By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Re your prior question, Frisco, on 1 of these TL boards, we discussed torque steer in more detail, but suffice it to say that torque steer is cause by sudden accelleration and is exacerbated when the wheels aren't 100% straight or the road is not completely smooth. SInce it's much easier to have sudden acceleration with a MT than AT, torque steer is more noticable with MTs.
I'm in LA on vacation, visiting family. The MB SL500 seems to be the Chrysler Sebring around here (vs. Boston). I've seen a half dozen Bentley Continental GTs, two Aston Martin DB9s and proably the rarest, Ferrair Superamerica (on the way to the Hollywood Bowl for a Jazz concert). I miss my TL, but I did drive my dad's '04 and bro's '03 (wow, what an improvement the new model is over the old!). My bro's new job, director drives a Maserati Quattroporte and one of the leads drives a CLS500. I want all of these cars, esp. the Aston Martin as my Uncle Frisconick knows. Christmas is coming, Uncle Nick...
Back to reality tomorrow.
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
Nick brought up another reason why FWD was the big seller in the past.... It is better to 'pull' than to 'push' a car. That makes sense...but I guess that also counteracts performance as the weight ratio comes into play...is that right?
All I know....in warmer climates...AWD would be a drag in mpg.
One point that cannot be disputed is that 50/50 weight balance is better than 60/40 relative to handling. Another indisputable point is that FWD will always have some amount of torque steer to deal with.
And yet another point is that when a car is RWD and "pushed", the weight transfer to the rear wheels that occurs under acceleration actually improves the traction of a RWD car whereas that weight transfer limits the ability of a FWD car to accelerate quickly (quicker loss of grip). As road tests have confirmed, past a point you can keep adding horsepower to a FWD car with only marginal gains in performance, compared to a RWD car.
I make these points and will continue to wish for a true RWD TL in part because I think that Acura has tried to position the TL as a sport sedan to compete compete with the aforementioned 3 & 5 series, Infiniti G35 and a few others. I was willing to accept some FWD performance compromises when I picked the TL based upon other factors. But I would have prefered not to.
Regarding AWD, I have had enough folks tell me that there is nothing "super" about the RL's SH-AWD system and I would never select an AWD Audi over it's lighter, nimbler RWD BMW counterpart. So, in my opinion, Acura should avoid AWD and instead go for a simpler, lighter, more efficient and less expensive RWD TL 6-speed that really was a "sport sedan" in performance and handling as well as looks. I'd give them my money now if that would help.
You said "And yet another point is that when a car is RWD and "pushed", the weight transfer to the rear wheels that occurs under acceleration actually improves the traction of a RWD car whereas that weight transfer limits the ability of a FWD car to accelerate quickly (quicker loss of grip).
This is absolutely correct, but goes only to the issue of overall peformance, not bad-weather driving. Yes, a FWD car is more likely to spin it's tires and lose traction as it starts off, but at that point, the car is travelling at 10 mph and serious damage won't be done. At cruising speed, the car is in its normal position (or maybe shifted slightly towards the rear) with the engine over the tires, giving a fwd car more weight over the driving tires when losing traction would be more dangerous.
As an aside, My 6MT with summer tires handles great in the rain.
I will, without any shame or embarassment, concede that at the limits, RWD sports sedans (e.g. the 3 and G) will outhandle the TL. But I think all can agree that HOnda/Acura makes probably the finest handling FWD cars extant and for (fill in a % number here as I fear KD will come at me asking for empirical rather tha anecdotal evidence!) of drivers that that is more than good enough. What is cool is that the TL and 3 can offer similar performance with varying degrees of HP and torque and return respectable mpg while from (oh no, here comes KD...) personal observation and anecdotal evidence the G seems to be a bit thirstier. YMMV?
And while realty_pro bleeds Infiniti blood (not that there's anything wrong with that. You gotta apprecitate anyone who loves their car!), I beg to differ in that there are plenty of competitors to the TL/G/3/9-3/A4/IS et. al. One can compare any car to any car and only the judge (one who is doing the comparing) can name the ultimate victor. For me, TL. For KD, BMW, for realty_pro, G. Not a wrong choice in the bunch.
And finally for those in Florida, Louisiana, 'Bama and any area Katrina (my niece's name) has had the unmitigated gall to visit (not my niece, of course) , Godspeed. Our thoughts are with you.
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
I don't know about you, but I could not begin to use anywhere near all of the 270, 250 or whatever horses are under the hood with the 6-speed and not end up spinning the wheels, fighting torque steer, or worse. Fortunately, I outgrew drag racing some time ago and for the purpose intended, the TL performs quite well. However, since I recentely re-entered the sports car market and have been debating between a Boxster S and 911 Cab, the ease with which these RWD cars accelerate and handle was fresh in my mind.
Glad to hear that you find the HPT tires OK in the rain. Mine were too, up until about 15,000 miles. The cold weather snow/slush was another matter; it seems that anything below about 30 degrees caused the tires to lose even more of their traction. I am hoping the new Avons that I had installed at the recommendation of the Tire Rack will be better and last longer.
Push is ok in dry.
FWD TL and other FWD has special advantage over RWD in snow and ice. Have lived in area that gets snow/ice approx 3-4 months/year. Have had many RWD and FWD over the years. We currently have 04 TL and 2 other FWDs.
In snow, the front tires of RWD act kind of like plows pushing against snow with a leading edge wanting to build up snow underneath tire depending upon the tread of the tire. In contrast, the leading edge of front tires on FWD are continually biting and are powered forward. All-season fronts ok on FWD, but dedicated snows give much better bite.
In glare or black ice, have much better forgivability on FWD if one applies too much throttle. And even so, car will not go sideways as on RWD. On RWD, extremely difficult to keep vehicle from sliding off road if just slightest bit of too much throttle applied. My experience on RWD was in years past and don't know how much better today's RWD with traction control might be on glare/black ice.
On RWD cars of past, even with snows at all corners, usually used to carry bags of salt or sand in trunk.
We have Dunlop winter tires on dedicated rims for TL (size 50 series for smaller footprint) and it handles very good on snow and ice. Dry weather traction is very good also for a snow tire.
For average driver in snow/ice belt, FWD is a much safer vehicle than RWD. And, after all, vast majority of drivers are average and are not auto enthusiasts.
I agree - and with your post in general.
However, perhaps you should direct that last comment to the TL marketing folks. They seem to think they are competing with the BMW 3/5 series, the G35 and other cars that attempt to appeal to the driving "enthusiast".
Again, I picked the TL for it's combination of attributes, accepting the fact that as a FWD car it won't be as well balanced and offer the fair weather handling characteristics of a RWD sport sedan. But I would welcome the TL in RWD format if offered, since we also have an MDX that can handle all the conditions you describe with much greater ability than any FWD sedan.
Yes, it does seem that Acura is having trouble moving TLs. It really is no competition for the 3/G. Much weaker performance, horrible handling, poor interior/exterior style, lack of interior space, GM-like quality of materials, mpg. The list goes on, just no competition. Can you believe that C and D even included it in their most recent comparo. And those wackos had the nerve to give it a positive review and high finish? They should really compare it to other FWDs like Kia's and Chevy Cavaliers as the drive wheels are the sole determiner of what trait should be used to compare cars...
Just funnin' ya, Habitat. I enjoy your posts.
Glad you enjoy your Acuras!
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
And for the record, I think the TL offers a great balance of attributes that I would find hard to part with. We have been shopping for a sports car and are considering the Boxster S and 911 Cab. My friendly hometown BMW dealer called me to suggest bagging the sports car idea and trading my TL for a new BMW 550i 6-speed. That option would result in a significantly lower "net cost" than adding a $60-$100k third car to our household. I have - and still am - considering the possibility. But as good as the 550i 6-speed is bound to be, I am quite happy with our TL, FWD and all.
I guess I do enjoy our Acuras. Thanks for the humorous reminder.
:sick:
I was wondering if I should ask for a completely new car to replace the defective one? Like I previously stated my current TL only has 939 miles and is slightly older than two weeks. I think I have a justified case in requesting a new car.
Any opinions would greatly be appreciated. :confuse:
Good Luck!
Thanks.
I plan to get Michellin Pilot A/S in the future...which will soften the ride a bit. Yet...it will never be as soft as a standard passenger vehicle...which the TL was not engineered ever to be.
I am sure others will feel as you do...and that is ok. Yet many other drivers are seeking a more sports oriented car. There is no right or wrong. I would suggest test driving other vehicles and also test driving the TL again (along with the RL) to make the right decision for yourself. Good luck with your decision.
What have you heard about these Michelin Pilot A/S tires that you think will soften up the ride a bit?
Regarding the Michelin Pilot A/S....I tend to look into future replacement tires whenever I buy cars. And was looking at the comments at tirerack.com...which showed many were pleased with the tires. Michelins tend to ride a little smoother than many brands...and the Pilot A/S is one of the latest generation tires offerred. Beyond ride...they are "Y" speed rated...versus the "W" rated stock tires. Regarding wear...I was talking with the Costco guys (who I trust and the best place to get tires) and they were indicating I should be able to get about 40k out of the tires. 40k is great for a low profile high performance tires.
Now...I don't have first hand experience with the Pilot A/S...but from all the research...those are my future target tires.
If you believe the TL is harsh...perhaps you have to give it another shot...after driving additional cars. And while there...give the RL a shot. Or give the Infiniti G35 a shot. And please...don't compromise and get a BMW325.
If you have had good experiences with Acura TL, including dealer service costs, would you want to gamble on possible high expenses at Porsche dealer? Will Boxter S cost a lot more to maintain than S2000?
I think it's a really good car, esp. for the $. I've owned BMW, Mercedes and Porsche (street and track) in the past, and am not sorry with this car at all.
As for the firmness, to my mind it's not too firm. In fact, with hard cornering including off ramps and NY parkways I wish it was firmer, but for every day it's fine.
Nav comes in handy and I love the XM.
Just my $.02
2025 Toyota Crown Signia Hybrid, 2022 Ram 2500 Laramie 6.4 Hemi, 2007 Mazda MX-5 Miata PRHT
1)....I like the tires that I do buy to be widely available. If I should have a tire that is unusable because of a blowout or damage....I don't want to have to wait for a tire to arrive from tirerack or be frantic to locate a dealer with a tire in stock. Especially if I am out on the road away from home. The Michellin A/S are widely available.
2) I do really like to buy my tires from Costco because it includes free mounting and FREE BALANCING AND ROTATIONS! Since I do rotate very often...Costco incremental pricing for the Michelin will be made back up with the free tire servicing. If I buy elsewhere...I will get charged for mounting the tires then later on for the balancing.
3) I am under the impression that the Michellin A/S treadlife is longer...so that will easily make up for the price differential. Also...the Michellin's are "Y" speed rated...versus the "W" speed rating on the Avon.
I am not saying that the Avon are bad...just a few preferences in my selection process.
1) Wide availability - Good point that I hadn't honestly considered. On the other hand, from the time I placed an order with Tire rack (my first), the tires were in the hands of my installer in less than three full business days. And, given the cost savings of the Avons vs. the Michilens or Briodgestones, I could have ordered a 5th tire to have as a spare. I might consider doing that now.
2) Costco - Free balancing & rotations. The Acura dealer that I had the tires dropped shipped to charged $20 per tire for mounting and balancing, but will do rotations and re-balancing for free. These can be done when the car is in service for an oil change (every 4,500 +/- miles) anyway. The Acura delaership is infinitely more convenient to me (2 miles away, wi-fi and food/beverage equiped lounge) than the nearest Costso, which is 15+ miles away in the hinterland suburbs and an absolute zoo the few times I've been there. I'm no snob, but can only take the mass crowd craziness at Costco so much. Perhaps yours is more civilized, but I still wouldn't put a lot of faith in their tire expertise compared to the Tire Rack.
3) Treadlife / Speed Ratings - The Avons I purchased were in the larger 245/45/17 size and got the highest handling ratings of the tires tested by Tire Rack. The are a summer performance tire and only have a treadlife rating of 280 vs. 400 for some of the all-season tires, like the Michelin. But I was willing to give up some treadlife for handling. Having had a Honda S2000 with OEM tires that had a treadlife rating of 140, the Avon's 280 sounds pretty good to me! As for the distinction between "W" and "Y" ratings, are you kidding??! The W rating is rated for a maximum speed of 168, at least 20-30 mph above the theoretical top speed of a TL and about 50-60 mph above what any sane person should ever try to drive a FWD car, even at the Bonneville Salt Flats. Even my former S2000, with a legitimate top speed of 150-160 and brakes and suspension to support it, came with "only" W rated tires.
My past experience with Michelins on my Nissan Maxima was good, so I am not knocking them. However, I do think their premium price goes more towards paying for their heavy advertising and marketing campaigns than any intrinsic quality difference vs. Avon. So far, I have found the Avon's to be everything the Tire Rack guys promised so far in terms of excellent handling, very solid straight line tracking and reasonably quiet ride.
1) Wide availability... Yes...a BIG concern. When I used to travel a lot...I always wanted the tire to be avail at all the places I travel. And it is great to have that fifth tire....but you cannot lug it with you on road trips (or your mpg will suck). Flats always tend to happen at the most inopportune times.
2) Costco... The Acura dealers here near San Diego stink on service. We don't get free balancing or even get free rotations! We don't even get loaner cars from 'Cush Acura'. (and the girls at the counters are ugly). As for food and bev at the Acura...I will give that up in order for me to be able to get a Costco polish dog and drink for $1.50...which is about 8 miles from me. :P
3) Treadlife... The are a summer performance tire and only have a treadlife rating of 280 vs. 400 for some of the all-season tires, like the Michelin. OUCH....I would expect something like 25-20k versus the 40k on the Michelins. Almost half life...which would mean that I lost all of the $80 savings. Speedrating...no I do not expect to be like 'frisconick' and drive 140mph....but it gives me an indication that the structural engineering is superior. And yes...I don't really use speed ratings as my primary determinator.
For me...the biggest determinator is ride, availability, totally ownership cost...and the excuse to get a Costco Polish dog with drink.
Seriously, do you purchase a $200 replacement tire every time you get a flat?? That's a pretty expensive proposition. I've only had to replace a tire once in the last 15-20+ years (cut sidewall on a metal curb). That covers 100k miles in a Datsun, 153k miles in a Maxima, 60k miles in a Supra, 105k miles in an Integra, 85k miles in a Trooper, 18k miles in a Honda S2000, 19k miles ina TL and 12k miles in an MDX. I've probably had 8-9 repairable flats during that time. And, as luck would have it, the replacement was on a Michelin on my Maxima and the dealer did not have and could not get an exact match. So we went with the next closest tire and I replaced all after another 20k miles, meaning I threw out 60%+ of the replacement Michelin. My point is that picking tires for readily available replacements is not without risk either.
On the treadlife issue, I knew I was compromising when I went with the HPT package on the TL 6-speed (those Potenza's have a 220 treadwear rating). I don't have first hand experience with the Michelins on the TL, but, in general, a treadwear rating of 400+ is a hard enough rubber that it can't have the same handling and performance of the softer compound higher performance tires. I have driven automatic TL's with the Tourenza tires and, although it's hard for me to pinpoint how much of the handling difference is suspension vs. tire related, I definitely notice a difference. Same with braking. The Brembo brakes on the 6-speed are likely to need pad replacements sooner, but the performance difference is also very noticable and significant.
FWIW, We just test drove a 911 S Cabriolet with tires that run about $1,400 a set and will last no more than 8-10k miles on the rears, 15k miles on the fronts, according to the dealer. Now that's a real Ouch!
Treadlife....yes...the Avon will definitely wear quicker and eat up the savings. But you mentioned that the 400+ rating is with hard rubber. For the Michelins...they are with the top traction rating and from my research on tirerack...that isn't an issue. I doubt that the Michelin A/S rubber is as hard as a hockey puck.
GREAT about the 911. I don't think they will be stocking those tires at Costco.
Me...no Costco Dogs today.... But thinking of it for next weekend....
But tell me more about the Avons. Are they carried outside of Tirerack? What is the expected tread wear? I think it might be useful info for others that want a sticker tire and not a Costco Dog guy like me.
Anyway, back to the beginning - the TL ride is harsh for some folks. If that's your only concern, redrive the car, but check the tire pressure before you drive. I've heard (mainly on the Infiniti M boards) that cars are delivered to the dealerships with excess air pressure, under the presumption that the natural reduction over time will drop into the preferred range. If it doesn't, though, the ride is unnecessarily harsh. 2ndly, if you're testing a 6MT, make sure it doesn't have the summer tire option, as those ride firmer, too.
Assuming the ride really is just uncomfortable for you, I guess you could negotiate swapping out the tires - I guess that's why you're discussing different tires on the board., but I don't know how willing the place will be to do that. As an alternative to the Michilens, my stock tires (Potenzas summer tires) wore out and I'm going to replace them with Goodyear Eagle F1. As far as Tirerack pricing goes, they're $50 pre tire cheaper than Michilen Pilots (at least some of them - there seem to be several models), and compare favorably (I'm not saying "better," just "favorably"). Like another poster, I purposely got a lower speed rating (think they're rated to 140 mph instead of 170 or something) since I rarely go above 85. One word of caution - these Eagles are summer tires - not meant for snow. I live in FL so not only is it not an issue, I urposely discounted all all-seasons 'cause i only want to pay for what I need.
If the dealership won't swap out the tires, and that's a dealbreaker for you (b/c you can't or won't take off & store the brand new OEM and put on brand new tires of your choice), I have 2 suggestions:
1. Buy used. A used TL will be cheaper and the tires will be worn down somewhat. If you find one with shot tires, you can negotiate the price down to consder that and then get the tires of your choice. IMO, the '06 changes are minimal. Also, at this point, you might be able to get an '04 coming off a 2-year lease, and can definitely get used '04s & '05s with various mileage.
2. Look at the Honda Accord. The Accord is less sporting than the TL, with lower HP, torque and cushier handling, but is still more sporty than its competition (except maybe the VW offerings). I know that may be a sacriligious statement to make ont eh TL board, but if the TL is too sporty, the Accord might be the way to go.
The person I bought my TL from was selling it to buy an RL b/c the TL was too harsh. He's very happy with his decision.
For what it's worth, the RL that I drove is definitely not as quick as my TL 6-speed. And I seem to recall that it isn't as quick as the TL automatic based upon raod tests by the industry magazines. The RL is definitely a smoother ride than the TL, as one would expect from a two ton car. But as far as acceleration goes, it is average in my book - in line with a 255 horsepower BMW 530i, but not remotely in the same league as a 325 hp BMW 545i.
I did have a friend in my TL today that commented that he thought it felt smoother and quieter with the new Avon tires that replased the aging Potenza HPT tires. I really can't tell that much difference, but he made this comment before he knew I had replaced the tires.
I assumed it was just "in my head," the the guy assured me that new tires do help reduce torque steer. According to him, torque power is created by twisting, and in general, it puts slightly more power to the front right wheel as a result. The more traction in the left front tire, the more that left front is able to fight the pull to the right. They already had my $$$, so I don't think he had a reason to play with my head. Please let me know if any of you folks out there with 6MTs noticed a torque steer difference after adding new tires.
rattles galore (especially early models). It's strange: some people reports lots of rattles, other owners report none at all.
Uncomfortable seats (too hard).
Passenger seat--only 4-way adjustable, not enough.
Wide turning radius (that's true)
Misc. complaints about build quality.
I must say there are a lot of complaints for a Japanese company with a sterling reliability record. Many fewer complaints, e.g., about the Accord.
Since I may get an '06, I hope some of the build problems have been addressed. The recent issue of Consumer Reports did a clever analysis of their auto repair records over the years and did report, as with the conventional wisdom, that the first year of most models have far more problems than the 2nd and 3rd year, when many of the problems are corrected.
Regarding uncomfortable seats, passenger seats with 4 way adjust, build quality...those are subjective and not problems.
As for fewer complaints about Honda products and Accords? How quantified?
And yes....your 2006 should be better than my 2005 all things being equal.
I haven't had any rattles in 16 months and 20,000 miles, save for a very occasional slight rattle eminating from one of the two flip top compartments in the center stack. If I open and shut the doors, it goes away.
I have noticed that the clear coat paint finish on my anthrocite is not quite as rich or deep looking as was the finish was on my ruby red 1995 Nissan Maxima, which stil looks quite good after 10 years and 155k miles. The TL looks fine after a wax now - and MUCH better than any domestic brand or a friends new Range Rover. I guess time will tell if it holds up.
As for your other issues - seat comfort is partly personal. I like a firm but supportive seat that has good side bolstering and thigh support. I rate the TL seats a B. They fall well short of the BMW sport seats and are behind Volvo and Mercedes. But I would put them well ahead of the Honda Accord. A lot of Japanese manufacturers - Toyota and Lexus especially - think quality seats means "leather" and don't put much effort into good supportive seat design.
Wide turning radius - welcome to FWD with 17" wheels.
Overall, I have not had a single problem or repair on my TL and it has only been in for routine service / oil changes. So I am pretty bullish on build quality. The 6 speed transmission in particular is a delight, with a good clutch and very crisp, short throw gearbox. In that respect, it is as good as or better than the 3 series and 5 series. Plus, it avoids the one area that Acura has had some past problems - automatic transmissions.
Good luck.
What a great car; the handling, Navi. system, quite, XM, DVD-A, etc..I have averaged just under 27 MPG for this first week. That is City/highway driving and at speeds that Acura ask for the first 600 miles. I can not wait to lay it's ears back....
I will keep this one for a long time; just a GREAT CAR.......
Superior Acura in Overland Park is a wonderful dealer.
Stickyman :P