Acura TL vs Honda Accord

fredvh · May 2002

Edmunds has a new feature called "True Cost To Own". It is listed when one researches out the various vehicles on the new car heading. It is one of the 13 subjects when you click on a particular vehicle. It is very useful when comparing one vehicle to another. "True Cost To Own" takes the purchase price and adds things like depreciation, insurance, license fees, etc. and gives you a figure for 5-yr ownership. They even tailor it to your particular zip code. I tried it on a few vehicles and it is very useful.

misterjohnny · June 2002

I was making the same cost/benefit analysis when I saw an Ad in the LA Times for an EX-V6 for 21,588 "3 at this price" of course. Well, one of the three was in the color I wanted so I bought it. I just couldn't pass up the price. That was 4000 miles ago. I am very happy with my car, and the extra money in my bank account. I have seen ads since then as low as 21,388 (don't know where they come up with the "388" part), all as limited supply. No dealer add ons with mine either. Of course, Los Angeles has about 200 Honda dealers, so they are very competitive on price.

phatratpak · June 2002

I read the posts here and thought I'd chime in. Basically, I've driven my friend's 2001civicEX, my parent's 1998accordLXV6 and I just bought a 2003TL-TYPES. Essentially honda/acura engineering and precision is readily evident in all cars. IN the type-S you will find switches and stalks, parts similar to even the civic. However, I digress, let me compare the accord with TL. Road noise, especially at highway speeds (70-90mph) is significantly noticeable but by no means unbearable. The transmission shifts smoothly (even after 60k miles) and the engine has pep and power for days/miles. This is a wonderful car, just nothing very special. Apart from the obvious benefits (260rip roaring bhp & 5 gears) the Acura rides like a dream, is extremely fun in the curves and is non-intrusive at highway speeds. I have to admit I partially went with type-s for need for speed and a desire to one-up my family. But it is a fantastic car, worth the extra money if you want it and can afford it. Remember you will be paying more for gas, servicing and heaven-forbid parts. I agree fully with the fact that these are two cars competing in very different markets with completely different competion. Ultimately one's best bet is to test drive both cars.

machiavelli · July 2002

You get what you pay for. The TL is the nicer car, but is it worth the extra money? That is up to you to decide. I went with the TL - much nicer interior, 5 speed vs. 4 speed, more power, better dealer service, etc... The only advantage I saw in the Accord was more headroom, and the lower price. I'm happy with the TL

ghomaz · July 2002

My cousin went through the same dilemma! Accord EXV6 or TL Type S? He basically did not want an Accord because almost everyone in our circle of family and friends was driving one. Endless discussions, comparisons and test drives later he gave up the whole issue and went in for a BMW 325i! He is happy and so am I since I get to drive it quite often!! However, I am extremely happy with my Accord LXV6.

8u6hfd · July 2002

Since my cousins have both a Accord EX V6 & a TL....it's easy to make a comparison....and I'd spend the extra money on the TL without a doubt.

machiavelli · August 2002

I'd have to say, the new '03 Accord EX V6 narrows the gap considerably compared to a '03 3.2TL (more power 240 vs. 225, both have 5 speed, etc...) But, the new, improved '04 TL will rectify that situation in a few months.

prettywilly · August 2002

The 2004 TL will certinly get the Type-S engine as the base engine for the 2004 model, IMO that is.

machiavelli · August 2002

At the very least, the new TL would have to have more than 240. But, yeah, it's probably a safe bet that the "base" TL will have 260 and a new Type-S would have more than 260.

s852 · August 2002

The 260 hp engine is not as smooth and refined as the 225 hp engine. It's louder and grumbles with a sporty tone than fits the type-S more.
I don't know that everyone wants it as the base engine for the 2004 redesign.

machiavelli · August 2002

Well, you can bet they aren't going to have the TL with 225hp and the Accord with 240hp for long. Like I said above, the 'base' TL will have at least 240hp, bare minimum, and probably more like 250-260hp. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to get the exact engine from the current type-S. It will likely be a 3.2L version of the 3.0L that makes 240hp in the 2003 Accord.

[Deleted User] · August 2002

I own a '99 CRV-EX, (no problems) a 2001 Acura TL 3.2 and a 2001 Honda Accord EX VL. Do yourself a favor and do not buy either car. From leaking sun roofs, door moldings falling off, squeaks and broken traction control modules, you are better off getting a Toyota or GM product. Honda corporate continues to blame the dealers for their declining quality at the factory and do not care about their customers.

bodydouble · August 2002

sutton4 · September 2002

According to the LA Times, Acura is having widespread problems with the auto trans in the TL.

16,000 have been replaced in the last 2 years alone.

Buyer beware.

dicarlo27 · September 2002

I recently bought the 2003 3.2 TL - I am very happy with the car. However, my wife has a 2002 Honda Accord EX. Her sound system is far superior to the Bose system that comes with the Acura. I was really surprised that a more expensive car within the honda family would have such a weak stereo system.

I am going to have to enhance my sound system. It sounds like a very cheap system. The sound sounds very hollow.

bodydouble · September 2002

Are you sure the EX sounds better. We have an '02 Accord V6 and an '01 CL-S. And while I agree that the Bose in the CL-S is nothing to get too excited over, I still think it sounds better (though not by much) than the system in the Accord.

smz2 · September 2002

Have a chance to get an '02 Seville SLS (with 18k) on the clock for same price as an '03 TL,I realize these are two very different cars but the sybarite in me is calling out. Anyone with experience with these?

subiefan · September 2002

I don't know much about the TL other than what I've read on the Acura message board, but I have an '02 STS LOADED with everything except the upgraded seats.

The first thing I would question is why is an '02 SLS available with 18K? There must be some reason that the former owner changed vehicles after only one year. That is slightly higher than average miles; of course, if they were highway miles, it's probably OK.

I've had some "niggling" problems, all fixed satisfactorily under warranty. The AM radio reception started to go bad, so they gave me a new radio (Bose with NAV.) A tire pressure sensor went bad; it was R&R'd. The trunk leaked; it was fixed. There was a slight misalignment in the trunk lid that was wearing paint off in an unseen area; it was re-aligned and touched up.

I did drive an '02 CLS before deciding on the STS and I think the big differences would be:

1. Smoother ride in the SLS.
2. Softer seats in the SLS but less lateral support in spirited cornering.
3. Engine designed for REGULAR gas (don't know about the TL.)
4. SLS is an overall bigger (and heavier) vehicle
5. Average MPG for me is 16-17; higher on trips.
6. HUGE trunk.
7. I wouldn't be surprised if the insurance premium was less in the SLS; mine went down from the '99 CLK320 I had.
8. Styling preference would be a matter of taste.
9. BOSE sound system in the STS is pretty damn good; don't know about the TL or SLS.

Now, the BIGGIE; if you're going to hold on to it; GET A GM WARRANTY!

You know about the infamous Acura weak transmission. Well, as far as I know, the weakness in the SLS is the Northstar engine's propensity for developing a main oil seal leak sometime after 40K miles. It may not occur until 60K, but even though this engineering flaw was supposed to have been fixed, I have seen no evidence that it has.

I'm only leasing my STS for another year, and will probably not keep it (have the hots for an E500), but if I did, I would not take a chance on that oil leak. The engine has to be removed to fix it and it's about a $2K dealer repair.

Good luck with your decision. Hope I've been some help.

Bob
(The "subiefan" name refers to my wife's '02 Outback LTD)

steedm · September 2002

Having driven a Tl and an EX 4 cylinder, I reckon that the EX has a better driving position with more headroom and a telescoping wheel. Also the EX does have more room in the rear.
I plan to drive an EX V6 (when I can find one) to see how well it goes, but right now the EX is winning.
However, I should add that the 02EX is not very impressive. What a difference a year makes...

diploid · December 2002

From the rumors, the new TL won't come out until fall 2003. Acura will unveil only the TSX at the upcoming auto shows. But you never know...

davela2 · December 2002

I'm debating between the new V6 EX Accord, which I can get for $23,600 or a used Acura TL, 37,000 miles, certified, with a 7 year, 100,000 mile full covergae warranty for $19,500. Any thoughts?

lippolds · December 2002

What year is the TL? I would go for the new HOnda. The new Accord has just about all the features of a base TL and more power. Who cares if it does not have the Acura Badge. It is a better car and why buy used when for a bit more you can get new?

bodydouble · December 2002

I would go with the Accord, no matter what year the TL is. Especially with the tranny issue in the TL. However, if possible, I would suggest waiting a bit before taking the plunge on the Accord. There are a few nagging bugs Honda should work out first.

tblazer503 · December 2002

The '03 is a little bigger, gets better MPG, has all the safety features and more(side curtain airbags), same power output(basically), same basic ammenities, and at least you know what has happened to it for the most part. Heck, if ya really want, you can probably get a '03 TL premium for about 27-28k...

Oh yeah, and it just got best pick in the crast test.

davela2 · December 2002

Well, here's what the experts at Consumer Reports (these 2 guys actually did the test drives) said when I asked them this question about TL vs Accord in their chat room. I have definatley made up my mind now. I'm getting the Accord

CR Expert -- Jake Fisher
"I'd take the Accord in an instant. It's simply a better car than the TL. It has a smoother ride, more power, and feels just as sporty. Enjoy!"

CR Expert -- Gabriel Shenhar
"Go for the Accord. There will be a redesigned TL in 2004 based on the new Accord, and then you might regret such a recent TL purchase."

steedm · December 2002

The only advantage the TL has is it looks better (IMHO). Methinks the TL base model will be phased out soon since it doesn't offer much over the V6 Accord (the HID lights is all I could find).
If you can stretch to it, the TL-S is better than the Accord V6 but of course, it does cost around $5K more...

atlantabenny · December 2002

Helping my son shop for exactly the same (pre-owned w/40k miles) TL you're deliberating.

The 03 Accord as already mentioned in this thread is a new generation Honda while the current 99-03 TL is based on the previous Accord. Effectively, the TL is therefore yesterday's technology news.

Depreciation is another factor to consider, I believe. The current TL's value should drop faster than an 03 Accord's would when the 04 TL comes out. Down the road, you're probably financially ahead with the Accord.

I hope it's Just a matter of time before Honda solves the tranny problem. Having recently purchased an 03 Accord EX which was made in Japan, I'm surprised at the number of initial quality defects to suggest not all is ship-shape with Honda. There's a door rattle, horn hub on steering wheel doesn't line up with surrounding parts, dashboard's right end-part has bigger gap from door panel compared with other side.

Owned 2 Accords and leased a Civic since 1997, and they were all assembled like a nice watch. Hmmm...

71buickgs · January 2003

I recently had to decide between a 2003 Honda EX V6 and a 2003 Acura TL Type S. I ended up buying the TL, despite the $6,000 price difference, because the Accord is just plain ugly compared to the TL (and Mazda 6, although better than the Altima and the 2004 Maxima is just plain weird). And no, two months later the Accord is not "growing on me" despite the many examples I see on the road each day. Any one that thinks that the TL is outdated should drive one. It has a completely different emotional feel and look, from the Accord, which appeals to me. Granted, I wouldn't recommend a regular TL, which would have less power than the Accord. If you are going to step up to the Acura, then step up. Just my opinion.

atlantabenny · January 2003

test-drove 2 of your car. fast, road-hugging and it's got that special acceleration roar. car's appealing in any of the available colors, but personally find it attractive in black/tan or silver/black. congrats

jke4man · January 2003

On paper the new Accord is a much better car than the TL. Every option I will name they both have. Five speed auto four wheel disc and ABS alloy wheels,security,system,immobilizer anti theft,heated seats,steering wheel mounted audio controls,power windows,locks,mirrors,outside temp gauge,keyless entry,automatic climate control,traction control.
The Accord actually has dual zone climate control 240 horsepower runs on regular fuel and side curtain airbags. When someone is price conscience the Accord wins hands down. The Accord has 240 horsepower as opposed to the TL's 225 but the accord is only one tenth of a second faster to sixty.
If you were in my dealership I would go on all day as to why the Accord was a better value and it actually is but the TL is a better car. I always said people only bought the TL over the Accord because they were an "image buyer" until I bought a TL. Every part of the TL is a little nicer than the Accord and when you add everything up the TL becomes a much nicer car somehow it seems as though the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

dulnev · January 2003

"I always said people only bought the TL over the Accord because they were an "image buyer" until I bought a TL."

What image? Acura is not like Lexus, not that many people know about it or recognize it as a luxury brand. After I bought my TL in '99 I've had to explain countless times to different people what this "Acura" thing is. Granted, Acura has REALLY stepped up advertising in the last couple of years and this has raised the brand awareness, but it still has a LONG way to go before people would start buying Acura for "image".

You were right in your post: TL is just a better car overall. That's why people buy it over Accord.

kdshapiro · January 2003

The people I know buy Acura because of that perceived image. They've been buying them for years. The image? Upscale, more goodies, more prestige over Honda.

It all depends on where you're going and where you are from that helps define your preferences and what your social circle understands about you.

Is it a better car? Well in the absolute I suppose. As a Tag Heuer is a better watch than a Timex, although both Tag Heuer and Timex, like Acura and Honda perform there functions admirably although one with considerably more panache and style for those who want to pay more for the priviledge.

jke4man · January 2003

I would just like to know what part of the country you are in that you have to explain to people "what this Acura thing is".

billyperks · January 2003

I am curious too-what part of the coutry are you from?
I think Acura is right up there with Lexus in terms of name recognition.

dulnev · January 2003

"I am curious too-what part of the coutry are you from?"

My observations about lack of brand recognition are from three years ago, when I bought my 2000 TL. At that time I lived in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Acura was certainly not nearly a recognizable brand as Lexus.

I've since moved to East Coast (DC area) and Acura has spent tens of millions of dollars on TV advertisement. There is no question that there I'm observing a lot more brand recognition now due to both of these factors. But even in the last several months, I was asked couple times (by people in their fifties) "what is this Acura thing and who makes it?".

billyperks · January 2003

Santa Fe who???
That explains.

So are you saying people in their fifties(in DC) are up to speed with the Lexus name and are completely oblivious to the Acura brand?

I think the Ledgend, Vigor and Integra laid the path for the now numbered names (eg 3.2 3.5)Acura has in their showroom.

I just find it hard to beleive about Acura not been recognizable.

pat · January 2003

Ahh, I'm not sure that an argu..., er, intense debate about whether Acura is or is not a recognizable "name" really belongs in a topic which is supposed to be comparing a TL to a top level Accord.

We need to leave off the personal disparagements, the locality criticisms and the generalizations -- none of that is on topic.

Let's get back to the subject.

dulnev · January 2003

"Ahh, I'm not sure that an argu..., er, intense debate about whether Acura is or is not a recognizable "name" really belongs in a topic which is supposed to be comparing a TL to a top level Accord."

With all due respect, why wouldn't it be a relevant issue? For many people prestige of the brand is at least as important as the performance characteristics of the car.

spleck · January 2003

Prestige and recognition of the name is the whole reason Honda has Acura. If the branding was not important, then it would be Honda TL. If you're comparing Honda to Acura, then you must consider the recognition of the name. It's hard to make a car prestigious if no one has heard of it.

The Santa Fe who remark is a bit off topic, but the comment about age is important. Many people over 50 were buying cars BEFORE Acura existed. I believe studies will also show that the over 50 age group watches TV less and surfs online less--reducing potential exposure to the Acura.

pat · January 2003

Okay dulnev, point taken.

I should have just said knock off the personal attacks, fair enough?

:-)

billyperks · January 2003

And I presume they were buying cars before Lexus existed too.

spleck · January 2003

Probably, but I believe that in overall vehicle sales, Toyota leads Honda. While that may not hold true for Lexus vs Acura, it may also have something to do with recognizability. Honda being relatively new to the automobile market in the US compared to Toyota may have something to do with it.

Oddly enough, when Acura first came out, my 50+ grandmother traded in her Pontiac for a Legend. Which is another reason Acuras are less recognizable: They were referred to as Legends, not Acuras. This branding issue is why Acura changed the Legend and others to the TL, etc.

billyperks · January 2003

What are you talking about?
When the Legend came out it was known as the Aucura Legend.I remembered this because I was in high school and some rich kid father had one.
I don't know where your grandmother bought her Legend.

spleck · January 2003

I guess you missed out on the whole Acura model renaming a few years back. Acura felt that the Legend and Vigor were not being associated with the Acura brand name. They renamed the Legend as a TL. In discussions, people say "Acura TL", but they used to say "Legend".

By the way, are your replies always so antagonizing?

billyperks · January 2003

Do you really think my replies are antogonizing?
Sorry man!!!!

In any event the Legend was rebadged not a TL.
The TL now wears the badge of the Vigor.

I guess I am missing your point-
Were you trying to say that when the Legend first came out it did not have Acura written all over it?
Please clarify.

billyperks · January 2003

I meant to say in my previous post that the Legend was rebadged as a RL.

pat · January 2003

Let's calm down in here, ok? There is no need for mucking around with each other's member IDs.

All he is saying is that people did not say "Acura Legend" and they did not say "Acura Vigor" -- instead they just said "Legend" or "Vigor".

He is saying that Acura went to the current naming standard to get people to say "Acura TL" and "Acura RL" so that the name ACURA got more recognition than it did with the Legend and Vigor.

At least that's what I understand his point to be and I have read this previously.

spleck · January 2003

Pat is right. I give up, I'm beat.

akal50 · January 2003

The Legend always had the Acura nameplate on it. But the people who bought them wouldn't say, "I got an Acura." Instead they'd say "I got a Legend." If you're a luxury brand trying to build up name recognition, you want people to remember the brand name more than the model name. That's why Acura switched to RL, TL, etc. Just imagine if Lexus would be as a big deal if they used real names instead of LS400 or ES300 for their cars.

dajiang1 · January 2003

Just sold my 2000' EX-V6 and got an TL-S. So far I put 500 mi on the new TLS and very happy with it. Price difference between a 2003 TLS (29k no NAV) and 2003 Accord EX-V6 (24k) is about 5k. Is the 5k worth it? Before the 03' Accord came out, I would say a no brainder. But now? the answer is still yes.

Here are what the extra 5k buys me, in order of importance to my personally:

1) Sports Shift (a must for me, I drove a stick shift most of life, but in this tri State traffic, cannot live without an auto, but it's nice to be able to go back to manual and take over the car again...)

2) Stiffer suspension. the 03' EX-V6 is way soft for my taste.

3) Still faster. 0-60 6.5s vs 7.0s, and more torque at low end gives better pickup.

4) 17' wheel vs 16'

5) better highway cruiser, still quieter and car feels tighter and more stable. VSA helps in cornering

6) other goodies: Xenon lights, fog lights, memory seats, etc.

7) Brand: say what u want about Acura, but I'm ready to move *off* the Honda wagon after having 2 Hondas (Prelude and Accord) in the last 7 years. Free road side assistance and loaner car is nice.

8) better driver's seat. perforated leather seat is a little richer in taste.

Dave

Acura TL vs Honda Accord

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles