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



  • Thanks for the heads up, Kennyg8. I wish I could find an 04 TL in CT that was 26k, but unfortunately all of the dealers have said that since demand is so high for the body style the price won't come down until '08. Looks like I am getting an '06 Accord, unless someone can find your mythical 26K '04 tl for me. :cry:
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Posts: 3,062
    Hi, CT:

    I just did a search on 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.

    '13 Jaguar XF, '11 BMW 535xi, '02 Lexus RX300

  • louisnlouisn Posts: 110
    I'd rather have a NEW EX V-6 Accord than a 3 year old TL for the same money. The new car warranty especially the 5 year 60,000 mile powertrain warranty can't be overlooked unless you just have to have blue tooth. BTW, the 6 speed Accord is VERY fast and 4000 under MSRP is very possible.
  • I'm new to this forum as I am now looking for a used TL or Honda Accord. Can someone explain to me the oversteering issue with the Acura that is noted here? What does it feel like?
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    Oversteering? I don't recall reading about that being an issue with the TL. Now if you meant torque-steer.... :cry:
  • I may have meant torque steer. What is this? It sounds like the car may pull a certain way when driving at high speeds? I test drove one tonight and noticed a bit of something in the steering.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    What you noticed was a tug of the steering to one side when accelerating hard. That's torque steer. And yes, if you don't hang on tight, you will end up in the next lane!

    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
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Posts: 3,062
    And note, ALL powerful FWD cars (yes, even the Impala SS!) will display more noticeable torque steer when the accelerator is nailed...

    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.

    '13 Jaguar XF, '11 BMW 535xi, '02 Lexus RX300

  • The torque steer is such a minimal issue. You only feel it when you're 'steer'ing and accelerating hard. Still not a big deal IMO. Would I rather have the IS350 for $10K more and no torque steer? No.
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Posts: 3,062
    "The torque steer is such a minimal issue..."

    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.

    '13 Jaguar XF, '11 BMW 535xi, '02 Lexus RX300

  • That is whole 'nother discussion the IS350 versus either TL or Accord


  • I used to think the same thing. Have 6-speed 2005 Accord Coupe and a 6-speed 2006 S2000 with skid control.

    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 .....


  • laurasdadalaurasdada Posts: 3,062
    Hi, 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.

    '13 Jaguar XF, '11 BMW 535xi, '02 Lexus RX300

  • exb0exb0 Posts: 539
    I’ll sell you my 04 with only 21K on the clock for $26 any day. Just tried to trade it in for an Accord; the Honda dealer offered me only $21.5 for it, and wouldn’t move. I told him that the wholesale book (the Black Book) on it is $25; he said that the new ones are selling at invoice and that’s why $21.5 is all the money. I guess I’ll have to keep the TL.
  • Hey laurasdada,

    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.


  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    My dealer offered me, a couple of months ago, the equivalent of approx $27.5 USD (I'm in Canada) for my '04 w/Nav. I wanted another $1500 so we didn't do the deal. At that time I was thinking of trading down to a new Civic. Dealer said if I was trading up they could've given me an extra $1K or so for the TL.
  • jimmy81jimmy81 Posts: 170
    I don't think the TL would handle any better

    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.
  • jimmy81 said:
    "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.


  • ezshift5ezshift5 West coastPosts: 857
    And .......HELLO.....check the TL MPG posts. Most people get 32+ mpg highway. That's better than an Accord EX.

    .....that's not better than my AV6 6M. Not by a long shot.

  • I have actually found a '04 TL, w/Nav, 30k mi., Silver/Quartz for $26,400. This happens to be about only $1000 or so dollars over a EX-V6 w/leather (or equal if you add Nav). I would pull the trigger except the TL has some dashboard wear issues. I am going to Liberty Honda today to check out the Accord and end this debate!

  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 21,307
    People are getting new '06 Accord EXV6s for $24k'ish. With nav, more like $25k (sometimes more, sometimes less, of course).

    '12 EX35 Journey AWD; '98 Volvo S70 base; '14 Town&Country Limited; '09 LR2 HSE. 42-car history and counting!

  • 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.


  • 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: 21,307
    '98 m3 = 14.0
    '04 accord 6-speed = 14.5

    times from

    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.

    '12 EX35 Journey AWD; '98 Volvo S70 base; '14 Town&Country Limited; '09 LR2 HSE. 42-car history and counting!

  • 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?



    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!
Sign In or Register to comment.