The 2009 TL... I'm starting to like...

[giant_mtb]

If you start at the back, you kind of have hopes for it...but as soon as you get ahead of the front wheel arch, you begin puking.

[TBR]

If you start at the back, you kind of have hopes for it...but as soon as you get ahead of the front wheel arch, you begin puking.

Unless you are looking at a picture of the back, then if you start at the front you have hopes for it but once you get behind the rear wheel you become sick:

It's an utterly repulsive car.

[omicron]

I think my left eye just exploded. What a dreadful mess.

[Colin]

I had the misfortune to see one on the road yesterday........ so someone must have actually decided they could tolerate the looks.

If I was being polite, I would say that its appearance is "polarising"....... otherwise, I would simpy say that it is one of the most hideous cars inflicted upon the market, from a field of strong recent competition.

I recall the conversation I had with the stand staff at the LA Auto Show, and even they were struggling to like it......... they did express concern that few people had expressed approbation.

There, was that a polite version of the words that really come to mind?

[GoCougs]

The most disappointing aspect is that performance increased naught versus the previous generation, and even versus the generation before that! It is last in class.

[YO]

absolutely not true. Consider the 3 and 5 Series had no performance gains for 3 generations until they threw on a blower, that comment makes zero sense...

The most disappointing aspect is that performance increased naught versus the previous generation, and even versus the generation before that! It is last in class.

[CALL_911]

absolutely not true. Consider the 3 and 5 Series had no performance gains for 3 generations until they threw on a blower, that comment makes zero sense...

The TL got fatter and slower.

You'd be a fool to think that the 3-series didn't get quicker.

[Submariner]

absolutely not true. Consider the 3 and 5 Series had no performance gains for 3 generations until they threw on a blower, that comment makes zero sense...

It was a turbo...not a supercharger 

And that statement is patently false.

[YO]

Turbo... which I already expained... the beemers were FOREVER 184hp for the 2.8 and 225hp for the 3.0... this changed when they changed how they measured horsepower and BMW added a turbo. For 2.5 generations the  3 and 5 performance really didn't move at all... same with the C and E.

For christ sakes, in 2002 the Type S Acuras had more HP than beemers M series or Audis S

The TL got fatter and slower.

You'd be a fool to think that the 3-series didn't get quicker.

[TBR]

Turbo... which I already expained... the beemers were FOREVER 184hp for the 2.8 and 225hp for the 3.0... this changed when they changed how they measured horsepower and BMW added a turbo. For 2.5 generations the  3 and 5 performance really didn't move at all... same with the C and E.

For christ sakes, in 2002 the Type S Acuras had more HP than beemers M series or Audis S

It had more power than the S4 and the M Roadster. One of which was in an entirely different market segment and both were faster.

Additionally, BMW's engine options:
E30:
318i- 114
318is- 140
325- 175

E36:
325i- 192
328i- 193

E46:
325i- 184hp
330i- 225hp

So clearly BMW's did become more powerful over the years. Perhaps the change wasn't as substantial as with the Vigor/TL, but seeing as how the 330i was still faster than the TL-S I don't see how it matters.

Furthermore, according to Car and Driver the 328i is almost as fast as the TL SH-AWD.

[Tave]

The 2002 M3 had 333 hp. The 2002 M Roadster and M Coupe had 315 hp. The 2002 M5 had 394 hp. The 2002 S4 had 250 hp.

The 2002 TL-S and CL-S both had 260 hp.

[CALL_911]

It had more power than the S4 and the M Roadster. One of which was in an entirely different market segment and both were faster.

Additionally, BMW's engine options:
E30:
318i- 114
318is- 140
325- 175

E36:
325i- 192
328i- 193

E46:
325i- 184hp
330i- 225hp

So clearly BMW's did become more powerful over the years. Perhaps the change wasn't as substantial as with the Vigor/TL, but seeing as how the 330i was still faster than the TL-S I don't see how it matters.

Furthermore, according to Car and Driver the 328i is almost as fast as the TL SH-AWD.

+999999999

[TBR]

The 2002 M3 had 333 hp. The 2002 M Roadster and M Coupe had 315 hp. The 2002 M5 had 394 hp. The 2002 S4 had 250 hp.

The 2002 TL-S and CL-S both had 260 hp.

Oops, I was thinking it didn't get the M3's new engine until a couple of years later.

[Tave]

Oops, I was thinking it didn't get the M3's new engine until a couple of years later.

The E46 M3 always had the 333 hp engine.

The M Roadster and M Coupe got the N54 in 2001.

[sportyaccordy]

Turbo... which I already expained... the beemers were FOREVER 184hp for the 2.8 and 225hp for the 3.0... this changed when they changed how they measured horsepower and BMW added a turbo. For 2.5 generations the  3 and 5 performance really didn't move at all... same with the C and E.

For christ sakes, in 2002 the Type S Acuras had more HP than beemers M series or Audis S

E36 ended with the 192 HP 2.8L
E46 ended with the 230 HP 3.0L
E90 STARTED with the 260 HP 3.0L

They definitely jacked up the performance with each go round.

E46 330Ci was not much slower than the same year G35 coupes, with 55 less HP.

And the TL/CL isn't even part of the discussion... they had the power but no means to put them down.

[GoCougs]

absolutely not true. Consider the 3 and 5 Series had no performance gains for 3 generations until they threw on a blower, that comment makes zero sense...

For the last 10 years the TL hasn't moved from being a mid/upper 14-sec performer (a smidge better for the Type-S). The competition has made significant strides with the IS350, G37 and 335i utterly wasting on the TL in the present day.

It's probably the best quality and most reliable of the lot, and I own the TL's seed car (Accord), but its acceleration gains have been nil for a decade.

[CALL_911]

The E46 M3 always had the 333 hp engine.

The M Roadster and M Coupe got the N54 in 2001.

S54!! N54 is the TT 3.0L in the _35i/xi

[CALL_911]

It's probably the best quality and most reliable of the lot, and I own the TL's seed car (Accord), but its acceleration gains have been nil for a decade.

No way. My parents had a 2004 TL, before our first B7 A4. The interior rattled like hell, and at the end of our lease, the damn thing had more loose interior pieces than a 1997 Malibu sent to hell would. We had transmission problems, and some of the electrics weren't so peachy. I don't know what the car with the best quality (interiorwise, I'd have to give it to Audi or BMW) is in that class, but it sure as hell isn't the TL.

[GoCougs]

No way. My parents had a 2004 TL, before our first B7 A4. The interior rattled like hell, and at the end of our lease, the damn thing had more loose interior pieces than a 1997 Malibu sent to hell would. We had transmission problems, and some of the electrics weren't so peachy. I don't know what the car with the best quality (interiorwise, I'd have to give it to Audi or BMW) is in that class, but it sure as hell isn't the TL.

So "you" have owned two cars out of hundreds of thousands, and are thus fit to levy judgment on this fact alone? (No, you are not.)

Maybe not so fancy, maybe with not the performance options, but Honda objectively builds a higher quality and more reliable product than Audi.

[CALL_911]

So "you" have owned two cars out of hundreds of thousands, and are thus fit to levy judgment on this fact alone? (No, you are not.)

Maybe not so fancy, maybe with not the performance options, but Honda objectively builds a higher quality and more reliable product than Audi.

Considering you've had issues with your Accord's interior, and considering the automotive press consistently praises Audi for constructing the best interior, I believe you're wrong.

Tell the "objective" crap to the people who've gotten fucked by Honda's transmissions (in my family's case, twice).

[Submariner]

So "you" have owned two cars out of hundreds of thousands, and are thus fit to levy judgment on this fact alone? (No, you are not.)

Maybe not so fancy, maybe with not the performance options, but Honda objectively builds a higher quality and more reliable product than Audi.

Reliability perhaps...but I find it hard to believe that anyone would find an Acura's interior on the same par (quality wise) as an Audi's.

[TBR]

Considering you've had issues with your Accord's interior, and considering the automotive press consistently praises Audi for constructing the best interior, I believe you're wrong.

Tell the "objective" crap to the people who've gotten fucked by Honda's transmissions (in my family's case, twice).

My Honda rattles too.

I am sure it has nothing to do with the 352,000 miles.

[CALL_911]

My Honda rattles too.

I am sure it has nothing to do with the 352,000 miles.

That car was rattling when it was brand new.

[CJ]

Our 2007 Accord rattles.  It has a dash rattle, a trunk rattle, a parcel shelf rattle, a drivers side rear door rattle, a glove box rattle, and a center console rattle.

[GoCougs]

Reliability perhaps...but I find it hard to believe that anyone would find an Acura's interior on the same par (quality wise) as an Audi's.

Luxury I think is a different category than quality. And I generally agree; Honda/Acura has never been about luxury interiors.

[GoCougs]

Considering you've had issues with your Accord's interior, and considering the automotive press consistently praises Audi for constructing the best interior, I believe you're wrong.

Tell the "objective" crap to the people who've gotten fucked by Honda's transmissions (in my family's case, twice).

My car is one of ~2,000,000 built of that generation. They won't all be perfect.

And interior trim pieces are a minuscule part of a car, and dare I say irrelevant in the face of what can go wrong in a modern car.

And okay, if you say so - Honda objectively builds a more quality, reliable product than Audi.

[CALL_911]

My car is one of ~2,000,000 built of that generation. They won't all be perfect.

And interior trim pieces are a minuscule part of a car, and dare I say irrelevant in the face of what can go wrong in a modern car.

And okay, if you say so - Honda objectively builds a more quality, reliable product than Audi.

Would you say a transmission is a miniscule part of a car? I didn't think so.

[Submariner]

Luxury I think is a different category than quality. And I generally agree; Honda/Acura has never been about luxury interiors.

Just saying...the few Acura interiors i've been in (2002)ish TL, 2000ish RL, and an 07 RL wouldn't hold a candle to a comparable Audi. 

[TBR]

Would you say a transmission is a miniscule part of a car? I didn't think so.

While I tend to agree that an Acura/Honda product is generally going to be a safer bet past 100k+ miles, I would not include the V6 5AT combination. Like it or not, the 5AT had very severe issues, resulting in people having to have multiple transmissions replace while still in the warranty period.

[CALL_911]

While I tend to agree that an Acura/Honda product is generally going to be a safer bet past 100k+ miles, I would not include the V6 5AT combination. Like it or not, the 5AT had very severe issues, resulting in people having to have multiple transmissions replace while still in the warranty period.

Exactly my point. My parents had 2 brand new TL's (a 2001 and a 2004), and both needed transmission work. Honda can't do the V6 5AT thing too well.