Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Acura TL vs Honda Accord

1474850525357

Comments

  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,148
    People are getting new '06 Accord EXV6s for $24k'ish. With nav, more like $25k (sometimes more, sometimes less, of course).

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Some posts have been moved to a more appropriate discussion. Here's the link: integraguy, "Acura Integra - (All years/styles)" #896, 5 Sep 2006 10:07 pm.
  • For what its worth I saw slightly different weights but not enough to make a big deal.

    LBS/HP will effect top speed but I expect they both have nanny chips so that is a non-factor.

    Torque is what generates acceleration & the Acura at 3503/233 is 15.03 pound per foot pounds of torque while the 3371/211 Honda works out to 15.97

    The transmission & final drive ratios are almost the same but the Acura has Honda's version of posi-traction while its not available on the Accord.

    I believe the combination of additional torque & posi-traction would give the TL a marked advantage in normal street situations over the Accord.

    As for tires the performance tires on the 6 speed Acura are quite a bit better then the Accords which as far as I know does not offer any.

    All that being said does the TL beat the Accord, all depends what you are looking for as there is more to the world then printed specs.

    I have both an Acura TL 6 speed & a BMW 330ci 6 speed convertible. On paper the Acura has more horsepower & slightly better acceleration but has no where near the all round performance or fun to drive factor of the BMW
  • Lbs/hp affects top speed ? you have to measure torque curve ,not just maximum toque. Usually the top speed limit is CD or speed governor.

    Accord V6 has postraction , 2006 has VSA

    Had 98 M3 5-speed. My 6-speed 2005 V6 Accord has almost the same acceleration. Maybe the new 255hp 6-speed 330 has the same performance but probably a little less. Accord has different exhaust and air intake. Accord gets much better mileage than either 330 or TL and on regular gas.

    All around perfromance is better in my S2000, but the Accord has much much more utility and much much lower operating costs: low insurance low maintenance. Hanlding of m3 was much better than Accord but less than S2000.

    So different opinion.

    Cheers,

    MidCow
  • All things being equal available horsepower determines top speed.

    As I said in my post they most likely all have nanny chips so posted top speeds have no relevance. Most of them do but it seems the Accord does not need one as its drag limited & does not trip the chip.

    The 2004 BMW 330 coupe will do 155mph rev limited while the convertable is held to 128mph rev limited because of the soft top.

    The 2006 Acura TL is listed at 155mph & the 2006 Honda at 138mph drag limited.

    The Acura torque curve is pretty flat from 2000rpm to the red line exceeding 224 ft/lbs all across the curve. The Honda peaks at 211 ft/lbs.

    The Honda does NOT have posi-traction . The VSA is not posi-traction its a brake application/throttle reduction piece of software that takes power away when the tires slip. In other words it slows you down gently by applying the brakes & cutting the power.

    The Acura in addition to VSA has a viscous controlled helical-type limited slip differential, which will cause VSA to either not kick in at all or worse case kick in later.

    As for your M-3 & Accord being close to equal in acceleration it would be very interesting to see some time slips from a stock sub-6 second Accord.

    Quick scan of the "Drag Times" site.

    Rough averages....did not run the math but good enough for goverment work

    BMW M3 13.2 seconds @ 107mph
    Acura TL 14.35 seconds @ 98mph
    Accord 15.5 seconds @ 91mph

    All actual time slips from real cars running stock (no mods at all)
  • blaneblane Posts: 2,017
    V6 Accords do not have positraction, a Chevrolet-patented name for limited slip differential. But they do have Vehicle Stability Assist with Traction Control.
  • To make this real simple the Accord does not have a limited slip differential for which Chevy used the copyright name posi-traction.

    Chevy did not invent the limited slip differential & did not have a patent on it.

    BTW Positraction (often shortened to "positrac" or merely "posi") has become a genericized trademark for LSDs

    Its interesting to note that the Acura version is a lot more advanced as the Chevy posi talked about in "My cousin Vinney" was just a pair of clutch packs & a few springs.

    Traction Control in an Accord is NOT limited slip differential hardware it is a software generated reduction in throttle opening & the application of slight braking force to the slipping wheel. In other words when it kicks in the car slows down, not great for the best acceleration.

    The Acura TL has both the hardware limited slip differential & the software based traction control.

    If traction control alone was the answer to controlled hard acceleration Honda would not have wasted the money putting a limited slip differential in the TL.

    BTW only the 6 spd version of the TL gets it.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,148
    '98 m3 = 14.0
    '04 accord 6-speed = 14.5

    times from albeedigital.com

    sorry, but to be fair and consistent, I'll take published data from the rags over anecdotal evidence from different drivers in different cars on different tracks at different times of the year.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • There is no consistency at all in the magazine reports as they are also done on different tracks by different people at different times of the year. Road & Track, Car & Driver, consumer Reports etc are pretty consistant in one thing, getting different numbers for the same car with C&D usually the best.

    I would rather see a lot of tests & get a median number which I did instead of a single test by an unknown magazines, trade paper, whatever, or ringers as the site says "tested by the auto manufacturers themselves".

    They also say "The results that "the experts" have provided may NOT reflect what your car is capable of doing under your conditions. This list is only meant to be a guideline, NOT THE GOSPEL!!!" Their caps not mine.

    Far be it for a manufacture to never give a magazine a massaged car to test, yeah right

    Drag Times postings are a lot of real people in a lot real cars with real time slips...Your result may vary, but in any statistical survey the larger the test universe the better the number.

    They also have a very active "fake times" message board that jumps all over anything that looks too good to be true.

    BTW if I was intending to be unfair I would have cherry picked the numbers & gone with:

    BMW M3 13.110 @ 109mph
    Acura TL 14.3 @ 99mph
    Accord 6spd 15.6 @ 93

    But I didn't
  • gbrozen :

    I would say that the times you posted are pretty accurate. I had a 98 M3 and nove have a 6-speed 2005 V6 and a 2006 S2000. The Accord feels pretty closer (with Borla exhaust and K&N filter)to the M3 in acceleration, not in handling. The new BMW 3330 has more 15 more horsepower than the 98 M3 had.

    Bearahistory is a new poster who seems pretty knowledgeable, if not just a little impetuous.

    I wonder how the new type S 6-speed TL performs and handles?

    Cheers,

    MidCow

    P.S. -Yes, drag slips: some users abuse and tear the hell out of their cars just to get a good time. Not my thing to abuse my car!
  • """Bearahistory is a new poster who seems pretty knowledgeable, if not just a little impetuous."""

    Impetuous, (hasty, rash) At my age, Nah, I would say direct.

    Ran my first sanctioned drag race at Englishtown in the fall of 1961 with a 1962 409/409 Impala Super Sport. Was active there till the early 1990's.

    image

    image

    A lot of guys might still remember the Honduras maroon 1967 Corvette Coupe with hooker side pipes that was a regular there during the late 1980's. had a number of interesting races with a modified dump truck.

    My last race there before we moved was at the Old Time Drags meet around summer of 1991 in a 33 Ford 3 window coupe running a 1970 Chevy LT1/370.

    image

    image

    Over the years I have seen too many 10 second cars turn into 12 second cars & 12 second cars into 14 second cars when run against the clocks.

    As for feel my 1966 Tri-Power Ram Air GTO felt fast as hell, but by today's standards it wasn't. Feel is to variable especially when looking back over the years & only a timing clock has meaning.

    One of the really great factory scams of the magazines was the 66' GTO that really had the Royal Oak "Bobcat" kit installed & other work done to it.

    Looked great in the books but the showroom stock cars could never come close. One of John Z Delorean's little games before he took up selling dope

    """P.S. -Yes, drag slips: some users abuse and tear the hell out of their cars just to get a good time. Not my thing to abuse my car!"""

    Are you trying to suggest the car mags don't beat the crap out of the demos trying to get the best cover banner.

    "Car & Driver gets the new Yugo to 60 in 1.2 seconds" :D

    Sub Heading, "used up all the crumple zone when it hit the ground"
  • Bearavhistory,

    Welcome to the edmunds forums. Meant no offense to you.

    You provide a new perspective and very good, okay excellent, information.

    Yes I remember the tri-power ( 3 duece) GTO. One of my fraternity brothers had one andother had an Olsdmobile 442. I bought a 1970 455 cu in 442 when I graduated.

    Yes, you are right the car mags beat the crap out of cars.

    You are about my age, maybe a couple years older. I am direct and set in my ways also. LOL. Still like manual shift cars.

    Again nice to hear your input and chat with you. and welcome aboard again.
    YMMV,

    MidCow

    P.S. remember the high perfomance 350 GT mustang with the 271 hp 289 V8; It was a screamer in its day but only got 7.5 seconds 0-60 mph.
  • No Problem MidCow.

    You are correct I am a very new guy here. I just bought a TL & was looking for sites that would bring me up to speed on the car. I usually am in the virtual air combat sim forums as I build planes for some of the games with a few other guys. Our home site is

    http://www.avhistory.org/

    Yeah a lot of guys tend to over do the memories. That were fast for their day but all things move forward. Who would have thought a family daily driver would be able to whack what are still known as muscle cars out of a stop light.

    If you look close at the picture of the 33 in front of the house you can just make out the tail of a red Mustang Mach 1 351ci Cleveland that I did for my nephew. Car was originally a 4 speed that was converted to an Windsor auto & we later re-engined it with the Cleveland put in a fresh 4 speed.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,148
    don't get me wrong, I'm not beating up on anybody or anything like that. Heck, I thought my post was very matter-of-fact and attempted to be fair. ;)

    Anyhooo... what I was mostly trying to point out was that we are talking about a '98 M3. You didn't specify if that is the car you surveyed on the drag boards. You merely stated M3.

    2nd, having owned several sports sedans, I can tell you that there is NO WAY the accord 6-speed is over 15 secs. That would make it slower than my S70 T5 and Lincoln LS, which it is most definitely not.

    Another interesting anecdote about drag times ... I was at Englishtown last year for "Z day" and watched just about EVERY stock 350Z run in the mid 15s. I think you would agree that is NOT an accurate assessment of that car's capabilities. But for that car, on that day, with those drivers, in that weather, it was the surveyed average.

    Several magazines, on the other hand, have formulas and software that correct for weather, elevation, etc. I agree, using a website that collects data across several magazines isn't a fair assessment, either. One magazine reference would probably be our closest info. I think I'd have a hard time finding data for a '98 M3, however.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • As for what you saw at E-Town & 15 second Z cars being real life, You might find this of interest, its from page 123 October Car & Driver.

    "if you are willing to subject your 240hp Boxer to a high-rpm clutch drop and ride out the ensuing axel hop, it'll reach 60mph in 5.7 seconds and the quater mile in 14.3"

    Most people who have to drive their cars to work on Monday morning are not willing to do this & they will not do this during a stop light Grand prix runs.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,148
    The necessary high-rpm clutch drop to get the best times is absolutely true of some cars.

    As for that particular quote on the Boxster ... not that it applies here ... but I'm surprised their best time involves axle hop. I would think they'd be quicker finding a happy place just before all that hop occurs and slows them down.

    Speaking of which, I get that in my Accord ... axle hop, I mean. And its just like I said above, I tend to feel the vehicle is at its best if I can hit that spot in the rpm range where I can launch it with a touch of wheelspin but not enough to get it to start hopping. Unfortunately, with the stock tires, that's a tough spot to hit most times.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • skewskew Posts: 4
    Any insight on the following choices: 2003 Certified 3.2 TL with 30,000 for $17,995 vs. a 2007 SE V6 (approx. price $22800.) I'd love you thoughts, pro and con. Thanks
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Posts: 3,118
    The Accord is the superior car in EVERY way imaginable (performance, luxury, ride, ergonomics), and it's NEW. The TL is 5 years old.

    Only you can decide if you want to spend the extra $5000.
  • kennyg8kennyg8 Posts: 225
    Also, the 03 TLs are rumoured to have transmission problems. I would definitely choose the 07 Accord over the 03 TL, if money is not an issue. Alternatively, you may want to look at an 04 or 05 TL (non-navi) if you decide to spend the equivalent of what an 07 Accord may cost you.
  • sdasda Posts: 308
    I would not be so quick to dismiss the TL. Yes, there were transmission problems, but only a small percentage failed. Many were covered by an extended 7yr/100k warranty. Call the dealership to confirm. Also, with such low mileage, you can purchase an Acura sponsored extended warranty called Acura Care. This is almost a bumper to bumper warranty, and is reasonably priced. Granted, the TL is on an older platform, but it is a good one. Compare the quality of interior materials with the Accord. With the TL you will find thicker carpet, real leather on the door panels, and soft surfaces through out the interior instead of hard plastic. About the only significant difference I can think of is that the new Accords have head curtain air bags and the older TL does not. I was also considering a new Accord EX. But when I found an immaculate 03 TL with 21000 miles, $7000 less expensive or about $130/month less than a new base EX, I went for the TL. I could not be happier.
Sign In or Register to comment.