Before the introduction of the JX35, that was exactly the situation Infiniti salesmen – and dealers – were in. There was the Q56 – for people who wanted a full-size SUV with three rows of seats. But what if you wanted the three rows – but not the full-size SUV?

No dice.

The next-down model in the Infiniti lineup was the much smaller (and five passenger-only) FX.

Nothing in-between

Well, not anymore.

The JX gives Infiniti a vehicle that can go heads-up against the very successful Acura MDX and also newcomers like the Buick Enclave – and which straddles the gap between the too-big-for-some Q56 – and the too-small-for-others FX.

WHAT IT IS

The JX35 is a full-size/three row luxury crossover, available in both FWD and AWD verisons. It’s based on the Nissan Murano – but much larger and fitted out with every tech-lux gadget Infiniti’s got in the bin.

Prices start at $41,250 – about $2k more than an Acura MDX and about $3k less than a Buick Enclave.

Other possible cross-shops include the new Lincoln MKT wagon ($45,285) and the Audi Q7 ($46,800).

WHAT’S NEW

The JX is a new model, just added to Infiniti’s lineup.

WHAT’S GOOD

More room inside for people than the QX – but not as large on the outside as the QX.

Plush ride.

A pretty decent deal – relative to most of the others in this segment.

WHAT’S NOT SO GOOD

Some controls are poorly located/hard to operate.

Complex – and expensive – “bundling” of options. Out-the-door price can rise real quick.

Lower tow rating (3,500 lbs.) than rivals like Q7 (8,500 lbs.), MDX (5,000 lbs.) and Enclave (4,500 lbs.)

UNDER THE HOOD

For now, the JX comes only with a 3.5 liter, 265 hp V-6 paired up with a continuously variable (CVT) automatic and either FWD or a full-time AWD system.

Some have criticized both the power and the performance of the JX’s drivetrain, but both are par for the segment.

Better than par, actually.

The JX takes about 8.2 seconds to reach 60 with FWD; AWD models are slightly behind that at 8.3-8.4 seconds. That’s quicker than the stronger-on-paper Buick Enclave (3.6 liters, 288 hp and 0-60 in about 8.6 seconds) and Lincoln MKT with its standard 3.7 liter, 300 hp engine (0-60 in about 8.6 seconds).

The Acura MDX (3.7 liters, 300 hp and 7.2 seconds to 60) and Lincoln MKT with its optional twin-turbo EcoBoost 3.5 V-6 (zero to 60 in 6.3 seconds) are both quicker – but both cost more. In the case of the EcoBoosted MKT, a lot more. The base price for this model is $48,175 – seven thousand dollars more than the JX’s base price.

Mileage-wise, the JX comes in at 18 city/24 highway for the FWD version and 18/23 for the AWD-equipped version. I averaged 20.5 during my week long test-drive.

This, too, is par for the segment. The FWD Enclave rates 17 city, 24 highway and 16 city, 22 highway with AWD. The MKT: 17 city, 24 highway with the 3.7 liter V-6 and FWD. The MDX rates 16 city, 21 highway. The hungry hippo Q7 comes in at a V-8 SUV-esque 14 city, 20 highway.

One area the JX comes up noticeably short is towing capacity. This full-size crossover only pulls as much as a typical mid-sized car: 3,500 lbs. That’s adequate for small single axle trailers. But if you need more capability, the others offer more. In the case of the Q7, a lot more – 8,500 lbs., which is in the same ballpark as V-8 pick-ups and SUVs. The Acura MDX and Lincoln MKT can pull a decent load, too: 5,000 lbs. for the both of them. Ditto the Enclave, which has a max rating of 4,500 lbs.

ON THE ROAD

Some reviewers have criticized the J for not-so-hot acceleration. I’ve already pointed out that, in fact, it’s at least as quick as most of its price-equivalent competition – and quicker than some of them.

But perhaps the most standout characteristic is not so much the engine – but the CVT automatic transmission it works through. It is turbine-smooth, yet also capable of mimicking a conventional “stepped” automatic – as when it seems to shift gears during full-throttle acceleration. Most CVTs will let the engine rush right up to redline – or very close to redline – and just hold the engine there, for as long as you hold your foot down. It’s not just that it’s noisy – it sounds like something’s broken – or may be about to break. The J’s CVT doesn’t sound like that – because it doesn’t operate like that. It lets the engine rev, then does a perfect imitation of a conventional automatic upshift to the next “gear” – which in fact is just a different CVT pulley ratio. But it could fool almost anyone insofar as how it feels – and sounds. The benefit? You get the superior efficiency of a CVT (relative to a conventional hydraulic-actuated automatic) without the thrashy sounds/sensations typical of CVTs. Nissan (Infiniti’s parent company) makes the best CVTs in the business. Drive the J (or any other Nissan/Infiniti vehicle with a CVT) and you’ll see what I mean.

Ride: It’s medium-soft. The Enclave is softer – and the MDX is firmer. As such, the J is a good middle-ground choice. There’s a “sport” setting on the console – but it’s more for the drivetrain (throttle tip-in, transmission shift points, etc.). The other two modes – Eco and Snow – alter the calibrations for those conditions.

One interesting thing about the J that I have not encountered in any other vehicle – crossover, SUV, luxury car, sedan or any other kind of car – is its “in the background” traction/stability control. When it comes on, you may feel it – brakes being applied, throttle being dialed back – but you will not see it. The “trac” light does not flash furiously when engaged – as it does in every other traction/stability-controlled vehicle I have ever driven. This is calming. The car’s systems intervene when they need to – but don’t make a federal case out of it. This is of a piece with the J’s lack of a Belt Minder buzzer. The car will not do the electronic equivalent of beating you over the head with a ruler if you have elected not to “buckle up for safety.” As far as I have been able to determine, Nissan/Infiniti is the only major automaker that doesn’t foist a Belt Minder buzzer on you.

God bless them.

AT THE CURB

Though large, the J is not humungous – on the outside. In fact, it is almost a foot shorter, bumper to bumper, than the Q56 (196.4 inches vs. 208.3 for the Q). It’s also 8 inches less tall (67.8 inches vs. 75.8).

This makes it look – and feel – less imposing. Yet, it’s actually got more room inside for the driver and passengers than the Q: 42.3 inches of front seat legroom and 41.7 inches of second row legroom in the J – vs. 39.6 inches of front seat legroom and 41 inches in the Q.

But, how does the J compare with other large crossovers?

It beats the MDX, second row-wise (38.7 inches) by a significant margin and edges it out by about half an inch up front (41.2 inches). And it really beats the Enclave, which has just 36.8 inches of second row legroom (and 40.4 inches up front). The Audi Q comes in just under par, with 39.6 inches up front and 41 inches in the second row.

Only Lincoln’s MKT wagon edges out the J when it comes to second row spreadin’ out space – and only by a hair, literally: 41.8 inches. And the MKT’s down about half an inch up front, vs. the J.

But, no free lunches in crossover land. The J’s edge in passenger roominess comes at the price of reduced cargo capacity – 15.8 cubes behind the third row, which is considerably less than several of its rivals, most notably the Buick Enclave (23.3 cubes) and also the MKT (17.9 cubes).

However, the J still has a slightly bigger cargo area than the Acura MDX – which has 15 cubic feet of capacity available behind its third row.

Speaking of the third row. It’s got adequate legroom but – as is true of the third rows in all these crossovers – headroom is limited by the slant of the roof and by floor height. Adults consigned to the third row will sit in a half-fetal. Not totally tucked in, but halfway there. This is an area where a full-size SUV like the Q has an advantage – at least in terms of headroom. The usually boxier/taller profile allows for that.

As far as aesthetics: That’s in the eye of the beholder, but to my eyes, the J’s nose is a bit ponderous and super-sized guppy-like. The side and back views are “cleaner” – and I applaud the for-once different (stylized “S”) rear side glass shape.

The inside is a winner. All the superlatives: luxurious, sporty, tasteful. Very “rich” looking – but not Donald Trump rich looking – if you know what I mean. The only thing I find fault with is the location of some of the secondary controls – such as the buttons that turn on (and off) the lane departure warning system, traction control and steering wheel heater. These are all located almost underneath the dash, to left of the steering wheel – and recessed such that you can’t easily see the individual buttons. After a week or so in the J, you know where the buttons are by feel – and memory. But it’s not ideal – and may be off-putting to people who haven’t yet spent a week in a J.

THE REST

Technological highlights include Nissan/Infiniti’s unique “around view” monitor – which gives you a panoramic, 360 degree view of the vehicle from the perspective of someone looking down from above. It is much more helpful than the limited view of your surroundings you get with the typical rearview-only back-up camera.  The twin LCD flatscreens built into the seatbacks – included with the Theater Package – can be tilted up or down to adjust for sun glare. There is an available semi-automatic blind spot braking feature, too. The system will apply the brakes if it senses you inadvertently turning into the path of another vehicle that’s in the J’s blind spot.

However, many of these options are bundled together in packages – some of which are very expensive, even for a luxury vehicle. The Premium Package – which includes hard drive-based GPS, a 13 speaker Bose stereo, the Around-View monitor, Blind Spot Warning and several other items – stickers for $4,950. The Deluxe Touring Package – which adds 20 inch wheels, an even higher-end Bose system, heated second row seats, rain-sensing wipers and maple wood interior accents – goes for $2,550. To get certain features, you not only have to buy the package, you sometimes have to buy several packages. For example, to get the Deluxe Touring Package, you have to also buy the Theater Package – and the Premium Package. But you can’t buy both the Deluxe Touring Package and the Driver Assistance Package.

There are two reasons for this confusing (and costly) mish-mash: One, it’s easier for Infiniti to produce cars this way, as opposed to allowing buyers to order options on a more a la carte basis. Two, there’s more potential profit per car. As an example, my J test car – which remember, has a starting MSRP just over $41k – stickered out over $55k, once the additional cost of all the options (Technology Package, Theater Package, Deluxe Touring and Premium Package) was folded in.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Infiniti-minded buyers interested in not-too-big – but not too small – will be pleased to discover there’s now a model at Infiniti stores that meets their needs.

Throw it in the Woods?

When the average person hears the word “anarchy,” his mind immediately fills with misconceptions and false assumptions. Voluntaryists often have to spend more time explaining all the things that “anarchy” does NOT mean, than they do explaining what it does mean. Hopefully this video will help with that. (Special thanks to Poxodd for the awesome animation.)

It wasn’t a bad idea. In fact, it was a good idea (see here for technical details) and the essential components – electronically controlled ignition – are standard equipment in all new cars today.

The problem was the technology Chrysler used at the time wasn’t quite ready for prime time. Glitches plagued the early Lean Burn engines. The electronic controls were sometimes balky – and mechanics of the era often couldn’t diagnose/correctly repair the system when it acted up.

Fast-forward 30 years.

Ford – like many current car companies – sees turbochargers as a way to comply with escalating federal fuel-economy mandates while also maintaining the power/performance levels customers expect. Ford calls its line of small-displacement/high output – and high efficiency – turbocharged engines EcoBoost engines.  They range from a 1.0 liter three-cylinder in the 2014 Fiesta subcompact to the 3.5 liter V-6 (with two turbos) used in the Taurus SHO and the full-size F-series pick-up truck. In the latter applications, the turbo V-6 delivers the power/performance of a V-8 with the economy of a six. In the Fiesta, the tiny 1.0 liter engine provides the on-demand output of a larger four – but much better gas mileage when you’re just poking along because only three cylinders are consuming gas as opposed to four of them.

Again, it’s not a bad idea.

But – once again – there may be some teething problems.

The Detroit News is reporting that some owners of EcoBoosted Ford vehicles are complaining – suing, actually. They are claiming that their vehicles lose power – and shudder – during acceleration. One lawsuit (a class action lawsuit) in Louisiana – see here – another in Ohio. Reportedly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has received about 100 complaints about EcoBoosted Fords – most of which seem to be directed at either the Taurus SHO or the F-150.

The lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the Louisiana case state that “Many Ford F150 EcoBoost owners have reported that their trucks have stalled, shuddered, failed to accelerate and/or entered into limp mode while driving.”A writer for Green Car News described a similar issue with the ’14 Fiesta (see here).

Reportedly, Ford has issued Technical Service Bulletins – these are memos to mechanics – about a component of the EcoBoost system called the Charge Air Cooler – which suggests that there is a problem and that Ford is aware of it.

Whether it is an isolated/small problem – or a big problem – remains to be seen. If it turns out to be a big problem, Ford is going to have a big problem. Because the automaker has committed big-time to the EcoBoost concept. It’s not just one model of car that’s potentially affected – as in the case of fire-prone Pintos back in the day. This situation involves engines used in several models of Ford vehicles – and a concept that Ford intends to apply virtually across the board, to every car (and truck) it makes.

If Ford – like Chrysler in the ’70s – put EcoBoost into mass production before it was fully sorted out, the fallout could be catastrophic.

And, tragic.

Because Ford today – like Chrysler then – was pressured to get the new technology into showrooms as rapidly as possible. Not because consumers demanded it.

But because government mandates more or less required it.

In the ’70s, Chrysler was faced with the Hobson’s Choice of prematurely “retiring” – that is, throwing away – engines (specifically, big V-8s) that  could not keep up with emissions control edicts passed years after they had been developed and which they weren’t designed to comply with – or fitting them with not-quite-ready-for-prime-time electronic controls in order to get them past the government’s gantlet.

Same thing today with Ford.

It’s not market demand that’s the impetus behind EcoBoost. It is the urgent need to dramatically (and quickly) improve the fuel economy of cars – and trucks – in order to meet government mandates while also satisfying customers’ desire for a certain level of power/performance. Ford – and everyone else in the business – knows that while politicians who ride around in taxpayer-subsidized 6,000 lb. armored limos with V-8 engines that get 6 MPG love to croon about 54.5 MPG cars (the “target” for 2025) the truth is that most buyers don’t want a 54.5 MPG car … if that car needs 30 seconds to get to 60.

They expect performance and economy.

Thus, Ford – and everyone else making cars – must try to reconcile conflicting requirements, one natural (customer preferences) the other artificial (government edicts) and they must do it right now.

In a free market – one where a car company is free to build cars its customers want as opposed to the kinds of cars government demands – Ford would have had more time to sort out Ecoboost. And to bring it out – at first – on a limited basis, to gauge customer response as well as to limit any potential problems arising from unforeseen technical glitches.

Unfortunately, we don’t have a free market. We have a top-down, increasingly Soviet-style market. One in which “experts” – politicians and bureaucrats – dictate to engineers “on behalf” of customers, who are deemed to be too stupid to know what kinds of cars they ought to be driving and so must be told which cars they’ll be driving.

It’s probably only a matter of time before the U.S. car industry ends up producing cars like the Soviet car industry produced.

Your 2025 Trabant or Lada or maybe, if you’re really lucky, Zil -  awaits. . . .

Throw it in the Woods? 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/radio-host-adam-kokesh-arrested-in-philly.html

Just as Ford is trying to jump-start its dead-in-the-water lux division (Ford sells more Mustangs in a year than Lincoln sells cars) Acura is trying to become more than a purveyor of really nice Hondas.

That’s harsh – but it’s reality, insofar as how buyers have responded thus far.

Models like the RL – up to now Acura’s top-of-the-line sedan – have sold only tepidly – and have never been much of a threat to the blue bloods: BMW, Benz, Lexus and the rest.

Acura (like Lincoln) would like to change that.

Enter the 2014 RLX – which replaces the RL as the company flagship. It’s all-new and in several ways, very different from the car it replaces. It’s larger – with more backseat room than any other car in this class. It’s got a sophisticated rear-wheel-steering system – and will shortly be available with a hybrid powertrain capable of averaging 30 MPG.  

But in some also-important ways, it’s not all that different from the old RL.

And that could be a problem.

WHAT IT IS

The RLX is Acura’s new top-of-the-line sedan, replacing the RL.

Though it is a mid-sized car in terms of its overall length and wheelbase, it’s much roomier inside than others in its class – especially in terms of rearseat legroom.

It will initially be available only in FWD form – with a hybrid-powered/AWD version on deck for later in the model year (probably by this fall).

The FWD version comes standard with a 310 hp 3.5 liter V-6 and “precision all-wheel steering” (P-AWS), Acura’s term for its rear-wheel steering technology.

Base price is $48,450.

The hybrid (and all-wheel-drive) version – which will offer a combined output of 370 hp from its gas-electric drivetrain – will probably start in the neighborhood of $55-58k, in the same ballpark as the hybrid versions of cars like the BMW 5 “active hybrid” ($61,400), Benz E400 ($55,800) and Lexus GS450h ($59,450).

Acura hopes to draw Benz E/BMW 5/Cadillac CTS/Audi A6 and other name brand-inclined mid-sized luxury-sport sedan buyers to the RLX by offering more interior space in a comparably sized package, an unusual layout (rear-steering) lots of high-technology (SMS text-to-speech capability; climate control that adjusts interior temperature based on real-time GPS sun angle data; automatic braking/collision avoidance, etc.) and class-leading fuel economy: 31 on the highway for the FWD version – and an anticipated 30 MPG average from the pending hybrid/AWD model.

WHAT’S NEW

The 2014 RLX is all-new.

WHAT’S GOOD

Typically Acura tightness of form; classy, subtle. Not “in your face” about its price tag.

Different: FWD-based (with rear-wheel-steering) in a RWD-based segment.

Standard big six in a segment rapidly going small (and turbo) four.

Almost economy-car fuel economy.

Roomier than price/size equivalent competition.

WHAT’S NOT SO GOOD

Might be too subtle to stand out enough – the same problem that afflicted the old RL.

Gas mileage? Does 30 MPG vs. 24 or 25 MPG matter that much in a $50,000 luxury car?

FWD-based layout in a segment where RWD is prized.

Rear wheel steering may not be much of a “sell” – because it’s not something the typical driver will notice in everyday driving.

UNDER THE HOOD

At first, the RLX will be sold only with a conventional (gas-burning) 3.5 liter V-6, producing 310 hp; this engine is paired only with a six-speed automatic – driving the front wheels only.

This combo gets the RLX to 60 in about 6.4 seconds – quicker than either the Audi A6 2.0T (7.5 seconds) or the base-engined (3.0 liter/265 hp) Cadillac CTS (7.1 seconds) and exactly even-Steven with the turbo four-powered BMW 528i and the V-6 powered Benz E350.

However. . .

All the competitors listed above offer optional engines – and stronger performance. The A6, for instance, can be ordered with a supercharged V-6 (310 hp) that gets the lighter (3,726 lbs. vs. 3,933 lbs.) Audi to 60 in a very speedy 5.2 seconds. A BMW 535i – with turbo 3.0 six – gets to 60 in 5.9 seconds. The CTS, with its optional 3.6 liter (318 hp) V-6 gets there in about 6 seconds. And you can upgrade to a V-8 in the Benz E. It’s not a cheap upgrade ($60,400 for the 402 hp E550). But it’s available, if you want it.

There are also models like the Infiniti G sedan to consider. Though smaller and not nearly as roomy inside as the RLX (with much less room for backseat occupants especially; more on that below) it nonetheless comes standard with a very strong 328 hp V-6 that gets it to 60 in 5.4 seconds. Plus, this lux-sport sedan is available with a manual transmission. (So is the BMW 5; the CTS and A4 are, like the RLX, automatic-only).

Also, all the above models offer AWD right now.

The RLX will offer it  . . . but not yet.

Word is, the hybrid/AWD RLX that’s on deck for later in the year will be quicker than the FWD/V-6 RLX – and will also average 30 MPG. If so, that would be about 6 MPG better – on average  – than the AWD-equipped BMW 535i (24 MPG), 8 MPG better than the A6 3.0 Quattro (22 MPG) and 9 MPG better than the thirsty AWD-equipped 3.6 liter Cadillac CTS (21 MPG) and 5 MPG better, on average, than the Benz E350 Bluetec diesel (25 MPG).

So, that’s a solid.

Also: The RLX you can buy right now does offer a feature that few of its competitors offer: Four wheel steering. Which really means rear-wheel-steering. Acura call it Precision All-Wheel Steer, or P-AWS, which you’ll see in chrome letters on the right side of the trunk lid of RLXs so equipped. Electric actuators adjust toe in (the inward/outward directional angle of the wheels) about 2 degrees, either way, to improve the car’s handling and – specifically – to help the FWD-based RLX understeer less and thus, feel more like a RWD-based car.

Rear-wheel-steering is not a new thing, of course. Honda offered it way back in the 1990s, in the Prelude. And GM had Quadrasteer trucks in the early-mid 2000s. But the RLX’s system not only steers the rear wheels, it is capable of steering each one independently.

As the RLX enters a right-handed corner, and the driver begins to turn the steering wheel to the right, P-AWS automatically adjusts the toe-in of the inner rear wheel to the left, which reduces the amount of steering input required by the driver to keep the car tracking with the curve. In a left hand turn, it’s the opposite; rear wheel toe-in adjusts to the right.

The set-up has another advantage besides checking the FWD (and thus, nose-heavy) Acura’s natural tendency to understeer: It tightens up low-speed maneuverability – as when sliding into a parking spot. You can turn a bit more sharply – with less steering input.

It’s also not a major weight-adder – unlike previous all-wheel-steering systems. According to Acura, P-AWS fluffs up the RLX’s curb weight by a mere 11 pounds.

ON THE ROAD

The RLX is quiet, smooth and powerful. Trouble is, so are the others. What makes the RLX different?

What makes it stand apart?

That’s a hard question to answer honestly. The V-6 pulls strongly, but that’s expected – a given – at this price point. What else does it do? What does it do better than the others in this class do? Frankly, the RLX’s V-6 is not much different in terms of how it sounds and pulls than the V-6 in a new Accord – no offense meant. The Accord’s V-6 is a superb V-6. But an Accord V-6 costs a lot less than a V-6 RLX.

What makes the RLX’s V-6 worth the $50k?

The ride: It  is typically lux-sport firm; the steering is precise and on-center. Great. But nothing all that different.

If it had been my call, I’d have made the RLX’s ride much firmer and its steering a lot sharper – in order to one-up the sportier cars in this segment like the BMW 5 and Caddy CTS. Or, perhaps much plusher – to out-lux Benz and Lexus and the rest of them. Either way would have been better than the safe, predictable middling-sporty/sort-of-lux balance Acura decided to go with. Because it’s just not memorable. You don’t come away from a test drive thinking to yourself: Wow, that was really special.

Which brings up the P-AWS all-wheel-steering. It is technologically brilliant. So are thorium fusion reactors. How many people understand the technology? Or can make use of it? Same issue with the P-AWS.

I suspect few drivers will be able to really appreciate P-AWS, because unless they’re doing a slalom around cones or driving on a race track – or really hauling the mail on the street – it’s not something they’re going to notice.

Sit back now – and prepare for rant:

There is an ever-widening disconnect between the theoretical capabilities of new cars and the actualities of real-world driving. Especially when it comes to cornering. It’s one thing to notice that car A accelerates more strongly than car B.

Everyone accelerates. And can feel the difference between a car that takes 8 seconds to get to 60 and one that can get there in 6.4 seconds.

But cornering?

The handling limits of almost any new car – let alone high-performance cars – are so high now that to notice any meaningful difference between the grip threshold of car A and car B, you will need to be driving, shall we say, appreciably faster than the posted speed limit. Not 5 or 10 over. A lot more over than that. If not, “cornering” at or within 10 MPH of the posted limit is an almost effortless, one-hand-on-the-wheel/check-your-e-mail deal in any late-model car. And once you get to a car like the RLX, with its four-wheel-steering . . .  .

It’s not unlike having a 20 inch bar chainsaw to cut down a three-inch diameter tree. It’s nice to have, yeah – but you’d cut through just as well with a 16 incher – and probably, never know the difference.

The car companies will take guys like me out to a test track to show us what a car equipped with four-wheel-steering can do relative to a similar car without it. Wheel cocked a half-turn, pedal to the floorboard, powering full-tilt through a gymkhana course. . . .

Well, sure. Great.

But will you ever notice the difference, out there on the street? I doubt one out of a 100 American drivers ever will. Maybe in Germany. But not here in the USA, land of the radar trap, Tazer and no driving faster than 75 anywhere that’s not Texas.

And that’s a problem for Acura.

Because a buyer who test drives a new 535i, say, will notice it is quicker pulling out of the dealer’s lot than an RLX. All you have to do is floor it, after all. Anyone can push down on the gas pedal – and you can still do that without risking a Tazering, so long as you back off before you tilt the speed limit. But how many drivers out there – in this country – put a car into a decreasing radius curve posted 35 MPH at 65 MPH?

But that’s the kind of driving you have to do in order to get any meaningful appreciation for all-wheel-steering. Hell, for the steering (and cornering) capabilities of any new sport sedan. We have reached a point of diminishing returns. More and higher capabilities that most people can’t realistically make much use of. It’s become a matter of marketing more than real-world enhancement. Acura put a lot of brain-sweat into P-AWS, all to make a FWD-based car handle/react more like a RWD-based car.

Why not just make the car RWD? That, people understand. And – in this segment – seem to prefer. Good luck explaining why P-AWS is more desirable.

I’m also concerned – well, I would be if I were Acura – about the pending AWD hybrid RLX. Yes, it will be quicker – and that’s very good. So also the 30 MPG average that’s being talked up. But, it will also be heavier – those batteries and electric motors, you know – and I have to wonder how that will affect its handling. I’ve driven several other premium-class hybrids and while they all pull like a team of Clydesdales in a straight line (the advantage here being the immediate torque output of the electric motors to get you going) they are all also lurchier in the curves – which is what you’d expect given the typically several hundred pounds higher curb weight. For example: The 2013 Lexus GS450h – the hybrid version of the Lexus GS sedan – weighs 4,190 lbs. The regular GS – non-hybrid – weighs 3,795 lbs. The hybrid is lugging around an additional almost 400 pounds. You definitely notice that in the curves. Ditto the hybrid version of the BMW 5 – which weighs in at 4,398 lbs. vs. 3,814 lbs. for the non-hybrid 528i, a difference of almost 600 pounds.

How much heavier will the hybrid/AWD version of the RLX be? The FWD/V-6 version is almost 4,000 pounds as it is (3,933 lbs. to be precise). Going by what current hybrid/AWD cars weigh relative to their non-hybrid (and RWD/FWD) iterations, we can probably expect the hybrid/AWD RLX to weigh at least 4,300 pounds. Add a 200 pound driver and passenger and the car will be probably be not far from 5,000 pounds at the curb.

That’s a lot of unsprung mass. Short of an anti-gravity (and anti-centripetal force) field, keeping it all composed under the stress of high-speed cornering is not going to be easy. Maybe Acura will pull it off.

But so far, no one else has.

The hybrid layout does hold the promise of much better fuel economy. But I have to wonder about the relevance of that when it comes to cars that have $50,000 and up price tags. Does a buyer in a position to afford that care much about a 5-8 MPG advantage? If he’s worried about spending an extra say $100 a month on gas, why not just buy a less expensive car?

AT THE CURB

Here again, I think Acura may have missed the mark – by misreading the realities of the market. Cars in this class – the premium class – are as much about being noticed as they are about anything else. People – Americans – who spend $50k-plus on a car want everyone else to know it. They do not want to fly under the radar. They want klieg lights and marching bands and Michael Buffer (let’s get ready to ruuuummmble!) heralding their arrival.

But the new RLX is demure.

Other than its striking “jewel-eye” LED headlights, the rest of the car is conventionally handsome – but aesthetically unremarkable.

Or rather, not obviously rich.

I asked my wife to guess the price of the RLX. She said, “about $38,000.” When I told her the test car’s sticker price – $61,000 with all the bells and whistles – she was really surprised.

So am I.

This is a very nice car. But the plain fact is that there a lot of very nice cars out there – many of them priced $20,000 less than this car. If Acura intends for the RLX to go up against cars that cost what it costs, it ought to look like it costs that much, too.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t.

The old RL had the same issue. A very nice car, also. But it just didn’t have the status appeal of the BMWs, et al, it was trying to compete with.

There are, of course, buyers who want a high-end car that doesn’t make an obvious issue of it. These buyers will like not only the RLX’s classy, tasteful exterior – they will appreciate its best-in-class legroom for backseat occupants: 38.8 inches. How much is that? It’s 4.1 inches more legroom than the Infiniti G’s got (34.7 inches), 3 inches more than a Benz E-Class (35.8 inches), 2.7 inches more than in the BMW 5 and Caddy CTS (36.1 inches each ),  and 1.4 inches more than in the Audi A6.

As Acura puts it: full-size car interior space in a mid-sized car package.

That’s an objective – and real-world – advantage.

Also, some of the little things – like the “tensionless” electronic seatbelts that don’t (under normal driving conditions) cinch you in like Hannibal Lecter; the capless refueling system and the “brake hold” button on the center console you can press to keep the car stationary without needing to keep your foot on the brake (or put the transmission in Park). The keyless entry fob also unlocks all four doors – not just the driver and front seat passenger’s doors.

These are features not found in competitor models.

But, will it be enough to justify that almost $50k starting price?

THE REST

Acura is betting on high-tech to sell the RLX.

In addition to its drivetrain unusualness, this car offers a Forward Collision Warning system that tries to alert the driver to the need to brake when an obstacle such as a slowed-down/stopped car up ahead is detected. A bright orange BRAKE light flashes in the gauge cluster. It is not small. It is a big rectangular thing – and the first time it hit me with its frenetic forewarning, I was more than a little bit startled. I found the system to be overly anticipatory – and far too frantic. It comes on too soon (I’m well aware there’s a car up ahead and am prepared to brake, if necessary – thanks very much) and is itself arguably a distraction that could make the car less rather than more safe to drive.

The car will also brake for you, if you forget – or somehow don’t notice that DefCon 1 orange light flashing in your face. Better to just pay attention to your driving – and not rely on gadgets to do your driving for you.

But that’s just me.

Other stuff includes a super-ultra premium 14-speaker Krell audio system, heated and ventilated front seats, rain sensing wipers, blind spot warning, lane departure warning, SMS text-to-speech capability, GPS with manual (button and knob) and touch-sensitive “haptic” controls, integrated smartphone apps – all the “givens” (or rather, what’s expected) in a premium car these days.

Plus some.

But, again, will it be enough to sell this car in a segment where such things (or similar things) are available in competitor cars that also offer the curb cachet – and more power/performance – for about the same dollars?

THE BOTTOM LINE

The new RLX  may still be too much like the old RL to succeed where its forbear failed.

Throw it in the Woods?

Had the homeowner been legally disarmed as Prince Barry, et al, desire, it would also have been all over by the time the cops arrived. But not in the homeowner’s favor.

This un-named (as of yet) cop decides to double down on his idiocy.

Without fail, he also threatens to “book the video recorder” (take the camera) despite having his own audio recording.