Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
But got to admit that from a cursory observation, the the Chrysler boys have done a pretty good job at the interior/exterior design, lack of structural strength notwithstanding. Closer observation however, would show the mis-aligned panels and poor fit-and-finish. Almost like admiring a super-model's beauty from afar, and then you get closer and find decaying teeth and foul odor issuing from the mouth (of the supermodel).....sure it turned me off.
For me, thorough competency, with smooth seemless powerful silent operation, without any eccentricities is the best personality I could desire - in a car...and the Acura TL meets my personality targets perfectly....
just my 2c
Later...AH
pete
Puberdee - If Chrysler rules, why can't they keep up with a "modified Accord"? It must really eat em up that the press and public prefer a modified Accord to their precious 300 series.
================================
"There is NO way the 2000 Acura TL produced a 0-60 mph time anywhere CLOSE to 6.38->6.7 seconds. I'm sorry, it's just not true. Acura only claims 6.57 seconds for the 0-60 time for the CL-S, and something very similar for the TL-S (maybe a hair quicker). Unless you're talking about a modified TL (but you DID say "stock" TL), I stand corrected, and I'd be equally interested to hear how these people modified the TL's at Motortrend. But people routinely .. you said "routinely" producing those times, .. uh eh, nope."
=============================
Acura claims a figure of 6.57secs for the CL-s because automakers are generally pretty conservative in releasing such figures. Magazines typically obtain much better figures. Also, since the TL/CL/CL-s share the transmission with the EXACT SAME GEAR RATIOS, the additional HP/Torque (of the CL-s/TL-s) would not make the same impact as say, if the gearing in the TL-s/CL-s were done differently to take advantage of the additonal power. Hence the TL/TL-s should have a 0-60 that is very close to each other. Of course the TL-s would have better times, but not by a lot (as much as say 35 additional horses would lead you to believe). But due to stiffer springs/dampers and other suspension modifications (including a stiffer rear anti-roll bar), the TL-s should handle way better than the regular TL. If it is 0-60 that you seek, then the TL/TL-s would not have much difference.
Motortrend obtained a 6.7 0-60 figure for the stock 2000 TL (their figure for the 1999 TL was 7.2secs).... similarly Road and Track obtained a 7.2 figure for the 1999 TL (which was slower than the 2000 TL by about 0.50 secs in 0-60)... so basically, if you subtract 0.50secs from 7.2secs, you will find that Road and Track would also have obtained a 6.7secs 0-60, if they had tested the 2000TL....as for 0-60 times, go to www.acura-tl.com and check out the TL owners over there...
Personally, I am a guy who does not lay much store by such 0-60 figures.....since these can vary with the air temperature, altitude etc.... the same car if tested on a very hot day can give miserable 0-60 numbers than if tested on a colder day....due to which, you would not be able to truly compare the 0-60 figures for 2 cars, unless they were taken at the same time, same place in similar conditions..... normally aspirated cars are at a disadvantage to turbo or super-charged cars when the altitude increases, since the air thins with altitude..... basically, these 0-60 figures are just that ..... figures .... entertaining but nothing more.... more to the point is how you find the car, and does it meet your needs - the turbine smooth and powerful engine of the TL should meet the needs of most people.....
Later...AH
"Ugh! What an ugly car." Response: Car and Drivers editors in their comparison tests as a group felt the 300M is very attractive. The plain-jane TLs looks are considered very conservative and a negative. But looks are subjective, so I respect your personal opinion. Some people like the Pontiac Aztek, and that's great for them.
"And, I'm sorry, for a car w/ 253 horses under the hood, it sure doesn't perform like it." Response: Car and Driver times the 300M at 7.9 seconds 0-60, while the 2000 TL is 7.4 (the 1999 TL was a 1/2 second slower). Quarter mile times are 16.1 for the 300M and 15.9 for the 2000 TL. Please see the C&D 9 car comparison test in 02/2000 issue, or the comparison tests right here on Edmunds, both of which confirm the 300M's standup performance. I don't understand your comment, unless you are so much into performance that 1/2 second makes a big difference to you.
"You're talking about competence in many areas?? Well, unless you're including the trunk size, and glove compartment size of the 300M as being some "serious" competency categories, wake up"
Response: As stated, my choice of the TL over the 300M is based on the TLs competency in many categories, but not about personality or looks.
"You're obviously taking Chrysler's multi-million dollar t.v. ad campaigns way too seriously." Response: I don't watch television, so I haven't seen the ad campaigns. That's the simple truth.
"And by the way, Acura's sales are pretty good right now. According to JD.Power, more TL's were sold since '99 than ES300s, and that's a pretty good benchmark." Response: I'm aware of the sales, and certainly don't deny them. I consider the TL and the 300M to be the top cars in their class, and prefer them over the I30s, the ES300s, the Saabs, etc.
"Furthermore, why did you decide on the ultra-plain TL? You seem to imply that the 300M does handsprings all over it." Response: Didn't mean to imply that. Resale value and quietness are high priorities to me, not personality/brakes/ looks, etc., thus I prefer the TL. I'll also add that the Camry is much quieter than even the TL.
"I'd be very interested to read an objective, convincing argument on why the 300M is a superior vehicle if you are comparing it with the TL. The challenge is yours for the taking...." Response: I don't consider the TL a superior vehicle. It is superior, according to test data, in certain areas such as braking, transmission, and looks (again see Car and Driver February 2000), whereas the TL is better in other areas such as fit and finish and resale value. I think that one needs to know ones priorities before making the right decision between these two vehicles. What is right for one person would not be right for another, based on what is most important to a specific consumer.
Enjoy your TL, I think you are really in love with it.
"modified Accord" keeping up with a Chrysler that rules?? Since when have I implied that the any car in the Chrysler line-up (sedans) is superior to Honda/Acura. Oh, and the play on words, "puberdee," very mature, and very cute. You're the big winner and get to sit in front of class for that one!
Bluesky999 -- in love with a car? Some people may be, but there are far too many things in life that I love infinitely more -- such as my family and friends. And you seemed to be equally equipped with an arsenal of defense for what is in MY opinion (as you stress so often -- everyone IS entitled to their own opinion -- thanks to you, we all understand that now) an inferior vehicle. This is an automotive forum for the TL, so naturally, those who are interested in the TL will have great things to say about it because they feel very strongly about it in comparison to other cars in its class.
What I don't understand is why you still post on this -- why not create a forum (unless it already exists, I don't care to bother looking): Acura TL vs. 300M ?? Sounds like something to do in between discovering more things you love about your 300M.
Thank you,
L8_Apex
Host
Sedans Message Board
"mhammy84" had some favorable comparisons between the two vehicles. If he finds the TL to compare favorably with the GS430 that is indeed a compliment to the TL. The Lexus GS430 MSRPs at about $50 to $55,000.
Amazing what a difference a year makes. Now it looks like you can just about name your price for the TL. So much for no-haggling value pricing.
Which brings me to the current frenzy that is being stirred up on the imminent TL-S (discussed elsewhere). Various discussion boards (e.g., Acura-TL.com) are full of folks that are just chomping at the bit to be the first to get their S. I hope they don't sucked into paying a premium for features that will be standard on the following year's base mode.
These folks seem to be economic dunces or else they have so much money they don't care. They seem to long for some desireable model for which they must have paid a premium, then take a soaking when they trade or sell it one or two years later, only to pay another premium for the next desireable model. The auto manufacturers are experts at being able to pull off this type of consumer manipulation.
Back to Acura, their marketing strategy is perplexing. They were actually the first Asian marque to try and break into the luxury market with introduction of the Legend (back in 1986?). Then after years of establishing the name but without any real innovations, they let Lexus and even Infiniti one-up them. Then what do they do, they DROP the Legend!?!?
Seems like they are trying to get back in the game but even then I'm sure they angered some of their loyal customers. For example, lowering the price of the TL in 1999 by several $thousand to attract potential ES300 buyers was brilliant marketing but I'm sure those who bought 1998 TLs were not very happy.
Since the TL is somewhat underpriced (or more accurately the ES300 is overpriced), Acura has to do something to bump the price up. So the TL-S is established at about $3 thousand more at little cost to Acura (how much can it cost to tweak a few more horses out of the same engine). Then, next year, the features of the TL-S become standard on the base model TL--along with the higher price. Mission accomplished.
I'm not sure they dropped the legend completely. This may be an acura urban legend (if there is such a thing -- if not, there is now).. but I've spoken with many salepeople who claim the "RL" in their 3.5L V6 flagship is actually and acronym for "Real Legend" and that in some parts of Canada, the RL (introduced in '96?) actually bore the embroidered "Real Legend" nameplate on the dashboard. Go figure if it's a legend..
The legend was a smashing success, I'll have to agree. It's developed a sort of cult following, or iconography of sorts (joining the ranks of the '96 Impala SS and the Buick Grand National). The value of some vehicles with under 40K miles is just astonishing -- 16,000!! But hey, it was revolutionary in 91 when they redesigned it and then when they intro-ed the coupe with the 220hp five speed in 92.
I totally agree with you about trading in a one or two year old car for a new TL-S -- talk about negative equity! Seriously, these people must have some money to burn, or perhaps the stash they saved up initially for the ES300 will cover the hit they're about to take on the TL trade-in for the TL Type S. At any rate, I'd rather salivate for three more years and wait for the introduction of some more "super" sedans from other badeges (i.e. Lexus, Infiniti) before I sell the deed on the farm.
At this address, here's what you do: Place your pointer over the "Import Sedans" Category, and then click on Acura TL Type S. There are four vid clips from Motorweek's weekly tv car news show. I must give credit to the host of this site -- please email him with thanks if you like it!
thanks
Go to: 2002 Acura TL Type S -- a forum on Townhall ... plus, I currently own one.
http://angus.home.texas.net/2002_TL/
There is a SIDE BY SIDE comparison of the 2001 and 2002 TL .. NOT type S models..
many people find this pic very interesting.
Help! Any thoughts?
BTW, If needed a smart missile can be homed in on your cell phone. Ask Russians how they do that.
In regular (non-sensitive) areas, the Navigation accuracy is about 10 feet....also this system is terrific in thick fog or pitch darkness or in un-familiar terrain...when it pin-points your location and gives a countdown before your turn approaches...like 1000ft....900ft....800ft....600ft....400ft....200ft....100ft...you just cannot miss your turn (in thick fog/pitch darkness/unfamiliar areas), unless you are blind....
Later...AH
The Civilian and the Military Nav operates pretty much the same everywhere (it was not so till a year back) except for sensitive areas, where the civilian version has a built in error of ~300ft.
I say that because, the GPS Navigation in my 3.2TL, never ever misses a turn....the built-in in-accuracy at best is a few feet (<10ft ?) and while driving, the 10ft in-accuracy cannot be noticed....with a 300ft error, I would have been missing every street, turn and highway exit, I would suppose ?!!! But possibly, if I were to drive around in a sensitive area that has say, a Nuclear Power plant, the 300ft in-accuracy would kick in....never experienced it however..
Later...AH
Geometry and availability of satellites is the key to GPS. If you are in an "urban canyon" (tall buildings all around) that block the satellite signals, accuracy will be poor. It takes a minimum of 3 satellites to do 2-D positioning, but 4 or more is MUCH better. In a fairly open environment, you should be seeing 6-10 satellites at all times, and the accuracy will typically be +/- 20-30 ft.
Do not confuse the accuracy of the navigation & mapping software with the accuracy of GPS. If the number of available satellites drops, the software may put more emphasis on the inputs from other sources, such as the speedo, the steering angles, etc. Mapping accuracy may degrade fairly quickly.
For more GPS info, try:
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.htm
A former GPS Engineer
I want one, but do not want to pay MSRP. Dealer has had 8 cars for three days now and has yet to sell one. He told me I would be the first. I am beginning to believe some of the earlier posters who say that demand for this car isn't going to be as great as we are made to believe. I'm not in a hurry and going to wait to see if they will come down off of MSRP.
Can you tell me where you are located? I am near Harrisburg, PA
Your explanation sounds reasonable and pretty much jells with what I experience on a daily basis...thanks for the link.
Later...AH
But such wonderful ideas never seem to occur to the powers-that-be.
At least Acura/Honda is coming out with a Sedan/Coupe on a stretched Honda S2000 RWD platform....should provide some desperately needed competition for the BMW 3-series and maybe the Lexus IS series. Wonder what took them so long...especially since the S2000 was available for the past couple of years...
Later...AH
2 questions:
1) what octane is needed? the salesman said 91.
2) i read in another newsgroup that the tl has paint flaking problems. any news about paint problems?
thanks
Consequently, I'm in a real quandry as to what to buy.
BEGAN MY SEARCH FOR A PER OWNED LUXURY WITH BTW 323/328. ALTHOUGH I LOVE THE LOOK, PRICES SEEMED HIGH AND I KNOW THEY CAN BE CRANKY. SO I CHECKED ON CARS IN THE SAME CLASS. LOOKED AT AURA AL, INFINITY 1S30, AUDIO A4, LEXUS ES300. AM I SEEING THINGS OR IS THE AL 3.2 AS GOOD A DEAL AS IT LOOKS? SEEMS LIKE YOU GET MORE FOR THE MONEY THAN ALL THE OTHERS, WITH THE PEACE OF MIND OF A RELIABLE AUTOMOBILE. MOST TESTS COMPLAIN YOU DON' GET THE PERFORMANCE LIKE A BMW (YOU ALSO DON'T GET A $30-35,000 PRICE TAG FOR A 2000. I'M LOOKING AT A 2000 BUT IF I VAN GET A 2001 FOR 26000, I'LL JUMP ON IT. IM IN ORLANDO, SO ANY INPUT FROM CENTRAL OR SOUTH FLORIDIANS IS WELCOME. ALSO LIKE INPUT FORM ANY OWNERS AS TO THEIR EXPERIENCE.
THANX
JBREEZ1
THANX FOR THE PATIENCE, IM NEW HERE
JBREEZ1
Does anybody have any comment about the headroom in the 2002 as the 2001?
It seems they took almost 2" headroom off the 2002. I verified this yesterday by visiting the dealer and sitting in both cars, as well as the Type S. My observations:
The 2002 is definitely fighter for me, I'm about a 1/2" short of 6 feet. I had noticed when testing the 01 that I was pretty much right in the roof unless I leaned the seat back a little more than I usually do. In my '97 Altima I have about 2" between my head and the ceiling. In the 2002, my head is squarely in the ceiling unless I lean left into the sunroof opening or lean the seat way back. The Type I seemed to have a little more room. Someone mentioned that this may be because of the different seat. This appears to be true, I felt there was a little more room in the Type S. The 2002 brochure does not list a different headroom for the Type S.
Here are the numbers from the 2001 & 2002 brochures:
2001 exterior vehicle height: 56.1"
2002 exterior vehicle height: 53.7"
2001 front headroom: 39.9"
2002 front headroom: 38.2"
2001 rear headroom: 36.8
2002 rear headroom: 36.5
As you can see by Acura's numbers, they shortened the car by almost 3", almost 2" of this was lost as front headroom. It didn't look too high in '01 to me. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!
Anybody know or have any insights on this? I really want all the changes on the 2002, but this is really setting me back. More headroom would sure be a weird reason to spend the extra money on the Type S.
One last question, the dealer I was at yesterday seemed to want to stay at msrp on the 2002. Has anybody gotten a sense from dealerships about how long they think they'll be able to get list on the 2002, on Type I's? This dealership has received 2 shipments of '02's this week but only had 2 on Type I's on the lot. They still had about five '01's. My impression is that once the '01's are gone and the '02 keep piling in, prices will come off MSRP. I can wait a few weeks.