Im a big fan of the Acura Type -S, but couldnt see myself dishing out another 5K over the ex V6 I now own. I agree with the majority of your post, but to say that the suspension on the acura is a great deal stiffer is a bit of a stretch. If I had an extra 5k, I would definitely go with the TYPE-S over the accord, but then again, the Tl is due for a facelift.
Mike, honestly, I had a big debate myself before I got the 03 TLS if I should wait for the 04 TLS scheduled to come out Oct.
There is something to be said about driving a car with the latest design. For instance, the rather simplelistic steering wheel audio control in the 03 TLS is a clone of the 98-02 Accord and definitely outdated compared to the 03' Accord, and no quetion the 04 TLS will have it better.
But ultimately I ask myself the question: is this car (03 TLS) good enough for me now? I determined the answer is yes. The jewl of an engine, tight handling, comfort when you need it, and all the existing amenities regardless of how *new* the design is. True, the 04' TLS will be a better car, but now I don't have to wait 10 month and disk out additional 3k for it (dealer likely will go for MSRP)
I think I'm one of the few people who likes the base TL more than the Type-S. The Type-S is a great car, but I don't think I could drive it everyday. I don't like the metallic gauges, the band-aid leather, the stiffer suspension, the shape of the seats, and the larger rims. I realize all these things are meant to make the car more sporty, but what's great about the base model is that it's a good balance between sport and luxury. It can be fun to drive when you want it to be, but it's luxurious and comfortable enough for long trips or if you have passengers. A 260hp engine is great, but the base engine has plenty of power already.
You address a valid point: the reason I was buying a car in the 2003 year was because I HAD too. My old car was on its way out, so I really couldnt wait to see what the new TL would look like.
And currently I am not able to afford the TL, but if I was able to afford the 03 TL I would definitely choose it over the accord. So i guess , as with many things, it comes down to the good old green dollar.
Dont get me wrong the accord is a great car in many ways, and I am extremely happy with my purchase. Its my first new car, I researched a great deal, and for the money I paid you really cant go wrong.
" Accord styling leaves a great deal to be desired" That is just one example of how critics view the new styling. If the worst thing critics can say about the accord is that they dislike the styling than I am an extremely happy camper.
Honestly I am glad Honda didnt jump on the CLEAR EURO light band wagon like many other manufacturers. The clear lights are a trend , and in two years or less these lights wont be as "beautiful " as their owners believe.
The accord is a clean car, with elegant lines. I believe in five years the car wont being showing its age, unlike the altima whose taillights will become outdated.
But we cant kid ourselves, the Honda is NOT an Acura. The acura is very similiar in many ways to the Honda, but more refined in certain aspects. Acura's are an upscale Honda, which in my mind is the best of both worlds. The famous reliability of Honda, with the luxury genes of Acura. How can you go wrong by buying either car. You cant.
You definitely asked yourself the right questions. Good decision and best of luck with that awesome car.
One quick question dave, how does your car start in extremely cold weather.
"I think I'm one of the few people who likes the base TL more than the Type-S. The Type-S is a great car, but I don't think I could drive it everyday. I don't like the metallic gauges, the band-aid leather, the stiffer suspension, the shape of the seats, and the larger rims."
I could see why you might not want to have a stiffer suspension every day, and I can certainly see how some people might not but I'm afraid I don't understand what could be the disadvantages of larger rims or perforated leather seats. Anyway, those are probably largely subjective objections based on your taste.
I did want to bring up one objective disadvantage of TL-S: engine noise. I've owned a 2000 TL and have bought a 2003 TL-S a month ago. The TL-S engine is significantly louder. It is especially noticeable at lower speeds: 15-45mph. At highway speeds the engine noise gets drowned out by the road and wind noise. Going from TL to TL-S the difference is significant enough to be very annoying. I did get used to it for the most part though. One more thing: knowing about the engine noise difference in advance would not have had any influence over my decision to upgrade to TL-S. It's a comparatively minor issue, as far as I'm concerned.
Couple more onservations:
1. I don't find the TL-S suspension to be any stiffer than TL's when it comes to absorbing bumps in the roadway. In fact, I'm positive that it's a lot better at it than my 2000 TL. The extra stiffness seems to come into play only where it matters: in cornering.
2. I absolutely love the perforated leather (better at ventilation on a hot day) and the sports shape of seats. In fact, that was one of the major reasons to upgrade to TL-S for me. I'm a fairly large man (wide, not tall :-)) and most "sports" seats I've tried in the past felt too constricting. TL-S's are not at all like that for me. They're just more supportive where it matters.
3. Don't really care much for the white gauges, but thankfully they look black at night. That's a major point that you may not be aware of.
4. VSA on the TL-S is a big improvement over TL's traction control.
Mike, Thanks for understanding. My TLS has been absolutlely fantastic, no regrets whatsoever. Oh, by the way, no starting problem in the insane coldness of NY this morning.....
By "rougher" do you mean additional vibrations? If so, than, yes, a bit. But nothing unpleasant. It is after all supposed to be sportier. Also, transmision shifts are no rougher than in the TL.
You're right about the leather, the larger rims, the shape of the seats, and the metallic guages. These are all cosmetic issues. I definitely like the fact that the band-aid leather breathes better. I just don't like the way it looks.
The problem with having stiffer suspension is that you have to have decent roads to enjoy it. Where I live the roads aren't that smooth and the Type-S suspension makes it feel worse. The extra engine noise I can live with cause I play the stereo all the time. Plus, Acura engines sound awesome.
I hope the new TL has the illuminated gauges like the new Accord. Right now I'm in line to get a TL. I just don't know if it'll be the 2003 or 2004 model.
The lease on my Accord is almost up and I'm thinking of either getting another Accord or a TL. Ideally, I'd like to wait for the new TL but I may not have time and I'm worried it may be too expensive. So that would mean I'd have to choose between the current TL and the new edition of the Accord. Between the 2003 Accord Sedan EX-V6 and the 2003 Acura 3.2 TL (NOT Type-S), which would you prefer?
I'm in the same situation except I’m more flexible since I am not leasing, so I can wait till the new TL comes out. I’ve been driven the TL for a month and loved it, haven’t driven the new Accord yet but I have the brochure and like it very much, the interior is excellent IMO. Both of them are great cars, my decision making is all based on the price, depends on how much more you think the TL is worth over the Accord. I hope there will be a big clearance right before the new TL hits the dealer, so I can make my decision easier.
The easiest thing is to go and take extended test drives of both. I know two people who faced the same apparent dilemma because all they did was do paper research. Once they drove the cars, the decision was made without hesitation. It was Acura for both...
After cross-shopping the Accord, my wife bought the TL for one overriding reason: we could not fit her cello case through the Accord trunk opening. The TL has more trunk space and a wider trunk opening. The only other car that passed the cello-in-trunk test was the Avalon.
The Accord has more horsepower, a better interior, curtain airbags, lower insurance and fuel costs, and it's a brand new design. However, the TL has a better exterior, Acura has more prestige than Honda, the TL doesn't carry that 'family sedan' stigma, and it's more fun to drive. But it's also a 5 year old design and there's still that transmission issue hanging over it.
People call the TL "a dressed up Accord", which is true but the Accord is a pretty good car to begin with. I guess the real question is how much are you willing to pay to get that dressed up Accord, especially considering it's a 5 year old design and doesn't have some of the things that the new Accord has.
6500 miles on a Dark green TLs, Low cost for mantaince. Changed the oil one time, rotated tires once,The dealer even washed the car and wiped down the engine. On top of that, The dealership gave me a loaner for the day. All that and less than 100.00 dollars. That is cheaper than any car I have ever owned before. As My Dad use to say you pay for what you get!
I remember talking to an Acura salesperson one time and I wanted to see if he could convince me to get a TL over an Accord. When I brought up the issue of premium fuel, he told me you don't really need it for the TL. He said that was something Acura's marketing people came up with to make it sound like the engine was more sophisticated than the engine in a Honda Accord. I suspect there might be some truth to that. But I also think he was saying that to get me more interested in the TL.
I am interested in someone who has recently drove both of these vehicles. How do you compare the two in terms of driving comfort, seat comfort, quietness, and overall quality. Exterior looks is subjective so no need to provide your opinion on that issue. I do realize that the TL is "old" technology and the Accord is new but I feel sometimes the "old" proven technology is partially better. Thanks in advance for you opinions.
bear2day and others- What kind of mpg are you getting on mostly highway driving?
Other owners- Are you using premium gasoline for the non Type-S TL?
Driven both, and find that the character of the 2 cars seems deliberately different (have an 00 TL & 03 Accord EX-L in the family but also tested an 03 Accord V6).
The TL is both physically and seat-of-the-pants heavy while the Accord feels lighter and "less luxurious-riding." TL is somewhat quieter and its interior ambience is more upscale. Ceiling is lower in the TL, making it feel smaller inside. Technology-level perception: TL is excellent, but seems half a generation old; Accord is tech-heavy and new.
The all-new 04 TL might be head-&-shoulders above the current gen and should be noticeably ahead of the 03 Accord when it comes out. I'd wait for the 04 TL is my suggestion.
Can someone define old for me? I keep seeing post stating that the 2003 TL or TLS designs are old and prospective new buyers should wait for the 2004. Personally I think this design and interior is pretty much modern and so to speak upscale. Look at the interior of the G35, can anyone define that interior, is it old? or should I say bland, better yet cheap. I know what I am going to do- Trade in my 2003 for the 2004 to get the heated seats buttons moved a little bit to the right or better yet to get one more extra speaker. Potential buyers- all I can say is grab the 2003 model year, the car is immaculately put together, and for what they are selling for now, it's a no brainer.
Or, one might hold off buying until the 04 is out and buying the 03 at even lower close-out prices.
The 04 is commonly believed to be a new body model following Acura/Honda's 5-year product cycle. While drivetrain technology may be marginally better, the 04 might make its pitch with a more contemporary body style (taller but not necessarily longer), more room (our current gen TL's cramped in back, especially) and a knock-out dashboard and interior with a techy audio system (mp3-capable if not standard nav system ?). Perhaps more road isolation. This forecast follows Honda's thinking with the new vs old Accord.
That's the crystal ball from this end. Cars being statements of the times, it seems they can't help but be "outdated" as time marches on no matter how good they've become. At least from my view as a car enthusiast. And for some, it would obviously be different.
Personally, I bought a 99 TL in 1999 and paid MSRP. Here is my opinion of the TL:
1.) Maintenance IS expensive...just wait for your 15k or 30k service, and you will understand. Unlike Audi or BMW or MB, you do NOT get 4/50k free service. And the Acura is supposed to compete with these...come on...
2.) Just run 2-3 tanks of 87 or 89 octane gas through the tank of the TL and see how the perfomance goes downhill, not to mention MPG. The manufacturer recommends 91 octane, but I would just do 93 octane. 2 separate dealership sales people who both own TLs have confirmed this.
3.) Why pay a 4-5k premium for Acura over Honda? The 2003 Acccord EX V6 is a great value (got mine for 24100). Why in the world would I pay 4-5k for a SportShift tranny that sucks wind anyway?
Please do not think I am basing Acura as a whole, but with the value of the new Accord, I think the one-time perceived value of the TL has been tarnished some. Just wait for the TSX or whatever the new intro sedan is going to be, and Acura should pick up sopme wind that they have lost to the new Accord, the Pilot (from the MDX) and the S2000, which was partially Acura designed/inspired.
Could you advise me what is REQUIRED(not just recommended) for the 15K service and the 30K service? As with most manufacturers many of these "recommended" services are just "checks" which are not required. Labor for these "checks" add much to the labor cost. In your reference to mpg you have the 4-speed transmission and the 2000-2003 now have the 5-speed which will definitely improve mpg. You made reference to "2 separate delaership sales people" confirming "this". What is this?
The mileage for a 5spd automatic does not improve dramatically (1-2mpg in reality, if that).
I was referring to poor performance out of lower octane gas. Both of the salesman I talked to experince engine knocking in their TLs (one had a 99TL and another had a 00 TL-S). They strongly recommende 93 octane.
I do not have the service schedule in front of me, but I would recommend not getting major service at the dealer. Find a good Japanese car mechanic/shop and get a big discount and probably better service. The dealer will try to do unnecessary work to pad man-hours billed as well as parts profits.
I can offer my 2 cents worth. I am 49 and retired last year and replaced my co. car with a 02 TL Type S. Having had a Lexus GS400 I wanted the power but not the cost. Insurance is inexpensive on this car too. My 23 year old son just took delivery of a silver/ black leather EXL and loves it. It's a 5 speed with 4 cylinder and he said he has already gotten 28 MPG combined. The Accord leased at $330/ month inc tax and 15k miles a year with 0 down. The Honda definately seems newer in style; is not an old persons car and in fact 3 of his friends already have the 03. My car now seems "old school" and the Honda has basically the same options except VSA. Both cars are nice
The EPA mileage for the 2000+ TL is 29mpg hwy, while your 99 TL has 27mpg hwy.
The main difference however, is not that. It is in the power department. Although the 99 and 00 TL have the same peak HP figure, the 00+ TL has much better low-end and mid-range power (almost all our driving is right there !), due to extensive changes in the Intake, including the manifold and the 5-speed closer ratio transmission. The 00+ TL (not TL-s) is faster than the 99 TL by around 0.5secs 0-60 (6.7secs vs 7.2secs).
If we are comparing the 03 Accord V6 with the TL, I would unhesitatingly recommend the Accord, especially one with the Voice activated Navigation. Honda should have introduced the new redesigned TL before the Accord, and not the other way around, as they are doing now. It brings on unfair comparisons between a brand-new model and that which is 4+ years old. The only features available in the "old" TL, that are unavailable in the Accord would be the TL-s engine, VSA, HID headlights. That's it !
And keep in mind that the power-to-weight ratio for the Accord EXV6 and the TL-Type S are almost the same.
The Accord gets 240hp and weighs 3360. The TL gets 260hp but weighs 3558. Accord's torque is 212 and the TL's is 232. 0-60 on the Accord is 6.6 seconds. On the TL, it's 6.2 seconds.
When you look at it that way, the Accord looks like it's just as strong as the TL-Type S. Everyone I've talked to says the new Accord flies.
We have both cars. I am 23, own the 03 Accord EX-V6 (NAVI), and am the one who really tested out the TL-S. I would say the Accord for most people would be way fast enough, and quiet, and very smooth! But, as a younger guy, I wish I had the total power that you can harness with the TL-S. When you drive that thing using the shifter option you can flat out fly. I scared the heck out of myself a few times. It also has a sweet sound system. Just plain amazing. The accords is good, but the TL's bose system is damn good!
Really, I can't say which I'd take. I mean I got the Accord because even with NAVI I paid 6,000+ less than I could get a TL-S for. If it were just between the Accord and the TL, for now I'd get the Accord. But if $ is the issue, get the TL-S... assuming you'll drive it like it's capable of being driven (though in that mode it seems to get about as good gas milage as a Ferrari - seriously).
"Really, I can't say which I'd take. I mean I got the Accord because even with NAVI I paid 6,000+ less than I could get a TL-S for."
How do you figure that? Even if you paid invoice for your Accord, that's only $4,000 less than TL-S. You wouldn't be compared invoice for Accord to MSRP on TL-S, would you? I paid $200 over invoice on TL-S and some people are getting it at invoice. Higher cost of gas for TL-S is probably offset by longer warranty and slightly higher reliability.
I was thinking of the invoice price of the TL-S Navi when making the difference, opps. But still, the difference betweent the TL-S and the non-navi EX-V6 is too much for someone like me who has to really justify such expenditures. As I tell people, until the Accord came out I was arguing the TL-S was the best value for the money on the market (for all the power and comfort), but I have to say that dollar for dollar I now think the Accord wins. Hey, I'd be more than happy driving either, oh, wait, I do.
Are you kidding? I took a CD to the dealer and turned up the bass and treble controls on the TL's Bose radio and it still sounded dull and flat. The Bose system is very weak and you cannot even easily swap out the speakers or add a better amp to improve the sound like in a normal car. The optional HK stereo in a 325i and the ML system in an ES300 is very good, but the Acura's Bose system is an embarrasing joke that sounds worse than the factory systems available in some econocars. I actually think the sound of the Accord stereo was a little better plain stock. If you simply replace the front door speakers on the Accord and add the right amp and subwoofer, the sound will blow away the TL Bose system for a price of just several hundred dollars.
I am talking aout the specific system in Acura TLs. Where is the list that states that the particular Bose system installed in Acura TLs is one of the 10 best sound systems? I have heard it and the sound quality is subpar.
Join us tonight, 6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET for another round of automotive trivia and member-to-member chat. Test your skills (or multiple choice guessing ability) against other Town Hall members.
S852 maybe something was wrong with that system you listened to, I listen to mine everyday and it is a blast. Even the local Car Shop Audio guys liked it, there is room for improvement but it is definitly not below par. Look at the 2002 entry luxury comparison test on Edmunds and you will see that the Acura system was rated very well.
I have a pair of Bose 501 speakers at home and they sound great. However, in my humble opinion, Bose puts in cheap speakers and systems in most entry level luxury cars such as the Acura TL and Infiniti I35 (including the Maxima GLE). If you want better sounding Bose systems, you may have to move up to Acura RL and Infinit Q45.
It is unfortunate that these fine entry level luxury cars don't get better sound systems. I am more than willing to pay a few hundred dollars more for a good system, and the incremental cost is only 1% of the total price of the car. Why don't these car makers understand? They should at least give car buyers an option, and not tell buyers that the warranty will be void if aftermarket audio systems are put in.
If you look at the entry level sports comparison on Edmunds you will find a link to the sound system rating. The sound system on the TL is rated #2 of all tested.
Comments
There is something to be said about driving a car with the latest design. For instance, the rather simplelistic steering wheel audio control in the 03 TLS is a clone of the 98-02 Accord and definitely outdated compared to the 03' Accord, and no quetion the 04 TLS will have it better.
But ultimately I ask myself the question: is this car (03 TLS) good enough for me now? I determined the answer is yes. The jewl of an engine, tight handling, comfort when you need it, and all the existing amenities regardless of how *new* the design is. True, the 04' TLS will be a better car, but now I don't have to wait 10 month and disk out additional 3k for it (dealer likely will go for MSRP)
Dave
You address a valid point: the reason I was buying a car in the 2003 year was because I HAD too. My old car was on its way out, so I really couldnt wait to see what the new TL would look like.
And currently I am not able to afford the TL, but if I was able to afford the 03 TL I would definitely choose it over the accord. So i guess , as with many things, it comes down to the good old green dollar.
Dont get me wrong the accord is a great car in many ways, and I am extremely happy with my purchase. Its my first new car, I researched a great deal, and for the money I paid you really cant go wrong.
" Accord styling leaves a great deal to be desired" That is just one example of how critics view the new styling. If the worst thing critics can say about the accord is that they dislike the styling than I am an extremely happy camper.
Honestly I am glad Honda didnt jump on the CLEAR EURO light band wagon like many other manufacturers. The clear lights are a trend , and in two years or less these lights wont be as "beautiful " as their owners believe.
The accord is a clean car, with elegant lines. I believe in five years the car wont being showing its age, unlike the altima whose taillights will become outdated.
But we cant kid ourselves, the Honda is NOT an Acura. The acura is very similiar in many ways to the Honda, but more refined in certain aspects. Acura's are an upscale Honda, which in my mind is the best of both worlds. The famous reliability of Honda, with the luxury genes of Acura. How can you go wrong by buying either car. You cant.
You definitely asked yourself the right questions. Good decision and best of luck with that awesome car.
One quick question dave, how does your car start in extremely cold weather.
MVK
TL= GIRL CAR
I could see why you might not want to have a stiffer suspension every day, and I can certainly see how some people might not but I'm afraid I don't understand what could be the disadvantages of larger rims or perforated leather seats. Anyway, those are probably largely subjective objections based on your taste.
I did want to bring up one objective disadvantage of TL-S: engine noise. I've owned a 2000 TL and have bought a 2003 TL-S a month ago. The TL-S engine is significantly louder. It is especially noticeable at lower speeds: 15-45mph. At highway speeds the engine noise gets drowned out by the road and wind noise. Going from TL to TL-S the difference is significant enough to be very annoying. I did get used to it for the most part though. One more thing: knowing about the engine noise difference in advance would not have had any influence over my decision to upgrade to TL-S. It's a comparatively minor issue, as far as I'm concerned.
Couple more onservations:
1. I don't find the TL-S suspension to be any stiffer than TL's when it comes to absorbing bumps in the roadway. In fact, I'm positive that it's a lot better at it than my 2000 TL. The extra stiffness seems to come into play only where it matters: in cornering.
2. I absolutely love the perforated leather (better at ventilation on a hot day) and the sports shape of seats. In fact, that was one of the major reasons to upgrade to TL-S for me. I'm a fairly large man (wide, not tall :-)) and most "sports" seats I've tried in the past felt too constricting. TL-S's are not at all like that for me. They're just more supportive where it matters.
3. Don't really care much for the white gauges, but thankfully they look black at night. That's a major point that you may not be aware of.
4. VSA on the TL-S is a big improvement over TL's traction control.
Dave
You're right about the leather, the larger rims, the shape of the seats, and the metallic guages. These are all cosmetic issues. I definitely like the fact that the band-aid leather breathes better. I just don't like the way it looks.
The problem with having stiffer suspension is that you have to have decent roads to enjoy it. Where I live the roads aren't that smooth and the Type-S suspension makes it feel worse. The extra engine noise I can live with cause I play the stereo all the time. Plus, Acura engines sound awesome.
I hope the new TL has the illuminated gauges like the new Accord. Right now I'm in line to get a TL. I just don't know if it'll be the 2003 or 2004 model.
People call the TL "a dressed up Accord", which is true but the Accord is a pretty good car to begin with. I guess the real question is how much are you willing to pay to get that dressed up Accord, especially considering it's a 5 year old design and doesn't have some of the things that the new Accord has.
Wasn't 2000 the first model year for the current TL?
bear2day and others- What kind of mpg are you getting on mostly highway driving?
Other owners- Are you using premium gasoline for the non Type-S TL?
The TL is both physically and seat-of-the-pants heavy while the Accord feels lighter and "less luxurious-riding." TL is somewhat quieter and its interior ambience is more upscale. Ceiling is lower in the TL, making it feel smaller inside. Technology-level perception: TL is excellent, but seems half a generation old; Accord is tech-heavy and new.
The all-new 04 TL might be head-&-shoulders above the current gen and should be noticeably ahead of the 03 Accord when it comes out. I'd wait for the 04 TL is my suggestion.
I keep seeing post stating that the 2003 TL or TLS designs are old and prospective new buyers should wait for the 2004.
Personally I think this design and interior is pretty much modern and so to speak upscale.
Look at the interior of the G35, can anyone define that interior, is it old? or should I say bland, better yet cheap.
I know what I am going to do- Trade in my 2003 for the 2004 to get the heated seats buttons moved a little bit to the right or better yet to get one more extra speaker.
Potential buyers- all I can say is grab the 2003 model year, the car is immaculately put together, and for what they are selling for now, it's a no brainer.
The 04 is commonly believed to be a new body model following Acura/Honda's 5-year product cycle. While drivetrain technology may be marginally better, the 04 might make its pitch with a more contemporary body style (taller but not necessarily longer), more room (our current gen TL's cramped in back, especially) and a knock-out dashboard and interior with a techy audio system (mp3-capable if not standard nav system ?). Perhaps more road isolation. This forecast follows Honda's thinking with the new vs old Accord.
That's the crystal ball from this end. Cars being statements of the times, it seems they can't help but be "outdated" as time marches on no matter how good they've become. At least from my view as a car enthusiast. And for some, it would obviously be different.
I see on the acura web site they mention seat belt tensioners under saftey, but not specifically to the tl model?
1.) Maintenance IS expensive...just wait for your 15k or 30k service, and you will understand. Unlike Audi or BMW or MB, you do NOT get 4/50k free service. And the Acura is supposed to compete with these...come on...
2.) Just run 2-3 tanks of 87 or 89 octane gas through the tank of the TL and see how the perfomance goes downhill, not to mention MPG. The manufacturer recommends 91 octane, but I would just do 93 octane. 2 separate dealership sales people who both own TLs have confirmed this.
3.) Why pay a 4-5k premium for Acura over Honda? The 2003 Acccord EX V6 is a great value (got mine for 24100). Why in the world would I pay 4-5k for a SportShift tranny that sucks wind anyway?
Please do not think I am basing Acura as a whole, but with the value of the new Accord, I think the one-time perceived value of the TL has been tarnished some. Just wait for the TSX or whatever the new intro sedan is going to be, and Acura should pick up sopme wind that they have lost to the new Accord, the Pilot (from the MDX) and the S2000, which was partially Acura designed/inspired.
In your reference to mpg you have the 4-speed transmission and the 2000-2003 now have the 5-speed which will definitely improve mpg.
You made reference to "2 separate delaership sales people" confirming "this". What is this?
I was referring to poor performance out of lower octane gas. Both of the salesman I talked to experince engine knocking in their TLs (one had a 99TL and another had a 00 TL-S). They strongly recommende 93 octane.
I do not have the service schedule in front of me, but I would recommend not getting major service at the dealer. Find a good Japanese car mechanic/shop and get a big discount and probably better service. The dealer will try to do unnecessary work to pad man-hours billed as well as parts profits.
I am 49 and retired last year and replaced my co. car with a 02 TL Type S. Having had a Lexus GS400 I wanted the power but not the cost. Insurance is inexpensive on this car too.
My 23 year old son just took delivery of a silver/ black leather EXL and loves it. It's a 5 speed with 4 cylinder and he said he has already gotten 28 MPG combined. The Accord leased at $330/ month inc tax and 15k miles a year with 0 down.
The Honda definately seems newer in style; is not an old persons car and in fact 3 of his friends already have the 03. My car now seems "old school" and the Honda has basically the same options except VSA.
Both cars are nice
The main difference however, is not that. It is in the power department. Although the 99 and 00 TL have the same peak HP figure, the 00+ TL has much better low-end and mid-range power (almost all our driving is right there !), due to extensive changes in the Intake, including the manifold and the 5-speed closer ratio transmission. The 00+ TL (not TL-s) is faster than the 99 TL by around 0.5secs 0-60 (6.7secs vs 7.2secs).
If we are comparing the 03 Accord V6 with the TL, I would unhesitatingly recommend the Accord, especially one with the Voice activated Navigation. Honda should have introduced the new redesigned TL before the Accord, and not the other way around, as they are doing now. It brings on unfair comparisons between a brand-new model and that which is 4+ years old. The only features available in the "old" TL, that are unavailable in the Accord would be the TL-s engine, VSA, HID headlights. That's it !
Later...AH
The Accord gets 240hp and weighs 3360.
The TL gets 260hp but weighs 3558.
Accord's torque is 212 and the TL's is 232.
0-60 on the Accord is 6.6 seconds.
On the TL, it's 6.2 seconds.
When you look at it that way, the Accord looks like it's just as strong as the TL-Type S. Everyone I've talked to says the new Accord flies.
Really, I can't say which I'd take. I mean I got the Accord because even with NAVI I paid 6,000+ less than I could get a TL-S for. If it were just between the Accord and the TL, for now I'd get the Accord. But if $ is the issue, get the TL-S... assuming you'll drive it like it's capable of being driven (though in that mode it seems to get about as good gas milage as a Ferrari - seriously).
How do you figure that? Even if you paid invoice for your Accord, that's only $4,000 less than TL-S. You wouldn't be compared invoice for Accord to MSRP on TL-S, would you? I paid $200 over invoice on TL-S and some people are getting it at invoice. Higher cost of gas for TL-S is probably offset by longer warranty and slightly higher reliability.
The Bose system is very weak and you cannot even easily swap out the speakers or add a better amp to improve the sound like in a normal car.
The optional HK stereo in a 325i and the ML system in an ES300 is very good, but the Acura's Bose system is an embarrasing joke that sounds worse than the factory systems available in some econocars.
I actually think the sound of the Accord stereo was a little better plain stock.
If you simply replace the front door speakers on the Accord and add the right amp and subwoofer, the sound will blow away the TL Bose system for a price of just several hundred dollars.
Where is the list that states that the particular Bose system installed in Acura TLs is one of the 10 best sound systems?
I have heard it and the sound quality is subpar.
Join us tonight, 6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET for another
round of automotive trivia and member-to-member chat.
Test your skills (or multiple choice guessing ability)
against other Town Hall members.
http://www.edmunds.com/townhall/chat/townhallchat.html
Hope to see you there!
Even the local Car Shop Audio guys liked it, there is room for improvement but it is definitly not below par.
Look at the 2002 entry luxury comparison test on Edmunds and you will see that the Acura system was rated very well.
It is unfortunate that these fine entry level luxury cars don't get better sound systems. I am more than willing to pay a few hundred dollars more for a good system, and the incremental cost is only 1% of the total price of the car. Why don't these car makers understand? They should at least give car buyers an option, and not tell buyers that the warranty will be void if aftermarket audio systems are put in.