You have saved this page | See all saved pages
Acura CL
1965 messages, Last post on Feb 09, 2011 at 5:55 PM
You are in the Acura CL Forum.- Your Host is claires
What is this discussion about? Acura CL, Coupe
#1315 of 1965 kp40m- by fastdriver
Aug 14, 2002 (5:55 pm)
kp40m-
2001 CL-S, 17 months old and 17,700+ miles and not ONE problem. You are the FIRST one to mention an armrest problem. Never heard of this one. As for the 6-speed- never drove one. Not interested in shifting. The automatic is fine and fast enough for me. This is the best car I have ever owned! Love the "roar/rumble" of the dual exhausts when you floor it and leave everyone in the dust.
If you question Acura quality, go check out some Chrysler products. Better yet, ask people that you see in parking lots that have a DC product. See what they say. Better yet. Go to http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov and check out the Technical Service Bulletins for DC products. Go back a few years. You'll see the SAME problems listed year, after year, after year! They are slow learners for sure
You'll come RUNNING back to Acura! 
))
fastdriver
#1316 of 1965 fastdriver by garypen
Aug 14, 2002 (10:06 pm)
Not even the noisy moonroof? I thought everyone got that one.#1318 of 1965 CL-S 6-speed - attention kp40m by mapman1138
Aug 15, 2002 (9:02 am)
I've been driving one since March, and have put about 7000 very happy miles on it. Mine has a clutch with very rapid take-up, just "off the floor", it grabs. This took me a few miles to adjust to, but now whenever I drive my wifes CR-V, I find that clutch to be a real pain to get used to - grabbing near the top of its travel.I find the shifter to be typical Honda - very smooth and positive. If anything, the shift effort might be a bit too light. I don't find it to be notchy, although I can on occasion "get lost" in the gears. I think that a 5-speed probably would've been fine for the job, as the 3.2 liter motor has a very broad torque band.
As far as build quality goes - I've seen no flaws yet, and only one design issue: the fuel filler release can sometimes be balky.
If I could change anything, I'd make the car RWD, firm up the supension a bit, and trim off some of the excess length & weight. Minor quibbles, really, as the car has been everything that I expected from it.
#1319 of 1965 Jarrod4 by mapman1138
Aug 15, 2002 (9:07 am)
The motor is strong from the get go, but it really hits its stride from about 5k up to the redline. It hustles its 3700lbs (including li'l ol' me) along right well.It seems to be a typical Honda 'plant. It likes to rev (unless its hot out).
#1321 of 1965 Hot hot hot - bad bad bad by mapman1138
Aug 16, 2002 (7:18 pm)
When the outside temperature hits some threshold (seems like about ninety F), the engine loses much of its power & willingness to rev. My guess is that it's the ECU retarding timing to prevent detonation. The difference between hot & cool weather driving in the CL-S (at least in *my* CL-S) is quite pronounced. The car becomes something of a slug.The performance is completely independent of A/C use.
On a more upbeat note - I just replaced my stock shift knob with a Momo short anatomic knob. Tres cool!
#1322 of 1965 by garypen
Aug 16, 2002 (10:52 pm)
When the outside temperature hits some threshold (seems like about ninety F), the engine loses much of its powerNot so with my base CL
#1323 of 1965 mapman1138- by fastdriver
Aug 17, 2002 (2:26 am)
mapman1138-Mmmm.. if that was the case, my CL-S should have been moving like a SLUG last week here in So. CT with the weather we had. Not so.
Are you using premium gas?
fastdriver
To POST a message, please
Sign In.
Advertisement
Most Popular in Forums
Search Forums
Enter Keyword(s):
Learn More, Do More
Edmunds Community
Advertisement