Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
There are a lot of TL owners who are very disappointed in the Bose stereo. I read about it on various TL message boards including the main TL owners website that is not part of Edmunds. That is why I made a point to take CD down to the Acura dealer to hear for myself what the big deal was when I was considering the car. I put the CD in, adjusted the bass and treble up, waited and was underwhelmed by the clarity of the highs and the lack of bass despite the built-in subwoofer. The perfect stereo for talk radio listeners. I read that it is very difficult to do anything to improve the system because of the proprietary, non standard design of the Bose. It is not as simple as just buying a better quality new amp and speakers like you can with an Accord. The base stereo in a Lexus ES300 was better, much less the upgraded Nakamichi or the new Mark Levinson system. The Harmon Kardon system in the 325i I test drove was much better. Even the Monsoon system in a VW Passat GLX I drove sounded a little better than the Bose in the Acura TL, though it had to be played at too high a volume level to get much bass out of it. There are so many factory systems that blow away the TL's Bose system, that I don't know what test it could be rated as #2 in a comparison. It is pretty easy to improve on the Accord's system without having to replace the deck. You can get some nice Infinity, Polk, or MBQuart 6.5" front door speakers, a 3 channel amp and a quality 10" sealed subwoofer and you will have sound that will be much better than what Acura gives you with TL. Even just adding an Infinity Basslink to the Accord's factory sound system and nothing else will still probably exceed the sound quality of the Bose in a TL.
I you check Edmunds comparison reports you will find a link to an extensive evaluation of the sound systems in all cars tested. I would agree I was surprised at the very positive evaluation for the TL's system as I drive a 2000 and find the sound system a little weak in the bass.
Why would someone buy a TL when you can lease one so cheaply? In the market for new car, so any suggestions would be appreciated. Thought about getting either an audi or accord but 329 a month, no money down on 36 month/12k lease for a tl seems too good to pass up.
Well even if the TL wasn't cheap, why would you buy one now when the new model is being released in the Fall?
The $329 lease I see is not 0 down. It says something like $1800 down. Also keep in mind that the lease may be good, but you'll pay more for fuel and insurance on a TL compared to an Accord.
I've just spent at least the last hour reading through hundreds of posts about (1) the problems of the 2003 Accords and (2) comparisons between the Acura 3.2 TL and Accord EXV6. While I was delighted to even find such chats (I'm a novice in this department), I am now really confused about which car to buy as while both seem to have substantial plusses, there are also a variety of minuses that range from cosmetic to seriously mechanical for both as well. Also, I wonder if it is wise to buy a car (TL)for which a new model will be out imminently. So, does it boil down to personal preference or can anyone put forth one more, ultimately convincing (one way or the other!) recommendation?
They own both 03 Accord EXV6 and 03 Base TL. As far as the TL transmission problem goes it has supposedly been eliminated. Acura has supposedly solved the problem and it is not an issue on models built during the second half of the year. I haven't experienced any accoed problems and the build quality seems exceptional so I'm not sure why there are so many post. IMHO the TL is a slightly better car but the Accord is the better value. I'd probably decide on the basis of how tight money is. I wouldn't really be worried about the TL being old. In 99 the car was miles ahead of the competition and they are still catching up today. 03 Accord is also well ahead of the competition. Who knows the 04 might not be any better (ie.. maxima). Plus after a few years, it won't really matter. Check 99 v. 00 Accord, how much difference is there in current value. Probably no more than the diff. between 00 and 01. If you don't need a car immediately perhaps you should wait. You could see the 04 and if you don't like it you will probably get a great deal on an 03 TL or Accord. Also rumor is that 04 TL will sticker close to 35K. If that's out of your budget than don't even worry about it.
To sheilar3, if total cost of ownership is top priority with driving/ownership experience placing 2nd, I'd recommend in these terms (03 Accord vs 03 & 04 TL):
1) 1st choice: 03 Accord V6 - regular gas/lower insurance/high resale/reasonable purchase price/handling & power very good 2) 2nd choice: outgoing TL - premium gas/higher insurance/low to moderate resale/moderate purchase price/handling & power very good (we own an 00 TL and an 03 Accord V6 to compare) 3) 3rd choice: new gen TL - see 2) above except high purchase price and resale, handling & power are expected to be excellent
If driving/ownership experience (aka car buff) is top consideration, I'd just reverse the order.
That new TL looks awesome. But with a starting price of 32K, I doubt I'd get a good deal and money is tight. I'm gonna be leasing so it'll come down to whichever car costs me the least per month, which includes gas and insurance. One thing's for sure. The new TL will be the most expensive choice. The lease specials on the current TL will have to be really good for me to want to get that instead of a TSX or Accord. I definitely would not want to but the current TL after seeing the new one.
The TL, no question. Similar performance, more luxury features, more prestige, better styling inside and out, and I'd bet also higher resale, maybe not a year or 2 from now, but a few years down the road.
If the price were the same, I would purchase the ACura also. But, they (PRICE) are not. The acura will cost you atleast 3-4K more, even with the new 2004 style coming out. There is no way anyone would be able to get the 2003 Acura for the price of 2003 Accord.
The purchase price may not be the same, but I think the lease numbers are. I think it would be a mistake to buy an older version of a car when the new one is about to come out. But if you were leasing, it wouldn't matter cause in 3 or 4 years, you could get the new one anyway.
One reason I'm reluctant to get an Accord is because it's in its first year and there are already a number of bugs being discovered, things like popping in the A-pillar, problems with the radio unit, rotten egg smell, etc. At least the TL has been around long enough to know what the issues are. The TL may not be as modern but it definitely looks better, has the Acura name, is more of a luxury car, and if the monthlys are the same, then it's a better value. If the Accord EXV6 and TL-S offer the same lease, I'd go with the TL. If I were buying, I wouldn't even consider the 03 TL.
If I were buying, I wouldn't even consider the 03 TL.
If I were buying, I would definitely go with a car at the end of its life cycle. Prices are cheaper and all possible bugs would have been worked out. That is only because I keep my cars for the long haul.
Not all bugs may have been worked out. There are still people with 03 TLs who are having transmission problems.
So what prevents us from extrapolating those "transmission problems" to the 03 V6 Accord, since it is sharing the exact same 5-speed Automatic transmission ?? Along with any additional new bugs that may have crept in from the newer design ?
In Hawaii, 2003 Accord EX V6's are selling at MSRP, or about $26,000. The only Acura dealer is selling TL's for about $500 over invoice: Regular 2003 TL's are $27,000 and TL Type S are about $29,000. The 2004 TL is projected to be around $35,000 (remember that the TSX is $28,000). All prices are non-NAVI, and don't include destination, tax and title. I don't know about the leases, but if you are buying, there is definitely a price difference! Tough call between an Accord EX V6 and a regular TL ($1,000 difference), the TL Type S ($3,000 more) is actually a better deal considering what you get - and that is why I bought one.
If the Acuras are going for $500 over invoice in the same area, why can't you point to the $27K TLs when you negotiate with Honda dealer to get a much better deal than full MSRP? The TSX without navi is $26,990.
You can't use the TL to negotiate down the Accord price because the New Accord cost $26K w/ 240 bhp and the Old TL cost $27K w/ 225 bhp. Also, the Honda dealers here sell every EX V6 Accord they have for full sticker. The Acura dealer (who also owns one of the three Honda dealers in the state) can't seem to sell the regular TL's anymore since the Accords came out - the only new TL's I see on the road are Type S models. Simple supply and demand. Nobody wants a regular TL anymore, they either want an Accord EX V6 or TL Type S.
"Not all bugs may have been worked out. There are still people with 03 TLs who are having transmission problems."
YES, they have been. Anyone buying a 2003 TL now will definitelly be buying one that was manufactured after May of 2002. I have not seen a single report of transmission failures on these 2003 TLs.
Are you sure the new Accord has the same transmission as the TL?
I would bet my bottom dollar on it. Why would Honda manufacture a different 5-speed transmission (incidentally built in Japan), when there is an off-the-shelf product that is already being put into a 225HP and a 260HP product of theirs. It would make absolutely no business sense at all, to develop a new 5-speed Automatic from scratch, which on any logical basis, would have the exact same design anyway. Why would they need to, if the transmission has been analyzed by their engineering team and any bug found, has been corrected ?
At the most, some of the gear ratios may be slightly different, while retaining everything else.
I would bet my bottom dollar on it. Why would Honda manufacture a different 5-speed transmission (incidentally built in Japan), when there is an off-the-shelf product that is already being put into a 225HP and a 260HP product of theirs. It would make absolutely no business sense at all, to develop a new 5-speed Automatic from scratch, which on any logical basis, would have the exact same design anyway. Why would they need to, if the transmission has been analyzed by their engineering team and any bug found, has been corrected?
So in other words, you don't know for a fact that it's the same transmission.
Car companies generally redesign all the major components whenever they develop a new model, even if the current version of the component is fine. There's always room for improvement. The real question is whether Acura really solved the transmission problem.
Car companies generally redesign all the major components whenever they develop a new model, even if the current version of the component is fine. There's always room for improvement. The real question is whether Acura really solved the transmission problem.
I think you are completely missing the point. The Honda Accord is coming from a 4-speed Automatic transmission. When a 5-speed Automatic transmission (from Honda's premier division - Acura) is added, it is a huge improvement. Re-engineering a completely new transmission is a different ballgame altogether and no company ever does it when a perfectly good and working version of it is available off-the-shelf.
Incidentally, a while back there was a news item where they explained that Honda was puzzled at the failure rate (industry acceptable rate I believe is around 4% but for Honda, 1.6% was HUGE) in their 5-speed Auto transmissions, since that was not merely happening in a high-performance product like the TL-s. It was happening in Odyssey's, TLs and many other non-high-perf products of theirs. An engineering analysis done, showed that a component from one of their suppliers (in Japan) was found to be defective, which was affecting a bunch of their cars. They should ideally have identified those "bunch of cars" and localized the problem and corrected it, according to me. Unless the "bunch of cars" is a huge number.
The 7yr/100K warranty extension is just a PR exercise, basically to avoid recalling the 100s of thousands of cars on the road for the transmission replacement. They rightly surmise that failures would definitely happen but they are spreading it out over a wide period (through the warranty extension), so that they would not have to foot a huge expenditure right away.
Basically, my take on the 7yr/100K mile warranty is that the 100K may be good for a Chrysler product but in a Honda, I would expect that to be 250K, at least. So the 100K mile warranty extension is meaningless for me.
Yeah, the warranty extension seemed like something I'd expect from Chysler, not Honda. I'm sure the guy whose transmission fails on the freeway causing him to get into an accident will be happy to know his warranty will cover the repairs.
As for the transmission bug, wasn't this also happening in the 4-speed ones too? I have an Accord with the 4-speed automatic and I got one of those warranty extension mailers. Surely Honda must have known which exact cars got the defective part. I guess they figured it would be too expensive to round up all the people affected. I wonder if anyone has sued Honda over this.
I too received the warranty extension for my 2000 3.2TL, which incidentally has been perfect - till date. I am a very aggressive driver and the car has crossed 35K miles. If the transmission will fail, it will definitely fail in mine, well before the 100K miles are up. Or maybe the defective component did not finally land up in my car's transmission - truly hope so.
Was very sure of getting an Accord, but 2 days before buying, wife insisted on test driving a TL. Was very impressed with the drive, handling & interior noise, compared to the Accord. Now have a Silver 03 TL parked in the driveway.
Congrats on the new TL. Can you give us some details on the differences between the Accord and the TL? I assume you feel that it is worth the extra $3000 to $4000?
I bought the TL-P, base model. The road noise was the deciding factor for my wife and the drive & transmission shifts were a whole lot better for me. We thought a lot about the $3000 difference, and came to the conclusion that it was well worth it.
Also, with the Accord, I was a little skeptical, since it is a first year model, and we would have to get the extended warranty on the Accord ($1000), which makes the difference about $3000. And the Accord rear needs to have a spoiler installed for it to look good (another $500).
I personally felt the leather to be better in the TL (IMO). The Sequential SportShift was also a big seller for us. We knew that the layout of the interior was not as modern as the Accord, but considering all the factors, including the dealer (David McDavid Acura) reviews, it was well worth going for the TL.
Both feel to have the same amount of space and power, even though the Accord has 15 more HP.
Hope this helps. Let me know if I can be of any further help.
The thing I've heard from so many people who've sat in the new Accord say is that it's just like the TL base model. It sounds like you disagree with that. I'm debating between the Accord, TL, and TL-S. 2004 TL is out of my price range. I want something that's fun to drive, but I also want it be comfortable and smooth for passengers. I've driven the TL-S and it was a lot of fun. But I've ridden in the back seat of one and the stiffer suspension made it uncomfortable to ride in. Is that why you passed on the TL-S? The Accord scares me cause it's a first year model. Plus it's ugly. I'm planning to lease so the Accord will still be an option 3 years from now whereas this TL will be gone soon. Do you think the TL base model has enough fun factor or should I go with the TL-S and if you compare your TL to the Accord, which was more fun to drive?
IMO, the TL looked more refined than the Accord, but the Accord looked more modern and had more features than the TL-P (dual climate control). Also, I like wood trim, and the TL had a better color trim than the Accord. I'm loving every bit of the TL. Ride is superb. TL-S was out of our price range, so we didn't even test drive it. Also, I've read that the suspension is stiffer. For my needs, the Accord would have been enough, but the fun I had driving the TL is what impressed me. It also has the memory seats, which is a plus if my wife need to drive it. And the TL is not a mass produced car as the Accord.
I would say drive the Accord and the TL back to back the same day, and then make your decision. Since Accord is a first year model, you might want to consider an ext. warranty. The difference would be around $3000-$3500.
Good luck with your purchase. Please let me know if I can be of further help.
Should not be needed because of the Accord being in the first year. There were not significant problems with the 1998 Accord, so there is no reason to believe the 2003s are going to be problematic now. The types of production problems in the first year Accords are usually bugs that turn up within the the first weeks of ownership, not years down the road.
The only cars I have ever owned are Accords. I just put down a deposit on an Acura TL base model. The deciding factor for me was the manufacturer's financing incentives -- 2.9% for a conventional loan, and a terrific lease rate. While I probabaly did less research than I should have, my calls to Honda dealerships led me to believe that it would end up costing pretty much the same to buy or lease a new EX 6 cylinder than to buy or lease a TL.
I'm going to be getting a new car in the next couple weeks and have narrowed it down to the Acura TL Type S and the Honda Accord EXV6 Sedan. Regardless of which one I get, I'll be adding the Nav System. On the Accord, I'd add the decklid spoiler and the auto-dimming mirror. On the TL, I'd add the spoiler. I also plan to lease for 36 months, 0 down, and 12,000 miles per year. Question: What is the highest you would pay per month for each of these cars with the equipment listed above and given the lease terms above? Which car would you pick? Which do you think is the better value?
That's a no brainer-Get the TLS, if your pocket fits the bill. The accord may be a tad more modern than the TL, but overall the TLS wins this battle. Also, you should consider dealer service, Acura service in my estimation or what I have experienced so far is Excellent.These guy go out of their way to satisfy any little minor/major issues you have with your car.Example-I had my fisrt oil channge several weeks ago.When I went to pick the car I noticed some condensation in one of the front lights(they hand wash the car after every service).I was FURIOUS, but they calmed me down and replaced the light free of charge.The Service Manager also stated that if condensation occurs again they will definitly step up to the plate and resolve free of cost.
I've always had Accords and never had a problem with the dealer service department, so for me that's not a reason to get a TL. I'm more interested in hearing why you think the CAR is better, not the dealer.
It might not be that great. There is more to the lease deal than just the residual. There will be no great lease rates, manufacturer subsidies and the sales price will be higher and will not have any discounting. If everything else was equal other than the residual, then the '04 would be cheaper to lease than an '03. How would the dealers be able to get rid of the '03s if it was cheaper to get an '04 instead?
In terms of the difference between Purchase Price and Residual Value, my guess is that it's probably a wash for the 03 and 04.
For the 03 TL, Acura is discounting heavily (with rebates and other incentives) to make up for the expected drop in residual value when the 04 comes out. For the 04, it can work with MSRP because the residual on the new car will still be high after 36 or 39 months.
If the above is true, 2 other variables come into play: cost of money (money factor) and competition. The state of the economy tells us that the money factor will hold until post-recession, and competition - BMW 3 series/MB C-class/Audi A4/Jaguar X-type - they'll probably maintain current lease rates up to year end.
All to say that Acura - to remain competitive - will most likely not significantly increase lease rates on the 04.
One last note: when new cars come out, they stop leasing the previous gen cars, instead using low APRs to clear out the old model. Why ? Because the lease rates will probably be identical, and no one will lease the old car. The 04 RX330 and the 03 RX300 come to mind.
The lease payment for the 04 TL will be much higher. The price is going to be in the mid 30s and because it's a new model, you can expect to pay sticker when it first comes out. That's why I'm fairly sure that the difference between purchase price and the residual will be higher for the 04 TL compared to the 03 model. I've talked to several dealers. I told them I was not interested in the 03 TL, just the 04 model, and they told me to expect a lease payment close to $600. I refuse to pay more than $400 on any car, unless I'm buying it. So the 04 TL is out. As for driving "yesterday's news", I don't mind. It's only for 3 years and the 03 TL is still better than most of the cars out there.
In Atlanta, the Jag/BMW/MB/Audi camps are leasing their TL counterparts from $329-$399 with some money down for 39 mos/12k miles.
Considering that Acura has always successfuly positioned the TL as a value-luxury car, it just seems unlikely that they'll stray far from market rates unless they've changed their marketing strategy for the 04.
Dealers clearing out the 03, I imagine, will try to discourage people from waiting for the 04. On a $600 TL lease, recent experience tells me the good salesfolks at Acura and Honda aren't very accurate at price forecasting.
atlantabenny, leases are not based on competition or "market rates". A company can't just change its lease offer to match a competitor. Essentially it comes down to residual and purchase price so if you want to change the lease payment, you can really only change the purchase price. I don't know about Jaguar or Mercedes, but I do know that BMW has great lease offers for the same reason Acura does, because they have new models coming in the fall and have to clear out the old ones first so they're pricing the cars at invoice to push the lease payment down.
As far as the Acura dealers trying to discourage me from waiting for the new TL, before they had a chance to mention the 03 TL, I lied and told them that I didn't like it and that my current lease wouldn't be up until November. I made it clear I wasn't waiting at all. Despite that, they all said $600 a month.
Lease rates, while seemingly the result only of a strict financial formula, may also be "customized" as market and competitive forces dictate it.
Example: Let's start with the fact that the TL and same-class cars are within a narrow MSRP band. If the residual value of one car, say a Jaguar X-type, drops more than the others, its formulaic lease increases as a result (residual value loss is spread out over the lease term).
Consequently, if it leases for say $100 more per month versus its competition, it simply won't sell. What could/would happen behind the scene is that Jaguar/Ford guarantees to buy back the car from the lease company at a fixed residual (and somehow absorbs the loss). This is so that the car is lease-competitive at the front end.
If the manufacturer isn't willing to take the loss, leasing stops being a viable facility and the maker starts offering financing deals.
Above brand-specific example is for illustration only but the concept is real.
Just to validate the $600 forecast, an MDX (MSRP: $36.2k) currently leases for $449/0 down. By inference the 04 TL's MSRP must be at around $41k (!?) to lease for $600/month.
On the BMW 3-series, believe they're not on clearance yet - with one more model year to go.
Hopefully all this discussion doesn't come across as adversarial, because the intent is to provide a "dispassionate" view to help in decision-making. Cheers !
Seems like a done deal TL's will be "available" in August/Sept per all the discussion...I personally think late fall (Nov) is more realistic
I would guess, unless you are willing to pay 10% above MSRP (likely to be ~36,000) you won't get one until early '04 (jan/feb). This happens all the time on "new" models - (see G35, still at MSRP + after 8 months)
This is consistent with both the $600 lease rates tha aka150 states, and atlantabenny's analysis of an MDX (2 years old) vs a new TL.
~40k for the new TL seems very reasonable market value for the first 6 months.
Also, lease rates are 100% a financial formula - if you see a rate under/over "mkt" for competing vehicles, the difference is in the lease termination residuals. Lease terms are set strictly by the time value of money (interest rate) and the differential between the MSRP (not MKT!) and residual. Lease rates are also typically higher than loans as the lessor has to assume more risk
For comparison
BUY a TL-TypeS 2003 for 28K (which you can get) with 3.9% financing for 3 years and trade in in 2006 when paid off. A 2003 Type-S will be within ~$3K of a 2004 TL (no Type S) and you will get around 20K on an '06.
EXAMPLE: (Both are zero down!) Buy '03 TL-s (3.9%) : $825/mo for 3 years = $28800 total less 20000 trade in = $9800 for 3 years
Lease '04 TL (5%): $550/mo for 3 years = 19400 for 3 years, (40K MSRP less 23000 residual for 3 years)
You pay $10K more over 3 years for the priveledge of driving the '04. Or, said antother way, you could lease a car worth 10K more lease after next.
You can spin the #'s however you want, but the '03 TL-Type S at invoice are one of the deals of the decade.
If you wait until next year, the price (and therfore lease cost) will drop ~10 to 15% vs early release. So, if you have to have it, you will pay, and it will be "fresh" for about 6 to 8 months until everyone else has one, and then it is "me too" other than paying 10% more.
Comments
That is why I made a point to take CD down to the Acura dealer to hear for myself what the big deal was when I was considering the car.
I put the CD in, adjusted the bass and treble up, waited and was underwhelmed by the clarity of the highs and the lack of bass despite the built-in subwoofer. The perfect stereo for talk radio listeners.
I read that it is very difficult to do anything to improve the system because of the proprietary, non standard design of the Bose. It is not as simple as just buying a better quality new amp and speakers like you can with an Accord.
The base stereo in a Lexus ES300 was better, much less the upgraded Nakamichi or the new Mark Levinson system. The Harmon Kardon system in the 325i I test drove was much better. Even the Monsoon system in a VW Passat GLX I drove sounded a little better than the Bose in the Acura TL, though it had to be played at too high a volume level to get much bass out of it.
There are so many factory systems that blow away the TL's Bose system, that I don't know what test it could be rated as #2 in a comparison.
It is pretty easy to improve on the Accord's system without having to replace the deck. You can get some nice Infinity, Polk, or MBQuart 6.5" front door speakers, a 3 channel amp and a quality 10" sealed subwoofer and you will have sound that will be much better than what Acura gives you with TL. Even just adding an Infinity Basslink to the Accord's factory sound system and nothing else will still probably exceed the sound quality of the Bose in a TL.
The $329 lease I see is not 0 down. It says something like $1800 down. Also keep in mind that the lease may be good, but you'll pay more for fuel and insurance on a TL compared to an Accord.
Also, I wonder if it is wise to buy a car (TL)for which a new model will be out imminently.
So, does it boil down to personal preference or can anyone put forth one more, ultimately convincing (one way or the other!) recommendation?
Price-wise, my guess is about $30-32k MSRP - to keep that "value differentiation" between it and the Accord EX-v6 and the Acura TSX.
http://members.cox.net/rjcarter/images/04tl.jpg
To sheilar3, if total cost of ownership is top priority with driving/ownership experience placing 2nd, I'd recommend in these terms (03 Accord vs 03 & 04 TL):
1) 1st choice: 03 Accord V6 - regular gas/lower insurance/high resale/reasonable purchase price/handling & power very good
2) 2nd choice: outgoing TL - premium gas/higher insurance/low to moderate resale/moderate purchase price/handling & power very good (we own an 00 TL and an 03 Accord V6 to compare)
3) 3rd choice: new gen TL - see 2) above except high purchase price and resale, handling & power are expected to be excellent
If driving/ownership experience (aka car buff) is top consideration, I'd just reverse the order.
Hope this helps.
Newly changed 2003 Accord V6 EX or
2003 Acura TL which the model is changing in 2004
My calculation resulted as they cost me same with 2.9% 60mo finanacing on Acura TL.
I'm leaning toward TL, I need to make decision soon... help
One reason I'm reluctant to get an Accord is because it's in its first year and there are already a number of bugs being discovered, things like popping in the A-pillar, problems with the radio unit, rotten egg smell, etc. At least the TL has been around long enough to know what the issues are. The TL may not be as modern but it definitely looks better, has the Acura name, is more of a luxury car, and if the monthlys are the same, then it's a better value. If the Accord EXV6 and TL-S offer the same lease, I'd go with the TL. If I were buying, I wouldn't even consider the 03 TL.
If I were buying, I would definitely go with a car at the end of its life cycle. Prices are cheaper and all possible bugs would have been worked out. That is only because I keep my cars for the long haul.
Later...AH
Bought 03 TL base blue color
36900 + Tax + Tag and I get free oil change for life with 2.9% 60mo financing.
Alltogether made downpayemnt of around $2800 and monthly payemt of $450 for 60 months.
I'm planning to keep it for 5 years. I hope it holds good value after 5 years.
Not all bugs may have been worked out. There are still people with 03 TLs who are having transmission problems.
So what prevents us from extrapolating those "transmission problems" to the 03 V6 Accord, since it is sharing the exact same 5-speed Automatic transmission ?? Along with any additional new bugs that may have crept in from the newer design ?
Later...AH
The TSX without navi is $26,990.
YES, they have been. Anyone buying a 2003 TL now will definitelly be buying one that was manufactured after May of 2002. I have not seen a single report of transmission failures on these 2003 TLs.
I would bet my bottom dollar on it. Why would Honda manufacture a different 5-speed transmission (incidentally built in Japan), when there is an off-the-shelf product that is already being put into a 225HP and a 260HP product of theirs. It would make absolutely no business sense at all, to develop a new 5-speed Automatic from scratch, which on any logical basis, would have the exact same design anyway. Why would they need to, if the transmission has been analyzed by their engineering team and any bug found, has been corrected ?
At the most, some of the gear ratios may be slightly different, while retaining everything else.
Later...AH
So in other words, you don't know for a fact that it's the same transmission.
Car companies generally redesign all the major components whenever they develop a new model, even if the current version of the component is fine. There's always room for improvement. The real question is whether Acura really solved the transmission problem.
I think you are completely missing the point. The Honda Accord is coming from a 4-speed Automatic transmission. When a 5-speed Automatic transmission (from Honda's premier division - Acura) is added, it is a huge improvement. Re-engineering a completely new transmission is a different ballgame altogether and no company ever does it when a perfectly good and working version of it is available off-the-shelf.
Incidentally, a while back there was a news item where they explained that Honda was puzzled at the failure rate (industry acceptable rate I believe is around 4% but for Honda, 1.6% was HUGE) in their 5-speed Auto transmissions, since that was not merely happening in a high-performance product like the TL-s. It was happening in Odyssey's, TLs and many other non-high-perf products of theirs. An engineering analysis done, showed that a component from one of their suppliers (in Japan) was found to be defective, which was affecting a bunch of their cars. They should ideally have identified those "bunch of cars" and localized the problem and corrected it, according to me. Unless the "bunch of cars" is a huge number.
The 7yr/100K warranty extension is just a PR exercise, basically to avoid recalling the 100s of thousands of cars on the road for the transmission replacement. They rightly surmise that failures would definitely happen but they are spreading it out over a wide period (through the warranty extension), so that they would not have to foot a huge expenditure right away.
Later...AH
Later...AH
As for the transmission bug, wasn't this also happening in the 4-speed ones too? I have an Accord with the 4-speed automatic and I got one of those warranty extension mailers. Surely Honda must have known which exact cars got the defective part. I guess they figured it would be too expensive to round up all the people affected. I wonder if anyone has sued Honda over this.
Later...AH
Also, with the Accord, I was a little skeptical, since it is a first year model, and we would have to get the extended warranty on the Accord ($1000), which makes the difference about $3000.
And the Accord rear needs to have a spoiler installed for it to look good (another $500).
I personally felt the leather to be better in the TL (IMO). The Sequential SportShift was also a big seller for us. We knew that the layout of the interior was not as modern as the Accord, but considering all the factors, including the dealer (David McDavid Acura) reviews, it was well worth going for the TL.
Both feel to have the same amount of space and power, even though the Accord has 15 more HP.
Hope this helps. Let me know if I can be of any further help.
I would say drive the Accord and the TL back to back the same day, and then make your decision. Since Accord is a first year model, you might want to consider an ext. warranty. The difference would be around $3000-$3500.
Good luck with your purchase. Please let me know if I can be of further help.
The types of production problems in the first year Accords are usually bugs that turn up within the the first weeks of ownership, not years down the road.
The accord may be a tad more modern than the TL, but overall the TLS wins this battle.
Also, you should consider dealer service, Acura service in my estimation or what I have experienced so far is Excellent.These guy go out of their way to satisfy any little minor/major issues you have with your car.Example-I had my fisrt oil channge several weeks ago.When I went to pick the car I noticed some condensation in one of the front lights(they hand wash the car after every service).I was FURIOUS, but they calmed me down and replaced the light free of charge.The Service Manager also stated that if condensation occurs again they will definitly step up to the plate and resolve free of cost.
Additionally, come Aug 03 you won't be driving "yesterday's news" for 3 years if that's at all a factor.
How would the dealers be able to get rid of the '03s if it was cheaper to get an '04 instead?
For the 03 TL, Acura is discounting heavily (with rebates and other incentives) to make up for the expected drop in residual value when the 04 comes out. For the 04, it can work with MSRP because the residual on the new car will still be high after 36 or 39 months.
If the above is true, 2 other variables come into play: cost of money (money factor) and competition. The state of the economy tells us that the money factor will hold until post-recession, and competition - BMW 3 series/MB C-class/Audi A4/Jaguar X-type - they'll probably maintain current lease rates up to year end.
All to say that Acura - to remain competitive - will most likely not significantly increase lease rates on the 04.
One last note: when new cars come out, they stop leasing the previous gen cars, instead using low APRs to clear out the old model. Why ? Because the lease rates will probably be identical, and no one will lease the old car. The 04 RX330 and the 03 RX300 come to mind.
In Atlanta, the Jag/BMW/MB/Audi camps are leasing their TL counterparts from $329-$399 with some money down for 39 mos/12k miles.
Considering that Acura has always successfuly positioned the TL as a value-luxury car, it just seems unlikely that they'll stray far from market rates unless they've changed their marketing strategy for the 04.
Dealers clearing out the 03, I imagine, will try to discourage people from waiting for the 04. On a $600 TL lease, recent experience tells me the good salesfolks at Acura and Honda aren't very accurate at price forecasting.
Just my 2 cents.
As far as the Acura dealers trying to discourage me from waiting for the new TL, before they had a chance to mention the 03 TL, I lied and told them that I didn't like it and that my current lease wouldn't be up until November. I made it clear I wasn't waiting at all. Despite that, they all said $600 a month.
Example: Let's start with the fact that the TL and same-class cars are within a narrow MSRP band. If the residual value of one car, say a Jaguar X-type, drops more than the others, its formulaic lease increases as a result (residual value loss is spread out over the lease term).
Consequently, if it leases for say $100 more per month versus its competition, it simply won't sell. What could/would happen behind the scene is that Jaguar/Ford guarantees to buy back the car from the lease company at a fixed residual (and somehow absorbs the loss). This is so that the car is lease-competitive at the front end.
If the manufacturer isn't willing to take the loss, leasing stops being a viable facility and the maker starts offering financing deals.
Above brand-specific example is for illustration only but the concept is real.
Just to validate the $600 forecast, an MDX (MSRP: $36.2k) currently leases for $449/0 down. By inference the 04 TL's MSRP must be at around $41k (!?) to lease for $600/month.
On the BMW 3-series, believe they're not on clearance yet - with one more model year to go.
Hopefully all this discussion doesn't come across as adversarial, because the intent is to provide a "dispassionate" view to help in decision-making. Cheers !
I would guess, unless you are willing to pay 10% above MSRP (likely to be ~36,000) you won't get one until early '04 (jan/feb). This happens all the time on "new" models - (see G35, still at MSRP + after 8 months)
This is consistent with both the $600 lease rates tha aka150 states, and atlantabenny's analysis of an MDX (2 years old) vs a new TL.
~40k for the new TL seems very reasonable market value for the first 6 months.
Also, lease rates are 100% a financial formula - if you see a rate under/over "mkt" for competing vehicles, the difference is in the lease termination residuals. Lease terms are set strictly by the time value of money (interest rate) and the differential between the MSRP (not MKT!) and residual. Lease rates are also typically higher than loans as the lessor has to assume more risk
For comparison
BUY a TL-TypeS 2003 for 28K (which you can get) with 3.9% financing for 3 years and trade in in 2006 when paid off. A 2003 Type-S will be within ~$3K of a 2004 TL (no Type S) and you will get around 20K on an '06.
EXAMPLE: (Both are zero down!)
Buy '03 TL-s (3.9%) : $825/mo for 3 years = $28800 total less 20000 trade in = $9800 for 3 years
Lease '04 TL (5%): $550/mo for 3 years = 19400 for 3 years, (40K MSRP less 23000 residual for 3 years)
You pay $10K more over 3 years for the priveledge of driving the '04. Or, said antother way, you could lease a car worth 10K more lease after next.
You can spin the #'s however you want, but the '03 TL-Type S at invoice are one of the deals of the decade.
If you wait until next year, the price (and therfore lease cost) will drop ~10 to 15% vs early release. So, if you have to have it, you will pay, and it will be "fresh" for about 6 to 8 months until everyone else has one, and then it is "me too" other than paying 10% more.