Acura TL vs Honda Accord

bodble2 · April 2006

"...having a sunroof does not provide much enjoyment for most of the year because it simply is too darn cold up there."

C'mon, kenny, we don't live in igloos, you know!

It's not that it's too cold or hot. For me, pushing the A/C button is much simpler, and more comfy. And I don't look at the stars much. Usually I'm too busy looking at the girls walking on the sidewalk!

bodble2 · April 2006

I honestly find the TL fairly quiet. I test drove an RX330 last year, and I didn't find it appreciably quieter, if at all.

If anything, I find the TL a bit boring to drive. Mind you, I have the automatic version. After a couple of years, the driving experience is a bit ho-hum. And I agree about the gas mileage, and gas prices issue. I do a lot of puttering around town and almost no highway trips, given my current life schedule, and I get just horrific mpg. All things considered, I'm seriously thinking of trading down to a Honda Fit, which would be ideal for buzzing around town, and I can spin it off to the kids in a year or 2, leaving my option open for a Bimmer, preferrably on a low-interest lease! Do it now, and I can still end up with some meaningful $$ in my pocket. Wait another couple years, and I'm not sure I can psychologically stomach swapping even a 4-yr-old TL for a Fit straight up.

habitat1 · April 2006

"We're talking Toyota, right? Reliable? Probably. Aesthetically attractive? Hmmm...."

I meant the Lexus side of the Toyota/Lexus reference with respect to aesthetically attractive. But even at that, I ws trying to be kind. I personally find it hard to find anything attractive that doesn't have good driving dynamics underneath and, so far, nothing from Lexus has impressed me.

habitat1 · April 2006

A TL to a Fit seems like a tough psychological adjustment. Ever considered a Mini-Cooper S? I have personally never driven or ridden in one but a college buddy of mine in California got one for his wife to use as a comuter when she isn't hauling the kids around in their SUV. Now he often uses it instead of his E430 Mercedes, claiming that it is a real hoot to drive around town. Plus, they seem to hold their value exceptionally well.

bodble2 · April 2006

I hear ya. But even strictly aesthetic, which Lexus, other than the IS series, could sell on looks alone?

bodble2 · April 2006

Yes, that's exactly the mental dilemma I'm wrestling aroung with. Even though the Fit "fits" our current lifestyle, and I will get a chunk of cash back on the move, I look at my TL, arguably one of the best-looking cars on the road, and so well-equipped for the price, then I look at the FIT, which has a kind of funky-odd-duckling look at best, and more or less devoid of most creature-comfort items....

But then I see gas prices have gone up again... Also, I realize if you don't get max use out of a car, no matter how nice, it just becomes a depreciating ornament! :sick:

My wife already has a Mini Cooper, and I too, find every chance I get to drive it because it IS a blast to drive around town, in a quirky but charming kind of way.

I even thought of trading down to something less spartan, like the new Golf. But my Acura dealer also owns a Honda dealer, and I would get a much more favourable trade allowance there then I would anywhere else.

Decisions, decisions!

habitat1 · April 2006

Yeah, $3+ per gallon sucks.

However, so does the depreciation hit on a trade, if you really want to end up with a BMW in a couple of years. On the other hand, if the Fit stays in the family, at least you are avoiding the double whammy of trading now and trading again in 2 years.

I was just looking at my mileage logbook for my old 1995 Nissan Maxima that resides at our second home. 155,085 miles on the odometer (only about 2,000 in the last 2 years). Total of 6,450 gallons @ 1.41/gal = $9,248 in gas for 155k miles at an average of 24.05 mpg. Today, putting 155k miles on an Acura TL with an overall average of 19.8 mpg @$3.00 per gallon would cost $23,484. That's a 154% increase and more than I spent to buy the Maxima in late 1994.

bodble2 · April 2006

The Fit will likely stay in the family as we will have 2 kids driving soon.

Actually went and compared the Fit to a Civic sedan today. The Civic seems to cover most of the shortcomings of the Fit, for pretty much the same price. I don't even think real-life mpg would be that much different. Of course, the one big minus would be the restricted cargo-carrying flexibility.

ct_acurafan · August 2006

I had hopes to finally upgrade my (beloved) 97 Integra GSR with a 06 TL this year, but budgetary reason have compelled me to look for a more modest option. I am not excited about the 06 Accord EX V6, so I started looking at 03 TLs. There seems to be a good selection of previously leased 03 TLs out there to buy in the 21-22K range (4-5k cheaper than a new Accord). And no, a '04 TL is not an option...they still start at 28.5K, unfortunately.

For current /previous owners, any thoughts? What major car services are coming up in year 4?

kennyg8 · August 2006

Don't buy the 03 TLs!! They have bad transmission problems. The 06 TLs are about 30.5K (w/o nav), and O4 TLs should cost no more than 26k. For that money, you can get a new Accord EX V6 (with nav) and $23.5k can get you one w/o nav, which is not a bad car at all. Good luck in your search.

ct_acurafan · August 2006

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.

laurasdada · August 2006

Hi, CT:

I just did a search on Autotrader.com for used '04 TL within 100 miles of zip code 06880 (Westport, home of my late, lamented youth) and came up with 115 matches. Asking prices in the following range:

$27,999 Highest price
$20,000 Lowest price
$26,194 Average price

So, they're out there...

Good luck.

louisn · August 2006

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.

bmw325xi · August 2006

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?

bodble2 · August 2006

Oversteering? I don't recall reading about that being an issue with the TL. Now if you meant torque-steer....

bmw325xi · August 2006

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.

bodble2 · August 2006

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

laurasdada · August 2006

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.

booyahcramer · August 2006

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.

laurasdada · August 2006

"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.

midnightcowboy · August 2006

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

YMMV,

MidCow

midnightcowboy · August 2006

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 .....

YMMV,

MidCow

laurasdada · August 2006

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.

exb0 · August 2006

Ill 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 wouldnt 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 thats why $21.5 is all the money. I guess Ill have to keep the TL.

midnightcowboy · August 2006

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.

Cheers,

MidCow

bodble2 · August 2006

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.

jimmy81 · August 2006

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.

midnightcowboy · August 2006

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.

YOMV,

MidCow

ezshift5 · August 2006

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.

..ez..

ct_acurafan · August 2006

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!

:shades:

qbrozen · August 2006

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

pat · September 2006

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.

bearavhistory · September 2006

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

midnightcowboy · September 2006

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.

Cheers,

MidCow

bearavhistory · September 2006

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)

blane · September 2006

V6 Accords do not have positraction, a Chevrolet-patented name for limited slip differential. But they do have Vehicle Stability Assist with Traction Control.

bearavhistory · September 2006

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.

qbrozen · September 2006

'98 m3 = 14.0
'04 accord 6-speed = 14.5

times from albeedigital.com

sorry, but to be fair and consistent, I'll take published data from the rags over anecdotal evidence from different drivers in different cars on different tracks at different times of the year.

bearavhistory · September 2006

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

midnightcowboy · September 2006

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?

Cheers,

MidCow

P.S. -Yes, drag slips: some users abuse and tear the hell out of their cars just to get a good time. Not my thing to abuse my car!

bearavhistory · September 2006

"""Bearahistory is a new poster who seems pretty knowledgeable, if not just a little impetuous."""

Impetuous, (hasty, rash) At my age, Nah, I would say direct.

Ran my first sanctioned drag race at Englishtown in the fall of 1961 with a 1962 409/409 Impala Super Sport. Was active there till the early 1990's.

A lot of guys might still remember the Honduras maroon 1967 Corvette Coupe with hooker side pipes that was a regular there during the late 1980's. had a number of interesting races with a modified dump truck.

My last race there before we moved was at the Old Time Drags meet around summer of 1991 in a 33 Ford 3 window coupe running a 1970 Chevy LT1/370.

Over the years I have seen too many 10 second cars turn into 12 second cars & 12 second cars into 14 second cars when run against the clocks.

As for feel my 1966 Tri-Power Ram Air GTO felt fast as hell, but by today's standards it wasn't. Feel is to variable especially when looking back over the years & only a timing clock has meaning.

One of the really great factory scams of the magazines was the 66' GTO that really had the Royal Oak "Bobcat" kit installed & other work done to it.

Looked great in the books but the showroom stock cars could never come close. One of John Z Delorean's little games before he took up selling dope

"""P.S. -Yes, drag slips: some users abuse and tear the hell out of their cars just to get a good time. Not my thing to abuse my car!"""

Are you trying to suggest the car mags don't beat the crap out of the demos trying to get the best cover banner.

"Car & Driver gets the new Yugo to 60 in 1.2 seconds"

Sub Heading, "used up all the crumple zone when it hit the ground"

midnightcowboy · September 2006

Bearavhistory,

Welcome to the edmunds forums. Meant no offense to you.

You provide a new perspective and very good, okay excellent, information.

Yes I remember the tri-power ( 3 duece) GTO. One of my fraternity brothers had one andother had an Olsdmobile 442. I bought a 1970 455 cu in 442 when I graduated.

Yes, you are right the car mags beat the crap out of cars.

You are about my age, maybe a couple years older. I am direct and set in my ways also. LOL. Still like manual shift cars.

Again nice to hear your input and chat with you. and welcome aboard again.
YMMV,

MidCow

P.S. remember the high perfomance 350 GT mustang with the 271 hp 289 V8; It was a screamer in its day but only got 7.5 seconds 0-60 mph.

bearavhistory · September 2006

No Problem MidCow.

You are correct I am a very new guy here. I just bought a TL & was looking for sites that would bring me up to speed on the car. I usually am in the virtual air combat sim forums as I build planes for some of the games with a few other guys. Our home site is

http://www.avhistory.org/

Yeah a lot of guys tend to over do the memories. That were fast for their day but all things move forward. Who would have thought a family daily driver would be able to whack what are still known as muscle cars out of a stop light.

If you look close at the picture of the 33 in front of the house you can just make out the tail of a red Mustang Mach 1 351ci Cleveland that I did for my nephew. Car was originally a 4 speed that was converted to an Windsor auto & we later re-engined it with the Cleveland put in a fresh 4 speed.

qbrozen · September 2006

don't get me wrong, I'm not beating up on anybody or anything like that. Heck, I thought my post was very matter-of-fact and attempted to be fair.

Anyhooo... what I was mostly trying to point out was that we are talking about a '98 M3. You didn't specify if that is the car you surveyed on the drag boards. You merely stated M3.

2nd, having owned several sports sedans, I can tell you that there is NO WAY the accord 6-speed is over 15 secs. That would make it slower than my S70 T5 and Lincoln LS, which it is most definitely not.

Another interesting anecdote about drag times ... I was at Englishtown last year for "Z day" and watched just about EVERY stock 350Z run in the mid 15s. I think you would agree that is NOT an accurate assessment of that car's capabilities. But for that car, on that day, with those drivers, in that weather, it was the surveyed average.

Several magazines, on the other hand, have formulas and software that correct for weather, elevation, etc. I agree, using a website that collects data across several magazines isn't a fair assessment, either. One magazine reference would probably be our closest info. I think I'd have a hard time finding data for a '98 M3, however.

bearavhistory · September 2006

As for what you saw at E-Town & 15 second Z cars being real life, You might find this of interest, its from page 123 October Car & Driver.

"if you are willing to subject your 240hp Boxer to a high-rpm clutch drop and ride out the ensuing axel hop, it'll reach 60mph in 5.7 seconds and the quater mile in 14.3"

Most people who have to drive their cars to work on Monday morning are not willing to do this & they will not do this during a stop light Grand prix runs.

qbrozen · September 2006

The necessary high-rpm clutch drop to get the best times is absolutely true of some cars.

As for that particular quote on the Boxster ... not that it applies here ... but I'm surprised their best time involves axle hop. I would think they'd be quicker finding a happy place just before all that hop occurs and slows them down.

Speaking of which, I get that in my Accord ... axle hop, I mean. And its just like I said above, I tend to feel the vehicle is at its best if I can hit that spot in the rpm range where I can launch it with a touch of wheelspin but not enough to get it to start hopping. Unfortunately, with the stock tires, that's a tough spot to hit most times.

skew · October 2006

Any insight on the following choices: 2003 Certified 3.2 TL with 30,000 for $17,995 vs. a 2007 SE V6 (approx. price $22800.) I'd love you thoughts, pro and con. Thanks

fedlawman · October 2006

The Accord is the superior car in EVERY way imaginable (performance, luxury, ride, ergonomics), and it's NEW. The TL is 5 years old.

Only you can decide if you want to spend the extra $5000.

kennyg8 · October 2006

Also, the 03 TLs are rumoured to have transmission problems. I would definitely choose the 07 Accord over the 03 TL, if money is not an issue. Alternatively, you may want to look at an 04 or 05 TL (non-navi) if you decide to spend the equivalent of what an 07 Accord may cost you.

sda · October 2006

I would not be so quick to dismiss the TL. Yes, there were transmission problems, but only a small percentage failed. Many were covered by an extended 7yr/100k warranty. Call the dealership to confirm. Also, with such low mileage, you can purchase an Acura sponsored extended warranty called Acura Care. This is almost a bumper to bumper warranty, and is reasonably priced. Granted, the TL is on an older platform, but it is a good one. Compare the quality of interior materials with the Accord. With the TL you will find thicker carpet, real leather on the door panels, and soft surfaces through out the interior instead of hard plastic. About the only significant difference I can think of is that the new Accords have head curtain air bags and the older TL does not. I was also considering a new Accord EX. But when I found an immaculate 03 TL with 21000 miles, $7000 less expensive or about $130/month less than a new base EX, I went for the TL. I could not be happier.

Acura TL vs Honda Accord

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles