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.

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.

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.

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?

Well, no. My mother's TL runs just fine on a steady diet of 87 octane.

The TL was quieter, had more

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.

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

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