Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

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

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

Body Roll wrote:
> ACAR wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> How could you even compare the two? IS250 is a rear wheel driver
> and therefore, by definition, is a hoot to drive.

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.

>
> As for Toyota, I drove a rental Corolla a few years back and that car
> was absolutely awful.
snip
OEM tires are crap. I owned a Corolla, put a decent set of tires on it
and it performed much better.

> 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?

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.

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

Body Roll wrote:
> ACAR wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> How could you even compare the two? IS250 is a rear wheel driver
> and therefore, by definition, is a hoot to drive.

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.

>
> As for Toyota, I drove a rental Corolla a few years back and that car
> was absolutely awful.
snip
OEM tires are crap. I owned a Corolla, put a decent set of tires on it
and it performed much better.

> 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?

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.

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

Body Roll wrote:
> ACAR wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> How could you even compare the two? IS250 is a rear wheel driver
> and therefore, by definition, is a hoot to drive.

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.

>
> As for Toyota, I drove a rental Corolla a few years back and that car
> was absolutely awful.
snip
OEM tires are crap. I owned a Corolla, put a decent set of tires on it
and it performed much better.

> 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?

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.

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

On 12 Jun 2006 08:14:48 -0700, "Body Roll" <aglyport@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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 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.

>I was not talking about the secretary's six pack circa mid 60s sold
>pretty much
>unchanged to this date.

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

On 12 Jun 2006 08:14:48 -0700, "Body Roll" <aglyport@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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 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.

>I was not talking about the secretary's six pack circa mid 60s sold
>pretty much
>unchanged to this date.

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

On 12 Jun 2006 08:14:48 -0700, "Body Roll" <aglyport@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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 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.

>I was not talking about the secretary's six pack circa mid 60s sold
>pretty much
>unchanged to this date.

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

flobert wrote:

> 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.

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

flobert wrote:

> 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.

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

flobert wrote:

> 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.

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

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




"Mike" <tetrickm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149707350.550908.47330@j55g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>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
>

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

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




"Mike" <tetrickm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149707350.550908.47330@j55g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>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
>

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

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




"Mike" <tetrickm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149707350.550908.47330@j55g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>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
>

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

George in NY wrote:

>
> So after careful thought I traded in my 2004 TL with 24k and bought an 2006
> Accord V6 EX w/nav.

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


John

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

George in NY wrote:

>
> So after careful thought I traded in my 2004 TL with 24k and bought an 2006
> Accord V6 EX w/nav.

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


John

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

George in NY wrote:

>
> So after careful thought I traded in my 2004 TL with 24k and bought an 2006
> Accord V6 EX w/nav.

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


John