Holy crap. The more TLs I see in traffic, the more I like. It looks STRONG
It looks like diarrhea.
As for more TL's...I've seen one new one. In the same period of time I have seen more
a. Bentley GT's
b. Mercedes SLR's
c. Face lifted RL's
Face it...even if it is a good car, it looks like ass.
I actually like the outside, except for the grille and parts of the rear. The inside, not so much.
Quote from: ifcar on February 14, 2009, 02:40:01 PM
I actually like the outside, except for the grille and parts of the rear. The inside, not so much.
If this was the RL, I'd agree. Especially if we were talking about the pre facelift. I actually genuinely like it...the TL OTOH is an abomination of epic proportions.
Quote from: Submariner on February 14, 2009, 02:41:09 PM
If this was the RL, I'd agree. Especially if we were talking about the pre facelift. I actually genuinely like it...the TL OTOH is an abomination of epic proportions.
The 2009 RL is the 2005's basic design of elegant simplicity (though borderline bland) with tacky design cues slapped on the front and rear in an attempt to make it look newer. I was talking about the TL.
The TL is simply hideous. It's just the wrong car.
The TL is the Integra Girl of cars. Everything's good until... OH GOD, THE FACE!
The more TL's I see on the road, the more tasteless people whose homes I hope I never have the curse of seeing I see on the road.
Quote from: Laconian on February 14, 2009, 03:04:44 PM
The TL is the Integra Girl of cars. Everything's good until... OH GOD, THE FACE!
I don't find any part of that car to be particularly attractive. The profile isn't great, it sort of looks like the previous gen Maxima from some angles. The front is awful, as is the rear. Both ends suffer from the same problem: there's way too much "bumper" (if you can call it that, there's no clear definition of exactly where it is, which is another problem) surface area.
YO, it's not the car you like, it's the badge.
I think the 2005 RL was a very attractive, but generic car. The current model, though, is pretty tacky. I have never liked the interior either, they were trying too hard.
"Trying too hard," can also be used to describe the entirety of the new TL.
The proportions are dumb, it's trying to hide the fact it's a FWD car. If Acura is going to stick with FWD, then their designs are going to have to be outlandish, good outlandish, not bad/ugly outlandish.
Its fucking ugly as hell. It's gonna fail
I think it's ugly and kind of cool at the same time. I think the new Maxima is a little bit more interesting though.
Quote from: Catman on February 14, 2009, 08:17:56 PM
I think it's ugly and kind of cool at the same time. I think the new Maxima is a little bit more interesting though.
The new Maxima looks eons better, inside and out.
Saw one today, the front end literally shocked me. Horrible.
Quote from: Catman on February 14, 2009, 08:17:56 PM
I think it's ugly and kind of cool at the same time. I think the new Maxima is a little bit more interesting though.
The new Maxima is fantastic looking.
I've seen a number of the new TLs, and think they look much better in person.
Am I the only one that thinks that the new Acura grille actually looks good on the TL? :huh:
(http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/future_cars_2009_and_beyond/2009_acura_tl_car_news/2009_acura_tl/2009_acura_tl_74/1472033-1-eng-US/2009_acura_tl_74_gallery_image_large.jpg)
agree
Quote from: GoCougs on February 14, 2009, 11:14:21 PM
The new Maxima is fantastic looking.
I've seen a number of the new TLs, and think they look much better in person.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on February 15, 2009, 04:49:47 AM
Am I the only one that thinks that the new Acura grille actually looks good on the TL? :huh:
(http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/future_cars_2009_and_beyond/2009_acura_tl_car_news/2009_acura_tl/2009_acura_tl_74/1472033-1-eng-US/2009_acura_tl_74_gallery_image_large.jpg)
The grille is the least of the TSX's front end problems. The missing headlight chunks are the bigger issue.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on February 15, 2009, 04:49:47 AM
Am I the only one that thinks that the new Acura grille actually looks good on the TL? :huh:
(http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/future_cars_2009_and_beyond/2009_acura_tl_car_news/2009_acura_tl/2009_acura_tl_74/1472033-1-eng-US/2009_acura_tl_74_gallery_image_large.jpg)
Wimmer, that's an illustration of the TL. The actual one looks far, far worse.
(http://www.automofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/2009-acura-tl.jpg)
that's actually a chopped TSX
Quote from: YO on February 15, 2009, 11:20:16 AM
that's actually a chopped TSX
And it still looks 100x better than the real TL.
I thought you were banned from having opinions on vehicle "looks" from past purchases...
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 15, 2009, 11:22:02 AM
And it still looks 100x better than the real TL.
Quote from: YO on February 15, 2009, 12:16:59 PM
I thought you were banned from having opinions on vehicle "looks" from past purchases...
I don't believe that's how it works.
Anyone who thinks the TL, which makes the Asstek look good, looks good probably shouldn't have an opinion.
See... the TL makes life more rewarding for you...
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 15, 2009, 12:18:38 PM
I don't believe that's how it works.
Anyone who thinks the TL, which makes the Asstek look good, looks good probably shouldn't have an opinion.
Quote from: YO on February 15, 2009, 12:28:07 PM
See... the TL makes life more rewarding for you...
It sure does, if you're Bulimic.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 14, 2009, 04:07:11 PM
The more TL's I see on the road, the more tasteless people whose homes I hope I never have the curse of seeing I see on the road.
:clap:
(http://www.thetorquereport.com/2009_acura_tl13.jpg)
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.
Quote from: giant_mtb on February 15, 2009, 02:55:14 PM
(http://www.thetorquereport.com/2009_acura_tl13.jpg)
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:
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/11/04_2009tlgarage.jpg)
It's an utterly repulsive car.
I think my left eye just exploded. What a dreadful mess.
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?
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.
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...
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 11:02:48 AM
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.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 02:45:19 PM
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.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 02:45:19 PM
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.
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
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 02:56:27 PM
The TL got fatter and slower.
You'd be a fool to think that the 3-series didn't get quicker.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 04:03:04 PM
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 3
28i is almost as fast as the TL SH-AWD.
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.
Quote from: TBR on February 16, 2009, 04:08:15 PM
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
Quote from: Tave on February 16, 2009, 04:19:37 PM
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.
Quote from: TBR on February 16, 2009, 04:25:00 PM
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.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 04:03:04 PM
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.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 02:45:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Tave on February 16, 2009, 04:28:48 PM
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
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 05:38:09 PM
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.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 05:44:43 PM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 06:00:18 PM
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).
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 06:00:18 PM
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.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 06:03:18 PM
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.
Quote from: TBR on February 16, 2009, 06:17:04 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Submariner on February 16, 2009, 06:16:12 PM
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.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 06:03:18 PM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 06:31:40 PM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 06:29:07 PM
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.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 06:32:57 PM
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.
Quote from: TBR on February 16, 2009, 06:38:06 PM
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.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 06:32:57 PM
Would you say a transmission is a miniscule part of a car? I didn't think so.
DOOD - Cougspocalyse will soon be upon you. "You" owned one car of probably 400,000 of that generation.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 06:41:58 PM
DOOD - Cougspocalyse will soon be upon you. "You" owned one car of probably 400,000 of that generation.
If you're really trying to tell me that my family's sample was the only TL with a transmission problem, I believe I need to introduce your head to my frying pan.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 06:41:58 PM
DOOD - Cougspocalyse will soon be upon you. "You" owned one car of probably 400,000 of that generation.
It wasn't just his family that had problems.
The automatic transmission linked to the V6, whether it was a 1998-01 4-speed or an 02-06 5-speed, is an unreliable piece of crap.
Honda put in some kind of management solenoid to make shifts smoother, but it has a high rate of failure because it was not designed to handle the V6's torque, so it ends up shifting really roughly. It can also get much, much worse.
It isn't like Audi has been stellar with automatic transmissions, though, either.
Quote from: the Teuton on February 16, 2009, 06:45:03 PM
The automatic transmission linked to the V6, whether it was a 1998-01 4-speed or an 02-06 5-speed, is an unreliable piece of crap.
Honda put in some kind of management solenoid to make shifts smoother, but it has a high rate of failure because it was not designed to handle the V6's torque, so it ends up shifting really roughly. It can also get much, much worse.
It isn't like Audi has been stellar with automatic transmissions, though, either.
Compared to Honda, you bet VW has been stellar with A/T's.
Quote from: Submariner on February 16, 2009, 06:36:13 PM
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.
I would agree, but I think most would consider the leather interior of an '93 STS more luxurious, but had mold lines and inconsistent die panel gaps that could be spotted at 20 yards, whereas the comparative spartan cloth interior of a base '93 Accord LX costing 1/3 as much had little if any of those problems.
find any early 1999-2002 Audi... interior was fair and all the electrical was poltergiest.... stereo, window regulators, and pleather galore... Audi builds some beautiful interiors, but those definately weren't the glory days...
And yes Honda struggles with the 2nd gear AT design... which has since been fixed... I LOVE the RL, TL-S and current line up of transmission...
Quote from: Submariner on February 16, 2009, 06:16:12 PM
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.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 06:53:58 PM
And yes Honda struggles with the 2nd gear AT design... which has since been fixed... I LOVE the RL, TL-S and current line up of transmission...
You're one of the few.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 06:43:37 PM
If you're really trying to tell me that my family's sample was the only TL with a transmission problem, I believe I need to introduce your head to my frying pan.
This thread is classic anecdotes-as-evidence-of-cars-not-even-mine 'SPIN.
I kinda know how ChrisV feels when he goes on a tear...
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 06:56:01 PM
This thread is classic anecdotes-as-evidence-of-cars-not-even-mine 'SPIN.
I kinda know how ChrisV feels when he goes on a tear...
If you've lived with them, who gives a crap about whose name the insurance is on?
You're wrong, and you can't man up. That's what the problem is here.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 06:55:19 PM
You're one of the few.
A lot of people love the RL. It's a great car.
The price is totally wrong, however.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 16, 2009, 07:01:47 PM
A lot of people love the RL. It's a great car.
The price is totally wrong, however.
They appreciate it. They don't love it.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 06:57:38 PM
If you've lived with them, who gives a crap about whose name the insurance is on?
You're wrong, and you can't man up. That's what the problem is here.
Wrong that I'm continually calling you out on your continued insistence of anecdotes as data?
(Be careful, you're perilously close to making the Cougs' sig'd hall of fame...)
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 06:56:01 PM
This thread is classic anecdotes-as-evidence-of-cars-not-even-mine 'SPIN.
I kinda know how ChrisV feels when he goes on a tear...
You realize that the board's resident Honda troll just admitted that it was a problem, right?
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 07:03:22 PM
Wrong that I'm continually calling you out on your continued insistence of anecdotes as data?
(Be careful, you're perilously close to making the Cougs' sig'd hall of fame...)
When YO admits a Honda flaw, you know it's a flaw.
Ro- 1
Cougs- 0
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 07:03:22 PM
Wrong that I'm continually calling you out on your continued insistence of anecdotes as data?
(Be careful, you're perilously close to making the Cougs' sig'd hall of fame...)
You're wrong.
My brother had an 99' Accord V6 AT (his wife couldn't drive stick) that had some serious transmission issues.
V6 engines and Hondas don't mix. (at least of that era)
It is objectively proven that Honda/Acura makes a more reliable product than Audi. Stop.
Citing said objective data is neither claiming nor refuting individual problems or anecdotes with either make. Stop.
Someone crowing on about a car their family owned when he was 12 is not data. All stop.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 07:07:32 PM
It is objectively proven that Honda/Acura makes a more reliable product than Audi. Stop.
Citing said objective data is neither claiming nor refuting individual problems or anecdotes with either make. Stop.
Someone crowing on about a car their family owned when he was 12 is not data. All stop.
Hahahahahahaha, this post is so full of fail.
Someone? Try millions of people who had fucked up V6 5AT Hondas. Objectively proven? By CR?
Quote from: 2o6 on February 16, 2009, 07:05:22 PM
You're wrong.
My brother had an 99' Accord V6 AT (his wife couldn't drive stick) that had some serious transmission issues.
V6 engines and Hondas don't mix. (at least of that era)
LOL. Oh, wow. If I only had the sig space. If I only had the sig space...
My COO misses his RL... he now drives an E500. He misses the paddle shifting speed difference.... the SH-AWD no holds confidence... the stereo and technolgy... as he puts it... "you can buy the car or buy the star"...
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 07:02:46 PM
They appreciate it. They don't love it.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 07:09:20 PM
LOL. Oh, wow. If I only had the sig space. If I only had the sig space...
If only you weren't such a dumbass...
Objectively speaking, of course.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 07:09:51 PM
My COO misses his RL... he now drives an E500. He misses the paddle shifting speed difference.... the SH-AWD no holds confidence... the stereo and technolgy... as he puts it... "you can buy the car or buy the star"...
Careful, Cougs'll be onto you for anecdotal evidence.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 07:09:59 PM
If only you weren't such a dumbass...
Objectively speaking, of course.
LOL - desperate for a win and he fails.
Sig'd.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 07:07:32 PM
It is objectively proven that Honda/Acura makes a more reliable product than Audi. Stop.
Citing said objective data is neither claiming nor refuting individual problems or anecdotes with either make. Stop.
Someone crowing on about a car their family owned when he was 12 is not data. All stop.
Data?
http://www.samarins.com/reviews/accord.html
"Some of the possible problem areas were automatic transmission on V6 models and the "check engine" light with EGR related codes on V6 models. "http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2003/transmission/transmission_failure.shtml
^^
#125 complaints of transmission failure.
http://www.honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2434676
"They have an alarmingly high failure rate for a Japanese vehicle. The failure rates were high enough that Honda offered a 7yr/100k extended warranty on the transmission only to maintain consumer confidence and resale values. The transmissions commonly fail at 50-70k miles."
99 Accord V6 wasn't available in a manual...
The tranny problem wasn't very big in the Accord... about 1%... amazingling way under industry average, but unacceptable in a Honda (throw in raw number of 350,000 sales per year) . The problem cars were the 5 speed Acuras with the confusing sportshift... many people put there cars in manualmatic and simply blew out 2nd gear... Type S owners took advantage of the power too. THat tranny was designed for high end, and 2nd gear was looked over. Other "torqey" Hondas like the MDX, Odyssey and Pilot had some issues... still only about 6%. Still slightly under average, but horrible for Honda.
The redigned tranny hit the 2005 RL, 2007 MDX and RDX (260 lbs tq) and the 2007 TL-S. The new tranny is great and responsive. I love the paddle shifters in the RDX and TL-S... almost full control...
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 07:09:20 PM
LOL. Oh, wow. If I only had the sig space. If I only had the sig space...
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 07:09:51 PM
My COO misses his RL... he now drives an E500. He misses the paddle shifting speed difference.... the SH-AWD no holds confidence... the stereo and technolgy... as he puts it... "you can buy the car or buy the star"...
Your COO needs to stop drinking drain cleaner.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
99 Accord V6 wasn't available in a manual...
It was going to be a 4cyl Coupe IIRC.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 07:09:20 PM
LOL. Oh, wow. If I only had the sig space. If I only had the sig space...
You're an idiot. Plain and simple.
the owner agrees with him...as does Car and Driver, Motor Trend and Edmunds...
Quote from: Submariner on February 16, 2009, 07:15:14 PM
Your COO needs to stop drinking drain cleaner.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 07:17:21 PM
the owner agrees with him...as does Car and Driver, Motor Trend and Edmunds...
Yeah, no.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
99 Accord V6 wasn't available in a manual...
Quote from: 2o6 on February 16, 2009, 07:15:48 PM
It was going to be a 4cyl Coupe IIRC.
Oh, how convenient this coupe.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 07:19:13 PM
Yeah, no.
The RL is a very good car. The pricetag and the relative quality isn't as high as it competitors.
well yes... you can be a brand snob or drive both... no comparison... through in the 5 for good measure. Personally, only the M35/45 is as nice as the RL IMO...
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 07:19:13 PM
Yeah, no.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 07:20:04 PM
Oh, how convenient this coupe.
:rolleyes:
Read my post.
Nowhere did I say that the V6 sedan he bought was a V6 MT Accord he tested.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 07:20:46 PM
well yes... you can be a brand snob or drive both... no comparison... through in the 5 for good measure. Personally, only the M35/45 is as nice as the RL IMO...
Not the A6 or the 5 series?
Haha ha hahahahaha
The 5 always dissapoints me... too cramped for that class of car. I-drive is still tedious and seating position feels disconnected compared to the last gen. Horribly underpowered til they added the turbo. Still would take the RL and M over this car.
the A6 is beautiful inside and out. Something happened to Audi. They just drive awful to me. Every ride and drive I go to, It feels the worst. The only vehicle in this class that drives worse is the 9x. As a tourer its fantastic. But the steering feels Lexus like... quicker and better but strange
Quote from: Submariner on February 16, 2009, 07:22:18 PM
Not the A6 or the 5 series?
Haha ha hahahahaha
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 07:25:55 PM
The 5 always dissapoints me... too cramped for that class of car. I-drive is still tedious and seating position feels disconnected compared to the last gen. Horribly underpowered til they added the turbo. Still would take the RL and M over this car.
That just means you haven't driven an N52 530i, or any of the V8 variants. The RL isn't exactly a rocket either.
the A6 is beautiful inside and out. Something happened to Audi. They just drive awful to me. Every ride and drive I go to, It feels the worst. The only vehicle in this class that drives worse is the 9x. As a tourer its fantastic. But the steering feels Lexus like... quicker and better but strange
I don't know about the A6, but every time I drive my sister's TSX back to back with our A4, I can't help but think how much better the Audi's engine is, and how much better it handles.
German cars are a pain to maintain...
Audi has a 3 year/36,000 mile maintenance plan, I believe.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 08:36:35 PM
apples to apples... no V8 in the RL and that would throw the price difference almost $20k
The RL is a ~7-second car, and so is the N52 530i.
SHAWD!
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 07:25:55 PM
The 5 always dissapoints me... too cramped for that class of car. I-drive is still tedious and seating position feels disconnected compared to the last gen. Horribly underpowered til they added the turbo. Still would take the RL and M over this car.
Who cares how it was? What matters is how it is. And it is a....wait the seating position feels disconnected? THE FUCKING SEATING POSITION FEELS DISCONNECTED? :nutty: :rastaman: If that made sense I would argue it, so for the sake of argument, lets say you feel the BMW feels disconnected compared to the last model...even if it was, were talking about a BMW 5 vs. an Acura RL...please. :rolleyes:
the A6 is beautiful inside and out. Something happened to Audi. They just drive awful to me. Every ride and drive I go to, It feels the worst. The only vehicle in this class that drives worse is the 9x. As a tourer its fantastic. But the steering feels Lexus like... quicker and better but strange
No
Quote from: Submariner on February 16, 2009, 09:18:35 PM
That's ignorant. He's driven both (ALL of them) cars and has formed his opinion of them based on how he felt. He likes the RL, the RL is not a bad car. There's no reason to mess with him because he doesn't like the same two cars you do. He's not putting the BMW or Audi down, he just likes the RL better.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 16, 2009, 09:26:19 PM
That's ignorant. He's driven both (ALL of them) cars and has formed his opinion of them based on how he felt. He likes the RL, the RL is not a bad car. There's no reason to mess with him because he doesn't like the same two cars you do. He's not putting the BMW or Audi down, he just likes the RL better.
Ive driven an RL and several different 5 series as well...
To say that the seating position in the BMW is disconnected...?
Quote from: Submariner on February 16, 2009, 09:27:41 PM
Ive driven an RL and several different 5 series as well...
And you're different people.
To say that the seating position in the BMW is disconnected...?
To him, the driver-steering relationship is wrong. This is true of cars such as the Toyota Corolla. Teuton Said the same thing about the VW Jetta. YO is saying this about the 5-series.
It does not suit his needs, and the RL does.
the RL is a 6.5 car
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 16, 2009, 08:37:06 PM
The RL is a ~7-second car, and so is the N52 530i.
I agree with GoCougs completely.
You guys need to understand the concept of statistically significant sample sizes.
You're trying to argue with objective data with personal boo-who stories. Takes a stats class and then come back to this thread.
Quote from: MrH on February 17, 2009, 07:04:54 AM
I agree with GoCougs completely.
You guys need to understand the concept of statistically significant sample sizes.
You're trying to argue with objective data with personal boo-who stories. Takes a stats class and then come back to this thread.
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 06:53:58 PM
And yes Honda struggles with the 2nd gear AT design... which has since been fixed... I LOVE the RL, TL-S and current line up of transmission...
Quote from: 2o6 on February 16, 2009, 07:15:06 PM
Data?
http://www.samarins.com/reviews/accord.html
"Some of the possible problem areas were automatic transmission on V6 models and the "check engine" light with EGR related codes on V6 models. "
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2003/transmission/transmission_failure.shtml
^^
#125 complaints of transmission failure.
http://www.honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2434676
"They have an alarmingly high failure rate for a Japanese vehicle. The failure rates were high enough that Honda offered a 7yr/100k extended warranty on the transmission only to maintain consumer confidence and resale values. The transmissions commonly fail at 50-70k miles."
It is relatively common knowledge that the Honda V6 AT combo isn't that good.
that is a rediculous statement. It's like Dubya spouting off about WMDs. Yes Honda had some tranny problems but not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.
It's like saying Audi's were built specifically to redesign garages. Study the facts before you Dubya up your opinions...
Quote from: TBR on February 17, 2009, 07:36:24 AM
It is relatively common knowledge that the Honda V6 AT combo isn't that good.
Quote from: YO on February 17, 2009, 07:43:28 AM
that is a rediculous statement. It's like Dubya spouting off about WMDs. Yes Honda had some tranny problems but not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.
It's like saying Audi's were built specifically to redesign garages. Study the facts before you Dubya up your opinions...
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2003/index.shtml
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2002/index.shtml
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2001/index.shtml
http://tl.acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=573111
http://tl.acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=566833
Oh, and the CL section of the board actually has an entire forum dedicated to the transmission problems:
http://cl.acurazine.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=55
I'd like to see a reliability list that places Audi above Acura. I think we all know that in the vast majority of lists Acura will be way, way ahead of Audi.
This isn't to state that I don't like Audi, or that Acura is perfect. The new A4 is an absolute stunner in person, and it is in general a more upscale marque, but no amount of adulation and anecdotes will upend reality.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 17, 2009, 08:01:53 AM
I'd like to see a reliability list that places Audi above Acura. I think we all know that in the vast majority of lists Acura will be way, way ahead of Audi.
This isn't to state that I don't like Audi. The new A4 is an absolute stunner in person, and it is in general a more upscale marque, but no amount of adulation and anecdotes will upend reality.
With exception of the transmission problem an Acura is going to be more reliable (as I stated a couple pages back), but it is definitely a problem and it is substantial enough that I would hesitate to buy any 2003 or earlier Acura/Honda V6 with an AT. I wouldn't mind a CL-S 6-speed though.
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Audi/A4/2003/index.shtml
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Acura/TL/2003/index.shtml
While the sample size here is undoubtedly quite small, it at least appears that the A4 doesn't have anymore trouble areas than the TL.
Oh, TBR, oh, TBR. I thought you knew better.
Anecdotes (AKA fanboy forums and what my pappy drives) aren't it.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 17, 2009, 08:07:48 AM
Oh, TBR, oh, TBR. I thought you knew better.
Anecdotes (AKA fanboy forums and what my pappy drives) aren't it.
Try reading:
Quote from: TBR on February 17, 2009, 07:49:40 AM
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2003/index.shtml
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2002/index.shtml
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2001/index.shtml
Quote from: YO on February 16, 2009, 06:53:58 PM
And yes Honda struggles with the 2nd gear AT design... which has since been fixed... I LOVE the RL, TL-S and current line up of transmission...
Quote from: TBR on February 17, 2009, 08:03:51 AM
With exception of the transmission problem an Acura is going to be more reliable
I don't think you're getting it.
Just because the transmission is a common trouble spot for the Accord, doesn't mean that it will have more transmission problems per vehicle than an Audi (or more problems in general, which we know it won't).
Let's pretend that Honda has 104 problems reported per 100 vehicles, and Audi has 170 per 100.
Now, it might be a good idea to watch the transmission on your Accord if it's identified as a trouble area, but it doesn't make it less reliable than an A4.
That would be less that .001% of units sold.
Quote from: TBR on February 17, 2009, 07:49:40 AM
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2003/index.shtml
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2002/index.shtml
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2001/index.shtml
the report was on raw numbers not percentages
Quote from: Tave on February 17, 2009, 08:15:48 AM
I don't think you're getting it.
Just because the transmission is a common trouble spot for the Accord, doesn't mean that it will have more transmission problems per vehicle than an Audi (or more problems in general, which we know it won't).
Let's pretend that Honda has 104 problems reported per 100 vehicles, and Audi has 170 per 100.
Now, it might be a good idea to watch the transmission on your Accord if it's identified as a trouble area, but it doesn't make it less reliable than an A4.
http://www.hondatransmissionsettlement.com
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/recalls/results.cfm
on funny side note... Acura service departments are panicking because they have very little warranty work... they can't survive on maintenance alone...
Quote from: Tave on February 17, 2009, 08:15:48 AM
I don't think you're getting it.
Just because the transmission is a common trouble spot for the Accord, doesn't mean that it will have more transmission problems per vehicle than an Audi (or more problems in general, which we know it won't).
Let's pretend that Honda has 104 problems reported per 100 vehicles, and Audi has 170 per 100.
Now, it might be a good idea to watch the transmission on your Accord if it's identified as a trouble area, but it doesn't make it less reliable than an A4.
I am getting it.
The difference is the A4 might have trim panel or electronic related problems, but the TL has a transmission problem, which requires REPLACEMENT of the transmission, a multi-thousand dollar fix.
Quote from: YO on February 17, 2009, 08:16:45 AM
That would be less that .001% of units sold.
Except that is just a web site where owner's can report their problems so all 900,000 or so of 2001-2003 Accords aren't represented.
Quote from: YO on February 17, 2009, 08:17:14 AM
the report was on raw numbers not percentages
Exactly my point. Any large batch of vehicles is going to have problems here and there, and more than likely, those which do will share some in common. But you can't use that as evidence for the statement, "Car X is less reliable than car Y because of Z." You have to look at percentages and probability to make that claim.
Quote from: TBR on February 17, 2009, 08:19:59 AM
The difference is the A4 might have trim panel or electronic related problems, but the TL has a transmission problem, which requires REPLACEMENT of the transmission, a multi-thousand dollar fix.
Now you're just making shit up.
Google "A4 transmission problems"
Quote from: Tave on February 17, 2009, 08:23:10 AM
Exactly my point. Any large batch of vehicles is going to have problems here and there, and more than likely, those which do will share some in common. But you can't use that as evidence for the statement, "Car X is less reliable than car Y because of Z." You have to look at percentages and probability to make that claim.
I am sure the class action lawsuit and the NHTSA recall don't mean a thing. :rolleyes:
I fucking give up. I have posted as much data as I can find yet you fan boys keep insisting it is "anecdotal", I don't know what you expect me to find, a list from Honda specifying how many transmission went in what cars? Because that isn't going to happen and you all know it. Evidently cars just don't have problems unless you all say so (though one of you did say so making this even more baffling).
The issue isn't whether or not certain Accords had transmission problems: we all know they did. But you can't extrapolate that observation to "prove" that the Accord's transmissions are less reliable than Audi's.
Quote from: TBR on February 17, 2009, 08:25:58 AM
I have posted as much data as I can find yet you fan boys keep insisting it is "anecdotal",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence)
The expression anecdotal evidence has two quite distinct meanings.
(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or untrue.
(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.
In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it might happen not to be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".
Quote from: TBR on February 17, 2009, 08:25:58 AM
I don't know what you expect me to find, a list from Honda specifying how many transmission went in what cars?
Exactly. To support the claim, "Honda transmissions are less reliable than Audi transmissions," you will need to provide statistical evidence.
QuoteBecause that isn't going to happen and you all know it.
So you're just lazy? I'm sure the stats are out there if you look for them, but I'm sceptical that they will prove your assertion.
Yup, anecdotal. Oh, how Honda wishes you were right.
http://world.honda.com/news/2004/c040630.html
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 17, 2009, 08:34:27 AM
Yup, anecdotal. Oh, how Honda wishes you were right.
http://world.honda.com/news/2004/c040630.html
You really need to calm down and think about this for a second.
Once again, WE ALL KNOW THAT CERTAIN ACCORDS HAD TRANSMISSION PROBLEMS. That is a proven fact.
But even proven facts can be used as anecdotal evidence.
Quote from: Tave on February 17, 2009, 08:38:48 AM
You really need to calm down and think about this for a second.
Once again, WE ALL KNOW THAT CERTAIN ACCORDS HAD TRANSMISSION PROBLEMS. That is a proven fact.
But even proven facts can be used as anecdotal evidence.
I'm not sure how, but if you say so. :huh:
So you're implying that the Honda recall is about as anecdotal as my claim that our own A4s have been more reliable than our TLs?
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 17, 2009, 08:40:38 AM
I'm not sure how, but if you say so. :huh:
Read the link I provided
QuoteSo you're implying that the Honda recall is about as anecdotal as my claim that our own A4s have been more reliable than our TLs?
It's anecdotal in the sense that you guys are using it to "prove" the claim, "Honda transmissions are less reliable than Audi transmissions."
You can't make that assertion based soley off the number of recalled Accords. You must provide statistical evidence showing the percentage of Accords with transmission problems relative to the percentage of A4s or A6s with transmission problems.
And for the record, that is EXACTLY what I'm implying:
"the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion"
Quote from: Tave on February 17, 2009, 08:46:21 AM
Read the link I provided
It's anecdotal in the sense that you guys are using it to "prove" the claim, "Honda transmissions are less reliable than Audi transmissions."
You can't make that assertion based soley off the number of recalled Accords. You must provide statistical evidence showing the percentage of Accords with transmission problems relative to the percentage of A4s or A6s with transmission problems.
I figured that the pure idea that Honda had to recall that many Accords would kinda show that it wasn't exactly a confined problem.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 17, 2009, 08:49:00 AM
I figured that the pure idea that Honda had to recall that many Accords would kinda show that it wasn't exactly a confined problem.
:banghead:
The issue isn't whether or not Honda transmissions have failed, but whether or not they fail more often than Audi transmissions.
CALL_911 ain't a bad guy, but he's just trolling now as a diversion. He got caught up and now he's obsessing about transmissions.
The closest thing we can easily find to statistically significant data on the reliability of the two (which, mind you, is the argument at hand here. The original statement claimed a new Acura would be more reliable than a new Audi) would be something like a JD Power report.
Looking at the dependability ratings, Acura ties or beats Audi is every category.
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/dependability-ratings-by-brand
Audi vs Acura now?
I was just finding facts on Honda/Acura transmission failures.
I wonder though which does suffer from more transmission failures.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 16, 2009, 05:38:09 PM
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.
That's the statement that originally started this debate.
Try reading the whole thread, 2o6.
Quote from: Submariner on February 17, 2009, 09:33:09 AM
I wonder though which does suffer from more transmission failures.
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
The world may never know...
Aaah!
Cougs is right....... :banghead:
Quote from: MrH on February 17, 2009, 09:34:31 AM
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
The world may never know...
Fuck that stupid owl!
not true
Quote from: MrH on February 17, 2009, 09:29:28 AM
The closest thing we can easily find to statistically significant data on the reliability of the two (which, mind you, is the argument at hand here. The original statement claimed a new Acura would be more reliable than a new Audi) would be something like a JD Power report.
Looking at the dependability ratings, Acura ties or beats Audi is every category.
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/dependability-ratings-by-brand
I am physically repulsed every time I see one. The car is repugnant.
Quote from: Raza on February 17, 2009, 12:33:31 PM
I am physically repulsed every time I see one. The car is repugnant.
I thought about it for a bit, and have come to realize that the new TL compared to the previous one is like that one lady who had WAYY too much plastic surgery done. Except that it's especially shameful for the car because the 04-08 TL was my favorite looking car in its class.
still feeling better about the TL everyday I see one... looks strong and as soon as people relate the grill to Acura, their signature "look" will be instilled...
Everyone complained about Acura for being to vanilla for so long... I think they did the right thing...
Quote from: Vinsanity on February 17, 2009, 03:26:33 PM
I thought about it for a bit, and have come to realize that the new TL compared to the previous one is like that one lady who had WAYY too much plastic surgery done. Except that it's especially shameful for the car because the 04-08 TL was my favorite looking car in its class.
Quote from: YO on February 17, 2009, 04:55:43 PM
still feeling better about the TL everyday I see one... looks strong and as soon as people relate the grill to Acura, their signature "look" will be instilled...
doesn't always work...
(http://www.carpages.co.uk/subaru/subaru_images/subaru_b9_tribeca_frront_20_12_06.jpg)
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/10/12/automobiles/600-edsel.jpg)
I just saw a new TL today. It's polarizing in person, but it's not quite fugly like the pictures show.
I admit I do like the sloping trunklid, although I still think it could stand to be toned down a bit.
funny... I love both... the designer of the first obviously came from another company right before
Quote from: Vinsanity on February 17, 2009, 06:39:54 PM
doesn't always work...
(http://www.carpages.co.uk/subaru/subaru_images/subaru_b9_tribeca_frront_20_12_06.jpg)
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/10/12/automobiles/600-edsel.jpg)
And I thought the NO car could top the threads about the looks of the Ridgeline. Honda has really outdone itself this time! ;)