Northstar Vs. New RL with 300 HP!

[danbuc]

I had to follow my friend over to the local Acura dealership on our way to school the other day, so he could drop his Integra off for some warranty work. While he was talking to the service manager, I went and looked at the RL in the showroom. I have to say that the car looked pretty nice, especially in black. The interior seemed a little small to me, but I didn't get a chance to actually sit in it. The layout of the dash (buttons, dials,...ect) seemed cluttered with stuff. There's also like 20 or so buttons on the steering wheel too. The leather and wood looked really nice though. The real time GPS traffic info, is a nice feature too. I still like the styling of the TL better though, I think it would be nice if they had an option for the 300hp engine in it. That would be a fast car.

[Ralph]

Originally Posted by danbuc

I had to follow my friend over to the local Acura dealership on our way to school the other day, so he could drop his Integra off for some warranty work. While he was talking to the service manager, I went and looked at the RL in the showroom. I have to say that the car looked pretty nice, especially in black. The interior seemed a little small to me, but I didn't get a chance to actually sit in it. The layout of the dash (buttons, dials,...ect) seemed cluttered with stuff. There's also like 20 or so buttons on the steering wheel too. The leather and wood looked really nice though. The real time GPS traffic info, is a nice feature too. I still like the styling of the TL better though, I think it would be nice if they had an option for the 300hp engine in it. That would be a fast car.

I like the styling too, and they are 300 hp. (unless you mean FOR the TL)

The interior in beige looks more vast and larger than any interior in black which hides details, etc. imo.

[danbuc]

This one had the beige interior, but I was looking through some pretty dark tinted glass, so I couldn't really tell. What I meant with the 300hp option, was that it would be nice to get in the TL as well. Maybe like a more performance oriented version of the car (nevermind that it already does 0-60 in what, 5.7 seconds or something?). I think that would be a nice option, to an already nice car.

[Leloz]

Having just purchased a 2005 RL, I had to put my .02$ in. I had a 2000 STS that I purchased new and finally sold in March with around 106K on it, the car was almost perfect in every way. My son has a 2003 DTS with Navi, Night Vision.. the works and it just does not cut it for me price-wise. I received an invitation to drive the new STS 3.6 and 4.6 when they first hit my local dealership and I was impressed with both, but I was not in the market for a sedan at the time. My only complaint was the quality of the interior in the STS. My Acura purchase was an impulse buy, but in retrospect, I think it is a better bang for the buck than the new STS 3.6 and DTS. The only other vehicle I wish I had driven before I bought it is the new Infiniti M45. But alas, I have made my choice and I hope it brings me the same 106K splendid miles my 2000 STS did. As for a DTS over the RL.. I find my son's DTS a fairly boring automobile. It lacks the grunt of the STS and does not handle half as well as the STS. My STS on the other hand was the perfect daily driver and highway cruiser with great reliability. With respect to resale value, I think Acura has the advantage. My son's 2003 DTS stickered for $56K and he bought it for just under $20K two months ago. The 2004 TLs are bringing $2-5K less than what they stickered for after 1 year. We will see how the RL resale value holds up. Maybe I should have gone Cadillac again.. but the choice was made and I will be sure to report how the next set of 100K miles go with the Acura.
-Abe

[dhs]

An acura was one of the brands I considered before buying my dhs. This was before the new rl came out. I drove both tl versions (standard and type s) and I can tell you the performance in those was a joke. Granted the type s had 4 people in it but still. I had the thing at wot and it screamed like a banshee but accelerated sloooow. What is 260hp good for if it has no torque? Definitely not close to the same feeling as the v8. I also tried the older rl, and I have to say that car was much better. From a standstill it actually felt stronger then the north* there was a real feeling of torque. Once it got up to speed it quickly ran out of breath, so passing power made it obvious that it wasn't a v8. I didn't drive the new rl, but from what I heard acura is really sacrificing torque to reach 300hp. The older 3.5 was one of the best engines and 1st on my list of best v6s. I hope they havent ruined it by trying to please marketing with a 300hp figure. I ended up going with the cadillac, I liked the exterior much more. Ohh and let's not forget the north* can still beat the new rl in a race with no problem.

[Leloz]

My daughter drives a 2001 Acura CL Type S and I understand what you mean about that engine screaming and yet not putting you back into the seat. The 3.5 V6 torque is only at 260 ft/lbs which is less than the 295 ft/lbs my 2000 STS had, but it is put to the wheels much better than the FWD STS. As far as power goes, the 2000 STS and the RL feel just as fast up to 80mph (still breaking in the RL). However, the RL lacks in power compared to a new 2005 STS Northstar.. but that car is also more expensive. Having driven my son's 2003 DTS, I can honestly say the RL would win hands down in a 1/4 mile and handling. The DTS just has so much weight and length that it is more of a luxury touring sedan than sports car unlike my old STS. I do look forward to the new STS-V and hope they make a V version of the new DTS. For the meantime, I am loving the technology this car has to offer for the price.

[dhs]

Having driven my son's 2003 DTS, I can honestly say the RL would win hands down in a 1/4 mile and handling.

Sry, but I have to disagree with that. I just read a review of he rl in autoweek, and the figures are: 7.2 0-60 15.53@90.8 in the 1/4 mile. It makes 300hp at 6200rpm and 260lbs/ft at 5000rpm. Curb weight is 3984. Based on the numbers, the dts should beat it since it runs high 6s 0-60 and low 15s in the quarter. The trap speed is especially low for the rl, since the dts will hit 93. Not to mention the new ones with the 320hp north* which should embarass the rl on the drag strip. :coolgleam

I remeber the old 3.5 making around 230 lbs/ft but at a much lower rpm, something around 2800.

I think you and your son should hit the drag strip, I know who I would put my money on.

[Leloz]

I have read from 6.7-7.3 zero-sixty for the Acura and low to mid 15s for the quarter mile.

I think you mean the 1998-2004 STS with those numbers for the Cadillac. The DTS runs 7.0-7.7 zero-sixty and mid to high 15s in the quarter mile.

It really depends on how much the manufacturer is paying the magazine testing the car

It would make an interesting show to see the two at the drag strip, the last time I went was in the Trans Am last July. Once the RL has been properly passed the break in period, I can see how it acts from a stand still launch with the AWD.

[dhs]

7.0-7.7? Id like to think my car isnt that slow...

I read a bunch of reviews for the deville, consumer guide and newcar test drive.com says 7 sec flat and one review actually got a 6.2 from it. I think I'm going to have to time mine to see it for myself. I know there is someone here with a 2000-2004 deville that runs low 15s stock, can someone post their results here?

[davesdeville]

Originally Posted by Leloz

The 3.5 V6 torque is only at 260 ft/lbs which is less than the 295 ft/lbs my 2000 STS had, but it is put to the wheels much better than the FWD STS.

No, it's not like FWD magically eats 35ft.lbs. In a heavy car like a DTS you should be able to launch without too much wheelspin so RWD doesn't have a big advantage in this case. Now if the STS-V was FWD you could have an argument. Plus the torque peak of the northstar is 600 rpm lower than the Acura, so it's going to feel like it lacks even more than 35ft.lbs.