Last post on Jan 07, 2012 at 5:27 PM
You are in the Acura TL
What is this discussion about?
Acura TL, Sedan
Dec 11, 2004 (11:40 pm)
Like I said before, I dont mind about the recall. But I will be, if they found something wrong but refusing to recall the vehicle. I hope every car manufacturer will do the same. I saw BMW did it, Chrysler, Mazda, Honda, Infiniti, Ford etc. did it.
The RL that you mentioned above is 5 years old news, and its also Acura that inititated the recall. Even with the most troubled TL/CL (2000-2001), if we look at those numbers, the precentage of failure (PREVIOUS TL/CL 2000-2001) was less than 2% with 4 recalls. According USAtoday, Acura extended the warranty 7 yrs/100k miles for TL/CL 2000-2003?
Actually I'm glad that you brought this matter up (I got spooked too but not anymore). So we can understand the situation better, there is nothing wrong with it. Btw you made me "shop" around to see used high mileage TL (it's fun), the oldest so far is 28k (with recalled tranny). I'm not planning to buy now but I will be when my 148k miles accord need to be replaced. I'm really interested with the NAVI-TL, since mine doesnt have one but my wife insisted that the replacement will be an SUV, BMW X5 or MDX probably.
Your TL'03 is fine and you said that you had nothing to gain from this lawsuit, so....? Do you want us to gain nothing while there's nothing wrong with our TL'04? (I have had bad experiences with some lawyers, "I always win this kind of case and I believe we can win it" but later on "Good god, this is my first loss on this kind of case") Anyway you have my sympathy and I agree with Pat, let's move on from this old news.
#6610 of 9045 Re: Premium Fuel: Required vs. Recommended [habitat1]
Dec 12, 2004 (9:02 am)
I would agree...it is prudent to put the recommended gas 91 octane...because the antiknock properties will protect the valves and stuff...and it is what the ECU chip was designed for....
according to the powerchip company....the ECU chip for fuel management was designed for a certain octane fuel. But the company sometimes detunes an engine, because there are always someone who puts lower grade gas in the tank...thus not only forgoing the higher hp available in highly tuned engines, but damages the engine in the process.
the cayenne is tuned to 450 hp..using 91 octane..though for short distances 87 octane is OK....the computer adjusts for the lower grade....but it is not good. The existing ECU can be changed to give the car 487 hp using 91 octane, but the flexibility of the engine will be less...and 87 octane would damage the engine.
If 94 octane were available, the powerchip company could put in an ECU that would give the car 500 hp...but then the engine would surely not survive on being fed 87 octane...
the TL is close to a highly tuned engine. Giving it less octane will not make it break down in a few miles...but it would starve the engine....IMHO.
Dec 12, 2004 (9:11 am)
I think it is immportant for all of us here to have a feeling of pride of ownership , specially when it comes to cars. It is iconic that cars makes us feel good about ourselves....and we all want to drive what we like.
That said....I also think it is important for the auto maker to back up thier vehicle with good service and solve problems with permanent fixes, instead of temporary or questionable patches.
Specially if it were a safety issue....
#6612 of 9045 Re: FUEL [macdaddie0]
Dec 12, 2004 (5:07 pm)
Thanks for info. I currently have a Cadillac CTS in which the owners manual recommends premium, but does not require it and specifically says 87 octane will not damage the engine. I have tried both premium and 87 octane in my CTS and can't tell the difference in performance. The extra cost is not an issue with me I was only curious. I will be trading my CTS next spring and seriously considering a TL.
#6613 of 9045 Re: FUEL [golfnut5]
Dec 12, 2004 (5:40 pm)
I shouldn't dump on GM, but the fact that the Cadillac doesnt "require" premium doesn't surprise me. According to Edmunds, the 2004 3.2 liter V6 in the CTS was only rated at 220 hp. That's less than a 3.0 liter BMW and a full 50 hp less than the same size 3.2 liter in the TL. Even the 2005 CTS with its optional 3.6 liter engine falls 15 hp short of the TL 3.2 liter's 270 hp.
Honda/Acura have some of the best engine technology in reasonably affordable cars on the market. Even a Ferrari 360 doesn't quite match the 120 hp/liter output of the 2000-2003 S2000. The current TL, with 270 horspepower out of 3.2 liters is also at the top of its class in power output per liter.
Following highender's logic, the CTS 3.2 liter engine is already "detuned" by 50 hp compared to the TL. So it also doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't notice any difference in performance with regular gas. It's not exactly a world class athlete to begin with, so a proper diet isn't going to make much of a difference. But the more the manufacturer pushes the technology envelope, the more likely a lower octane gas will result in adverse performance or worse. It is my understanding that confirmed use of lower octane gas in the BMW M3 (3.2 liter 333 hp) can be a basis for BMW invalidating the warranty (read that the computer chip actually monitors and stores such data as maximum sustained rpms, clutch useage, octane levels, etc.)
#6614 of 9045 Re: FUEL [habitat1]
Dec 12, 2004 (5:57 pm)
Your comments on the TL are why I am seriously considering the purchase of one. The TL appears to be more refined than the CTS and a much better value.
Dec 13, 2004 (6:29 am)
What about torque? Americans LOVE torque.
Dec 13, 2004 (6:55 am)
Its always true that high Oct. gas will result in higher HP. Its not rocket science. 3 ways a engine gets more HP. 1) more Air 2) More fuel 3) more displacement.
The Accord V-6 ratings assume regular-grade fuel, and Honda will market it as a regular-fuel engine. But — pssst — it's good for another 10 hp and 10-plus lbs.-ft. on premium, acknowledges V-6 engineer Asaki.
Dec 13, 2004 (7:51 am)
I am considering an '05 TL and notice that there are optional spoilers which can be added. If I add the deck lid spoiler plus the side underbody spoiler, front underbody spoiler, and the rear underbody spoiler I am looking at a very substantial increase in price. While I know aesthetics are a matter of judgement, would this car look "stupid" or out of balance if I just added the deck lid spoiler and the side underbody spoiler?
#6618 of 9045 Re: Adding Spoilers [sacdriver]
by kyfdx@Edmunds HOST
Dec 13, 2004 (8:07 am)
The decklid spoiler will look fine alone.. but, I would consider all of the underbody spoilers as one package.. I think it may look "out of balance" with only some of them installed..
I think they are very pricy for what is basically a cosmetic improvement..