Last post on Oct 29, 2013 at 10:48 PM
You are in the Acura TL
What is this discussion about?
Acura TL, Sedan
#116 of 135 Re: Oh - try the Bridgestone Potenza 970 AS [billyperksii]
Sep 29, 2012 (7:33 am)
I'd get the S4 without any hesitation, compared to a TL SH-AWD advance, if the price was in the same universe as the TL. Despite what must appear to be blind, stupid, ignorant support for the Acura, I would take an Audi A4 2.0T over the TL, too, if the price would be even remotely competitive.
Now, the S6 and the S8 are cars that I would describe as sublime -- virtually regardless of price. Virtually. I had a new S6 in 1995 and it remains my favorite car, despite the fact that I actually felt my 1997 A8 and 2005 A6 and 2009 A4 2.0T sport were "better." The S cars, not S-Line, mind you, are IMHO among the most desirable cars on the planet. I have never driven one of the newer generations of RS Audis, but I am confident they too are at the pinnacle of the automaker's art.
However, I/we live in a world where (for example), home theater, European trips, fine dining, plays and "theater", regional US travel and our Shelties are very important. My wife collects high buck pens and we both collect watches and support charities and what we think are good causes. Our ages dictate that 401ks and other investments are also near the top of our minds.
Hopefully you get the picture -- I did cross shop the Acura with a comparably priced (south of $50,000) Audi. The Acura, which was able to "remind" or perhaps fool me into thinking it was "sporty" and not a HUGE step down from the Audi in terms of creature comforts, seemed (in the time frame of the Great Recession) to be an optimal purchase. A few years back, I probably would have talked myself into about $200 per month more and for a longer term (36 mo vs 42 months lease).
Yea, I know, TMI, but I assume many folks go through a similar thought process and some justify it by getting a 50" HDTV instead of a much larger HDTV or they eat at chain restaurants to save a few bucks or they don't fly business class to Munich, etc etc etc.
I will shop Acura, Audi, BMW, Cadillac, Genesis, Infiniti, Volkswagen and Volvo, next time around (22 months or so.) I can only assume that there will be no S4 or S6 that is worth giving up the other "luxuries" we enjoy.
Of course, we could always win the lottery -- but then again, that would mean we would have to start playing it.
Drive it like you live.
#117 of 135 Re: Oh - try the Bridgestone Potenza 970 AS [markcincinnati]
Oct 01, 2012 (8:50 am)
Mark I like your assessment on a whole but I beg to differ.
I have said this before that I almost traded my TL for either the S4 or the A6 Premium Plus- the A4 was not even on my long list- way underpowered to even be mentioned. I sat in the S4 and knew right away this would not suffice a family of four. The A6 would but value stopped me in putting my signature on the paper. I just could not justify giving up $20K more for what seems like- a little power, slightly better handling and a few other stuff that are irrelevant. Just MHO
#118 of 135 Re: Oh - try the Bridgestone Potenza 970 AS [billyperksii]
Oct 01, 2012 (11:01 am)
You say tomato, I say tomaato. We're darn close to being in violent agreement!
Drive it like you live.
#119 of 135 2012 TL vs. 2013 TL vs. RLX?
Oct 04, 2012 (9:23 am)
I'm very interested in buying an Acura TL AWD w/Tech. Are there advantages to waiting for 2013 vs. 2012, and/or just waiting for the Acura RLX sometime next year?
I don't want to pull the trigger on 2012, only to be kicking myself because 2013 and/or the RLX is such a superior car (I know the RLX would be more expensive)
#120 of 135 Re: 2012 TL vs. 2013 TL vs. RLX? [chelflicker]
Oct 04, 2012 (11:14 am)
I would wait until 2013 to make your purchase. Not only will Acura release the new 2014 RLX in Q1 of next year, but the new 2014 TLX should be out before the summertime next year as well. And even if you don't like the RLX or the TLX, you should be able to get a great deal on a 2013 TL AWD Tech. I love my '09 TL SH-AWD Tech (Pearl White/Umber leather with the 19s) and plan to keep it for a while. Can't to see the new RLX in purpose though....
#121 of 135 Re: 2012 TL vs. 2013 TL vs. RLX? [chelflicker]
Oct 05, 2012 (7:13 am)
The '13's can be had now (TL's). They are virtually unchanged from the '12's. If you are buying, the '12 will cost less, but your choices will be more limited -- but, you might be able to find a leftover TL SH-AWD Advance for an even steeper discount.
If you are planning to lease, the '13's will probably be less per month and you can get one of them any way you want by ordering it.
The rumor, of course, is that the replacement TL, thus far called the TLX, will be based off the new '13' Accord which uses more high strength steel (for an overall stiffer car, which improves, uh, "everything") and has a lot newer and better technology. Take the '13'Accord and "Acura-ize" it, and you will have an entirely new and improved '14' "TLX" (or whatever.)
Acura will certainly want to get the new TL replacement to market as soon as possible to distance itself from the current TL "design statement" (er, some just call it ugly), but I wouldn't expect the '14's until at least Q2 or perhaps Q3 of 2013.
In any case the current ('13) TL SH-AWD (I have a '12 TL SH-AWD Advance) is an exceptionally nice car (as long as you are inside of it and don't have to look at the exterior) and it drives great and performs great.
You may get the best deal on the current gen rather than the upcoming '14. If you are looking for value, the '12 or '13 TL SH-AWD is very hard to beat.
#122 of 135 22,090 miles in a 2012 Acura TL SH-AWD
Oct 28, 2012 (9:08 am)
After 18 months and 22,090 miles with my 2012 Acura TL SH-AWD with Tech and Advance options, I have some impressions of living with this sedan.
Other than a failure of the air-conditioner last summer and a rattle in the sunroof, the car has been reliable. It took the dealer two tries to repair the air conditioner and one try to fix the sunroof. The car was in the shop for two days the second try.
The car's performance is excellent. It's quick and smooth. The roadholding and handling are up to high standards, especially if the mediocre OEM tires are exchanged for very high performance summer tires, as I did. The engine and transmission are smooth. Heavily laden, car has achieved 31 mpg with the cruise control set to 70 mph in flat terrain. Driven as most enthusiasts would, the car gets 26-27 mpg on the highway and 20 mpg in suburban driving.
The sound system is first class. The navigation system is good, but not great. Bugs that should have been fixed years ago persist, such as using voice control to get time without the engagement of the tutorial.
The instrument controls are a victim of style over legibility. The binnacles surrounding the tach and speedometer are so large and obtrusive that at times, the driver focuses on the light gray rims of the binnacles rather than to the instruments themselves.
The clock is a tiny, hidden in the display in the LCD panel above the many pushbuttons. Generally I find the layout and logic of the buttons useful and friendly.
The front seats are very comfortable and supportive.
The all wheel drive works well, but doesn't engage as quickly as the full-time all-wheel systems in my 2001 and 2004 Audi A6 cars or in my 2007 Subaru Outback H6 or in my former 2006 and 2007 Subaru Legacy spec.B sedans, which had manual transmissions. I can easily sense that brief moment of slippage until the Acura's SH-AWD sends power to the rear wheels.
The TL's body has three major disadvantages. First, the driver's outward view is severely compromised by the wide, sharply slanted A-pillars, high belt line, and small windows. Second, access to the back seat is hard because of small doors and a sloping roof. Third, the undersized trunk has a high lift over, a small opening, contours that make it very difficult to accept large suitcases. For a 194-inch long car, a trunk of 12.5 cubic feet is too small. Furthermore the trunk lid has a pointed center which too often whacks foreheads.
For the driver, the TL SH-AWD's roadholding and handling are satisfying, especially for a long, heavy sedan. The ride is generally pleasing, but compromised by excessive road noise.
So, the 2012 Acura TL SH-AWD is a mixed bag. It scores well for performance and poorly for practicality.
Having just finished a long trip of 2,400 miles in two weeks with my wife and lots of baggage, I have concluded, "never again in the TL," because it's a large car outside and a small car inside.
My lease for the 2012 TL will expire next Spring. I will consider the forthcoming 2014 Acura TL, a variant of the 2014 Honda Accord, with a new hybrid AWD system. I will not consider any car with a trunk and outward view as bad as the 2012 TL's. Style doesn't trump utility.
#123 of 135 Re: 22,090 miles in a 2012 Acura TL SH-AWD [renssils]
Oct 28, 2012 (11:12 am)
Nice write up. Very helpful for people that are considering the TL and may not noitce a lot of the the things you mention during a test drive unless they are specifically looking for them.
#124 of 135 Re: 22,090 miles in a 2012 Acura TL SH-AWD [renssils]
Oct 28, 2012 (2:58 pm)
A few more thoughts. The 19-inch wheels are overkill, adding unsprung weight, which contributes to a harsher ride, and, perhaps, contributing to road noise, but likely not adding to better roadholding. Eighteen-inch wheels are more than sufficient; the larger wheels are stylistic excess, especially in view of the mediocre all-season tires fitted.
The rear-view camera works well enough, but is primitive in contrast to rear-view cameras in cars in the same price range because the Acura view doesn't display guidelines to aid in reversing. That's a simple software solution that Acura could have provided at low cost.
The blind spot indicator is welcome, but it only works when an approaching vehicle is a car length or so alongside the TL. This device is a useful accessory, but no substitute for checking the rearview mirrors; don't rely on it alone.
The tungsten-halogen high-beams have good reach, but are so inferior in brightness to the xenon HID low-beams that one's eyes are presented with a disparity in brightness and in color. The xenon lamps are blueish-white; the tungsten-halogen lamps are yellowish-white. Clearly Acura did not fit xenon high-beams in order to keep costs down and for the same reason did not fit articulating headlights which turn with body motion and steering. Acura cheaped out.
So it seems to me that the TL SH-AWD is more luxurious, AWD version of the Honda Accord. Unless you want AWD, buy the Honda. If you want the features commonly offered in an upscale AWD sedan of this size, consider an Infiniti M, BMW 5-series, Audi A6, all of which are costlier and have their pluses and minuses. The TL SH-AWD hits a sweet spot for good value, along with prominent shortcomings and quirks. The TL SH-AWD is a fine car, but I wouldn't get the same model again. Maybe the 2014 will lure me.
#125 of 135 Re: 22,090 miles in a 2012 Acura TL SH-AWD [renssils]
Oct 29, 2012 (4:47 am)
Another note. The 2012 Acura TL SH-AWD's valance under its nose is so low that it frequently scrapes low concrete parking stops.