- #96 of 155
-
Re: AUTO START--CORRECTION [ajmtbm]
by pat HOST
-
Oct 28, 2006 (5:54 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: ajmtbm (Oct 27, 2006 6:33 pm)
And where is the 60/40 fold-down back seat that people have been yelling for for years?
|
- #97 of 155
-
Re: AUTO START--CORRECTION [pat]
by ajmtbm
-
Oct 28, 2006 (1:02 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: pat (Oct 28, 2006 5:54 am)
well, i'll give them a bye on that because making the 60/40 probably requres a significant amount of changes in the car, and i cant blame them for that.
|
- #98 of 155
-
Re: AUTO START--CORRECTION [ajmtbm]
by pat HOST
-
Oct 29, 2006 (2:42 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: ajmtbm (Oct 28, 2006 1:02 pm)
Okay, but my point is that people have been fussing for some kind of fold-down back seat in the TL for as long as I can remember - which goes back to prior to the major 99 redesign. I'm just wondering why they are not listening.
I guess because their cars sell without it, huh? 
|
- #99 of 155
-
Re: AUTO START--CORRECTION [pat]
by kennyg8
-
Oct 29, 2006 (5:13 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: pat (Oct 29, 2006 2:42 am)
For me, the fold down back seat is good, but not necessary to have. My other car, an 03 Max GLE, has fold down seats, but in the past 3 years, I only used the feature once. I really did not need to use it even then, as my young son (who must sit in the back) was only curious to find out how it felt with the other seat folded down. If the car without the fold down seat is more rigid structurally and provides better protection in the event of a rear end crash, IMO, not having the feature is better.
|
- #100 of 155
-
Re: AUTO START--CORRECTION [pat]
by ajmtbm
-
Oct 29, 2006 (1:29 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: pat (Oct 29, 2006 2:42 am)
it wont sell more cars, i agree.
in addition, we are also coming off the SUV crazy years, so who the heck needs the utility of fold down seats in a sedan? seems like everyone's other car is an SUV or minivan, and the extra storage doesnt matter i guess
|
- #101 of 155
-
Re: AUTO START--CORRECTION [pat]
by laurasdada
-
Oct 29, 2006 (1:42 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: pat (Oct 29, 2006 2:42 am)
At least the TL has a pass through for my skis, which in the past is usually the only reason I'd fold the seats in my car.
|
- #102 of 155
-
Re: 06 vs 07 [ggesq]
by cadreamn
-
Nov 04, 2006 (12:03 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: ggesq (Oct 25, 2006 12:01 pm)
Are you saying that the 2007 TL base has a softer suspension than the 2006 TL base? I just drove the 2006 base and the 2007 TL-S and found the 2006 to have enough sportiness for my needs. I'm interested in a 2007 - but if it was made softer, will need to drive 2007 to be sure.
|
- #103 of 155
-
Re: 06 vs 07 [cadreamn]
by ggesq
-
Nov 04, 2006 (2:28 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: cadreamn (Nov 04, 2006 12:03 pm)
Yes, that is what all the literature says. I have not test driven any of the 07 TL models.
|
- #104 of 155
-
Re: 06 vs 07 [cadreamn]
by dampfnudel
-
Nov 04, 2006 (5:14 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: cadreamn (Nov 04, 2006 12:03 pm)
According to Acura:
"The TL's suspension has been retuned with an emphasis on ride comfort while maintaining excellent handling. Thus, the hollow front anti-roll bar has increased in size from 25.4mm to 27.2mm. Also, the front spring rate has been reduced by 7 percent compared to the 2006 model. The front compliance bushing and dampers have been retuned for improved ride comfort, resulting in improved ride comfort without increased roll and only a slight decrease in instrumented handling tests."
|
- #105 of 155
-
Re: 06 vs 07 [cadreamn]
by cadreamn
-
Nov 04, 2006 (5:59 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: cadreamn (Nov 04, 2006 12:03 pm)
After typing my last message I decided to try the 2007 TL. Did not notice any reduction in the sporty feel. (Whew).
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
