 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / June 2006The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
I love the new Acura TL. I'm starting to see more and more of them on the road. (I actually don't know how new the current body style is, but I have been noticing them more and more over the past 6 months.) I'd love to get one, but should I save my money and get a new Accord instead? Of course, the Honda doesn't have the cool image of the Acura, but the bodies are virtually identical on these cars. Is the engine in the TL available in the Accord? Thanks! Mike The Acura requires Premium gasoline; the Accord regular. Biggest objection I had while shopping at the Acura dealers. They are very nice autos, and I really wanted one. > I love the new Acura TL. I'm starting to see more and more of them on > the road. (I actually don't know how new the current body style is, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mike > I love the new Acura TL. I'm starting to see more and more of them on > the road. (I actually don't know how new the current body style is, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mike We compared the TL to the Accord EX 6 cyl Auto a few months ago. The TL is the same frame and a similar body. They bore out Accord engine and put a high-compression head to give it more oomph, but, as another poster pointed out, it then requires high-test. The TL was quieter, had more comfortable seats, a much nicer audio system and included more goodies (self-dimming mirror, fog lights, memory powers eats, etc.) some of which you can add to the Accord as options and some you can't. We made our pitch to both dealers for the best price and would have had to pop for $6K more for the TL. We took the Accord as it just didn't seem worth it. The Accord has been a *great* car. Still miss those damn memory seats, though. Jon Check out the Honda Accord Saloon on the British Honda website and you will be amazed.... http://www.honda.co.uk > > I love the new Acura TL. I'm starting to see more and more of them on > > the road. (I actually don't know how new the current body style is, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Jon I am amazed at how obnoxious the web site is. Still didn't find memory seats, auto locking doors or auto headlights that turn on in the dark and when the wipers are on. > Check out the Honda Accord Saloon on the British Honda website and you > will be amazed.... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> >> Jon > Check out the Honda Accord Saloon on the British Honda website and you > will be amazed.... > http://www.honda.co.uk According to C&D euro and am spec accords are different cars. Acura TL is a bit souped up euro spec accord. While the fat pig sold in the US under the Accord badge has no european equivalent. > According to C&D euro and am spec accords are different cars. They are, but they spawn from the same global platform. > According to C&D euro and am spec accords are different cars. > Acura TL is a bit souped up euro spec accord. No, the TSX is an Americanized souped up Euro spec Accord. The TL is America-only. > We compared the TL to the Accord EX 6 cyl Auto a few months ago. > > The TL is the same frame and a similar body. They bore out Accord engine and > put a high-compression head to give it more oomph, but, as another poster > pointed out, it then requires high-test. Well, no. My mother's TL runs just fine on a steady diet of 87 octane. The TL was quieter, had more > comfortable seats, a much nicer audio system and included more goodies > (self-dimming mirror, fog lights, memory powers eats, etc.) some of which > you can add to the Accord as options and some you can't. The TL also handles better. But, there's a new Accord (and TL) on the way for 2008. So, if you can, you may want to wait. The Toyota cars in this price range (Camry, Avalon, ES, IS) are also worth a look. If it weren't for the cramped back seat we'd have purchased a Lexus IS250 instead of the TL. If it's a sporty ride you seek, the Infinit G35 is way to go. An all new G35 is due this fall, reviewed at www.edmunds.com The Infiniti is a lot more fun to drive than the Accord/TL. > The Toyota cars in this price range (Camry, Avalon, ES, IS) are also > worth a look. If it weren't for the cramped back seat we'd have > purchased a Lexus IS250 instead of the TL. How could you even compare the two? IS250 is a rear wheel driver and therefore, by definition, is a hoot to drive. As for Toyota, I drove a rental Corolla a few years back and that car was absolutely awful. I'm not sure if they calibrated steering above 85 mph. The steering "precision" was on par with Ford Taurus. I do not know why Toyolet sells as many cars in the US as they do. With the departure of Celica and MR they do not have a single half decent car in their lineup. It's too bad GM goes under knife and Toyota does not. The prolifiration of that crap on the roads won't have anything to do with the warm and fuzzy reception from Consumer Reports, would it? >> The Toyota cars in this price range (Camry, Avalon, ES, IS) are also >> worth a look. If it weren't for the cramped back seat we'd have >> purchased a Lexus IS250 instead of the TL. >> >How could you even compare the two? IS250 is a rear wheel driver >and therefore, by definition, is a hoot to drive. Rubbish. I've driven quite a few RWD cars that have been absolute arse to drive. Just because its RWD means its RWD, nothing more, nothing less. >As for Toyota, I drove a rental Corolla a few years back and that car >was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >The prolifiration of that crap on the roads won't have anything to do >with the warm and fuzzy reception from Consumer Reports, would it? > >How could you even compare the two? IS250 is a rear wheel driver > >and therefore, by definition, is a hoot to drive. > > Rubbish. I've driven quite a few RWD cars that have been absolute > arse to drive. Just because its RWD means its RWD, nothing more, > nothing less. Aside from the mustang how many of those rubbish cars are still being sold today? I was not talking about the secretary's six pack circa mid 60s sold pretty much unchanged to this date. >> >How could you even compare the two? IS250 is a rear wheel driver >> >and therefore, by definition, is a hoot to drive. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Aside from the mustang how many of those rubbish cars are still being >sold today? As a model, i can only think of one, the 3 series BMw. Obviously, i haven't drivien the latest iteration of it. however, your statement is "the car is Rear wheel drive and so therefore is a hoot to drive" - that does not give any indication of age, or any other conditions. As it is, the 90s mustan is actually a bit better than some of them. i am, hwever, talking about late 80s, and 90s cars, quite a lot of them. Some have been horrendous. Aerostar - eugh. most pickups - horrible, and one of the worst of all - a merc C280. That one I drove at silverstone, and they use them in the skidpans. As one instructor put it - "if you can handle this piece of sh.t on here, you can handle any car anywhere." On the other hand, i also drove a TVR cerbera speed8 for about 8 months as a daily driver. Car was ok in the dry and calm. push it, or it get wet and slippy, and it wasn't a hoot, it was a lethal knifeedge. Was an exhilerating 8 months though, shame my friend got well enough to drive it again, and i had to give it back to him driving it every day. >I was not talking about the secretary's six pack circa mid 60s sold >pretty much >unchanged to this date. > On the other hand, i also drove a TVR cerbera speed8 for about 8 > months as a daily driver. Car was ok in the dry and calm. push it, or > it get wet and slippy, and it wasn't a hoot, it was a lethal > knifeedge. Was an exhilerating 8 months though, shame my friend got > well enough to drive it again, and i had to give it back to him > driving it every day. You sure he's a friend? :^) Anyhow, you're right of course I rest my case. It's sad though so few cars are selling in rwd configuration today. In the US anyway. There is nothing affordable and decent under or slightly over $20k. Civic Si would've fit my bill but it drives the wrong set of wheels. I just hope Kabura will make it to the production and to the US. > > The Toyota cars in this price range (Camry, Avalon, ES, IS) are also > > worth a look. If it weren't for the cramped back seat we'd have > > purchased a Lexus IS250 instead of the TL. > > > How could you even compare the two? IS250 is a rear wheel driver > and therefore, by definition, is a hoot to drive. Compared a wide range of cars in the same price category. Spent time driving them, too. Sometimes one's preconceived notions prove incorrect. Sometimes the driver's skill level is such that FWD/RWD doesn't make any difference. > As for Toyota, I drove a rental Corolla a few years back and that car > was absolutely awful. snip OEM tires are crap. I owned a Corolla, put a decent set of tires on it and it performed much better. > It's too bad GM goes under knife and Toyota does not. > The prolifiration of that crap on the roads won't have anything to do > with the warm and fuzzy reception from Consumer Reports, would it? The proliferation of that crap has to do with reliability. The Corolla may drive like crap but if you do minimal maintenance it will give you 200,000 miles of reliable service. For the most part, that's what most people want of their cars. Toyota figured out that building cars for their customers, not magazine editors and performance drivers, is what profitability is all about. > I love the new Acura TL. I'm starting to see more and more of them on > the road. (I actually don't know how new the current body style is, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mike Test drive both extensively and see which suits you. Also look closely at the Acura TSX. Price wise it is between a well equipped Accord and a TL. Slightly smaller than either, but also much sportier to drive. All three are derived from the same platform. John I'm late to the party on the answer to this as I haven't been checking the boards but FWIW. I had 2004 Acura TL, great car no doubt but fter driving my wifes 2005 Accord EX 4 cyl I started thinking that there wasn't an awful lot of difference. With 22,000 miles on TL tires were (e42's) were burned out, a problem with TL's and those tires. So after careful thought I traded in my 2004 TL with 24k and bought an 2006 Accord V6 EX w/nav. Saved about 5 to 7 grand from trading to a 2006 TL w/Nav. Added day electronic day/night mirror and fog lights total price 27,500 ( sticker 30,008 or some such before add on's ) . Only thing missing is some compression and a few horse, don't notice either, plus can now use regular gas. No memory seats, I can live without, no blue tooth phone system ( people complained sounded so - so anyway. Accord handles better in my opinion than the TL. Only thing TL has in my opinion is a little sportier look and the prestige factor if you need that. Again I am very happy with my decision to " step down " if you will to the Accord. George in NY >I love the new Acura TL. I'm starting to see more and more of them on > the road. (I actually don't know how new the current body style is, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mike > So after careful thought I traded in my 2004 TL with 24k and bought an 2006 > Accord V6 EX w/nav. Indeed, the practical differences between driving a full optioned Accord and a TL are minimal considering the difference in price. John
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.