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.
Acura TL 2006+
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
On a separate note, I know with high gas prices, SUV ownership could be painful, but I think an SUV plus a sedan is a nice family combo. I had to haul a couple of small trees in planters home last weekend in my TL, and it wasn't much fun, for me nor for the car! :sick:
But back to the original question, do we know, with any degree of certainty, that Acura will put AWD in the TL next year or as an early '07?
P.S. I realize that my fantasy of an AWD Coupe is just that in today's market.
BTW, you could get an AWD coupe. Porsche still sells an AWD version of the 911 Carrera, do they not?
But keeping with Honda and the previous TL cycle, that should be about it.
You think?
David
I would like to see a more creative wheel design with the TL revisions as well as 1 or 2 new color choices. Just not the Electric Blue, Please. I absolutely love the Redondo Red on the TL!
I fact, overall, I hope they don't tweak the styling too much, if at all.
I think if they up the HP, it will be done in conjunction with AWD. The current FWD is doing all it can to handle the 270 HP.
- Waiting for an SH-AWD TL 6-spd with A-spec kit (sans the skirts) in Redondo red with Camel interior and Nav... :shades:
Change the front grill-make it similar to the RL
Add colors to the tail light (the all red is kind of dangerous)
Move the fog lights back where they belong (under the headlights)
Turn signal on the outside mirrors
More HP along with SH AWD
Rear Sun Shade
I know this is coming, if not I will go else where.
Terry
http://subscribers.wardsauto.com/microsites/newsarticle.asp?newsarticleid=2732484&siteid=2- - 6&magazineid=1004&instanceid=5121&pageid=824&srid=10088
I've seen a lot of posters comment about the fog lights. What's the big deal? From the driver's seat they seem to work just fine.
Tire pressure monitor system, and oil-level indicator would also be very useful.
Another thing that's not on your list, which I would really want, but not likely to be offered at this price point, is power opening and closing trunk. I'm tired of trying to lift the trunk with my chin or knee with an arm-full of groceries!
Not sure if this is the reason for so many posts or not, but it is my experience. I test drove a Jetta GLX back in 2000 that had the fogs in the headlight cluster. During the drive, I turned them on along with the low-beams. A rough guess, about 15-20% of the cars I passed flashed their high-beams at me. When I got back to the dealership, I got out to see if maybe a headlight was poorly aimed. They were fine but it dawned on me that people, seeing 4 lights coming at them from the headlight cluster, just assume you have your high-beams on whether they are being blinded or not. :confuse:
That was when I personally decided this wasn't the best design practice.
Other issues: 1) Only a 10 hp/6 ft. lbs torque gain over the 2002-2003 Type-S, which results in a modest 0.1 second improvement in the popular 0-60 category.
2) No Type-S variant 3) What are those red things on the back of the TL that light up on the sides, and why don't they blink when the turn signal is on? 4) What is the deal with trunk openings that get smaller? I guess if we can afford a TL, we can afford a plasma TV so it doesn't have to accomodate larger objects. 5) It's own identity (too much in common with the TSX). 6) Parktronic and sunshades coming standard on all TLs. 7) AWD to compete with European and other Japanese rivals.
2006 had better bring AWD and a lot more guts (like 300+ horsepower) to the field, or it will not have the advantage that it had when I bought my 2002 TL. When I bought it in late 2001, I had the fastest sports sedan on the market. There were no CTS's, G35's, and the C320 and 330i were slower off the line than the TL-S. RIght here at edmunds.com, it beat out the 330i because it offered value and beat it off the line. Those days have to return for the 2006 TL. SH-AWD, and at least 310-315 hp. For you RL fans, it's not the first time the RL would have less horsepower than the TL. Sorry for the long reply, but these things need to be said. Acura has always stood for luxury with value. Let's get serious again.
They should at least put a mini jack input for devices such as ipod (i hate using cassette adapter), or even better do iPod integration like BMW did. I am sure it would not cost more then a DVD-A support.
I think I know why they changed up the foglights - at least this was my experience. I noticed that when I parked too far into a parking space that had a concrete bumper, it would push under my front air dam, and that would "squish" the foglights, and they would crack. When I realized it would cost me about $170 to replace one foglight, it fixed my compulsion to park too far into a parking space.
I liked the fog lights - I never really had to drive through fog, they just illuminated the road just in front and to the side of the car and helped with the overall lighting.
Besides, true fog lights are amber, and nobody wants amber fog lights on the front of their car anymore.
Question for mth2: Did you have the sport kit on your car? Because if you did, then you would have less front ground clearance, which might explain why your car couldn't clear the concrete bumper. In my almost four years with my 2002 TL-S I have never had any concrete bumper clearance issues. That sucks about the $170 repair though. My seat heater on the driver side just went out, and my dealer wants to charge me $125 just to look at it. What a pain.
You're right - I forgot about Lexus and their amber lights - true fog lights are amber anyway. The clear lights just look sharp.
No, someone decided I had had enough time driving my 02 TL-S last December and pushed my car onto a boulder with their car - I can tell you that the airbags work great, and tend to leave a souvenir or two behind for you to remember them by!
Waiting to buy an 06 or 07 TL. I tested an A-SPEC, it was like riding in a horse driven buggy. The car moved up and down more than forward. Would like the A-SPEC styling with different tires, if possible. Enjoyed the regular TL 6M.
One is quality control. I have heard the raddle complaints in the new TL and I can only imagine that the same could be in store for the new RL. You aren't hearing about that from European models, at least not with the same frequency. Secondly, ventilated seats are not offered for either the TL or RL. The new Lexus ES330 has this, one of the TL's competitors. Shoot, there is a commercial for it too. And it isn't even offered for the RL. Thirdly, heated rear seats. A lot of the aforementioned companies offer this as an option. Fourth, laser cruise control. Acura may be the last luxury company to not offer this. Lastly, DVD entertainment systems are not offered. With DVD watching becoming more common inside of automobiles that are not even considered "luxury" cars, then why not make this enhancement to the TL and RL. At this point, Acura is about the equal of the lower tier luxury car companies such as Volvo, Lincoln, Cadillac and Saab, whose best models can all be had at under 60K. Charging customers 35-40K for the TL and 52-55K for the RL are not so outlandish if the above improvements are made. I understand that not all of these options could be offered to the TL to justify the price difference, but there is a lot that Acura is forgetting to include.
In conclusion, for 2006 the TL should include some of these ideas in addition to the power increases that made it the fastest sports sedan under 40K in 2002. Acura has always been able to make the excuse that its V6's can compete with the V8's from Europe, but now they are threatening to fall behind many V6's. Mercedes just released the E350 which cranks out 268 hp, Audi's A4/A6 cranks out 255hp, and the new 330i churns out 255hp. All of these models that I just mentioned are either as fast or faster than the TL or RL, with slightly less horsepower. Many of the competition have torque numbers that are better than the TL and they are lighter, so they move quicker. Maybe Acura isn't competing in the HP war, but buyers nowadays are looking for fun when they drive. How else could you explain all of the WRX's you see on the road? And quite frankly it irritates me when I see a wagon WRX and know that I can't beat soccer mom off the line. Not only could the new TL's and RL's use a few technological enhancements, but the thing under the hood should be it's biggest priority. For my next car purchase I may go to another make, because it gives me all that I need in performance. Those needs are increasing everywhere, and so are expectations. Acura has done well throughout the past five years, renewing their brand, and raising expectations, but I think they can put one on the rest of the automotive world if they make some if not all of the improvements that I have mentioned to their 3 top models, TL, RL, and MDX. Of course can they do it without using a V8? That is the most important question of all.
Yeah, but you'll look way more cool in your TL than her in her dorky-looking hatch/wagon.
Another thing. You sure E350 and A4, A6 are faster than TL or RL?
In regards to the other question you had on speed:
Acura TL (0-60 time): 6.5 secs.
Acura RL: 6.5 secs.
Mercedes E350: 6.5 secs.
Audi A4 3.2: 6.6 secs.
Yeah these numbers look pretty even. But once you take the inherent wheelspin from the fwd of the TL into consideration, and if you are not careful on the takeoff you would do somewhere in the high 6's or low 7's. The RL is the only car that can hang evenly with the two aforementioned German rivals on a consistent basis, but it is a heavier car, which could make a difference depending on the road conditions. My point of that discussion was to prove that the V6 that was in the TL-S three years ago was competitive to a lot of 8 cylinder engines from Germany. For instance a 290hp 540i did the 0-60 in a tad over 6 seconds. The 275hp E430 made the 0-60 run in 6.3. With the last generation 260hp TL-S doing it in 6.6, that was pretty competitive considering you were comparing apples to oranges. The apples to apples comparison, well there was none. The 6 cylinders from Germany (530i and E320) did the sprint in a tad over 7 seconds, well short of that of the TL-S. Here is something even more remarkable that not too many people realized. The last generation Audi S4 (stock 250hp), was two tenths of a second slower than the TL-S in this category. All I am saying is that the gap has closed, and the 06 TL needs to be aiming for low 6's or high 5's if they are going to compete with the 545i's and E500's of the world that do the run in the mid to high 5's. That would at least allow the TL to once again be competitive with the G35 in performance. Even the 2005 Nissan Altima 3.5 SE-R can do the 0-60 sprint in 5.9 according to Nissan. This is why the TSX needs way more power. But that is another topic.
I agree with the points being made about the next generation TL. I have a 2002 TL-S and it has been a great car. Not the best at handling but acceleration, ride, space are great. I was looking forward to buying the new RL but it is a major disappointment in my view, and I reached the conclusion that the TL (particularly if it gets AWD and a few other enhancements) would be a better solution.
I think the new Infiniti M is interesting. Fuel economy is below average and can't get AWD in the M45 but other than that, the M has the performance, handling, braking and interior space and features that a performance/luxury car should have.
The new BMW 3 has been expanded a bit and performance credentials (6.1 sec 0-60) are quite strong. Once the 5 series gets a minor rework like the 7 seriers just received, it will be quite strong. Both 3 and 5 series avaliable in AWD in next few months.
In my view, the new TL (and frankly the RL) need something close to (or preferably below) 6 second 0-60 and quarter mile around 14 seconds. More important, they have to have braking and handling characteristics at least closer to the M and BMW's and this means SH-AWD. The interior and trunk space in the TL is currently adequate but they should not make the mistake they made with the RL and essentially give the buyer less space in rear seat, trunk, below average brakes and acceleration and expect the car to sell well vs. BMW and M. The bar has been raised and I agree Acura seems to have lost its edge in building serious performance cars. I have never been a BMW fan and Infiniti offerings/styling has been quite uneven until recently, but to see what they have done with the 3 series and M in terms of performance means I will be driving one of them if the new Acura is not AWD and improved in handling and performance
http://www.ssmoparmuscle.com/speedcomp.htm?NORDERBY=make&OORDERBY=quarter&OORDERDIR=ASC
But thats probably the best 0-60 TL has ever got, with the A-spec 5.6 secs.
And again each test varies, imho humidity play a big factor in tests especially with ULEV2 cars . My suggestion is to compare best numbers vs best numbers.
Regarding the RL: I saw it at the 2004 International Auto Show and the interior space seemed to be adequate, front seat and back. However I am 6'5" and the only car that I can honestly say that I enjoy being in the back seat of is my father's town car. But I can see what you are saying though; it could be larger. I found the same thing when I was sitting inside of the new Audi A6. Adequate room but not nearly as much as the A8. If the RL is the top-of-the-line Acura, it should have the interior space of a Lexus LS, Mercedes S-Class, BMW 7-Series, etc. You know where I am going with this. Acura's vehicle sizes are a little bit obscure when you look at it. I will compare with BMW. The TSX compares with the 3-Series in size, while the TL compares with it in price and performance (Motorsport models not included, obviously). Subsequently, the TL compares with the 5-Series in size, while the RL compares with the 5 Series in price, and is just slightly larger than it in size, and cannot compete with it in performance. There is nothing that Acura offers that is as large and as the 7-Series. Why is there such a minimal difference in size between the TL (189 inches) and the RL (193 inches)? The RL has the technology advantage, but it needs more size (somewhere closer to 200 inches). In fact I would have liked to see the TL take on more of what the RL became. The TL got shorter by about three inches (from 192 to 189), which made it more agile, but also more cramped. You can have an agile car at 190+ inches. Look at the 5-Series (191 inches) and the E-Class (190 inches). I know this cannot be addressed until the next redesign for both the TL and the RL. But interior space as well as trunk space is being compromised because of the timidness of Acura to add another 6-8 inches to the length of the RL. That is why it cannot compare with the large sedans from Europe. Well, that and the fact that Acura needs to bring a V8 to the RL eventually.
The real problem between the TSX, the TL, and the RL is there is only a $20K and a minimal 10 inch length difference between the TSX (183 inches) and the RL (193). That is perhaps the biggest mistake that Acura made. Look at BMW whose 3-Series is around 178 inches long, while the 7-Series goes 204 inches for the Li. That is more than two and a half times the dispersion between Acura's three sedan models. Many auto folks compare the TSX with the Accord. Well wasn't the last generation TL built on the same platform as the last generation Accord? :confuse:
In regards to the Infiniti M: I really like that car too. The styling is just a bit wierd though, especially in the back. The tail looks downright ridiculous. But I am sure the drivers of M45's are more satisfied with what they get inside than their RL friends do. Unless they are stuck in traffic that is.
After looking at the link that you provided, I will not take these numbers seriously for one major reason, they are off by a lot on almost every car. Don't tell me that my TL-S goes from 0-60 in 7.6 seconds, when it clearly does it in about a full second less than that. In fact this link showed that a 1999 base TL did the sprint in a two tenths of a second quicker than the 2003 TL Type-S. Give me a break. No chance. On a bad day, and with a head start, a Type-S (2002-03) will beat a base TL (1999-2003). Also, a Corolla XRS 6-speed is not faster than a TL Type-S. Very sporadic source. Given these obvious mistakes by those testing the cars, I doubt that a A-spec TL is as fast as they are quoting.
"In conclusion, for 2006 the TL should include some of these ideas in addition to the power increases that made it the fastest sports sedan under 40K in 2002. Acura has always been able to make the excuse that its V6's can compete with the V8's from Europe, but now they are threatening to fall behind many V6's. Mercedes just released the E350 which cranks out 268 hp, Audi's A4/A6 cranks out 255hp, and the new 330i churns out 255hp. All of these models that I just mentioned are either as fast or faster than the TL or RL, with slightly less horsepower. Many of the competition have torque numbers that are better than the TL and they are lighter, so they move quicker."
While I agree that V6s in the previous TL-S and current TL are competitive with some V8s, the V6 in the RL has never been, at least until now. The previous RL was a 225hp slug that couldn't even compete with other V6s late in its life.
Adding more hp to Acura's V6s isn't going to cure the main problem, torque and more importantly the generation of it. Acura's tendency to make you rev to get the torque is a big reason why a less powerful E350 is faster (see the May issue of C&D). Others develop more torque at lower rpm and Acura is a gear or two short on most of the other cars in the class now. From everything I've seen and experienced Acura doesn't particularly excel at automatic transmissions either. I remember driving the previous CL-S and it had a pronounced hesitation if you mashed it. Not linear at all. The RL when I drove it just doesn't seem to put the really put the power down like a 300hp car should.
As far as the RL competiting with the S-Class and 7-Series, it will never happen. I think the current Accord platform is already stretched to its limits. Plus that class demands a V8. I too know people that thought the RL should compete at the full size level, but I've never understood that. The RL and last Legend before it were always E/5/GS/A6 competitors.
M
ACURA TL 04
5.7 secs -> Car and driver Jan 2004
5.8 secs -> when tested again in March 2004
This is the spec when tested against G35 and 330i. Same place/road condition for all competing cars.
G35 stock 0.2 secs slower
330i stock trailing the G by 0.5 sec
ACURA TL
Price as tested: $35,195 (no modification)
Price and option breakdown: base Acura TL (includes $545 freight), $33,195; navigation system, $2000
Major standard accessories: power windows, seats, locks, and sunroof; remote locking; A/C; cruise control; tilting and telescoping steering wheel; rear defroster
Sound system: Acura/ELS AM/FM/satellite radio/cassette/CD/ DVD changer, 8 speakers
regarding the A-spec, imho it does nothing to Hp.
Honestly I cant tell the difference between 0.1 sec and 0.2 secs, without an equipment. I cant even tell how fast the car is going just like when I drove a civic @90mph, it felt like 130mph. I drove a holden once @90 mph and it felt like 50mph. So which car was faster, a heavy holden or a lighter civic according to one's feeling?
:confuse:
From my experience as the car gets more mileage, the slower it runs (especially when its been poorly maintained).
Here's the quote from Car and driver may 2004
TL with A-spec 5.6 secs (there is no way to tell the difference)
Price as tested: $40,895 (base price: $38,895)
Power (SAE net): 270 bhp @ 6200 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 238 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.5 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 28.4 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.2 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.3 sec @ 99 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 152 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 174 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.90 g
EPA fuel economy, city driving: 19 mpg
C/D-observed fuel economy: 20 mpg
"As far as the RL competiting with the S-Class and 7-Series, it will never happen. I think the current Accord platform is already stretched to its limits. Plus that class demands a V8. I too know people that thought the RL should compete at the full size level, but I've never understood that. The RL and last Legend before it were always E/5/GS/A6 competitors"
I hate to sound like the Hertz commercial, but not exactly. For 2006 Mercedes just released the S350, which is a V6. Given the nature of this 268hp engine, it should perform near the level of the barely more powerful S430. I don't know what Mercedes is doing with all of these engine choices for the S-class? This isn't the first time that Mercedes has done this. They did this with the S320 during the mid to late 90's. My point is that it can be done, even though performance is about on par with my dad's town car. If they decided to enlarge the RL someday, but not change the engine, then it wouldn't be the first time the performance wasn't stellar for this car. However to be competitive with the other large luxury sedans they would have to offer it with either a choice of a V6 or V8, or just a V8 like Lexus and Infiniti do with their large models. Or to be completely unrealistic, offer it with a supercharged V6. Yeah right! That will be the day.
This "new" S350 is just a placeholder and/or test to see if they should bring the next generation (268hp) S350 here for the 2007 model year.
The RL doesn't compete with the S-Class/7-Series cars.
M
Sorry about the misinformation about the output of the S350's engine. You are right. It is the 241hp SOHC, not the 268hp DOHC. Wow, that car must be brutally slow. I sometimes get myself into trouble when I think about the model numbers for companies like Mercedes. It is easy just to think that every 240, 320, 350, 500, 600, is the same engine for all classes. They will throw a curve ball every now and then. I usually check my information when I am sourcing comparisons. It hadn't been ingrained into my memory because I had only been to mbusa.com once since the release of the S350. I was shocked to see that Mercedes was coming back with a V6 in their S-Class. Thanks for the correction though.
However, I am not comparing the RL to the S-Class, or other luxury models like it. I would like to if it were: a) a few inches longer in body size, b) filled with most of the super large sedan's optional features as standard (an Acura habit). That saves $10-20K off the sticker price right there. My initial post on this topic was aimed at getting Acura to realize that it could compete with cars in this segment with the right approach. They probably don't want to compete with it though, as you were dancing around with in your three sedan comparison amongst car companies. They really don't have to stack up to everyone else's three sedan offerings because Acura is successful selling a ton of cars and racking up the automotive awards by selling cars of immense value.
I think that they would be even more successful if they used the RL in their next redesign as a car that could compete with S-Class-like models, and henceforth the TL with E-Class-like models, and the TSX with C-Class-like models. Yes they need to incorporate a V8, but this would increase their image in the luxury automotive industry. They could never compete with the engines from Mercedes, BMW, and Audi, because it would be a cold day in hell before Acura releases a V12. They are losing out on the buyers that want the tricked out lux sedan, like your Lexus LS and your Infiniti Q for their Japanese competitors. Let's not forget that Acura was the 1st Japanese luxury car company. I feel like it would be justice if they were able to offer customers the option of buying a super large lux sedan from Acura. Given the fact that redesigns across models vary quite a bit, maybe the most logical move is to just create an entirely new model all of its own. We'll call it a ZL. :shades:
I think the current RL is a fine car, but at 50K I think it’s a tough sell for two types of buyers 1) a person looking at a M35, and 2) a person that says "for 50K you might as well get a Lexus, BMW or whatever". The current RL would be a much better buy at 45K than 50K, all IMO of course. This RL I predict will drop off in sales just like the last one did as the segment continues to evolve and outpace it.
True, Acura was the first Japanese luxury brand, but Honda isn't enough to take on Toyota's Lexus and now Nissan's Infiniti when it comes to their upper range cars. I too always said that Acura should compete at a higher level, but as you point out they're doing just fine by specializing entry-level luxury/sport sedans while not truly offering a full-on luxury car like an S-Class or LS430.
There was a thread hear about Acura's "dilemma", but I'm not sure even they even have one because we all were assuming they want to compete with MB,Lexus and BMW at the high end, but I don't think they do.
M
Because if it is significantly more, then I'm thinking....BMW X3, or the upcoming 330xi?
I don't think Acura cares if a 300C or Sentra SE-R V-Spec is faster because neither of those cars in quite in the same category. Acura probably regards the 300C is a American pig type car.
M