at simplicity. When will automakers learn that less is better--simpler is better. One button that does one thing that is clearly marked is simple. No submenus, no hidden compartments, and no redundant controls are necessary. Hell, VW put some kind of cruise control control switch that you have to move to a new position before you can use cruise control. Activate, then use. It's a two step process. It should be a one step process.
I'm not saying, however, that I like the Mx interior. I haven't found many or any Infiniti interiors attractive. They're too busy trying to be unique that they forget simple ergonomics and attractive design. The large center console "face" that these cars have make it look unnecessarily busy and plasticky. Other than the updated G35 interior, I can't say I care for them at all. Insides are obviously not Infiniti's stong point (neither is, really, outsides. The G35 and FXx are attractive, but I find the Mx to be bloated as well, and after seeing several in person, my mind has not changed). I also find no reason to buy the Mx in the first place--the G35 is cheaper and not much smaller, faster, and available with a manual transmission.
I don't understand why someone would want to spend $50k on a RL when for less you could get a M35x or A6 3.2.
Is it that much more, comparably equipped?
QuoteIs it that much more, comparably equipped?
I don't think there is a huge difference, but there is one and I personally consider the RL to be an inferior product to those two cars. I will check the numbers right now.
Acura RL- $49,100
Infiniti M35x- $48,850
Audi A6 3.2- $49,920
So, the RL actually falls between the M35x and A6, but only if you want the nav system, heated seats, etc which you have to get with the RL. If I was actually buying, here is how the prices would fall:
Acura RL- $49100
Infiniti M35x- $46850
Audi A6 3.2- $47170
It's certainly not a poor car in any way IMO aside from the somewhat bland styling. It handles better than most reviewers suggest, and is comfortable and refined as well.
What about it do you feel falls short?
I didn't say it was a poor car, just not as good as others. I see two major problems with the RL: 1. the engine, it is too weak for the price. 2. space, $49,100 is too much for a car that is based on the Accord (loosely of course) yet is smaller.
Didn't the RL beat the A6's performance numbers? And it isn't cramped, either, the rear is far more comfortable than a Lexus GS's, and on par with the others'.
QuoteDidn't the RL beat the A6's performance numbers? And it isn't cramped, either, the rear is far more comfortable than a Lexus GS's, and on par with the others'.
Not from what everyone else has said. And, people don't take these cars to the race track, they need real world power something that the RL doesn't have all that much of.
It feels comparable to an A6, if not an M35 or GS. Remember that I don't drive them on a race track either.