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