The Acura TL is an Accord, right?

I love the new Acura TL. I'm starting to see more and more of them on
the road. (I actually don't know how new the current body style is,
but I have been noticing them more and more over the past 6 months.)
I'd love to get one, but should I save my money and get a new Accord
instead? Of course, the Honda doesn't have the cool image of the
Acura, but the bodies are virtually identical on these cars. Is the
engine in the TL available in the Accord?

Thanks!

Mike

 

The Acura requires Premium gasoline; the Accord regular. Biggest
objection I had while shopping at the Acura dealers. They are very nice
autos, and I really wanted one.

 

We compared the TL to the Accord EX 6 cyl Auto a few months ago.

The TL is the same frame and a similar body. They bore out Accord engine and
put a high-compression head to give it more oomph, but, as another poster
pointed out, it then requires high-test. The TL was quieter, had more
comfortable seats, a much nicer audio system and included more goodies
(self-dimming mirror, fog lights, memory powers eats, etc.) some of which
you can add to the Accord as options and some you can't.

We made our pitch to both dealers for the best price and would have had to
pop for $6K more for the TL. We took the Accord as it just didn't seem worth
it.

The Accord has been a *great* car. Still miss those damn memory seats,
though.

Jon

 

Check out the Honda Accord Saloon on the British Honda website and you
will be amazed....
http://www.honda.co.uk

 

I am amazed at how obnoxious the web site is. Still didn't find memory
seats, auto locking doors or auto headlights that turn on in the dark and
when the wipers are on.

 

Well, no. My mother's TL runs just fine on a steady diet of 87 octane.


The TL was quieter, had more

The TL also handles better.

But, there's a new Accord (and TL) on the way for 2008. So, if you can,
you may want to wait.

The Toyota cars in this price range (Camry, Avalon, ES, IS) are also
worth a look. If it weren't for the cramped back seat we'd have
purchased a Lexus IS250 instead of the TL.

If it's a sporty ride you seek, the Infinit G35 is way to go. An all
new G35 is due this fall, reviewed at www.edmunds.com The Infiniti is
a lot more fun to drive than the Accord/TL.

 

Test drive both extensively and see which suits you.

Also look closely at the Acura TSX. Price wise it is between a well
equipped Accord and a TL. Slightly smaller than either, but also much
sportier to drive.

All three are derived from the same platform.

John

 

According to C&D euro and am spec accords are different cars.
Acura TL is a bit souped up euro spec accord. While the fat pig sold
in the US under the Accord badge has no european equivalent.

 

They are, but they spawn from the same global platform.

 

No, the TSX is an Americanized souped up Euro spec Accord. The TL is
America-only.

 

How could you even compare the two? IS250 is a rear wheel driver
and therefore, by definition, is a hoot to drive.

As for Toyota, I drove a rental Corolla a few years back and that car
was
absolutely awful. I'm not sure if they calibrated steering above 85
mph.
The steering "precision" was on par with Ford Taurus. I do not know
why Toyolet sells as many cars in the US as they do. With the departure
of Celica and MR they do not have a single half decent car in their
lineup.
It's too bad GM goes under knife and Toyota does not.
The prolifiration of that crap on the roads won't have anything to do
with the warm and fuzzy reception from Consumer Reports, would it?

 

Rubbish. I've driven quite a few RWD cars that have been absolute
arse to drive. Just because its RWD means its RWD, nothing more,
nothing less.

 

Aside from the mustang how many of those rubbish cars are still being
sold today?
I was not talking about the secretary's six pack circa mid 60s sold
pretty much
unchanged to this date.

 

Compared a wide range of cars in the same price category. Spent time
driving them, too. Sometimes one's preconceived notions prove
incorrect. Sometimes the driver's skill level is such that FWD/RWD
doesn't make any difference.

snip
OEM tires are crap. I owned a Corolla, put a decent set of tires on it
and it performed much better.

The proliferation of that crap has to do with reliability. The Corolla
may drive like crap but if you do minimal maintenance it will give you
200,000 miles of reliable service. For the most part, that's what most
people want of their cars. Toyota figured out that building cars for
their customers, not magazine editors and performance drivers, is what
profitability is all about.

 

As a model, i can only think of one, the 3 series BMw. Obviously, i
haven't drivien the latest iteration of it. however, your statement is
"the car is Rear wheel drive and so therefore is a hoot to drive" -
that does not give any indication of age, or any other conditions. As
it is, the 90s mustan is actually a bit better than some of them. i
am, hwever, talking about late 80s, and 90s cars, quite a lot of them.
Some have been horrendous.

Aerostar - eugh. most pickups - horrible, and one of the worst of all
- a merc C280. That one I drove at silverstone, and they use them in
the skidpans. As one instructor put it - "if you can handle this piece
of shit on here, you can handle any car anywhere."

On the other hand, i also drove a TVR cerbera speed8 for about 8
months as a daily driver. Car was ok in the dry and calm. push it, or
it get wet and slippy, and it wasn't a hoot, it was a lethal
knifeedge. Was an exhilerating 8 months though, shame my friend got
well enough to drive it again, and i had to give it back to him
driving it every day.

 

You sure he's a friend? :^)
Anyhow, you're right of course I rest my case. It's sad though so few
cars
are selling in rwd configuration today. In the US anyway.
There is nothing affordable and decent under or slightly over $20k.
Civic Si would've fit my bill but it drives the wrong set of wheels.
I just hope Kabura will make it to the production and to the US.

 

I'm late to the party on the answer to this as I haven't been checking the
boards but FWIW.

I had 2004 Acura TL, great car no doubt but fter driving my wifes 2005
Accord EX 4 cyl I started thinking that there wasn't an awful lot of
difference. With 22,000 miles on TL tires were (e42's) were burned out, a
problem with TL's and those tires.

So after careful thought I traded in my 2004 TL with 24k and bought an 2006
Accord V6 EX w/nav. Saved about 5 to 7 grand from trading to a 2006 TL
w/Nav. Added day electronic day/night mirror and fog lights total price
27,500 ( sticker 30,008 or some such before add on's ) . Only thing missing
is some compression and a few horse, don't notice either, plus can now use
regular gas. No memory seats, I can live without, no blue tooth phone system
( people complained sounded so - so anyway.

Accord handles better in my opinion than the TL. Only thing TL has in my
opinion is a little sportier look and the prestige factor if you need that.
Again I am very happy with my decision to " step down " if you will to the
Accord.

George in NY

 

Indeed, the practical differences between driving a full optioned Accord
and a TL are minimal considering the difference in price.


John