Howdy, Stranger!

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

Older Acura TLs



  • go_mdx1go_mdx1 Posts: 135

    Based on what I have been reading in other posts and the car trade journals, Acura's new NAV system will just be in the RL. Also, the 2005 MDX and Odyssey will also be getting the new 700 voice recognition IBM ViaVoice system.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,681
    15 mpg does seem low for mixed driving. Could have been an oddity where you had many short trips without the engine getting warmed up.

    27-29 seems very good for a 270hp auto going 75mph.

    I don't think you have a problem with your car (don't take my word for it). I would suspect that if you had some type of problem that affects mileage it would affect both city and highway.

    Unless you're driving it really hard around town...or your clutch is slipping or something like that.

    Still seems pretty good for highway. Although others such as BMW do get very good mileage, especially for the performance; even Audi's new 3.2 in the new A4 is supposed to get 25 mpg for an average fuel consumption.

    Guess a visit to the dealer is needed.
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282

    The TL and Accord engines ARE fundamentally different. The Accord engine is a 3.0 liter V6 that has been around several years. The TL's is a 3.2 liter engine that has been revised even from last year. However, you could uyse your example for the Pilot / MDX which use essentially the same engine, but through exhaust system tweaks and use of premium gas, the 2005 MDX is rated at 15 more more horsepower (but hardly any torque).

    As best I can tell, the more sophisticated the engine design and the higher the RPM's to achieve peak horsepower, the more dangerous it would be to use regular gas. I'm not sure who indicated BMW only "recommends" premium gas. I read awhile back that the M3's engine computer can track and store octane levels and, simultaneously, engine rpms. I read that the use of low octane gas in combination of running the engine to redline is grounds for BMW to void the warranty. The use of regular gas in an emergency is permitted, but only for engine speeds well below the 8,000 rpm redline. I could question who would be stupid enough to put regular gas in a high performance $50 vehilce like the M3, but then again, I could pose the same question for the $32k TL 6-speed. My guess is the automatic might force earlier shifts on regular gas.


    I'm not sure where you got the idea that using cruise control uses more gas? From what I've read and my personal experience, that's absolutely not true and, in fact, it is MORE fuel efficient to use cruise control on everything but very hilly conditions. For example, if you are trying maintain an average speed of 70 mph, it's more efficient to maintain 70 than vary between 60 and 80. Wind resistence goes up with the square of the speed, so you lose more efficiency going 80 than you gain when you are only going 60. In the case of my Honda S2000, all of my 32+/- mpg highway tankfuls were using cruise. The best I ever got not using cruise control was under 30 (EPA highway rating of 26).


    My understanding is that the "new" Navigation system in the RL isn't a new system, just software that's been programmed to understand more voice commands and overlay traffic information on the display screen. But the basic system is the same as the TL. To me, one of the biggest advantages the TL system currently has is the high resolution 8" screen, compared to the 6.5" screen that is standard in a lot of the competition, including Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Nissan and Porsche.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,019
    Without looking up specs I would guess the Accord has lower compression than the TL. The higher the engine compression the more performance and the higher likelihood of knocking, thus higher compression engines normally require premium. Basically the accord is tuned for fuel economy and lower operating costs and the TL is tuned for performance. The basic engine design is probably the same.
  • mdhaukemdhauke Posts: 202
    Negative, gas efficiency goes down when you use CC, this is a well known fact. Even minor hills will cause the CC to try to slow down your vehicle and this uses up more gas, and there are minor hills EVERYWHERE. So if you use CC to maintain 70 compared with maintaining 70 yourself you will use more fuel.
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    Negative, this isn't a "well known fact". Those sharper than Einstien guys, "Click and Clack" had a discussion of this a few months ago and the consensus was that cruise control increases fuel efficiency at highway speeds, short of driving a Pinto over the Rockies.

    I drive a hgiway route from DC to northwestern PA using the PA turnpike or MD route 68, both of which have a fair number of Appalachian hills. The elevation ranges between 100 feet to 3,400 feet above sea level and some grades are in the range of 7-8%. I have never had the cruise control try to brake the car going downhill. The rolling and wind resistance at 70-75 mph still requires some nominal amount of throttle input to maintain that speed on the downhills. On the uphills, all of my vehicles have sufficient power that they do not slow down or require downshifting the manual transmission.

    What would you do under these conditions, accelerate to 100 downhill and slow down to 40 uphill?? I still contend that that would result in greater fuel use, but you may not live to prove me right or wrong.

    It may be anecdotal, but when I had a previous Acura Integra that lost it's cruise control function, my highway mileage dropped from around 32 to under 30. I found it difficult to maintain a steady speed over a 300+ mile drive. And, as a result, I'd have to push it to 5+ mph higher than I wanted to average, to offset the unintended slowdowns. That is, essentially, the same argument that was made by Click and Clack. You burn more fuel at 75 mph than you save at 65 compared to maintaining a constant 70 mph.
  • igibanigiban Posts: 530
    What's in a engine that causes it to say, feed me premium, or I'll knock you? The (high) compression ratio? V# or I#? 3.0, 3.2, 3.5L or..?

    Isn't TL's manual saying TL only requires regular but recommends premium for better performance? Can that be translated to ok, I won't knock you if you just feed me regular, but I won't run as hard either?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,019
    It has nothing to do with the engine type or size. Compression is the main reason, but it's really a combination of factors. e.g. The new Ford 3V modular V8s have relatively high compression but get by on regular fuel (without retarding the timing). You can probably find an explanation at .

    If the TL says it's ok to run regular but premium will yield better performance, then that means they've probably optimized it on regular but the computer has the ability to advance the timing for even better performance. Not all cars are designed this way and can't take advantage of higher octane. And some cars designed to use premium will run like a dog on regular. It all depends on the engine design and tuning.
  • Just hit 10k on my '04 TL (auto)....loved every minute of it! I can't believe it but everytime I have to go out I still look forward to enjoy the fun of driving it.
    Trip Computer showed Average speed 31 mph on mixed City/Hwy driving with gas consumption of 24 mpg (despite my tendency for a heavy foot whenever someone challenges off the lights).
    Fortunately no rattles or squeaks but two minor glitches which were fixed at the Ist oil change. 1) Keyfob lost memory (2) Rear trunk latch needed adjustment.
    Overall I am extremely happy with a $33k vehicle which is so much fun to drive and has the luxury of a 50k car! Only thing which I could fault is the rear trunk lid which feels flimsy compared to the nice solid feel of the doors.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    A simple rough conversion is that an imperial gallon is approx. 20% more than a US gallon. I know you were being facetious, but actually, for the record, I think most of the free world uses the metric system.

    For me, I still can't get away from the miles per gallon concept. And for whatever reason, the Canadian government does not list gas mileage as miles per gallon, or KM per imperial gallon. It quotes gas consumption as "litres used per 100 KM". I just can't do the mental gymnastics on that!
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    After only about 2 days, my 85 lb son put permanent stretch marks on his side of the back seat. And of course, the driver seat, being used most often, also has stretch marks. But I think the leather is inconsistent, because the other seats have not suffered stretch marks as much.
  • Imperial (UK, CDN, AUS,.) gallon = 4.54611 litres
    US gallon = 3.87541 litres
    US:Imperial = 5:6
    Imperial/US = 1.2
    For reference, and calculated to 2 sig figs:

    L/100km = miles/CDN = miles/US
  • The marketing initiatives mentioned refer to the performance claims as part of the advertising programs supporting the concerned vehicles. The confirmation of the claims are achieved using controlled environment testing.
      The major issue; given the almost immeasurable performance variance, in a real world setting, do you ever use the full envelope of engine capability in the cars? Further, the interviewed experts were very clear that there is simply no mpg. variance found when using regular in their testing.
    As someone who drives 35,000 miles per year, and has operated various "high performance" powered cars with absolutely no negatives, I see no reason to spend an extra $.20 per gallon.
  • igibanigiban Posts: 530
    Almost all cars from luxury brands say in its manual: Better use premium. At the same time, you'd be hard pressed to find any non-luxy brand's car mention that. Say Accord V6, at 240 HP, using just regular, is more powerful than many cars in Lexus, BMW, MB, and even Acura (TSX), which pretty much all at least recommend using premium. It's almost like buyers will be disappointed that my luxury car is fine with just regular gas......
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,019
    If the performance difference was 'immeasurable' then why would they need it to support advertised performance claims?

    It's possible that some cars have virtually no discernable difference in performance or mpg but that does not mean it's universally true.

    If you saw no difference in power or mileage going from premium to regular then I'd submit that the car was tuned for regular all along and using premium wasn't necessary in the first place. I can't imagine an automaker doing that but I guess it's possible.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    I don't see any advantage for a manufacturer to specify premium gas when only regular is needed. Even luxury car buyers wouldn't want to pay more at the pump if they don't have to. Afterall, there is no "prestige factor" regarding a requirement for premium gas that I'm aware of.
    Therefore, when premium gas is specified, there has to be a real and tangible reason for it.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,019
    Here is a dyno test showing reduced power on a gas powered Jetta:
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,019
    Here's a real world number from a X5 owner:

    highway mileage - 89 octane - 18 mpg
                      93 octane - 21 mpg

    I saw similar numbers from a Lincoln LS owner who used 87 instead of 91. About a 15% decrease in mileage.

    As always and especially in this case, YMMV.
  • nkeennkeen SE PennaPosts: 313
    A cars' manual says "use premium" because that's what the car is engineered to use. Regular fuel is more explosive than premium; therefore the engine management system has to take action to ensure that the fuel doesn't explode, but burns evenly. The compenstatory action it takes will reduce performance to some degree. If the engine management system did not take such action, you'd hear knocking under load and engine damage would eventually result. I had a Cavalier years ago that knocked so badly that it required premium even though regular was recommended. This tends to happen with older engines, where deposits accumulate inside the cylinder head, effectively raising the compression ratio. The higher the compression ratio the more likelihood of the fuel exploding rather than burning evenly, hence the need for a higher octane fuel.

    Fuel is incredibly cheap in the U.S. I can't really see worrying about a few cents on the gallon when filling a car that cost $32K and that gets almost 30 to the gallon on a trip.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,681
    I agree with you...

    I'm regularly surprised (oxymoron) that people question what is written in their manual. The manual was written with the intention that people would follow it. If using regular fuel is a determining factor when purchasing an automobile, then I'd definitely review the manual before I purchased it.

    I would not try to install a cheaper or lower quality oil filter, or air filter, or oil or anything. I would get the best price on the specifications listed.

    I purchased an APS camera a few years ago. When I did I knew that the film would cost more because it was engineered that way. I always buy the 'quality' film on sale and in bulk, but I do not think "hey, could I squeeze 35mm in here, would it be ok".

    Yes you could put regular fuel in a car that specifies premium fuel. You could also put on square's your car and your repair bill.
  • I live in a city without an Acura dealer but with a Honda dealership. I called the Honda dealership to see if they would do warranty work on an Acura and was told that they could do the work but I would have to pay for it and get reimbursed from Acura. The closest Acura dealer is 300 miles away. With all the transmission problems and various reports of rattles, am I crazy to even consider buying a TL?
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 64,725
    You aren't crazy because of the transmission problems... You are crazy to consider any car that doesn't have a local (50 miles or less) dealer for warranty problems... Even the best car will have "some" problems, and 300 miles is a long way to go... I think the TL is a great car, but what are your other (local) choices?

    It isn't quite as nice, but I'd get an Accord EX-V6 with nav, save $8K and sleep easy..



    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • mdhaukemdhauke Posts: 202
    300 miles to the nearest dealer??? You live in Montana or something?
  • Almost. Lubbock, Texas. Fort Worth is the closest dealer. It really is a shame because I love the car. I'm driving a 2000 Lincoln LS V8 Sport with 100,000 miles that I like and this is a car I believe I could enjoy as much, if not more.
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    If you are concerned about the transmission, you could get the 6-speed. They are bulletproof and, given that you live an an area 300 miles from the nearest Acura dealer, you probably don't have a "city traffic" excuse for needing an automatic. (We live in DC and still don't use that excuse).

    As far as being 300 miles away from a dealer and needing warranty work, at least you aren't buying an Alfa Romeo. I would check with Acura on their policy of reimbursing repairs done by Honda. I suspect that they may be more easily accomodating given your circumstances.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,019
    You could always get another LS. They're going for about $10K off sticker now.
  • Does anyone know when the 2005 Acura TLs will be in the dealerships?

    And... what is the difference between the 2005 models and the 2004 models?


  • igibanigiban Posts: 530
    Can someone confirm the wording on 04 TL's manual. Is it premium required or recommended? I think 03's has it like it's 'designed to use premium...'.
Sign In or Register to comment.