Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
C'mon, kenny, we don't live in igloos, you know!
It's not that it's too cold or hot. For me, pushing the A/C button is much simpler, and more comfy. And I don't look at the stars much. Usually I'm too busy looking at the girls walking on the sidewalk!
If anything, I find the TL a bit boring to drive. Mind you, I have the automatic version. After a couple of years, the driving experience is a bit ho-hum. And I agree about the gas mileage, and gas prices issue. I do a lot of puttering around town and almost no highway trips, given my current life schedule, and I get just horrific mpg. All things considered, I'm seriously thinking of trading down to a Honda Fit, which would be ideal for buzzing around town, and I can spin it off to the kids in a year or 2, leaving my option open for a Bimmer, preferrably on a low-interest lease! Do it now, and I can still end up with some meaningful $$ in my pocket. Wait another couple years, and I'm not sure I can psychologically stomach swapping even a 4-yr-old TL for a Fit straight up.
I meant the Lexus side of the Toyota/Lexus reference with respect to aesthetically attractive. But even at that, I ws trying to be kind. I personally find it hard to find anything attractive that doesn't have good driving dynamics underneath and, so far, nothing from Lexus has impressed me.
My wife already has a Mini Cooper, and I too, find every chance I get to drive it because it IS a blast to drive around town, in a quirky but charming kind of way.
I even thought of trading down to something less spartan, like the new Golf. But my Acura dealer also owns a Honda dealer, and I would get a much more favourable trade allowance there then I would anywhere else.
Decisions, decisions!
However, so does the depreciation hit on a trade, if you really want to end up with a BMW in a couple of years. On the other hand, if the Fit stays in the family, at least you are avoiding the double whammy of trading now and trading again in 2 years.
I was just looking at my mileage logbook for my old 1995 Nissan Maxima that resides at our second home. 155,085 miles on the odometer (only about 2,000 in the last 2 years). Total of 6,450 gallons @ 1.41/gal = $9,248 in gas for 155k miles at an average of 24.05 mpg. Today, putting 155k miles on an Acura TL with an overall average of 19.8 mpg @$3.00 per gallon would cost $23,484. That's a 154% increase and more than I spent to buy the Maxima in late 1994.
Actually went and compared the Fit to a Civic sedan today. The Civic seems to cover most of the shortcomings of the Fit, for pretty much the same price. I don't even think real-life mpg would be that much different. Of course, the one big minus would be the restricted cargo-carrying flexibility.
For current /previous owners, any thoughts? What major car services are coming up in year 4?
I just did a search on Autotrader.com for used '04 TL within 100 miles of zip code 06880 (Westport, home of my late, lamented youth) and came up with 115 matches. Asking prices in the following range:
$27,999 Highest price
$20,000 Lowest price
$26,194 Average price
So, they're out there...
Good luck.
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
BTW, the concensus is that the TL doesn't need more power because that would only accentuate the torque steer. But then I remember, my first car, a 1975 Civic, with 52 HP, also had torque steer. So I'm now thinking, if you're going to get torque steer regardless of power, then may as well take the power and have some fun along the way! :P
So, if this is your first FWD, you may want to take it to a wide open parking lot and play a bit to get to know the characteristics.
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
Agreed. That is why I had no problem buying my TL over RWD competitors. Best balance of features/attributes/value for me. And it's a handsome beast, of course!
But, YMMV.
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
YMMV,
MidCow
The Accord handles good, not great, and does okay in inclement weather rain, flash-flooding, water pockets ( no sleet or snow) here. I don't think the TL would handle any better. The 6-speed Accord has almost the same performance that my 98 M3 had, but uses regular gas and gets great mileage. The TL is slightly more luxrious and gets worse mileage on premium at about the same perfromance and a lot lower insurance premium; Accord is a sleeper.
Okay, now enter RWD S2000 with skid control. Can go much,much faster safely in good or inclement weather. The RWD is significantly better with skid control. To be fair the TL should be compared to a RWD G35 Coupe or G35 sedan. Same price and RWD versus FWD. But then again that is for another discussion thread .....
YMMV,
MidCow
"I used to think the same thing. ..."
I'm not sure what you were referring to (maybe I should have read back a few posts...), but:
I am a lifelong skier, many trips to the beautfiul Green Mountains of Vermont (my fave), White Mountains of New Hampster and a couple of areas in Maine. Long and short of it is that my FWDs (e.g. VW Scirocco, Mitsu Mirage Turbo, Acura Integra, Saab 900, Chrysler 300M and current poor-snow-tired TL, pre and post electronic traction assists. And never had snow tires)always got me there safely and ontime-ish (and in my invincible/daring/stupid youth, I drove through some hellacious Northeast snow storms to get there. Because, SNOW IS GOOD!!! I saw many a rwd that could not make it up the same hilly roads (my buds Nissan 240sx and one poor soul that tried it in a Lincoln Mk 8...!)that I had little trouble with using all-season tires.
I seldom drive 9 or 10/10ths which is where most seem to state that RWD flexes its hadling advantage muscles. And good for them! So, when I evaluate a car for myself, fwd is a plus in that, for example, the TL handles very well for my driving style and I don't (in theory, and I know I should anyway...)have to have a second set of tires/rims. In my experience FWD trumps RWD in the White Gold. If I decided on a 3 or G RWD, I probably would go the true snow tire route and be just as happy with my choice of ride.
My guess is that your RWD S2000 (cool car!) would not fare well leading/following me into the Green Mountains during a decent snow storm. But, of course, that is not the S2000 raison d'etre and I wouldn't expect it to be a sled dog.
And as far as the Accord vs. TL:
Both fine cars. But I wanted the TL.
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
I agree with you about RWD in snow, FWD is much, much better.
Sorry, I forgot about snow and ice since I moved to Houston.
Enjoy you TL, sounds like a great choice for you.
Cheers,
MidCow
Of course the TL handles better. LoPros, wider stance, more HP. And .......HELLO.....check the TL MPG posts. Most people get 32+ mpg highway. That's better than an Accord EX.
"Of course the TL handles better. LoPros, wider stance, more HP. And .......HELLO.....check the TL MPG posts. Most people get 32+ mpg highway. That's better than an Accord EX. "
I respectfully disagree from actual experience and from vehicle specifications.
Have a 6-speed with K&N air filter, Borla exhaust, stock 17 inch low profile tires.
Posts can say anything you want.
But facts Accord 6-speed: 215/50 R 17
244 Hp
3303 lbs (6 spd w NAV)
13.536 lbs/hp
21/30 rated EPA
Tl 6-speed : 235/45 R17
258 Hp
3499 lbs ( 6spd w NAV)
13.562 lbs /hp
20/29 rate EPA
Okay the tires are about equal the TL a little better
The power to weight ratio is about the same Accord a little better. The Accord EPA is better and most Hondas and Acuras meet or beat the EPA.
So look at the facts. The TL does not beat the Accord they are pretty much equal.
YOMV,
MidCow
.....that's not better than my AV6 6M. Not by a long shot.
..ez..
:shades:
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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
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
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)
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.
'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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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
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!
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.
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.
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"
Sub Heading, "used up all the crumple zone when it hit the ground"
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.
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.
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
"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.
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
Only you can decide if you want to spend the extra $5000.
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav