dtexan20

I'm planning on purchasing a 1st generation CL next week and was wondering if it is worth the extra money for the 3.0 v6. I found a 1998 2.3CL premium 5 speed manual with 44K miles for $12,900 and a 1998 3.0CL premium with 30K miles for $16,000. I've read reviews that said the 4 cylinder was almost as fast due to the weight difference. Also which one would have more available mods. I've owned 4 different honda and acura products and would like to say that they are some of the best vehicles on the road. Thanks for any help you can provide.

blk 97 2.2

personally i'd get the 2.3, i can't stand driving auto, i need something to play with. plus you can take the 3k you save and get some decent mods,

Repo1234

Go for the 3.0!

MauiWowieCL

It's really a matter of preference. If you can live w/ the auto and enjoy the silky smooth power delivery of a V6 then the 3.0 is probably the best way to go. If you GOTTA have a stick shift then you're left with the only alternative, 2.2 or 2.3. Personally, when I was test driving these cars, I found the 4-banger was merely a nicer Accord EX. Also, if resale is something that you're concerned with, the V6s also tend to hold their values better. In any event, good luck and hopefully we'll welcome you into our CL family soon.

MauiWowieCL

dtexan: per your IM i thought i'd give you some figures to chew on. according to the last test run on the GEN1 3.0CL by Car and Driver magazine back in Sept '99, the 3.0 ran 0-60 MPH in 7.8 seconds. And given that figure, you can predict that the 2.3/2.2 CLs with their 50 - 55 horsepower difference will be considerably slower -- hope that helps

dtexan20

I've read that the weight difference between the two engines makes a big difference. Also the manual transmission should make a difference. Hopefully this week I will be able to test drive both of the cars and find out for myself.

niedejb

I got the 2.2 cause I wont ever have a automatic again. In fact, I'd have a second gen if it wasnt for it being an automatic.

DigiBox

Either way you go, you will be happy. I don't see the 2.2/2.3 being JUST a nicer Accord. If that's the case, the 2.2/2.3/3/0 are all nicer Accords.

Do you like automatics or manuals? I guess it's your driving preference.

97 3.0

Actually, there sint a huge weight difference between the cars at all. The 2.3 weighs just about the same as the 3.0.

marko_RENAMED

I couldn't handle an automatic either, so the 2.2 was my only choice. stock 0-60 time is going to be well over a sec off. I've driven several of these cars, including an auto 2.2 and 2.3 (both a joke). the stock 3.0 is a very pretty, smooth engine coupled to kind of a jerky auto trans. very nice, but I can't handle the bumper car aspect of an auto. also, I don't have to deal with stop-and-go traffic every day. if I were living in a large city or somewhere in texas I might have a different opinion. I guess my real issue is that with an acura cl, the choice is tougher than it ought to be.

KC CL 1785

Like everyone has been saying, if you can deal with driving an auto, the 3.0 might be the better choice. But I chose the 2.2 because I can never drive another auto again after my last car. Also I think that the aftermarket options might be a little bit better for the 2.3 (because of the shared accord platform). Anyway let us know what you choose

CO30CL

It simply comes down to what you enjoy better, working the stick or going fast.

MauiWowieCL

I had a feeling my earlier comment would generate some feedback defending the 4-cyl GEN1 CLs. I didn't mean to degrade any of the 2.2/2.3s but I thought I should clarify. I got my car in 1997 when these cars first came out. Given that the '97 3.0CL was the first vehicle Honda used its "new" (at the time) 3.0L V6, driving the 3.0CL was noticeably different than driving its sibling with the lower displacement and the Accords. The 2.2CL of the same year simply borrowed the existing engine of the Accord EX. All I meant by my comment of the 2.2CL being a "nicer Accord" was that I wasn't about to spend the extra money on something that drove JUST like the Accord, IMO.

Adrienne

Did the 2.2/2.3 come in Premium? Cuz I know the 3.0 does; If the 2.3 doesn't, and you're into the luxury stuff, then that could be a concern, as well. Automatic or not, I'm not giving up my heated leather seats and Bose.

MauiWowieCL

I'm not sure about post-1997 models, but I know for sure that the '97 2.2CL had the same Premium option that ours had cause when we were test driving them I drove both cars and we ended up going for the 6-cyl. My guess is that the 2.3s would still have that option, though, not sure why it wouldn't

DJ Iceman

Yes, the smaller engine CLs also offered the premium package. Given the difference in miles, I would recommend the 3.0 (but then again I drive a 3.0, so I'm biased). I don't mind having an automatic in this car since it's not really a sports car anyway, and the auto is quite smooth (just a little slow to kick in the power in first gear).

Nugs3

I had that same problem when I went in to buy my CL. I went in to purchase a 2.2 but drove off in a 3.0 The 3.0 felt better at that moment....but now I'm thinking about trading my 3.0 in for a 2.3 or 2.3....... I want a stick........I forget how fun it was until I drove my bros RSX Type S.

kance

First off, whichever you choose you won't be disappointed. Secondly, those are great prices for both vehicles. I bought my 98 CL 2.3 Manual [not premium] as a Acura Certified Used Vehicle [a lease return], with 40,000 miles for $17,000 total, but this was a couple months ago. Personally, I really like driving a manual after having to drive an automatic for 3 years mainly because I had to drive through a lot of traffic. A manual is also just more fun and "feels" faster, IMO.

Reading through some of the posts, I did a bit of research and the 3.0 is 211 lbs. heavier than a 2.3 manual [3215 vs. 3004 lbs]. Not sure if this is a "huge" difference, but I would think it is. Maybe the 3.0 would really fly on dowhills.

Here's some links for some specs:

http://www.autoworld.com/cars/1998/specs/clspecs.htm
http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Specific...ra/CL/1998.asp
http://www.auto.com/98autoshow/specs/acura_cl.htm

I've also read in some reviews that the 3.0's could be smoother when shifting and also don't take off as fast as a manual. I think one of the previous posts here say that as well. But I doubt a stock 2.3 can beat a 3.0's 0-60 time. On the other hand, who says that 0-60 is everything? Our cars aren't drag racing cars and I think a 2.3 manual would beat a 3.0 if they had to race on a winding track since shifting gears would be an advantage.

But seriously, it's all up to your personal preference. In my biased opinion, go for the manual so you'll have extra cash for the mods and have more fun driving it. Also, to answer your question regarding are there more mods for a 3.0; from what I read Comptech only makes headers for 3.0's but other than that 2.3's can still get headers from DC and other manufacturers.

What color are the CL's that you're choosing from anyway? I originally wanted a black one, but I'm happy with the Primrose. Good luck and go get your CL [go manual!] before someone else does!

haiduc

go manual man. i love my 2.2. i got it for 13,500 as a certified car with 52k. no problems to date and i rag on it real hard sometimes. very satisfied with the car, except for the normal peeves with the 97.

dtexan20

The car is from an individual so I hope to get a chance to test drive and possibly purchase this week. What about the BOSE stereo sometimes referred to as BLOSE how hard is it to bypass the amp. I've done all the stereo work on my previous cars just never had to bypass an amp. I have a Panasonic CD player with the blue face plate not sure of the model number. Also have two MTX tens and an MTX amp. Hope to add Infinity Kappa components or MB quart for the front doors. I know that on some Honda products the alarm system is intergrated into the stereo head unit is that true for the CL premium? I cant wait to get my CL 1st thing I'm doing is installing a new stereo and getting the windows tinted with lumar centaur film. Anyone have any suggestions for inexspensive upgrades for performace or handling. Thanks for all the help. I'll post some pics when I get the car.

kance

I'm not sure about the system, but yes I hear the BOSE system is crap basically. As for an inexpensive upgrade for performance I'm sure most everyone would agree that a cold air intake is the way to go. By the way, what's so special about lumar centaur film? I'd tint my CL but I hate the law in CA regarding tinting your car; the front windows are illegal to tint and I was ticketed for it so I ended up removing it.

dtexan20

I've had great luck with the lumar films in the past. It blocks out 99% of the UV and keeps your car cooler inside in the summer and warmer in the winter. The film contains dual metallic layers which helps here in Texas during the summer when the temps are above 100 degrees. Also the lumar film in my opinion looks better it has a deeper color.

DJ Iceman

Two points regarding previous posts:

1) Our CLs already have UV-blocking glass. That's one of the luxury features Acura bragged about when releasing this car.

2) The Bose stereo is fine for the vast majority of people. You won't rattle windows three blocks away, but it is a solid, good-sounding system.

Repo1234

People talk a lot of shit about the Bose system but in reality it isnt all that bad. It sounds a lot better than some other cars out there that come with the cheap dealer unit. But hey, to everyone thier own.

kance

Yep, I've noticed in the forums that not too many people seem to like the BOSE systems, but I'm sure it's much better than the non-BOSE which I'm stuck with.

I guess this should give me an excuse to upgrade sometime in the future.

niedejb

After seeing fastvteccl's mpg, I wish I had a 3.0.

Repo1234

Damn after seeing that video I dont see why anyone would want to get a 2.3! Yes it's true that you get to control your car, with the stick shift and all but the power doesnt match the 3.0 Sure you would save money buying the 2.3 but like people said you can use it to buy some mod's. Well the only problem with that is even with all the mod's you put into it you still wouldn't be able to beat a 3.0 with the same mod's. After all the 3.0 has 200 hp stock!! The 2.3 only has 150 or 145 something like that. I'm not sure. But an Integra has more horse power than that!!! They have like 160. So take your pick. More horse power or stick shift? Hmmm?????? If only we could have the best of both worlds. Anyway that is just my 2 cents. Oh and fastveteccl I to your car. It looks sweet zooming across the straight away. You left that guy in the dust!!!!!!!!!!!!