Last post on Jan 07, 2012 at 5:27 PM
You are in the Acura TL
What is this discussion about?
Acura TL, Sedan
#6598 of 9045 found this today when looking for info on 99 TL
Dec 09, 2004 (12:58 pm)
Here is another example of Honda Engineering at its best:
Recall #99V227000 - ACURA 3.5RL
NHTSA Campaign Number: 99V227000
Vehicle/Equipment Make: ACURA
Vehicle/Equipment Model: 3.5RL
Model Year, 9999 If Unknown Or N/A: 1999
MFR Campaign Number: K68
Component Description: POWER TRAIN:AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION
Manufacturer's Involved In The Recall: AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.
Begin Date Of Manufacturing: 19980824
End Date Of Manufacturing: 19990629
Vehicle, Equipment Or Tire Report: V
Potential Number Of Units Affected: 96518
Date Owner Notified By MFR: 19990830
Recall Initiator (MFG/OVSC/ODI): MFR
Manufacturer Responsible For Recall: AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.
Date Report Received By ODI: 19990830
Date Added To File: 19990830
Regulation Part Number:
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number:
Defect Summary: VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. A TRANSMISSION CASE BOLT CAN LOOSEN AND FALL OUT ALLOWING THE TRANSMISSION TO DISENGAGE FROM THE DIFFERENTIAL.
Consequence Summary: THE VEHICLE COULD LOSE POWER TO THE DRIVE WHEELS WITHOUT WARNING. ALSO, SHIFTING THE TRANSMISSION INTO THE PARK POSITION WOULD NOT LOCK THE WHEELS, AND A PARKED VEHICLE COULD MOVE UNEXPECTEDLY IF THE PARKING BRAKE IS NOT SET.
Corrective Summary: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A REDESIGNED BOLT.
Dec 10, 2004 (12:26 pm)
Maldorf, I think we get the point that you are unhappy with what has happened to you and your TL. If you'd like to give us updates as your case progresses, we'd like to hear them, but it's not necessary to keep posting your displeasure over and over. The folks here have heard you and I'm sure they offer you their sympathies, but it's time to let this conversation move on now.
Hope everything works out for you.
Dec 10, 2004 (1:53 pm)
Ditto to Pat.
But Maldorf also mentioned "There have also been documented cases of these 04s breaking down."
That's new to me. I hope Maldorf can provide some 'document' here to back that up, if nothing, at least for his/her own credibility.
Dec 10, 2004 (6:03 pm)
Is premium fuel required in the 2005 TL or just recommended?
#6602 of 9045 Re: FUEL [golfnut5]
Dec 10, 2004 (6:59 pm)
#6603 of 9045 Free Acura Gift Card
Dec 11, 2004 (12:03 am)
I received a post card from Acura last week thanking me for being a loyal customer. It went on to say that as a show of appreciation, they would be sending me a gift card which I could use on service, parts, accessories, it was up to me. I received the card two days ago, and to my surprise, it was for $100! Has anyone else received a card, and if so, for how much?
#6604 of 9045 Re: [igiban]
Dec 11, 2004 (12:33 pm)
Well, the issue has been discussed more than enough I am sure. Later down the road when I hear from the lawyers I will give you a heads up as to what is going to happen. I stand nothing to gain in this suit, I was just asked to provide some testimony. I just wanted to help the legal team get their point accross. The 99 I had that broke down is long gone, turned it in after the lease was up. My main concern now is the resale value of my 03.
It seems no matter how many people have their transmission break down, some people choose to not care as long as their car was manufactured after the transmission was "fixed".
There really is not any point in me trying to find documentaion backing my claim about the 99. Fact is there was a problem, and continues to be one now for over 5 years.
#6605 of 9045 Premium Fuel: Required vs. Recommended
Dec 11, 2004 (1:10 pm)
The debate about "can I get away with regular gas" has turned up in just about every forum I visit. A few of my oft repeated points.
First: The distinction between "required" and "recommended" appears to be a dubious one at best. Some manufacturers use one term, others use another. I will double check my TL owners manual, but even if it says "recommended", I suspect they don't sell any cars where they then use the term "required". The reverse is probably true with BMW.
Second: Is the idea of spending an extra 10-15 cents a gallon (5-7%) for premium in a $30k+ car with a 270 hp V-tech engine a hardship for anyone?? If so, buy a $20,000 car and have enough gas money left over for the rest of your life.
Third: There is a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence that performance and gas mileage improves with a high tech engine designed to run on premium. Probably completely outweighing any apparant savings with cheaper gas. That was the case for my 1995 Maxima SE and I'm quite sure the 2004+ TL is at least as good at utilizing the higher octane gas to it's advantage.
I jumped to a conclusion that the poster asking whether or not premium was required or recommended might be tempted to use regular if it was the latter. Go for it, if you chose. It's your car. Just don't lie when you go to sell it and someone smart enough to ask the question, does. I went so far as to keep gas receipts for my Honda S2000 and, sure enough, someone asked to see them.
I'm all for prudence. Putting regular gas in a V-tech engine has a different definition in my book.
#6606 of 9045 Re: [maldorf]
Dec 11, 2004 (1:13 pm)
I am not saying there's no problem, esp. for those TL between 00 to 03. I just like you to show us the documented cases you mentoned about 04 TL 'breaking down'. Be specific. That'd be helpful in a court room too.
#6607 of 9045 Litigiousness
Dec 11, 2004 (2:29 pm)
Getting a little tired of all the talk of lawyers, class action suits, etc. It's these bottom feeders and the litigious "I'll sue" mind set that fuels them that brings us speed limiters on US market cars, placards all over sun visors and elsewhere, crash warnings in manuals that read as though they're aimed at 5 year olds, etc. Some years ago, these legal heroes, along with 60 Minutes sensationalist journalism, almost ruined Audi for the sake of an incompetent who didn't know which pedal operated the brake.