Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

In article <1150002212.665543.141070@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
"Body Roll" <aglyport@gmail.com> wrote:

> According to C&D euro and am spec accords are different cars.
> Acura TL is a bit souped up euro spec accord.

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

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

In article <1150002212.665543.141070@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
"Body Roll" <aglyport@gmail.com> wrote:

> According to C&D euro and am spec accords are different cars.
> Acura TL is a bit souped up euro spec accord.

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

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

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.

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?

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

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.

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?

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

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.

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?

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

On 11 Jun 2006 21:24:55 -0700, "Body Roll" <aglyport@gmail.com> 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.

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.
>
>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?

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

On 11 Jun 2006 21:24:55 -0700, "Body Roll" <aglyport@gmail.com> 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.

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.
>
>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?

Re: The Acura TL is an Accord, right?
 

On 11 Jun 2006 21:24:55 -0700, "Body Roll" <aglyport@gmail.com> 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.

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.
>
>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?

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?
 

> >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?
 

> >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.